Originally Posted by
ChipSeal
A fixed object, and a cyclist, are equally at risk of being hit by traffic if they are both on the same portion of the lane or shoulder. But that risk becomes less the further into the travel lane they go. The chances of being struck in any case is low, as experienced cyclists like Widsith (Years of shoulder riding) and I-Like-To-Bike (Years of taking the lane.) can testify.
Tragedy has struck cyclists in the lane, like the Virginia Beach death and on a shoulder, as in the case of poor Mr. Kunz. So neither extreme position can be described as safe.
I can testify that I would be overjoyed if an adjacent parallel rideable shoulder existed on the 55mph road I commute. Yes I ride in the lane of high speed traffic to work only because the alternative is not to cycle at all. I like biking enough to put up with the extra lights, mirror watching and stress such a cycling condition warrants.
I might add that I cycle commuted daily in door zones in Philadelphia for six years without any injury also. Reason for such an "unsafe activity"? It was a better choice than the available alternatives.
It is an extreme position to hold that "safety" requires the absence of
any risk. Such a position requires avoiding all activity, or exposure to any energy source.
Be realistic, and start thinking along the lines of evaluating various activities for their actual levels of risk and manage that risk based on personal determinations of acceptable risk and trade offs for other values/considerations such as comfort, energy use and pleasure.