Originally Posted by
neil
None of which are bike specific concerns. Any of the suggested problems could be problems in a car, too.
I think a lot of what successfully dealing with these kinds of things is to question "in what way does a car make you safer in this situation." It turns out that the only extra protection from a car is in the case of an actual collision (this is at least partly offset by collisions being less likely on a bike). Pretty much every other case, the car is only providing some false sense of security.
Safety doesn't just revolve around collision. There are areas one would ride through that has a high risk vs. driving through. Disregarding the obvious fact that being in a car, one is secured in a lockable "cage". While on a bike one is exposed. Then there's the speed. No dumbass drunk/junky would try to assault a moving vehicle at speeds. A young girl peddling at no faster than a jogging pace makes for a much easier target. Throw a stick at the spokes and down she goes. You can complete the mental picture of what will ensue by the assailant.
How about if she were to travel down a lonely alleyway or a park MUP which are often home to hobos or gangs? There are many parks where I am that are occupied by homeless tent folks. **** and assaults have know to occur in these areas and not just cyclists, joggers and strollers too.
This is obviously on the extreme. Without knowing what sort of areas of risk she may traverse too, it is not possible to determine what is safe or not. However to say traversing on a bike = as on a car in terms of safety is rather narrow POV.
What I am saying is Debbie Downer may have a genuince concern and before we go into a tirade of of predisposed prejudices on non-cycling folks, lets step back a little.