Moulton wrote: "Sadly, statistics show that when a bicycle rider is killed on the road, it is often the victim’s fault. Running red lights, riding against traffic, or suddenly entering a road without warning in front of an oncoming car. This gives a false impression that cycling is dangerous. It is POBs that are getting killed, not cyclists."
Moulton's statement above is misleading but very typical. Like many bicyclists, er cyclists, whatever, he seems to harbor a deep need for his particular type of cycling, lawful cycling, to be defined as 'safe,' and seems to want to will it to be so by invoking statistics that he doesn't seem entirely familiar with. If bicyclists are out there getting killed and injured, it must be that Other Guy. Maybe the great psychoanalyst J. Forester could tell us what makes so many bicyclists devour this wish sandwich. Usually it is a rider much less experienced than Moulton who we find verbalizing this brand of wishful thinking.
It's true as M. says that 'when a bicycle rider is killed on the road, it's often the victim's fault.' But when an adult bicyclist -- a group that includes all those horrible lawbreaking anarcho-POBs -- is killed, it is most likely to occur when the bicyclist is behaving lawfully, not while swerving like a mad anarchist. Not while going through a red light; while going through a green one. Etc.
Lawful cycling does not equal 'safe' cycling. No matter how badly we wish or need it to be true. People like Moulton will have to recognize this reality before they can deal with it. It's very important. The path to actual safe cycling goes through truth. There are no alternate routes or shortcuts.
My unsolicited recommendation to Moulton and other judgmental cyclists is to worry about yourself, and let the Other Guy worry about himself.
Robert