contango 

You're missing the point entirely. My point is that people look at the number of cyclists killed on the roads and assume that cycling is dangerous, and yet look at the number of motorists killed on the roads and don't question their assumption that driving is safe.

You mentioned earlier someone (I think it was your wife?) who thought cycling in London was too dangerous. I'm not sure what she based her assessment on. I've cycled in London several times and consider it to be safe. I don't tend to cycle in central London very often, simply because I don't find the combination of the traffic (both motor and pedestrian) and frequent junctions make for an enjoyable journey. As it happens in more urban I'm more concerned about boneheaded pedestrians walking out in front of me than I am of the motor traffic.

ETA: It's hard to know whether measuring "per million journeys" is a relevant construct without knowing the length of the journeys. If a 600km brevet counts as a "journey" and a 600m bimble to the shops counts as a "journey" it's hard to know what conclusions to draw from the figures. It's also hard to know what proportion of cyclist casualties were due to the cyclist doing something stupid, a motorist doing something stupid, or something else. I'm not going to pretend that every motorist is a saint but it's equally pointless to assume that every cyclist does the right thing all the time. When cyclists do truly boneheaded things, like running a red light and turning right despite the clear "no right turn" sign, practically throwing themselves under the wheels of oncoming traffic, any incidents involving such a cyclist is perhaps best addressed with a Darwin award rather than worrying about redesigning the junction.