It really depends on the situation. Kinetic energy is only part of the picture, sure, higher speed is worse. But most crashes aren't direct impacts into immovab

It really depends on the situation. Kinetic energy is only part of the picture, sure, higher speed is worse. But most crashes aren't direct impacts into immovable objects. One of the most common injuries for cyclists is the ubiquitous broken collar bone. This often happens to folks when they're coming to a stop, or even when they're motionless, and they lose balance and tip over. The unavoidable reaction is to put one's arm out to mitigate the fall. If the arm doesn't bend at the elbow, energy gets transmitted straight to the collarbone and may cause a fracture. Another common injury is concussion. These are, of course, worse at higher speeds because they usually occur when the cyclist goes over the handlebars. This can happen so fast that there is no time to protect the face-- hence the term "face plant". But a head injury can also happen when tipping over at zero speed. Not totally disagreeing about the speed aspect, just the usage of the kinetic energy factor to imply how much worse the accident "could be". Velodrome cyclists regularly wipe out at 40+ mph. Serious injuries and death can occur, but that is highly dependent on the specifics of the crash. The overwhelming majority of the time, higher speed means nastier road-rash.