[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Assuming we are using 2011-2018, the final number of 2,250 comes out to 281 injuries a year from bikers.

80,000 people would have been injured by cars in that same timeframe. 112,000 if you include bikers being injured by cars.

If bikers make up 1% of the commuters and they had the same pedestrian-injury rate as cars, they would injure 1,120 people a year vs what the number really is, 281.

So bikers are like 4-5 times safer for pedestrians vs cars. This isn't even accounting for deaths, which I assume would make cars look even worse.

NOTE: I suck at math(I know I didn't do the math correctly), but if I am ANY near close to the real numbers, there is no debate.

Originally Posted by Muji

In no way did I imply or say that reckless cycling is "okay". The point is that NY Post took one number out of context to push their view that cyclists are somehow more of a danger to pedestrians than motor vehicles.

I'll second Jtown, man's comment above.

Right, and I am not disputing any of that. Again, this is common sense. You get hit by a bike vs. a car and it doesn't take much thought as to who will be injured worse regardless of speed(in most cases). My point is articles like these dispose of the notion set fourth but not explicitly stated in the tone of many pro-urban publications like Strongtowns in cycling being angelic while cars are the devil. It paints a different picture. Now I'm sure we can agree that the term "bike terrorism" is stupid and doesn't apply here.