Colin, I'd have much more respect for your views if you just came out and said "I know it's irrational but..."
But you are still trying to justify flawed logic. And the sex of cyclists has nothing to do with their deaths, Male cyclists die too - because however experienced a cyclist you are, you are much more likely to encounter a bad driver than a terrorist. That's true whether you are a cyclist, a pedestrian or another driver.
The fact is "you choose to put yourself" at much greater risk on a bike than on the tube. It's a simple fact.
I'm not sure which bit of my views you are referring to this time, Screamapillar. As far as I am concerned, all the views I have expressed here are rational:
"I wouldn't go to Greece because I might get eaten." This view has now been temporarily superceded by imprudent lenders giving the Greeks more funds, but it was rational when I proposed it.
"I wouldn't go to Greece because it isn't far from Syria, and Mediterranean countries are likely to be terrorist targets due to their proximity and accessibility." I proposed this due to the recent attack on Tunisia (a Med country). Since then, there has been an attack on Turkey, and Turkey is now bombing Syria back. Also since then it has been revealed that Brits are participating in bombing Syria, making us an even more likely target IMO. You don't need to go to the Med as a holiday destination so why not stay well away from Syria instead, at this present time?
"I won't go on public transport and will try to avoid crowds because terrorists like to bomb: (a) public transport; and (b) crowds, and the powers-that-be don't bother to search bags of people on public transport or in crowds." Logical and rational.
"As a cyclist of 40 years' experience who wears bright clothing and listens out for large vehicles approaching from behind, etc, as well as an experienced car driver, I regard cycling by myself safe enough to engage in over familiar routes on a daily basis, and a more sensible thing to do than endanger myself on public transport." Logical and rational.
That's about it. It all makes sense to me.
If you go to, say, the Natural History Museum, they search your bags before letting you in the building, but if you go on public transport they don't search your bags. Isn't that a bit peculiar? Why one and not the other? Why planes but not trains? Maybe the government and London Transport don't care enough about the individual and his or her safety to bother.
The gender of cyclists certainly has something to do with their deaths IMO. Women tend to cycle differently to men (e.g. slower; more timidly, as a generalisation, with exceptions.) Remind me please, of the London cyclist road deaths this year, how many were male and how many were female?
Colin - I'm sorry but you are letting the terrorists win with that attitude.
I have travelled on the tube virtually very day since 2004 and I'm still here, as are millions of others that do the same.
I'm not about to try and work out the stats but do you know how infinitesimally small your chances of coming to harm through terrorism are? And I speak as someone who was in a building at the time it was bombed by the IRA.
OTOH 14 cyclists have been killed in London this year. You are in way more danger every time you get on your bike.
However you have weighed these situations up it been done rationally.
What sort of events do you enter BTW? Did you let the Boston bombing put you off racing in London?
I don't think I am "letting the terrorists win" by staying off the London Underground network. If you get on a plane they check your bags beforehand, if you get on a tube train they don't. Anyone can carry a bomb onto a tube train, no questions asked.
I don't find comfort in the "low statistical probability" argument. It simply isn't a risk I'm willing to expose myself to. Mainly because I don't need to, I'm happy using a bicycle to get to and around London.
Most of the cyclists killed in London were, I believe, women. I expect some of them were inexperienced cyclists.
I don't enter any running events, I just run to be fit. I probably wouldn't go and stand and watch the London Marathon any more after the Boston Marathon incident. (Blowing up the London Marathon was actually the subject of a so-called comedy, 'Four Lions', in 2010. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Lions)
No, I've avoided going on the London Underground since 11 March 2004 (the Madrid train bombings) except (admittedly) once. Despite living in London I won't use the Tube. Other than that one occasion, I haven't set foot on the Tube for over 11 years. (And virtually never use a bus either.) I cycle to and within London instead.
I am also careful, most of the time, where I put myself. Generally I won't put myself in big crowds (e.g Saturday shoppers) or the sorts of situations I think terrorists would be likely to target.
Your examples fail to distinguish between:
ordinary non-predictable risks (on the one hand) and
unusual possibly-predictable risks (on the other).
Anyone going to America knows there's a certain amount of gun crime and a number of nutcases. A rational person probably wouldn't let it stop them visiting America. On the other hand it should make an intelligent well-informed person want to do some basic research into what areas in America might be considered safe, and what areas might not. Doing that won't make them safe, but it may make them safer. (And I haven't been to America anyway.)
A 79-year-old retired lawyer gets stabbed in his car in Sussex. It has nothing to do with Sussex, per se. It (presumably) has to do with road rage incidents; being aware of them; and how you deal with an RTA if you are unfortunately enough to be involved in one. The incident you refer to wouldn't stop me driving, or driving to Sussex, it would make me more careful about anticipating road rage incidents and how I deal with one. (Having read Ian McEwan's 'Saturday' (2005) I would be extremely careful dealing, as a driver, with a road accident anyway. I might not even get out of my car. It depends on the facts.)
As respects Greece. Were I thinking of visiting Greece, or indeed any other Mediterranean country, I would note from a map the proximity of Syria, the lawless political situation appertaining there, the accessibility of countries on the north and south sides of the Med by boat by anyone coming from Syria, any recent terrorist incidents in Mediterranean countries or in the Med itself (I think there was one of those on the water only last week), and would conclude this isn't a prudent time to visit the Med and that I would be more sensible to go somewhere else for my holidays instead.
Given the location of Syria, I wouldn't regard anywhere in the Med as safe to visit at present. Particularly so, given that it's been admitted by the politicians that we are actively participating in the bombing of Syria.
(I said the same about the wisdom of not travelling on the Tube after the Madrid bombing, before 7/7 happened, and that got ridiculed here too.)
You could not make up the story that is now unfolding. Basically the Greeks voted for an anti austerity party. That party decided it was going to go at the ecb and imf with all guns blazing and gave the people of Greece the chance to decide if they trusted them do so and to put their interests first. The people voted for telling Europe to get lost. The party in power then lubed up and accepted the biggest fiscalling that anyone has ever heard of. Immensely confusing. That party will now be as electable as labour. Hilarious.
The prospect of having no economy, no banking system, and the population starving to death, with riots on the streets, made them think again. (Inevitably.)
It looks like the can is being kicked down the road due to the Europeans providing further finance (rather than just emergency finance and telling the Greeks to restore the drachma).
The Greeks will be back looking for another bailout within a year. Then they will be kicked out of the Euro and have to restore the drachma anyway. More money now only postpones the inevitable.