I once did a tour that seemed to include every back street, side street, and alley in a local town. The route was laid out by someone with a paranoia about riding in traffic. My son and I finally got tired of mucking about and turned onto an arterial street to finish the ride. Rather than meandering all around, we rode directly to our destination.
And don't get me started on Copenhagen or Amsterdam. Our so-called 'bicycle advocates' cite them as cycling utopias without admitting that the underlying causes of high mode share have more to do with economic factors, like high real estate prices, motor vehicle prices, and fuel prices. When you start looking at some of the crash statistics, their separated bike facilities look worse. Sure, they feel safe but that's not the same as being safe.
You know Ed, I'm interested in where you're getting your crash statistics. When I looked, the CDC cites motor vehicle crashes as the #1 cause of death for anyone under something like 33 years old. If you have some graphs showing there are more fatal crashes in the Netherlands than in the US I'm curious to see it.
Also, I totally agree with you that it's quicker to take arterials. One route I normally travel takes me about 30 minutes if I stay on arterials or it takes me 90 minutes if I stay off the streets and on trails. I hate that it takes me an hour longer on the trails and normally I chose to take the arterials (clenching a little bit for the full 30 minutes).
I think my ideal situation (for me personally - feel free to disagree) would be safe facilities for bikes on an arterial. That way the route is direct but I don't have to worry about people driving 45MPH inches away from my children.
I'm also curious: have you personally ridden a bike in Amsterdam or Copenhagen?