> Why would Homo sapiens on bicycles be any less prone to error or negligence or aggression than those in automobiles?

For a few very obvious reasons:

1. Cars have significantly less visibility. Often cars run into other cars at speed without having ever even seen them. Now imagine bicycles.

2. Cars are much faster, so mistakes are amplified. Often with cars you're forced to commit to bad decisions because you're simply too fast to abort.

3. Cars are much more powerful, which may bring aggression in people. This is opinion but from my life this is plainly true with everything. The more perceived power something gives a person, the more prone to aggression that person is.

Because the statistics show that more pedestrians are killed by drivers on the pavement (sidewalk for Americans) every year than are killed by cyclists. Studies show that cyclists break the law at a lower rate than drivers, too.

> pedestrians are killed by drivers on the pavement (sidewalk for Americans) every year than are killed by cyclists

There are many more cars, and bike accidents don't tend to kill people.

Perfect vision without blind spots, unimpeded ability to hear, able to communicate via body language with pedestrians. Yes, biking is superior in city environments and should be encouraged.

> Perfect vision without blind spots, unimpeded ability to hear, able to communicate via body language with pedestrians

That's all exaggerated, but generally I agree. Also bikes are silent, hard to see, especially among cars or at night ...

There are advantages and disadventages to all technology, and it's not a genuine analysis unless we look at them all.