Here's the comment I posted on his blog. Let's see if he makes it visible:

Consider a different context: Who's the bigger fool? Smith, who works in a smelting plant? Or Brown, who also works there and carelessly knocked Smith into a vat of molten steel?

Being on the road is similar in that it's a potentially hazardous activity for all users, including the 44,000 non-bicycling fatalities each year. That shared risk demands a few things of all roadway users (and all employees at a smelting plant, for that matter): a level of attention to the task at hand, an extra dose of attention to compensate for those who may not have enough of their own, and a consideration for the risk one is posing to the other users. The workplace slogan of safety being everyone's concern is equally true of roadway users.

A bicyclist using the rules of Vehicular Cycling (Google "John Forester") is fulfilling every obligation that a roadway user has, and is acting in a responsible manner. Any attempt to make such a cyclist the guilty party in his accident or death is wrong. It is absolving the auto driver of his responsibilities and obligations as a roadway user, and is transferring the blame to the victim. It's akin to blaming a woman for her ****.

Using your type of reasoning, let's determine the fault in any auto-auto accident by putting the two vehicles on a scale: the lighter vehicle's driver is at fault automatically because he put himself at risk knowing there are heavier vehicles on the road. Then add how much of a shame it is that that's the way the roads in this country are, and wouldn't it be peachy if everyone took the bus instead.

Lastly, your prior blog post is about the loss of manners in society. Don't manners include looking out for the other person? If it applies to "Do you mind if I smoke?", how much more does it apply to "Do you mind if I kill you?"