And here you conflate and ignore ... is that accidents per capita? Californian has a Lot more drivers . It also has a lot more freeways which are essential for commuters and don't allow cyclists.
The reason either St. Pete, Orlando, or Tampa regularly win the "Deadliest Cycling City" award is that it is calculated by fatalities per capita---and discusses exclusively Cycling deaths, not all fatalities. No one doubts that driving in LA is dangerous---but a lot of that road rage and a lot of the accidents are on limited access highways where there are no cyclists.
In fact, had this been a real debate, you would have cited an article like this one from 2014: (
https://www.latimes.com/business/aut...027-story.html) "Bicycle traffic deaths soar; California leads nation"
Excerpt: "California, with 338 cyclists killed in collisions with motor vehicles, and Florida, with 329, had the highest totals during that period, the report said.
"They also had the largest increases in annual cyclist traffic fatalities from 2010 to 2012. Florida's deaths rose by 37 to 120 in 2012 while cyclist traffic fatalities in California rose by 23 to 123. California had the most bicyclists killed of any state in 2012."
Now lets compare populations:
Florida population: 20.98 million (2017)
California population: 39.54 million (2017)
So, by those numbers cycling in California as Twice as Safe as cycling in Florida.
And I rode through the worst periods in Florida's recent history for cycling deaths, in the deadliest city, not just the deadliest state .... and I was alright, and still am.