See, I was worried that, given that even in Cincinnati suburbia, which has incredibly poor mass-transit and no rail lines at all, you can find a useful transportation point within five miles to get to work, that there was some logical reason why people insisted upon driving to work that I, living in California with ready access to rail lines and better weather, must have missed. But given that you keep returning to things like frostbite from cycling in cold temperatures as if they make cycling impossible for people who are not crazy and have a pretty poor understanding of the engineering and physics of the real world, it's quite clear that I'm wasting my time trying to express logical arguments. What's going on is that ditching a car threatens your pseudo-religious belief in the car.
For example, how do you respond to my point that people in Europe have no problems transporting kids in shitty weather without driving? By pointing out that some European countries permit suicide. I'm guessing this means that, to you, not driving is a moral sin? See, my argument was that they are quite successfully cycling through all sorts of nasty weather, without helmets, with kids, without without having a negative effect on their lifespan. However, by comparing the European cycling experience to doctor-assisted suicide, it's clear that this is not about facts, but that it's not just crazy pastors in Detroit who are worshiping cars.
Really, if you want the best for your infants, you'd find ways so they don't have to be on icy streets at all. Especially in a motor vehicle on the ice when the risk of your car or another car spinning out and causing a side-impact is elevated. Otherwise, I think you'll find the Europeans can transport three infants in the cold just fine with no appreciable infant mortality downside.
Global warming is not the only negative side effect of too much CO2 in the atmosphere, which you'd know if you were doing anything other than parroting soundbites. Likewise, if you had actually done any research, you'd realize that only a little over half of the cost of interstates are funded by gasoline taxes.
And, furthermore, on the average, a car emits around 5 tons of CO2 in a year. There's no way I can belch that much, so while insisting that your truck isn't part of the problem may help you sleep better at night, it doesn't change the fact that 20-25% of CO2 emissions are from cars.
As far as the pileups on bike races, have you seen an automobile race? Neither have anything to do with getting from place A to B. I don't think you actually understand basic physics, so that's probably why you think that two cyclists mixing it up on a fully-loaded bike route is both unlikely and fairly benign.
So, pretty much, the end point of your argument has little to do with facts and mostly to do with little sound bites that you've cherry-picked to sound like you have a rational argument. So I guess I should form my arguments in terms of Jesus and Sarah Palin and Scary Islamic Terrorists next time.