[giantg2]

"I did find it entertaining."

I found it a bit disgusting due to how shotty the logic/ application was, even if the methods were sound.

"If you accidentally kill somebody on a bike you’re likely to serve prison time for manslaughter."

I wouldn't find this "likely". You have to be involved in some reckless or negligent action that directly resulted in their death. It is possible of course, and does occasionally happen. It's even less likely that it results in prison time, rather fines, probation, and diversionary programs.

"It is shocking to me that we accept so whole heartedly the risk associated with driving"

This shouldn't be shocking. Yes, there is a lot of risk. But people who understand the risks know that it's not as bad as what it's being made out as. About 45% of occupant fatalities are related to not being buckled in. Just buckling makes your stats look almost twice as safe. So buckle up (45%), don't drink (35%), and don't speed excessively (30%) and you've just reduced the largest risks significantly (not these are not additive due to overlap and other party risk).

Edit: why disagree?

[konschubert]

I you commute by bike you know that the risks are significant.

I stopped cycling because I have a family to come home to. This has negatively impacted my quality of life.

[LorenPechtel]

Yup. I used to bike a lot in a small town. Move to the big city and quit--the first place we lived there was no safe bike route, period. Second place, likewise. Where we live now there is a safe path to one store. I haven't actually eyeballed it but now I think there's an acceptable route to one other.

[giantg2]

This article and comment chain scope was on speeding risks to the speeders or personal vehicle occupants in general. The changes needed to reduce pedestrian and cyclist fatalities are fairly different.

[konschubert]

Okay, on this narrow point, you are of course right.