The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: jordanread on May 02, 2014, 02:07:44 PM
-
I threw myself in. I rode in to work yesterday and today, maybe I can actually make it a month. I've never done that before and I need to get miles in for a century I'm doing in June. My commute is 8 miles each way in congested suburban traffic. I actually miss my much longer 18 miles each way commute that was mostly on trails. I had a lady today who was very confused about passing. She slowed down, looked at me timidly while giving me about 6 inches of space, then finally worked the courage to pass. There was no one behind her or on the side, 4 lane boulevard. idk why she didn't take the left lane, maybe she was texting and I just lucky I wasn't hit. Stuff like this makes me reconsider riding in, I've got kids now.
Don't forget that it's still more dangerous to drive. If you have kids, it should make you think twice about driving in. :-)
MOD EDIT: Split from May Cycling Challenge 2014 (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/throw-down-the-gauntlet/may-cycling-challege-2014/msg281204/#msg281204)
-
Don't forget that it's still more dangerous to drive. If you have kids, it should make you think twice about driving in. :-)
[/quote]
I hope you're being sarcastic. No, I do not buy into that argument and frankly it's asinine. Come on this is obvious. I've been hit in my car, and I've been hit on my bike (by a car, also a bike, also a person). The injuries and outcome were drastically different. You can walk away from a car accident injury free, bike you're lucky to be alive. There are all those stats to back me up as well aside from my own anecdotal evidence. I live in the practical world where roads were originally designed for cars.
Sorry, this is probably going to inflame some people so if we want we can start a new thread on common sense cycling safety.
-
I hope you're being sarcastic.
Not even a little bit.
No, I do not buy into that argument and frankly it's asinine. Come on this is obvious. I've been hit in my car, and I've been hit on my bike (by a car, also a bike, also a person). The injuries and outcome were drastically different. You can walk away from a car accident injury free, bike you're lucky to be alive. There are all those stats to back me up as well aside from my own anecdotal evidence. I live in the practical world where roads were originally designed for cars.
It's not really an argument. It's numbers. Some of it is laid out in the "Bicycling: The SAFEST Form of Transportation (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safest-form-of-transportation/)", but I did it myself a long time ago, and liked my odds. Apparently the National Safety Council backs agrees. (http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/injury_and_death_statistics/Documents/2014-Injury-Facts-43.pdf)
I'm also not huge on anecdotal evidence as far as calling it evidence, or making decisions based on it.
Sorry, this is probably going to inflame some people so if we want we can start a new thread on common sense cycling safety.
If you do want to argue it, no need to create a new thread. It's all been hashed out here: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/i-will-not-be-biking-to-work/ (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/i-will-not-be-biking-to-work/).
:-)
As far as this thread is concerned though, happy cycling!!! I hope you continue to do it, and have safe and fun rides.
-
33.5% of all statistics are made up, including that one.
The odds of dying are of course lower because the majority of people don't bike to work. You can throw that one out.
If you're going to use vehicle accident injury and mortality rates you have to lump cycling into that as a vehicle. So your chance of being in an accident on the road is equal to that of being in a car, but your chance of serious injury and death is a lot higher because you are not protected by a ton of metal, crumple zones, airbags, and seat belts. Two vehicles hitting each other in a parking lot will most likely cause little or no injury. A vehicle hitting a cyclist in a parking lot has a much higher chance to cause serious injury.
It would take one person texting to hit me from behind and kill me. It's simple, would you rather take a hit in a car at 30mph or on your bike?
I absolutely love cycling and will continue, but I'm not going to dismiss the danger. That's a careless attitude.
Sorry, I really don't feel like going through 5 pages of arguments in that thread. But if someone feels this is being hijacked lemme know.
-
Sorry, this is probably going to inflame some people so if we want we can start a new thread on common sense cycling safety.
lol too late
33.5% of all statistics are made up, including that one.
The odds of dying are of course lower because the majority of people don't bike to work. You can throw that one out.
pretty sure that's controlled for
If you're going to use vehicle accident injury and mortality rates you have to lump cycling into that as a vehicle. So your chance of being in an accident on the road is equal to that of being in a car
that's not how that works
but your chance of serious injury and death is a lot higher because you are not protected by a ton of metal, crumple zones, airbags, and seat belts.
debatable
Two vehicles hitting each other in a parking lot will most likely cause little or no injury. A vehicle hitting a cyclist in a parking lot has a much higher chance to cause serious injury. It would take one person texting to hit me from behind and kill me. It's simple, would you rather take a hit in a car at 30mph or on your bike?
stats pls?
I absolutely love cycling and will continue, but I'm not going to dismiss the danger. That's a careless attitude.
Nobody has dismissed the danger. They've assessed it and figured it to be less than that of driving in a car. It's cool to disagree with that if you can back it up, but don't put words in anyone's mouth.
Sorry, I really don't feel like going through 5 pages of arguments in that thread. But if someone feels this is being hijacked lemme know.
Yeah you pretty obviously didn't. I'd recommend it. Or at the very least start posting there if you want to discuss instead of cluttering up this thread more.
-
again, missing my point.
that's not how that works
You are riding a bike on the road, you have to abide by the same traffic laws a vehicle does. You are a vehicle on the road.
You are less protected on a bicycle than you are in a vehicle. Why is this so hard to understand? Again, do u want to take a collision from another vehicle traveling at 30mph in your own vehicle, or on your bike? Would you rather hit a tree on your bike or in your car?
And I am also saying you are just as likely to be in an accident because you are traveling on the same road, in the same conditions as another vehicle. Obviously this is different than riding on a trail. Separate recreational cycling from true commuting on the road.
How many drivers are seriously injured after hitting a cyclist? How does the driver's injuries compare to the cyclist's injuries?
You see where I am going with this?
I'm not talking about a nifty route over sidewalks and trails you can take that you cannot in a car. Of course that is safer, you're less likely to get hit by a car when there are no cars around.
stats pls?
Really? You need stats for this? I don't think they grab stats for the obvious. That's like getting the stats for the likelihood of surviving in space without a space suit. Actually, I take that back, just find the nat'l highway w/e injury stats for vehicular crashes under 15mph. Then look up the stats for injuries to cyclists hit by a car going 15mph.
tl;dr, injuries increase with the rate of speed. http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/enforce/speed_forum_presentations/ferguson.pdf
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tanyamohn/2011/09/30/low-driving-speed-can-cause-serious-pedestrian-injury-and-death-report-finds/
Nobody has dismissed the danger. They've assessed it and figured it to be less than that of driving in a car. It's cool to disagree with that if you can back it up, but don't put words in anyone's mouth.
Yes, some cyclists assess it and dismiss it. Their risk tolerance is higher than mine. They're prob the same cyclists that run stop signs and red lights.
I understand the point of claiming it's safer. When you're off the road it is safer. I completely agree with that. I also understands it helps to promote cycling and get people out there. But then they have this false belief and misunderstanding of how they should ride vs drive.
-
ok sure nevermind about that whole "post in the other thread" suggestion. I'm going to split this into a new topic now.
*discussion ensues*
-
And if http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/i-will-not-be-biking-to-work/ is not enough, http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/do-you-ride-your-bike-on-the-sidewalk covers similar ground.
-
Don't forget that it's still more dangerous to drive. If you have kids, it should make you think twice about driving in. :-)
So it's more dangerous to drive than to stay home. Do you stay home?
It is probably (just guessing, I haven't actually looked for statistics) less dangerous to bike than to ride horses, hang glide, climb mountains, etc. Yet people do all those things, for fun.
-
YOu know, I think mindaugas is scratching at a valid argument, but just isn't doing a great job of explaining it.
Motor vehicle accidents probably include a lot of situations, like driving highway speeds, that you just aren't going to encounter on a daily bike commute. Because of that I think a direct comparison is only worth so much.
Also if you imaging travelling on a route to work one day in a car, and then doing the route EXACTLY the same the next day on a bike (same roads, same lane positions, same speeds) it is hard to argue that you would be MORE at risk inside a car than on a bicycle.
So the question becomes, WHAT is making the car driving more dangerous, statistically? I think there are two reasons:
1. The inclusion of highway driving in the auto stats
2. If you were to drive the same route instead of biking, you are NOT going to be going the same speeds, you are almost always going to go much faster.
Even if total commute time is almost equal, it is because of lights and traffic, and top speed is much higher during car rides than during bike rides.
But again, i think mindaugas' implied question of "how could an IDENTICAL route be MORE dangerous in a car?" is a valid question that I would like to see some theories about. If the only difference is driving 30MPH in the middle of the lane, or biking 15MPH in the bike lane, where is the extra fatal risk of driving coming from? Are there really that many 30MPH fatal crashes?
If wearing a bike helmet makes you safer, Why doesn't a seatbelt, airbags, and a roll cage make you even safer on the same trip?
EDIT: I just thought of another point as well - motorcycles. Motorcycles are statistically much more dangerous than cars. But if everybody rode them only in the bike lanes at bike speeds, it's hard to imagine that you wouldn't reach safety levels equal to that of biking. (probably even greater because of the size and noise component). The point being it is the speed it is driven at (and MAYBE lane position) that makes it more dangerous, not that simply being IN a car is automatically more dangerous than riding a bicycle.
SO the point being the comparison is not equal. if we rode bicycles everywhere we rode cars, and at the same speeds, the fatality rate would be WAY higher (like it is with motorcycles - because we DO ride them everywhere we ride cars, and at the same speeds)
-
SO the point being the comparison is not equal. if we rode bicycles everywhere we rode cars, and at the same speeds, the fatality rate would be WAY higher (like it is with motorcycles).
Bingo. I don't think there are many here who would debate whether they would rather be hit from behind at 30 mph by a 3000 lb vehicle while sitting buckled into a similar vehicle at a stop light vs. being hit from behind at 30 mph by a 3000 lb vehicle while sitting on a bicycle at a light.
The issue that rears its head repeatedly here is whether people believe the overall risks of death from cycling are greater or lower than the overall risks of death from driving, especially compared to the benefits of one mode of transportation vs. the other.
Personally? I'd rather bike more, but the risks of doing so outweigh the benefits for me, so I drive more. If I lived somewhere with segregated bike lanes, stricter drinking laws, stricter driving laws, more cyclists, more legal protections for cyclists and pedestrians, smaller cars, and greater inconvenience built into traveling by car, I'd bike more. Then again, I'd be describing some of the fundamental elements of creating bike-friendly cities that have been used successfully in many parts of the world and are sorely lacking throughout the United States.
Note that I didn't mention helmets, despite being a staunch advocate of their use. The reason? The way to make cycling safer is much like the way to make driving safer (take note that the death rates for driving in the US are much higher than they are in nearly every other rich country): you need to change the laws and infrastructure. Looking out for the individual (whether in advocating individuals use vehicular cycling and helmets or in encouraging people to buy only the newest cars with X and Y safety features) isn't nearly enough.
-
An important but usually neglected statistic in evaluating the relative danger of different modes of transportation is the risk of death or injury per trip, rather than per mile or per year. On a per mile basis cars are as much as 8 times safer than bicycles (http://cycleseven.org/dangerous-cycling-statistics), but as some of you have pointed out, it's foolish to compare cars and bicycles directly. Similarly, the per-mile safety of air travel is a little bit misleading because almost all airline accidents occur at takeoff or landing -- so the risk of death is actually determined by the number of flights, not by how far they go. This leads to interesting number games where one can theoretically calculate a distance that is safer to drive than to fly. Some people have done this and come up with numbers as high as 600 miles, depending on what roads are used (http://ipmall.info/risk/vol4/winter/halperin.htm). That source does a very good job of teasing apart the different ways to measure transportation risk.
Ultimately, the point of travel is not to stack up as many thousands or millions of miles as possible. It's to get to places. So even if biking really is eight times more dangerous than driving on a per mile basis, it's safer to ride to a store 3 miles away than drive to one 30 miles away. For a person deciding whether to cycle or drive to work, it's likely that an identical distance ridden is more dangerous than the same distance driven. But it probably still isn't very dangerous, and moreover, if you make a point of living at a distance where bicycle commuting is possible, your commute mileage will likely be far less and so the relative risk per trip is comparable or even lower when bicycling. I'm sure that on a per-mile basis walking is much more dangerous than driving -- and maybe even more dangerous than biking -- but no one avoids it for safety reasons. These number of aggregate traffic fatalities is high because we drive 3 trillion miles per year which makes the risk look very large but the risk to individual drivers, bikers, walkers, etc. is very low.
Furthermore, there is good reason to believe that the risk of cycling decreases as the population of cyclists increases (http://www.sirbikesalot.com/uploads_images/2010/2010-04-30_bicycle_chart_01.jpg). Presumably a number of factors are at play, but one of them is likely just that the normalization of bicycling makes drivers more apt to notice cyclists, pass safely, and not get that insane psycho driver road rage fury that seems to be the norm when people notice one GOD DAMN BICYCLIST SLOWING UP TRAFFIC ARGH IM PISSED. It's a lot harder to feel that way when there are cyclists everywhere, little kids riding to school, an old guy in a reclinocycle etc.
For the record, the safest per-trip way to travel by a very wide margin is public buses (by an entire order of magnitude iirc). But mysteriously, you don't see many folks turning in their safe-n-secure Lexus gx460s for a bus pass. The reason is of course that transportation safety, from the perspective of an individual, is very high in all modes. So the idea of choosing one transportation mode over another for reasons of safety is almost laughable.
-
Once you hop on a bike and ride to work it's painfully easy to call bullshit on the statistics. If your commute does not cater to your vehicle (road bike, mountain bike etc..) then you are playing with fire. I had a road bike for a few weeks. The roads where I lived at the time in eastern NJ, are not made for them. I sold it before being punted off the road. If you take trails to work, or beautiful bike paths then of course it will be safer. Be smart, not book smart - live longer.
-
Once you hop on a bike and ride to work it's painfully easy to call bullshit on the statistics. If your commute does not cater to your vehicle (road bike, mountain bike etc..) then you are playing with fire. I had a road bike for a few weeks. The roads where I lived at the time in eastern NJ, are not made for them. I sold it before being punted off the road. If you take trails to work, or beautiful bike paths then of course it will be safer. Be smart, not book smart - live longer.
To give a contrary opinion-- you owned and commuted a bike for two weeks. I daresay that's not enough time to develop the instincts and skills necessary to feel confident cycling on busy streets. An experienced cyclist might find your commute to be no big deal.
Of course, confidence DOES have a direct effect on safety-- cycling with authority is part of cycling safely-- so you need to make whatever choice you feel you need to make for yourself. Still, I would argue that two weeks of experience are not enough to make a judgment about the inherent safety of cycling anywhere.
-
I don't have any statistics at hand but I will say this - looking at odds for the average cyclist is not very useful, because most of the injuries and deaths involved with bicycling involve cyclists being stupid.
I built a bike for a friend who is the head of the bicycle police (they're mounted on bicycles, that is) in Boulder and talked with him about this in some depth. Keeping in mind that Boulder is a college town, in his experience:
-Most bicycle injuries and fatalities are at least partially the fault of the cyclist. Many are entirely the cyclist's fault.
-Being hit from behind by a driver out of their lane is VERY rare.
-Alcohol use (on the part of the cyclist) and disobeying traffic laws (ie riding the wrong way, riding on sidewalks, running lights and/or stopsigns) are VERY common causes of wrecks.
-There is a significant population of commuter cyclists who are either very poor/homeless or students. Both of these groups do a LOT of stupid stuff, rarely wear helmets or use lights, have bicycles in very poor repair (the classic "wheel out of true? disconnect the brakes!" folks), ride while intoxicated, and get hurt/killed disproportionately.
Those idiots are the ones making cycling statistically dangerous. It's just like motorcycles - they are inherently *somewhat* dangerous because they always lose in a wreck with a car - but the 18 year old testosterone poisoned lunatics and wannabe Easy Rider dudes riding them inflate the crash statistics crazily. You can be pretty safe if you're not a moron.
What I took from this (and from more than 2 decades of VERY paranoid bicycle commuting with nary a close call - *my* anecdotal evidence is obviously useful here...) is that if you have your act together and pay attention to what your are doing/obey the law - you are quite a bit safer than the average cyclist.
-
I hopped back on my mountain bike and took a more indirect but more fun route with little traffic. Sorry iamlindoro, I don't buy it. If you ride on the same roads and take the same path as you do in a car, you are more likely to get hit. It's just common sense, there are so many factors that are fighting against you:
1 - your small road presence
2 - light weight
3 - slow speed (more cars pass you = more chances of contact)
An experienced cyclist will still have the same common disadvantages. There is no way it's safer to commute by bike than by car - unless you take different paths.
That's all it really takes. It's simple to do, it was just not the question. I agree with the general consensus of this thread - bikes, similar to motorcycles are more dangerous on the same path.
I will argue that you are much safer using a motorcycle to commute on a strictly road ride to work. You have three advantages -road presence, power and more effective safety gear. I will ride a small motorcycle to work any day over a road bike.
-
I don't have any statistics at hand but I will say this - looking at odds for the average cyclist is not very useful, because most of the injuries and deaths involved with bicycling involve cyclists being stupid.
I built a bike for a friend who is the head of the bicycle police (they're mounted on bicycles, that is) in Boulder and talked with him about this in some depth. Keeping in mind that Boulder is a college town, in his experience:
-Most bicycle injuries and fatalities are at least partially the fault of the cyclist. Many are entirely the cyclist's fault.
-Being hit from behind by a driver out of their lane is VERY rare.
-Alcohol use (on the part of the cyclist) and disobeying traffic laws (ie riding the wrong way, riding on sidewalks, running lights and/or stopsigns) are VERY common causes of wrecks.
-There is a significant population of commuter cyclists who are either very poor/homeless or students. Both of these groups do a LOT of stupid stuff, rarely wear helmets or use lights, have bicycles in very poor repair (the classic "wheel out of true? disconnect the brakes!" folks), ride while intoxicated, and get hurt/killed disproportionately.
Those idiots are the ones making cycling statistically dangerous. It's just like motorcycles - they are inherently *somewhat* dangerous because they always lose in a wreck with a car - but the 18 year old testosterone poisoned lunatics and wannabe Easy Rider dudes riding them inflate the crash statistics crazily. You can be pretty safe if you're not a moron.
What I took from this (and from more than 2 decades of VERY paranoid bicycle commuting with nary a close call - *my* anecdotal evidence is obviously useful here...) is that if you have your act together and pay attention to what your are doing/obey the law - you are quite a bit safer than the average cyclist.
That's true of all vehicles though so for comparative purposes the data is still useful.
-
On a per mile basis driving is safer than biking. I'm too lazy to link stats but everything I have ever researched has come to this conclusion. Having trained and worked at several trauma centers I would say anecdotal evidence confirms this. Also one should not only consider fatality, but injury and disability. My gut tells me that biking injuries are massively under-reported. That said, one can lower their risk considerably if they follow a few simple rules.
1. Wear a helmet
2. Don't ride on the wrong side of the street
3. Use lights
4. Assume any car approaching a driveway/intersection from your right does not see you
5. Don't drink
I love biking. I will continue to ride my bike even knowing it is slightly risky, but I see a lot of biking accidents really mess people up. Limiting unnecessary transportation miles is a worthwhile exercise.
-
No, not if reckless and/or intoxicated people are overrepresented among cyclists. My point is that they probably are, though that might not have been clear from my original post.
-W
That's true of all vehicles though so for comparative purposes the data is still useful.
-
It really depends. I'd love to be able to bike everywhere, but my main commute is on a shoulderless 45 mph road and I'd have to tow a trailer with my children in it. You can argue statistics all day long but. The statistics aren't going to cover my specific situation. And I don't feel safe in that situation.
I'd be fine with biking that road without the kids.
-
An important but usually neglected statistic in evaluating the relative danger of different modes of transportation is the risk of death or injury per trip, rather than per mile or per year. On a per mile basis cars are as much as 8 times safer than bicycles...
Which overlooks the fact that a lot of automobile miles are racked up on the interstates, or other long-distance highway travel, for which a bike is not really practical, and if used, would take far longer to cover the same distance. (That is, it's perfectly possible to drive coast to coast in 3 days; the same trip on a bike would take 30 days or more.) So a fair comparison would be either risk for the same kinds of trips, or risk per hour.
-
The debate doesn't really make a lot of sense unless one has an obsession with not wanting to die in a particular way. The trivial truth is that one can completely avoid death by bicycling by not riding a bicycle. On the other hand, overall mortality is strongly affected by bicycle commuting. As far as I know, all cause mortality in bicycle commuters is between 20% and 50% lower than in non bicycle commuters. These numbers would not mean much (like all statistics) if there wasn't a plausible mechanism supporting the findings. But given that cardiovascular disease alone is more than 15 times more likely to kill you than a traffic accident and moderate exercise is a major risk modifier for cardiovascular disease, it seems rather believable.
So if you want to increase your overall chances to live longer you should accept the risk of commuting by bicycle. If you let your fear of bicycling influence your decision then you must accept the much higher risk of a premature death - and rest easy that your dead body will be safely strapped in and surrounded by crumple zones and all other kinds of expensive technology.
-
I think this is also so completely dependent on where you live.
If I bike to work, it's about 25 miles for me, but 95% of this is in bike friendly roads (either dedicated path/lane or super wide 30 MPH city). There is about a quarter mile stretch I would say is "dangerous" at all from a bike perspective.
Regardless I'm way more concerned about being overweight and all the symptoms and downstream effects of that than I ever will be getting hit by a car biking. Or driving, for that matter.
I'm going to die someday. I'd much rather have slightly higher chances in my commute and a better lifestyle and longer life expectancy than spend every day freaking out about how "omg I might get hit on my bike ride." YMMV.
-
The debate doesn't really make a lot of sense unless one has an obsession with not wanting to die in a particular way. The trivial truth is that one can completely avoid death by bicycling by not riding a bicycle. On the other hand, overall mortality is strongly affected by bicycle commuting. As far as I know, all cause mortality in bicycle commuters is between 20% and 50% lower than in non bicycle commuters. These numbers would not mean much (like all statistics) if there wasn't a plausible mechanism supporting the findings. But given that cardiovascular disease alone is more than 15 times more likely to kill you than a traffic accident and moderate exercise is a major risk modifier for cardiovascular disease, it seems rather believable.
So if you want to increase your overall chances to live longer you should accept the risk of commuting by bicycle. If you let your fear of bicycling influence your decision then you must accept the much higher risk of a premature death - and rest easy that your dead body will be safely strapped in and surrounded by crumple zones and all other kinds of expensive technology.
While this seems to make sense it is faulty logic. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Even if bicycle commuters do have an overall lower mortality it may not be due to riding a bike. When you have self selecting populations that are different (car vs. bike commuters) there are too many other variables that may account for the differences. The only way to know for sure would be to do a randomized control trial which would be impossible. You need to know other baseline risk factors for each group (cardiovascular risk, smoking history, etc). People make the same mistake with alcohol consumption data (moderate drinkers have lower overall mortality than nondrinkers, but this is a correlation, not necessarily causation), running injuries (apparently people with more expensive running shoes have more running injuries but is this really causing in injuries? More likely this population is training harder or buys the better shoes because they have had problems with prior injuries, etc).
Statistics and studies can be very misleading. The decision to commute to work on a bike should not be made using only national satety statistics because if you are the one with a traumatic brain injury at age 34 statistics don't matter. Make you bike commute as statistically safe as possible. If the route is dangerous then drive a car and ride your bike other places.
And I will say it again, looking only at mortality is a mistake. There is significant long term disability from many biking accidents (and car accidents as well).
-
I started my bike-to-work by traveling on the roads, not the sidewalks, primarily because I had read this forum where the majority were against sidewalk riding in that it was supposedly less safe. After a few weeks of near misses and confused drivers (folks are not used to bikes here), I moved to the sidewalk. I stop at every intersection, walk through major intersections using a crosswalk, and get off my bike when a pedestrian approaches (which rarely happens--this is a driving town, not a biking or walking town). It takes me longer, but it's safer. And it's not illegal here, either.
I don't feel safe riding on my bicycle at 5-15 mph (depending on whether I'm climbing a steep hill) on a road where cars are going 50 mph (it's a 40 mph zone; cars go 50 mph), around blind corners. There are no shoulders to the roads, either, and part of it is a two lane, two-way street.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to feel safe riding on the road because the roads are actually in better condition than the sidewalks here (not to mention that there is no sidewalk on a portion of the ride, meaning I have to get off and walk my road bike over rock, grass and dirt). But I don't trust drivers. I don't. I trust me, and I can control how safe I am riding on the sidewalk by taking precautions, even if those precautions make my ride longer. Perhaps the chance of a car actually hitting me from behind is small, but I've had cars move into my lane because they didn't see me and get dangerously close. I've had drivers who slow down when they approach, causing the other drivers around them to get frustrated and try to speed around the slower car. Again, not safe. I've also nearly fallen when I hit one of the many potholes; if I had I would have fallen in front of a car because there is no shoulder.
I am reminded of this blog and video -- US cycling from a Dutch perspective. http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/us-cycling-from-a-dutch-perspective/ The Dutch bike a lot, and this Dutch cyclist found the racing that US cyclists had to take part in to ride on the road to be unfortunate. He understood why some chose to ride on the sidewalk, even if that was not ideal. Most US cities' infrastructures are not set up for cycling, and so we accept that we should be riding on the road as just another moving vehicle, albeit one generally going a lot slower than the traffic around it. Unfortunately, that general acceptance in the United States has prevented a lot of people from even considering utilitarian riding (as opposed to recreational riding on trails).
-
This is a useless debate. We can find tons of statistics and use them for or against the argument we want to promote. In reality, safety while biking depends on so many factors that it is basically impossible to find a one-size-fits-all. Rider fitness and skills, type of cycling infrastructure, road conditions, time of the day, cycling culture, etc. are all factors that need to be taken into consideration. I bike every day, summer and winter, and will continue to do so, but I must admit that I am always on the edge when I bike anywhere but on a dedicated bike lane (there are none where I live). Cycling in Amsterdam or Copenhagen is really not the same as in Los Angeles or Calgary.
-
The debate doesn't really make a lot of sense unless one has an obsession with not wanting to die in a particular way. The trivial truth is that one can completely avoid death by bicycling by not riding a bicycle. On the other hand, overall mortality is strongly affected by bicycle commuting. As far as I know, all cause mortality in bicycle commuters is between 20% and 50% lower than in non bicycle commuters. These numbers would not mean much (like all statistics) if there wasn't a plausible mechanism supporting the findings. But given that cardiovascular disease alone is more than 15 times more likely to kill you than a traffic accident and moderate exercise is a major risk modifier for cardiovascular disease, it seems rather believable.
So if you want to increase your overall chances to live longer you should accept the risk of commuting by bicycle. If you let your fear of bicycling influence your decision then you must accept the much higher risk of a premature death - and rest easy that your dead body will be safely strapped in and surrounded by crumple zones and all other kinds of expensive technology.
While this seems to make sense it is faulty logic. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Even if bicycle commuters do have an overall lower mortality it may not be due to riding a bike. When you have self selecting populations that are different (car vs. bike commuters) there are too many other variables that may account for the differences. The only way to know for sure would be to do a randomized control trial which would be impossible. You need to know other baseline risk factors for each group (cardiovascular risk, smoking history, etc). People make the same mistake with alcohol consumption data (moderate drinkers have lower overall mortality than nondrinkers, but this is a correlation, not necessarily causation), running injuries (apparently people with more expensive running shoes have more running injuries but is this really causing in injuries? More likely this population is training harder or buys the better shoes because they have had problems with prior injuries, etc).
Statistics and studies can be very misleading. The decision to commute to work on a bike should not be made using only national satety statistics because if you are the one with a traumatic brain injury at age 34 statistics don't matter. Make you bike commute as statistically safe as possible. If the route is dangerous then drive a car and ride your bike other places.
And I will say it again, looking only at mortality is a mistake. There is significant long term disability from many biking accidents (and car accidents as well).
You correctly state that a randomized controlled trial is impossible to conduct and therefore highest level evidence will never be forthcoming. In that sense, the issue will never be settled. Unfortunately, this is a straw man argument if there ever was one. It assumes than lower level evidence is meaningless because it cannot settle the issue. In the real world one will have to deal with whatever evidence is available and come to a recommendation based on that - after all, the problem or disease exists and one has to respond given the available evidence. Dismissing available evidence as not meeting some a priori standard, and a standard impossible to achieve, is a nihilistic approach and does not advance the discussion.
It is the existence of a plausible mechanism (in this case moderate exercise effects of cardiovascular health) which makes the statistical exploration worthwhile as a way to figure out the magnitude of the effect. This is one giant step beyond mere statistical correlation of variables.
I assume that you are a physician and ask you to imagine an otherwise healthy patient who is asking you for medical advice regarding the effect of starting bicycle commuting versus continuing to commute by car:
The appropriate recommendation is the following: The current scientific evidence overwhelmingly favors bicycle commuting over car commuting in terms of substantially increasing longevity (several years) at the population level. Commuting by bicycle introduces its own set of risks most of which can be managed using common sense. Helmet use, bike riding skill training, route selection, all come to mind. Unwillingness of the patient to use common sense and consciously adopt risk management strategies should result in the disclosure that the health benefits of bicycling may not be realized under such circumstances.
The scientific discussion at this time is not about if bicycling is more or less dangerous to your health but about the magnitude of the effect, which, incidentally, is rather large:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920084/pdf/ehp-0901747.pdf
The real issue is obviously to get the message out that local governments not supporting bicycle infrastructure are dangerous to your health in more ways than one.
-
This is a useless debate. We can find tons of statistics and use them for or against the argument we want to promote.
This is not true. There is a large body of research supporting bicycle commuting for its health benefits and none, that I am aware of, refuting it.
There is also a huge body of research on traffic safety and from this we do know what needs to be done to make bicycling safer.
Ignoring this stuff and saying that the issue is undecided really amounts to taking sides against the bicycle advocacy community.
-
You correctly state that a randomized controlled trial is impossible to conduct and therefore highest level evidence will never be forthcoming. In that sense, the issue will never be settled. Unfortunately, this is a straw man argument if there ever was one. It assumes than lower level evidence is meaningless because it cannot settle the issue. In the real world one will have to deal with whatever evidence is available and come to a recommendation based on that - after all, the problem or disease exists and one has to respond given the available evidence. Dismissing available evidence as not meeting some a priori standard, and a standard impossible to achieve, is a nihilistic approach and does not advance the discussion.
...but Pete, math can't make me feel safe!
-
You correctly state that a randomized controlled trial is impossible to conduct and therefore highest level evidence will never be forthcoming. In that sense, the issue will never be settled. Unfortunately, this is a straw man argument if there ever was one. It assumes than lower level evidence is meaningless because it cannot settle the issue. In the real world one will have to deal with whatever evidence is available and come to a recommendation based on that - after all, the problem or disease exists and one has to respond given the available evidence. Dismissing available evidence as not meeting some a priori standard, and a standard impossible to achieve, is a nihilistic approach and does not advance the discussion.
...but Pete, math can't make me feel safe!
That is unfortunately a problem for many.
Even more unfortunate for the hapless individual consumer is that he cannot go out and buy a bicycle with more safety features and goes and buys an SUV. Never mind that the math works against him and the contraption is dangerous for his health and the "safety" he pays for dearly is largely in his head.
The perception of safety is actually important and when it comes to bicycling it can really only be achieved by investing in infrastructure and increasing the number of bicycles on the road. That's where hardcore bicycle advocacy comes in - it really is the critical element to get things moving under our own power.
-
To each his own.
I'll stick to bike paths, side walks and off road riding. Road riding in my area is completely unsafe no matter what statistics you shake your stick at. Arguing that it's safer to bike in all areas and situations equally is ridiculous.
-
Arguing that it's safer to bike in all areas and situations equally is ridiculous.
I don't think anyone is arguing such an extreme point.
I lived in Manhattan in the 90s and my bicycle was my transportation - if you think that bicycling in Manhattan is ridiculous then I can't help you because it is perfectly fine - and was even twenty years ago. The trick is actually simple: avoid the FDR and you'll be fine. :-)
-
Arguing that it's safer to bike in all areas and situations equally is ridiculous.
I don't think anyone is arguing such an extreme point.
It sure seems like the OP was.
If I lived in Manhatten I would likely do the same as you. A bicycle makes a lot of sense there.... heck, your average speed was probably even higher than what most cars can achieve in that environment.
-
Arguing that it's safer to bike in all areas and situations equally is ridiculous.
I don't think anyone is arguing such an extreme point.
It sure seems like the OP was.
Can you point out what makes you think that? I read it as "riding a bicycle, on average, is safer than driving a car, on average" which is a very different thing
-
If I lived in Manhatten I would likely do the same as you. A bicycle makes a lot of sense there.... heck, your average speed was probably even higher than what most cars can achieve in that environment.
Yes, it makes a lot of sense and you are right about the average speed.
Interestingly, I have never gotten so many comments on how dangerous it supposedly is than during that time. I don't know if it is still like that with all the infrastructure improvements, but back then just the thought of cycling in Manhattan used to freak many people out.
-
It sure seems like the OP was.
Can you point out what makes you think that? I read it as "riding a bicycle, on average, is safer than driving a car, on average" which is a very different thing
Perhaps I should reword to.... it sure seems like the OP WOULD argue that.
It's pretty bold to create a brand new thread, calling out an individual who expressed that he didn't feel that it was safe to commute by cycle in the environment in which he lives. It takes a religious level of devotion to an activity to be so rude towards another person for such a petty reason. I'm surprised you allow that type of behavior here.
-
It sure seems like the OP was.
Can you point out what makes you think that? I read it as "riding a bicycle, on average, is safer than driving a car, on average" which is a very different thing
Perhaps I should reword to.... it sure seems like the OP WOULD argue that.
It's pretty bold to create a brand new thread, calling out an individual who expressed that he didn't feel that it was safe to commute by cycle in the environment in which he lives. It takes a religious level of devotion to an activity to be so rude towards another person for such a petty reason. I'm surprised you allow that type of behavior here.
The thread was split out by a moderator. The "original poster" didn't even start the thread. They were having a conversation in the linked thread from the first post, and it was split out in an effort to not derail that thread. No need to call out rudeness that never happened.
-
The thread was split out by a moderator. The "original poster" didn't even start the thread. They were having a conversation in the linked thread from the first post, and it was split out in an effort to not derail that thread. No need to call out rudeness that never happened.
My apologies to the OP then, clearly I misinterpreted the situation.
-
I'm going to die someday. I'd much rather have slightly higher chances in my commute and a better lifestyle and longer life expectancy than spend every day freaking out about how "omg I might get hit on my bike ride." YMMV.
Word. As long as you follow some of the smart advice that people have laid out here and in other places, you'll be fine on your bike, but i'm not going to try to convince someone otherwise. Personally, I want to be a healthier active person, and I think pursuing that goal is going to do a lot more for my long term health than living in fear of riding my bike on the street. I could walk out of my house tomorrow and get hit crossing a cross walk. I guess I could also get hit on my bike. 50 different things could randomly happen to me. I choose not to spend a lot off time thinking about any of them.
But, to each their own. Stats aren't going to convince anyone of anything when it comes to this.
-
My apologies to the OP then, clearly I misinterpreted the situation.
Accepted. :-)
It was originally more along the lines of attempting to cajole mindaugas into not giving up on biking this month. It kind of escalated from there. I'm glad that Russ split it out, since it was just misguided motivation. It does rub me the wrong way when I hear that particular excuse for not biking, just because I always get the sense that it short circuits the decision making process. It's my own stuff usually, but I do like to kind of force people to think about it beyond the anecdotal evidence, just to truly think through the decision. The "problem" is that there are a lot of really passionate people here, and you couple that with the loathing of "excusitis", things can get heated.
Shit, the person I was talking to originally already has 32 miles this month. :-)
Usually, these end up with people saying something to the effect of "I see the stats, I've listened to the argument, and I will make my own decision (hopefully taking everything into account)". At that point, I feel like my work is done. This particular thread has taken a couple of interesting turns, that I will probably research (stuff like the damage done per incident - bikes vs. cars). They are just stats, which can be used to argue any side of an argument. For me it's more academic. I've already made the decision that I much prefer biking than driving, and obviously am biased that way. I love everything about it, and even if some studies come out that categorically prove driving is safer, I'll acknowledge them, and carry on with my biking.
-
The debate doesn't really make a lot of sense unless one has an obsession with not wanting to die in a particular way. The trivial truth is that one can completely avoid death by bicycling by not riding a bicycle. On the other hand, overall mortality is strongly affected by bicycle commuting. As far as I know, all cause mortality in bicycle commuters is between 20% and 50% lower than in non bicycle commuters. These numbers would not mean much (like all statistics) if there wasn't a plausible mechanism supporting the findings. But given that cardiovascular disease alone is more than 15 times more likely to kill you than a traffic accident and moderate exercise is a major risk modifier for cardiovascular disease, it seems rather believable.
So if you want to increase your overall chances to live longer you should accept the risk of commuting by bicycle. If you let your fear of bicycling influence your decision then you must accept the much higher risk of a premature death - and rest easy that your dead body will be safely strapped in and surrounded by crumple zones and all other kinds of expensive technology.
While this seems to make sense it is faulty logic. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Even if bicycle commuters do have an overall lower mortality it may not be due to riding a bike. When you have self selecting populations that are different (car vs. bike commuters) there are too many other variables that may account for the differences. The only way to know for sure would be to do a randomized control trial which would be impossible. You need to know other baseline risk factors for each group (cardiovascular risk, smoking history, etc). People make the same mistake with alcohol consumption data (moderate drinkers have lower overall mortality than nondrinkers, but this is a correlation, not necessarily causation), running injuries (apparently people with more expensive running shoes have more running injuries but is this really causing in injuries? More likely this population is training harder or buys the better shoes because they have had problems with prior injuries, etc).
Statistics and studies can be very misleading. The decision to commute to work on a bike should not be made using only national satety statistics because if you are the one with a traumatic brain injury at age 34 statistics don't matter. Make you bike commute as statistically safe as possible. If the route is dangerous then drive a car and ride your bike other places.
And I will say it again, looking only at mortality is a mistake. There is significant long term disability from many biking accidents (and car accidents as well).
You correctly state that a randomized controlled trial is impossible to conduct and therefore highest level evidence will never be forthcoming. In that sense, the issue will never be settled. Unfortunately, this is a straw man argument if there ever was one. It assumes than lower level evidence is meaningless because it cannot settle the issue. In the real world one will have to deal with whatever evidence is available and come to a recommendation based on that - after all, the problem or disease exists and one has to respond given the available evidence. Dismissing available evidence as not meeting some a priori standard, and a standard impossible to achieve, is a nihilistic approach and does not advance the discussion.
It is the existence of a plausible mechanism (in this case moderate exercise effects of cardiovascular health) which makes the statistical exploration worthwhile as a way to figure out the magnitude of the effect. This is one giant step beyond mere statistical correlation of variables.
I assume that you are a physician and ask you to imagine an otherwise healthy patient who is asking you for medical advice regarding the effect of starting bicycle commuting versus continuing to commute by car:
The appropriate recommendation is the following: The current scientific evidence overwhelmingly favors bicycle commuting over car commuting in terms of substantially increasing longevity (several years) at the population level. Commuting by bicycle introduces its own set of risks most of which can be managed using common sense. Helmet use, bike riding skill training, route selection, all come to mind. Unwillingness of the patient to use common sense and consciously adopt risk management strategies should result in the disclosure that the health benefits of bicycling may not be realized under such circumstances.
The scientific discussion at this time is not about if bicycling is more or less dangerous to your health but about the magnitude of the effect, which, incidentally, is rather large:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920084/pdf/ehp-0901747.pdf
The real issue is obviously to get the message out that local governments not supporting bicycle infrastructure are dangerous to your health in more ways than one.
Maybe we are talking past one another to some extent. I'm probably not making my point as clearly as I should, so I apologize. I am in favor of exercise and biking, but it is not safer per mile than driving. Look at table 4 in that paper you referenced. In the Netherlands your relative risk of getting killed per kilometer is on average 5.5 times higher for biking than driving, and this is in a country with a massive biking infrastructure. It may be higher in the United States where I imagine most reader of these forums live. Who knows it may be lower. My point is that the data is lacking. There are no doubt benefits to regular moderate cardiovascular activity and these may in fact be of a greater benefit than the increase in accidental death and pulmonary mortality, although when measuring potential life years saved or quality of life this paper does not/can not address it. The problem with data like this is that it assumes everyone has equal risk and this is absolutely not true. It is intellectually dishonest to assume that this data could possibly apply to everyone. Starting a bike commute will be of greatest benefit to those people currently doing no activity, and conversely will only introduce risk to those already getting adequate physical activity. A 2 mile ride on a bike path in good weather during the day is quite different than riding 15 miles on busy streets at night during heavy rains.
Using a study like this to come to the conclusion that everyone should bike to work is misusing the data. Studies like this are weak evidence. There are many examples of extrapolating observational type studies and coming to the wrong conclusion when controlled trials are performed.
I take issue with this statement from above:
"So if you want to increase your overall chances to live longer you should accept the risk of commuting by bicycle. If you let your fear of bicycling influence your decision then you must accept the much higher risk of a premature death"
There is no proof of this. It may be true for some, but is likely false for others. Some people are fearful to bike to work for good reason, many roads in this country are not all that safe to bike on. From a pure safety stand point driving to work is safer for most assuming adequate cardiovascular exercise.
Listen, I'm all for biking. I love to bike! If someone asks my opinion I think the benefits outweigh the risks. But don't bike to work because you think its safer. Accept that commuting 20 miles on a bike vs. car carries a slightly higher mortality and probably higher morbidity (although this is much more difficult to get and reasonable data on). Bike because you like it, or you don't get enough exercise, or it will make you mentally tougher, or it will save money and you can retire earlier, or the environmental benefit makes you happy.
I am in total favor of funding biking infrastructure and awareness.
-
This is a useless debate. We can find tons of statistics and use them for or against the argument we want to promote. In reality, safety while biking depends on so many factors that it is basically impossible to find a one-size-fits-all. Rider fitness and skills, type of cycling infrastructure, road conditions, time of the day, cycling culture, etc. are all factors that need to be taken into consideration. I bike every day, summer and winter, and will continue to do so, but I must admit that I am always on the edge when I bike anywhere but on a dedicated bike lane (there are none where I live). Cycling in Amsterdam or Copenhagen is really not the same as in Los Angeles or Calgary.
I don't think this is a useless debate. People should hear all sides of an issue and come to their own conclusion. Reading others opinions and links to data is helpful. I completely agree with your other points though. Rather than getting stuck on how we interpret murky data we should attempt to risk stratify ourselves and make our own personal biking as safe as possible.
-
I think this really does depend on the area your biking in. For example my commute to work is much more dangerous on a bike than in a car. In my commute I do not go over 50/60km/hr and if I were to be hit by another car most likely it would not result in death due to the slower speeds. However about half of my commute is gravel roads with no shoulders where the majority of the vehicles on the roads are large trucks and suvs and some transport vehicles. Most likely if I got hit by one of these vehicles on my bike I would die. Now that I have a kid this is not a risk I am willing to take in order to save $150-200 a month in gas. Plus the hour and half I save from driving to work I spend with my son in the morning and evenings and for a full time working parent that is priceless.
-
I think this really does depend on the area your biking in. For example my commute to work is much more dangerous on a bike than in a car. In my commute I do not go over 50/60km/hr and if I were to be hit by another car most likely it would not result in death due to the slower speeds. However about half of my commute is gravel roads with no shoulders where the majority of the vehicles on the roads are large trucks and suvs and some transport vehicles. Most likely if I got hit by one of these vehicles on my bike I would die. Now that I have a kid this is not a risk I am willing to take in order to save $150-200 a month in gas. Plus the hour and half I save from driving to work I spend with my son in the morning and evenings and for a full time working parent that is priceless.
I used to live in Portland, OR. Now I'm in St. Louis, MO. I agree that location might matter most re: safety.
In portland, a 5 mile commute on a bike is no big deal. You have wide roads, bike lanes, a fairly aware city, and an extensive public transit system.
In STL, you have insane morons who are usually doing at least 1 extra task while driving (personal favorite? eating a salad balanced between dash and steering wheel, while on phone), poorly paved narrow roads, no bike lanes, extreme traffic density... you'd have to be certifiable to bike any distance you couldn't walk.
-
Pete, Manhattan is one of my favorite places to ride! I don't see a problem, especially these days. Have not ridden there since the kids though :(
-
The debate doesn't really make a lot of sense unless one has an obsession with not wanting to die in a particular way. The trivial truth is that one can completely avoid death by bicycling by not riding a bicycle. On the other hand, overall mortality is strongly affected by bicycle commuting. As far as I know, all cause mortality in bicycle commuters is between 20% and 50% lower than in non bicycle commuters. These numbers would not mean much (like all statistics) if there wasn't a plausible mechanism supporting the findings. But given that cardiovascular disease alone is more than 15 times more likely to kill you than a traffic accident and moderate exercise is a major risk modifier for cardiovascular disease, it seems rather believable.
So if you want to increase your overall chances to live longer you should accept the risk of commuting by bicycle. If you let your fear of bicycling influence your decision then you must accept the much higher risk of a premature death - and rest easy that your dead body will be safely strapped in and surrounded by crumple zones and all other kinds of expensive technology.
While this seems to make sense it is faulty logic. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Even if bicycle commuters do have an overall lower mortality it may not be due to riding a bike. When you have self selecting populations that are different (car vs. bike commuters) there are too many other variables that may account for the differences. The only way to know for sure would be to do a randomized control trial which would be impossible. You need to know other baseline risk factors for each group (cardiovascular risk, smoking history, etc). People make the same mistake with alcohol consumption data (moderate drinkers have lower overall mortality than nondrinkers, but this is a correlation, not necessarily causation), running injuries (apparently people with more expensive running shoes have more running injuries but is this really causing in injuries? More likely this population is training harder or buys the better shoes because they have had problems with prior injuries, etc).
Statistics and studies can be very misleading. The decision to commute to work on a bike should not be made using only national satety statistics because if you are the one with a traumatic brain injury at age 34 statistics don't matter. Make you bike commute as statistically safe as possible. If the route is dangerous then drive a car and ride your bike other places.
And I will say it again, looking only at mortality is a mistake. There is significant long term disability from many biking accidents (and car accidents as well).
You correctly state that a randomized controlled trial is impossible to conduct and therefore highest level evidence will never be forthcoming. In that sense, the issue will never be settled. Unfortunately, this is a straw man argument if there ever was one. It assumes than lower level evidence is meaningless because it cannot settle the issue. In the real world one will have to deal with whatever evidence is available and come to a recommendation based on that - after all, the problem or disease exists and one has to respond given the available evidence. Dismissing available evidence as not meeting some a priori standard, and a standard impossible to achieve, is a nihilistic approach and does not advance the discussion.
It is the existence of a plausible mechanism (in this case moderate exercise effects of cardiovascular health) which makes the statistical exploration worthwhile as a way to figure out the magnitude of the effect. This is one giant step beyond mere statistical correlation of variables.
I assume that you are a physician and ask you to imagine an otherwise healthy patient who is asking you for medical advice regarding the effect of starting bicycle commuting versus continuing to commute by car:
The appropriate recommendation is the following: The current scientific evidence overwhelmingly favors bicycle commuting over car commuting in terms of substantially increasing longevity (several years) at the population level. Commuting by bicycle introduces its own set of risks most of which can be managed using common sense. Helmet use, bike riding skill training, route selection, all come to mind. Unwillingness of the patient to use common sense and consciously adopt risk management strategies should result in the disclosure that the health benefits of bicycling may not be realized under such circumstances.
The scientific discussion at this time is not about if bicycling is more or less dangerous to your health but about the magnitude of the effect, which, incidentally, is rather large:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920084/pdf/ehp-0901747.pdf
The real issue is obviously to get the message out that local governments not supporting bicycle infrastructure are dangerous to your health in more ways than one.
Maybe we are talking past one another to some extent. I'm probably not making my point as clearly as I should, so I apologize. I am in favor of exercise and biking, but it is not safer per mile than driving. Look at table 4 in that paper you referenced. In the Netherlands your relative risk of getting killed per kilometer is on average 5.5 times higher for biking than driving, and this is in a country with a massive biking infrastructure. It may be higher in the United States where I imagine most reader of these forums live. Who knows it may be lower. My point is that the data is lacking. There are no doubt benefits to regular moderate cardiovascular activity and these may in fact be of a greater benefit than the increase in accidental death and pulmonary mortality, although when measuring potential life years saved or quality of life this paper does not/can not address it. The problem with data like this is that it assumes everyone has equal risk and this is absolutely not true. It is intellectually dishonest to assume that this data could possibly apply to everyone. Starting a bike commute will be of greatest benefit to those people currently doing no activity, and conversely will only introduce risk to those already getting adequate physical activity. A 2 mile ride on a bike path in good weather during the day is quite different than riding 15 miles on busy streets at night during heavy rains.
Using a study like this to come to the conclusion that everyone should bike to work is misusing the data. Studies like this are weak evidence. There are many examples of extrapolating observational type studies and coming to the wrong conclusion when controlled trials are performed.
I take issue with this statement from above:
"So if you want to increase your overall chances to live longer you should accept the risk of commuting by bicycle. If you let your fear of bicycling influence your decision then you must accept the much higher risk of a premature death"
There is no proof of this. It may be true for some, but is likely false for others. Some people are fearful to bike to work for good reason, many roads in this country are not all that safe to bike on. From a pure safety stand point driving to work is safer for most assuming adequate cardiovascular exercise.
Listen, I'm all for biking. I love to bike! If someone asks my opinion I think the benefits outweigh the risks. But don't bike to work because you think its safer. Accept that commuting 20 miles on a bike vs. car carries a slightly higher mortality and probably higher morbidity (although this is much more difficult to get and reasonable data on). Bike because you like it, or you don't get enough exercise, or it will make you mentally tougher, or it will save money and you can retire earlier, or the environmental benefit makes you happy.
I am in total favor of funding biking infrastructure and awareness.
That's why I wrote "The current scientific evidence overwhelmingly favors bicycle commuting over car commuting in terms of substantially increasing longevity (several years) at the population level."
The most benefit will be seen in older people who are inactive and the least will will be seen in those at low risk of heart disease, i.e. the young and active. It is actually a strength of the study that they analyzed them altogether and still found a large benefit.
I am not trying to make the existing evidence look stronger than it is. My point is that we are unlikely to ever see stronger evidence as political decisions are often based on even weaker evidence and health policy is really what this type of research is trying to inform and that is where the funding is coming from. Forget randomized trials - we will never have funding for that kind of thing.
The study authors actually looked at the UK and France, countries less safe than the Netherlands, and still found a positive effect.
It obvious that using your car to commute and getting your cardiovascular exercise with another activity is going to eliminate the risk of bicycle accidents. No surprises there. In an ideal world, we would all glide along in armored vehicles when outside and do our exercise in a climate controlled gym on an exercise bike with the automated defibrillator right next to us. Come to think of it, that seems to be the American way of doing it already. Thank you, but no thanks.
A saner approach is to encourage bicycling (and walking) in general and make it part of the lifestyle. That way you engrain good habits in the young from which they will benefit when they are older.
The title of the thread is "Let's Talk About Whether Driving or Cycling Is More Dangerous Again" and the answer is unequivocally that driving is much more dangerous to your health than bicycling. No matter how you look at it, from the perspective of bicycle accidents cars will always be safer than bicycles - it only makes sense to discuss this if one looks at all health outcomes related to a particular activity. Cars and the sedentary behavior they encourage is the biggest health crisis the US has currently and a few minutes on the treadmill here and there is not going to change that. Killing off suburbia and make the cities walkable and friendly to bicycles is the best way to address this. Fortunately, there are signs that the younger generation is not impressed by displays of car clownishness as previous generations.
So my recommendation to all comers is still: ride your bicycle - it is good for you (unless you lack common sense of course, but then even the microwave may be too much of a risk to have around). And if you can commute by bicycle - even better, start tomorrow!
-
-Alcohol use (on the part of the cyclist) and disobeying traffic laws (ie riding the wrong way, riding on sidewalks, running lights and/or stopsigns) are VERY common causes of wrecks.
-There is a significant population of commuter cyclists who are either very poor/homeless or students. Both of these groups do a LOT of stupid stuff, rarely wear helmets or use lights, have bicycles in very poor repair (the classic "wheel out of true? disconnect the brakes!" folks), ride while intoxicated, and get hurt/killed disproportionately.
Those idiots are the ones making cycling statistically dangerous. It's just like motorcycles - they are inherently *somewhat* dangerous because they always lose in a wreck with a car - but the 18 year old testosterone poisoned lunatics and wannabe Easy Rider dudes riding them inflate the crash statistics crazily. You can be pretty safe if you're not a moron.
Some interesting stats:
1) The percentage of car fatalities where one driver had alcohol (~35%, according to http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/DrivingIssues/1101913925.html#.U2gHqij4-I0) is nearly identical to the percentage of bicycle fatalities where someone was drinking (>one-third, according to http://www.pedbikesafe.org/BIKESAFE/crash_factors.cfm)
2) The average age of bicyclists killed in accidents has steadily increased, from 35 in 200 to 41 in 2009 (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811386.pdf). In other words, the average fatality is not because of young, dumb teenage bicycle riders. The most common bicycle fatality is between the ages of 45 and 54, and occurs on their way home from work.
-
-Alcohol use (on the part of the cyclist) and disobeying traffic laws (ie riding the wrong way, riding on sidewalks, running lights and/or stopsigns) are VERY common causes of wrecks.
-There is a significant population of commuter cyclists who are either very poor/homeless or students. Both of these groups do a LOT of stupid stuff, rarely wear helmets or use lights, have bicycles in very poor repair (the classic "wheel out of true? disconnect the brakes!" folks), ride while intoxicated, and get hurt/killed disproportionately.
Those idiots are the ones making cycling statistically dangerous. It's just like motorcycles - they are inherently *somewhat* dangerous because they always lose in a wreck with a car - but the 18 year old testosterone poisoned lunatics and wannabe Easy Rider dudes riding them inflate the crash statistics crazily. You can be pretty safe if you're not a moron.
Some interesting stats:
1) The percentage of car fatalities where one driver had alcohol (~35%, according to http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/DrivingIssues/1101913925.html#.U2gHqij4-I0) is nearly identical to the percentage of bicycle fatalities where someone was drinking (>one-third, according to http://www.pedbikesafe.org/BIKESAFE/crash_factors.cfm)
2) The average age of bicyclists killed in accidents has steadily increased, from 35 in 200 to 41 in 2009 (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811386.pdf). In other words, the average fatality is not because of young, dumb teenage bicycle riders. The most common bicycle fatality is between the ages of 45 and 54, and occurs on their way home from work.
Young, dumb teenagers get killed in car accidents and would be better off on bicycles.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_safety#Accidents_and_incidents
Scroll down to statistics
-
Anyone who does not grasp that going a mile in a 5000 pound vehicle is safer than biking a mile needs to put down the crack pipe.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_safety#Accidents_and_incidents
Scroll down to statistics
This is a good one. If you use the frequencies reported in the table to determine how to be safest at all times you will come to some interesting conclusions. Let's just take car, foot and bicycle:
It is quite obvious that car wins in every instant. Consequently, in order to maximize safety, you should travel by car as much as you possibly can and minimize foot and bicycle travel outside of designated safe areas, such as food courts etc., as much as you can. Be especially careful in parking lots as it is known that traveling on foot is particularly dangerous in parking lots. Use the drive through if available and otherwise park as close to the door as possible. Opt for home delivery as much as possible.... a nursing home would be best but they are kind of expensive and one can still fall out of bed when reaching for the remote....
We all know that this lifestyle is deadly in the long run but unfortunately is not uncommon these days. The problem is that people do not fear the potato chip as much as any form of violent death although the humble potato chip is far more likely to kill you than any form of accident or intentional violence. It is because potato chips, diabetes and coronary artery disease do not make for a good story and therefore people who consume a lot of TV and typical movie fare overestimate dramatically the likelihood of an accidental, violent death when compared to, so called, death from natural causes.
That is why a question like "what is more dangerous: bicycle or car" will be evaluated by the majority with respect only towards accident related health outcomes. Add to that the common opinion that bicycles are dangerous toys instead of viable transportation alternatives, and the risk of bicycling is simply added on to all other life risks. Playing is, after all, something you do in addition to all the reasonable things you engage in the rest of the time. Viewing bicycles as legitimate transportation, which, by the way, the rest of world actually does, leads to completely different conclusions but does require a bit more mental energy in evaluating costs and benefits.
From an overall risk perspective, it is interesting that even the bicycle accidents are commonly caused by cars. That means that cars are not only detrimental to the car clown's health but also to other people's health. That's why we must make it harder and harder to drive to places which can easily be reached by foot, bicycle and public transport. The risks of car traffic are simply not acceptable when the traffic is generated out of sheer convenience.
-
car clown
Every time I read this, it causes me to feel resentful. It doesn't make me want to get on board with whatever ideas you might have regarding cyclist safety. I don't wish ill upon anybody, but I'm terribly interested in helping push for safety reforms for a group of people who choose to tag me with a negative label.
-
It is quite obvious that car wins in every instant. Consequently, in order to maximize safety, you should travel by car as much as you possibly can and minimize foot and bicycle travel outside of designated safe areas, such as food courts etc., as much as you can. Be especially careful in parking lots as it is known that traveling on foot is particularly dangerous in parking lots. Use the drive through if available and otherwise park as close to the door as possible. Opt for home delivery as much as possible.... a nursing home would be best but they are kind of expensive and one can still fall out of bed when reaching for the remote....
Good point. I was going to mention something about the catheter and the bedpan that has been discussed before. It was an interesting look at the different methods of comparing data.
So what do you folks think? I think that almost nobody looks at the particular statistics, determines that bicycling is safer than driving, and just begins biking. There is more to it than that. However, I also get the sense that others look at other sets of stats, determines that driving is safer, and doesn't think any more on the subject. It seems the negative choice, the choice not to do something (not just biking), only needs one thing to prevent people from taking it any further. Have you experienced the same thing when talking with others?
car clown
Every time I read this, it causes me to feel resentful. It doesn't make me want to get on board with whatever ideas you might have regarding cyclist safety. I don't wish ill upon anybody, but I'm terribly interested in helping push for safety reforms for a group of people who choose to tag me with a negative label.
You know, at first I thought something similar when I read the "Car Clown" article. I found myself driving along, looking at myself, and those around me, thinking (in a very negative manner) "Good god, we're all a bunch of fucking clowns". Then I started making my own changes, and once I started biking consistently, my idea of what that word indicates shifted. Now, I'm on my bike, glancing about at the 'clowns' driving around, and I just laugh. It's not a spiteful laugh (mostly cause I haven't figured out how to be angry or mean while on a bicycle...way too much fun), but more one of encouragement. I get your side though, but if you imagine it as someone trying to help, or at least make you aware...maybe the resentment would go away. It's only a negative label if you take it that way. Not discounting your feelings on the matter, and not saying that some people don't mean it that way, but I personally find it more entertaining looking at it the other way.
-
That is why a question like "what is more dangerous: bicycle or car" will be evaluated by the majority with respect only towards accident related health outcomes.
The language used sets the question up that way. Just like MMM's article argued that "bicycling is the safest form of transportation" but then tried to argue his case using non-safety measurements, the question in this thread is whether cycling is more dangerous.
If the question were framed as "which transportation option is the healthiest" it would be a very different discussion. Although even there, I haven't seen any studies showing improved health outcomes for those who bike more than ~3 hours per week (that's the PLoS One study that MMM cited).
-
You know, at first I thought something similar when I read the "Car Clown" article. I found myself driving along, looking at myself, and those around me, thinking (in a very negative manner) "Good god, we're all a bunch of fucking clowns". Then I started making my own changes, and once I started biking consistently, my idea of what that word indicates shifted. Now, I'm on my bike, glancing about at the 'clowns' driving around, and I just laugh. It's not a spiteful laugh (mostly cause I haven't figured out how to be angry or mean while on a bicycle...way too much fun), but more one of encouragement. I get your side though, but if you imagine it as someone trying to help, or at least make you aware...maybe the resentment would go away. It's only a negative label if you take it that way. Not discounting your feelings on the matter, and not saying that some people don't mean it that way, but I personally find it more entertaining looking at it the other way.
Thank you for the polite response. :)
I suppose it's difficult to view the term from a perspective which I do not have, as my choices have lead me down the path to automobile commuting. It may be extra difficult for me to comprehend because I'm apparently the oddball who actually enjoys driving.
-
Thank you for the polite response. :)
I'm always polite...except when I'm a jerk :-)
I suppose it's difficult to view the term from a perspective which I do not have, as my choices have lead me down the path to automobile commuting. It may be extra difficult for me to comprehend because I'm apparently the oddball who actually enjoys driving.
It's not as oddball as one would think. I'm a huge bicycling advocate, but I absolutely love driving, too. I recently got a more Mustachian vehicle (little 4 cyclinder Sentra), and have to admit, it's like a really fun go-kart. One of the things I noticed when I started biking was how much better of a mood I was in overall. It's really hard to be mad on a bike.
-
Has we covered the health aspect of cycling yet? Because you might be at slightly higher risk of being hit by a car and killed while cycling, but you'll be at a significantly lower risk of obesity related health problems. And given that leisure time activities are shown not to be enough to prevent obesity (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18307713 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18307713)), that probably tips the scales back in favour of biking.
It's really hard to be mad on a bike.
Some drivers around here will certainly help you out if you're having trouble with that particular biking emotion. :P
-
car clown
Every time I read this, it causes me to feel resentful. It doesn't make me want to get on board with whatever ideas you might have regarding cyclist safety. I don't wish ill upon anybody, but I'm terribly interested in helping push for safety reforms for a group of people who choose to tag me with a negative label.
It is just a reference to one of my favorite MMM articles:
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/04/22/curing-your-clown-like-car-habit/
-
I know that my own experiences are purely anecdotal, i.e. statistically insignificant, but I was hit on a bike in my high school years, and my brother was hit in his 20s.
We both had helmets on. I emerged with just a few scrapes, in need of a bike repair. My brother was not so fortunate and required shoulder reconstruction surgery.
Fast forward to today: I'm 8.6 miles from work, which is surely in the "bikeable" range of distance. If I wasn't concerned about safety, I'd really like to do it. It's not an exercise thing for me -- I get plenty of exercise doing other things. I just think it'd be a great way to continue to optimize my life. I have a bike and ride it to other parts of town for various errands but there's only one non-highway path into work and the road is narrow, windy, and congested with no bike lane whatsoever.
I'm man enough to admit that I'm scared... I just don't want to get hit again. Eff the statistics. If driving a round trip of 17 miles every day to work makes me a clown, then I guess I need to buy a red nose. Guilty.
-
I know that my own experiences are purely anecdotal, i.e. statistically insignificant, but I was hit on a bike in my high school years, and my brother was hit in his 20s.
We both had helmets on. I emerged with just a few scrapes, in need of a bike repair. My brother was not so fortunate and required shoulder reconstruction surgery.
Fast forward to today: I'm 8.6 miles from work, which is surely in the "bikeable" range of distance. If I wasn't concerned about safety, I'd really like to do it. It's not an exercise thing for me -- I get plenty of exercise doing other things. I just think it'd be a great way to continue to optimize my life. I have a bike and ride it to other parts of town for various errands but there's only one non-highway path into work and the road is narrow, windy, and congested with no bike lane whatsoever.
I'm man enough to admit that I'm scared... I just don't want to get hit again. Eff the statistics. If driving a round trip of 17 miles every day to work makes me a clown, then I guess I need to buy a red nose. Guilty.
I'm the opposite. I can't even remember the number of car accidents I've been in (not that anyone was hurt beyond some bruising, but still). And I've never had an accident on my bike.
-
This thread has convinced me that the safest thing I could do is just not leave my house at all.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_safety#Accidents_and_incidents
Scroll down to statistics
This is a good one. If you use the frequencies reported in the table to determine how to be safest at all times you will come to some interesting conclusions. Let's just take car, foot and bicycle:
It is quite obvious that car wins in every instant. Consequently, in order to maximize safety, you should travel by car as much as you possibly can and minimize foot and bicycle travel outside of designated safe areas, such as food courts etc., as much as you can. Be especially careful in parking lots as it is known that traveling on foot is particularly dangerous in parking lots. Use the drive through if available and otherwise park as close to the door as possible. Opt for home delivery as much as possible.... a nursing home would be best but they are kind of expensive and one can still fall out of bed when reaching for the remote....
We all know that this lifestyle is deadly in the long run but unfortunately is not uncommon these days. The problem is that people do not fear the potato chip as much as any form of violent death although the humble potato chip is far more likely to kill you than any form of accident or intentional violence. It is because potato chips, diabetes and coronary artery disease do not make for a good story and therefore people who consume a lot of TV and typical movie fare overestimate dramatically the likelihood of an accidental, violent death when compared to, so called, death from natural causes.
That is why a question like "what is more dangerous: bicycle or car" will be evaluated by the majority with respect only towards accident related health outcomes. Add to that the common opinion that bicycles are dangerous toys instead of viable transportation alternatives, and the risk of bicycling is simply added on to all other life risks. Playing is, after all, something you do in addition to all the reasonable things you engage in the rest of the time. Viewing bicycles as legitimate transportation, which, by the way, the rest of world actually does, leads to completely different conclusions but does require a bit more mental energy in evaluating costs and benefits.
From an overall risk perspective, it is interesting that even the bicycle accidents are commonly caused by cars. That means that cars are not only detrimental to the car clown's health but also to other people's health. That's why we must make it harder and harder to drive to places which can easily be reached by foot, bicycle and public transport. The risks of car traffic are simply not acceptable when the traffic is generated out of sheer convenience.
It makes sense to me to evaluate car/bicycle safety in terms of accident related health outcomes. Sure, overall, my health might be better if I rode a bike instead of driving and never exercising. But then we are comparing both transportation and exercise (cycling) to transportation alone (driving). Obviously it would be safer to drive to work, drive home, go into the room you've converted into a gym, and do an hour of exercise. In that case bicycling would have no real health advantage, but would still be quite a bit more dangerous as a mode of transport. If one will not work out in one's home gym, it's reasonable to ask why not, and it's reasonable to ask why one would prefer to mix exercise with a dangerous form of transportation.
Notice that motorcycles are the most dangerous. Motorcycles are bicycles which can obtain very high speeds.
Other countries that view bicycles as viable transport also build infrastructure to make bicycling much safer.
We don't need to make it harder to drive, we need to make it easier and safer to bike.
Purely anecdotal - I'm both a cyclist and a driver. IMO bicyclists are the absolute worst vehicle operators on the road. It's understandable to a degree, as half the cyclists are too young to have a driver's license and don't really know the rules and what drivers can/can't do in a situation. The other half of course are adults and it's hard to say why adult cyclists behave stupidly on public roads given they have only 28 lbs of steel and a plastic helmet to protect them.
-
Notice that motorcycles are the most dangerous. Motorcycles are bicycles which can obtain very high speeds.
Ooh let's talk about motorcycle safety again too!
Motorcycles are not inherently more dangerous than cars: http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/02/chapter-iv-in-which-i-recommend-that.html
-
Notice that motorcycles are the most dangerous. Motorcycles are bicycles which can obtain very high speeds.
Ooh let's talk about motorcycle safety again too!
Motorcycles are not inherently more dangerous than cars: http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/02/chapter-iv-in-which-i-recommend-that.html
Yes, let's talk about that, objectively.
The link suggests that English police officers are of the same personality type. I know some police officers (American) and they don't have the same personality type.
The linked article also suggests it's "safe" to feel unsafe because one will ride more carefully. Maybe. But the teen coming at me in the other lane, texting, is not affected by my sense of having to ride safely. I'll read the other links in the article and see if they convince me.
-
It's not really an argument. It's numbers. Some of it is laid out in the "Bicycling: The SAFEST Form of Transportation (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safest-form-of-transportation/)", but I did it myself a long time ago, and liked my odds. Apparently the National Safety Council backs agrees. (http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/injury_and_death_statistics/Documents/2014-Injury-Facts-43.pdf)
I'm also not huge on anecdotal evidence as far as calling it evidence, or making decisions based on it.
Generalized studies may tell you broad facts, but when it comes to making your own decisions, anecdotal evidence is ALL that matters -- by that, I mean, your own circumstances are all that matters. I know that years ago one of those reports said that a cruise ship is actually the safest mode of transportation; however, if you were a passenger on that Concordia ship that overturned, all those other ships that sailed safely wouldn't matter to you -- you'd care most that YOU were in the water!
My circumstances are such that biking to work would not be a safe choice: I only live two miles from the school where I teach (a very manageable distance), but if you saw the narrow road and the ditch beside it, you wouldn't be anxious to bicycle either. These teenaged drivers are also something of a menace: About every other week I see a wreck after school, and it's always the same story: They're not paying attention to the road -- they're chatting with friends, they're texting behind the wheel. They are not safe road companions. Crossing a six-lane highway (especially in the morning while it's still dark) would also put you off the idea.
The road I would need to bike to work would NOT be safe. That doesn't mean it's not a great choice for someone else -- someone with wide roads, bike lanes, who doesn't go to work before the buttcrack of dawn, and who doesn't share the road with teenaged drivers.
-
It makes sense to me to evaluate car/bicycle safety in terms of accident related health outcomes. Sure, overall, my health might be better if I rode a bike instead of driving and never exercising. But then we are comparing both transportation and exercise (cycling) to transportation alone (driving). Obviously it would be safer to drive to work, drive home, go into the room you've converted into a gym, and do an hour of exercise. In that case bicycling would have no real health advantage, but would still be quite a bit more dangerous as a mode of transport. If one will not work out in one's home gym, it's reasonable to ask why not, and it's reasonable to ask why one would prefer to mix exercise with a dangerous form of transportation.
Sure, it is sensible to evaluate car/bicycle accident rates and is in fact a necessary element in the evaluation of the overall problem.
But it remains only one aspect. The strategy you are proposing would indeed work in bringing the accident risk of bicycling to bear, although it is a little impractical. In any case you are actually taking the big picture into account.
But dangerousness in terms of accidents isn't the subject of the question. Some have mentioned that the question would have to be worded differently such as " Let's Talk About Whether Driving or Cycling Is More Dangerous considering all health outcomes". I would say that the question is already posed as broadly as possible. There is no qualifier regarding what kind of "dangerousness" should be considered.
Of course the question is a classic socratic exploratory question. It entices the questioned to answer immediately with what they believe is the self evident truth. It is the function of this type of question to expose the beliefs of the audience.
Someone who deep down believes that bicycles are dangerous toys and is used to evaluate reality based on perceived dangerousness will immediately say that cycling is more dangerous than driving. Someone who believes that the perception of dangerousness has to take a back seat during an objective evaluation, will cry foul immediately. For example, I firmly believe that the greatest dangers to their life people face in modern societies are at a level so abstract that they will never trigger survival mechanisms like fear and avoidance behavior. Therefore, danger avoidance has largely become somewhat of an intellectual exercise - an extra-large chocolate chip cookie in of itself is just not scary enough to a hungry hairless primate and likely never will be. Only a decent amount of thinking can prevent one from taking the bait.
Other countries that view bicycles as viable transport also build infrastructure to make bicycling much safer.
We don't need to make it harder to drive, we need to make it easier and safer to bike.
I have to disappoint you here. Building out bicycling infrastructure and having more bicycles around will always make it harder to get around by car in a city. The hordes of bicyclists in European cities keep you on your toes all the time. At the tipping point, bicycling does not need to actively be encouraged anymore. The inconvenience to drive a car in these cities in itself encourages cycling whenever practical.
-
Ooh let's talk about motorcycle safety again too!
Motorcycles are not inherently more dangerous than cars: http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/02/chapter-iv-in-which-i-recommend-that.html
This guy starts out using blatantly incorrect vehicle acceleration estimates to begin the process of convincing us of something. Not a good start. Both of my cars, neither of which even closely resemble a sports car, are faster than his Kawasaki, and I would be more than happy to demonstrate this on a race track.
Then he continues to use a bunch of factpinion based arguments that aren't necessarily grounded in actual data.
His assertion seems to basically be that if you're a safe rider, you'll be more safe than if you were in a car. This is ridiculous, why would I believe that a safe rider wouldn't also choose to use those same safe habits when behind the wheel of a car? Does the safe rider automatically drop those safe habits and turn into an idiot when given a steering wheel as opposed to handlebars?
I think his argument would have been better stated that if you choose to use safe riding habits, you'll be about as safe on a motorcycle as you are in a car. If you choose to ride like an idiot, then all bets are off.
note - I used to ride motorcycles, and I may do so again some day. I'm typically the guy arguing that motorcycles are more safe than people think, as long as you use safe habits. But this guy is overselling them pretty aggressively.
-
A nice summary on when bike helmets are useful. Also, information on why the risk of head injury while biking is low, relative to other activities where no helmet debates occur at all!
http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets (http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets)
Risk of head injury per million hours travelled:
Cyclist - 0.41
Pedestrian - 0.80
Motor vehicle occupant - 0.46
Motorcyclist - 7.66
(http://www.pmlydon.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/protect-ourselves-car-helmet.jpg)
-
[...]
I'm also not huge on anecdotal evidence as far as calling it evidence, or making decisions based on it.
Generalized studies may tell you broad facts, but when it comes to making your own decisions, anecdotal evidence is ALL that matters -- by that, I mean, your own circumstances are all that matters.
[...]
You know, I've been thinking about this for the last couple of days. The way you phrased that kind of made me think about this differently. I wasn't exactly sure how I would respond, though. I often look at studies to get my initial thoughts down, do a bit of due diligence, and then go and try it myself. Part of that due-diligence is listening to others' experiences. I don't consider it actual evidence, and do listen, but it plays a relatively small part in making my decision. With all of this stuff currently going on with Vibram (settling stuff due to false claims, etc) it made me realize these steps that I take. I only wear Vibrams (or go barefoot), and I realized that I didn't know they were marketed as healthy. I had done research on going barefoot, but (with the exception of making arguments - kind of like the one that caused this thread to split) I do actually use my own experiences to make the choice to continue doing something. I'll always look when new information is discovered, though.
So I'll re-evaluate my statement above. I still don't consider anecdotal evidence an actual form of evidence. However, it is a form of information, and it can be useful, as long as it's taken with a huge grain of salt, with the understanding that there are too many variables to make it directly useful to you, and actual research needs to be done.
Thanks for the comment MrsPete, it made me think a bit harder about what I was trying to say.
-
Anyone who does not grasp that going a mile in a 5000 pound vehicle is safer than biking a mile needs to put down the crack pipe.
Anyone who does not grasp that taking a 5000lbs vehicle for one mile trips instead of walking or biking and doesn't understand that that kind of behavior is hazardous to his health needs to get his head examined. :-)
-
[...]
I'm also not huge on anecdotal evidence as far as calling it evidence, or making decisions based on it.
Generalized studies may tell you broad facts, but when it comes to making your own decisions, anecdotal evidence is ALL that matters -- by that, I mean, your own circumstances are all that matters.
[...]
You know, I've been thinking about this for the last couple of days. The way you phrased that kind of made me think about this differently. I wasn't exactly sure how I would respond, though. I often look at studies to get my initial thoughts down, do a bit of due diligence, and then go and try it myself. Part of that due-diligence is listening to others' experiences. I don't consider it actual evidence, and do listen, but it plays a relatively small part in making my decision. With all of this stuff currently going on with Vibram (settling stuff due to false claims, etc) it made me realize these steps that I take. I only wear Vibrams (or go barefoot), and I realized that I didn't know they were marketed as healthy. I had done research on going barefoot, but (with the exception of making arguments - kind of like the one that caused this thread to split) I do actually use my own experiences to make the choice to continue doing something. I'll always look when new information is discovered, though.
So I'll re-evaluate my statement above. I still don't consider anecdotal evidence an actual form of evidence. However, it is a form of information, and it can be useful, as long as it's taken with a huge grain of salt, with the understanding that there are too many variables to make it directly useful to you, and actual research needs to be done.
Thanks for the comment MrsPete, it made me think a bit harder about what I was trying to say.
To put it in a different, perhaps more clear manner: All the evidence in the world doesn't mean that _____ is a good idea for you in your own life. Someone will be the exception to the rule.
In the case of biking, I think it may be a fairly risk-free activity, BUT many of us live in places where it isn't safe. For those of us who live in places where biking on the road isn't a wise choice, all the statistics in the world don't make it safe. What matters to me is the roads near my own house.
-
People should just pogo stick to work.
Almost no one dies of pogo sticking to work. Case closed!
-
Quite honestly, with the way the idiots behind the wheel are these days - yakking, texting, smoking, eating - I don't think you're safe on the road PERIOD!!! It's getting way too crazy out there for me. People have gotten so selfish and self-centered that they really don't give a rat's ass that they are endangering every person around them when they do that shit! Makes me sick to my stomach when I see it. Effin INEXCUSABLE!!
-
Quite honestly, with the way the idiots behind the wheel are these days - yakking, texting, smoking, eating - I don't think you're safe on the road PERIOD!!! It's getting way too crazy out there for me. People have gotten so selfish and self-centered that they really don't give a rat's ass that they are endangering every person around them when they do that shit! Makes me sick to my stomach when I see it. Effin INEXCUSABLE!!
Yup. People don't take driving seriously, unfortunately.