"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:C4xUf.5686$8G2.504@trndny01...

Brian! On any given day, there are less people on bikes than in cars. If
there are less people doing something risky, do you suppose they'd be
less likely to be affected by the risks?

Of course, but if you're one of those already exposed, which group would
you rather belong to? As an avid cyclist and a driver, I can honestly say
I've had far more close brushes with disaster in my car than on my bike.

Brian - think for a moment. You're mixing two different ideas. You're
correct - the odds of BEING in an accident are higher in your car. The odds
of being HURT in an accident, assuming you're on shared roadways, or far
higher on your bike. This is analogous to the nonsensical airlines' theory.
"Less accidents per miles travelled in planes, compared to cars". Yes,
that's true. But when your plane crashes, your chances of survival are, for
all intents and purposes, zero.



At least riding a bike has heath benefits that allow one to enjoy their
life more and live longer. That far outweighs any risk of injury or death.

Yes, there are health benefits. I ride on dedicated trails, where nobody's
driving anything that weighs more than my vehicle. My biggest risk is being
crushed by a very fat person on a bike, or a collision with a bee.