I'm not sure I would like a more positive bent as much as I would have liked a more realistic balance of potential hazards commuters face (and I mean all commuters).

18 deaths per year with 120,000 regular cyclists. Is that any worse than walking or driving? Aren't there something like, 400 or so deaths to motorists each year? I live in a city on the south tip of Vancouver that has a population of 180,000 people and we have about 1 dozen people killed in cars in a year. Transfer those 120,000 regular NYC cyclists for our citizens that drive and is there really much of a difference?

Along with people who drove, walked and took transit, I was featured in a commuting series in our paper and guess what the article led off with? The 1 collision I had with a car. As if motorists or pedestrians aren't hit by cars either.

There are hazards in everything in life. We have to keep them in perspective and make an educated guess as to the best way to reduce them. Cycling not only does not have any more risks than driving or walking, cycling inherently reduces risk for not only the cyclist, but for the other transportation users as well.

This is a bad article because it over plays the negatives by using fear of the unknown and discourages new people to ride becuase of that installed fear.