The original article is also entirely free of statistics or sources which was kind of my point. My comments were intended as a counterpoint to the unsupported assertion in the article that the increased cycle traffic observed in a two week trial would translate to a sustained increase and to the unspoken assumption that increased cycle traffic is clearly and obviously a good thing and worth the costs and negative impacts on other road users.
The dangers of cycling itself are pretty well known I thought, it is far more dangerous than driving, e.g. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-39856219
I don't know of any figures comparing the relative risk to pedestrians of cyclists vs cars. I would expect that pedestrians are less likely to be killed if hit by a bike than a car but I would also guess that adjusted for relative miles traveled you are more likely to be hit by a bike as a pedestrian than a car. Certainly as a pedestrian in Vancouver I am more concerned about bikes than cars due to the silence and lack of respect for the rules of the road I mentioned.
If the changes made here were based on solid research, I never saw it presented to the public. It was just 'Cycling is great! And green! Yay cycling!' and PR shots of the mayor on a bike to justify the money spent and disruption to other road users caused.