There is something fundamentally wrong with comparing fatality or injuries per unit distance of the different methods of transportation. It assumes that the methods of transportation are independent of each other when in fact one does have a direct affect on the other.

This statement from the link ( Motor Vehicle Crash Injury Rates by Mode of Travel, United States: Using Exposure-Based Methods to Quantify Differences) makes more sense.

“The fatality rates for motor vehicle occupants, pedestrians, and bicyclists were 12.7, 1.6, and 0.3 per 100,000 population, respectively (2).”

The fatality rates of cyclists and motorists are directly related to the number of motorists on the road. Where there are no motorists on any stretch of road the risk of fatality drops dramatically but not down to zero. Motorists and cyclists can still lose control over road conditions and smash into things.

However, a reduction of the number of cyclists will not show any reduction to the fatality rate of any motorist and a small reduction (1 every five years perhaps) to pedestrians.

We can also assume that there is a relationship between the number of motor vehicles on the road and the population of that district.

If you want a real indication of estimated risks, it’s more meaningful to list the fatalities per motor vehicle. So in the above statement, one would expect fatalities per 100,000 motor vehicles would be approximately 10 motor vehicle deaths, around 1 pedestrian death and less than one cyclist death. (I'm now guessing so I challenge anyone to get the real stats per 100K motor vehicles).

And if you think cyclist deaths are under-reported by a factor of 10, we come up with a result that the fatality is equal to motorist deaths.