> And yet despite that, if you live in any major city and cycle to work, your life expectancy is higher that if you drive, even if including the higher risk of

> And yet despite that, if you live in any major city and cycle to work, your life expectancy is higher that if you drive, even if including the higher risk of a fatal collision on the road. Probably not causal as you're suggesting. It's probably something like "if you have the money to live near your workplace, you can probably afford great healthcare, a gym membership, great healthy food options, and other things that cause one to live longer". > Transit shouldn’t be an arms race, we should be working towards making transit safe regardless of the mode of transport, not putting everyone in armoured boxes. This is a straw man. I'm not advocating an arms race or "putting everyone in armoured boxes", I'm saying that a rational decision for individuals who prize their children's safety is to not allow them to cycle as a primary form of transit. > No, we’re discussing the validity of car free living and its value. Bring the argument that riding a bike is dangerous for children means we should put every child in car is a silly and intellectually dishonest argument. Just like the argument that the solution to “bad guys with guns” is more “good guys with guns”, when the answer is clearly fewer guns. The same applies to cars, the answer to children being killed by drivers isn’t “more cars for kids” it’s fewer cars and safer roads. Respectfully, I think you're mistaken, the comment you responded to was "I’m not sure I’d be comfortable with a young child on a bike." This is clearly not a "how should we retailor society?" claim, it's a "in our existing society, what is safest for my kid?" claim. If you manifest a society in which cycling is comparably safe to driving, I'll send my kid to school by bike.