[TulliusCicero]

No, not exactly. It's cars that generate the danger. When cyclists are on separated bike paths, the chance of a fatality is almost zero. When cars are in their own separate system (freeways), the chances of a fatality are still fairly high.

This is a relevant distinction, since it informs how you handle reducing the danger (e.g. road diets and traffic calming, at least for urban areas).

[varjag]

No, it's cyclists that typically die in a collision with other vehicles. But the behaviour of both contributes to the risk of accident.

I've seen cyclists drive the opposite way of the roundabout (at night), not using the lights. Breezing through crossings on red or where they had to yield. Seen them cutting into a traffic despite a broad, elevated, well maintained bike path along the same motorway. Taking pedestrian crossings without unmounting, and on and on.

So sure if the cyclist is not on the motorway the risk of fatality is indeed reduced - but not eliminated, as they still have to cross traffic. Pretending there is no responsibility on cyclists side is not solving anything.

[TulliusCicero]

> No, it's cyclists that typically die in a collision with other vehicles.

Yes, but it's cars that are generating the danger.

Suggesting otherwise is like saying that if a bulldozer is in a park and runs over some toddlers, the toddlers were the real source of the danger for being so darn vulnerable.

Besides, cyclists themselves are not really any different from pedestrians in this regard. It's just that there are physically protected walk lanes -- aka sidewalks/pavement -- nearly everywhere you go, whereas physically protected bike lanes are a rarity. Imagine if, for walking around, you only had "painted walk lanes" on the road, right next to cars going 40 mph. That's what it's like being on a bike.

> So sure if the cyclist is not on the motorway the risk of fatality is indeed reduced - but not eliminated, as they still have to cross traffic.

That's what protected intersections are for, and they help pedestrians too!

> Pretending there is no responsibility on cyclists side is not solving anything.

Of course, like all road and street users, cyclists ought to be responsible. But the primary problem here is extremely poor infrastructure that is both inherently dangerous and encourages bad behavior (and to a lesser extent, poor enforcement that lets off drivers easy when they seriously injure or kill other people).

On another message board, there was a Dutch dude who moved to California. He said that at first, he was horrified by the behavior of cyclists in his new home. Then two weeks later, "I was one of them". He didn't suddenly become an irresponsible jerk, it's just that in America, the road system encourages, if not outright requires an aggressive attitude from cyclists.

I have personal experience with this since I went the opposite direction, from California to Munich, which is much more bike-friendly than any major city in America. Here, the system is reasonably respectful of cyclists, and so cyclists generally respect the system in turn. There's no need to bike around like an aggressive asshole, because you can get around just fine like a normal person.

Contrast that with the SF bay area, where I got hit by cars twice the last year before I left. One time was with my son on my bike too, and the cop that came out didn't even give the driver a ticket for t-boning me as I crossed the intersection. And keep in mind, the SF bay area is actually a very bike-friendly area by US standards.