I live at the dividing line of the older and newer suburbs in Orange County, California.

The roads in the older suburbs developed in the 50s and 60s seem to see more traffic than they were designed for. On the main roads, my main concerns are the many driveways that motorists can pull out of, as well motorists turning left into your path from the center two way turn lane.

The roads in the newer suburbs developed in the 80s and 90s have higher speeds, but there are much fewer driveways, as the stores are consolidated into shopping centers at the corners of major roads. Also, due to the center medians, most left turns can only be done at lights, so there are very few places where there are unprotected left turns.

The major downside of cycling on the higher speed newer suburban roads in my area is negotiating the free flowing freeway on and off ramps with multiple entrance and exit lanes. One can debate as to the level of danger these crossings present to those using vehicular cycling techniques, but it is certainly clear that children and inexperienced adult cyclists cannot safely negotitate these intersections, except perhaps as pedestrians. In some places there are convenient alternate routes for crossing the freeway, in others there are not.

So overall I see some factors making cycling safer now, some factors making cycling safer 20 years ago, but nothing compelling to make me give a "yes" or "no" to the original question.

One place I'm sure it's more dangerous is near schools. When I was a kid everybody rode a bike or walked. Only a few took the bus or were driven. Nowadays everybody is driven to school by harried parents who try to park as near to the campus as possible, drop off the kids, then hurry off to work because they're late. They pull over without looking, pull back out without looking, drive too fast, the works. They all say traffic is too dangerous for their kids to ride to school, but THEY are the traffic!

On the issue of the true meaning of helmets, I agree with that. But so what. When I wear my helmet and my high-vis jacket and all the rest I'm not just sending a signal of "I'll play by the rules", I'm also sending a signal "I'm playing by the rules, are you?"

No cop is going to believe the motorist who says they didn't see me if I've got all my visibility gear on. No cop is going to believe the motorist who says I was a careless lawbreaker if I've got so much safety gear on. It's insurance.

If only you all lived where I do you would know that's exactly what it is and it works. I'm surrounded by many self-important super-wealthy people (we're talking billionaires) with serious entitlement issues. When they see me I can see their internal lawyers doing the mental calculations, coming to the conclusion and passing along their legal advice: "Don't do it!"

My take- is cycling more dangerous now, than 20 years ago. I've only been cycling for about 7 years, but it is more dangerous now. Why? There are more cars and more cars = more problems. Case in point. I have backways I take to avoid traffic. One particular way I hadn't ridden for over 4 years. I took this route recently and was appalled to find lots and lots of cars. While driving styles may or may not have changed over the years, if there are more of Them the chances of something going wrong increases. I think that one of the problems is that the only seeming requirement for getting a license is having a pulse. Sure there are driving tests- yet these drivers seem to know nothing of cyclists' right to the roads.

One place I'm sure it's more dangerous is near schools. When I was a kid everybody rode a bike or walked. Only a few took the bus or were driven. Nowadays everybody is driven to school by harried parents who try to park as near to the campus as possible, drop off the kids, then hurry off to work because they're late. They pull over without looking, pull back out without looking, drive too fast, the works. They all say traffic is too dangerous for their kids to ride to school, but THEY are the traffic!

On the issue of the true meaning of helmets, I agree with that. But so what. When I wear my helmet and my high-vis jacket and all the rest I'm not just sending a signal of "I'll play by the rules", I'm also sending a signal "I'm playing by the rules, are you?"

No cop is going to believe the motorist who says they didn't see me if I've got all my visibility gear on. No cop is going to believe the motorist who says I was a careless lawbreaker if I've got so much safety gear on. It's insurance.

If only you all lived where I do you would know that's exactly what it is and it works. I'm surrounded by many self-important super-wealthy people (we're talking billionaires) with serious entitlement issues. When they see me I can see their internal lawyers doing the mental calculations, coming to the conclusion and passing along their legal advice: "Don't do it!"


Amen to that! ...I am surrounded by similar demographics in my area too. My uber dork safety vest will be evidence of me being visible, and there are too many witnesses of me being a regular bikecommuter to dismiss lack of experience. If they hit me, and I survive, they will not get away with it.
If I do not survive, I pity the fool that will have to deal with my wife in a civil suit. That person will wish they where the ones on the bike.

My take- is cycling more dangerous now, than 20 years ago. I've only been cycling for about 7 years, but it is more dangerous now. Why? There are more cars and more cars = more problems. Case in point. I have backways I take to avoid traffic. One particular way I hadn't ridden for over 4 years. I took this route recently and was appalled to find lots and lots of cars. While driving styles may or may not have changed over the years, if there are more of Them the chances of something going wrong increases. I think that one of the problems is that the only seeming requirement for getting a license is having a pulse. Sure there are driving tests- yet these drivers seem to know nothing of cyclists' right to the roads.

Sure that makes sense... increased traffic density simply means you have a greater chance of being hit simply because you will meet more autos then ever before at each intersection.

Another thing that comes to mind are the increased number of intersections... There are areas developed now that were not developed 20-25 years ago that were then long stretches of open road, that today are full of intersections (of course this may not apply in SF or Boston or inner Portland etc where development may not have changed local streets much).

As an example, locally I used to ride unobstructed on Torrey Pines road near UCSD on a long stretch of open road along the golf course... now that area is filled with housing and stop lights that just did not exist 20 years ago.

I dunno about that... Sure they weighed more, but with a 427 cu in, many could do a 1/4 mile in about 10 seconds - stock.

GM used the 427 ci.

The photo is MOPAR Dodge Charger. 70's Hemi was 426 ci and 425 HP. Available on the Charger and Cuda.

Don't remember if 454ci was Ford or GM.

Today it's between the Viper and Vette. Dash and road track times are almost identical, but Vette is better buy, unless you need a wooden roller coaster type of ride.

GM used the 427 ci.

The photo is MOPAR Dodge Charger. 70's Hemi was 426 ci and 425 HP. Available on the Charger and Cuda.

Don't remember if 454ci was Ford or GM.

Today it's between the Viper and Vette. Dash and road track times are almost identical, but Vette is better buy, unless you need a wooden roller coaster type of ride.

Speaking of overpowered cars and 0-60 in whatever time...

This whole conversation was fresh on my mind yesterday when I went for my noon ride. At one point I was stopped waiting for a light to change and cross traffic had just gotten the green. Right in front of my eyes is this late model Mustang... Guy punches it at the green and is making a U turn from the left turn lane... he whips the car around and then goes into an uncontrolled spin. I almost bust up laughing. Smart ***** was showing off (mostly to himself) and lost it with his overpowered car. There were only a couple other cars at the intersection... so this was not dense traffic or anything... just a show of macho stupidity.

Yeah muscle cars still exist... along with the lack of brains to control them.

I haven't been impressed with illuminite. I have a jacket and the helmet cover. While they are more reflective than regular clothing, they are not nearly as reflective as a piece of decent reflective tape. But, every little bit counts I guess.
Similar experience. My wife has an illuminite running shirt and its not as reflective as one would expect. It sure it better than nothing and it would be nice if everyday cycling gear had as much reflective stuff as possible. Also it would be nice if it was put on white clothing instead of black. Sure not many folks are going to wear white tights, but there seems to be a strong (/customer/market driven I assume) bias toward black/dark clothes.
Al

...brakes have gotten better...
Absolutely.

... why do so many go for the $100 Bell rather than the $20 Giro when they're both rated to the same safety standards? And why so many "why do cycling clothes look dorky/cool/etcetera" threads? And how do companies selling $150 jerseys stay in business?

Because while many cyclists don't care what the general public thinks, they certainly care what other cyclists think, of course!

:D

Thus requiring the need for helmets, or did the people who rode 25+ years ago have no brains?

Or is it all about percieved risk and people being more afraid and cautious now than some years ago.


Please. This is serious, not a troll, no need for another helmet debate.

While I've dropped the helmet debate, I will say I believe it is absolutley a perception problem on a perceived risk that make people fear cycling accidents.

Hopefully in life, we live and learn. Each year we should learn to be more efficient and safer. We all look back and call those old days good, but when we do, we often are looking through rose colored glasses.

The traffic trends in my neck of the woods show clear downward trends in accidents and fatalities for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. That doesn't sell many papers, television commercials or helmets though. Fear does.

Behavior is often the most important factor in determining safety and I would hope our behavior improves as we learn.


Helmet technology has improved so they keep your head reasonably well ventilated while providing protection against hard crashes.

Helmets are made to a standard of protection that was established in 1984. While I'll give you that an old Bell Bikers ventalation was pretty poor, it still didn't really interfer with riding too much and the vents that appeared on the Bell V-1 Pro are more than adequate. The newer vents on helmets interfere with the helmets ability to protect. I see the only difference in helmet technology to be these vents and so, I'd say the older helmets are better. Helmets today are no better, and often worse, than ones made in 1984.

Could this simply reflect defensive medicine and increasing standards of medical intervention? When I was struck by a motor vehicle 29 years ago, I don't think they even had designated trauma centers.
It more accurately reflects the lack of police resources and the desire of the police not to have to perform investigations and paperwork.

Yeah muscle cars still exist... along with the lack of brains to control them.

See it every day. :rolleyes: And around here we have the "Ricers" who think the roads are a slot car track.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/a/t/atl126/ricers1.gif

This is funny, if ricers rulled the world, with a ricer segway.
http://www.worth1000.com/cache/gallery/contestcache.asp?contest_id=208&display=photoshop

We also used to drive a car without seatbelts, ride in the back of pickup trucks going down a highway at 60 MPH, use metal grinders and woodworking tools without eye protection and allow our children to rollerskate/rollerblade with no helmet or pads and roam our neighborhoods and adjacent neighborhoods unsupervised. Fortunately, through experience, trial and error and discovering better ways to protect our lives, limbs and eyes, we discovered that it's best to wear protection, and protect things that are irreplaceable, if possible.

Too true!

Funny side note: years ago I was being screened for life insurance, and they had reservations about my SCUBA diving, but none about my cycle commuting.... guess it just isn't "dangerous," eh?

I would like to think that the life insurance company would understand that cardiac health is a great predictor of survivability of it's clients and thus, your cycle commuting makes you a low risk payout.

I really doubt that many serious cyclists care what the general public thinks about their appearance.

I know I don't care what others are or are not wearing nor what they may think of my outfit. Probably as true of less serious or casual cyclists as well, whatever equipment they are or are not wearing. :D

I would like to think that the life insurance company would understand that cardiac health is a great predictor of survivability of it's clients and thus, your cycle commuting makes you a low risk payout.


I have a feeling that it had more to do with most folks perceptions of cycling... park riding and path riding at a leisurely pace... rather the full on mixing with motor traffic and working to maintain 20+MPH. Remember, we are a very small minority out there... to most folks a bike is a just a toy.

I have a feeling that it had more to do with most folks perceptions of cycling... park riding and path riding at a leisurely pace... rather the full on mixing with motor traffic and working to maintain 20+MPH. Remember, we are a very small minority out there... to most folks a bike is a just a toy.

Maybe, but maybe the company has a data bank that can show all their cycle commuters and can see their life span is longer than non-cycle commuters. After all, heart disease is the #1 killer and it's a given that cycling helps prevent it.

Maybe, but maybe the company has a data bank that can show all their cycle commuters and can see their life span is longer than non-cycle commuters. After all, heart disease is the #1 killer and it's a given that cycling helps prevent it.

I would love to think so, but I doubt it... we are just a tiny blip on the radar screens... and generally fall into the area of "do you get regular exercise." And that is about it.

We also used to drive a car without seatbelts, ride in the back of pickup trucks going down a highway at 60 MPH, use metal grinders and woodworking tools without eye protection and allow our children to rollerskate/rollerblade with no helmet or pads and roam our neighborhoods and adjacent neighborhoods unsupervised. Fortunately, through experience, trial and error and discovering better ways to protect our lives, limbs and eyes, we discovered that it's best to wear protection, and protect things that are irreplaceable, if possible.When I was a kid, I used to climb up on the roof of our house and jump off. Then there was the time I tied a noose around my feet and hung myself upside down. Haven't done either of those in a while.

I would love to think so, but I doubt it... we are just a tiny blip on the radar screens... and generally fall into the area of "do you get regular exercise." And that is about it.

I dunno... If it's about making money, the companies would be doing themselves a disservice by missing out on a profit. It's possible, but I've been suprised at how well these companies keep records and use information to take money from those that are unlikely to collect on benefits.

I dunno... If it's about making money, the companies would be doing themselves a disservice by missing out on a profit. It's possible, but I've been suprised at how well these companies keep records and use information to take money from those that are unlikely to collect on benefits.


LOL reminds me of the time I tried to get lower auto insurace rates as I did not commute by car... what a fight that was... I simply did not put the milage on my car that reached their minimum standard... the insurance company insisted that I was not reading the milage right or had lied to them.

Yeah... they care... :rolleyes:

As a cyclist who has been commuting on and off for over 30 years, I have to say yes... cycling is more dangerous now then 25 years ago.

25 years ago there was less traffic, due to lower population densities, traffic was generally slower due to lower performace vehicles, and autos were smaller... SUVs did not exist and even large vehicles such as vans were not that prevalent.

Today the streets are crowded with vehicles that have been designed to use all 8.5 feet of allowable width, and speed limits have been pushed up to meet an adopted 85 percentile rule of traffic flow... which, since vehicles are higher performance, is typically faster then 25 years ago. Couple all that with better soundproofing and standard air conditioning and music systems and the motorist is not even likely to have their windows rolled down... thus is further separated from their operating environment.

To that picture add cellphones, in vehicle GPS navigation, CD players, and DVD players and we have a very crowded scene of fast large vehicles with very distracted drivers that is not the same as the picture some 25 years ago... many years before the words "Road Rage" were ever uttered.

Scary, eh?

You said everything I wanted to say and more.

I want to add to your comment.

I've noticed that many roads today have been traffic engineered for speed and are no longer cycle friendly. They have either been widened or speed limit increased thus drawing faster more aggressive traffic.

When I was a kid, I used to climb up on the roof of our house and jump off. Then there was the time I tied a noose around my feet and hung myself upside down. Haven't done either of those in a while.
When was a kid we would cycle up the huge hill behind our house on a two lane 50mph road with no shoulder. We then cycled back down (and did hit speeds of close to 50mph). All without helmets ;)

Al

Yeah... they care... :rolleyes:

Yeah,...they care about money and not much else.

It is entirely possible they're missing the boat here. Maybe they're making such a boatload of money in other areas that there's less incentive for them to look at this.

Or maybe there's some validity to the "exercise myth"

You said everything I wanted to say and more.

I want to add to your comment.

I've noticed that many roads today have been traffic engineered for speed and are no longer cycle friendly. They have either been widened or speed limit increased thus drawing faster more aggressive traffic.


Yup, like I said... 25 years ago the words "Road Rage" where never used.

25 years ago, I never once had anybody yell at me to get off the road. Not once, in years of commuting.

One place I'm sure it's more dangerous is near schools. When I was a kid everybody rode a bike or walked. Only a few took the bus or were driven. Nowadays everybody is driven to school by harried parents who try to park as near to the campus as possible, drop off the kids, then hurry off to work because they're late. They pull over without looking, pull back out without looking, drive too fast, the works. They all say traffic is too dangerous for their kids to ride to school, but THEY are the traffic!
No kidding. Some of the worst driving I've ever seen has been around elementary schools in the morning. Can you imagine the self-righteous outrage if the cops decided to park a cruiser next to a grade school and start writing tickets for the ridiculous things they see?

See it every day. :rolleyes: And around here we have the "Ricers" who think the roads are a slot car track. This is funny, if ricers rulled the world, with a ricer segway.
FYI, a great many people find the term "ricer" offensive. The term, though usually applied to vehicles and not people, is based on a continent of origin and is almost always used derisively. Those whose continent of origin happens to be the same as the car tend to be offended whether you meant to offend or not.

FYI, a great many people find the term "ricer" offensive. .
Yes, I'm sure many people quite rightfully find the use of that term offensive. The poster should use the pejorative "Cager" and can then can offend everybody, regardless of race, creed or color.

Yes, I'm sure many people quite rightfully find the use of that term offensive. The poster should use the pejorative "Cager" and can then can offend everybody, regardless of race, creed or color.


:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

30 years ago, no one blinked an eye when we got into our cars to drive home drunk after a night out. Not the case now.

I think cycling was much more dangerous then, than now.

There's more awareness now of cylists on the road.

I don't know which other states, but I know for a fact Florida has been very progressive in passing laws guaranteeing cyclists rights that simply weren't thought of 20 years ago.

20 years ago we didn't have anything like the internet, as we know it now, where cyclists could discuss, argue about and call each other names over techniques for dealing with motor vehicles, loose dogs, rain, and other hazards associated with our past time.

Two decades ago it was much more difficult to find information on proper lane positioning. I view this as arguably the biggest contributor to safety.

We have much better bikes and equipment than we did back them. Whoever heard of a HID headlight 20 years ago?

I don't know which other states, but I know for a fact Florida has been very progressive in passing laws guaranteeing cyclists rights that simply weren't thought of 20 years ago.
Doesn't seem to matter, Florida's one of the top four states for cyclist fatalities.

Which is why I think there should be an automatic, on the spot, manslaughter charge for drivers involved in a crash that kills someone.

That would go a long way toward curbing the negligence and recklessness.

People are going to break the law to the extent they think they can get away with it. The answer to this is to make the penalty severe enough people won't engage in this behavior.

How about a permanant suspension of their driver's license.

"Hey YOU killed someone... outta the pool!"

About all they get now is a slap on the wrist.

That would be good. Not quite, but almost as good making them carry the weight of a felony arrest for the rest of their life.

I don't know if cycling's really more dangerous now (seems like even the 'experts' are saying "insufficient data"), but it certainly feels more dangerous now. Probably this is not because drivers are more impatient or less attentive, but because I am slightly less dumb than I was then.

As huhenio said, though, whether it's more dangerous or not is beside the point: it's dangerous.

The data seem a little stronger on the helmet issue, and so I wear one. Old school Bell. Identical to the one that kept my head from busting open like a melon during my last "flying lesson."

........As huhenio said, though, whether it's more dangerous or not is beside the point: it's dangerous........

Something I should have added to my original reply and didn't think of it. It's something that crossed my mind after a conversation with someone awhile back about the dangers of cycling.

Cycling, in and of itself, is not particularly dangerous. It only becomes more dangerous when cars are added and cars by themselves are inanimate objects. Again, not particularly dangerous. Add car drivers, however, and cycling becomes dangerous.

It's the car drivers who are dangerous.

Something I should have added to my original reply and didn't think of it. It's something that crossed my mind after a conversation with someone awhile back about the dangers of cycling.

Cycling, in and of itself, is not particularly dangerous. It only becomes more dangerous when cars are added and cars by themselves are inanimate objects. Again, not particularly dangerous. Add car drivers, however, and cycling becomes dangerous.

It's the car drivers who are dangerous.

This is where I can throw in my little saying:

Traffic is predictable, individual motorists are not.

How about this: Travel is dangerous.

How about this: Travel is dangerous.


Well heck if you wanna go that route: Living is dangerous... everyone that lives, dies.

Well heck if you wanna go that route: Living is dangerous... everyone that lives, dies.

I agree.

I keep trying to tell my wife bathtubs are dangerous.

She's not buying it. :D

It is definatley more dangerous now than 20 years ago. Now you have a lot more vehicles on the road, and that means more inattenitive drivers, driviers talking on the phone etc... plus cars are faster now, and people are just dumber now than 20 years ago. Most drivers shouldn't even be operating a shopping cart, let alone a motorized vehicle.

In the final analysis, when the rubber meets the road, it's mostly motorists killing and injuring other motorists...

25 years ago, I never once had anybody yell at me to get off the road. Not once, in years of commuting.

Well, to sound like a TV doctor, "I Concur". I learned to ride as a youngster in the 60's. Then taught bicycle safety in the elementary school district I attended in that way-back time. Yes, the kids took it seriously. I started riding seriously in the 70's as a young adult. Let me put my observations this way


Riding in the 1970's
-No one had ever heard of road rage. Yes, there were A-hole drivers, and there always will be. But they were uncommon compared to today.
-I was never yelled at to "get off the road".
-I never once had anything hurled at me from a passing vehicle. Not McDonalds garbage, not beer bottles, not eggs, or anything else.
-Talk radio hosts did not tell their listeners to run cyclists off the road, nor did they suggest to their listeners that we all deserve to get beat up.
-Cell phones were the stuff of Science fiction. SUV's (the term had not been invented yet) were bought and driven by game wardens, construction business people, and hunters/fishermen.
-People were a lot more relaxed at the wheel. (search your feelings, you know it to be true!)

Riding today
-Road rage is an everyday occurrence. Don't think so? turn on a police scanner.
-I am yelled at to "get off the road", among other things, several times per year. It used to be a white male thing, but I've noticed white females getting in on this. Sorry to offend the PC police, but it is what I am seeing.
-I have had all of the aforementioned things tossed at me. The worst thing though, was someone leaning out the passenger side of a passing junkyard special, and blasting one of those freon marine horns at me, a few feet from my face. (You can't get those cans of freon anymore.) I almost crashed.
-I don't think I need to mention what has happened in every radio market in the country, with regard to talk radio people (aka "shock jocks") and what they do to cyclists. It is time to shut them down.
-Don't think I need to mention cell phones and SUV's either.
-Motorists are not relaxed at the wheel. You could say, "well, everyone is under so much stress today." I cannot buy that one. The "stress argument" is becoming an excuse of convenience. i.e. "Well, I was late to my kid's soccer practice, and my nanny just quit, so I was stressed and ran over the bicyclist. I don't see what the big deal is anyway."

Well, I got a little carried away. Sorry about that. The answer is yes, I do feel cycling is more dangerous today than when I began.

When I was a kid, I used to climb up on the roof of our house and jump off. Then there was the time I tied a noose around my feet and hung myself upside down. Haven't done either of those in a while.

Yeah, but did you have on a helmet? :D LOL!

Sure and what was the weight of that vehicle?

Compare 0-60 of that vehicle to the 0-60 of a similar vehicle today.

Accelleration doesn't really enter into the equation that much. Almost all of the time people are driving, they are NOT accellerating, they're at a constant speed or braking.

Once they're travelling at 60, compare the manuverability and stopping distance of that vehicle with a modern vehicle. "High performance" means more than one thing. Modern cars are far more manuverable and safer to the occupants. With the exception of SUVs, they're safer to those outside the car as well. Even SUVs aren't all bad; it's worse to get hit by an Escallade than the old Newport I owned, even though they probably weigh about the same, the Newport will just wreck your legs as opposed to crushing your body. However, the Newport steered and braked like a barge; the Escallade will be less likely to hit you in the first place.

You could say, "well, everyone is under so much stress today." I cannot buy that one.

I'm with you. People CHOOSE to be stressed. Unless you are dirt poor and homeless, you have lifestyle choices you can make. Anyone driving a new SUV and living in a nice house, if they're stressed, it's their own fault. You don't get to intentionally inflict a mental disease on yourself and then use it as an excuse for homicide.

Well, to sound like a TV doctor, "I Concur". I learned to ride as a youngster in the 60's. Then taught bicycle safety in the elementary school district I attended in that way-back time. Yes, the kids took it seriously. I started riding seriously in the 70's as a young adult. Let me put my observations this way


Riding in the 1970's
-No one had ever heard of road rage. Yes, there were A-hole drivers, and there always will be. But they were uncommon compared to today.
-I was never yelled at to "get off the road".
-I never once had anything hurled at me from a passing vehicle. Not McDonalds garbage, not beer bottles, not eggs, or anything else.
-Talk radio hosts did not tell their listeners to run cyclists off the road, nor did they suggest to their listeners that we all deserve to get beat up.
-Cell phones were the stuff of Science fiction. SUV's (the term had not been invented yet) were bought and driven by game wardens, construction business people, and hunters/fishermen.
-People were a lot more relaxed at the wheel. (search your feelings, you know it to be true!)

Riding today
-Road rage is an everyday occurrence. Don't think so? turn on a police scanner.
-I am yelled at to "get off the road", among other things, several times per year. It used to be a white male thing, but I've noticed white females getting in on this. Sorry to offend the PC police, but it is what I am seeing.
-I have had all of the aforementioned things tossed at me. The worst thing though, was someone leaning out the passenger side of a passing junkyard special, and blasting one of those freon marine horns at me, a few feet from my face. (You can't get those cans of freon anymore.) I almost crashed.
-I don't think I need to mention what has happened in every radio market in the country, with regard to talk radio people (aka "shock jocks") and what they do to cyclists. It is time to shut them down.
-Don't think I need to mention cell phones and SUV's either.
-Motorists are not relaxed at the wheel. You could say, "well, everyone is under so much stress today." I cannot buy that one. The "stress argument" is becoming an excuse of convenience. i.e. "Well, I was late to my kid's soccer practice, and my nanny just quit, so I was stressed and ran over the bicyclist. I don't see what the big deal is anyway."

Well, I got a little carried away. Sorry about that. The answer is yes, I do feel cycling is more dangerous today than when I began.
AMEN! All true!