>>1985319>Aka there is a 0.0000023% chance of a fatality per mile travelled, or in other words one fatality per 43,478,261 miles travelled.Happy I could finally help you grasp the true scope of the "AHHHHHH CARS ARE LITERALLY TRYING TO MURDER ME" problem.
>Only 93 fatalities involved no other parties or another cyclist, 449 (82.8%) involved at least one motor vehicle.You're never going to replace delivery trucks and semis with bicycles, m8.
>True, but also to be expected that a giant metal box should have a higher survival rate for the user.Correct, which is one of many reasons why the vast majority of people prefer them.
>Also casually ignoring that motorcyclists overwhelmingly dominate the category with 123 deaths off topic
>and car fatalities have gone up 15% while cyclist deaths decreased by the same amount.And if that trend somehow continues for another fifty years we might reach something like equality.
>Motor vehicles have always been the largest factor in risk to a cyclistCorrect, but my point was that even if you completely ignore crashes involving cars then bikes are still much more dangerous. In fact even if you remove *literally every other human on earth* riding a bike would still be more likely to kill you.
>and you'll always be a retarded faggot who can't analyze statistics.lol
