If an asshole shifts his ass from car to bike, he will start riding on the pavement in places that are absolutely unsuitable for that, or on hiking trails that are absolutely unsuitable for that. And I say "he", because it was 100 per cent men. (I am a man too, for the record.) Gals seem to be quite a bit careful.

Bullshit. You notice reckless cyclists more because they're more unusual, that's all. The statistics for the rate at which pedestrians are killed or seriously injured show that it's overwhelmingly drivers who are putting you in danger.

That is it.

When you walk regularly, you find paths from A to B that minimize your contact with cars to a level crossing or two. (Might be different in the countryside or in cities whose walkability is poor). So your chance of getting hit by a car are fairly low and you only really need to pay attention when you cross the street. For the rest of the time, you can afford to daydream or wander in thoughts a bit.

Once people learn to ride their bikes on pavements, it means the need for constant vigilance.

Biking needs its own infrastructure, separate from both pedestrians and cars. The needs and speeds are just different.

Bicyclists often have this view that they are above traffic laws and break them: >he will start riding on the pavement in places that are absolutely unsuitable for that, or on hiking trails that are absolutely unsuitable for that.

In my state, cars and bikes share the road and have to follow the same laws.

There is a stop sign at the bottom of a hill near my house, I have never seen a car drive through it, plenty of bike don't stop.

Those assholes when driving are the people who ignore the no right on red junctions, undertake slow moving traffic, use the wrong lanes on roundabouts, park in blue badge spots, throw litter out the windows etc. They're going to be assholes no matter what their mode of transport is.

They are similar in the same way being clawed by a cat is similar to being mauled by a tiger.

Please do not downplay the risks of being hit by a 120 kg+ object moving at, say, 10-15 mph. It is similar to the risk that the cyclist himself faces if he suddenly falls of his bike, namely, brain damage from cracking your skull against the pavement. Cyclists wear biking helmets to protect themselves against this possibly fatal event. Sudden falls can be fairly dangerous, especially for older individuals. Maybe not a tiger, but a cougar. Definitely not a home cat.

Not everyone can dodge in time. Some people are absent minded (and I would say this is their right when walking on a pavement). Some are old and arthritic. Some are kids. Some are blind or deaf. They need to be reasonably safe on a pavement, which means not sharing it with another sort of traffic that moves much faster than them.

I am all for biking/cycling, but it really needs its own infrastructure. Most developed countries can afford it, it is not expensive to build a dedicated biking lane.

Please do not imply this is remotely comparable to the risks of being hit by a car. It is not. In that context, downplaying the risks of being hit by a bicycle is absolutely correct.

> Cyclists wear biking helmets to protect themselves against this possibly fatal event.

Cyclists in countries with decent road laws, such as the Netherlands, do not generally wear helmets. Cyclists in some countries wear helmets, mainly to protect themselves from bad laws passed by ignorant non-cyclists.

The former reduces risk for the wearer, the latter increases risk for cyclists as a whole indirectly.

The thing is, where I live, as a pedestrian, I almost never share the same surface with cars. Only when I need to cross the street, which is, say, three times a mile. For the rest of the time, I am in relative safety of the pavement. (Cars running into pedestrians on pavements, though not impossible, is a fairly rare occurrence and I have never seen one in my almost 43 years of age.)

This is a major difference in the entire risk calculation.