Usually if you read the study you will find that they have already figured this out and measure it, these kind of simple objections are often accounted for. Beside that the percentage of people that can handle a 20-60 minute bicycle commute is so large that it doesn't really matter, everyone I know can handle it with a few exceptional exceptions.

I'm assuming a lot of stuff about this discussion though, I've not read the study nor the article, but similar papers on the subject usually have this in their models so...

I'm not sure it would help against your pretty sever case of confirmation bias. In my commute there is a great percentage of cars doing stupid shit that endanger other people, and there are seldom any cyclists doing that. But hey they say if you don't know who's the stupid there is a pretty high risk it's you. While I don't consider myself stupid you never know...

These are not left/right questions, it is a free speech issue and a rascism/protectionism issue. Here in Scandinavia terror spread from the far right is actually a bigger concern, if we look at terror attacks on our soil. These acts of terror are not done by muslims, and by your logic we should start looking harder at the far right and prohibiting their leaders to express themselves in media. We already hinder free speech, and it is helping to some extent to have consequences when you call for the death of all ZYX, not very harsh though. We are not banning far right activists entry, that's about as ridiculous as your suggestion though.

So sure your statements are racist, let me use a car analogy; car owners kill a lot of people with their cars, it would make a lot more sense for the US to ban cars from certain high risk areas. Sure they are "accidents" but they do happen consistently and the group of car owners can very well be held responsible, just as you say that the billions of muslims in the world should take responsibilities for the actions of the few.

In the end when you say "we should not let the group XYZ do ZYX" it's easily rascism.

You must drive really fast if you hit people so hard that their eyes are litereally glued to your smartphone.

If those numbers are true for a longer period of time the traffic in your city work completly different from any other town I've ever read about, but I guess it could easily happen for 3 cases, if you have really badly streets.

The people who are killed are not the ones using smartphones.

Emissions is actually getting worse at least if you count from 1970, and death by the emissions from cars is going up. In Sweden are about 300% more people killed by pollution from cars than from actual accidents.

Not sure what you want stats on, it's pretty hard to use traffic statistics because there are lots of strange pitfalls. E.g. cyclists injured by dooring is counted as a self inflicted injury in some countries.. But yes being injured by infrastrucure and bad maintenance is a real thing, but at least here most deaths and severe injuries in traffic are directly connected to cars.

Thank you! But I'm not sure how thinking for yourself would be a problem..

The biggest problem is the infrastructure, drivers and cars not pedestrians, so I think you are missing the point completly.

I've often wondered why people look away from the act of random terror that cars subject us to in everyday life, instead the victims get blamed. At some point you have to understand that cars are a big health problem.

You are not allowed to cross a yellow light here, unless as you say it would mean slamming your brakes, running a red light ALWAYS means a fine.

This made my day. :-)

But what ever we say about the military threat to Germany I have always thought of Gemany as a country which can make its own laws.

You are digging you hole deeper and deeper. :-)

Did you know that in the last 15 years there is a very high correlation between the rate of margarine consumption and the divorce rate in Maine, so obviously we if we want to protect children from divorce we should ban margarine (which is a french invention anyways).

This really serves no purpose, just because someone have expressed their opinion about somethng doesn't make it government data.

If you look are actual numbers cyclists break traffic laws with the same frequency as everyone else, and usually in a much safer way.

Some years ago there was a study of 5 years of accidents in Stockholm; no cyclists were injured when running a red light. Left turns aren't that dangerous either. What does main and kill are those right turns which Uber got in trouble for.

Confirmation bias is a thing..