The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: oldtoyota on June 16, 2013, 02:06:18 PM
-
Although I will bike more often near home and/or will walk for errands near home, I will not be biking to work.
Crime here is too awful. A biking commuter just got clobbered by a pack of teenagers. They did not even steal anything so what is the motive? They just wanted to beat someone up. Sadly, this is not the first time people have been attacked on the biking trails.
I know MMM just wrote about how safe it is to bike, so I imagine crime must be a lot lower in CO.
I can take the train and have arranged two telework days, I am going to cruise with that for a bit and see how it goes.
Dealing with cars is really the least of my problems with bike commuting.
-
I was thinking about that story when I was reading MMM's latest post about the safety of cycling. There have been a number of similar attacks in that same spot over the years since that particular bike path was built. It goes right past my office, but I haven't been brave enough to try it.
-
Which city are we talking about?
-
This is nuts. I'm sorry to hear that happened, what a horrible story. :-(
Thinking about taping a 4 battery mag light to my bike frame myself.
-
The fact that you heard about this incident has no bearing on how dangerous it actually is. You know that, right? Do you know the actual statistics on attacks on cyclists?
Do you know what your risk of being attacked on the train or in the station is?
Do you know what your risk of cardiovascular disease is?
There have been a number of similar attacks in that same spot over the years since that particular bike path was built.
"A number"? "Over the years"? Yes, it sounds like you've done some rigorous thinking about this ;)
Personally I know a number of people who have been in car accidents, so I refuse to get around by car.
-
Thinking about taping a 4 battery mag light to my bike frame myself.
To use as a weapon to defend yourself? Would not want to get smacked in the head with one of those! :)
-
Although I will bike more often near home and/or will walk for errands near home, I will not be biking to work.
Crime here is too awful. A biking commuter just got clobbered by a pack of teenagers. They did not even steal anything so what is the motive? They just wanted to beat someone up. Sadly, this is not the first time people have been attacked on the biking trails.
I know MMM just wrote about how safe it is to bike, so I imagine crime must be a lot lower in CO.
I can take the train and have arranged two telework days, I am going to cruise with that for a bit and see how it goes.
Dealing with cars is really the least of my problems with bike commuting.
I'm with you. People can talk about bike commuting and spit off facts until they're blue in the face, it's just not for me. Give me public transportation any day, especially since my employer pays for it, plus telework once a week (or more when needed). I get most of my reading done on buses and trains. I love to read and would definitely feel a void if I didn't read regularly during my commute. And reading to me means holding an actual book or magazine rather than listening to an audiobook while biking. I'm a runner and get plenty of other regular exercise elsewhere.
-
You have interesting questions--although you come off sounding angry.
At any rate, as a previous poster noted, this particular area of the trail has been a problem. Bikers get attacked. Do I know the stats? No. However, I know that more of my neighbors have been attacked on the trails more than they have been attacked in the train.
If you read Derridas, it makes sense. People commit crimes if they think they are not being watched. Panopticon, etc, etc.
These are the crimes I know about:
--robbed at gunpoint (this was walking home from the metro)
--raped (3 women on the trail near the metro)
--beaten (I know of at least three incidents).
I like not being raped and I like my teeth to stay in my head, so I'll take WFH or the metro over that trail any day of the week. =-)
My risk of CVD seems like a red herring. Are you trying to say I will get CVD by not biking?
The fact that you heard about this incident has no bearing on how dangerous it actually is. You know that, right? Do you know the actual statistics on attacks on cyclists?
Do you know what your risk of being attacked on the train or in the station is?
Do you know what your risk of cardiovascular disease is?
There have been a number of similar attacks in that same spot over the years since that particular bike path was built.
"A number"? "Over the years"? Yes, it sounds like you've done some rigorous thinking about this ;)
Personally I know a number of people who have been in car accidents, so I refuse to get around by car.
-
Ummmm.....have you considered moving? I do not and would not ride a bike on the streets here for safety reasons. I also would not live in your neighborhood for safety reasons. Whether you are on a bike, on foot, or reading a book in your own house, the risk where you live is too high.
-
I won't either, but for different reasons. I'm a fan of very safe neighbourhoods so crime, other than having my bike stolen (which is a bigger risk than having a car stolen) is not really a risk.
I also work from home most of the time and when I need to travel it needs to be by car.
It turns out though, that biking is not the safest form of transport for me, walking is, because I live centrally the family can walk everywhere (rec centre, schools, grocery). I also enjoy walking a lot.
I think biking is generally good, but not safer than driving because:
1. MMM has worked out the safety rate/hour and used this to establish that bikes are as safe as cars because cars cover more ground per hour and it is a per km risk. However, it takes longer to bike the same distance (6.25x by MMM calculations), so the risk/km is not altered really – it may in fact be a bit higher given that you are substituting bikes for cars on journey's less than 75 miles.
2. Death is not the only risk, as we know from this post. While attack-related incidences are reported, other injuries are also a safety risk and , unlike death or car accidents in general, we know from research into hospital records that only a fraction of bicycle crashes causing injury are ever recorded by the police, possibly as low as ten percent. http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/facts/crash-facts.cfm. The point is that if there is a 6.2x risk of death from cycling, then injury is also likely to be higher and long-term lifespan exercise benefits are uncertain in relation to injury. Injury seems to cause more time taken from exercise as far as I can tell and generally makes daily living a bit more onerous, sometimes forever.
3. The average age of cyclists who are killed is 41: Of course, this is mitigated for women a bit because 87% of those killed are male. http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/facts/crash-facts.cfm
4. If I had to choose between injury that alters my life or death at 41 and one or more extra years of life at 86 (the age my grandma died), guess which one I’d choose. More time at the end of life does not compensate for making it to 70, at least in my books. More healthy time does so exercise is great goal.
5. Many people have a home gym so they spend no time commuting to the gym at all. Secondly, if it is sedentary time that is the life shortener then it is bad news for those who sit all day to work – like me. It might make more sense to set up a walking treadmill desk if that is how we should be measuring things. I’m considering it: http://www.calebclark.org/?p=5844
So I like the idea of an exercise fountain of youth and I do believe biking is good for your health and generally low risk and to be promoted highly, but I don’t believe it is the safest form of transportation or even makes sense for everyone.
-
I'd still like to know where "here" is. Washington DC? I saw a reference to the Metro. And if so, which part?
If my adult daughter were taking the exact same path I take home from work each day I would tell her I think it's a bad idea, the area is not safe enough for a 110 pound 25 year old female. But for me, a 200 pound 46 year old guy who used to deliver mail in a bunch of working class neighborhoods, I don't think twice about it.
I think each circumstance has to be considered on its own merits. Since oldtoyota didn't provide many, really hard to say whether oldtoyota had a debatable point or not. oldtoyota, care to illuminate?
All these anecdotes and selective facts and figures remind me a lot of the recent gun debates. I know guys who carry concealed because they want to feel "safe". Big guys who are rarely, if ever, in the kinds of places most gun violence occurs. One in particular has two kids. There is just plain no telling him that he is in greater danger of an accidental shooting or domestic violence than the very rare (yet still greater than 0 probability) suburban home invasion where he will be home and with his sidearm at the ready, but because he is a slave to his irrational fear there is no amount of logic that will resonate with him.
To all the posters I would ask you consider the individual merits. Some places are bike friendly, some aren't. Some cyclists are big guys, some cyclist are smaller women. Some parts of the country are very safe, others not so much. YMMV.
-
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.
-
You have interesting questions--although you come off sounding angry.
At any rate, as a previous poster noted, this particular area of the trail has been a problem. Bikers get attacked. Do I know the stats? No. However, I know that more of my neighbors have been attacked on the trails more than they have been attacked in the train.
If you read Derridas, it makes sense. People commit crimes if they think they are not being watched. Panopticon, etc, etc.
These are the crimes I know about:
--robbed at gunpoint (this was walking home from the metro)
--raped (3 women on the trail near the metro)
--beaten (I know of at least three incidents).
I like not being raped and I like my teeth to stay in my head, so I'll take WFH or the metro over that trail any day of the week. =-)
My risk of CVD seems like a red herring. Are you trying to say I will get CVD by not biking?
You are correct. 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 see it in my neighborhood. People allow themselves to be afraid of young black men, therefore young black men get used to being treated like criminals. People convince themselves that every one of their neighbors is dangerous and therefore will not go speak to a neighbor in person about a noise concern but will instead call the police on them, further lowering the quality of life and respect between individuals. Women are convinced they will be raped or murdered if they are on the subway late at night, therefore the subway trains are emptier at night, which, if you believe Derrida, leads to more crime. I get angry when people are ignorant of other countries because they are convinced that travel is dangerous. I get angry when our government ignores science because apparently nobody can understand statistics. I get angry when people vote a certain way because they are convinced government spending has or has not grown under the current president. Now, I have a higher risk tolerance for some of these things due to personality or whatever, so I try to be sympathetic to those who have a clear understanding of the risk but are simply more easily frightened than I am or who don't feel as negatively as I do about the alternatives. But what I can not tolerate is people who make decisions without lifting a finger to see whether their assumptions or reasoning are correct.
I also got extremely angry once at a friend who insisted that you were more likely to win a jackpot from a slot machine that was played more often. And I get angry at my husband for refusing to understand the Monty Hall problem. So, while I think I am not an angry person in general, apparently there is something about deliberate ignorance of basic probability that really chaps my hide.
It also bugs me on a mustachian level when people simply shrug and give up about a problem. Can you alter your behavior in any way to increase your chances of positive outcomes? Can you get the city to re-evaluate the bike route? Can you suggest security cameras be installed? Or hey, could you, I don't know, take a different route rather than the trail? If the answers to these questions are either 'no' or 'the time it would take is not worth it to me,' that's totally fine.
Do I think you will get CVD? No, again, it is necessary to evaluate likelihood rather than speaking in absolute terms. And I'm asking it as a question because I don't know about your life. If you do not get sufficient exercise otherwise, then I would imagine the trade off is not worth it. I've seen a couple studies about this, like this guy: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920084/ I like that one because it's not comparing it to the risk of driving a car like many other similar studies do since that's not what we're talking about here. You'd want to look into the crime statistics in the areas they cite and compare them to your area, of course, but then the Netherlands has lower CVD rates too. There's some more interesting info here http://www.ubcmj.com/pdf/ubcmj_3_2_2012_6-11.pdf Very helpful since it cites a bunch of studies at the end that you can follow up with.
I mean, here's the other thing. If you have thought about it and decided that for whatever reason cycling to work is not for you, why bother posting a thread defending your personal decision? I don't get it.
Totoro, on the question of risk evaluated in terms of both hours spent on the road and distance traveled, you might find this page interesting: http://www.phred.org/~alex/kenkifer/www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm
As to your point #3, does the average age of bike riders skew lower than the general population?
Out of curiosity, are there things individuals could do about the problem? For example, do cyclists who receive training in road safety skills end up with fewer injuries? What percentage of cyclists who get into accidents are recreational cyclists rather than commuters, i.e., does more experience result in more safety?
People like Frugal in DC I have no issue with. Some other transportation option optimizes your happiness? Terrific. (I have no idea why y'all are agreeing with each other since you're saying different things, but that's a different thing.)
-
If my adult daughter were taking the exact same path I take home from work each day I would tell her I think it's a bad idea, the area is not safe enough for a 110 pound 25 year old female. But for me, a 200 pound 46 year old guy who used to deliver mail in a bunch of working class neighborhoods, I don't think twice about it.
What are you basing this on? Are you assuming that females are more likely to be victims of violent crime? Are you assuming younger or smaller people are more likely to be victims? And if so, where did you learn this?
(Lest I seem confrontational, I appreciated your points in the rest of your post and liked how you made them. The gun example in particular was a calmer and more concise version of what I was trying to get at in my previous post. Ditto for your and Mrs. Pete's point that individual circumstances are individual.)
-
Still waiting to learn where "here" is. If it's a civilized place, carry your choice of defensive weapon - anything from tear gas spray to a .38.
-
I think the OP has demonstrated her neighborhood does not qualify as "civilized"....
-
OK, so if you don't bike to work we won't kick you out haha. After all, just because MMM might choose to jump off a cliff doesn't mean you have to too. He thinks it's a great idea and can see the benefits for himself, but those same benefits may not be there for you, so just choose the bits of the Mustachian way that are applicable to your life, and post some more if you come up with other great ideas so that we can all evaluate our own options. Nothing to stress about.
-
Back when I went to grad school in Detroit (Wayne State University) biking was also considered far too dangerous. I never had to, because I was able to either walk anywhere (everything of importance was on or right next to campus) or hitch a ride with a friend (didn't have a car back then either) but a friend of mine did and never had any trouble.
-
Wow. I think I know the trail that is being discussed. But after hearing about the awful and brutal attack, I never once thought of changing my behavior. Since I already bike regularly and see so many other people on bikes, I guess I have a sense of just how rare this sort of thing is. Yes it is horrible, but the odds of something similar happening to you, or to someone you know, are just so low. Also, I've been following the efforts to make the trail safer, patrols by the Guardian Angels, etc. Also, the more people who bike, the safer it will be for everyone.
-
I'm thinking about about biking to work. as I type on my phone I am on the eliptical at gym which I do every morning. Boring. Catch- I work in one of the worst areas of town. Poverty shootings, etc. and I grew up on the wrong side of the tracks so I'm not one to overreact, but I also want to be sensible.
I already had doubts about isolating myself on the bike trail. Now I definitely won't take it. Not enough riders. I'll risk the visibility on a heavy traffic road any day over isolation.
Carrying is out because I work for the government, or I'd think about it. I'll probably bring a huge can of spray though. We will see if I get the nerve to do this!
-
Oh man I love how much fear gets posted regarding bike commuting.
-
We've had a couple attacks over the years on trails over by the University, but given all the traffic they get, it's not a major concern. I'm more likely to get run over by a car out riding on the street (that happens every month or 2 around here it seems). I live in a low crime area, but things still happen. In the last few months just within a half mile 2 fast food places have been robbed at knifepoint and the ice cream shop was burglarized. After years of nothing happening... Sometimes there's just clusters of crime...
So, make sure you calculate the risk properly. Perhaps it is too dangerous to do. Perhaps not. I see that you're unable to carry a firearm (which has it's own huge cost/risk/benefit calculation to perform), but perhaps there's some other mitigation strategy that you can pursue.
In my case, I drive to work as cycling would be a long ride through some bad neighborhoods, whereas the drive is a nice drive on the expressway (which goes over nice 'hoods). My errands are run on bike and foot as much as possible as I can mostly stick to good areas. I do choose to carry a firearm when it's legal and will not introduce any additional problems. Sometimes my calculation says to leave it home, so I do.
No need to be angry about not being able to bike right now. See if there's anything you can (is it something that needs to be brought to the attention of the local news?) do to change the situation and do the best you can for now.
-
If my adult daughter were taking the exact same path I take home from work each day I would tell her I think it's a bad idea, the area is not safe enough for a 110 pound 25 year old female. But for me, a 200 pound 46 year old guy who used to deliver mail in a bunch of working class neighborhoods, I don't think twice about it.
What are you basing this on? Are you assuming that females are more likely to be victims of violent crime? Are you assuming younger or smaller people are more likely to be victims? And if so, where did you learn this?
(Lest I seem confrontational, I appreciated your points in the rest of your post and liked how you made them. The gun example in particular was a calmer and more concise version of what I was trying to get at in my previous post. Ditto for your and Mrs. Pete's point that individual circumstances are individual.)
I'm basing it on three subjective observations. One, the likelihood of my being singled out and my ability to defend myself and/or get away (low, and pretty good). Two, the relative likelihood that my much smaller, slower, and less able to defend herself daughter would be able to do the same (still fairly low but not as low, and not good at all), and three, my general knowledge of the area. Is it all subjective? Well of course it is. Not every decision can be made with metrics, some things you simply have to use your judgment on, and when in doubt side with caution. As I said, I've been in plenty of "rough" neighborhoods in my former job and the majority of the time they aren't that rough for the average guy. But IMO a smaller woman is not doing herself any favors traveling the roads I do.
-
Oldtoyota, I assume you live in the DC area, where a bunch of teenagers beat up a biker on the Met Branch Trail, right? That was a really awful incident, and that trail has a bad history. From what I have heard, I wouldn't ride it alone. And no trail is completely safe. On the trail near where I live in Arlington (Four Mile Run), a woman was recently stabbed in broad daylight on a weekend when the trail was full of people. On the Custis trail, two bikers were robbed at gunpoint one night a few weeks ago. Etc, etc.
But, I hear about beatings and robberies on Metro all the time- even when there are lots of people around. The weekly local crime report always multiple includes incidents where pedestrians are robbed, groped, beat up, etc- and I'm always surprised at how often these take place during the day in populated areas. Cars and buses hit pedestrians. Cars and buses hit each other. It seems to me that the only way to be 100 percent safe is to stay home.
-
I'm basing it on three subjective observations. One, the likelihood of my being singled out and my ability to defend myself and/or get away (low, and pretty good). Two, the relative likelihood that my much smaller, slower, and less able to defend herself daughter would be able to do the same (still fairly low but not as low, and not good at all), and three, my general knowledge of the area. Is it all subjective? Well of course it is. Not every decision can be made with metrics, some things you simply have to use your judgment on, and when in doubt side with caution. As I said, I've been in plenty of "rough" neighborhoods in my former job and the majority of the time they aren't that rough for the average guy. But IMO a smaller woman is not doing herself any favors traveling the roads I do.
I think this is pretty common sense. If you are going to get attacked it will be because the attacker will sense that you are scared. I hate to say it but a young woman is a rape target more so than a 46 y/o man who is 200 lbs. I have the same fear. I'm a 35 y/o man, in good shape but even with lifting weights I'm only 170 lbs since I'm 5'7", so as a man there is a fear in the back of my mind that I could be overtaken by a group of teenagers if I was caught out alone. So, I don't know. I think you have to carefully evaluate your surroundings at all times and trust your instincts.
Another thing I've noticed lately is there is a guy I've seen on a bike a few times on the country roads and he has a rack and one of those big orange caution triangle signs attached to it (I think it might be attached to a milk crate)
It is really effective, you see this guy very well with a big orange sign like that. I may do that if necessary.
-
I looked at the study you linked Sheepstache. It strongly supports the fact that per mile travelled you are more likely to die on a bike (.039 fatalities per million miles) than in a car (.016 fatalities per million miles). The author points out that the risk is 2.5 greater to die cycling.
The fact that people travel more by car than by bike does not really change the fact that when we substitute biking for driving for the same trip your risk of death is 2.5x higher. Still, the risk is REALLY low and I believe biking is a good activity. I just don't buy the premise the premise that it is "the safest form of transportation". We all take risks every day and biking is an acceptable one for me, just not one I choose often because I walk everywhere instead and I dislike biking on busy roads.
Is the fact that the average age of death of a cyclist is 41 really representative? Maybe not, I'm not sure. I couldn't find the median. I would say that this is def. at odds with the premise that it is mostly kids and young folk who are killed and because they are not acting in a safe manner.
Does cyclist behaviour have anything to do with risk? Yes, how could it not? That said, we don't control driver behaviour. Nor do we control all the other factors on the roads as we bike.
As far as dangerous neighbourhoods go, I'm curious as to why you would choose to live in a neighbourhood with a higher crime rate? A safe, pleasant neighbourhood is one of the things I am willing to work longer for myself.
-
Oldtoyota, I assume you live in the DC area, where a bunch of teenagers beat up a biker on the Met Branch Trail, right? That was a really awful incident, and that trail has a bad history. From what I have heard, I wouldn't ride it alone. And no trail is completely safe. On the trail near where I live in Arlington (Four Mile Run), a woman was recently stabbed in broad daylight on a weekend when the trail was full of people. On the Custis trail, two bikers were robbed at gunpoint one night a few weeks ago. Etc, etc.
But, I hear about beatings and robberies on Metro all the time- even when there are lots of people around. The weekly local crime report always multiple includes incidents where pedestrians are robbed, groped, beat up, etc- and I'm always surprised at how often these take place during the day in populated areas. Cars and buses hit pedestrians. Cars and buses hit each other. It seems to me that the only way to be 100 percent safe is to stay home.
even then you can be broken into. last year every house in my court was broken into except for mine (yay for giant scary german shepards that bark really really loud) you can never be 100 percent safe
-
The fact that you heard about this incident has no bearing on how dangerous it actually is. You know that, right? Do you know the actual statistics on attacks on cyclists?
More than that. The fact that you hear about it implies it is LESS likely to occur. People and reporters tell stories that are interesting, and things which are commonplace are not particularly interesting. That's why we hear about every major carrier plane crash, anywhere in the country (extremely rare) and yet we never hear about car crashes (about 15 thousand per day, including 90 fatalities), and why we hear about deaths from swine flu (14,000 confirmed, possibly as many as a quarter million unreported) but never about deaths from plain old ordinary seasonal flu (a quarter million, every year). Since common things don't get reported on, we get to pretend that driving a car isn't dangerous, even though it is the single largest cause of death and injury after disease, and the single largest total for everyone under 40.
These are the crimes I know about:
--robbed at gunpoint (this was walking home from the metro)
--raped (3 women on the trail near the metro)
--beaten (I know of at least three incidents).
Correct me if I am wrong, but none of those victims were on bicycles, were they?
In fact, it sounds like (at least) most of them were train riders! Even though its just anecdotes, not real statistics, it seems to imply the exact opposite of what you are trying to say - people who take the train are at risk (unless of course your front door opens directly into the train station.) Its a lot easier to stop someone walking 4mph than someone rolling 16mph. Not to mention the protective helmet that goes with cycling.
And it doesn't seem like anyone has mentioned this yet: if the trail is dangerous, why not just take a different route? Just because an off street trail exists doesn't mean you have to ride your bike on it.
2. Death is not the only risk, as we know from this post. While attack-related incidences are reported, other injuries are also a safety risk and , unlike death or car accidents in general, we know from research into hospital records that only a fraction of bicycle crashes causing injury are ever recorded by the police, possibly as low as ten percent. http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/facts/crash-facts.cfm. The point is that if there is a 6.2x risk of death from cycling, then injury is also likely to be higher and long-term lifespan exercise benefits are uncertain in relation to injury. Injury seems to cause more time taken from exercise as far as I can tell and generally makes daily living a bit more onerous, sometimes forever.
...
4. If I had to choose between injury that alters my life or death at 41 and one or more extra years of life at 86 (the age my grandma died), guess which one I’d choose.
In 2011, 2,217,000 people were injured in motor vehicle crashes.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says in 2010 that the cost of medical care and productivity losses associated with motor vehicle crash injuries was over $99 billion, or nearly $500, for each licensed driver in the United States. In addition, every 10 seconds an American is treated in an emergency department for crash-related injuries, based on data from 2005.
The most common cause of the worst non-death injury, paraplegia? Car accidents.
If my adult daughter were taking the exact same path I take home from work each day I would tell her I think it's a bad idea, the area is not safe enough for a 110 pound 25 year old female. But for me, a 200 pound 46 year old guy who used to deliver mail in a bunch of working class neighborhoods, I don't think twice about it.
What are you basing this on? Are you assuming that females are more likely to be victims of violent crime? Are you assuming younger or smaller people are more likely to be victims? And if so, where did you learn this?
Once again, your implication is correct, and you do not go quite far enough.
Contrary to almost universal belief, males are MORE often the victims of violent crime by strangers.
Men are at significantly higher risk of being assaulted by a stranger, and this has always been true:
Violent crimes included are rape, robbery, and both simple and aggravated assault.
Violent crime rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older
Total Gender of victim
population Male Female
1977 50.6 71.3 32.5
1987 43.8 57.0 32.1
1997 38.7 45.8 32.1
2007 20.3 22.6 18.1
2008 19.0 21.4 16.7
http://www.bjs.gov/content/glance/tables/vsxtab.cfm (http://www.bjs.gov/content/glance/tables/vsxtab.cfm)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GpVhQVThSXI/UP3JzA5e2AI/AAAAAAAAAXI/4fPFnJbwWSg/s1600/Murder+victims+by+gender.png)
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/gender.cfm (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/gender.cfm)
The trend has been for assault against males to drop faster than against females, so while it is no longer more than twice as dangerous for a man than a woman, it remains approximately 30% more dangerous, on average, nationwide.
Our perception that women are naturally victims is not due to any actual risk, it is due to society wide subconscious sexism.
-
This whole discussion makes me nostalgic for the time when I biked to work in San Jose, and the trail I rode on had signs posted warning that mountain lions had been seen in the area.
-
The trouble I have with Bakari's argument is that there are a whole host of other variables to be considered aside from just gender. I was already well aware that more men are murdered on average than women, but the reasons behind those murders and where they occur are much harder to tease out. And when it comes to random violence, I think that a lot of it boils down to, as another poster already put it, having the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's pretty rare.
For example, where I live the City of Richmond has a far higher homicide rate than the County of Chersterfield. That is in large part due to the fact that there is a much higher concentration of poverty in the city than the county. There are no housing projects in Chesterfield County. Where you have a housing project, you will have a lot of crime. The wrong place is more likely to be in economically depressed areas. The wrong time is at night. Who is more likely to be on the streets of a housing project after dark? A male. Trust me, I've been in enough bad neighborhoods to know.
So in my case a little common sense goes a long way here. If I am targeting a complete stranger, which happens fairly rarely but still happens, am I going to target a big guy on the bike moving faster or the much smaller woman on a bike moving slower? Probably neither, target comes and goes too fast. What happens when either of the two has a breakdown? Most working class neighborhoods are safer than people imagine, but they are still safer for larger men familiar with their surroundings than smaller women who aren't.
I've already had to tell a lot of people that my ride home is a lot safer than they imagine, but that does not mean it is 100% safe, because nothing is 100% safe. There simply reaches a point where a little caution is prudent, and I stand by the notion that I would not recommend the path I take for my very attractive and not very strong daughter. I don't consider my situation to be sexist at all, but Bakari is free to disagree. Of course, he is doing so without any firsthand knowledge.....
-
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).
-
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).
I agree completely. But if you have the misfortune to break down or get a flat in a sketchy area, that's a horse of a different color. I was pretty nervous about biking when I first started commuting several weeks ago and after a while I discovered that the drivers aren't nearly as scary as I thought they would be. I'm getting pretty confident now - but not cocky. I always assume the worst from them at intersections and use lots of hand signals. I figure some clown is going to cut me off at some point anyway, and I just have to be ready for it.
-
Well if we are just going to throw metrics out the window, then: my common sense is different from yours and is just as legitimate.
No one is going to beat up a random woman to prove their masculinity, which is what a lot of teenage crime is about. "Boo-ya, we're so tough, we totally destroyed that biker!" "Awright, dude, how big was he?" "Uh, it was a little girl, actually." "Uh..."
And muggers are less likely to go after women. You want to be facing a jury for attacking a 200 pound guy or for attacking a 110-pound woman? Of course, sometimes economic need means the mugger can't make such nice considerations, but in that case the 200-pound guy is equally at risk because the criminal is just going to go for the first person they see.
Women are a greater rape target outside of prison, sure, but the incidence of rape is extremely low. Like, women are less likely to be victims of violent crime in general, and sexual assault is a subset of that, and sexual assault by someone you don't know is an even smaller subset. If I found out that only women are ever struck by lightening, I wouldn't suddenly go around being frightened of lightening just because it singles my gender out. (Far and away the most likely violence for women to suffer, in case you're interested, is domestic violence. So I'm pretty much taking my life in my hands every day I remain married. What can I say? I like to live dangerously. In parallel, the overwhelming majority of rape cases are date or acquaintance rape. So if you're female you should probably, you know, stop having any relationships at all with any men.)
Now, I am cognizant that there's a virtuous cycle here. In our wisdom we have convinced women that it's not safe to leave the house and that if they go to a public restroom they have to do it in pairs, etc., and that cuts down on the potential for violent crime against them. Conversely, men are not warned or protected and are expected to go to dangerous areas and do dangerous things. But I think that is a shame. If the goal in life is to eliminate as much risk as possible, men ought also to go to the bathroom in pairs.
The flipside of the cycle is experience, which Hybrid has pointed out matters (according to his common sense which in this instance is in agreement with mine.). If women are discouraged from facing less safe situations, they do not gain experience with them. They do not learn how to be attentive to their surroundings and they do not place a priority on learning to defend themselves. I used to be that 110-pound 25-year-old and traveled all over the place by myself and went through dangerous neighborhoods and it led to my learning how to handle myself and no one has ever fucked with me, so I conclude that this is the way to go.
Anyway, I didn't mean to derail the thread with one of my pet topics. I meant to come back and rant about the TSA and how Americans are trading away their freedoms out of fear of unlikely but titillating dangers.
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. You wouldn't look at the average age of death in a nursing home and conclude that a nursing home must be a super safe place to live. (I mean, okay, it probably is, but you'd conclude that on different grounds.) You'd know that the higher age of death is simply a result of their being no younger people there to bring the average down with their deaths.
I assume your question about why live in a dangerous neighborhood was directed at the OP.
-
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.
-
Oh man I love how much fear gets posted regarding bike commuting.
Evidently, the metro is quite dangerous--according to others here--so I'm already taking great risks!
-
Well if we are just going to throw metrics out the window, then: my common sense is different from yours and is just as legitimate....
I know you are saying something, but I am not listening to you. I think your posts are unnecessarily rude, and I don't need to be told I am not thinking. Have a good day, angry man.
-
I think the logic is a bit specious (at best) if cyclists are experiencing fatalities at a 6x rate per mile driven. You can't just say "hey cyclists dont go as far, wee I win at logic". On a per mile basis they experience greater fatalities. End of datapoint.
We can discuss alternate ways to normalize the data, but really everything I've seen so far is just an attempt (imo) to fix the conclusion from the data. Yawn, I can do that too.
-
Well if we are just going to throw metrics out the window, then: my common sense is different from yours and is just as legitimate.
I'll offer this. In my circles I am usually the guy seen as going out on a limb, doing things that other perceive as reckless, etc. It's definitely odd to be debating from the other side of the equation. So I am suppose I am going to take comfort in the fact that you are out further on the limb than I am.
As for throwing metrics out a window, I am old enough to appreciate the old turn about "lies, damned lies, and statistics". Some things are easily teased out with numbers, some aren't. I've read a fair amount about why men are often subject to more violence than women, and one of the contributing factors that does not fir neatly onto a graph is the rather common sensical "because they are more likely to put themselves in harms way". I'm a big fan of stats and letting the numbers fall where they may, but one only has to casually pay attention to our two political parties to realize that darn near any debate can be framed to the author's liking. MMMs recent thread on bike safety certainly inspired a lot of compelling arguments both pro and for.
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? ;-)
-
I don't really understand the idea that life is about minimizing risks at all costs. Like, life is pain and hazards and the beautiful outdoors. Take risks, step outside your comfort zone constantly, don't let fear control you.
You guys are seriously debating the hazards of riding a bicycle per kilometer. I'd say that if you're that frightened of riding a bicycle, it is exactly the reason you need to go and do it. Action is the cure for fear, not statistics.
Just compare populations that experience pain, hardship and injury between those that don't. You'll find that athletes of all types are often in a state of pain and injury, and not just constant discomfort from the rigours of their sport. They face crazy dangers of falling off mountains or drowning in the sea, being eaten and mauled by wild animals, breaking bones, tearing muscle and flesh. They also have much lower rates of suicide and depression, I bet they have better sex and more of it, and experience greater success in other areas of their lives due to the positive correlation of being attractive and interesting and being successful.
Or you could mitigate all of these terrible risks by living a life of ease and sloth, only exposing yourself to risk to partake in the most secure forms of transportation in the most secure places so that you can eke out a few more totally mundane moments on this planet. You will probably never break a bone or have a scar. You may need to be medicated in order to keep from actually killing yourself with the existential agony of your (safe) lifestyle, not to mention the medication you will require from the diseases that you contract from not giving your body and mind the stimulation it needs to function normally. No thanks.
-
I don't really understand the idea that life is about minimizing risks at all costs.
I don't think that is the point being made here. Absolutely everyone mitigates some risk in their life. Or perhaps I am mistaken there, maybe you keep 100% of your portfolio in equities? ;-) The point being argued is where do you draw the lines between risks worth taking and risks not worth taking. As I said much earlier in the thread, YMMV.
-
I think the logic is a bit specious (at best) if cyclists are experiencing fatalities at a 6x rate per mile driven.
But is "fatalities per mile" the appropriate metric for risk? Or should it be fatalities per hour spent at the activity?
-
in the case of a typical bike vs car commuter, I dont think the workplace magically becomes 6x closer if you happen to be on a bike, so yes I think per distance is the appropriate metric.
my $0.01
-
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.
-
in the case of a typical bike vs car commuter, I dont think the workplace magically becomes 6x closer if you happen to be on a bike, so yes I think per distance is the appropriate metric.
But the statistics are IIRC not just for car & bike commuters, but for all car travel and all biking. Indeed, I'm not even sure how the compilers of the statistics could get even a halfway accurate guess at annual bike miles.
-
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.
-
The trouble I have with Bakari's argument is that there are a whole host of other variables to be considered aside from just gender. I was already well aware that more men are murdered on average than women, but the reasons behind those murders and where they occur are much harder to tease out.
I should have been more clear that I was talking about crimes committed by strangers specifically
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs9310.pdf (page 2) Actually, this report shows male's chances of being a victim by a stranger as even higher than the data I posted the first time
And when it comes to random violence, I think that a lot of it boils down to, as another poster already put it, having the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's pretty rare.
For example, where I live the City of Richmond has a far higher homicide rate than the County of Chersterfield. That is in large part due to the fact that there is a much higher concentration of poverty in the city than the county. There are no housing projects in Chesterfield County. Where you have a housing project, you will have a lot of crime. The wrong place is more likely to be in economically depressed areas. The wrong time is at night. Who is more likely to be on the streets of a housing project after dark? A male. Trust me, I've been in enough bad neighborhoods to know.
So in my case a little common sense goes a long way here. If I am targeting a complete stranger, which happens fairly rarely but still happens, am I going to target a big guy on the bike moving faster or the much smaller woman on a bike moving slower? Probably neither, target comes and goes too fast. What happens when either of the two has a breakdown? Most working class neighborhoods are safer than people imagine, but they are still safer for larger men familiar with their surroundings than smaller women who aren't.
I've already had to tell a lot of people that my ride home is a lot safer than they imagine, but that does not mean it is 100% safe, because nothing is 100% safe. There simply reaches a point where a little caution is prudent, and I stand by the notion that I would not recommend the path I take for my very attractive and not very strong daughter. I don't consider my situation to be sexist at all, but Bakari is free to disagree. Of course, he is doing so without any firsthand knowledge.....
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.
If it were really a question of individual's vulnerability, there would be no reason to even mention gender.
But let's be honest - who is more likely to have concern for their safety expressed:
a 120lb, 5'4" male, or a 160lb 5'9" female athlete?
By similar logic, are we to assume that we save "women and children first" from a sinking ship is because, unlike women, men have a natural ability to breath underwater? Or is it more likely that patriarchal society teaches us that women are weak and vulnerable, and men should be their protectors?
It may be true that the average male is stronger than the average female, but there are still millions of women who are stronger than millions of men.
OR
did you mean no first hand knowledge of dangerous neighborhoods? I've lived almost my entire life in poor, high crime neighborhoods (Richmond and Oakland, CA). And as long as we are going by anecdote instead of stats, myself and nearly every male friend I know has been mugged, or jumped, or in someway assaulted by strangers, most of us more than once. Almost none of my females have ever been assaulted by strangers. Believe it or not, but I have always seen equal numbers of each gender out at night, or walking somewhere secluded, or by themselves (or all 3).
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?
Well if we are just going to throw metrics out the window, then: my common sense is different from yours and is just as legitimate.
No one is going to beat up a random woman to prove their masculinity, which is what a lot of teenage crime is about. "Boo-ya, we're so tough, we totally destroyed that biker!" "Awright, dude, how big was he?" "Uh, it was a little girl, actually." "Uh..."
And muggers are less likely to go after women. You want to be facing a jury for attacking a 200 pound guy or for attacking a 110-pound woman?
I suspect this is close to the truth.
Aside from sociopaths, even criminals have a code of conduct.
"Never hit a woman" is right up there with "Don't be a snitch"
Ironically, the same ingrained sexism that tells us women must be victims more often is likely the reason why they aren't!
Women are a greater rape target outside of prison, sure...
True - but not remotely nearly as much as "common knowledge" has us believe. The reason for the 1:10 ratio of male to female victims of rape is because rape is defined as sexual penetration. If instead you define it as "non-consensual sexual contact" the ratio changes to 2:3. It still makes female's statistical risk slightly higher, but that is a huge difference.
Similarly common knowledge tells us the perpetrators are 99% male, and data reinforces that so long as you use the same narrow definition. If you look at non-consensual sexual contact, 60% of the perpetrators against men are women.
Anyway, I didn't mean to derail the thread with one of my pet topics.
Same here. I've already written enough on that topic (http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2013/01/RapeAndFeminismPage1.html)
-
The long statistical analyses here crack me up. I think the people who have decided cycling's not for them aren't going to change their minds whether we define danger by the mile, the hour, or the metric tonne. And that's a shame.
I ride between 8-10k miles yearly in one of America's "Most Dangerous" cities for cycling (Jacksonville, FL). That appellation is real, and we need to improve our roads, our drivers' attitudes and education, and for that matter, our cyclists' behaviour.
Having said that, is it possible to ride here safely? Absolutely. Ride in a safe manner, pick smart routes, use good lights at night..it's not rocket science. My own experience bears out some of the points MMM brings out in his article. Local fatalities and injuries are skewed toward two groups: (A) people riding at night, often without lights, often riding the wrong way/in the lane/across traffic and (B) road racing crashes that are a result of close quarters pack racing.
I road race my bike, and I've had several crashes in races or race style group rides. I have never had a crash or incident with a car while commuting or riding solo for pleasure.
I was in Finland the past two weeks, and watched probably thousands of people ride around the city of Tampere and in small villages and countryside north of there. The ages ran the gamut from pre-schoolers to grandmas, the bikes and speeds varied wildly, and it was no big deal to anyone there. Not coincidentally, I saw far less obesity and mobility issues in the Suomi people.
-
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
-
I have got to weigh in on the statistics here. I look at some of the information provided by Bakari and it is good, but that does not make our conclusions correct. My stats teacher gave me extra credit for proving both sides of an argument using the same data.
example:
"Contrary to almost universal belief, males are MORE often the victims of violent crime by strangers.
Men are at significantly higher risk of being assaulted by a stranger, and this has always been true:"
There for we concluded that Male Citizens are more likely the victims of a violent crime then Female Citizens. That is not what the reports say. It implies the opposite.
1. The report counts criminals on criminals, gang on gang, inmates, etc. If readers on this thread are not members of a gang, incarcerated etc. your odds drop of being a victim by a stranger regardless if you are male or female.
2. How is counting done. Example if 4 gang members beat up one rival gang member is it 1 assault, 4, or 8?
3. Age groups! Age 12 and up???? The report states that over 50% of all stranger violent crime is on those under the age of 24. Juveniles should not be separated from the adult population for numbers. We all did stupid things as teenagers we would not do as adults.
The complied stats seem very accurate but without knowing how the data was collected or compiled it we can draw very incorrect conclusions. Just a warning to the wise: "if you torture numbers long enough they will tell you anything you want to hear."
-
As for throwing metrics out a window, I am old enough to appreciate the old turn about "lies, damned lies, and statistics". Some things are easily teased out with numbers, some aren't.
...
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? ;-)
Oh, of course. But that's why I'm taking a break from the statistics and presenting my own personal common sense take. What I suspect happens is that people swallow an assumption uncritically and then build their "common sense" explanation from there to rationalize it. In my case, I looked into the statistics some years ago; they were not what I expected; and I have now adjusted my common sense explanation to reflect them. Common sense is not reasoning or a way to arrive at a conclusion, it is just a rationale for believing what one already believes.
I don't mean to deny that individual factors should effect individual decisions. I know some people who, no matter the situation, seem to get picked on. Something about their demeanor or height or pheromones, who knows. They would be wise to be more cautious than others. I know a mildly claustrophobic person who got caught in an elevator for a loooong time and now prefers to take the stairs. They weight the risk of getting stuck far higher than most people do. I don't mean to suggest that oldtoyota is a big old stupidhead just because he doesn't see things the same way I do. (Totoro, for example, doesn't make the same choices as I do but sounds like she has put some thought into it.) I mentioned lightening before. If someone lives on a treeless hill where there are a bunch of storms, I don't think they're paranoid or unthinking for wanting to get a lightening rod. If someone in more average circumstances wants to get a lightening rod just because their neighbor's house got hit by lightening,well, then that's weird. And I don't want someone on a treeless hill to buy a lightening rod just because their neighbor did; I want people to do things for the correct reasons!
Once again, your implication is correct, and you do not go quite far enough.
Contrary to almost universal belief, males are MORE often the victims of violent crime by strangers.
Men are at significantly higher risk of being assaulted by a stranger, and this has always been true:
As you saw in my later post, I do indeed know the numbers (And I swear I'm not just copying your posts :) I'm writing stuff in my draft emails since I'm standing by for cues at work and then posting later when I have a chance to re-read what I've written.) but my new thing is to ask people whether they've considered certain things rather than just presenting them with, uh...those things. Because there is more to reasoning than just blindly going around repeating an opinion until you bump into someone who disagrees. While I am of course all for seeking out discussion in the hopes of finding individuals with contrary views, one can also create contrary views on one's own mental test grounds.
I don't expect people to do this with everything in their lives because it would take so long. Certainly Wikipedia's page of common misconceptions has multiple eye openers for anybody. But at the point that you realize you're making a decision based on certain information, that's where it should kick in.
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.
Oh, we may have been talking at cross-purposes. I wasn't trying to link the average age and effects of cyclist behavior. I was addressing what you were saying about how the average age of death was 41 while you would rather live to be 86. I was trying to make the point that the younger-than-average age of death doesn't mean you are actually likely to die sooner due to cycling. But I guess that wasn't what you were saying.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
... 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.
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
--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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
--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.
-
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.
-
--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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Yes, you could. Of course, pushing a bike uphill is more sweat-inducing (in my experience) than walking up a hill without a bike.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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
-
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.... :)
-
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. .
-
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.
-
...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.
-
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!
-
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
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
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 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.
-
"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.
-
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?
-
Maybe, maybe not. We have the mortality rates per mile for both driving and biking. We don't know if there were significant behavioural or physiological (ie. impairment) differences at play. That doesn't mean there is not some validity to the overall comparison imo.
-
If you're thinking of taking your bike to the grocery store today, the store is:
(1) The same number of miles away by bike and by car.
(2) A larger number of minutes away by bike than by car.
That basic analysis is going to hold for any bike-or-drive decision a person makes. So, to the extent that anyone can replace their errand running and commuting with biking, they're travelling more hours to cover the same number of miles. There are probably a few exceptions where trails run through places cars can't go to create a shortcut, but the above analysis is going to hold for almost everyone on almost every such trip.
-
If you're thinking of taking your bike to the grocery store today, the store is:
(1) The same number of miles away by bike and by car.
(2) A larger number of minutes away by bike than by car.
That basic analysis is going to hold for any bike-or-drive decision a person makes. So, to the extent that anyone can replace their errand running and commuting with biking, they're travelling more hours to cover the same number of miles. There are probably a few exceptions where trails run through places cars can't go to create a shortcut, but the above analysis is going to hold for almost everyone on almost every such trip.
I'm not sure about the point you are making - is it the same as this one?
I think biking is generally good, but not safer than driving because:
1. MMM has worked out the safety rate/hour and used this to establish that bikes are as safe as cars because cars cover more ground per hour and it is a per km risk. However, it takes longer to bike the same distance (6.25x by MMM calculations), so the risk/km is not altered really – it may in fact be a bit higher given that you are substituting bikes for cars on journey's less than 75 miles.
-
I think that we're forgetting a few mitigating factors here with regards to bike safety:
1. You will not bike the same distance as you drive.
When you're used to driving, you hop into the car and go where you're going without a thought in the world. When you're going everywhere on your bike, you will naturally start to optimize your trips. You might put off running that extra errand for a couple days, because you're feeling tired. You will probably optimize your route to be more direct than it could be in a car. Cycling is an enforced way of being efficient about your traveling. The enforcement police are your tired legs.
2. Cycling might carry risks with it, but it also reduces risks of heart disease and other obesity related illness. Now, it's possible to get fit in many ways. Everyone needs to get around though, and cycling is a way of enforcing that you get some physical activity regularly. I wouldn't be surprised if statistically cycling extends your life about as much as it is supposedly riskier than driving a car.
"Men who cycled at least 25 km per week had less than half the risk of non–fatal and fatal coronary heart disease of those who were not physically active. A study of physical activity and type 2 diabetes showed a 35% reduction in risk with at least 30 minutes per day of commuting by bike or on foot, a greater reduction than with physical activity during leisure time or at work. A recent meta–analysis concluded that cycling or walking to work was associated with an 11% reduction in cardiovascular disease risk. All–cause mortality has been found to be lower among men and women of all ages who cycled for transportation."
"In addition to physical health, increased activity benefits mental health. A meta–analysis found that exercise as a treatment
for depression was more effective than no treatment, was as effective as traditional interventions in some instances, and had
equivalent adherence rates to medication."
A review of multiple studies shows that:
"there is a large net health benefit of increased
cycling, since the risk of fatal injury is greatly outweighed by the
reductions in mortality afforded by increased physical activity."
- http://www.ubcmj.com/pdf/ubcmj_3_2_2012_6-11.pdf/41164041-B44C-4019-9CA5-E319E2CE27D3- (http://www.ubcmj.com/pdf/ubcmj_3_2_2012_6-11.pdf/41164041-B44C-4019-9CA5-E319E2CE27D3-)
3. Don't cycle drunk! 20-30% of cycling deaths involve a drunk cyclist (http://cheaptalk.org/2009/12/16/drunk-cycling/ (http://cheaptalk.org/2009/12/16/drunk-cycling/), http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality.aspx?topicName=bicycles&year=2008#sec1 (http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality.aspx?topicName=bicycles&year=2008#sec1), http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811743.pdf (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811743.pdf)). So, somewhere between 1/5th to 1/3 of the deaths that we're arguing about really aren't applicable and shouldn't concern any responsible cyclist.
4. Wear a helmet! Most people (91%) who die on bikes weren't wearing helmets. (http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality.aspx?topicName=bicycles&year=2008#sec1 (http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality.aspx?topicName=bicycles&year=2008#sec1)). Now, helmets aren't a panacea . . . but I have to wonder how much lower the fatality rate really would be if all people wore helmets.
When you take those points into consideration (shorter trips, health benefits above other exercise, not cycling drunk, and wearing a helmet) you start to see that risks of cycling drop well below the already small measured death rate that we're discussing. . .
-
^ I'm not even starting to touch on the great many cyclists who perform higher risk activities like cycling on sidewalks too . . .
-
I think that we're forgetting a few mitigating factors here with regards to bike safety:
1. You will not bike the same distance as you drive.
When you're used to driving, you hop into the car and go where you're going without a thought in the world. When you're going everywhere on your bike, you will naturally start to optimize your trips. You might put off running that extra errand for a couple days, because you're feeling tired. You will probably optimize your route to be more direct than it could be in a car. Cycling is an enforced way of being efficient about your traveling. The enforcement police are your tired legs.
2. Cycling might carry risks with it, but it also reduces risks of heart disease and other obesity related illness. Now, it's possible to get fit in many ways. Everyone needs to get around though, and cycling is a way of enforcing that you get some physical activity regularly. I wouldn't be surprised if statistically cycling extends your life about as much as it is supposedly riskier than driving a car.
"Men who cycled at least 25 km per week had less than half the risk of non–fatal and fatal coronary heart disease of those who were not physically active. A study of physical activity and type 2 diabetes showed a 35% reduction in risk with at least 30 minutes per day of commuting by bike or on foot, a greater reduction than with physical activity during leisure time or at work. A recent meta–analysis concluded that cycling or walking to work was associated with an 11% reduction in cardiovascular disease risk. All–cause mortality has been found to be lower among men and women of all ages who cycled for transportation."
"In addition to physical health, increased activity benefits mental health. A meta–analysis found that exercise as a treatment
for depression was more effective than no treatment, was as effective as traditional interventions in some instances, and had
equivalent adherence rates to medication."
A review of multiple studies shows that:
"there is a large net health benefit of increased
cycling, since the risk of fatal injury is greatly outweighed by the
reductions in mortality afforded by increased physical activity."
- http://www.ubcmj.com/pdf/ubcmj_3_2_2012_6-11.pdf/41164041-B44C-4019-9CA5-E319E2CE27D3- (http://www.ubcmj.com/pdf/ubcmj_3_2_2012_6-11.pdf/41164041-B44C-4019-9CA5-E319E2CE27D3-)
3. Don't cycle drunk! 20-30% of cycling deaths involve a drunk cyclist (http://cheaptalk.org/2009/12/16/drunk-cycling/ (http://cheaptalk.org/2009/12/16/drunk-cycling/), http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality.aspx?topicName=bicycles&year=2008#sec1 (http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality.aspx?topicName=bicycles&year=2008#sec1), http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811743.pdf (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811743.pdf)). So, somewhere between 1/5th to 1/3 of the deaths that we're arguing about really aren't applicable and shouldn't concern any responsible cyclist.
4. Wear a helmet! Most people (91%) who die on bikes weren't wearing helmets. (http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality.aspx?topicName=bicycles&year=2008#sec1 (http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality.aspx?topicName=bicycles&year=2008#sec1)). Now, helmets aren't a panacea . . . but I have to wonder how much lower the fatality rate really would be if all people wore helmets.
When you take those points into consideration (shorter trips, health benefits above other exercise, not cycling drunk, and wearing a helmet) you start to see that risks of cycling drop well below the already small measured death rate that we're discussing. . .
1. Not sure about this one. Not true for me anyway. I dislike driving and use the GPS to plan the route to get from A to B asap. The premise of the original argument is that you are replacing trips under 75 miles with a bike rather than a car. Has nothing to do with driving more miles overall because you aren't replacing those other trips.
2. Yes, cycling is good for you and this a great way to get exercise. Many people get their exercise other ways though and cycling does not work for everyone (crime/impractical). The fact that someone chooses a different way is fine imo. I walk. The premise was that "cycling is the safest form of transportation". It isn't. Walking is safer for one. The risk is still really low. If we are looking for efficient ways to exercise and you sit all day you might consider a treadmill desk.
As far as the net health benefits overcoming the risk, they probably do. This is less applicable if you are getting exercise other ways.
3. Good point re. alcohol. Seems similar to driving.
4. Bike helmets are compulsory where I live. I'm fine with that but wearing a helmet may or may not help you in an accident and is associated with higher rates of facial and neck trauma: http://road.cc/content/news/34527-cycle-helmets-dont-reduce-head-injury-risk-much-its-thought-claims-new-analysis
I don't think anyone has said that the net health effects are not worth it or that cycling is not good for you and low risk. The only points I've seen expressed here are:
1. It is not the safest form of exercise ex. compared to walking. Walking is a viable mode of transport for some.
2. It is not safer than driving.
2. It doesn't work for everyone.
-
I find this site's preoccupation with cycling a bit obsessive. Move close enough to work and you can get there on bicycle. Well, move a little closer and you can walk. That's even less expensive, because you don't need a bike to do it.
I have nothing against the whole biking thing, since I used to do it a lot. I'm just bemused by the over-the-top reactions when people say they don't want to bike. There are plenty of other ways to get healthy, avoid paying car insurance, and save the planet.
If Mr. Mustache was an avid runner instead of a biker, I predict everyone here would be advocating running to work.
Which is actually safer than either cars or bicycles
-
I find this site's preoccupation with cycling a bit obsessive. Move close enough to work and you can get there on bicycle. Well, move a little closer and you can walk. That's even less expensive, because you don't need a bike to do it.
I have nothing against the whole biking thing, since I used to do it a lot. I'm just bemused by the over-the-top reactions when people say they don't want to bike. There are plenty of other ways to get healthy, avoid paying car insurance, and save the planet.
If Mr. Mustache was an avid runner instead of a biker, I predict everyone here would be advocating running to work.
Which is actually safer than either cars or bicycles
Yes, I dislike evangelical zeal being used to judge others or justify a particular perspective, particularly when it obscures reasonable alternative viewpoints.
-
I find it obsessive as well, and a little off-putting. People who constantly work at picking at people who choose not to commute by bike remind me of my Amway/Nerium salesfriends. You know what else is a giant resource sucking bedpan? Big houses. Everyone should live in a tiny house like I do! What do you need all that space for? Houses are for coming into at night to sleep out of the elements, you bunch of wussies! Get with the program. If you are in more than 600 sf, you are not doing it right.
Except, I don't say that sort of thing. I just let people do their thing and encourage people by being nice. And having some humor.
(If there is a single mom of a three year old here who works full time, who has lots of quality time with their kid (whose bedtime is 7:30pm) and also keeps up on the house chores, the yardwork, volunteering at their kids' daycare, and growing a huge garden, YOU may give me a hard time about not bike commuting. ...****Edited to add: my attempts at humor and sarcasm appear as self-righteousness, apparently. Not intended, edginess failure! Will stick to dorky derpiness.*****)
-
(If there is a single mom of a three year old here who works full time, who has lots of quality time with their kid (whose bedtime is 7:30pm) and also keeps up on the house chores, the yardwork, volunteering at their kids' daycare, and growing a huge garden, YOU may give me a hard time about not bike commuting.)
Only parents have legitimate reasons to be busy and/or righteous about their actions or beliefs? Right, forgot about that one. Why should I care whether you bike commute or not? But if something is posted publicly, why the hell does the opinion of a saintly single mom mean more than someone else?
-
Okay, that was supposed to be funny and snarky, not self righteous. That person can give ME a hard time, not everyone a hard time. Also, it was not my point, it was an aside, hence the (...)
My point was ... the bike zealots are kind of ... zealoty. Many of us agree with them in principle, but are not able to put it into practice right now. It doesn't help to hear over and over again "you're wrong, you should anyway, you should just try it, you could if you made time, changed this", and so on and so on. Also, the debate seems to make people snarly at each other, sheesh.
-
(If there is a single mom of a three year old here who works full time, who has lots of quality time with their kid (whose bedtime is 7:30pm) and also keeps up on the house chores, the yardwork, volunteering at their kids' daycare, and growing a huge garden, YOU may give me a hard time about not bike commuting.)
Only parents have legitimate reasons to be busy and/or righteous about their actions or beliefs? Right, forgot about that one. Why should I care whether you bike commute or not? But if something is posted publicly, why the hell does the opinion of a saintly single mom mean more than someone else?
No need to be mean.
I did not get that from Kulshangirl at all. Sometimes posts are interpreted differently than they are meant.
I didn't take it is as an exclusionary or holier than thou statement, but more of a reaction to a feeling of being judged for not commuting by bike.
I think the takeaway point is that there are many different ways of living. If you have really weighed costs and benefits and come to the conclusion that a big house or small house makes sense or car or no car - or whatever - then fine. If you want others to give you feedback you need to be open to logical fallacies or bad math. This is a service offered by this board, and a valuable one.
I get frustrated with people who make decisions that don't get them more of what they want (early retirement, family time, free time) and then complain about their circumstances. I also dislike it when people take an "I'm right, you're wrong" viewpoint to the extreme so that there is no choice left if you want to be part of the group.
-
Okay, that was supposed to be funny and snarky, not self righteous. That person can give ME a hard time, not everyone a hard time. Also, it was not my point, it was an aside, hence the (...)
I know that it was meant to be funny and snarky, which is why my response was mostly tongue-in-cheek. Apparently it didn't come off that way . . .
-
Okay, that was supposed to be funny and snarky, not self righteous. That person can give ME a hard time, not everyone a hard time. Also, it was not my point, it was an aside, hence the (...)
I know that it was meant to be funny and snarky, which is why my response was mostly tongue-in-cheek. Apparently it didn't come off that way . . .
Yes, one of the down sides to the internet I'm afraid - all that non-verbal context gone :) (smiley face for emphasis)
-
I'd argue that cycling CAN work for nearly everyone (if you're missing legs/arms/eyes it'll be a lot harder) if you give it a chance. I wasn't posting only about commuting to work on a bike though. Hell, I only commute in to work once (or occasionally twice) a week, that would be pretty hypocritical.
The bike is a pretty versatile car replacement though for a multitude of trips. I use the bike to get almost all of our groceries (including Costco runs), and to do errands (post office, hardware store, library). It's a far superior method of transport than a car about 90% of the time, and you can't carry anywhere near as much stuff while walking as you can on a bike.
I'm also going to argue that for the points I listed, cycling is at least AS SAFE as driving (provided you're not drunk, wearing a helmet, and aren't sidewalk cycling).
-
I'd argue that cycling CAN work for nearly everyone (if you're missing legs/arms/eyes it'll be a lot harder) if you give it a chance. I wasn't posting only about commuting to work on a bike though. Hell, I only commute in to work once (or occasionally twice) a week, that would be pretty hypocritical.
The bike is a pretty versatile car replacement though for a multitude of trips. I use the bike to get almost all of our groceries (including Costco runs), and to do errands (post office, hardware store, library). It's a far superior method of transport than a car about 90% of the time, and you can't carry anywhere near as much stuff while walking as you can on a bike.
I'm also going to argue that for the points I listed, cycling is at least AS SAFE as driving (provided you're not drunk, wearing a helmet, and aren't sidewalk cycling).
Please stop arguing stuff that makes sense for you but doesn't make sense for others - have you actually read all the posts on this thread? People posting here have considered your views and here is what they are saying:
1. My neighbourhood is very dangerous. I could cycle but the risk of intentional assault is higher than I am comfortable with. PLEASE RESPECT THIS CHOICE and DON'T TELL ME I SHOULD CYCLE NO MATTER WHAT.
2. My work/life circumstances/preferences don't match with cycling so I drive and get my exercise other ways. I drive because I have evaluated cycling and it really won't work for me - ie. I have to transport heavy stuff long distances and I have no extra time; I'm a single parent working full-time and doing lots of extra-curricular who does not live centrally; I need my car for client visits during the day at work; I travel long distances for work (ie. irregular business trips). PLEASE RESPECT THIS CHOICE and DON'T TELL ME I SHOULD CYCLE NO MATTER WHAT.
3. I like walking better. I work from home. I have all amenities (post office, hardware store, two grocery stores, library, rec centre, schools, thrift shop, garden centre) within walking distance. I have a rolling shopping cart (which carries as much as you can carry on a bike) and I like that I don't have to lock my bike up outside while shopping. It is healthy and cheaper and safer than biking. PLEASE RESPECT THIS CHOICE and DON'T TELL ME I SHOULD CYCLE NO MATTER WHAT.
As far as your safety analysis, if you are a defensive driver the same logic applies. I can't see that we are comparing the average driver to the super-defensive cyclist because it is all about you and I would expect fairly consistent behaviour. So, your risk when biking is statistically going to be higher than cycling. Your risk for cycling or driving will go up if you are on a roadway with higher than average crash stats because you don't control the universe even if you are defensive.
Did you read the report on the minimal effects of wearing a helmet? The MMM post on the cover page also points this out.
-
I find this site's preoccupation with cycling a bit obsessive. Move close enough to work and you can get there on bicycle. Well, move a little closer and you can walk. That's even less expensive, because you don't need a bike to do it.
I have nothing against the whole biking thing, since I used to do it a lot. I'm just bemused by the over-the-top reactions when people say they don't want to bike. There are plenty of other ways to get healthy, avoid paying car insurance, and save the planet.
If Mr. Mustache was an avid runner instead of a biker, I predict everyone here would be advocating running to work.
Which is actually safer than either cars or bicycles
The bicycle is the happy medium. Cheap enough to obtain, easy to maintain, customizable to ones particular situation, can cover longer distances than walking thereby increasing opportunity in housing/grocery shopping...etc.
To derail for a second. All that aside any idea that MMM is promoting boils down to question the method you use currently and find if there is a method more efficient or cost effective. We may just agree to disagree on my next statement but I usually see more reactions against people just placidly accepting the way they do things and defending it with excuses rather than truly evaluating their choices. A bicycle is just one of many choices, owning rental property is just one of many choices; any generic "Mustachian" advice will often have options behind that veil of singular advice.
Most of the posts that are ruffling peoples feathers seem to boil down to discussing whether one mode of transportation is safer than the other.
Totoro, I do have to ask. If bicycling is not safe due to your neighborhood why is walking?
-
I'd argue that cycling CAN work for nearly everyone (if you're missing legs/arms/eyes it'll be a lot harder) if you give it a chance. I wasn't posting only about commuting to work on a bike though. Hell, I only commute in to work once (or occasionally twice) a week, that would be pretty hypocritical.
The bike is a pretty versatile car replacement though for a multitude of trips. I use the bike to get almost all of our groceries (including Costco runs), and to do errands (post office, hardware store, library). It's a far superior method of transport than a car about 90% of the time, and you can't carry anywhere near as much stuff while walking as you can on a bike.
I'm also going to argue that for the points I listed, cycling is at least AS SAFE as driving (provided you're not drunk, wearing a helmet, and aren't sidewalk cycling).
Please stop arguing stuff that makes sense for you but doesn't make sense for others - have you actually read all the posts on this thread? People posting here have considered your views and here is what they are saying:
1. My neighbourhood is very dangerous. I could cycle but the risk of intentional assault is higher than I am comfortable with. PLEASE RESPECT THIS CHOICE and DON'T TELL ME I SHOULD CYCLE NO MATTER WHAT.
2. My work/life circumstances/preferences don't match with cycling so I drive and get my exercise other ways. I drive because I have evaluated cycling and it really won't work for me - ie. I have to transport heavy stuff long distances and I have no extra time; I'm a single parent working full-time and doing lots of extra-curricular who does not live centrally; I need my car for client visits during the day at work; I travel long distances for work (ie. irregular business trips). PLEASE RESPECT THIS CHOICE and DON'T TELL ME I SHOULD CYCLE NO MATTER WHAT.
3. I like walking better. I work from home. I have all amenities (post office, hardware store, two grocery stores, library, rec centre, schools, thrift shop, garden centre) within walking distance. I have a rolling shopping cart (which carries as much as you can carry on a bike) and I like that I don't have to lock my bike up outside while shopping. It is healthy and cheaper and safer than biking. PLEASE RESPECT THIS CHOICE and DON'T TELL ME I SHOULD CYCLE NO MATTER WHAT.
As far as your safety analysis, if you are a defensive driver the same logic applies. I can't see that we are comparing the average driver to the super-defensive cyclist because it is all about you and I would expect fairly consistent behaviour. So, your risk when biking is statistically going to be higher than cycling. Your risk for cycling or driving will go up if you are on a roadway with higher than average crash stats because you don't control the universe even if you are defensive.
Did you read the report on the minimal effects of wearing a helmet? The MMM post on the cover page also points this out.
Safety-wise, judging by what I see around here probably 80% of people cycle on sidewalks. They are at much higher risk of getting into accidents than those who cycle responsibly on the road. This skews the numbers to look less safe than they really are. The car stats don't have a similar confounding action like that.
I don't think I ever said that you had to cycle everywhere. Just that it can work for most people. If you don't like to do it, that's cool, it's your preference. It doesn't mean that cycling can't work for you though. Your work, where you live, and your habits are, of course, all your choice.
What you're saying sounds a little weird. You've said that you live in an area where crime is so dangerous that you're afraid to cycle. You've also said that walking is safer than cycling and that you like walking better. How does the danger of your crime-ridden neighbourhood where you can't cycle for "risk of intentional assault" lessen by walking (slower and more vulnerable)?
Also, if you're so pressed for time always . . . why are you walking places rather than using a bike? Walking is much slower and less efficient.
-
You obviously have not read through these posts. Please do before you respond again because this whole long set of threads is a compilation of people saying "I have evaluated my choices" and then others posting, "but you should cycle anyway" without reading the evaluation.
My neighbourhood is extremely safe. One of the lowest crime rates in Canada. I don't even lock my door. I just prefer walking because I love it and it works because of my location. The point three I made above is my lifestyle - which I am extremely happy with and not going to change because you want me to get to the store more quickly. I HAVE TIME, I MAKE THIS CHOICE WITH THOUGHT BASED ON HEALTH AND PREFERENCE. I MOVED TO MY NEIGHBOURHOOD TO GET RID OF THE NEED TO DRIVE. I WORK FROM HOME TO GET RID OF THE COMMUTE. I DISLIKE CAR TRAVEL AND ONLY DO IT WHEN I HAVE TO. I DISLIKE BIKING ON BUSY ROADS FOR SOME OF THE SAME REASONS. I like biking on not so busy roads, but I prefer walking. I consider my lifestyle to be one that has been evaluated and planned and it really works. It is a conscious choice which I worked to achieve.
Safety is a concern that has been expressed by others who do live or have to pass through dangerous areas with previous cyclist assaults. I respect this and, personally, I would be focussing energy on how to move but I would not cycle in the meantime.
The discussion is not about whether one mode is safer than the other. The discussion is, if I could sum it up yet again, "I have evaluated this matter and my choice is the right one for me". The lack of respect for this is extremely annoying.
The safety issue is not the point. The risks (apart from dangerous neighbourhoods) are still pretty low and the benefits high. The presentation by MMM of biking being safer than driving is one that I disagree with on the facts, but it is just a small point in the bigger picture of having the space for reasonable alternatives without being bullied because you are saying something different than MMM.
-
I just realized you did not even take the time to read the post you are responding to carefully. My post says, given that you have not taken the time to read through this thread, I'm going to summarize what people have been saying.
I, myself, have loads of free time - by choice and planning. Others do not and have posted about this = read the posts please before responding again.
-
I also live in a very safe neighborhood. I have made many choices to ensure that I don't drive needlessly, or far. On the weekends, I walk everywhere.
But for me, right now, biking would cost me quite a bit. My child would spend 2.5 extra hours in daycare each week to afford me the time to commute by bike. (half an hour per day is not much you say? It is for me, and for her.) I would need to stay up an extra hour or so each night to make up for the time I currently spend at home on my lunch break doing all sorts of important things and chores, and I already wish I had an earlier bedtime. My time with my child after work would also take a hit, as I do my dinner prep while at home on lunch. Our meals would either take a hit either cost-wise or quality-wise. I would use my dryer way more often as I'd be losing half-day chunks on the drying racks. That lunchtime hour is key to a smooth day right now, and saves me money in many ways.
I spend $140 per month on gas. $35 per week. The things I'd give up for that $35 in the budget per week are NOT at ALL worth it. Even a little bit. I get plenty of exercise and spend lots of time outside. Commuting by bike right now is not for me.
So when I keep hearing that unless I am lacking arms and legs I should be doing it anyway, I get irritated.
-
I also live in a very safe neighborhood. I have made many choices to ensure that I don't drive needlessly, or far. On the weekends, I walk everywhere.
But for me, right now, biking would cost me quite a bit. My child would spend 2.5 extra hours in daycare each week to afford me the time to commute by bike. (half an hour per day is not much you say? It is for me, and for her.) I would need to stay up an extra hour or so each night to make up for the time I currently spend at home on my lunch break doing all sorts of important things and chores, and I already wish I had an earlier bedtime. My time with my child after work would also take a hit, as I do my dinner prep while at home on lunch. Our meals would either take a hit either cost-wise or quality-wise. I would use my dryer way more often as I'd be losing half-day chunks on the drying racks. That lunchtime hour is key to a smooth day right now, and saves me money in many ways.
I spend $140 per month on gas. $35 per week. The things I'd give up for that $35 in the budget per week are NOT at ALL worth it. Even a little bit. I get plenty of exercise and spend lots of time outside. Commuting by bike right now is not for me.
So when I keep hearing that unless I am lacking arms and legs I should be doing it anyway, I get irritated.
Yes. Annoying when people do not respect reasonable alternatives because of ideological limitations.
-
Perhaps we've had some miscommunication here.
If you had taken the time to read my posts, you would see that I don't believe (and have never said) that everyone needs to commute to work on a bike. I don't think it's the best choice for all people. (Most people can benefit from at least running their weekend errands on a bike though. A lot of the commuting concerns - dangerous roads, long distances, arriving at work sweaty, deadly roving packs of unstoppable bike hating teenagers - they disappear when you're just going a few blocks to get groceries or send some mail.)
What I will argue is that the notion that death statistics related to cycling tell the whole story regarding safety. The bike stats aren't really comparable to car stats for many reasons.
-
Why is it so important to defend other people from someone on the internet telling them that it would be possible for them to ride a bike if they so choose? Nobody is tracking anyone else down, coming to their door, and saying "ride this bike or I will hurt you".
Anyone who doesn't want to ride a bike, for any reason, also has the choice to not read this thread!
The original article was not written for you personally, whoever you are. It was written for the masses - the ones who are driving cars to get everywhere, not the ones who are walking.
If you currently walk, (or skateboard, or rollerskate, or wheelchair, or ride a horse, or have a 100% solar powered go cart), no one is complaining that you are burning huge amounts of a non-renewable resource, fueling pollution, global warming (probably), oil spills, and wars.
The vast majority of people in this country, including even the average reader of the MMM blog, drive a car EVEN WHEN THEY DON'T have to carry lots of stuff, go 20+ miles, or drive through a gang-war-zone. That's who the article was addressed to.
You know how you can tell that MMM is taking the right approach? The dozens and dozens of people who comment to say that they started driving less as a direct result of reading his posts on bicycles.
There are also many people who come up with justifications to support a decision they made in advance. This is not a criticism of anyone in particular, it is human nature. Everyone does it to some extent, though some are more open-minded than others. If you address the concerns of those who are more open-minded, sometimes many of them will reconsider - but if you just said "well, live and let live, whatever everyone else does is none of my business, and addressing their concerns is equal to coercing them to my opinion", well, then there would be no chance to ever teach anyone anything.
So, some people have a totally valid reason why they CAN'T bike, they can't replace any car trip with a bike (keyword: CAR).
But other people have very similar reasons, but their concerns are addressable. So helpful people on the internet try to address those concerns. Why is it important for those who have a valid concern to come to the "aid" of those with an excuse, and ensure they don't try it for themselves?
-
I am just going to back right out of this thread. :)
I think I just came in to say that while the bike enthusiasm here may get some people onto their bikes, there are probably many others that get the idea that if they don't commute by bike, they are not participating properly. Maybe they decide not to frequent these threads so much and miss out on the many other ways that they can make good changes. Enthusiasm is great, but there are a good number of posters who seem to like pressing the idea that one must bike if the trip is a b and c. It doesn't take into account life circumstance e f or g sometimes. Personally, I tend to skip over these threads and adhere to the idea of I'm OK, I do what I need to do and I don't need to explain myself. Then, I see lots of people saying EXPLAIN YOURSELF! by way of saying there's no excuse, you just don't want to, etc. I just want to start a big old thread called "It's OK if you don't bike! Really!"
KG outtie.
-
Anyone who doesn't want to ride a bike, for any reason, also has the choice to not read this thread!
Or respond to it with their reasoning. ;)
-
I just want to start a big old thread called "It's OK if you don't bike! Really!"
i think that's what this thread was supposed to be?
but i guess i don't understand the point of starting a thread, on a website owned by someone who is very enthusiastic about bikes, just to say, "i'm NOT going to do this." it just seems kind of arsey.
bike if you want to, or don't if you don't want to. in the end no one can judge your reasons but you. but why come here and talk about it in such an adversarial way? what's the point? do people who don't bike to work somehow feel victimized by the bike-related face-punching? it just smacks of insecurity, defensiveness, and arsiness to me ... i don't get it.
-
Why is it so important to defend other people from someone on the internet telling them that it would be possible for them to ride a bike if they so choose? Nobody is tracking anyone else down, coming to their door, and saying "ride this bike or I will hurt you".
Anyone who doesn't want to ride a bike, for any reason, also has the choice to not read this thread!
For the same reason that you find it necessary to respond to sexist statements and point out their logical fallacies and unaddressed assumptions. Racism/sexism blah blah blahism all have their basis (imo) in a lack of critical thought and empathy for others.
but i guess i don't understand the point of starting a thread, on a website owned by someone who is very enthusiastic about bikes, just to say, "i'm NOT going to do this." it just seems kind of arsey.
bike if you want to, or don't if you don't want to. in the end no one can judge your reasons but you. but why come here and talk about it in such an adversarial way? what's the point? do people who don't bike to work somehow feel victimized by the bike-related face-punching? it just smacks of insecurity, defensiveness, and arsiness to me ... i don't get it.
[/quote]
This is a website that, as far as I can tell, is focussed on early retirement and the principles are based on the exercise of critical thought and logic. It is a public website that depends quite a bit on posters as well as MMM posts for content and interest. Whether MMM is or is not a fan of anything does not mean the logic does not have to stand up. When you have unthinking adherence to anything you let free will and diversity go.
Nobody is right all of the time and choice has to match an individual's reality. I think some of the common sayings are pretty true - like you have to walk in someone's shoes before you judge.
Just because someone is very enthusiastic about bikes doesn't mean you cannot say you are not going to bike because it does not work for some logical reasons. The very fact that you cannot say anything different when the logic to support it is there is worthy of some discussion imo.
-
do people who don't bike to work somehow feel victimized by the bike-related face-punching?
I think in this case, "annoyed" would seem a more apt characterization.
Or amused, in my case. :)
-
I find this site's preoccupation with cycling a bit obsessive. Move close enough to work and you can get there on bicycle. Well, move a little closer and you can walk. That's even less expensive, because you don't need a bike to do it....
If Mr. Mustache was an avid runner instead of a biker, I predict everyone here would be advocating running to work.
Ha. Thank you. That was part of my point in starting this thread. You got it. ;-)
-
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?
Because, as a recent poster noted, people here are a little obsessive about biking. Note the recent "bike porn" thread. And, a lot of people here probably do NOT like or want to bike, but they are being quiet because they are drowned out by the bikers. Maybe. Maybe not.
-
I don't know. I like that you started the thread off talking about the alternative ways to get to work that don't involve incinerating your employees, but it seems like the focus of the thread quickly shifted from Mustachian solutions to Complainypants bitching about why things can't be done. I wouldn't blame either half of the discussion necessarily, but it seems like this thread is more about whining that things can't be done than figuring out ways to do things. Maybe everyone just forgot their optimism guns (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/10/03/the-practical-benefits-of-outrageous-optimism/).
-
Why is it so important to defend other people from someone on the internet telling them that it would be possible for them to ride a bike if they so choose? Nobody is tracking anyone else down, coming to their door, and saying "ride this bike or I will hurt you".
Anyone who doesn't want to ride a bike, for any reason, also has the choice to not read this thread!
For the same reason that you find it necessary to respond to sexist statements and point out their logical fallacies and unaddressed assumptions. Racism/sexism blah blah blahism all have their basis (imo) in a lack of critical thought and empathy for others.
The difference is, I was never saying "how dare you post that, you shouldn't say that, keep your opinion to yourself".
If everyone kept their opinions to themselves, there would be no forum.
Whether MMM is or is not a fan of anything does not mean the logic does not have to stand up. When you have unthinking adherence to anything you let free will and diversity go.
and
If Mr. Mustache was an avid runner instead of a biker, I predict everyone here would be advocating running to work.
The majority of "avid" bikers here did not start biking within the past 2 years.
I've been using a bike as transportation since 6th grade, over 2 decades ago. I've been working with the bike station and bike coalition ("promoting the bicycle as a means of everyday transportation") for 6 years. I hadn't ever heard of Jacob of ERE, and noone had heard of the Mustached Man, not even Pete. Just because many of us have convergent ideas does not make us followers.
Yes, I dislike evangelical zeal being used to judge others
I find it obsessive as well, and a little off-putting.
PLEASE RESPECT THIS CHOICE and DON'T TELL ME I SHOULD CYCLE NO MATTER WHAT.
there are probably many others that get the idea that if they don't commute by bike, they are not participating properly.
Maybe that is the crux of it right there, why some people are so defensive about it.
You feel like the community won't accept you if you don't ride a bike.
Except, no one actually said that! The closest anyone has is the Mustached Man himself, and he doesn't even participate in the forums.
Nobody has "judged" anyone. All people are saying is "I hear the reasons you feel this won't work, here are some suggestions of how you could get it to work." That is not the same thing as "you MUST find a way, or else you are a bad person and I won't like you". That seems to be what some non-cyclists are hearing.
Perhaps somewhere inside you feel it is true, so you project it on others? They say a remark generally hurts in proportion to its truth.
And, a lot of people here probably do NOT like or want to bike, but they are being quiet because they are drowned out by the bikers
There are many many topics here. There is stuff on gardening, landlording, the stock market, paying down debt, cutting cable, cheaper cell phones... Nobody is going into a thread on buying a first rental property, and saying "the first step is to buy a bike". If you keep seeing bike people talking about bike stuff, its probably because you keep clicking topics with the word "bike" in them!
No one seems to feel any need to post a "I will NOT buy index funds" thread, or a "I will NOT buy a rental house" or "I will NOT pay off my debt".
That all caps in the original topic, the all caps in bold, repeated over and over, that is what hints at obsessive to me - really, as defensive, as someone else pointed out already.
-
The all caps and bold was me and I'm a walker and a biker and not much of a driver - anti-car in fact. I don't feel judged for that, although I feel that the walking option is a good one.
Might be more of point against using caps and bold than anything else. I did it to make sure the point got read given that people clearly were not reading the points, but I guess it came across as shouty. In real life I wasn't shouty.
It was not about not posting an opinion, it is about posting an opinion without reading and considering what people are saying first. I find that frustrating personally. Might as well have your own post going if you want to talk at people and tell them what to do because you are right.
I'm losing interest now, like others who have posted contrary opinions, because it kind of feels like the listening and hearing the other side bit got a bit lost here. A steam-roller comes to mind :)
-
The problem with the DC area is that you often have to travel through higher crime areas to get to where you need to be. It's not a question of moving. The neighborhood where I live is pretty safe, but it's right next to a less safe neighborhood. The place where the attack occurred that the OP mentioned is in a very high-crime area that happens to be in between where I live and where I work (and between where the victim in that case lives and works as well), and there's no avoiding it if you want to get from A to B.
I'm about 99.99% sure I'm only going to be working for another month or so anyway, so I'm not going to sweat it. I drive very, very little, especially compared with the average person.
It seems like the people who plan these amenities for pedestrians and cyclists, at least around here, never think about crime and safety issues. There is a place nearby where they built a fancy pedestrian bridge so people could walk more safely to a Metro station -- before the bridge was built, they had to cross an on-ramp to the Beltway to get to it -- and almost immediately, people started getting mugged when they were using the bridge because it was enclosed and a great place for muggers to hide. Not sure if they did anything to fix the problem.
-
I think the takeaway point is that there are many different ways of living. If you have really weighed costs and benefits and come to the conclusion that a big house or small house makes sense or car or no car - or whatever - then fine. If you want others to give you feedback you need to be open to logical fallacies or bad math. This is a service offered by this board, and a valuable one.
Yes, I think that is right.
Even though your view on the dangers of biking is different, Totoro, I hope you feel that others appreciate your willingness to discuss and hash out the issue. While the danger factor doesn't play a part in my decision for the reason pop pop explained well (whether it's bigger than driving, it's still incredibly small) it appears to be important to others. If something is important to people, I can only assume that it matters to them that they come to the right conclusion, and this helps with that.
-
I don't know. I like that you started the thread off talking about the alternative ways to get to work that don't involve incinerating your employees, but it seems like the focus of the thread quickly shifted from Mustachian solutions to Complainypants bitching about why things can't be done. I wouldn't blame either half of the discussion necessarily, but it seems like this thread is more about whining that things can't be done than figuring out ways to do things. Maybe everyone just forgot their optimism guns (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/10/03/the-practical-benefits-of-outrageous-optimism/).
Could be. How did the incineration of employees come into the conversation? I missed (or forgot) that somehow. =-)
Today, I was thinking some more about this thread. I live in what some would consider a dangerous area, yet I do not live in day-to-day fear (although a previous poster said I was perpetuating fear by talking about choosing not to bike on the trail due to crime).
Several people suggested I move since I do not feel safe using the bike trail. I could, and I have thought about it. If I sold my house and moved because it's dangerous, it would really be no different than staying off a bike trail because it is dangerous. Also, those neighborhoods are further from where I work and not always on a bike trail.
If I bought in a lower crime area, the price of the house would go up by hundreds of thousands of dollars and would not be as walkable. So, there is that to think about too. Is it worth delaying retirement to be able to bike to work? Not for me.
The irony here is that I live near a train station. If I recall correctly, crime is higher near DC metro stations. Living near the station is good because I do not have to use a bike or car. Living near the metro station is bad because it's easier for people to commit a crime and run off to a train or to come from other neighborhoods to commit a crime.
On the way to school, in our nation's capital, I once made a lot of noise to keep the attention of the kids *away* from the place where the guy was shot in someone's front yard. (The dead body was gone but the cops were still there.) When I got in an accident and had to visit the ER, I waited a long time because the gun shot victims go first. That's the downside of DC.
Um, at least there isn't shelling like in Israel? Yet?
This thread made me realize I have become accustomed to a LOT of crime--and guns. Just the other night, I was in bed reading and heard "pop pop pop." Firecrackers? Guns? I think they were guns. I used to think they were firecrackers because I could not imagine this many guns going off--and then someone was shot in a drive by in his front yard. It's incredible what you can be accustomed to within many years. This is the new normal, I suppose.
I still love DC and think this is one of the best places to live. =-)
-
Bakari thread reply #132 hit the nail on the head for me. No use in quoting it, so easy to go up andcread it. You and I are thinking the same on this one.
Guess I too don't understand all the fuss. Riding works for some and not for others, but sometimes there are some that don't ride that could ( clearly note that I did not say SHOULD).
-
Anyone who doesn't want to ride a bike, for any reason, also has the choice to not read this thread!
Or respond to it with their reasoning. ;)
Why would someone who feels the same way as the thread title avoid this thread?
One thing I didn't see addresses here in the safety discussion, or responded to in the MMM post, is the issue of injury per mile. Yeah, you can argue about death all you want, but injury is important too. My admittedly anecdotal evidence is that every single coworker who rides their bike to work has reported at least one injury while doing so (usually not emergency room level, but often "don't see a client bleeding like that" level). Sometimes car related, sometimes other causes. All coworkers are generally very safe (lights, helmets, reflective clothing, follow traffic laws, etc.). This has caused me to basically shun biking commute (walking is a viable alternative but obviously slower).
I have no real statistics on injury rate per mile, and would love to see some analysis. It's probably much higher in urban areas and possibly negligible in the suburbs. What do you cyclists think? Have you been injured? Do you simply accept it as a cost of biking? Will someone make the argument that car injury is just as common (I tend to think not, again from anecdotal experience, especially things like scrapes).
-
What do you cyclists think? Have you been injured?
Off the top of my head, I can't recall ever having been injured cycling as an adult, so any injuries must have been fairly minor. That includes about 30 years of irregular commuting to work, and a lot of touring & other recreational riding, both on roads & trails.
-
I just have to chuckle over this thread. From some of the responses, you would think Oldtoyota posted the following thread topic:
"I drown puppies and kittens everyday, and I'm not going to stop."
-
What do you cyclists think? Have you been injured? Do you simply accept it as a cost of biking? Will someone make the argument that car injury is just as common (I tend to think not, again from anecdotal experience, especially things like scrapes).
As a kid I fell many times from my bike (worst injury was hitting a tree stump while going down a steep hill - went over the handlebars, had the bike land on top of me . . . and I wasn't wearing a helmet since this was pre-helmet laws). Since I started cycling regularly for groceries/commute through I haven't been injured. A couple close calls where my tire slid out from the bike on icy patches in the winter, but I got my foot down in time.
-
What do you cyclists think? Have you been injured?
I'm a clumsy person. I started biking for 99% of my transportation about 3 years ago, and in that time I've fallen off my bike probably 5-10 times. The worst was one winter day, rounding a corner, the bike flew out from under me on a patch of ice and I landed directly on one knee. It swelled up to about twice its normal size. But no injuries to date that have actually required medical treatment. Most of my injuries have just been scrapes and bumps, with the knee bump being severe enough I consider it a level above "bump".
-
I have no real statistics on injury rate per mile, and would love to see some analysis. It's probably much higher in urban areas and possibly negligible in the suburbs.
I don't know the stats either, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were just the opposite (ie, normalized injury rate higher in suburbs than urban areas). I think most car/bike accidents happen because drivers don't notice bikers. While bikers probably get cursed at more in cities, they are a lot more noticeable and expected on the roads. Also, I think city bikers are probably more experienced, on average.
Chalk me up as another injury anecdote. Broken shoulder last year, no cars involved. I went back to commuting by bike as soon as I could use my arm again, but I try to ride like less of an idiot now.
-
my anecdote - yes, more (very) minor injuries by bike than auto. More concentrated when I was either under 18, working as a bike messenger, or long fast recreational riding. Never anything that required more than band-aids.
I don't believe I have been down at all in the past 8 or 9 years (on bike - I have had 2 tiny crashes commuting by rollerblade in the past 4 years, both caused scrapes, but no cuts).
I have also been very lucky in my lack of auto injury - hit by a drunk driver, at night, in the rain, on my motorcycle: flew over the handlebars, landed on my f'in feet in the middle of the intersection somehow. Nothing like general fitness and cat-like agility, I guess.
and
being a stupid street racing kid, hitting a suggested 20mph corner at 55+, sliding into the oncoming lane, flipping over a mid-size pickup truck that was going the other way, with my sub-ton gen 3 Civic hatchback: spun the car around 360 degrees, the truck landed in a field across the street upsidedown, no injuries for me, my passenger, or the other driver. Malomar wanted to teach me a lesson the easy way, I guess. Only consequence was I lost the car. Not even a traffic ticket.
Then again, my brother's best friend in kindergarten was killed in a car accident, my school roommates girlfriend was killed in a car accident, my mother spent years in rehab after a car accident, all 3 accidents were the other driver was 100% at fault (drunk in at least the first two); the worst bike accident I personally know of was my ex suffering a concussion after falling off her folding bike (I believe she was riding with no hands, there was def. no car involved), but she was out of the hospital within a couple hours.
So, in conclusion, my anecdotes: inconclusive.
I have no idea that stats for bikes, or the relative risks. Certainly for the most minor of scrapes and bruises, cars are "safer" than bikes- though for moderate to sever injury, cars are certainly not as safe as we feel they are:
In 2011, 2,217,000 people were injured in motor vehicle crashes.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says in 2010 that the cost of medical care and productivity losses associated with motor vehicle crash injuries was over $99 billion, or nearly $500, for each licensed driver in the United States. In addition, every 10 seconds an American is treated in an emergency department for crash-related injuries, based on data from 2005.
The most common cause of the worst non-death injury, paraplegia? Car accidents.
-
Based on miles driven vs miles ridden and the number of crashes/severity involved with each, my personal experience tells me that bike crashes are more likely to happen but are less likely to cause serious injury (minor scrapes / bruises as opposed to a concussion). Another thing to keep in mind is that near-misses are more likely to cause a crash on a bike. The simple act of swerving/not hitting anything can cause you to lose balance and go down, while doing that in a car leads to nothing happening at all.
-
What do you cyclists think? Have you been injured? Do you simply accept it as a cost of biking? Will someone make the argument that car injury is just as common (I tend to think not, again from anecdotal experience, especially things like scrapes).
I've had two biking accidents that resulted in more than just a skinned knee or bump. The vast majority of my riding is on public roads, but both of these accidents happened on biking paths. The first was my own fault for not paying close attention and skidding on some gravel. That resulted in some nasty road rash, bruises, and a cracked helmet. The second was caused by a kid not familiar with biking etiquette and not being parented. I announced my passing, then the kid made a u-turn without looking. I again cracked a helmet and ended up with 15 stitches around my eye. Based purely on my experience, I feel safer with cars than people around.
I've read the varying opinions on helmets too. Again based solely on my experience, I feel certain I would have had more serious injuries without my helmet.
-
I have no real statistics on injury rate per mile, and would love to see some analysis. It's probably much higher in urban areas and possibly negligible in the suburbs. What do you cyclists think? Have you been injured? Do you simply accept it as a cost of biking? Will someone make the argument that car injury is just as common (I tend to think not, again from anecdotal experience, especially things like scrapes).
Personal experience: zero injuries as an adult with heavy riding for the last 5 years (knocking on wood right now). Also zero car injuries. Amongst acquaintances, I know 4 people with severe neck / back injuries from car accidents, all on city roads.
Re: how common is car injury? I think we would have to see some better statistics on it but certainly bike injuries are more difficult to track on a national level.
I do think people saying they drive as few miles as if they rode bikes is inapplicable to the population at large, though. The average number of miles driven per year in the US ages 20-54 is over 15,000.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm
According to the MMM article, cycling deaths per mile are 6.2x driving deaths. So, 15000/6.2 = 2419 mi/year or 201 mi/month. If we were cycling all the time instead of driving, I would estimate that the average would be greater than 200 mi/month -- let's estimate 400 so that would make cycling 2x as dangerous as biking. However, these people also neglect MMM's other point that the exercise you get from cycling increases the average American's lifespan as well.
-
I had two bike accidents as a young irresponsible rider, both times doing the exact same stupid thing; passing stopped cars on the right at an intersection. Turns out drivers who are turning right are looking left, not in their passenger side mirror.
Totally my fault. Ruined both bikes. No injuries, despite no helmets.
As an adult daily bike commuter for the past five years, I haven't had the slightest hint of injury or accident. Riding like a car makes all the difference.
I still have coworkers who seem shocked, nay SHOCKED that I ride a bike to work. This happened just last week:
Him: What do you do when it rains, don't you get wet?
Me: Yes, I get wet. Then I have to change clothes.
Him: Doesn't that suck?
Me: Would you go change your clothes right now if I paid you $3? Because that's how much I saved on gas today by riding. And every time I pay you $3, you lose half a pound of body fat and add two hours to your life expectancy. And most days I get all that and it doesn't rain so I don't even have to change!
-
I had two bike accidents as a young irresponsible rider, both times doing the exact same stupid thing; passing stopped cars on the right at an intersection. Turns out drivers who are turning right are looking left, not in their passenger side mirror.
Totally my fault. Ruined both bikes. No injuries, despite no helmets.
As an adult daily bike commuter for the past five years...
Me: Would you go change your clothes right now if I paid you $3? Because that's how much I saved on gas today by riding. And every time I pay you $3, you lose half a pound of body fat and add two hours to your life expectancy. And most days I get all that and it doesn't rain so I don't even have to change!
I believe that you can save $3 for every time you've biked over the last five years. Actually, I suspect you've saved much more. But I don't believe that I'd lose 625* pounds of fat by doing the same thing. :) There's clearly a point of diminishing returns on the fat loss, and I think that fact casts some doubt on the idea that I could be getting 1250 hours of longevity out of the deal over 5 years. Though I'd be at a loss to guess what the modified number would probably be.
* 5 trips/workweek * 50 weeks/year * 5 years * 1/2 lb/trip = 625 lbs.
-
But I don't believe that I'd lose 625* pounds of fat by doing the same thing.
You're right, I was grossly exaggerating to make a point.
Do the specific details really matter though? Riding to work saves me money and is good for my body. And every objection to riding essentially boils down to "I'm too lazy to deal."
Whenever I see a life decision where one option is better in every respect but the alternative is more convenient, I try to choose the option that involves sucking less, even while I acknowledge that most Americans will opt for convenience. It's part of who we are as a nation.
-
That's fair. I haven't really stated my objection, and I should.
My objection is that biking on public roads is significantly less safe than driving by any objective measure, which is in turn the most dangerous thing most people in this country do almost every day without ever thinking or worrying about it. (Except avid cyclists, of course. :)) MMM made some serious errors in his analysis to come to a different conclusion. The minor one is overestimating health benefits, but the doozy was the hours versus miles thing. (Some people have suggested that bike riders are better trip planners, but trip planning is something drivers can learn and apply equally well. Even better, if they use their cargo space advantage.)
If you really want to extend your useful hours of life, live close to everything to reduce travel miles, work out at home, and walk and take public transit whenever possible; esp. trains and subways. Those aren't rules I've always lived by (except the first), but I'm pretty sure they're right.
Cars and public transit are not the cheapest way to go, though. The dollar savings from biking are very real and worth considering, especially here. Furthermore, the injury risks are reasonable ones for adults to take on in a free society. Which is to say that I'm not against biking, so much as I'm for solid analysis and informed decision making.
-
That's fair. I haven't really stated my objection, and I should.
My objection is that biking on public roads is significantly less safe than driving by any objective measure, which is in turn the most dangerous thing most people in this country do almost every day without ever thinking or worrying about it. (Except avid cyclists, of course. :)) MMM made some serious errors in his analysis to come to a different conclusion. The minor one is overestimating health benefits, but the doozy was the hours versus miles thing. (Some people have suggested that bike riders are better trip planners, but trip planning is something drivers can learn and apply equally well. Even better, if they use their cargo space advantage.)
If you really want to extend your useful hours of life, live close to everything to reduce travel miles, work out at home, and walk and take public transit whenever possible; esp. trains and subways. Those aren't rules I've always lived by (except the first), but I'm pretty sure they're right.
Cars and public transit are not the cheapest way to go, though. The dollar savings from biking are very real and worth considering, especially here. Furthermore, the injury risks are reasonable ones for adults to take on in a free society. Which is to say that I'm not against biking, so much as I'm for solid analysis and informed decision making.
Ditto (I've given up on all caps), as participants in this discussion may know if they've read through this thread. Who would have expected it to have such popularity! Anyway, thank you for reviving these points.
If you have read through the thread you will note that I walk instead of biking and I agree that reducing car time is an excellent goal and many people could take transit, bike or walk and just do not.
That said, another point is that some people are not "too lazy to deal". Some people are dealing with work/life situations that require them to drive - for now. Dangerous biking areas and extreme work schedules as a single parent and the need for a car for work purposes during the day have been put forth as legitimate reasons.
I've looked at these responses and I have to say I don't see any reason to call these individuals out as too lazy to deal because they won't bike. There is a difference between what some people call a "face punch" and feeling so superior that you no longer recognize a low blow.
-
need for a car for work purposes during the day have been put forth as legitimate reasons.
Of all of the complaints in this thread, the "my job requires a car" argument is the most confusing to me.
My job requires me to drive places on a semi-regular basis, for example, so they provide me a car. We have a motor pool. There are laws against employers requiring employees to drive their personal vehicles for work reasons, unless they are getting paid for vehicle expenses (like pizza delivery people).
In which case, driving a car isn't really a choice you've made, it's a requirement of your employer. If you have a job that involves driving, like long-haul trucker, then of course you're going to drive.
That's totally independent of how you commute to work. I typically bike to work, and when I have to drive somewhere I check out one of the work vehicles. At no point does my job, which requires me to hold a valid drivers license, require me to own a vehicle.
I don't see any reason to call these individuals out as too lazy to deal because they won't bike.
Of course you don't, or you would have said it. But I do see a reason, so I said it.
Too lazy to figure out how to transport cargo. Too lazy to deal with inclement weather, with traffic, with route planning. Too lazy to shorten their commute by relocating either home or job. Too lazy to make the time necessary for a longer trip. And most specifically, too lazy to actually pedal. Exercise is hard! Why would I do that when my SUV has heated seats?
Biking isn't for everyone. I long ago accepted that vast swaths of the country lack the basic willpower to not stuff their faces with diabetes-causing junk food, so I have little to no expectation that they will actively do something good for themselves like regularly exercise. Not everyone has the strength of character to be a good and kind person, either. We're always going to have dregs of society, by whatever metric you choose to value.
-
I am considering getting a bike and trying to ride to work (thanks MMM), although I do have a few obstacles to contend with.
- The weather (hot hot hot and humid) -- I think if I left the house around 7am, it would be ok. I just need to get my butt up and at 'em to do it. I would probably still need to work until 5pm, regardless. Our clients need us and expect us to be there between 8am and 5pm.
- My own lack of bike skills -- I need to practice first. I haven't owned or ridden a bicycle in years. Decades in fact. I need to be able to trust I can go in a straight line, avoid objects, etc.
- I need to buy a bike -- I would want it to be light (more on that later), dependable and easy to ride. So I need to set up a budget to save specifically for the bike; while I am posting on MMM's forums, I will not be buying somebody else's used bike. I won't be able to trust it. Besides, I already looked at Craigslist and everything on there was either crap or overpriced.
- My city isn't bike-friendly. At all. I saw two bikers the entire time I've been here. My co-worker said she tried to bike around the area I need to ride in order to get to work. She followed traffic laws and rode on the street near the sidewalk. A van came up right next to her and honked, startling her and nearly causing her to fall. She hasn't been back on the streets with a bike since. She's freaked out. Folks here aren't used to bicyclists; they don't know how to drive with bicyclists on the road. She told me of a guy that used to bike to work here for what was probably 10+ miles each day, each way. He said the scariest part of his ride was the area I was going to have to bike through. Why? Because the drivers reacted poorly to seeing his bike. Instead of staying in their lanes and simply driving past him, they all crowded behind him, going extremely slowly, causing honking and general road rage. They would cross into the adjacent lane to get around him, cutting off other vehicles. He did this for an entire year and it never got better. He said it was very stressful.
I talked to a bunch of people at work yesterday about how I should combat this problem. The vast consensus is that I would need to ride on the sidewalk, despite it violating traffic laws. The narrow streets along with drivers who don't understand how to react around bicyclists make me extraordinarly anxious. The route I take to work has sidewalks most of the way. The part where there is no sidewalks, I can walk with the bike on a grassy area. I would need to bike against traffic on the way to work to avoid having to cross four lanes of traffic.
Yesterday, I drove home, looking at the route I would have to take and, lo and behold, one of the two bicyclists I've now seen here was doing just what my co-workers said--he was riding on the sidewalk against traffic.
I should mention that there aren't a whole lot of people on the sidewalks here. The heat isn't conducive to a lot of walking. The only area I can think that would have a lot of people is right in front of the school I would need to pass on my way to work. I would probably get off the bike and walk it past the school.
I just can't see another way to bike safely to work. This isn't a biking town.
Any further suggestions are welcome. I was a "I can't bike to work" person, too. But I can. I'm very scared to do it, but I want to try.
-
Too lazy to make the time necessary for a longer trip.
I'll give you all of those other lazinesses, but time is finite. You cannot "make more," only take it from somewhere else. I'm not too lazy to make time. I have weighed my allocations of time and decided it is not in our best financial or family interest to take the time from my child, or my sleep.
Not everyone has the strength of character to be a good and kind person, either.
Agree!
-
But I don't believe that I'd lose 625* pounds of fat by doing the same thing. :) There's clearly a point of diminishing returns on the fat loss...
What you're missing is that you're not starting with 625 lbs of fat. Basically, you ride to work & back, burning off 3 lbs, then you eat a big meal, adding back the 3 lbs. Of course this adjusts a bit: if you start with a few extra pounds, you're likely to lose them over the course of a year.
I'll give you all of those other lazinesses, but time is finite. You cannot "make more," only take it from somewhere else.
But you can combine it by multi-tasking. You need to get to and from work. you also need a certain amount of exercise for good health. Say it takes 1 hour to commute to & from work, and then you go run one hour for exercise. But biking to work takes 1.5 hours, and you've gotten your aerobic exercise in the same time, so you've "made" half an hour of time.
-
need for a car for work purposes during the day have been put forth as legitimate reasons.
Of all of the complaints in this thread, the "my job requires a car" argument is the most confusing to me.
My job requires me to drive places on a semi-regular basis, for example, so they provide me a car. We have a motor pool. There are laws against employers requiring employees to drive their personal vehicles for work reasons, unless they are getting paid for vehicle expenses (like pizza delivery people).
You kind of answered your own question. I work in a professional job for the govt. I have to travel on a semi-regular basis as well. I drive my car and then get reimbursed at the current federal rate ($0.565/mile right now). To be completely honest I could rent a car on those days but what a hassel in terms of time not to mention an EXTRA five miles to get to a rental agency. So I drive to the office on those days that I know I will have to travel and bike on the others. Plus a quick run of the numbers shows me that I come out ahead anyway (Honda fit getting about 38mpg).
-
I've looked at these responses and I have to say I don't see any reason to call these individuals out as too lazy to deal because they won't bike. There is a difference between what some people call a "face punch" and feeling so superior that you no longer recognize a low blow.
Hear hear!
+1
-
Let's say you are a single parent.
You get up at 5am and you make breakfast and lunches and get ready for work. Then you study for an hour because you are going to school to be able to get a better job. You get your kid up at 7 and walk her to pre-school for 8:15 and walk back home. She is too young to walk by herself.
You get back home at 8:30, get your lunch packed and off to class. You bike to the university because it is close enough and your classes are 9-12 each day. You also work from 1-5pm each day on a practicum at the hospital 20km away. You drive because you know you won't make pick-up at after-school care in time if you bike or take the bus. You get one 30-minute break at work and you use it to go for a walk or sometimes to study if you have a test coming up.
You pick your kid up at 5:30 - the limit for pick-up, each day. You drive home and make dinner, spend time with your child and do another hour or two of homework after she goes to bed. You go to sleep at 9:00pm. That is your day. You are happy when the weekend hits because you don't have to go anywhere and you can spend time with your child.
Is this an ideal schedule? No. Does it happen? Yes. Are there ways around this? Yes. For example, she could maybe hire someone to care for her child longer after work. Then she could bus with her bike to work and bike home. The trade-off is time with her child and money for care.
Whatever the workarounds might be I do not view this as "lazy".
-
What I want to know is why commuting by bike has a bigger health benefit than doing it during spare/leisure time. Anyone have any possible explanations for this?
-
But you can combine it by multi-tasking. You need to get to and from work. you also need a certain amount of exercise for good health. Say it takes 1 hour to commute to & from work, and then you go run one hour for exercise. But biking to work takes 1.5 hours, and you've gotten your aerobic exercise in the same time, so you've "made" half an hour of time.
Wherever that half hour comes from in terms of other things, my kid still spends the extra half an hour in daycare every day. THAT is the part that is simply not worth it for me. For you or someone else, but not for me. Additionally, the hour that I spend at home at lunch is worth four hours most days, in terms of line-drying, the crockpot cooking my dinner, and the food dehydrator adding to my pantry while I'm at work, not to mention the chores I get done without indruding on time with my child. I'd give up a lot more multi-tasking than I'd get.
Maybe I need to clarify that I have no debt emergency, a respectable net worth and savings rate, and can easily afford the $35 per week it costs me to drive? Does that help at all? I'm going to guess not. But EFF the assumption that I'm lazy. Eff that right in the ear! :)
-
What I want to know is why commuting by bike has a bigger health benefit than doing it during spare/leisure time. Anyone have any possible explanations for this?
It doesn't. The premise is you are getting some extra benefit because you are not getting the same amount of exercise if you drive and exercise outside of this time. I don't agree with this assertion as being a rule, I would agree biking is good exercise and great if you can multi-task it (ie. while on errands, commuting, while working (ie. treadmill desk)).
-
What I want to know is why commuting by bike has a bigger health benefit than doing it during spare/leisure time. Anyone have any possible explanations for this?
It doesn't. The premise is you are getting some extra benefit because you are not getting the same amount of exercise if you drive and exercise outside of this time. I don't agree with this assertion as being a rule, I would agree biking is good exercise and great if you can multi-task it (ie. while on errands, commuting, while working (ie. treadmill desk)).
It's not better. It's more efficient much like the treadmill desk (although the biking to work is much more efficient than a treadmill desk too).
-
But you can combine it by multi-tasking. You need to get to and from work. you also need a certain amount of exercise for good health. Say it takes 1 hour to commute to & from work, and then you go run one hour for exercise. But biking to work takes 1.5 hours, and you've gotten your aerobic exercise in the same time, so you've "made" half an hour of time.
Wherever that half hour comes from in terms of other things, my kid still spends the extra half an hour in daycare every day. THAT is the part that is simply not worth it for me. For you or someone else, but not for me. Additionally, the hour that I spend at home at lunch is worth four hours most days, in terms of line-drying, the crockpot cooking my dinner, and the food dehydrator adding to my pantry while I'm at work, not to mention the chores I get done without indruding on time with my child. I'd give up a lot more multi-tasking than I'd get.
Maybe I need to clarify that I have no debt emergency, a respectable net worth and savings rate, and can easily afford the $35 per week it costs me to drive? Does that help at all? I'm going to guess not. But EFF the assumption that I'm lazy. Eff that right in the ear! :)
I think this is the problem. Most of those posting that you can bike no matter what are not single working parents as far as I can tell.
Passion for a cause that makes you blind to any other perspective can lead to being a bully.
-
What I want to know is why commuting by bike has a bigger health benefit than doing it during spare/leisure time. Anyone have any possible explanations for this?
It doesn't. The premise is you are getting some extra benefit because you are not getting the same amount of exercise if you drive and exercise outside of this time. I don't agree with this assertion as being a rule, I would agree biking is good exercise and great if you can multi-task it (ie. while on errands, commuting, while working (ie. treadmill desk)).
It's not better. It's more efficient much like the treadmill desk (although the biking to work is much more efficient than a treadmill desk too).
It depends on how long your commute is vs. how long you work on the treadmill desk. I suppose you are talking about time again, but I am sitting for work during these hours anyway.
-
Mostly talking about heart rate and aerobic exercise in general. Frankly I don't have numbers to back it up but so I'd be interested to see the graph of biking at a fixed speed vs. walking at a fixed speed and how those racked up against each other in regards to aerobic exercise.
-
Mostly talking about heart rate and aerobic exercise in general. Frankly I don't have numbers to back it up but so I'd be interested to see the graph of biking at a fixed speed vs. walking at a fixed speed and how those racked up against each other in regards to aerobic exercise.
It is interesting because there was a study released recently that stated that you get the same amount of exercise walking as running as long as you cover the same distance (the catch).
Here’s what the researchers found:
•Running significantly reduced the risk for being diagnosed with hypertension by 4.2% while walking reduced the risk by 7.2%
•Running reduced the chances of having high cholesterol by 4.3% and walking by 7%
•Running lowered risk of diabetes by 12.1% while walking dropped the risk by 12.3%
•Running reduced coronary heart disease risk by 4.5% compared to 9.3% for walking.
http://healthland.time.com/2013/04/05/walk-or-run-to-lower-heart-disease-risk-benefits-are-similar/
Also, the health differences between walking and biking are minimal according to this:
http://www.livestrong.com/article/403429-is-bike-riding-as-good-exercise-as-walking/
-
What I want to know is why commuting by bike has a bigger health benefit than doing it during spare/leisure time. Anyone have any possible explanations for this?
It doesn't. The premise is you are getting some extra benefit because you are not getting the same amount of exercise if you drive and exercise outside of this time. I don't agree with this assertion as being a rule, I would agree biking is good exercise and great if you can multi-task it (ie. while on errands, commuting, while working (ie. treadmill desk)).
the thing that makes it benefit me more than "biking just for fun" is that commuting is built into my day ... so it gets done automatically, with no special effort or trips required.
i have found that when my lifestyle requires me to get exercise, i get a lot more than when it's just on me to go to the gym or go for a walk or what have you.
-
But you can combine it by multi-tasking. You need to get to and from work. you also need a certain amount of exercise for good health. Say it takes 1 hour to commute to & from work, and then you go run one hour for exercise. But biking to work takes 1.5 hours, and you've gotten your aerobic exercise in the same time, so you've "made" half an hour of time.
Wherever that half hour comes from in terms of other things, my kid still spends the extra half an hour in daycare every day. THAT is the part that is simply not worth it for me. For you or someone else, but not for me. Additionally, the hour that I spend at home at lunch is worth four hours most days, in terms of line-drying, the crockpot cooking my dinner, and the food dehydrator adding to my pantry while I'm at work, not to mention the chores I get done without indruding on time with my child. I'd give up a lot more multi-tasking than I'd get.
Maybe I need to clarify that I have no debt emergency, a respectable net worth and savings rate, and can easily afford the $35 per week it costs me to drive? Does that help at all? I'm going to guess not. But EFF the assumption that I'm lazy. Eff that right in the ear! :)
Exactly. You are not lazy at all. You have priorities that are different from other people here who claim you are "lazy" because you do not live their life as they do.
Maybe the people attacking you are lazy because 1) they did not have kids 2) if they have kids, they are not spending as much time with them as you are. I don't think that...just making a point.
-
Mostly talking about heart rate and aerobic exercise in general. Frankly I don't have numbers to back it up but so I'd be interested to see the graph of biking at a fixed speed vs. walking at a fixed speed and how those racked up against each other in regards to aerobic exercise.
Heart rate is going to depend on your personal fitness level. However, there are a lot of tables giving calories burned for various activities, like this one: http://www.nutristrategy.com/caloriesburned.htm So cycling will (for a 180 lb person) burn between 327 (< 10 mph) and 1308 (> 20 mph) calories per hour. Walking would range from 204 to 658 calories/hr.
-
Opinions on calorie burn rates vary; here's a chart whose numbers differ: http://www.coach-hughes.com/resources/calories.html - if you do the calculation for 180 pounds (divide by 2.2 to get Kg), the burn rate at 20 mph is between 900-1000 / hr. Furthermore, these charts have limited use: averaging 20 mph on a relatively flat route won't burn the same energy as doing it on hills.
I'll also state that I do not bike commute (it'd be inefficient). To avoid the heavily-trafficked highway, I would be riding approximately 12-13 miles each way - about double my car commute distance (and roughly triple the time). The exercise angle is meaningless for me as I train 8+ hours a week for duathlons.
-
Furthermore, these charts have limited use: averaging 20 mph on a relatively flat route won't burn the same energy as doing it on hills.
Of course. But if you're putting out X effort to go 20 mph on the flat (and let's not forget head & tailwinds), then it's likely that you'll be putting out the same effort going up hills. That provides about as good an answer as you're going to get to the original question about comparing exercise levels of biking, walking, and other activities.
-
If my adult daughter were taking the exact same path I take home from work each day I would tell her I think it's a bad idea, the area is not safe enough for a 110 pound 25 year old female. But for me, a 200 pound 46 year old guy who used to deliver mail in a bunch of working class neighborhoods, I don't think twice about it.
What are you basing this on? Are you assuming that females are more likely to be victims of violent crime? Are you assuming younger or smaller people are more likely to be victims? And if so, where did you learn this?
Once again, your implication is correct, and you do not go quite far enough.
Contrary to almost universal belief, males are MORE often the victims of violent crime by strangers.
Men are at significantly higher risk of being assaulted by a stranger, and this has always been true:
Violent crimes included are rape, robbery, and both simple and aggravated assault.
Violent crime rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older
Total Gender of victim
population Male Female
1977 50.6 71.3 32.5
1987 43.8 57.0 32.1
1997 38.7 45.8 32.1
2007 20.3 22.6 18.1
2008 19.0 21.4 16.7
http://www.bjs.gov/content/glance/tables/vsxtab.cfm (http://www.bjs.gov/content/glance/tables/vsxtab.cfm)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GpVhQVThSXI/UP3JzA5e2AI/AAAAAAAAAXI/4fPFnJbwWSg/s1600/Murder+victims+by+gender.png)
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/gender.cfm (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/gender.cfm)
The trend has been for assault against males to drop faster than against females, so while it is no longer more than twice as dangerous for a man than a woman, it remains approximately 30% more dangerous, on average, nationwide.
Our perception that women are naturally victims is not due to any actual risk, it is due to society wide subconscious sexism.
Bakari and Sheepstache, do you believe that criminals (esp. ones seeking economic gain) typically select their targets (that are strangers) based on likelihood of success and perceive reward of a successful outcome, by sizing up their target for any perceived weakness and perceived value?
The statistics that were shared by Bakari only indicate homicide victim amount overall (per 100,000). They have virtually no relevance to the danger of each gender in a similar dangerous area frequented at the same rate. (I am not sure if either of you explicitly say this, though that is what I interpreted that each of you meant in your previous posts.)
The statistics do not provide much information regarding the "danger"/likelihood of being targeted (in a similar location frequented at the same rate) between an individual man and an individual woman who both have average physical characteristics for their respective gender (in US in 2002 for those over 20yrs old, 190lbs and 5'9" for men; 163lbs and 5'4" for women). Other major contributing factors to totals include: One sex might be in dangerous areas much more often than the other; one might be more risk averse than the other; one might be more likely to be the target of criminal on criminal violence/mugging. In the United States in 2008, 1 in 18 men were incarcerated, whereas 1 in 89 women were incarcerated. Essentially, what I am saying is that there are so many factors that contribute to overall totals, that it is irresponsible to extrapolate risk of being targeted in a similar dangerous area frequented at the same rate. Without attempting to control for certain factors, it is simply comparing apples and oranges.
My hypothesis is that typically criminals select targets (who are also strangers) based on risk and reward (based off of the criminals own biases/judgement). The risk is thought to be lower if the target appears to have some type of perceived weakness (size, age, fitness level, appears to be lost, dressed like a tourist, etc.). Unfortunately, in a brief attempt to google, I was not able to find a data-driven peer-reviewed scientific paper, that either support or refute this theory. I think designing and conducting this type of study would be difficult, though an analysis would be possible using econometrics.
-
Exactly. You are not lazy at all. You have priorities that are different from other people here who claim you are "lazy" because you do not live their life as they do.
Maybe the people attacking you are lazy because 1) they did not have kids 2) if they have kids, they are not spending as much time with them as you are. I don't think that...just making a point.
People are motivated to do things in different ways. If someone calls me lazy because I don't do something, it's not an insult but rather a challenge. If I'm not up to the challenge for whatever reason, cool. I can live with that. If it helps to motivate even one person into an activity though, good.
You strike me as the kind of person who has never been coached in any kind of hard physical sport. Your average person is soft, and weak . . . and not aware of how strong they can be, or how hard they can push themselves. Sometimes a little tough love is a good way to get them to harden the fuck up and improve. I think that you're misinterpreting a general push for people to harden up as bullying or attacks when it's really being pushed more in a spirit of camaraderie and as a challenge.
-
Exactly. You are not lazy at all. You have priorities that are different from other people here who claim you are "lazy" because you do not live their life as they do.
Maybe the people attacking you are lazy because 1) they did not have kids 2) if they have kids, they are not spending as much time with them as you are. I don't think that...just making a point.
People are motivated to do things in different ways. If someone calls me lazy because I don't do something, it's not an insult but rather a challenge. If I'm not up to the challenge for whatever reason, cool. I can live with that. If it helps to motivate even one person into an activity though, good.
You strike me as the kind of person who has never been coached in any kind of hard physical sport. Your average person is soft, and weak . . . and not aware of how strong they can be, or how hard they can push themselves. Sometimes a little tough love is a good way to get them to harden the fuck up and improve. I think that you're misinterpreting a general push for people to harden up as bullying or attacks when it's really being pushed more in a spirit of camaraderie and as a challenge.
You strike me as lacking in life experience outside of a realm where biking make sense combined with an inability to put yourself in a different set of circumstances and evaluate things objectively. Your entrenched mindset is blinding you to some factors imo.
-
Bakari and Sheepstache, do you believe that criminals (esp. ones seeking economic gain) typically select their targets (that are strangers) based on likelihood of success and perceive reward of a successful outcome, by sizing up their target for any perceived weakness and perceived value?
Those seeking economic gain, probably.
The chart above the graph totals rape, robbery, and both simple and aggravated assault; in 3 of those perceived (economic) value wouldn't be a consideration. For the first one gender would, presumably with females a more likely target, but for the last to, given that most men learn all their lives "never hit a woman", males are probably a more likely target. Certainly by anecdote of me and people I know, a significant portion of assault is not part of a robbery attempt.
The statistics that were shared by Bakari only indicate homicide victim amount overall (per 100,000). They have virtually no relevance to the danger of each gender in a similar dangerous area frequented at the same rate. (I am not sure if either of you explicitly say this, though that is what I interpreted that each of you meant in your previous posts.)
Other major contributing factors to totals include: One sex might be in dangerous areas much more often than the other;
Maybe other parts of the country are just totally different from anything I've ever known, but most places I know, rich or poor, homogenous or diverse, safe or dangerous, the population is pretty much split 50/50 by gender.
one might be more risk averse than the other;
indeed - this is an interesting one; women are told not to be out after dark alone in certain areas. But at the same time, in violence prone Richmond and Oakland, it seems women are quicker to get into shouting matches in broad day light with strangers. A guy who has had a conflict elevated to physical violence, even in broad day light, with witnesses around, is often a little more restrained (unless he is intoxicated, or happens to be packing heat - except even then you don't know that the other guy isn't also...)
Essentially, what I am saying is that there are so many factors that contribute to overall totals, that it is irresponsible to extrapolate risk of being targeted in a similar dangerous area frequented at the same rate. Without attempting to control for certain factors, it is simply comparing apples and oranges.
My hypothesis is that typically criminals select targets (who are also strangers) based on risk and reward (based off of the criminals own biases/judgement). The risk is thought to be lower if the target appears to have some type of perceived weakness (size, age, fitness level, appears to be lost, dressed like a tourist, etc.). Unfortunately, in a brief attempt to google, I was not able to find a data-driven peer-reviewed scientific paper, that either support or refute this theory. I think designing and conducting this type of study would be difficult, though an analysis would be possible using econometrics.
Fair enough, but without that detailed data, I find it hard to interpret what I have shown to support the idea that, all other factors being equal, women are at overwhelmingly higher risk of stranger violence then men are.
-
given that most men learn all their lives "never hit a woman", males are probably a more likely target. Certainly by anecdote of me and people I know, a significant portion of assault is not part of a robbery attempt.
I was a police officer for 8 years. Although I don't have specific statistic to back this up, women are more often the target of robbery or "grand theft person" (chain snatches, purse snatches, etc...). Criminals look at them as an easy target because they are less likely to fight with them. The typical scenario is to walk up behind a woman, grab her gold chain and break it off her neck as you run off and get in a car.
Men are by far the more likely victim of assault.
EDIT: And stranger rape is incredibly rare (being raped by a random person).
-
Too lazy to shorten their commute by relocating either home or job.
Again...
Move even closer and you can walk. :)
-
...women are more often the target of robbery or "grand theft person" (chain snatches, purse snatches, etc...). Criminals look at them as an easy target because they are less likely to fight with them. The typical scenario is to walk up behind a woman, grab her gold chain and break it off her neck as you run off and get in a car.
In addition to which, a lot more women than men carry purses & wear easily-visible gold chains. It's a lot easier to snatch a purse and run than to get a guy's wallet out of his pocket.
-
Too lazy to shorten their commute by relocating either home or job.
Again...
Move even closer and you can walk. :)
I did!
But I also realize not everyone's workplace location is conducive to walking. Virtually everyone's workplace is conducive to biking, though, whether they admit it or not.
-
Other major contributing factors to totals include: One sex might be in dangerous areas much more often than the other;
Maybe other parts of the country are just totally different from anything I've ever known, but most places I know, rich or poor, homogenous or diverse, safe or dangerous, the population is pretty much split 50/50 by gender.
From my observation and what I have read, men are, in general, more likely than women to have jobs that frequently put them in higher risk situation (ie wrong place, wrong time, alone). An example of this would be taxi cab drivers, or over night convenience store clerks. Whereas certain professions are dominated by women, ie medical coder, where you are working in an office. Even if the populations are the same, when comparing different demographics, frequency of where a person goes and at what time of day is not always the same.
Per FBI data, "In 2010, in incidents of murder for which the relationships of murder victims and offenders were known, 53.0 percent were killed by someone they knew", so that kind of makes it difficult to apply to the discussion regarding stranger danger. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain
In general, I was trying to make the point that your argument does not have sufficient data to back it up (at least in this thread), then share my alternative theory, and concede that I was not able to find strong direct data to back up my theory either. Its an interesting discussion though.
-
I was just playing around in Google maps, and noticed something that had never occurred to me to bring to the safety analysis: you often (typically?) have to bike more miles to get to the same places.
Obviously, you can't take a bike on a freeway. You have to take surface streets, and not all surface streets are suitable.
I plugged my own commute in. I can drive to in about 5 miles, but it would take me about 7 to bike there.
ETA: If I took a circuitous 10 mile route, I could get there mostly by going through parks. That would probably be safer than driving, but then the commute would be about an hour each way.
-
Why would it take you an hour to ride ten miles? Would you stop for ice cream for twenty minutes in each direction?
Google Maps has terrible estimates of cycling time.
-
I was just playing around in Google maps, and noticed something that had never occurred to me to bring to the safety analysis: you often (typically?) have to bike more miles to get to the same places.
Obviously, you can't take a bike on a freeway. You have to take surface streets, and not all surface streets are suitable.
I plugged my own commute in. I can drive to in about 5 miles, but it would take me about 7 to bike there.
ETA: If I took a circuitous 10 mile route, I could get there mostly by going through parks. That would probably be safer than driving, but then the commute would be about an hour each way.
This works both ways though . . . It's faster for me to drive on the highway to get to work, but actually is a greater distance (13 vs 11 miles) than my slower posted top speed side street bike commute. When running errands I can reduce the distance needed to travel by taking bike paths that cut through areas rather than driving the long way around.
-
I was just playing around in Google maps, and noticed something that had never occurred to me to bring to the safety analysis: you often (typically?) have to bike more miles to get to the same places.
Not always, though, because (among other factors) freeways tend to be routed around expensive real estate. As for instance when I worked at the local university, getting there by freeway required going northeast, then back west on a different freeway. (And then I had to park in a lot about half a mile from the lab, and walk or take a shuttle bus the rest of the way.) I could bike pretty much directly by going north on a surface street, cutting a couple of miles from the distance.
-
Of course it's going to be situational. But I expect that there are more miles of unbikeable roads than undrivable paths.
I'm going to note that James' post is in the past tense. I can do that, too. When I was living and working in different places than I am now, I was right next to one of the few paths in the area, which went right by my work. My walking distance was about half my driving distance. But that hasn't normally been the case for me, and I expect that is true for most people at most times in their lives.
-
Exactly. You are not lazy at all. You have priorities that are different from other people here who claim you are "lazy" because you do not live their life as they do.
Maybe the people attacking you are lazy because 1) they did not have kids 2) if they have kids, they are not spending as much time with them as you are. I don't think that...just making a point.
People are motivated to do things in different ways. If someone calls me lazy because I don't do something, it's not an insult but rather a challenge. If I'm not up to the challenge for whatever reason, cool. I can live with that. If it helps to motivate even one person into an activity though, good.
You strike me as the kind of person who has never been coached in any kind of hard physical sport. Your average person is soft, and weak . . . and not aware of how strong they can be, or how hard they can push themselves. Sometimes a little tough love is a good way to get them to harden the fuck up and improve. I think that you're misinterpreting a general push for people to harden up as bullying or attacks when it's really being pushed more in a spirit of camaraderie and as a challenge.
You strike me as someone the kind of person who doesn't listen to others because you think your viewpoint is the correct one. Since you think your view point is the correct one, you call other people lazy or you project onto them or you make up stories about their backgrounds.
I think you seem like someone who looks down on others when possible.
-
Since you think your view point is the correct one, you call other people lazy
No he didn't.
or you project onto them or you make up stories about their backgrounds.
Right, you would never do that.
I think you seem like someone who looks down on others when possible.
What was that about projecting things onto others that you mentioned a second ago? Pot, kettle.
-
Why is no one trying to talk Mike into commuting by bike?
It is inefficient for me and the exercise is not necessary because I am training eight hours per week in the reel-mowing, five-yards-of-gravel shoveling, weed-eating, house-choring, and child-chasing -athalon? Is that better?
;)
-
I think you seem like someone who looks down on others when possible.
What was that about projecting things onto others that you mentioned a second ago? Pot, kettle.
[/quote]
Yes. Precisely. I am doing that to make a point.
-
Being an ass?
-
Being an ass?
Probably best to refrain from the name calling.
I would say that guitarstv's comments can be read as judgemental even if he views them as coaching or something meant positively.
There is some confusion here by some posters - none of the single parents in tough circs (one ex given) as far as i can tell -between tough love and entrenched views that are not supported on the facts.
Cycling is not the best choice in 'virtually all circumstances'. Many more people could cycle and the benefits can be well worth it, but the ones who have posted here have consciously evaluated the option are making choices that match current limitations or valid alternatives IMO.
-
Being an ass?
I agree with totoro. It's best to refrain from calling people names.
-
Too lazy to shorten their commute by relocating either home or job.
Again...
Move even closer and you can walk. :)
I did!
But I also realize not everyone's workplace location is conducive to walking. Virtually everyone's workplace is conducive to biking, though, whether they admit it or not.
If you can bike it, you can walk it. Or run it.
Point being, the pushing of bikes here is a positive thing. Good for health, good for the environment, good for the pocketbook. But it's a bit arbitrary. Every argument applied to biking can be applied to running or walking, both of which are BETTER for the environment, health (at least running is), and pocketbooks. They are also safer, since generally walking doesn't require us to share space with cars at all. Plus biking is pushed just a little too hard here.
I guess I just take exception to the lazy comment in your posts. I have raised most of my own food (including meat) for the past 5 years. I think that is the best way to live, and it is most environmentally friendly and best for the wallet. I would also submit that it is more humane, as factory farming is a cruel system. But I'm not going to say that other people who don't are lazy.
Now, I belong to self-sufficiency and homesteading sites where some might take that position, but it isn't one I agree with. Different strokes for different folks. I put biking in that category. Great if people do it, great that MMM pushes it. But let's do it kindly and within reason.
-
Cycling is not the best choice in 'virtually all circumstances'.
I'm having trouble finding anyone who actually said that.
Maybe they just deleted it?
The only mention of "lazy" was Sol saying "And every objection to riding essentially boils down to "I'm too lazy to deal." " which was specifically in the context of his own personal reasons for riding or not. It was directly after the sentence: " Riding to work saves me money and is good for my body."
A bunch of people here keep arguing against the bike nazis who insist that everyone must ride a bike regardless of circumstances.
Except nobody here ever made that claim in the first place!!
GuitarStv said "I'd argue that cycling CAN work for nearly everyone"
That it can work. As in, it would be possible. That does not say they must, nor does it even say they should.
Unless someone has deleted their comment, not a single person in this thread has ever made a claim that all people must ride bicycles for all trips regardless of circumstances. That is a strawman catching red herrings.
As I pointed out earlier, to the extent that posters are encouraging reluctant people to at least give a bike a try, it is directed at car drivers, not walkers and bus riders. Even if they don't bother to explicitly say so. Because the overwhelming majority of Americans drive for all trips, regardless of circumstances, it is generally a safe assumption that whoever is reading this drives a car. If that doesn't happen to apply to you, you can safely disregard those comments.
I still don't understand why so many people feel so defensive about it.
-
Why is no one trying to talk Mike into commuting by bike?
Clearly they are intimidated by my profile pic. :)
-
Being an ass?
I agree with totoro. It's best to refrain from calling people names.
You're certainly not an ass. I asked if acting like one was your idea of proving a point, because I'm really not sure what you were trying to accomplish.
-
Why is no one trying to talk Mike into commuting by bike?
Clearly they are intimidated by my profile pic. :)
I just need a badass looking profile photo? I'm totally going to do it, on my kid's pink trike. Heh.
-
Too lazy to shorten their commute by relocating either home or job.
Again...
Move even closer and you can walk. :)
I did!
But I also realize not everyone's workplace location is conducive to walking. Virtually everyone's workplace is conducive to biking, though, whether they admit it or not.
Bakari, here is the virtually quote. You are right it is not "all circumstances", it is "everyone's workplace".
I read this as virtually everyone can ride to work. This is not true imo.
-
Also,
I don't see any reason to call these individuals out as too lazy to deal because they won't bike.
Of course you don't, or you would have said it. But I do see a reason, so I said it.
-
Bakari, here is the virtually quote. You are right it is not "all circumstances", it is "everyone's workplace".
I read this as virtually everyone can ride to work. This is not true imo.
He might be exaggerating again...
-
He might be exaggerating again...
I do that sometimes. It's like a thing. That I do sometimes.
Bakari is trying to be reasonable because he's invested. He genuinely likes people, and wants everyone to be happy. He's thoughtful and reasonable and considerate.
Me, I'm less warm and fuzzy. I think that most people are lazy, whether or not they ride a bike. I also think that most people who whine about how they can't possibly bike because it is just too hard for them haven't taken the time to apply themselves. They're extra lazy for an additional reason.
I know a guy who bikes nearly every day who only has one leg. I know another who rides a recumbent trike because she has balance issues. I know a family that takes their kids to and from school by bike, up steep hills, even though they own a car.
If you have to transport a family, can't balance a bike, and only have one leg, then I will listen to you bitch about how biking is too hard for you.
Everyone else can bike or not bike as they see fit, but please don't come to a bike-centric forum and start spouting off about how much you hate biking. You might as well have posted "Saving money is for chumps, I'm in debt up to my eyeballs and loving every minute of it!" Not the place for it, is it?
What kind of reaction did you really expect to get in a place like this? I'm just shocked the rest of these folks were so polite and reasonable as to let the OP get away with that kind of shit stirring. Am the only one who enjoys feeding the trolls, is that it?
-
but note, even here he uses the word "most"
;)
-
You're probably figuring this out already, but exaggerating is a poor rhetorical strategy. At the core, it's trying to convince someone of a professed truth by telling them a lie. It's a lie that might seems happy to you, and to people who'd side with you anyway, but everyone else who sees it for what it is will tend to distrust your arguments more for it. That can be particularly bad when a lot of those arguments are based on assertions that cannot be independently verified. Those are only backed by credibility.
I'm telling you this straight because you're not a warm and fuzzy person, and probably wouldn't want me to sugar coat it for you.
-
You're probably figuring this out already, but exaggerating is a poor rhetorical strategy. At the core, it's trying to convince someone of a professed truth by telling them a lie. It's a lie that might seems happy to you, and to people who'd side with you anyway, but everyone else who sees it for what it is will tend to distrust your arguments more for it. That can be particularly bad when a lot of those arguments are based on assertions that cannot be independently verified. Those are only backed by credibility.
I'm telling you this straight because you're not a warm and fuzzy person, and probably wouldn't want me to sugar coat it for you.
What s/he said.
-
Everyone else can bike or not bike as they see fit, but please don't come to a bike-centric forum and start spouting off about how much you hate biking. You might as well have posted "Saving money is for chumps, I'm in debt up to my eyeballs and loving every minute of it!" Not the place for it, is it?
What kind of reaction did you really expect to get in a place like this? I'm just shocked the rest of these folks were so polite and reasonable as to let the OP get away with that kind of shit stirring. Am the only one who enjoys feeding the trolls, is that it?
I have to admit that was my thought as well when I first read this thread. But I am not shocked folks were polite and reasonable, that's something I have always appreciated about these threads (as opposed to the Washington Post comments section where too often people are genuinely dickish no matter how well they present a point, in no small part because it is so impersonal). Polite and reasonable seems to be the best way to make a point here. Blunt has it's place, but even then a blunt point can be delivered diplomatically.
Bakari and I have had a spirited (but not heated) exchange in this thread, and it made me think, and I hope the converse applied with him. that is sort of the point, isn't it?
Five pages in though, it seems pretty obvious that it did stir up a good discussion. Otherwise, people would have dropped it and moved on.
-
Bakari and I have had a spirited (but not heated) exchange in this thread, and it made me think, and I hope the converse applied with him. that is sort of the point, isn't it?
I thought about it more just this afternoon!