In fact 5 of the last 8 years had zero pedestrian deaths due to collisions with cyclists. [1]
Cyclists in NYC (and I imagine most cities) do not, and have never had, a history of "endangering the lives of others."
[1] https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/bikestats.shtm...
Not saying it's a high probability, especially as compared to motor vehicles, but to state the opposite -- cyclists don't have a history of endangering the lives of others -- is also false. They can and do kill pedestrians.
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.
At the end, you write "don't and have never never endangered", which is something only you are saying.
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.