CliffordK

I'm going to cross-post a quote from another topic.

These statistics are always complicated.

Alcohol related deaths would include the rare overdoses, chronic liver failure, automobile (and other) accidents, and perhaps a few other related deaths, and the overall number would be far greater than reported on the page.

Bicycling is complicated. The average cyclist may ride 5 miles a year (including young kids), and have little exposure to lethal situations. On the other hand, a bike commuter or avid rider may ride 3,000 to 10,000 miles a year, and has much greater exposure to the risk. I do wonder, however, if there is a sweet spot where riders averaging 5000 miles a year may be at lower risk than those averaging 1000 miles a year.

As I've pointed out several times, there are also benefits of riding a bike and exercise in general that may outweigh the risks.

I did find a few interesting statistics.

• Employees who cycle regularly to work are less frequently ill, with on average more than one day per
  year less absenteeism than colleagues who do not cycle to work.
• The higher the frequency and longer the distance cycled, the lower the
  rate of absenteeism.

From another study:
Injury risk
Unfortunately, trips by bicycle face higher risks of fatality
and injury per trip and per distance travelled than trips by
automobile. In the United States from 1999 to 2003, the fatality
rate per bike trip was about 2.3 times that for automobile trips,
and the police-reported injury rate per bike trip was about 1.8
times that for automobile trips.

The greater distances travelled
on motor vehicle trips (bike trips are about half the distance of
motor vehicle trips) mean that the difference in risk per distance
travelled would be greater still.
[...]
All studies considered
the benefits of increased physical activity,
and all but one considered the risks of traffic
injuries. All studies considered the impact of air pollution,
though two considered its impact only on risk and two only on
benefit. The benefits and risks were calculated in different ways
(deaths prevented, reductions in disability-adjusted life years, and
monetary costs of premature death).
The conclusions of all studies supported that of the British
Medical Association: there is a large net health benefit of increased
cycling, since the risk of fatal injury is greatly outweighed by the
reductions in mortality afforded by increased physical activity.
Air pollution risks and benefits had smaller impacts in either
direction. Benefit to risk ratios ranged between 9 to 1 and 96 to 1

And another study:

For Australian cyclists on the road six hours per week, there is a reduction in risk from heart disease of 85 deaths per 100,000 years and an increase in deaths from cycling of 19 per 100,000 years. Nonetheless, they still have a death rate of 121 per 100,000 years from CHD. There are additional health benefits to cycling as well, which lack exact figures, but they also help reduce the death rate of cyclists at the same time. So, the benefits of cycling greatly outweigh the risks.

And Another:
One study found that people who cycle to work
experienced a 9% lower rate of all-cause
mortality compared to those who did not – even
after adjustment for other risk factors, including
leisure time physical activity
[...]
risk to other road users
An important note with regard to the balance
of risks and benefits from cycling is that cycling
is an extremely safe activity in terms of the risk
that cyclists present to other road users. Only
around three to seven third parties are killed per
year in fatal bicycle crashes, compared to 1,600
third parties killed in fatal car crashes. This is an
important issue for public health professionals,
who should be considering the impact of
transport policies on overall public health.