Bike accidents account for 2% of all traffic accidents, which in turn account for 2.06% of overall fatalities... so your chances of dying on a bike are 0.04% compared to 29.34% for dying from heart disease.
I'll take my chances on the bike.
That's not the point of the article at all.
Ed.: and also not really an effective use of probability, unless I'm misunderstanding you
I know what the point of the article is. I've seen countless links to it (and all the backlash from it, and others like it) in all the bike commuting groups I frequent. However, it seems like the only people who are reading the articles are outraged cyclists.
Really, what do these articles accomplish? I'm all for safety, but I get tired of reading about cycling deaths when there are no real solutions. If you're riding as safely as possible, there's nothing else you can do. They tend to foster worry, and use sensationalism as a way to drive readership up. Without motorist education and sensible infrastructure, it's just lip service. Nothing will change. Banning delivery trucks will not fix the problem.
And yes, I've been wrongly hit by a car on my bike, and was massively injured. The police were absolutely
useless. I'm still riding, because statistically, it's still relatively safe compared to driving a car (plus the added benefits of saving money and getting in shape).
London is a very progressive city as far as I know, and even as dangerous as it is there, they're miles ahead of most U.S. cities. I apologize if I'm coming across as callous, but I guess after years of watching these kinds of things, I'm just being realistic.
Bottom line: be the safest you can be, but don't let the media scare you into staying off the bike.