Author Topic: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work  (Read 54173 times)

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #150 on: June 27, 2013, 08:20:07 AM »
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.

msilenus

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 524
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #151 on: June 27, 2013, 10:31:24 AM »
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.

totoro

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2188
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #152 on: June 27, 2013, 10:50:46 AM »
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.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #153 on: June 27, 2013, 11:19:45 AM »
Quote from: totoro link=topic=6422.msg101548#msg101548
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.

Quote
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.

lisahi

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 225
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #154 on: June 27, 2013, 11:40:20 AM »
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.

KulshanGirl

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 459
  • Location: Washington State
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #155 on: June 27, 2013, 11:44:54 AM »
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!

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4038
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #156 on: June 27, 2013, 11:56:22 AM »
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.

rtrnow

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #157 on: June 27, 2013, 12:14:50 PM »
Quote from: totoro link=topic=6422.msg101548#msg101548
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).

oldtoyota

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3179
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #158 on: June 27, 2013, 12:26:19 PM »

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

totoro

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2188
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #159 on: June 27, 2013, 12:28:19 PM »
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".

Mike

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 110
  • Location: Eagan, MN
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #160 on: June 27, 2013, 12:35:13 PM »
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?


KulshanGirl

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 459
  • Location: Washington State
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #161 on: June 27, 2013, 12:48:26 PM »

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!  :)
 





totoro

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2188
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #162 on: June 27, 2013, 01:12:39 PM »
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)).

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
  • Location: CT
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #163 on: June 27, 2013, 01:20:14 PM »
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).

totoro

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2188
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #164 on: June 27, 2013, 01:20:28 PM »

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.

totoro

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2188
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #165 on: June 27, 2013, 01:26:59 PM »
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.

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
  • Location: CT
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #166 on: June 27, 2013, 01:30:44 PM »
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.

totoro

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2188
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #167 on: June 27, 2013, 02:14:13 PM »
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/

boy_bye

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #168 on: June 27, 2013, 02:27:19 PM »
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.

oldtoyota

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3179
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #169 on: June 27, 2013, 04:59:44 PM »

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.

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4038
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #170 on: June 27, 2013, 05:49:50 PM »
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.

Mike

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 110
  • Location: Eagan, MN
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #171 on: June 28, 2013, 07:03:40 AM »
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.




Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4038
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #172 on: June 28, 2013, 11:30:52 AM »
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.

Marmot

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 57
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Near Chicago, IL USA
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #173 on: June 28, 2013, 01:32:34 PM »
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://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.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2013, 02:16:57 PM by StrategicMarmot »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #174 on: June 28, 2013, 01:51:53 PM »
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.

totoro

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2188
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #175 on: June 28, 2013, 03:38:13 PM »
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

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1799
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Oakland, CA
  • Veggie Powered Handyman
    • The Flamboyant Introvert
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #176 on: June 28, 2013, 03:47:14 PM »


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.)

Quote
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.

Quote
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...)

Quote
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.

destron

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 377
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Seattle
    • Mustachian Financial Calculators
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #177 on: June 28, 2013, 03:57:39 PM »
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).

Storypage

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 75
  • Location: Rural Oklahoma
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #178 on: June 28, 2013, 04:36:11 PM »
Too lazy to shorten their commute by relocating either home or job. 

Again...

Move even closer and you can walk. :)


Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4038
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #179 on: June 28, 2013, 05:00:50 PM »
...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.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #180 on: June 28, 2013, 07:37:23 PM »
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.

Marmot

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 57
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Near Chicago, IL USA
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #181 on: June 29, 2013, 03:28:29 PM »
Quote
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.


msilenus

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 524
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #182 on: June 29, 2013, 06:51:40 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2013, 06:59:04 PM by msilenus »

grantmeaname

  • CM*MW 2023 Attendees
  • Walrus Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 5961
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Middle West
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #183 on: June 29, 2013, 07:07:31 PM »
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.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #184 on: June 30, 2013, 10:46:19 AM »
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.

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4038
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #185 on: June 30, 2013, 11:30:16 AM »
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. 

msilenus

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 524
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #186 on: June 30, 2013, 11:38:05 AM »
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.

oldtoyota

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3179
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #187 on: June 30, 2013, 12:18:30 PM »
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.


grantmeaname

  • CM*MW 2023 Attendees
  • Walrus Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 5961
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Middle West
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #188 on: June 30, 2013, 01:35:33 PM »
Since you think your view point is the correct one, you call other people lazy
No he didn't.
Quote
or you project onto them or you make up stories about their backgrounds.
Right, you would never do that.
Quote
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.

KulshanGirl

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 459
  • Location: Washington State
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #189 on: June 30, 2013, 02:35:06 PM »
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?

;)

oldtoyota

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3179
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #190 on: July 01, 2013, 07:12:22 AM »
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.

grantmeaname

  • CM*MW 2023 Attendees
  • Walrus Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 5961
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Middle West
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #191 on: July 01, 2013, 07:52:22 AM »
Being an ass?

totoro

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2188
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #192 on: July 01, 2013, 09:13:45 AM »
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.


oldtoyota

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3179
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #193 on: July 01, 2013, 09:17:31 AM »
Being an ass?

I agree with totoro. It's best to refrain from calling people names.

Storypage

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 75
  • Location: Rural Oklahoma
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #194 on: July 01, 2013, 10:07:33 AM »
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.


Bakari

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1799
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Oakland, CA
  • Veggie Powered Handyman
    • The Flamboyant Introvert
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #195 on: July 01, 2013, 12:23:04 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2013, 03:37:26 PM by Bakari »

Mike

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 110
  • Location: Eagan, MN
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #196 on: July 01, 2013, 12:58:40 PM »
Why is no one trying to talk Mike into commuting by bike?
Clearly they are intimidated by my profile pic.  :)

grantmeaname

  • CM*MW 2023 Attendees
  • Walrus Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 5961
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Middle West
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #197 on: July 01, 2013, 01:22:37 PM »
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.

KulshanGirl

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 459
  • Location: Washington State
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #198 on: July 01, 2013, 02:14:27 PM »
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. 

totoro

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2188
Re: I Will NOT Be Biking to Work
« Reply #199 on: July 01, 2013, 03:45:06 PM »
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.