The person you are replying to didn't say it's impossible for a cyclist to kill a pedestrian, just that it doesn't happen very often. They cited a statistic, you found an anecdote to counter. The disconnect seems to be around the word history. You're taking it to mean "something that's ever occurred", where as the person above is taken it to mean "something that is a common occurrence".
Again, his exact statement was: "Cyclists in NYC (and I imagine most cities) do not, and have never had, a history of 'endangering the lives of others.'"
He's stating unequivocally that cyclists do not have -- and have never had -- a history of endangering the lives of others.
They kill people. I certainly call that endangering the lives of others.
They don't kill a lot of people. Neither do sharks -- in the US they only kill about 1 person a year. That doesn't mean sharks are not dangerous or don't have a history of endangering people.
If you or he want to make a statement about the low probability of such an event -- fine. Or compare cyclists to far more dangerous motor vehicles, also fine. But to say that cyclists don't and have never endangered pedestrians is not factually accurate.
"A history". As I said, you are interpreting that word differently than they are. I think it's valid to interpret "a history" to mean "something that happens with some amount of frequency". I also suppose it's valid to interpret "a history" as "something that's every happened".
At the end, you write "don't and have never never endangered", which is something only you are saying.
A history = means a history, not a low probability history, not a high probability history, just a history. You seem to be creating requirements for a "a history" to "needs to happen with a certain frequency." Even 1 time would be a history, altho cyclists kill more people than that.
It's not something "only I am saying." Cyclists have a history of endangering pedestrians...it's a low probability event but by any rational definition of "history" it's a track record aka history.
Not sure why people are so eager to defend cyclists they're willing to overlook the fact that they can and do endanger pedestrians and now -- in your case -- pretend they have no "history" of doing so because it's not happening often enough for your satisfaction.
And it looks like this parent comment was deleted and this thread is now detached -- I'm assuming the moderators also had a problem with that original statement.
