Survivability is much greater though. Funnily enough it happens approximately 100 times every year in my city of 650k, but fatalities are rare (I'm not aware of any). Pedestrians are less fortunate, as a few die annually being hit/run over by a tram.

But I would rather restrict cycling than trams, as the latter perform a valuable service.

I helped build and operate a medium sized art car at Burning Man. We had a guy on a bike ride directly into the rear of our extremely well lit, loud, and (relative to the bike) large art car. We were parked.

He got up and rode away with no explanation.

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that drugs were involved.

would you restrict pedestrians too?

people forget that cyclists can also get off their bikes and push them along like pedestrians. just put a big sign, and if needed, post a policeman with a ticket book. or make the pavement bumpy enough and they'll get off voluntarily.

That's a silly false choice, there's no reason to restrict either. Trams (nor ambulances) are not killing cyclists at notable rates.

All that's needed is for city infrastructure designers to take into account the existence and needs of cyclists. An impossible challenge for 99% of them, sadly.

I can imagine someone thinking to put traffic lights there so that the tram would have to yield - fortunately that didn't happen.