I Will NOT Be Biking to Work

[sheepstache]

I am angry when I believe people are not thinking. 
I get angry when people allow their lives to be directed by gut reactions without questioning their assumptions.  If this is so important to you that it is directing an element of your life, you owe it to yourself to research it properly and make a comparison.  That means not coming to conclusions based on anecdotes.  Your comparison between your neighbors means nothing because it is not a random sample and it is a small sample size.

I get angry because I feel it on a moral level.  Morality is about making decisions and so I believe each of us has a moral responsibility to learn proper logic and reasoning when it comes to risk evaluation.

I don't know if this makes it better or worse, but in any event, its all very interesting:
http://youarenotsosmart.com/about/

you might like (or else hate) these too:

http://www.ted.com/speakers/dan_ariely.html
and
http://www.ted.com/speakers/dan_gilbert.html

And if you have more time, the three part National Geographic series starting with:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyeLF_a2iW0

Thanks for the recs!  I read and liked Dan Ariely's book.  If you haven't read Kahneman's Thinking: Fast and Slow, you might like it.

[Jamesqf]

like normal stats right? sampling and modeling. maybe the models vastly under-estimate the deaths/mile by bike? If not, it's pretty dangerous (relatively), and thats ok in my book.

Unfortunately, statistics don't apply until you have data, and are only as good as the underlying data.  So where is there any source of data on how much cycling people do? 

As for why the stats on deaths per mile might be misleading, suppose those miles include both folks doing relatively safe commutes to work, and the sort of mountain biker who races at high speeds down rough single-tracks. 

[msilenus]

Totoro nailed the most serious problem with MMM's analysis.  Most people have transportation requirements that are measured in fixed numbers of miles, not hours.  If you're going to a store that's ten miles away, then it's ten miles away by both bike and by car.  If you make five extra trips in your car so you spend as much time on the road as you would have on a bike, then MMM's per-hours-travelled-centric analysis starts to make more sense.  Not everyone travels fixed numbers of miles, though.  Pleasure drivers decide to spend an afternoon or longer on the road, and really do measure their trips in time and not miles.  MMM's analysis would make much more sense in the context of those people, but they're in the minority.  Especially around here, I suspect.

There's another problem, too, which is that the longevity benefit of exercise is not a simple constant.  In MMM's post on weight lifting, he mentioned that a weightlifter's first workout burns one pound of fat and builds one pound of muscle (IIRC.)  Does the second?  The third?  On and on forever?  Obviously not.  Eventually, further exercise will even start taking time off your life, as you stress your body too hard.  Human beings can and have been worked to death.

I'm not saying that even the most avid bicyclists are anywhere near the point where they're hurting their health, but it's fairly obvious that exercise offers a diminishing utility curve that passes through zero, and eventually starts going negative.  I doubt anyone knows the exact shape of that curve, but I strongly suspect that using it in place of MMM's constant would make biking as a primary mode of transportation look much less attractive than assuming constant utility does.

[hybrid]

Do you mean first hand knowledge of your sexism or lack there of?  I wasn't saying you personally were.  I was saying we, collectively, as a society have ingrained it so much that it is invisible.

I meant first hand knowledge of the specific area and the individuals (myself, my daughter).  I'm not implying an experienced female cycler should avoid this area.  I was stating that my inexperienced, not so worldly daughter would be at a disadvantage, one her (naturally protective) father would steer her clear of.

Your "common sense" begins with the conclusion, and then finds a way to justify it.  Why do you assume the male is riding faster?  Why do you assume he is familiar with his surroundings, but she isn't? 

I was speaking in generalities there, but it applied specifically to the same two individuals.  Where I was going there is that experience does count for much.  I doubt you are implying that an inexperienced rider should feel comfortable riding anywhere, any time.  But hey, feel free to correct me if I am wrong here.

[matchewed]

Totoro nailed the most serious problem with MMM's analysis.  Most people have transportation requirements that are measured in fixed numbers of miles, not hours.  If you're going to a store that's ten miles away, then it's ten miles away by both bike and by car.  If you make five extra trips in your car so you spend as much time on the road as you would have on a bike, then MMM's per-hours-travelled-centric analysis starts to make more sense.  Not everyone travels fixed numbers of miles, though.  Pleasure drivers decide to spend an afternoon or longer on the road, and really do measure their trips in time and not miles.  MMM's analysis would make much more sense in the context of those people, but they're in the minority.  Especially around here, I suspect.

There's another problem, too, which is that the longevity benefit of exercise is not a simple constant.  In MMM's post on weight lifting, he mentioned that a weightlifter's first workout burns one pound of fat and builds one pound of muscle (IIRC.)  Does the second?  The third?  On and on forever?  Obviously not.  Eventually, further exercise will even start taking time off your life, as you stress your body too hard.  Human beings can and have been worked to death.

I'm not saying that even the most avid bicyclists are anywhere near the point where they're hurting their health, but it's fairly obvious that exercise offers a diminishing utility curve that passes through zero, and eventually starts going negative.  I doubt anyone knows the exact shape of that curve, but I strongly suspect that using it in place of MMM's constant would make biking as a primary mode of transportation look much less attractive than assuming constant utility does.

Although only for entertainment purposes this video seems appropriate to the discussion about units - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLmBJ4_5eG4

And are you really arguing that because we don't know how much exercise is needed to be harmful that MMM's analysis is wrong? The amount of exercise needed would be high indeed given that most individuals need more exercise anyway and we have a decided lack of exercise related death relative to the number of people participating in said exercise. The diminishing returns you speak of would take extreme activity to get to. Why introduce outliers to shoot down someone's point?

[Rollin]

Although I think most of the ideas promoted on this website are good, I also will not be biking to work. 

No, it's not about crime for me, though I do personally know a man who was attacked while biking.  I don't think it had to do with biking so much as having been in the wrong place at the wrong time.  I have known other people over the years who've been victims of crimes in various situations.  In response to those various situations, I have altered my behavior in one way:  I will not go to one particular shopping center after dark. 

But, back to the issue.  I will not be biking to work for several reasons:

- I arrive at work at 6:45 am and begin teaching at 7:00 am.  Since I work in a professional job, I would have to leave in time to change clothes and fix my hair before beginning work.  I'm already NOT a morning person, and I will not voluntarily leave home even earlier than required.
- I often carry books to/from school, and I always carry my lunch.  Combined with my work clothes and shoes, this equals a fairly big backpack to carry back and forth every day -- especially since I'm in the South, and it's hot here!  On Fridays one of my responsibiliites includes bringing breakfast for a before-school group.  I can't manage that on a bike. 
- The roads I travel to work have no sidewalks and are not particularly wide.  In the winter months I'd have to leave in the dark.  And because I teach high school I share the road with inexperienced teen drivers; I see a wreck (or evidence of a wreck -- I don't mean I witness every one) every other week.  This is largely because the teen drivers are laughing with friends or texting and aren't watching the road.  Finally, and perhaps most significantly, I'd have to cross a six-lane highway.  It just doesn't seem like a recipe for safety. 

I'm not saying it's not a good option for other people with other circumstances, or that biking might not be a good option for me for other purposes -- in good weather, in daylight, not towards the main road -- but biking to work just isn't something to which I'm open.  Furthermore, a full week's commute to/from work costs me less than one gallon of gas. 

If that sounds whiney, too bad.  It's my assessment of how this particular money-saving idea fits into my life.  Few frugal-life tips are true for everyone, and this one isn't as universal as MMM's article would have us believe.

These reasons would make it difficult for most to ride to work on a bicycle.

I ride in challenging conditions and carry heavy loads on occasion, but I have other options available for those really difficult times.  It is not for everyone, not even me and I've been commuting to work off and on for over 30 years.  I do wish that some of the reasons people don't ride a bike more were eliminated so that they could ride more often.  These would be related to better cycling areas and infrastructure that make it safe and enjoyable.

What you may want to do if you are interested in riding by bike to work is simply pick a good day every few weeks that you can ride and enjoy!  Give yourself more time, bring stuff in by car on a previous day, take a different route (safer) if possible, and even avoid that southern heat by riding in early spring and when the Daylight Savings is in your favor.  I rode in today and it wasn't too bad (7.5 miles), but last week I could not ride slow enough to avoid sweating.  I don't care how hot it is on the way home though.

I think riding on occasion is better than not at all - if it works for you.  It is not always convenient for me, but it can be done.

For those in unsafe areas there are ways to protect yourself and you may even enjoy riding with a friend.

Lastly, and not the main reason I ride (there are many) is that I save $5 a day by biking in.

[Rollin]

... if you have the misfortune to break down or get a flat in a sketchy area, that's a horse of a different color.

Of subject a little, but I have Schwalbe Supreme tires and have yet to have a flat (about 1.5 years of riding it regularly - maybe 2,000 miles).  I don't carry flat repair stuff any more.  They are pricey, but will last for many years so are a good value in my book.

Now, back to your regular programming.

[Rollin]

Exactly my point Joet.  It is a per mile risk because we are replacing commutes under 75 miles with a bicycle.  Of course it is going to take you longer, but the risk is a per mile risk.  The rationalization based on per hour risk is illogical  when we are discussing safety of relative modes of transportation.  Walking is even safer, but will take even longer

Sheepstache you stated in response to the stat that the average age of a cycling fatality is 41 with:

"Totoro: My point with the lower age is that you would expect people in this group to die at a younger age because...they are younger."

Maybe, but they are also a lot of under 20s in this group and the premise is that  high risk behaving 20 and unders driving up the mortality rates.  In order to have an average age of 41 we need to have a lot of fatalities in the 40 plus age group who we might normally think of as being more careful.  I would have expected the average age of death to be even lower.

Bummer.  I thought since I passed 41 a few years ago I was now safer riding my bike :)

[totoro]

I don't think anyone can deny that bike riding is generally a great, low-risk and sensible way to get around.  It saves money and boosts health.

The only issue I have is that the MMM analysis has a couple of flaws imo.  This is the exception to the rule that I generally agree with the content of the MMM posts.

The flaws are, as pointed out:
1. the risk is a per mile risk (not a per hour risk) when getting from a to b and bikes have higher risk of accidental death than cars - but it is still low risk and we all take risks
2.  some people, like me, walk everywhere and get exercise that way - this is a mode of transportation and is safer than biking or driving - the title of the post "Biking - the Safest Form of Transportation" is incorrect
3.  I had not even considered the crime aspect of cycling.  Other people know this risk better than me.  I would say if this is a daily risk and you do not feel safe it is reasonable to consider moving if possible and this would be way higher on the list for me than earlier FI or whether biking is better than driving.

[Luck better Skill]

  In the comments section of the Biking article, I agree with IP Daley that MMM should have used a lower speed, 35 - 40 MPH for cars, to compare with biking. 

  I will add to that.  The Stats used by MMM were for the nation as a whole, not a single city or smaller area.  Readers should not extrapolate that accidents are equal everywhere in the nation.  I would encourage people to investigate their neighborhoods to find out the local safety/risk factor.  You may be surprised how safe biking can be.

  To this thread I will add that a similar extrapolating error occurred.  Yes men are more likely to be a victim by a stranger than a woman but that does not mean the subset of biking/jogging men and women have the same ratios of crime.  The data sample is to large.  When biking, men could be very safe compared to women, or even more at risk.  It is what I was trying to say yesterday, hope I clarified.

[Rollin]

Totoro nailed the most serious problem with MMM's analysis.  Most people have transportation requirements that are measured in fixed numbers of miles, not hours.  If you're going to a store that's ten miles away, then it's ten miles away by both bike and by car.  If you make five extra trips in your car so you spend as much time on the road as you would have on a bike, then MMM's per-hours-travelled-centric analysis starts to make more sense.  Not everyone travels fixed numbers of miles, though.  Pleasure drivers decide to spend an afternoon or longer on the road, and really do measure their trips in time and not miles.  MMM's analysis would make much more sense in the context of those people, but they're in the minority.  Especially around here, I suspect.

Most miles driven in this country do not involve work-commuting.  The majority of the 25 miles per day we average are for non-work trips - I remember the number at 85% (don't quote me though) of the 25 miles.  Many of those are discretionary in the first place - or could be biked, as 40% of our trips are less than 2 miles.  In fact, one statistic that is very interesting is that if every American drove one less mile per day (of the 25) and replaced it with biking or walking we would have 6 million fewer obese people in 5 years and the largest metro areas (51 of them) would save about $51,000,000,000 (billion!) per year in fuel and other related costs.

[totoro]

To this thread I will add that a similar extrapolating error occurred.  Yes men are more likely to be a victim by a stranger than a woman but that does not mean the subset of biking/jogging men and women have the same ratios of crime.  The data sample is to large.  When biking, men could be very safe compared to women, or even more at risk.  It is what I was trying to say yesterday, hope I clarified.

87% of cyclists who are killed are male. I don't think this means they are inherently more at risk but perhaps it means there are a whole lot more men cycling than women? http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/facts/crash-facts.cfm

[oldtoyota]

Like you, I agree wholeheartedly that our nation has become one giant bunch of fraidycats post 9/11, and every time I have to board a plane I realize just how ridiculous Fortress America has become.  But I would also offer you are jumping to a lot of conclusions about individuals specific situations without much data both objective and subjective to go on.  I STILL don't know exactly where oldtoyota is talking about?  ;-)

Hear, hear!

The reason we have to have naked photos taken of our bodies before riding a plane is:

1) it makes the body scanner companies a lot of money;
2) Congress members have bought stock in the body scanner companies (John Kerry is only one example and both Dems and Repubs have bought stock so hooey to both parties);
3) people will fear large scale disasters that kill just a few people ('terrorist' attempts) more than they will fear minor disasters than kill thousands (car accidents and the flu).

At the same time the gvt is adding more fake-o "security" personnel at the airports (they advertise the TSA jobs on pizza boxes, by the way), funding is being cut to help prevent the flu.

[oldtoyota]

Although I think most of the ideas promoted on this website are good, I also will not be biking to work. 

No, it's not about crime for me, though I do personally know a man who was attacked while biking.  I don't think it had to do with biking so much as having been in the wrong place at the wrong time.  I have known other people over the years who've been victims of crimes in various situations.  In response to those various situations, I have altered my behavior in one way:  I will not go to one particular shopping center after dark. 

But, back to the issue.  I will not be biking to work for several reasons:

- I arrive at work at 6:45 am and begin teaching at 7:00 am.  Since I work in a professional job, I would have to leave in time to change clothes and fix my hair before beginning work.  I'm already NOT a morning person, and I will not voluntarily leave home even earlier than required.
- I often carry books to/from school, and I always carry my lunch.  Combined with my work clothes and shoes, this equals a fairly big backpack to carry back and forth every day -- especially since I'm in the South, and it's hot here!  On Fridays one of my responsibiliites includes bringing breakfast for a before-school group.  I can't manage that on a bike. 
- The roads I travel to work have no sidewalks and are not particularly wide.  In the winter months I'd have to leave in the dark.  And because I teach high school I share the road with inexperienced teen drivers; I see a wreck (or evidence of a wreck -- I don't mean I witness every one) every other week.  This is largely because the teen drivers are laughing with friends or texting and aren't watching the road.  Finally, and perhaps most significantly, I'd have to cross a six-lane highway.  It just doesn't seem like a recipe for safety. 

I'm not saying it's not a good option for other people with other circumstances, or that biking might not be a good option for me for other purposes -- in good weather, in daylight, not towards the main road -- but biking to work just isn't something to which I'm open.  Furthermore, a full week's commute to/from work costs me less than one gallon of gas. 

If that sounds whiney, too bad.  It's my assessment of how this particular money-saving idea fits into my life.  Few frugal-life tips are true for everyone, and this one isn't as universal as MMM's article would have us believe.

I have similar reasons (in addition to the one I mentioned in the OP), and I agree that certain frugal tips are not for all.

--I can walk to the train. I've been molested on the train before, but I take precautions now and have only had one molestation problem in the past year.
--I also work in a professional position and would have to clean myself off before work, because I live in humid DC. In addition to the bike trail, I would need to pass through parts of Washington with a thriving drug trade and, most likely, the associated guns. I am actually not scared of drug dealers, because the chances they want to kill people randomly do not appear to be high.
--Biking doesn't save me much money. I stopped parking at the metro, and I've cut my train expenses down a lot by working from home more often.
--Biking would cost me more in the short term as I would have to buy packs, extra tire materials, and possibly a different bike.
--I would have to pack my clothes and towels every day I commuted by bike. I think that would be a drag, but all power to those that choose and want to do that.
--I sometimes work late hours, so I would not want to come back on a trail late at night. That would be extremely dumb based on all the crime on the trail.
--I currently walk 2-4 miles across Washington, DC every afternoon I work in the city. I would miss seeing the city on foot.

[Bakari]

--I also work in a professional position and would have to clean myself off before work, because I live in humid DC.

you have plenty of other decent reasons, and I'm not trying to convince you in particular, but I wanted to address this point, since it is raised so often.

You said you are currently walking 2-4 miles.  Apparently you don't need to clean off after that, despite the humidity.
I don't understand why so many people assume that just because you are on a bike, you have to ride as fast as possible, as though every commute were a work out.  You don't.  There is no reason you can't ride at the exact same level of effort that it takes to walk.  Just don't push the pedals as hard, and go a little slower.  You will still be going much faster than walking, because of the miracle of the wheel.

[jfer_rose]

--I also work in a professional position and would have to clean myself off before work, because I live in humid DC.

you have plenty of other decent reasons, and I'm not trying to convince you in particular, but I wanted to address this point, since it is raised so often.

You said you are currently walking 2-4 miles.  Apparently you don't need to clean off after that, despite the humidity.
I don't understand why so many people assume that just because you are on a bike, you have to ride as fast as possible, as though every commute were a work out.  You don't.  There is no reason you can't ride at the exact same level of effort that it takes to walk.  Just don't push the pedals as hard, and go a little slower.  You will still be going much faster than walking, because of the miracle of the wheel.

I would like to add to Bakari's point (and I'm not trying to convince you either). At least when you are on a bike, you generate your own breeze. On some hot and humid July/August days, I find I am cooler on my bike than I was other days walking to/from the metro because of that breeze. And I also work a professional job in DC.

[totoro]

I walk everywhere.  I bike sometimes.

My experience on my bike is that it is much easier than walking until I hit a hill.  I can walk an incline without sweating, but biking is a different story.  Maybe it is different for others.

I never need to shower after walking.

[Luck better Skill]

87% of cyclists who are killed are male. I don't think this means they are inherently more at risk but perhaps it means there are a whole lot more men cycling than women? [/quote]

  Interesting.  I do wonder if men bike more hours and miles then women?  In very tiny sample size all the dangerous cycling I have seen, (running red lights, weaving in traffic, etc.), has all been male cyclist.

[oldtoyota]

I don't know if this makes it better or worse, but in any event, its all very interesting:
http://youarenotsosmart.com/about/

This above is funny to me, because it goes both ways. Many here think that biking is the only answer, so they dig around for reasons and stats about why biking is the answer. Then, like tuyop, they say those who do not want to bike are doing so because they read one article about crime or because they are "afraid." Love the blog above. Or, like sheepstache, they go on the attack in order to get people to agree with their way of thinking. People Must Think Like Me!

[oldtoyota]

--I also work in a professional position and would have to clean myself off before work, because I live in humid DC.

you have plenty of other decent reasons, and I'm not trying to convince you in particular, but I wanted to address this point, since it is raised so often.

You said you are currently walking 2-4 miles.  Apparently you don't need to clean off after that, despite the humidity.
I don't understand why so many people assume that just because you are on a bike, you have to ride as fast as possible, as though every commute were a work out.  You don't.  There is no reason you can't ride at the exact same level of effort that it takes to walk.  Just don't push the pedals as hard, and go a little slower.  You will still be going much faster than walking, because of the miracle of the wheel.

I walk 2-4 miles of the way home so, no, I do not have be professional at home. You are correct.

Well, one poster claimed that he would not be attacked because he rides 30 kph on a 35 lb bike. And you are telling me I can ride slow so I won't be sweaty at work. Hm.

[FitStash]

Most of my cycling commute takes place on the road at moderate to high speeds . . . I don't know how you could be ambushed by a roving pack of teens on a four lane road.  If a dangerous situation seemed to be developing, you're going to get away if you're on a bike.  At absolute worst, I'd think about avoiding secluded bike paths if concerned about crime.  Biking on the road is about as safe as it gets though (well, other than ridiculous drivers).

Yeah seriously, I'm usually rolling at like 30kph on a 35-lb bicycle, if someone wants to get in the way of the equivalent of a speeding refrigerator made of muscle and aluminum, that's between them and their god. I'm not too worried about it.

Very poetic, and I feel the same way.

[boy_bye]

--I also work in a professional position and would have to clean myself off before work, because I live in humid DC.

you have plenty of other decent reasons, and I'm not trying to convince you in particular, but I wanted to address this point, since it is raised so often.

You said you are currently walking 2-4 miles.  Apparently you don't need to clean off after that, despite the humidity.
I don't understand why so many people assume that just because you are on a bike, you have to ride as fast as possible, as though every commute were a work out.  You don't.  There is no reason you can't ride at the exact same level of effort that it takes to walk.  Just don't push the pedals as hard, and go a little slower.  You will still be going much faster than walking, because of the miracle of the wheel.

I walk 2-4 miles of the way home so, no, I do not have be professional at home. You are correct.

Well, one poster claimed that he would not be attacked because he rides 30 mph on a 35 lb bike. And you are telling me I can ride slow so I won't be sweaty at work. Hm.

that was 30 Kph, not 30 Mph. big difference.

even at a leisurely bike pace of 8-10 miles per hour, it's gonna be a rare individual who can run you down.

[totoro]

Why would a criminal try to run you down on foot?  Ridiculous plan - who would try that?  Also ridiculous is that because you are going fast you are therefore protected. 

I don't see any advantage vs. intentional assault if you are on a bike path or road because you are going fast.  You seem to forget you are on a bike and can be easily intentionally knocked down by an object or you can break down. 

For example:

1. kicking a bike while passing: http://gothamist.com/2011/05/16/cyclist_assaulted_on_hudson_river_b.php
2. a gang blocks the bike path:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/GANG+SUSPECTS+ATTACK+MAN+ON+BICYCLE+PATH.-a083974461
3. getting stuff thrown at you:
http://bikedenton.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/nannering-assault-spree-against-local-cyclists/
4.  vehicle driver road rage:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/feb/17/driver-jailed-bus-weapon-cyclist
5.  throwing another bike in your path and then using pepper spray:
http://blogging.la/2008/08/21/cyclist-attacked-on-ballona-creek-bikeway-that-police-had-no-idea-existed/

I'm not posting these to stir up fear.  Crime happens whether you are on a bike or on foot or whatever.  I would say that if you are in a high crime rate area I can't see that you are  safer on a bike.

[tuyop]

I'd assume that most of the time these people are using bike paths and going fairly slowly. The first article even says so:

A few of us were all on a #bikenyc tweetup ride with the Bikehugger crew in town cruising slowly up the Greenway, there was never any danger to this guy as he entered the first stripe of the crosswalk, bikes alerted him (he was not looking, w/ noise canceling headphones on), bikes slowed a bit and moved away from him Michael saying 'yo!', he said "no!", Michael said "yo!" again, then this (large) guy yelled "no!" again while kicking out his rear tire very forcefully. It was shocking and seemingly in slow motion since we were riding at such a casual pace. However anomalous, a clear assault, directly related to Mike being on a bike.

I mean yeah if you're just cruising along, someone could mess you up easily. But I don't roll that way, I'm a fucking rocket on a bicycle and you'd have to be mad to try to touch me. Besides, if you're biking on a sidewalk you deserve whatever happens to you.

My comment was kind of facetious but I seriously think cyclists should just use the road. You can get up to speed and behave and be treated like a real vehicle! :3

[oldtoyota]

--I also work in a professional position and would have to clean myself off before work, because I live in humid DC.

you have plenty of other decent reasons, and I'm not trying to convince you in particular, but I wanted to address this point, since it is raised so often.

You said you are currently walking 2-4 miles.  Apparently you don't need to clean off after that, despite the humidity.
I don't understand why so many people assume that just because you are on a bike, you have to ride as fast as possible, as though every commute were a work out.  You don't.  There is no reason you can't ride at the exact same level of effort that it takes to walk.  Just don't push the pedals as hard, and go a little slower.  You will still be going much faster than walking, because of the miracle of the wheel.

I walk 2-4 miles of the way home so, no, I do not have be professional at home. You are correct.

Well, one poster claimed that he would not be attacked because he rides 30 mph on a 35 lb bike. And you are telling me I can ride slow so I won't be sweaty at work. Hm.

that was 30 Kph, not 30 Mph. big difference.

even at a leisurely bike pace of 8-10 miles per hour, it's gonna be a rare individual who can run you down.

Point taken. However, that is even worse. 18 mph is not fast enough to prevent an attack.

The point is that rolling fast on a bike is not going to stop someone from attacking you. That doesn't make sense. Throw a stick in the spokes, or put nails on the path (both of which have been done around here). It's not hard if they don't care about hurting you.

[oldtoyota]

I'd assume that most of the time these people are using bike paths and going fairly slowly. The first article even says so:

A few of us were all on a #bikenyc tweetup ride with the Bikehugger crew in town cruising slowly up the Greenway, there was never any danger to this guy as he entered the first stripe of the crosswalk, bikes alerted him (he was not looking, w/ noise canceling headphones on), bikes slowed a bit and moved away from him Michael saying 'yo!', he said "no!", Michael said "yo!" again, then this (large) guy yelled "no!" again while kicking out his rear tire very forcefully. It was shocking and seemingly in slow motion since we were riding at such a casual pace. However anomalous, a clear assault, directly related to Mike being on a bike.

I mean yeah if you're just cruising along, someone could mess you up easily. But I don't roll that way, I'm a fucking rocket on a bicycle and you'd have to be mad to try to touch me. Besides, if you're biking on a sidewalk you deserve whatever happens to you.

My comment was kind of facetious but I seriously think cyclists should just use the road. You can get up to speed and behave and be treated like a real vehicle! :3

I think a gang could push you down easy--nails, rocks, multiple people, large tree branches blocking the path, etc. We were talking about a bike path and not a sidewalk.

[oldtoyota]

Why would a criminal try to run you down on foot?  Ridiculous plan - who would try that?  Also ridiculous is that because you are going fast you are therefore protected. 

I don't see any advantage vs. intentional assault if you are on a bike path or road because you are going fast.  You seem to forget you are on a bike and can be easily intentionally knocked down by an object or you can break down. 

For example:

1. kicking a bike while passing: http://gothamist.com/2011/05/16/cyclist_assaulted_on_hudson_river_b.php
2. a gang blocks the bike path:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/GANG+SUSPECTS+ATTACK+MAN+ON+BICYCLE+PATH.-a083974461
3. getting stuff thrown at you:
http://bikedenton.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/nannering-assault-spree-against-local-cyclists/
4.  vehicle driver road rage:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/feb/17/driver-jailed-bus-weapon-cyclist
5.  throwing another bike in your path and then using pepper spray:
http://blogging.la/2008/08/21/cyclist-attacked-on-ballona-creek-bikeway-that-police-had-no-idea-existed/

I'm not posting these to stir up fear.  Crime happens whether you are on a bike or on foot or whatever.  I would say that if you are in a high crime rate area I can't see that you are  safer on a bike.

Thank you. Exactly. Moving fast on a bike doesn't prevent crime.

[Bakari]

Holey moley!

I thought I have lived in bad neighborhoods, but I was envisioning the random lone mugger in the dark, who goes after whoever is easiest and just wants your wallet, or the group of teens who try to start a fight for fun.   Both are probably less likely to bother trying to chase down a cyclist, although of course its still possible.  Then again, people get car jacked at red lights too, so unless you are in an armored vehicle, there are no guarantees.

But now yall are talking about booby traps!?!?

Thats just nuts.  If that is really anything but a once every few years sort of random occurrence, I'd be carrying an expandable baton, Fox brand pepper spray, and have local PD on speed dial 9 on the phone, whether I was walking, biking, on the train, or in my car.  I'd also be seriously considering moving to a different city.

[destron]

I walk everywhere.  I bike sometimes.

My experience on my bike is that it is much easier than walking until I hit a hill.  I can walk an incline without sweating, but biking is a different story.  Maybe it is different for others.

I never need to shower after walking.

You can always get off the bike and walk up the hill.

[totoro]

Yes, you could.  Of course, pushing a bike uphill is more sweat-inducing (in my experience) than walking up a hill without a bike.

[destron]

Yes, you could.  Of course, pushing a bike uphill is more sweat-inducing (in my experience) than walking up a hill without a bike.

Walking in the heat is more sweat-inducing (in my experience) than riding a bike at a slow to moderate pace. YMMV.

[destron]

I don't know if this makes it better or worse, but in any event, its all very interesting:
http://youarenotsosmart.com/about/

This above is funny to me, because it goes both ways. Many here think that biking is the only answer, so they dig around for reasons and stats about why biking is the answer. Then, like tuyop, they say those who do not want to bike are doing so because they read one article about crime or because they are "afraid." Love the blog above. Or, like sheepstache, they go on the attack in order to get people to agree with their way of thinking. People Must Think Like Me!

This thread was started by people trying to start a discussion (one might say argument based on the tone) about whether biking was for everyone -- how could you come to that conclusion? Some of the no-bike posters go to lengths to prove that they cannot bike for tiny reasons XYZ when, in reality, they have the only reason they need: they don't want to bike! But if that is the case, why come to a forum where they know most of the people will disagree with them to start an argument?

[totoro]

Yes, you could.  Of course, pushing a bike uphill is more sweat-inducing (in my experience) than walking up a hill without a bike.

Walking in the heat is more sweat-inducing (in my experience) than riding a bike at a slow to moderate pace. YMMV.

Might be individual and climate based, this does not happen for me while walking.  I think it is just fine to bike if you like it and it works for you. 

It is also fine not to if you feel it is too dangerous or you have thought about it carefully and made a different choice for good reason. 

I don't think it is okay to drive everywhere when you could make reasonable alternative choices which could include relocating, biking, walking, running, or mass transit.  Financially, health-wise and environmentally speaking, driving short distances just has too many downsides when there are other reasonable alternatives.

My choice is to relocate so I can walk everywhere.  I enjoy walking a lot. I do almost everything this way.  YMMV

[MrsPete]

Why are some of you bent out of shape about whether strangers on the internet agree with your conclusion?  It's not that personal a topic!  State your point, consider other people's comments, change your opinion if they present an argument you hadn't considered . . . but don't worry about whether others agree or disagree!  Is your self-worth really degraded so badly because someone else disagrees with you? 

[totoro]

I don't think anyone who has said they wouldn't bike has had tiny reasons.  Crime sucks.  I would move, but that is me.  Travelling long distances for work sucks.  Again, I would move if it was an option.  This is where more of my time and energy would go in these situations as opposed to focussing on mode of transportation. 

I myself am a big fan of non-car transport.  I'm upset to see my neighbour drives her child SIX blocks to school and herself SEVEN blocks to work (and pays for parking) each day.  What is with that??  And yes, the whole family is pretty unhealthy- looking.

I make my kids walk or bike everywhere.  They enjoy it now.  Part of this has just become habit.  My youngest child in particular thinks nothing of walking an hour to his friend`s house.  We live in a really safe area and he enjoys it.
 
That said, if you have truly evaluated risk vs. benefit and the benefit comes up short without a bunch of rationalizations  I see no reason to bully someone into biking because you are an avid cyclist.

As far as just not wanting to bike, I`m okay with that too if you are getting enough exercise otherwise and doing what you can to minimize driving.

[totoro]

Why are some of you bent out of shape about whether strangers on the internet agree with your conclusion?  It's not that personal a topic!  State your point, consider other people's comments, change your opinion if they present an argument you hadn't considered . . . but don't worry about whether others agree or disagree!  Is your self-worth really degraded so badly because someone else disagrees with you?

Agreed. 

[DoubleDown]

Holey moley!

I thought I have lived in bad neighborhoods, but I was envisioning the random lone mugger in the dark, who goes after whoever is easiest and just wants your wallet, or the group of teens who try to start a fight for fun.   Both are probably less likely to bother trying to chase down a cyclist, although of course its still possible.  Then again, people get car jacked at red lights too, so unless you are in an armored vehicle, there are no guarantees.

But now yall are talking about booby traps!?!?

Thats just nuts.  If that is really anything but a once every few years sort of random occurrence, I'd be carrying an expandable baton, Fox brand pepper spray, and have local PD on speed dial 9 on the phone, whether I was walking, biking, on the train, or in my car.  I'd also be seriously considering moving to a different city.

The OP has been notoriously evasive/coy (IMO) about specifying the trail in question, but I think those of us in the DC region are assuming it's the Capital Crescent trail, which has had some notorious (i.e., highly publicized by local media) crime incidents. Grown men have been attacked/robbed for trinkets like cell phones, for example. This particular trail goes through a section of DC and Prince George's County that can be pretty rough. Worse, I think it's got some choke points just made for criminals -- e.g., passing through tunnels or other walled-off parts of the trail where there is no escape if you meet trouble.

I have no idea what the incidence of crime is on that trail relative to how many people travel it every day. I'm guessing the truth is it's somewhere between a very safe suburban area and the hysteria created by the media. There's no doubt there have been serious crimes on that trail, but I think I see one reported about every 3-6 months in the media, so hardly a war zone. I would travel it, but I wouldn't let my kids to travel on it (maybe overprotective in that regard).

[jfer_rose]

Nope, DoubleDown, the hubub I have heard recently was not about the Capital Crescent Trail. Here's a link to a story about the incident I heard about:

http://dcist.com/2013/06/cyclist_beaten_along_metropolitan_b.php

[hybrid]

A funny thing happened on the way to work today....

I took the bus in to work, and my bike was mounted on the front of the bus.  At a bus stop a few miles from downtown (and a block over from the route I ride home, which I described before as a working class neighborhood) an old man started taking my bike off the front rack.  The bus driver immediately called out and asked who the owner of the bike was, and I sprang up from my seat and confronted the guy.  The old man claimed the bike was about to fall off the rack and he was simply adjusing it before it fell.  I thanked him, adjusted it myself, and got back on the bus.

Now, the bike had been mounted on the bus for a good six miles with nothing happening to this point.....  Everyone on the bus (many from this same neighborhood) agreed the man was simply trying to grab a bike at a stop and hope no one was paying attention.  Fortunately the bus driver was paying very close attention.  We all got a good laugh out of it afterwards.  And I have no intention of changing my bus riding plans when I cannot carpool with my Mustachian Buddy.  Just one of those things, but I may sit closer to the front of the bus going forward to keep a closer eye on the bike.

To Bakari, I simply must offer the following.... Had the older guy been a younger guy and the person confronting him been a 5' 4" 110 year old young lady instead of a 5' 11' guy nearly 100 pounds heavier and been around the block a few times, how much more likely do you think it would have been that the bike would have gone bye-bye?  Size, age, physical strength, and demeanor DOES in fact make a difference in some situations....   :)

[pop pop!]

I'm not statistician, but it seems that most of the discussion on statistics forgets how framing the data can impact your impressions.  In MMM's article on this, he cited the statistic that cycling has a fatality rate of 6.9 deaths per 100 million miles. You'll have to forgive me if I get a decimal in the wrong place, but I think this means that for every mile on a bike one's chance of dying is: 6.9/100,000,000 = 0.000000069, or 0.0000069%.  Taken in isolation, does that seem like a dangerous activity to you?  Now, let's ask how it compares to the cited chance of dying in a car, per mile driven: 1.11/100,000,000 = 0.000000011 or 0.0000011%?  They both seem pretty small to me, and it's not clear which one is riskier without counting the zeros.  How about when you're told that biking based on these statistics alone biking is more than SIX TIMES MORE DANGEROUS than driving?  My God, do you want to DIE?!?

Framing the issue makes a ton of difference in how you perceive risk. Comparison to the baseline (driving) exaggerates (in my opinion) the actual risk (SIX times the risk of death! You must be INSANE to bike!), while looking at the absolute risk of death, makes it seem much more reasonable. 

Just my $.02, which is .0000000000001185% of the national debt. .

[newideas2013]

I wasn't a big fan of the "proof" in that biking article. Some cities are just dangerous to bike in. There are certain roads that simply cannot be shared, they might have a 60 speed zone but people routinely do 90. Maybe the lanes are a bit too narrow. I don't like parts of my city, the traffic lights and telephone poles are inches from the curb, easily clipped with your handlebars. The roads are just a little too narrow. People speed. People have road rage. And people despise bikers, just like they despise buses which slow down 2 lanes of traffic, force a series of merges into the left lane to ride around said obstacle (whether its a stopped car with its 4 ways on, a biker, a bus, a utility company) drivers hate that.

Driving can be dangerous too, people often forget it. And biking on back roads is nice. There are more and more bike paths. But there are also extreme danger zones and any article which fails to admit the honest truth is being one-sided, which that article was.

[Jamesqf]

...but I think this means that for every mile on a bike one's chance of dying is: 6.9/100,000,000 = 0.000000069, or 0.0000069%.

Humm...  Wonder what one's per-mile chance of dying from sitting on the couch is?

Just goes to show that deaths per-mile is the wrong metric.  For commuting, it should be something like deaths per day, and leave out all the deaths that occur when the driving or riding is just for recreation.

[Eric]

Humm...  Wonder what one's per-mile chance of dying from sitting on the couch is?

Infinity deaths per mile of couch travel.  My advice -- DON'T DO IT!

[Bakari]

I was speaking in generalities there, but it applied specifically to the same two individuals. 

I didn't realize that.  I was speaking in generalities, and was referring to generalities.

To Bakari, I simply must offer the following.... Had the older guy been a younger guy and the person confronting him been a 5' 4" 110 year old young lady instead of a 5' 11' guy nearly 100 pounds heavier and been around the block a few times, how much more likely do you think it would have been that the bike would have gone bye-bye?  Size, age, physical strength, and demeanor DOES in fact make a difference in some situations....   :)

Well, in my personal experience and observation, the sort of people who do things knowing they are likely to cause confrontation with a stranger are much more aggressive with males (of any size) than with females, though I wouldn't claim that was universally true.

More over, much of my point was drawing attention to our automatically equating "female" with vulnerable (again, in general, not you and your daughter).  I know quite a few 5'4" men.  I know males who are very young, and very old, and very timid.  I know females who are stronger than the average male, and others who are taller, and plenty who are aggressive.
I learned by being a 5'6", 120lb security guard that demeanor counts for more than size.  I started that job very shy and timid and quiet, and finished it able to command reluctant respect from huge angry drunk guys.

Say the smaller women had jumped off the bus to confront the guy.  Is he really going to take a swing at her?  In front of a bus full of witnesses?  Who is more likely to have other passengers come to their aid, her or you?  I wonder if being a big guy doesn't confer a similar false sense of security as being in a steel cage gives to drivers.  They aren't exactly knife or bullet proof, after all.  I suppose that could partially account for the twice as high rate of male victims of violence by strangers

[hybrid]

Say the smaller women had jumped off the bus to confront the guy.  Is he really going to take a swing at her?  In front of a bus full of witnesses?  Who is more likely to have other passengers come to their aid, her or you?  I wonder if being a big guy doesn't confer a similar false sense of security as being in a steel cage gives to drivers.  They aren't exactly knife or bullet proof, after all.  I suppose that could partially account for the twice as high rate of male victims of violence by strangers

I think you are missing my point here.  Some guy was ballsy enough to try to get away with my bike in broad daylight with a bunch of people around and I confronted him, and he backed off when confronted.  If this guy were younger and quicker, he might have simply tried to make a run for it with the bike.  If the person scrambling to get off the bus to stop him were a smaller woman than a bigger guy, I think the reality is he might have thought "**** it, she isn't going to be able to stop me, I can get past her easy enough if I have to, this bike is mine...."  This was a case of theft, not assault.  Oh, and in my case, everyone was so surprised at what was happening that everyone was frozen in their seat except for me, because I could see someone messing with my bike.  I don't know if gender of crime victim made much of a difference here.  Like I said, a younger and faster guy might have grabbed the bike quicker and had a better chance of pulling it off, and it wouldn't have mattered who else jumped up after the fact to help out, the thief would have been hauling ass down the block on his new ride.

Now I would agree with you that confronting the guy messing with your bike is much more likely to provoke an incident, but it's also a whole lot better way to keep a bike.

     

[Mrs MM]

I mostly browsed through the comments and didn't read through everything, but to those who say they will never bike, I say TRY IT.  Everything is worth trying once. 

Long ago, when I first met MMM he was a big biking enthusiast.  I didn't even own a bike.  I lived in a big city (Ottawa).  Somehow, I never once even thought that biking might not be safe.  I had a lot of excuses, but that wasn't one of them.  Then I started doing it.  I remember throwing my bike on the ground in frustration, I remember huffing and puffing up hills and feeling really out of shape, I remember having to turn around on a bike ride with friends at the 10km mark because I just couldn't keep up or do it anymore.  I once flipped over my handlebars on a hill because I had no idea how to go downhill.  I remember some difficulties at the beginning, but now it is all pure, complete joy.  I would MUCH RATHER ride my bike than drive almost all the time.  I'd rather ride my bike than walk because it is way faster.  I just love biking now and about 10 years ago, I didn't even own a bike and hadn't ridden since I was a kid.

All I can say is that I tried it.  I persevered through hard times (well, they weren't really that hard).  Yeah, I had MMM with me and encouraging me (and occasionally laughing at me), but it was a great experience.  Maybe some people enjoy trying new things (like me) and others don't?  I don't know...

I'm a small 105 lb woman and I feel comfortable biking nearly anywhere.  I know there are sketchy neighborhoods around that I probably wouldn't want to bike through (although I'd much rather quickly bike past than walk!), but if I lived there, I would seriously think about moving.  I feel confident in my biking abilities, which probably has a lot to do with it.

There is also this great concept of taking public transportation AND biking.  Or biking AND walking.  You can get off your bike and walk on the sidewalk for areas you are worried about.  You can also bike to a bus/train station, then take public transit.  If you're lucky, they might even let you bring your bike with you.

Biking is awesome.  Try it for a while and you'll be a convert soon enough.  :)

[totoro]

I mostly browsed through the comments and didn't read through everything, but to those who say they will never bike, I say TRY IT.  Everything is worth trying once. 

Long ago, when I first met MMM he was a big biking enthusiast.  I didn't even own a bike.  I lived in a big city (Ottawa).  Somehow, I never once even thought that biking might not be safe.  I had a lot of excuses, but that wasn't one of them.  Then I started doing it.  I remember throwing my bike on the ground in frustration, I remember huffing and puffing up hills and feeling really out of shape, I remember having to turn around on a bike ride with friends at the 10km mark because I just couldn't keep up or do it anymore.  I once flipped over my handlebars on a hill because I had no idea how to go downhill.  I remember some difficulties at the beginning, but now it is all pure, complete joy.  I would MUCH RATHER ride my bike than drive almost all the time.  I'd rather ride my bike than walk because it is way faster.  I just love biking now and about 10 years ago, I didn't even own a bike and hadn't ridden since I was a kid.

All I can say is that I tried it.  I persevered through hard times (well, they weren't really that hard).  Yeah, I had MMM with me and encouraging me (and occasionally laughing at me), but it was a great experience.  Maybe some people enjoy trying new things (like me) and others don't?  I don't know...

I'm a small 105 lb woman and I feel comfortable biking nearly anywhere.  I know there are sketchy neighborhoods around that I probably wouldn't want to bike through (although I'd much rather quickly bike past than walk!), but if I lived there, I would seriously think about moving.  I feel confident in my biking abilities, which probably has a lot to do with it.

There is also this great concept of taking public transportation AND biking.  Or biking AND walking.  You can get off your bike and walk on the sidewalk for areas you are worried about.  You can also bike to a bus/train station, then take public transit.  If you're lucky, they might even let you bring your bike with you.

Biking is awesome.  Try it for a while and you'll be a convert soon enough.  :)

You might want to read the comments first because no-one who has posted is saying anything different as far as I can tell, nor has anyone said they will never bike anywhere.

I said I preferred to walk most of the time because I live centrally, I enjoy it, and I have time - walking is good exercise and I can shop with a rolling cart thingy and transport lots of big items this way. I have biked a lot in the past and do own a bike.  I dislike biking on busy streets, but I don't need to because of my location. 

Others have said that they are not biking because they have practical reasons why it won't work for them including:

1. high crime rate areas - I agree that moving might be a good thing to consider
2. impractical for their work because of need to transport lots of stuff and lack of time in their day - I would agree based on what they have posted - I would consider moving closer to work myself

The other point made is that biking is a per hour risk and not per mile.  It is higher risk than driving, but the risk is really low and well worth it imo.

I think everyone has agreed that biking/public transit/walking are much better than driving for environmental, health and/or financial reasons.

[Rollin]

I mostly browsed through the comments and didn't read through everything, but to those who say they will never bike, I say TRY IT.  Everything is worth trying once. 

Long ago, when I first met MMM he was a big biking enthusiast.  I didn't even own a bike.  I lived in a big city (Ottawa).  Somehow, I never once even thought that biking might not be safe.  I had a lot of excuses, but that wasn't one of them.  Then I started doing it.  I remember throwing my bike on the ground in frustration, I remember huffing and puffing up hills and feeling really out of shape, I remember having to turn around on a bike ride with friends at the 10km mark because I just couldn't keep up or do it anymore.  I once flipped over my handlebars on a hill because I had no idea how to go downhill.  I remember some difficulties at the beginning, but now it is all pure, complete joy.  I would MUCH RATHER ride my bike than drive almost all the time.  I'd rather ride my bike than walk because it is way faster.  I just love biking now and about 10 years ago, I didn't even own a bike and hadn't ridden since I was a kid.

All I can say is that I tried it.  I persevered through hard times (well, they weren't really that hard).  Yeah, I had MMM with me and encouraging me (and occasionally laughing at me), but it was a great experience.  Maybe some people enjoy trying new things (like me) and others don't?  I don't know...

I'm a small 105 lb woman and I feel comfortable biking nearly anywhere.  I know there are sketchy neighborhoods around that I probably wouldn't want to bike through (although I'd much rather quickly bike past than walk!), but if I lived there, I would seriously think about moving.  I feel confident in my biking abilities, which probably has a lot to do with it.

There is also this great concept of taking public transportation AND biking.  Or biking AND walking.  You can get off your bike and walk on the sidewalk for areas you are worried about.  You can also bike to a bus/train station, then take public transit.  If you're lucky, they might even let you bring your bike with you.

Biking is awesome.  Try it for a while and you'll be a convert soon enough.  :)

You might want to read the comments first because no-one who has posted is saying anything different as far as I can tell, nor has anyone said they will never bike anywhere.

I said I preferred to walk most of the time because I live centrally, I enjoy it, and I have time - walking is good exercise and I can shop with a rolling cart thingy and transport lots of big items this way. I have biked a lot in the past and do own a bike.  I dislike biking on busy streets, but I don't need to because of my location. 

Others have said that they are not biking because they have practical reasons why it won't work for them including:

1. high crime rate areas - I agree that moving might be a good thing to consider
2. impractical for their work because of need to transport lots of stuff and lack of time in their day - I would agree based on what they have posted - I would consider moving closer to work myself

The other point made is that biking is a per hour risk and not per mile.  It is higher risk than driving, but the risk is really low and well worth it imo.

I think everyone has agreed that biking/public transit/walking are much better than driving for environmental, health and/or financial reasons.

I bike a lot - almost everywhere, but if things were closer I'd pick walking first.  Much more simple, no bike to lock up, and I like the pace - it seems natural.  I sometimes even find myself getting off the bus one stop further away from my normal stop just to have a few extra minutes/steps.

[totoro]

"The other point made is that biking is a per hour risk and not per mile.  It is higher risk than driving, but the risk is really low and well worth it imo."

Biking vs. driving is a per mile risk NOT a per hour risk - got it switched.  You are replacing biking with driving so it is distance and not time that is used to measure because the same miles are travelled.

[Jamesqf]

Biking vs. driving is a per mile risk NOT a per hour risk - got it switched.  You are replacing biking with driving so it is distance and not time that is used to measure because the same miles are travelled.

Wrong.  The problem is with how the bike risk stats (and to some extent the car ones) were derived, not with your personal commute.  You can't reasonably use the stats to determine your per-mile commute risk.

The same is true with driving: risk per mile doesn't tell you much.  Is it riskier to drive coast-to-coast on an interstate, or to drive the same number of miles commuting in a major urban area?