It's fairly typical that this article gets reported on and nothing else in Injury Prevention (which does feature articles that place risk in its proper context). The simple fact is that the risk inherent in cycling in this country, while higher than in the Netherlands, is still very low (and quite a lot of the injuries are from people falling off their bikes as opposed to being hit by a car). What you see in the Netherlands is simply the effect of government support for cycling since the 1970s, and of more people cycling. Stories like 'we have to reduce injuries to persuade people to take up cycling' miss the point and only serve to reinforce the skewed perception that there is a high risk in the first place. Ignore.
It's fairly typical that this article gets reported on and nothing else in Injury Prevention (which does feature articles that place risk in its proper context). The simple fact is that the risk inherent in cycling in this country, while higher than in the Netherlands, is still very low (and quite a lot of the injuries are from people falling off their bikes as opposed to being hit by a car). What you see in the Netherlands is simply the effect of government support for cycling since the 1970s, and of more people cycling. Stories like 'we have to reduce injuries to persuade people to take up cycling' miss the point and only serve to reinforce the skewed perception that there is a high risk in the first place. Ignore.