While I am not going to disagree, it is this way of thinking that has given us tiny women driving monster SUVs 500m to take their kiddies to school.
in north america the car industry has made great strides pandering to human nature (they: sell safe, sexy and fun; you: buy stuck in traffic getting fat; repeat), while cycling infrastructure thinking has fought it every step of the way (take the lane - you'll be fine! just remember to always wear a helmet, in case, you know).
why shouldn't cycling advocates use proven successful techniques rather that bashing their helmeted heads against the wall?
As Jeremy Clarkson (who I'm sure you love ha ha) once pointed out, if people wanted to BE safe, rather than FEEL safe, then cars would be fitted with huge spikes sticking out from the steering wheel and aiming between the drivers' eyes instead of having a million impact protection features.
here's a situation in which bike advocates have followed the car industry's leads - focusing on injury mitigation rather than prevent - but are starting to break away. helmets reduce the severity of head injuries in crashes. it turns out the routes the vast majority of cyclists prefer (cycle lanes, bike lanes and signed bike routes) are the ones that reduce the number of crashes and rates of injury. this evidence was kind of the last nail in the "john forrester and the engineers know what's best for you" school of bike planning - its turns out the the types of facilities cyclists say they want are the ones that actually make them the safest:
"Nobody really gives a shit that you don't like the thing that you have no firsthand experience with." Dave