The biggest hazard for bike riders is cars, and my understanding is that the risk of getting hit by a car is much lower in the Netherlands due to a combination of infrastructure/legal/cultural differences. (Some of which are no doubt intertwined.) It's possible to fall off a bike and hit your head while riding all on your own, but it's also possible to trip and hit your head while walking - at the relatively slow speeds they cycle at there, they seem to not worry about it so much.

EDIT: Also traffic calming is pervasive, so even if somehow you do get hit by a car it's at a much slower speed and therefore much more survivable.

It's important not to mystify "infrastructure/legal/cultural differences" too much. Too often in north america we hear that biking would never work over here because of "cultural differences" but the netherlands went a rather dramatic shift in infrastructure priorities starting in the 70s that's built this biking utopia - it's very possible for other parts of the world to follow suit!

Oh certainly, and I didn't mean to imply that it wouldn't work here. (In fact I'd very much like it to and have been doing whatever I can to push for that.) Infrastructure, culture, and law are not static, though influencing each can be difficult in its own way. But not impossible!

It's striking to look at comparison pictures of cities in the Netherlands between the 1970s and today. The old photos could just as well be a lot of cities in the US today: https://exploring-and-observing-cities.org/2016/01/11/amster...

I mean, yes. The biggest risk on the road is cars. So, moving off roads and dedicated biking infrastructure is already moving the needle a lot.

However, don't under estimate how much you can hurt with a low speed fall from a bike.

Also... this is just what I was asking. I was not intending my ask as a challenge that they are wrong. I'm genuinely interested in the data.

Not sure what the data is. I biked 2+ hours almost daily in a major US city for a couple years. Every accident I had was one where I was in a designated bike lane, and the car crossed it to turn or enter a parking lot in an opening. Separating cars from bicycles in my personal anecdotes was what the danger was, I never had issues when I rode on the real road not on a bike lane. Once you're in the bike lane it's like you're in another world and cars forget you're there (and you can't really ride on the regular road when there's a bike lane next to you, as it makes drivers hostile).

There is safety in numbers and there's little chance that you'll see any significant portion of the population mixing with traffic on main streets. If you can't expect children and families to ride there, it's not safe enough.

On side streets with little car traffic it often does make sense not to separate infrastructure, but traffic calming is then particularly important.

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2010/11/reality-vs-myth...

That said:

> Every accident I had was one where I was in a designated bike lane, and the car crossed it to turn or enter a parking lot in an opening.

A "designated bike lane" that's just a strip of paint is also not enough for exactly that reason, and if the bike lane (even a protected one) is frequently interrupted by curb cuts into parking lots that's likewise not bike-friendly design.

Do cars have right of way on turns like that? It's an interesting difference between Germany and Australia for example.

In Germany bicycles and pedestrians have right of way on roundabouts or driveways. So everyone is used to looking out for cyclists when entering or exiting a roundabout or driveways. It's perfectly natural.

In Australia cyclists and pedestrians don't have right of way. Often on foot you have you wait at a roundabout until there are no cars. I think this is a much more dangerous approach as it makes for building bad habits of not having to look out for others.

I believe the person going straight in a lane has right-of-way over someone trying to turn in front of them faster than they can reasonably stop. Bicycles are treated as cars, but pedestrians always have right of way if on a pedestrian path.

My near misses and accidents generally are because either someone tries to quickly get in front of me so they can turn in front of me, or because they didn't notice the bike lane at all when turning.

I think the Australian rule would be nearly impossible to follow in a major city, as it's difficult to predict when a car quickly overtaking you may want to "get one over you" and gun it and turn into a driveway in front of you, which is a major cause for my hits / near misses.

Now that you say it I'm not actually sure what the rule is in Australia. But in practice as a pedestrian or cyclist you have to be aware of cars and can't expect to be given way.

In Germany being given way feels pretty much ingrained. It is a very different experience.

And yes, crossing across sidewalks or bike lanes with poor visibility is a common bad one. Both when being the one driving and on foot or bike.

The difference is that right-of-way laws for pedestrians and cyclists are actually enforced in Germany. The laws are generally similar elsewhere in the world, but as they are unenforced the larger, heavier vehicle de facto has right-of-way because the driver can easily kill a cyclist or pedestrian without meaningful consequence.

AFAIK in the US a bicycle is considered a car for right-of-way purposes and thus has no privilege over the car. The only upside in the traffic laws is ability to use the bike lane, SOMETIMES (but usually not) legal right to be on the sidewalk, and no need for a driver's license / registration / insurance.

> AFAIK in the US a bicycle is considered a car for right-of-way purposes and thus has no privilege over the car.

The US is not a single jurisdiction for traffic laws, and whether bicycles are considered vehicles and whether and how they are treated differently than cars at intersections or for other purposes varies widely by state.

I suppose that's true. Nevertheless it's generally accurate and simply telling a foreigner to read the code of every single jurisdiction you pass through is not practical. Any jurisdiction where a bicycle has privileged right of way over a car on a regular public road is by far the exception in America, and a one hour bike ride can easily go through several novel jurisdictions. If a frenchman were to tell me the rules for right of way in bicycles in France I would not consider him wrong if there were some town in French Guiana where the rules are different (despite it being part of France).

> Any jurisdiction where a bicycle has privileged right of way over a car on a regular public road is by far the exception in America

Its actually quite common for them to have special treatment in the rules of the road, either being classed as vehicles with special privileges (beyond just use of bike lanes and sonetimes sidewalks) or not as vehicles at all; in fact, it is so common that I would argue it is by far the norm, the difficulty is that it is not at all consistent what the special treatment is.

> a one hour bike ride can easily go through several novel jurisdictions

The relevant jurisdictions here are thr 50 states, the District of Columbia, and (pedantically, but good luck including them with others ona bike ride) other territories. Its possible to get several on a one-hour bike ride, but only if it is carefully planned for that purpose.

> If a frenchman were to tell me the rules for right of way in bicycles in France I would not consider him wrong if there were some town in French Guiana where the rules are different (despite it being part of France).

Sure, but just on Idaho stop rules alone, there are differences from the majority “just like a car” rule in 9 states covering about 10% of the US population. The exceptions aren't equivalent to “some town in French Guiana”.

When a turning vehicle is attempting to turn across any lane (including a bicycle lane), it must yield to the vehicle traveling straight in that lane, whether or not it is a bicycle (and whether or not that bicycle is classified as a 'vehicle' or as having 'all rights and all responsibilities of a vehicle'). This does not vary between jurisdictions in the US.

Truth. Although I have been knocked unconscious once and have one 10 year old elbow injury that still occasionally causes me trouble that begs otherwise, in practice. In big cities the practical rule is USUALLY the car will turn if it thinks you can reasonably stop in time, and occasionally they'll turn whether or not they think you'll stop in time. A couple times a year the car will just smash you to turn, because fuck cyclists they shouldn't have been on the road.

I would never advise cyclists to consider what you've stated as the actual rules. In practice the rule you should follow is the person turning will turn if they reasonably believe you have time to stop, and prey they do not alter the deal further. De facto vs De jure.

Helmets are designed to protect riders from bike crashes, not from cars.

Dutch commuter bikes are slow and upright, and many have a low top tube and are thus very easy to hop off of— a 9-12 mph bike crash is not unlike slipping while jogging, whereas a 18-35 mph crash on a road bike is a lot more risky. Lower-speed cycling is enabled by Dutch land use which does not require many long-distance trips: https://www.peopleforbikes.org/news/best-kept-secret-dutch-b...

Almost as if helmets are not the magic death prevention tool people who argue for the status quo want to sell you on, and it's instead the 3 ton machines with powertrains sized to satisfy a neighborhood street that cause the overwhelming amount of deaths and injuries.