I Will NOT Be Biking to Work

[totoro]

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. 

[msilenus]

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.

[totoro]

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.

[GuitarStv]

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-

3.  Don't cycle drunk!  20-30% of cycling deaths involve a drunk cyclist (http://cheaptalk.org/2009/12/16/drunk-cycling/, http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality.aspx?topicName=bicycles&year=2008#sec1, 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).  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. . .

[GuitarStv]

^ I'm not even starting to touch on the great many cyclists who perform higher risk activities like cycling on sidewalks too . . .

[totoro]

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-

3.  Don't cycle drunk!  20-30% of cycling deaths involve a drunk cyclist (http://cheaptalk.org/2009/12/16/drunk-cycling/, http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality.aspx?topicName=bicycles&year=2008#sec1, 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).  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.

[Storypage]

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

[totoro]

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.

[KulshanGirl]

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.*****)

[smalllife]

(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?

[KulshanGirl]

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.

[totoro]

(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. 

[smalllife]

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 . . .

[totoro]

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)

[GuitarStv]

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).

[totoro]

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.

[matchewed]

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?

[GuitarStv]

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.

[totoro]

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.

[totoro]

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.

[KulshanGirl]

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.     

[totoro]

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. 

[GuitarStv]

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.

[Bakari]

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?

[KulshanGirl]

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. 

[Storypage]

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. ;)

[boy_bye]

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.

[totoro]

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.

[Storypage]

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. :)

[oldtoyota]

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. ;-)

[oldtoyota]

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

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

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.

[grantmeaname]

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.

[Bakari]

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.

[totoro]

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 :)

[OzzieandHarriet]

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.

[sheepstache]

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.

[oldtoyota]

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.

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. =-)

[Rollin]

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).

[dragoncar]

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).

[Jamesqf]

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.

[davisgang90]

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."

[GuitarStv]

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.

[Spudd]

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".

[binkley]

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.

[Bakari]

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.

[Mike]

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.

[rtrnow]

  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.

[destron]

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.

[sol]

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!

[msilenus]

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.