@
CrankyOne: Thanks for confirming the nature of the ordinate as total number of fatalities. As I have said before, I agree that cycling in the US is much more dangerous. Perhaps the difference in population size is encapsulated, as you say, in considering fatalities/bn km. However, there are many other factors that come into play, again as I mentioned -- in particular, the proportion of people who ride relative to the proportion of those who drive, neither of which is reflected in fatalities/bn km. Actually, since far more people ride in the Netherlands than drive compared to the States, the high number of fatalities in the US may turn out to be even more grim! Related to this, there is also my personal observation that drivers in the US simply do not "see" cyclists, it almost seems like a problem with how they pay attention to traffic while driving. (And this is only made worse by the tendency to use cell phones while driving!). Also, as you suggest, fatalities under 70 may provide an even greater difference.
As to the second point you mention, it is indeed sad that traffic engineers and city planners here in the US have not made safety a prime consideration. But I think there may be at least isolated cases where safer systems have been designed. One example I know of, again some years ago: In the early nineties, prior to living in Amsterdam, I spent a sabbatical year at the University of Illinois, living in Champaign-Urbana. There were more bike paths in Urbana, where I lived, than in almost any other American town I had been to, and what's more, they were safe because they were set at some distance from the roads carrying auto traffic. Many of my colleagues praised the engineer who worked for the city and designed the bike path system. It turned out that he was a Sikh, originally from the Punjab in India, where people use plenty of bicycles! But your point is well taken.