The Money Mustache Community

General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: nancyjnelson on May 12, 2018, 07:08:32 AM

Title: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: nancyjnelson on May 12, 2018, 07:08:32 AM
Something that Mushtachians already know, but I like how he frames it in terms of the wider community. 

I'm not sure if this is an article that folks who aren't subscribers to Medium can read.  If that is the case, let me know and I will delete the thread.

https://medium.com/@toddmedema/shattering-myths-the-true-cost-of-suburbs-and-cars-1e6ffab86364
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: DreamFIRE on May 12, 2018, 08:30:41 AM
I was able to read it, but I stopped after a while.  I didn't care for his message.  I average only $1500 per year to drive/license/insure/maintain my car.  It's an absolute necessity and one of the last things I could possibly give up.  I bike for exercise during the few months of the year when the weather is decent most days, but it makes a small dent in my total car ownership costs.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: RangerOne on May 12, 2018, 09:15:16 AM
I stopped at, cities aren't over priced here in Pittsburg.... Um yeah some up and coming cities are much more affordable housing wise. Doesn't mean that is true inany Cali city...

The main message is spot on. If you can live without a car and invest the surplus. Clearly you will get further ahead. Most people don't work 50 years. Plus about the starting working age that's getting close to a full life span. 30-40 would be a better benchmark but still clearly you lose lots of money.

On a more philosophical note I don't think urban sprawl is bad or going away. It is a great solution in the US where frankly we have a shit load of land and no need for everyone to cram into a few blocks like in Japan .

I think things like self driving cars and telepresence will fix our commuting problem over the next decades or 2.

Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: ixtap on May 12, 2018, 09:40:46 AM
I only made it through the intro where there seems to be an assumption that if you aren't travelling by car, you aren't travelling. All that time spent commuting would be worse without a car.  My husband's commute would be twice as long and cost three times as much with public transportation. Even when he biked to work, car made financial sense for us.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: Adam Zapple on May 13, 2018, 06:28:05 AM
Good message but could have used some editing.  I, like others, could not get through the whole article.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: LiveLean on May 13, 2018, 07:20:44 AM
Stop. Just stop with this message of biking as an alternative to driving.

Anyone who rides a bike for commuting in this era of distracted driving with everyone keeping one eye on a screen has a death wish.

I'm a former triathlete and I've seen too many friends killed and maimed by distracted drivers.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: jlcnuke on May 13, 2018, 08:45:26 AM
Yeah, overly simplistic article is overly simplistic. There isn't a "just don't have a car" quick solution for lots of circumstances. Sure, I could move closer to work so I could avoid commuting. Of course, then my housing costs would go up by hundreds of thousands of dollars to save tens of thousands of dollars in car costs. Then I could just never go anywhere that isn't within walking/biking distance for the rest of my life, but that's unlikely, so I'd still have transportation costs on top of the much more expensive home that I'd have to work even more hours of my life to pay for., etc etc

Also, the author talks about "average" costs, but "median" earnings and "average" commutes. As I hope everyone knows, when you start mixing medians and averages you've likely made your conclusions completely meaningless, as averages are usually skewed high relative to medians. So when you talk about the "highs" (averages) for the negative factors and the "lows" (medians) for the positive factors, you alienate most people who will be close to the median and thus recognize your statements don't fit them to start with. It's really a poorly constructed article imo.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: ol1970 on May 13, 2018, 08:53:09 AM
Stop. Just stop with this message of biking as an alternative to driving.

Anyone who rides a bike for commuting in this era of distracted driving with everyone keeping one eye on a screen has a death wish.

I'm a former triathlete and I've seen too many friends killed and maimed by distracted drivers.

Finally a smart comment.  My best friend had his 32 year old cousin die because he was biking to work and go hit by a distracted driver.  Now his widow is raising a three year old and the newborn son he never got to meet.  I bet she’s real happy they saved $1,500 year...but don’t worry it will never happen to you.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: Morning Glory on May 13, 2018, 09:11:26 AM
Stop. Just stop with this message of biking as an alternative to driving.

Anyone who rides a bike for commuting in this era of distracted driving with everyone keeping one eye on a screen has a death wish.

I'm a former triathlete and I've seen too many friends killed and maimed by distracted drivers.

Finally a smart comment.  My best friend had his 32 year old cousin die because he was biking to work and go hit by a distracted driver.  Now his widow is raising a three year old and the newborn son he never got to meet.  I bet she’s real happy they saved $1,500 year...but don’t worry it will never happen to you.

I'm sorry this happened to you, but I don't see how adding more cars to the road can possibly help. Your logic will lead to not driving a small car because there are too many distracted SUV drivers out there, etc, etc.. Pretty soon it's an arms race where everybody is driving a Sherman tank. Protected bike lanes can actually help, as can education about the dangers of distracted driving.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: Arbitrage on May 13, 2018, 10:59:21 AM
Isn't 'biking as an alternative to driving' one of the biggest points of this entire website (you know, mentioned in probably half of the blog articles in some way)?  Telling people to stop espousing that on the MMM forums seems a bit strange. 
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: Seadog on May 13, 2018, 11:31:12 AM
Finally a smart comment.  My best friend had his 32 year old cousin die because he was biking to work and go hit by a distracted driver.  Now his widow is raising a three year old and the newborn son he never got to meet.  I bet she’s real happy they saved $1,500 year...but don’t worry it will never happen to you.

An acquaintance was out jogging and got killed by a drunk driver who jumped the curb a few years ago. Also left kids. Tragic, but don't see how focusing on the tragedy and a sample size of 1 proves anything or lets you draw any sort of sensible conclusion as the the benefits or dangers or a certain activity.

Conversely, another friend's dad had just become semi retired in his early 50s after a long successful real estate career. A home in trendy a part of Toronto, and another in the Caribbean. Then one day had a heart attack on the golf course and that was it. Maybe a bit more biking would have helped? He was already pretty active. Who knows?

And that's the thing. You don't know how the dice will land for you so it's best to play the numbers. If you play the lottery, you're much more likely than non-players to get a million dollar windfall. (1 in 10 million vs ~0) however you're also far, far, far more likely to lose money and have a net negative benefit(I'd imagine 99%+ are net losers). If your goal is to "become a millionaire" or "avoid dying in a traffic accident" then by all means play the lottery and drive around in your clown-mobile. If conversely your goal is "live as long as possible" or "keep finances is best possible shape" then bike and avoid the lottery.

Same deal here with biking. You're a bit more likely to die young and violently then someone in a car, however you're far, far, far more likely to live longer on account of better heart health.

I'm also surprised that people don't take the cell phone/texting issue more seriously. Most studies show that texting is as bad or worse than being drunk, yet drunk driving rules get tighter and tighter, while texting gets a relative finger wagging.

...Now off for a bike ride. Gorgeous day in eastern Canada.   
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: koshtra on May 13, 2018, 12:28:39 PM
Relax, dudes. Nobody's going to take away your cars. I own a car. Mr Money Mustache owns two of them, as I recall.

But it's stupid to live somewhere where your only option is to commute daily by car. They really do ding you for fifty cents a mile. Sure, give or take twenty cents. You're still talking thousands per year.

So you've made your stupid decision, to live 25 miles from your work and 10 miles from your grocery store. And someone suggests bicycling, and of course that would be absurd -- now. Because you're locked in.

I don't bicycle any more. I walk a mile to the train every day, and a mile back. I enjoy the walk. I am far, far, far safer than you car-jockeys. You lost a friend in a bicycle accident? I've lost two in car accidents. They're every bit as dead.

My commute is an hour long instead of 45 minutes. But 20 minutes of that is walking, which I want to do anyway, and 40 minutes is spent reading, which I also want to do anyway. By my reckoning, I'm not losing 15 minutes per trip -- I'm gaining 45.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: jlcnuke on May 13, 2018, 12:31:55 PM
Stop. Just stop with this message of biking as an alternative to driving.

Anyone who rides a bike for commuting in this era of distracted driving with everyone keeping one eye on a screen has a death wish.

I'm a former triathlete and I've seen too many friends killed and maimed by distracted drivers.

Finally a smart comment.  My best friend had his 32 year old cousin die because he was biking to work and go hit by a distracted driver.  Now his widow is raising a three year old and the newborn son he never got to meet.  I bet she’s real happy they saved $1,500 year...but don’t worry it will never happen to you.

I'm sorry this happened to you, but I don't see how adding more cars to the road can possibly help. Your logic will lead to not driving a small car because there are too many distracted SUV drivers out there, etc, etc.. Pretty soon it's an arms race where everybody is driving a Sherman tank. Protected bike lanes can actually help, as can education about the dangers of distracted driving.

Not sure the slippery slope argument is really appropriate here. With regards to safety, finding "good" data here in the US is hard imo. Other countries make it a bit easier. In 2015 in the UK, there were 1,025 bicyclists killed  (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-39856219)or seriously injured per billion miles traveled, compared with 49 people killed or seriously injured in cars, busses, vans etc combined. On a "mile per mile" basis, biking results in a much higher risk of serious injury or death traveling even while being good exercise. Motorcycles were about twice as deadly as bicycles. Other statistic checks show similarly bad data though, even from cyclists. (https://kennettpeterson.com/2016/08/26/riding-your-bike-is-78-times-more-dangerous-than-driving-your-car/)

I'm still not going to stop riding myself, but those are the statistics I could find on the subject. I have read MMM's post (https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safest-form-of-transportation/) on the subject and found the numbers used to be less than ideal (for instance, only considering deaths... getting seriously injured is a significant concern, not just getting killed imo, and the number of miles bikes source info isn't available anymore but I couldn't find any data on just "roadway miles biked" which is the concern when comparing it to bikes, not how many miles people ride off-road as well, for the US anywhere). As with most of statistics though, if you look hard enough, I'm sure anyone can find the numbers needed to support whatever viewpoint they wish (not saying they were picked for that reason, just stating that either side of the danger argument can find numbers to support their case).
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: jlcnuke on May 13, 2018, 12:39:23 PM
Relax, dudes. Nobody's going to take away your cars. I own a car. Mr Money Mustache owns two of them, as I recall.

But it's stupid to live somewhere where your only option is to commute daily by car. They really do ding you for fifty cents a mile. Sure, give or take twenty cents. You're still talking thousands per year.

So you've made your stupid decision, to live 25 miles from your work and 10 miles from your grocery store. And someone suggests bicycling, and of course that would be absurd -- now. Because you're locked in.

I don't bicycle any more. I walk a mile to the train every day, and a mile back. I enjoy the walk. I am far, far, far safer than you car-jockeys. You lost a friend in a bicycle accident? I've lost two in car accidents. They're every bit as dead.

My commute is an hour long instead of 45 minutes. But 20 minutes of that is walking, which I want to do anyway, and 40 minutes is spent reading, which I also want to do anyway. By my reckoning, I'm not losing 15 minutes per trip -- I'm gaining 45.

The article's estimated $9k/year is still only half of what I would be paying extra to live in an equivalent sized home near my work... so commuting saves me about $8-9k/year over living close enough to walk to work. Sure, I could get a different job within walking distance of my house, but nothing that wouldn't mean a $50k+/year drop in pay... I'll take the savings from having a cheap house and a commute for a high-paying job over massively higher housing costs or a massive drop in pay. But I like money.. so there is that... and I like listening to my audiobooks in traffic, or Spanish lessons etc.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: DreamFIRE on May 13, 2018, 02:28:57 PM
But it's stupid to live somewhere where your only option is to commute daily by car. They really do ding you for fifty cents a mile. Sure, give or take twenty cents. You're still talking thousands per year.
You need to look outside of your own lens.  I wouldn't move down south away from everyone I know just for some more biking weather so that I can go in to work sweating from a bike ride.  That would be a hell of a way to start the day.  I really like the short drive into work in my car, and it's many times safer than a bike ride.  And as I mentioned in the first reply, it only costs me about $1500/yr to drive, insure, license, and maintain my car.

I live on the edge of a smaller city, and I can head out of the edge of town riding into a low traffic area for the biking that I do.  It has no bearing on my work commute.  I avoid all city bike riding.  Too many people have been hit and maimed/killed riding a bike in the city.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: koshtra on May 13, 2018, 03:00:14 PM
But it's stupid to live somewhere where your only option is to commute daily by car. They really do ding you for fifty cents a mile. Sure, give or take twenty cents. You're still talking thousands per year.
You need to look outside of your own lens.  I wouldn't move down south away from everyone I know just for some more biking weather so that I can go in to work sweating from a bike ride.  That would be a hell of a way to start the day.  I really like the short drive into work in my car, and it's many times safer than a bike ride.  And as I mentioned in the first reply, it only costs me about $1500/yr to drive, insure, license, and maintain my car.

I live on the edge of a smaller city, and I can head out of the edge of town riding into a low traffic area for the biking that I do.  It has no bearing on my work commute.  I avoid all city bike riding.  Too many people have been hit and maimed/killed riding a bike in the city.

As I said, I don't bike any more either. A few years ago I used to enjoy my car commutes, sometimes, especially when I timed it so that I was going to work at five and coming home at three. I biked for a few years after that, but then I moved a couple miles further away from my work, and I started to find it wearing, and went back to driving. Then about a year ago I switched over to transit, and I was really surprised at how much I have liked it -- being out in the world amongst strangers, having time to read again, being out in the moving air a little more, having some exercise just built into my day. I'm sorry I called your choice "stupid," that was a stupid thing to say. I'm sure it makes sense for you. I live in a rapidly congesting metropolitan area, where the driving is getting more difficult and slower by the day -- I wouldn't be surprised if in five years' time my transit commute wasn't faster than trying to take a car into that mess anyway.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: inline five on May 13, 2018, 03:50:23 PM
I think it's stupid and wasteful to commute to any job five days a week. Just get a job where you don't have to do it. I put 2000 miles on my car last year and drive to work once a week, rough cost $600 (car is fully depreciated and cheap to operate). My wife works from home.

We save a ton of time not even having to get in a car these days. I mean, why would you even want to commute to work? Jeez.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: jlcnuke on May 13, 2018, 04:34:21 PM
I think it's stupid and wasteful to commute to any job five days a week. Just get a job where you don't have to do it. I put 2000 miles on my car last year and drive to work once a week, rough cost $600 (car is fully depreciated and cheap to operate). My wife works from home.

We save a ton of time not even having to get in a car these days. I mean, why would you even want to commute to work? Jeez.

When I find a work-from-home job, that I'd be willing to do, that will pay me the equivalent of what I earn going to work, then I'll consider getting rid of that commute... I'm not holding my breath though.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: inline five on May 13, 2018, 04:58:05 PM
I think it's stupid and wasteful to commute to any job five days a week. Just get a job where you don't have to do it. I put 2000 miles on my car last year and drive to work once a week, rough cost $600 (car is fully depreciated and cheap to operate). My wife works from home.

We save a ton of time not even having to get in a car these days. I mean, why would you even want to commute to work? Jeez.

When I find a work-from-home job, that I'd be willing to do, that will pay me the equivalent of what I earn going to work, then I'll consider getting rid of that commute... I'm not holding my breath though.

Of course, just like biking to work probably isn't a viable option for many, many people or if it is it would end up limiting ones overall lifestyle and income.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: expatartist on May 13, 2018, 08:33:01 PM
Surprising that there are so many dedicated car commuters on this site. I can understand the author's tone could be annoying, but if you read to the end he offers a more moderate perspective.

Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: swampwiz on May 14, 2018, 05:51:06 AM
The thing about the cost of having a car is that there is high structural cost (i.e., the car's depreciating just for sitting around, the financing or opportunity cost of buying the car while waiting years for that value to be depreciated in use, and insurance) and low marginal cost for using it (i.e., fuel & maintenance), so when folks make the determination that a car is absolutely needed, they buy the car, but then make a cost-benefits analysis on using it based on that marginal cost of operation.  This paradigm (I always like it when I get to use that buzzword, LOL) will be completely uprooted in the upcoming era of the driverless car, since the driverless taxi will eliminate that structural cost, making the cost-benefits analysis be the net cost of the vehicle instead of simply the marginal cost.

As for the cost-per-mile that the author quoted, Uncle Sam has the rate as $0.545/mile, but an older or cheaper car would have a lower net cost.  As I myself have a VW (Jetta Wagon) with about 170K miles, bodywise in "rough" condition and with a Check Engine Light issue that the thermostat needs to be replaced - a $550 job that I calculate, based on the lower gas mileage and low usage would take me about 10 years to make it worthwhile, and thus I am not getting done since the issue causes the engine to run a little cool when operating at high speed on a cold day (the thermostat is stuck open, thus always cooling the engine whether it needs it or not, and not the much more important issue of it being stuck closed, which would result in an engine that would NOT get cooled), and I fully expect to be using driverless taxis by then - only has a wholesale value of about $300, LOL, so there is virtually no opportunity cost being lost.  All that said, it does seem like every few K miles, there is another $200 job that needs to be done, and I have determined that my cost of operation is about half the federal rate; I am sure that someone with a Moustachian outlook could get his costs down to something nearer that than what what the author posits.

As for the author saying that walking or biking is a solution, it is only a solution when the distance is low, in which case that marginal cost will be proportionally lower as well.

I do agree with the author that IF someone were to determine that what he needs transportation for in life can be met by walking/biking or mass transit - and now the at least somewhat economically sensible option of human-driven Uber, to be replaced by the much more economically sensible option of the driverless Uber - then it does not make economic sense to own a car.  Of course, the important BUT to that rationalization is that can only happen living in a very urban area where everything that person needs - shopping, entertainment, and most importantly a JOB - is near there (although Google et al with their employee buses makes the latter not an issue, but how many employers are like that?).  Living in those kinds of places is very expensive (for the space), and as well, makes job opportunities outside the immediate area a hassle, involving a long, typically SLOW public transit commute or a residential move.  Case in point: the author refers to Seattle, but Seattle is very expensive!  Someone deciding to live in suburban Kansas City would save much more in housing costs to make up for the extra costs of owning his own car. 

Oh, and while biking could be OK, even I, someone who likes to exercise, sometimes don't like to exercise at a certain time (which I would be forced to do if I had to bike), and what about when it is raining or snowing, etc.  And also, let's not discount the fact that someone being seated in all that extra metal that being carted around would be much, MUCH safer in an accident than a cyclist.  (NOTE: I think a well-engineered small car can be as safe, if not safer, than a clown car SUV.)  And while cities like Seattle might be safe, some of us live in cities where the downtown areas are quite dangerous.

Holistically, it seems that the author is saying that folks should choose to live in smaller, cramped spaces, with roommates that are not family (or SO) so that the amount of money saved by living out in the 'burbs can be devoted to high cost of living downtown.  Well, I like my safety, space & privacy (I early on, even as a bachelor, bought a house so that I could have the room for a nice gameroom, and piano, etc.), but I did buy in a lower-cost suburb that was not too far from work (the work was out in the sticks a bit, so public transit was not an option).  And while I agree with the Earth-saving gestures, I think the author comes from the POV of the typical young, urban, coastal demographic that fails to see that folks living elsewhere have a different set of lifestyle wants and transportation needs.

 

Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: swampwiz on May 14, 2018, 05:59:23 AM
Same deal here with biking. You're a bit more likely to die young and violently then someone in a car, however you're far, far, far more likely to live longer on account of better heart health.

I don't agree with this at all.  I had always driven to work (even if I lived a mile away simply to compress the time to get to work) and shopping, but that did not keep me from putting in a good 2-mile, 40-minute walk most every day, AT MY LEISURE.  My METS score of 12 as an AARP eligible is proof that one doesn't need to walk/bike to work to be in good shape.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: Seadog on May 14, 2018, 06:31:13 AM
Same deal here with biking. You're a bit more likely to die young and violently then someone in a car, however you're far, far, far more likely to live longer on account of better heart health.

I don't agree with this at all.  I had always driven to work (even if I lived a mile away simply to compress the time to get to work) and shopping, but that did not keep me from putting in a good 2-mile, 40-minute walk most every day, AT MY LEISURE.  My METS score of 12 as an AARP eligible is proof that one doesn't need to walk/bike to work to be in good shape.

I don't know why there is so much all or nothing thinking, along side a "well that situation doesn't apply to me and my sample size of 1, therefore it's completely wrong". It seems to have gotten worse in the last year. Is your point that this is what the average North American does and why that despite driving more than most other people in the world, we also have the slimmest waistlines?

I know of a guy who survived a jump from a plane where his chute didn't open. Therefore parachutes are a waste of money and pointless. QED.

It's certainly possible to drive a lot and be in shape, I'm not saying driving doesn't have a place, just like fancy $5 Lattes don't preclude you from being FI. As long as these things are done consciously, that is the key differentiator. The issue is when you drive just because it's the convenient, easy, lazy way, and do it everywhere, as the vast vast majority of people do.

You talk about time savings, but to me it seems silly to drive one mile to work or the store, one mile back, and then go out and walk the exact same distance for the hell of it. Essentially you just wasted the time/gas on the drive. 
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: dude on May 14, 2018, 08:26:49 AM
I think it's stupid and wasteful to commute to any job five days a week. Just get a job where you don't have to do it. I put 2000 miles on my car last year and drive to work once a week, rough cost $600 (car is fully depreciated and cheap to operate). My wife works from home.

We save a ton of time not even having to get in a car these days. I mean, why would you even want to commute to work? Jeez.

Very broad, judgemental statement. People live where they live for a variety of reasons. I live inside a major metro area, but I commute out 35 miles to work, for several reasons. First, I'm all in on my job -- pension, benefits, work-life balance -- so "just get[ing] a job where you don't have to [commute]" doesn't cut it. Second, job opportunities for my wife are much, much greater in the city. Third, I don't want to live in the suburbs (where my job is), ever. I far prefer living an urban area, where I can walk or take mass transportation to everything. Fourth, working from home is not an option in my job. And finally, I've always known my commute wouldn't be a long-term thing. All in all, when I retire next year (with the nice pension my commuting-every-day-to-work job will afford me) I'll have only made the commute for roughly 12 years. Next year, no commute, ever again.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: mm1970 on May 14, 2018, 08:45:18 AM
Stop. Just stop with this message of biking as an alternative to driving.

Anyone who rides a bike for commuting in this era of distracted driving with everyone keeping one eye on a screen has a death wish.

I'm a former triathlete and I've seen too many friends killed and maimed by distracted drivers.

Finally a smart comment.  My best friend had his 32 year old cousin die because he was biking to work and go hit by a distracted driver.  Now his widow is raising a three year old and the newborn son he never got to meet.  I bet she’s real happy they saved $1,500 year...but don’t worry it will never happen to you.
My husband and I live 10 miles from work.  We used to ride pretty regularly, a few times a week.  Then kids happened, and their schedules.

I too know quite a few people who have been injured by distracted drivers (though not killed).  Some gravely so, others 6 months of surgery and rehab. 

I try to be very very aware when driving...I live near 3 schools.  My older child will start biking to school with friends next year (that worries me!)  Or maybe I'll bike him down there. 

I've considered starting biking to work again, and so has the spouse.  But I have to say, the new rule is: bike path.  Our particular commute is10 miles on roads (with bike lanes), or 11.5 miles with 2/3 of that dedicated bike path.  It's just risky.

- Yes I'm aware that driving is also risky, but at least I have 2 ton of metal protecting me.

Also, a comment on "move closer to work" - that's all well and good when you have the same job for 20-30 years.  Most people don't.  Our house was in the middle of our 2 workplaces.  But then we both changed jobs.  The cost to sell a house and buy another one is quite a lot of money in So Cal, and then you have the fact that our kids are in school.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: ixtap on May 14, 2018, 10:22:05 AM
I think it's stupid and wasteful to commute to any job five days a week. Just get a job where you don't have to do it. I put 2000 miles on my car last year and drive to work once a week, rough cost $600 (car is fully depreciated and cheap to operate). My wife works from home.

We save a ton of time not even having to get in a car these days. I mean, why would you even want to commute to work? Jeez.

My husband works on a campus with only tech and service jobs within probably a five mile radius. Only one of us can not have a commute.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: HBFIRE on May 14, 2018, 11:18:28 AM
Stop. Just stop with this message of biking as an alternative to driving.

Anyone who rides a bike for commuting in this era of distracted driving with everyone keeping one eye on a screen has a death wish.

I'm a former triathlete and I've seen too many friends killed and maimed by distracted drivers.

Exactly this. 

To continue this thought, for those of us who are either close to FI, have achieved FI, or have families, when purchasing a vehicle one needs to seriously consider how safe the vehicle is.  I think this is vastly more important than total cost, but is rarely mentioned on these boards.  Your health and well being should always be priority #1, particularly if you have a family.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: NoraLenderbee on May 14, 2018, 01:51:15 PM
Stop. Just stop with this message of biking as an alternative to driving.

Anyone who rides a bike for commuting in this era of distracted driving with everyone keeping one eye on a screen has a death wish.

I'm a former triathlete and I've seen too many friends killed and maimed by distracted drivers.

Finally a smart comment.  My best friend had his 32 year old cousin die because he was biking to work and go hit by a distracted driver.  Now his widow is raising a three year old and the newborn son he never got to meet.  I bet she’s real happy they saved $1,500 year...but don’t worry it will never happen to you.

I knew someone who got killed in a car accident, and someone else who became a quadriplegic.
Anyone who drives has a DEATH WISH.

I knew someone who ate bacon cheeseburgers and died. Burgers = DEATH WISH.

Got drunk and fell off a balcony. Alcohol = DEATH WISH.

Slipped in the shower and fractured skull. Bathing = DEATH WISH.

Come on already. You don't feel safe riding a bike, then you don't have to do it. But saying "No one should ride" is just as bad a generalization as saying "Everyone should ride."
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: FIRE47 on May 14, 2018, 01:54:42 PM
Stop. Just stop with this message of biking as an alternative to driving.

Anyone who rides a bike for commuting in this era of distracted driving with everyone keeping one eye on a screen has a death wish.

I'm a former triathlete and I've seen too many friends killed and maimed by distracted drivers.

Exactly this. 

To continue this thought, for those of us who are either close to FI, have achieved FI, or have families, when purchasing a vehicle one needs to seriously consider how safe the vehicle is.  I think this is vastly more important than total cost, but is rarely mentioned on these boards.  Your health and well being should always be priority #1, particularly if you have a family.

But remember - safety is an illusion and you should not bother with insurance...
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: HBFIRE on May 14, 2018, 02:08:52 PM

I knew someone who got killed in a car accident, and someone else who became a quadriplegic.
Anyone who drives has a DEATH WISH.

I knew someone who ate bacon cheeseburgers and died. Burgers = DEATH WISH.

Got drunk and fell off a balcony. Alcohol = DEATH WISH.

Slipped in the shower and fractured skull. Bathing = DEATH WISH.

Come on already. You don't feel safe riding a bike, then you don't have to do it. But saying "No one should ride" is just as bad a generalization as saying "Everyone should ride."

Yes, both are dangerous.  As Mustachians, we should care about the actual numbers.  Statistically speaking, you're twice more likely to die commuting by bicycle than by car and bike riding is also about 500 times more fatal than riding in a bus.  In fact bikes are the most dangerous way to get around with the exception of motorcycles.  I'd go so far to say this might be irresponsible as a parent.  Of course, distance and type of commute is important here. 
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: HBFIRE on May 14, 2018, 02:10:20 PM


But remember - safety is an illusion and you should not bother with insurance...

I'm not sure what this means.  I think of safety in terms of statistics.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: Arbitrage on May 14, 2018, 02:12:16 PM


But remember - safety is an illusion and you should not bother with insurance...

I'm not sure what this means.  I think of safety in terms of statistics.

Think that's a reference to a certain blog post:
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/06/07/safety-is-an-expensive-illusion/

Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: HBFIRE on May 14, 2018, 02:16:07 PM


But remember - safety is an illusion and you should not bother with insurance...

I'm not sure what this means.  I think of safety in terms of statistics.

Think that's a reference to a certain blog post:
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/06/07/safety-is-an-expensive-illusion/

Ah yes, this article.  It compares vehicle size for safety, and concludes smaller cars are in fact more dangerous.  However, it doesn't get into vehicle type and vehicle features which are more important.  It also does not delve into how dangerous bike riding is (except casually in the update, which concludes biking is more dangerous, but then adds it makes you get in better shape which makes up for it ((questionable, since biking is twice as dangerous, and it's not as if the person in the car can't do things to be in shape)).  This is not a very objective article and has quite a bit of rationalized confirmation bias in it.  Pete can sometimes have a hard time admitting when he's wrong on various topics, this happened with a user named "Dodge" on the Betterment article.  Have to turn on your critical thinking skills at all times.  I get it, because to cave on a subject like this is to cave on a key tenet of the cult.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: FIRE47 on May 14, 2018, 02:51:01 PM


But remember - safety is an illusion and you should not bother with insurance...

I'm not sure what this means.  I think of safety in terms of statistics.

Think that's a reference to a certain blog post:
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/06/07/safety-is-an-expensive-illusion/

Ah yes, this article.  It compares vehicle size for safety, and concludes smaller cars are in fact more dangerous.  However, it doesn't get into vehicle type and vehicle features which are more important.  It also does not delve into how dangerous bike riding is (except casually in the update, which concludes biking is more dangerous, but then adds it makes you get in better shape which makes up for it ((questionable, since biking is twice as dangerous, and it's not as if the person in the car can't do things to be in shape)).  This is not a very objective article and has quite a bit of rationalized confirmation bias in it.  Pete can sometimes have a hard time admitting when he's wrong on various topics, this happened with a user named "Dodge" on the Betterment article.  Have to turn on your critical thinking skills at all times.  I get it, because to cave on a subject like this is to cave on a key tenet of the cult.

The fact is that you really don't need that much exercise to achieve the maximum longevity benefit - at least not the way it is sometimes touted. Basically some moderate activity 3-4 times a week will get you 2-3 years years after that there are severe diminishing returns. Don't be obese, don't smoke, and don't be completely sedentary and as far as longevity is concerned biking everywhere you go really isn't going to extend your life from an exercise perspective.  Quality of life however is a different story.

Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: lateralwire on May 15, 2018, 08:44:50 PM
This article is 100% on point.

Cars cost money individually, but also societally. As an urban planner, I can vouch for the data used for this report because I deal with it every day. Cars in and of themselves aren't necessarily a problem, but its the way we design our cities around them, rather than the people inside of them, that causes problems.

Suburbia is not environmentally sustainable as the article mentions, nor is it fiscally sustainable. This is just as true for individuals as it is for governments. If you look at tax revenue on a cost per acre basis, urban places provide a higher rate of return, and are thus better for local government to be able to fund the things you want them to fund (ie: transportation investments, water/sewer lines, etc). Even if you live in a suburb, you need density to exist in order to subsidize your lifestyle. It's worth pointing out that I'm not talking about New York and San Francisco levels of density. I'm talking about the downtown of where you live, no matter what size.

Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: DreamFIRE on May 15, 2018, 09:22:26 PM
This article blows.   I'll keep enjoying driving my very efficient low cost car which is a very small part of my budget.  I'll save the biking for my free time when I can do it outside of the city in a safer environment.  Don't ride a bike in the city - not worth the high risk!

I'm not a fan of density.  I like separation from my neighbor's house and to sit back a ways from the street.   I have a woods behind me - pretty nice.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: koshtra on May 15, 2018, 11:28:55 PM
This article is 100% on point.

Cars cost money individually, but also societally. As an urban planner, I can vouch for the data used for this report because I deal with it every day. Cars in and of themselves aren't necessarily a problem, but its the way we design our cities around them, rather than the people inside of them, that causes problems.

Suburbia is not environmentally sustainable as the article mentions, nor is it fiscally sustainable. This is just as true for individuals as it is for governments. If you look at tax revenue on a cost per acre basis, urban places provide a higher rate of return, and are thus better for local government to be able to fund the things you want them to fund (ie: transportation investments, water/sewer lines, etc). Even if you live in a suburb, you need density to exist in order to subsidize your lifestyle. It's worth pointing out that I'm not talking about New York and San Francisco levels of density. I'm talking about the downtown of where you live, no matter what size.

+1

I don't mind people choosing to drive & live huddled away from their neighbors -- I'm an introvert myself, I get it -- but we can't afford to keep on building metropolitan areas so that they can't be served by efficient transportation. We just can't. We have to cut our energy expenditures. The private choices are whatever they are. It's the public policy that I care about, the choices of how to lay out streets and prioritize transit. If you build spaces that can only be easily traveled to by car, people are going to live in them, and adopt the only habits that make sense there. And then they'll keep replicating those patterns because they're used to them. If the only way to feel you can freely go where you want to go -- when you want to go there -- is by owning a car, then owning a car is what you're going to do. At whatever cost to yourself and to the environment.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: Kyle Schuant on May 16, 2018, 12:47:06 AM
I was able to read it, but I stopped after a while.  I didn't care for his message.  I average only $1500 per year to drive/license/insure/maintain my car. 
Because you can externalise your costs. Which is part of the point of his poorly-written article.

But the same's true of many things in our Western lifestyle. Everything has a cost, the only question is who's paying. As the man in Bangladesh said, "they tell me my flooded house is because of global warming, but I swear to you, I have never owned even a single lightbulb."
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: runbikerun on May 16, 2018, 01:43:20 AM
What the fuck is going on here?

Are people seriously arguing that cycle commuting is a bad idea on a website almost pathologically dedicated to the benefits of cycle commuting?

There's so much misleading information and half-truth flying around here that it's genuinely confusing, so I'm just going to take a hatchet to the whole lot and hope my ranting adds up:

1. Comparing risk by saying "cycling is twenty times as dangerous" is deeply misleading: I no longer remember the technical terms, but expressing the difference between two very unlikely outcomes without reference to the overall unlikeliness of those outcomes has been shown to lead to substandard decision making. If cycling fatalities are at 1,000 per billion miles, and car fatalities are at fifty, then your ten mile commute has a 0.001% chance of killing you as a cyclist and a 0.00005% of killing you as a driver. Expressing the probabilities in this manner is what's consistently linked to accurate decision making.

2. Measuring by fatalities per billion miles is also misleading: the type of journey undertaken by bike is far shorter than by car, and car safety is vastly inflated by intercity motorway driving, which accounts for a substantial number of miles of very low risk driving (and is exactly the type of driving a bike commuter would still be doing). A truer comparison would limit itself to intra-urban journeys of under ten miles. We don't have that? Then we don't honestly know that driving is safer, because without that we're not comparing like with like.

3. The majority of people do not do enough exercise, and bike commuting would be a family straightforward option to enable them to change that. You do enough already? Wonderful. But plenty of other people don't, and this is a pretty good way of setting them on the right path. People who bike are generally healthier and live longer, and encouraging that is a good thing.

4. That improved health needs to be taken into account when considering risk levels. If cycling to and from work is consistently associated with, say, a halving of heart disease risk for those under sixty, then it's nonsense not to take that into account. It's imperfect and it's measuring a proxy rather than a direct link, but the same can be said for the fatality statistics from earlier - professional cyclists ride unimaginable distances on an annual basis, and their fatality rate is less than two a year out on the road, which indicates that the relationship between miles ridden and chances of death is not clear.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: Linea_Norway on May 16, 2018, 02:14:05 AM
What the fuck is going on here?

Are people seriously arguing that cycle commuting is a bad idea on a website almost pathologically dedicated to the benefits of cycle commuting?

There's so much misleading information and half-truth flying around here that it's genuinely confusing, so I'm just going to take a hatchet to the whole lot and hope my ranting adds up:

1. Comparing risk by saying "cycling is twenty times as dangerous" is deeply misleading: I no longer remember the technical terms, but expressing the difference between two very unlikely outcomes without reference to the overall unlikeliness of those outcomes has been shown to lead to substandard decision making. If cycling fatalities are at 1,000 per billion miles, and car fatalities are at fifty, then your ten mile commute has a 0.001% chance of killing you as a cyclist and a 0.00005% of killing you as a driver. Expressing the probabilities in this manner is what's consistently linked to accurate decision making.

2. Measuring by fatalities per billion miles is also misleading: the type of journey undertaken by bike is far shorter than by car, and car safety is vastly inflated by intercity motorway driving, which accounts for a substantial number of miles of very low risk driving (and is exactly the type of driving a bike commuter would still be doing). A truer comparison would limit itself to intra-urban journeys of under ten miles. We don't have that? Then we don't honestly know that driving is safer, because without that we're not comparing like with like.

3. The majority of people do not do enough exercise, and bike commuting would be a family straightforward option to enable them to change that. You do enough already? Wonderful. But plenty of other people don't, and this is a pretty good way of setting them on the right path. People who bike are generally healthier and live longer, and encouraging that is a good thing.

4. That improved health needs to be taken into account when considering risk levels. If cycling to and from work is consistently associated with, say, a halving of heart disease risk for those under sixty, then it's nonsense not to take that into account. It's imperfect and it's measuring a proxy rather than a direct link, but the same can be said for the fatality statistics from earlier - professional cyclists ride unimaginable distances on an annual basis, and their fatality rate is less than two a year out on the road, which indicates that the relationship between miles ridden and chances of death is not clear.

My DH often cycles to work and has always been very sporty. He is 47 years old. According to the doctors he has blood vessels and cholesterol levels of a 25 year old.
He does however have a heart condition with flimmers. Possibly caused by being VERY sporty. But the doctors said he should not stop exercising, as the positive effect of the exercise outweighs any downsides.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: FIRE47 on May 16, 2018, 04:50:09 AM
What the fuck is going on here?

Are people seriously arguing that cycle commuting is a bad idea on a website almost pathologically dedicated to the benefits of cycle commuting?

There's so much misleading information and half-truth flying around here that it's genuinely confusing, so I'm just going to take a hatchet to the whole lot and hope my ranting adds up:

1. Comparing risk by saying "cycling is twenty times as dangerous" is deeply misleading: I no longer remember the technical terms, but expressing the difference between two very unlikely outcomes without reference to the overall unlikeliness of those outcomes has been shown to lead to substandard decision making. If cycling fatalities are at 1,000 per billion miles, and car fatalities are at fifty, then your ten mile commute has a 0.001% chance of killing you as a cyclist and a 0.00005% of killing you as a driver. Expressing the probabilities in this manner is what's consistently linked to accurate decision making.

2. Measuring by fatalities per billion miles is also misleading: the type of journey undertaken by bike is far shorter than by car, and car safety is vastly inflated by intercity motorway driving, which accounts for a substantial number of miles of very low risk driving (and is exactly the type of driving a bike commuter would still be doing). A truer comparison would limit itself to intra-urban journeys of under ten miles. We don't have that? Then we don't honestly know that driving is safer, because without that we're not comparing like with like.

3. The majority of people do not do enough exercise, and bike commuting would be a family straightforward option to enable them to change that. You do enough already? Wonderful. But plenty of other people don't, and this is a pretty good way of setting them on the right path. People who bike are generally healthier and live longer, and encouraging that is a good thing.

4. That improved health needs to be taken into account when considering risk levels. If cycling to and from work is consistently associated with, say, a halving of heart disease risk for those under sixty, then it's nonsense not to take that into account. It's imperfect and it's measuring a proxy rather than a direct link, but the same can be said for the fatality statistics from earlier - professional cyclists ride unimaginable distances on an annual basis, and their fatality rate is less than two a year out on the road, which indicates that the relationship between miles ridden and chances of death is not clear.

The site audience has evolved - it is slowly skewing higher income, higher net worth and older.

Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: Morning Glory on May 16, 2018, 06:11:58 AM
What the fuck is going on here?

Are people seriously arguing that cycle commuting is a bad idea on a website almost pathologically dedicated to the benefits of cycle commuting?

There's so much misleading information and half-truth flying around here that it's genuinely confusing, so I'm just going to take a hatchet to the whole lot and hope my ranting adds up:

1. Comparing risk by saying "cycling is twenty times as dangerous" is deeply misleading: I no longer remember the technical terms, but expressing the difference between two very unlikely outcomes without reference to the overall unlikeliness of those outcomes has been shown to lead to substandard decision making. If cycling fatalities are at 1,000 per billion miles, and car fatalities are at fifty, then your ten mile commute has a 0.001% chance of killing you as a cyclist and a 0.00005% of killing you as a driver. Expressing the probabilities in this manner is what's consistently linked to accurate decision making.

2. Measuring by fatalities per billion miles is also misleading: the type of journey undertaken by bike is far shorter than by car, and car safety is vastly inflated by intercity motorway driving, which accounts for a substantial number of miles of very low risk driving (and is exactly the type of driving a bike commuter would still be doing). A truer comparison would limit itself to intra-urban journeys of under ten miles. We don't have that? Then we don't honestly know that driving is safer, because without that we're not comparing like with like.

3. The majority of people do not do enough exercise, and bike commuting would be a family straightforward option to enable them to change that. You do enough already? Wonderful. But plenty of other people don't, and this is a pretty good way of setting them on the right path. People who bike are generally healthier and live longer, and encouraging that is a good thing.

4. That improved health needs to be taken into account when considering risk levels. If cycling to and from work is consistently associated with, say, a halving of heart disease risk for those under sixty, then it's nonsense not to take that into account. It's imperfect and it's measuring a proxy rather than a direct link, but the same can be said for the fatality statistics from earlier - professional cyclists ride unimaginable distances on an annual basis, and their fatality rate is less than two a year out on the road, which indicates that the relationship between miles ridden and chances of death is not clear.

Thank you, I thought I was in the twilight zone for a minute.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: magnet18 on May 16, 2018, 06:56:01 AM
Relax, dudes. Nobody's going to take away your cars. I own a car. Mr Money Mustache owns two of them, as I recall.

But it's stupid to live somewhere where your only option is to commute daily by car. They really do ding you for fifty cents a mile. Sure, give or take twenty cents. You're still talking thousands per year.

So you've made your stupid decision, to live 25 miles from your work and 10 miles from your grocery store. And someone suggests bicycling, and of course that would be absurd -- now. Because you're locked in.

I don't bicycle any more. I walk a mile to the train every day, and a mile back. I enjoy the walk. I am far, far, far safer than you car-jockeys. You lost a friend in a bicycle accident? I've lost two in car accidents. They're every bit as dead.

My commute is an hour long instead of 45 minutes. But 20 minutes of that is walking, which I want to do anyway, and 40 minutes is spent reading, which I also want to do anyway. By my reckoning, I'm not losing 15 minutes per trip -- I'm gaining 45.

My housing situation is $200/month total, no utilities, living a 15 minutes (15 miles) drive from work in the country.  My wife and I carpool, other than that, I don't see any way to optimize further.

$.50/mile is also totally wack if you own something reliable and work yourself.  I bought an 86 Toyota for $4000.  I've put maybe $500-1000 into it over $50,000 miles, including tires, and could sell it for $4000 tomorrow (well not tomorrow, give me a weekend to clean it)
It gets 18mpg
That's $.17/mile, making 15 mi each way $100/month to commute.

I'd love to save that, but oh well.
Plus, I ENJOY working on the truck, it's neat, and a small passion project.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: traveling_vines on May 16, 2018, 08:33:15 AM
Stop. Just stop with this message of biking as an alternative to driving.

Anyone who rides a bike for commuting in this era of distracted driving with everyone keeping one eye on a screen has a death wish.

I'm a former triathlete and I've seen too many friends killed and maimed by distracted drivers.

This makes me so sad. I live in a city and am perfect biking distance from everything I want to do. But the infrastructure isn't bike friendly, so I don't bike as often as I'd like to. We don't have protected bike lanes or dedicated paths; our streets are riddled with killer potholes. Auto drivers in my city are complete jerks and don't believe in sharing the road with pedestrians or cyclists. It's a huge bummer.

The article's comments on taxes/planet/health mirror some European areas (Malmo, Sweden comes to mind). The problem is that the US government (and general population) don't believe in building a bike and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure. So rather than doing something cheaper, better for the planet, and healthier, we spend money on widening freeways and building parking lots. This is a multifaceted problem and if people are serious about changing to less car-obsessed culture, there will need to be real and concerted grassroots efforts to do that. It's about so much more than a handful of people choosing to bike instead of drive (and potentially risking their lives in the process).

http://travelingvines.com/
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: Chris22 on May 16, 2018, 08:49:59 AM
You talk about time savings, but to me it seems silly to drive one mile to work or the store, one mile back, and then go out and walk the exact same distance for the hell of it. Essentially you just wasted the time/gas on the drive.


The problem is one of time.  The times when I need to go to work and the store tend to be much different than the times when I can go walk for recreation and fitness.  I usually walk early morning or late at night, when my two young kids are asleep.  When they are awake, life is much more of a time crunch.  I can drop my oldest off at school starting at 7:45, and then be at work at an acceptable 8-815 by car.  If I were to bike, it's going to take longer to get to the office, plus I'm going to need to shower when I get there (I sweat, I need to shower after physical activity) so now I'm probably at my desk around 9 or later, which is less acceptable to my employer.  Same deal on the way home, I work until 5-6 most days, I'm home in ~20 min by car, it's going to take longer by bike and now my wife is juggling two kids on her own for longer.  Same for shopping, there are times when I am not hurried and I can take the bike or walk to the store for an errand, but there are other times when it simply isn't feasible because the car is that much quicker. 

You can't just make the blanket statement that 1 mile is 1 mile and they are fungible, because often times they are not, at all. 
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: expatartist on May 16, 2018, 09:10:51 AM
As I walked the ten minutes home from one of the three metro stations near my apartment tonight, hundreds of cyclists rode past for the Ride of Silence http://www.rideofsilence.org I photographed the stragglers when I got home.

In Hong Kong we walk more than in any other (first/second world) city. Hong Kong citizens are also currently the longest lived in the world. Coincidence? Maybe.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: HBFIRE on May 16, 2018, 09:16:07 AM
Hong Kong is great, love visiting there.  If they could just fix the bad pollution issue they have.  But yes, it's set up fantastically well with great infrastructure for efficient travel and mass transit.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: expatartist on May 16, 2018, 09:30:15 AM
Yeah it's a poster city for mass transit. The pollution? Not going away any time soon. Global demand for China's products isn't decreasing any time soon. I moved here from Beijing so for me, it's pollution lite ;)
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: wageslave23 on May 16, 2018, 09:42:17 AM
What the fuck is going on here?

Are people seriously arguing that cycle commuting is a bad idea on a website almost pathologically dedicated to the benefits of cycle commuting?

There's so much misleading information and half-truth flying around here that it's genuinely confusing, so I'm just going to take a hatchet to the whole lot and hope my ranting adds up:

1. Comparing risk by saying "cycling is twenty times as dangerous" is deeply misleading: I no longer remember the technical terms, but expressing the difference between two very unlikely outcomes without reference to the overall unlikeliness of those outcomes has been shown to lead to substandard decision making. If cycling fatalities are at 1,000 per billion miles, and car fatalities are at fifty, then your ten mile commute has a 0.001% chance of killing you as a cyclist and a 0.00005% of killing you as a driver. Expressing the probabilities in this manner is what's consistently linked to accurate decision making.

2. Measuring by fatalities per billion miles is also misleading: the type of journey undertaken by bike is far shorter than by car, and car safety is vastly inflated by intercity motorway driving, which accounts for a substantial number of miles of very low risk driving (and is exactly the type of driving a bike commuter would still be doing). A truer comparison would limit itself to intra-urban journeys of under ten miles. We don't have that? Then we don't honestly know that driving is safer, because without that we're not comparing like with like.

3. The majority of people do not do enough exercise, and bike commuting would be a family straightforward option to enable them to change that. You do enough already? Wonderful. But plenty of other people don't, and this is a pretty good way of setting them on the right path. People who bike are generally healthier and live longer, and encouraging that is a good thing.

4. That improved health needs to be taken into account when considering risk levels. If cycling to and from work is consistently associated with, say, a halving of heart disease risk for those under sixty, then it's nonsense not to take that into account. It's imperfect and it's measuring a proxy rather than a direct link, but the same can be said for the fatality statistics from earlier - professional cyclists ride unimaginable distances on an annual basis, and their fatality rate is less than two a year out on the road, which indicates that the relationship between miles ridden and chances of death is not clear.

If part of your argument is that followers of the blog accept everything MMM espouses without critique, then I think you are taking the "cult" part too literally.  Does MMM have some interesting, useful, fresh takes on lifestyle - yes.  Am I going to agree with everything he says and just accept it hook line and sinker? No.  I don't think that is what you meant but I think there are people in these forums that think that way and they need to grow up, or find an actual cult that they can turn their brains and lives over to.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: runbikerun on May 16, 2018, 10:43:46 AM
What the fuck is going on here?

Are people seriously arguing that cycle commuting is a bad idea on a website almost pathologically dedicated to the benefits of cycle commuting?

There's so much misleading information and half-truth flying around here that it's genuinely confusing, so I'm just going to take a hatchet to the whole lot and hope my ranting adds up:

1. Comparing risk by saying "cycling is twenty times as dangerous" is deeply misleading: I no longer remember the technical terms, but expressing the difference between two very unlikely outcomes without reference to the overall unlikeliness of those outcomes has been shown to lead to substandard decision making. If cycling fatalities are at 1,000 per billion miles, and car fatalities are at fifty, then your ten mile commute has a 0.001% chance of killing you as a cyclist and a 0.00005% of killing you as a driver. Expressing the probabilities in this manner is what's consistently linked to accurate decision making.

2. Measuring by fatalities per billion miles is also misleading: the type of journey undertaken by bike is far shorter than by car, and car safety is vastly inflated by intercity motorway driving, which accounts for a substantial number of miles of very low risk driving (and is exactly the type of driving a bike commuter would still be doing). A truer comparison would limit itself to intra-urban journeys of under ten miles. We don't have that? Then we don't honestly know that driving is safer, because without that we're not comparing like with like.

3. The majority of people do not do enough exercise, and bike commuting would be a family straightforward option to enable them to change that. You do enough already? Wonderful. But plenty of other people don't, and this is a pretty good way of setting them on the right path. People who bike are generally healthier and live longer, and encouraging that is a good thing.

4. That improved health needs to be taken into account when considering risk levels. If cycling to and from work is consistently associated with, say, a halving of heart disease risk for those under sixty, then it's nonsense not to take that into account. It's imperfect and it's measuring a proxy rather than a direct link, but the same can be said for the fatality statistics from earlier - professional cyclists ride unimaginable distances on an annual basis, and their fatality rate is less than two a year out on the road, which indicates that the relationship between miles ridden and chances of death is not clear.

If part of your argument is that followers of the blog accept everything MMM espouses without critique, then I think you are taking the "cult" part too literally.  Does MMM have some interesting, useful, fresh takes on lifestyle - yes.  Am I going to agree with everything he says and just accept it hook line and sinker? No.  I don't think that is what you meant but I think there are people in these forums that think that way and they need to grow up, or find an actual cult that they can turn their brains and lives over to.

That's not my argument at all. I'm well aware that Pete's way of living is some distance beyond most other people's ideas of what's pleasant or even bearable, but the basic animating principles are pretty clear:

1. Stop spending money on stupid shit.
2. Do more journeys by bike.
3. Index funds and real estate.

With vanishingly few exceptions, almost every article on the site is a riff on one or more of those ideas. It's a total fucking mystery to me why anyone would seek to be an active member of a community based on three pillars while flatly deriding one of them.

And the primary point I was making, to a far greater extent than the point about cycling being a fairly core idea to MMM, was that a lot of what was being said was fundamentally badly argued and flawed. It's not opposition to cycling that annoys me (that's just confusing around here): it's the fact that the arguments being made are genuinely bad and wrong.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: Chris22 on May 16, 2018, 11:12:13 AM
It's not opposition to cycling that annoys me (that's just confusing around here): it's the fact that the arguments being made are genuinely bad and wrong.

That's fine, because a lot of Pete's arguments for biking are bad and wrong.  He tortures the shit out of numbers to support biking, which is silly because it gives his critics ammunition and generally biking is a good idea that can stand on its own merit without being dragged down by his spurious arguments.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: HBFIRE on May 16, 2018, 11:20:13 AM
A study done on the statistics of commuting by bicycle and driving found that a person riding a bike is 17 times more likely to die, per mile, than someone driving. It may not sound like it, but this is HUGE. Driving a car is already one of the most dangerous things human beings do on a daily basis.  To increase that risk by a factor of 17 is pretty insane.  This was a UK study.

In the US, the numbers are not much different.  1.48 deaths per 200 million miles driven by passenger car versus 16.08 deaths per 200 million miles ridden by bike.  The numbers get much worse when you look at serious injuries (going to hospital) outside of death.

Serious Injury statistics for the US (Serious Injury = requiring hospital care).

Driving: 43 injuries per 200 million miles driven by car

Riding: 11,166 injuries per 200 million miles ridden by bike

That's a seriously massive difference, and not something to casually overlook.  You are 78 times more likely to be seriously injured by riding a bike than driving a car, with every mile you travel.

It's something to take into account, particularly if you are a parent.  Much safer ways to get your exercise.

By the way, when I worked for a company I used to commute to work by bike, but only because almost the entire trip was a bike trail.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: HBFIRE on May 16, 2018, 11:29:20 AM
It's a total fucking mystery to me why anyone would seek to be an active member of a community based on three pillars while flatly deriding one of them.


Well then let me help to clarify the mystery.  Somehow the concepts on this blog don't fall apart when I refuse to ride to work on my Huffy.  Amazingly the core tenets of frugality and smart investing work pretty well without the bike part.  I know, astonishing really.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: DreamFIRE on May 16, 2018, 11:54:37 AM
I was able to read it, but I stopped after a while.  I didn't care for his message.  I average only $1500 per year to drive/license/insure/maintain my car. 
Because you can externalise your costs. Which is part of the point of his poorly-written article.

But the same's true of many things in our Western lifestyle. Everything has a cost, the only question is who's paying. As the man in Bangladesh said, "they tell me my flooded house is because of global warming, but I swear to you, I have never owned even a single lightbulb."

I need  a car for other reasons besides driving to work, so the additional cost for me to drive my car to work comes out to about $10/mo.  Time is money, so it would actually cost me a lot more to ride my bike, and that's assuming I don't get hit by a car, which is a high likelihood of city bike riding over thousands of rides over the years if you were to bike to work every day including cold ass winter days and snowy / icy weather.

It's a total fucking mystery to me why anyone would seek to be an active member of a community based on three pillars while flatly deriding one of them.


Well then let me help to clarify the mystery.  Somehow the concepts on this blog don't fall apart when I refuse to ride to work on my Huffy.  Amazingly the core tenets of frugality and smart investing work pretty well without the bike part.  I know, astonishing really.

Yep, and there's no rule that says you can't get your exercise from something other than biking to work.  I've got a car and use it, but I still manage savings rates of 70% to 80% year after year and stay fit.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: Incandenza on May 16, 2018, 12:01:55 PM
For a example of one: I bike to work almost every day and I'm not dead. 

For an example of 250,000:

"Cycling to work lowers the risk of dying early by 40 per cent, and reduces the chance of developing cancer by 45 per cent.

Similarly a daily bike ride to the office nearly halves the risk of heart disease, according to a major study by the University of Glasgow, who tracked the health of more than a quarter of a million people over five years."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/04/19/cycling-work-could-help-live-longer-greatly-reduces-chance-developing/
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: PoutineLover on May 16, 2018, 12:22:24 PM
Owning a bike instead of a car is a lifestyle choice for me and one that I am incredibly happy with. I am saving tons of money, my commute doesn't pollute or contribute to congestion, and I don't have to pay for or worry about parking, expensive maintenance, and insurance in addition to the cost of the car itself. For most of my trips, it doesn't even take me longer since I live in a dense urban area with lots of stoplights, so I travel at about the same speed as traffic. The thing is, I grew up in a city where you needed to own a car, it was too spread out, the roads had high speed limits and no space for bikes, and it was rare to see bikes so people didn't give enough space. There, I couldn't bike everywhere I needed to go, but I did bike as much as I could. I purposely chose to move to a city where public transit and biking infrastructure is really good, so I don't need a car and there are very few times I wish I had one, and when that happens I can rent one. People who drive exclusively are so blinded to other ways of life because it's a habit and a standard life choice that most people don't ever deviate from, but it is possible to design your life in such a way that a car is no longer a necessity. I strongly believe that cities should be designed to make walking, biking and public transit better options than driving to nudge people's decision making towards the environmentally friendly and active transportation choices.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: undercover on May 16, 2018, 12:25:47 PM
Whether MMM is completely right or wrong, he seems to be one that mostly practices what he preaches, so that's enough for me. You don't have to commit to biking to work everyday or hauling groceries by bike trailer to take a few of the ideas and implement them into your own life.

I think people here tend to defend whatever lifestyle choice they've chosen simply because they've chosen it instead of objectively looking at the reasons why there may be better options. For the record, I drive exclusively everywhere I go, but I still think biking is the right choice for many people.

If you can't find a safe route to bike, don't do it. For, I would imagine, a lot of people, there are safe routes almost everywhere. It may not be the most direct route but it's doable.

If you live your life by statistics, you may become one. I don't think many people here live their life based on statistics as we tend to buck almost every trend. The "dangers of biking" statistics don't nearly tell the full story. Also, at some point you really do need to be the change you want to see. Owning a car is fine. Operating a car becomes expensive. Reducing your trips and biking can really make a huge dent in your financial well being and overall health as well. It's irrelevant that you don't need to exercise over the "minimum" amount per week to stay healthy and fit.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: runbikerun on May 16, 2018, 12:27:01 PM
A study done on the statistics of commuting by bicycle and driving found that a person riding a bike is 17 times more likely to die, per mile, than someone driving. It may not sound like it, but this is HUGE. Driving a car is already one of the most dangerous things human beings do on a daily basis.  To increase that risk by a factor of 17 is pretty insane.  This was a UK study.

In the US, the numbers are not much different.  1.48 deaths per 200 million miles driven by passenger car versus 16.08 deaths per 200 million miles ridden by bike.  The numbers get much worse when you look at serious injuries (going to hospital) outside of death.

Serious Injury statistics for the US (Serious Injury = requiring hospital care).

Driving: 43 injuries per 200 million miles driven by car

Riding: 11,166 injuries per 200 million miles ridden by bike

That's a seriously massive difference, and not something to casually overlook.  You are 78 times more likely to be seriously injured by riding a bike than driving a car, with every mile you travel.

It's something to take into account, particularly if you are a parent.  Much safer ways to get your exercise.

By the way, when I worked for a company I used to commute to work by bike, but only because almost the entire trip was a bike trail.

And the same ugly arguments come up again.

Eleven thousand serious injuries per 200 million miles implies that we're looking at about a 0.055% chance of injury on a given ten-mile ride, versus about a 0.000215% chance on a given ten-mile drive. So add a zero, and we find that per mile, cycling is actually about 0.00054785% more risky per mile.

That's the true reflection of the danger involved per mile. But what happens if we correct for journey distance? Or for the fact that motorway driving, which bike commuters will still be using a car for, accounts for a full third of all miles driven (in the UK at least) but only 9% of accidents?

And because this thread has been sorely in need of some actual hard, referenced data:

https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1456?tab=related#datasupp

The interesting stuff:
-The researchers followed a quarter of a million people to assess the health outcomes of different modes of commuting.
-Cycling was positively correlated with a lower risk of both cardiovascular disease and cancer, AND for all-cause mortality. In other words, cycling in the UK at least is objectively associated with strongly positive health outcomes.

Or how about this:

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302724?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3Dpubmed

The key findings there? That cycle commuting prevents about six and a half thousand deaths a year in Holland, and adds about six months to Dutch life expectancy. SIX MONTHS.

As humans, we are genetically hardwired to assess risk poorly. Cycling to and from work is one of the most positive things the average person can do for their health if they live within biking range. All the fear and worry in the world doesn't change that.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to ride to the shops.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: FIRE47 on May 16, 2018, 12:42:51 PM
A study done on the statistics of commuting by bicycle and driving found that a person riding a bike is 17 times more likely to die, per mile, than someone driving. It may not sound like it, but this is HUGE. Driving a car is already one of the most dangerous things human beings do on a daily basis.  To increase that risk by a factor of 17 is pretty insane.  This was a UK study.

In the US, the numbers are not much different.  1.48 deaths per 200 million miles driven by passenger car versus 16.08 deaths per 200 million miles ridden by bike.  The numbers get much worse when you look at serious injuries (going to hospital) outside of death.

Serious Injury statistics for the US (Serious Injury = requiring hospital care).

Driving: 43 injuries per 200 million miles driven by car

Riding: 11,166 injuries per 200 million miles ridden by bike

That's a seriously massive difference, and not something to casually overlook.  You are 78 times more likely to be seriously injured by riding a bike than driving a car, with every mile you travel.

It's something to take into account, particularly if you are a parent.  Much safer ways to get your exercise.

By the way, when I worked for a company I used to commute to work by bike, but only because almost the entire trip was a bike trail.

And the same ugly arguments come up again.

Eleven thousand serious injuries per 200 million miles implies that we're looking at about a 0.055% chance of injury on a given ten-mile ride, versus about a 0.000215% chance on a given ten-mile drive. So add a zero, and we find that per mile, cycling is actually about 0.00054785% more risky per mile.

That's the true reflection of the danger involved per mile. But what happens if we correct for journey distance? Or for the fact that motorway driving, which bike commuters will still be using a car for, accounts for a full third of all miles driven (in the UK at least) but only 9% of accidents?

And because this thread has been sorely in need of some actual hard, referenced data:

https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1456?tab=related#datasupp

The interesting stuff:
-The researchers followed a quarter of a million people to assess the health outcomes of different modes of commuting.
-Cycling was positively correlated with a lower risk of both cardiovascular disease and cancer, AND for all-cause mortality. In other words, cycling in the UK at least is objectively associated with strongly positive health outcomes.

Or how about this:

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302724?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3Dpubmed

The key findings there? That cycle commuting prevents about six and a half thousand deaths a year in Holland, and adds about six months to Dutch life expectancy. SIX MONTHS.

As humans, we are genetically hardwired to assess risk poorly. Cycling to and from work is one of the most positive things the average person can do for their health if they live within biking range. All the fear and worry in the world doesn't change that.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to ride to the shops.

Do you actually believe that biking to work reduces cancer? The more likely conclusion is that those who bike to work are more wealthy, have more free time are more likely to have a healthy diet, less likely to smoke, less likely to be obese and so on. Perhaps they controlled for some of this.

I don't doubt that biking in general would lead to these outcomes - but specifically biking to work.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: Incandenza on May 16, 2018, 12:52:33 PM
Quote
Do you actually believe that biking to work reduces cancer?

Yes.

The link between regular physical activity and lower cancer rates is well established.

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/obesity/physical-activity-fact-sheet
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: FIRE47 on May 16, 2018, 12:56:07 PM
Quote
Do you actually believe that biking to work reduces cancer?

Yes.

The link between regular physical activity and lower cancer rates is well established.

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/obesity/physical-activity-fact-sheet

Of course it does, I'm asking about biking to work - not biking.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: Incandenza on May 16, 2018, 12:58:23 PM
Quote
Of course it does, I'm asking about biking to work - not biking.

Biking to work.....is biking. 
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: Chris22 on May 16, 2018, 01:02:18 PM
Quote
Of course it does, I'm asking about biking to work - not biking.

Biking to work.....is biking.

But wouldn't a person who drove to work and then biked after/before hours on a bike trail away from traffic gain all the benefits of the exercise + the smaller chance of being run over by a cell phone wielding SUV pilot?
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: HBFIRE on May 16, 2018, 01:04:02 PM

Eleven thousand serious injuries per 200 million miles implies that we're looking at about a 0.055% chance of injury on a given ten-mile ride, versus about a 0.000215% chance on a given ten-mile drive. So add a zero, and we find that per mile, cycling is actually about 0.00054785% more risky per mile.


No.  The difference per mile is   0.0000215% (car) vs 0.00583% (bike).    You are 271 times more likely to sustain a serious injury per mile on a bike compared to driving.  Keep in mind this data is including all bike riding including closed off bike trails, so the numbers are even worse than they appear here if you are commuting with traffic.  I'm not really sure how you derived your number.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: Chris22 on May 16, 2018, 01:07:55 PM

Eleven thousand serious injuries per 200 million miles implies that we're looking at about a 0.055% chance of injury on a given ten-mile ride, versus about a 0.000215% chance on a given ten-mile drive. So add a zero, and we find that per mile, cycling is actually about 0.00054785% more risky per mile.


No.  The difference per mile is   0.0000215% (car) vs 0.00583% (bike).    You are 271 times more likely to sustain a serious injury per mile on a bike.  I'm not really sure how you derived your number.

Said another way, there were 11,000 injuries per 200M bike miles.  There were 430 for cars.

Also this is "serious injuries", what do deaths look like?  IIRC, most (66%?) car deaths involve some one or more of A) alcohol, B) being on the road between 2AM and 5AM (related to A) and C) not wearing a seatbelt. 

Cut out those risky behaviors and your risk plummets. 
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: Seadog on May 16, 2018, 01:08:09 PM
And the same ugly arguments come up again.

Eleven thousand serious injuries per 200 million miles implies that we're looking at about a 0.055% chance of injury on a given ten-mile ride, versus about a 0.000215% chance on a given ten-mile drive. So add a zero, and we find that per mile, cycling is actually about 0.00054785% more risky per mile.

That's the true reflection of the danger involved per mile. But what happens if we correct for journey distance? Or for the fact that motorway driving, which bike commuters will still be using a car for, accounts for a full third of all miles driven (in the UK at least) but only 9% of accidents?

And because this thread has been sorely in need of some actual hard, referenced data:

https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1456?tab=related#datasupp

The interesting stuff:
-The researchers followed a quarter of a million people to assess the health outcomes of different modes of commuting.
-Cycling was positively correlated with a lower risk of both cardiovascular disease and cancer, AND for all-cause mortality. In other words, cycling in the UK at least is objectively associated with strongly positive health outcomes.

Or how about this:

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302724?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3Dpubmed

The key findings there? That cycle commuting prevents about six and a half thousand deaths a year in Holland, and adds about six months to Dutch life expectancy. SIX MONTHS.

As humans, we are genetically hardwired to assess risk poorly. Cycling to and from work is one of the most positive things the average person can do for their health if they live within biking range. All the fear and worry in the world doesn't change that.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to ride to the shops.

I too am just blown away by people looking at half the argument, piss poor interpretation of stats, and the "from my cold dead hands" attitude towards the suggestion of giving up their cars.

People who became millionaires from games of chance were orders of magnitude more likely to have played the lottery. In fact, there was almost a direct correlation between the number of tickets bought, and the likelihood of becoming a millionaire. Therefore I think it's safe and obvious that if you want to become a millionaire, play the lottery, and buy as many tickets as you can.

I think runbikerun might be the only person on this entire forum that gets it. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_volcanic_eruptions_by_death_toll 1 person has died from volcanoes in Iceland. over 125 thousand have died in Indonesia. Literally you have 125000 times the likelihood of dying from an eruption in Indonesia as Iceland. Forget 17x and the bike car argument, volcanoes are the real risky killer.

That's the whole point of the safety is an expensive illusion. Airlines are the perfect example. Even if there was a 9/11 attack monthly, it would still kill less people than driving, but having 1 in 100 years was enough to increase security spending by a huge factor. You're odds of dying from terrorism are 1 in 3.64 million, but too high! Too Dangerous! Spend thousands of dollars to make it lower!

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/you-re-more-likely-die-choking-be-killed-foreign-terrorists-n715141

At the same time, your odds of dying from heart disease, cancer, health issues, are non trivial in the order of actual percents! People here are worried about reducing 1/10,000 to 1/1,1000 while ignoring the real risk health issues pose. Great job. You reduced your cumulative transport + health risk from 10.002% to 10.0015%.

People say they do everything they can to reduce risk. Do you have a personal driver? Studies show professionals have an order of magnitude less accidents. You can further decrease your risk by a factor of 10. 10 is a huge number.

You've reduced your lifetime odds of dying from 1/5000 or essentially 0, to 1/50000, or essentially 0. Was that worth increasing your commuting cost by a factor of 10?

People need to look at the whole package like the studies above. You're more likely to die on a per mile basis, but you're also likely to improve health, save money, help the environment. As a whole what are the key differences between biking and driving? What results could an average person expect? It's not enough to say you're more likely to die biking as it isn't enough to say you're more likely to be a millionaire playing lotto.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: HBFIRE on May 16, 2018, 01:12:34 PM
The point you're missing is that driving is already one of the most risky behaviors human beings do.  It's also something we do quite regularly.  It's an inherently very high risk activity (the statistics confirm this).  Biking is several magnitutes more dangerous (17 times more likely to die, and 271 times more likely to sustain serious injury).  We're not talking about volcano lava, lightning shock, or being eaten by a shark here, we're talking about a regular daily high risk activity.  Most people who understand risk also understand that riding a motorcycle is vastly more risky than driving a car.  I'm not sure why it's also difficult to understand why riding a bicycle has nearly the same risk factor.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: runbikerun on May 16, 2018, 01:25:21 PM
You are 271 times more likely to sustain a serious injury per mile on a bike.

This is fundamentally bad statistics, and is the kind of thing statistics professors warn their students against doing. It's misleading and deliberately shocking, and says virtually nothing about actual risk involved. 271 times 1/1,000,000 is still less than 0.03%, after all. People who go to bars to drink with friends are INFINTELY more likely to end up in a fistfight than people who drink alone at home - see how easy it is to present something in a shocking manner by quoting only the relative difference in probabilities without any reference to the overall probabilities?

Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: HBFIRE on May 16, 2018, 01:28:41 PM
You are 271 times more likely to sustain a serious injury per mile on a bike.

This is fundamentally bad statistics, and is the kind of thing statistics professors warn their students against doing. It's misleading and deliberately shocking, and says virtually nothing about actual risk involved. 271 times 1/1,000,000 is still less than 0.03%, after all. People who go to bars to drink with friends are INFINTELY more likely to end up in a fistfight than people who drink alone at home - see how easy it is to present something in a shocking manner by quoting only the relative difference in probabilities without any reference to the overall probabilities?

Please first respond to my post above correcting your figures (post #63), not sure how you derived that figure I replied to.   Also, this is a straw man fallacy.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: Seadog on May 16, 2018, 01:40:30 PM
The point you're missing is that driving is already one of the most risky behaviors human beings do.  It's also something we do quite regularly.  It's an inherently very high risk activity (the statistics confirm this).  Biking is several magnitutes more dangerous (17 times more likely to die, and 271 times more likely to sustain serious injury).  We're not talking about volcano lava, lightning shock, or being eaten by a shark here, we're talking about a regular daily high risk activity.  Most people who understand risk also understand that riding a motorcycle is vastly more risky than driving a car.  I'm not sure why it's also difficult to understand why riding a bicycle has nearly the same risk factor.

You keep citing these number which sound high, but it's misleading since the numbers are so tiny. While driving is one of the highest risk things we do, the risk is still low. I read 1% is you're lifetime risk of dying in a car crash. Are you suggesting that if you bike, your odds are 17%? Numbers below say 1/4000. Naturally this is because people do a lot more driving than biking, so it isn't apples to apples. You're 1000 times more likely to die in a car crash as be struck by lightning. Does that mean driving is dangerous? Or just that lightning strikes are really rare? Quoting these sorts of numbers are half the picture, but ubiquitous in these comments. 

http://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/

Forget all that though, the things you really ought to be focusing on are the top few. Heart disease, Obesity, Cancer Risk factors. Therefore I presume everyone here so overly concerned about reducing their lifetime transport risk a fraction of a percent has already done everything they effectively can with regards to health.

Take 100,000 ppl over a life time. 1000 will die in car crashes. 25 in bike crashes. People here are arguing back and forth over which tiny group they want to avoid, while ignoring the 16000 who died from heart disease and 14000 from cancer. If you can do something to reduce your risk of heart disease/cancer by a mere 3%, you've essentially cancelled out the entire risk of driving. 
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: Seadog on May 16, 2018, 01:47:08 PM
If someone commutes 10 miles on bicycle every work day of the year, he/she statistically has a 14.5% chance per year of sustaining a serious injury.  That's nothing to sneeze at.

If they drive that same distance, on the other hand,  they have a 0.05% chance of incurring serious injury per year.

Do these numbers really play out though? 1% lifetime risk of a car death. Say you have 1000 acquaintances/ppl who you know their name. I'd expect 10 to die in my life, or one every 5-10 years, and that's generally played out, so I buy that 1% stat, at least in the ballpark.

You're saying 1/6 bike commuters will be seriously injured per year. I know more than 6 ppl who bike to work, so you'd be expecting 1 very serious injury each year, which I don't see, in fact I know of only one. Therefore experimentally, 14.5% is off. In fact it's so rare that any serious injury generally makes the news.   
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: FIRE47 on May 16, 2018, 01:47:19 PM
If someone commutes 10 miles on bicycle every work day of the year, he/she statistically has a 14.5% chance per year of sustaining a serious injury.  That's nothing to sneeze at.

If they drive that same distance, on the other hand,  they have a 0.05% chance of incurring serious injury per year.

This is crazy if true. What is defined as a "serious injury"?
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: HBFIRE on May 16, 2018, 01:48:07 PM
If someone commutes 10 miles on bicycle every work day of the year, he/she statistically has a 14.5% chance per year of sustaining a serious injury.  That's nothing to sneeze at.

If they drive that same distance, on the other hand,  they have a 0.05% chance of incurring serious injury per year.

This is crazy if true. What is defined as a "serious injury"?

Serious injury was defined in the statistics as requiring hospitalization.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: wageslave23 on May 16, 2018, 01:49:01 PM
The point you're missing is that driving is already one of the most risky behaviors human beings do.  It's also something we do quite regularly.  It's an inherently very high risk activity (the statistics confirm this).  Biking is several magnitutes more dangerous (17 times more likely to die, and 271 times more likely to sustain serious injury).  We're not talking about volcano lava, lightning shock, or being eaten by a shark here, we're talking about a regular daily high risk activity.  Most people who understand risk also understand that riding a motorcycle is vastly more risky than driving a car.  I'm not sure why it's also difficult to understand why riding a bicycle has nearly the same risk factor.

You keep citing these number which sound high, but it's misleading since the numbers are so tiny. While driving is one of the highest risk things we do, the risk is still low. I read 1% is you're lifetime risk of dying in a car crash. Are you suggesting that if you bike, your odds are 17%? Numbers below say 1/4000. Naturally this is because people do a lot more driving than biking, so it isn't apples to apples. You're 1000 times more likely to die in a car crash as be struck by lightning. Does that mean driving is dangerous? Or just that lightning strikes are really rare? Quoting these sorts of numbers are half the picture, but ubiquitous in these comments. 

http://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/

Forget all that though, the things you really ought to be focusing on are the top few. Heart disease, Obesity, Cancer Risk factors. Therefore I presume everyone here so overly concerned about reducing their lifetime transport risk a fraction of a percent has already done everything they effectively can with regards to health.

Take 100,000 ppl over a life time. 1000 will die in car crashes. 25 in bike crashes. People here are arguing back and forth over which tiny group they want to avoid, while ignoring the 16000 who died from heart disease and 14000 from cancer. If you can do something to reduce your risk of heart disease/cancer by a mere 3%, you've essentially cancelled out the entire risk of driving.

You aren't considering that you are encouraging people to increase their biking 100x the average.  So if someone did that then their risk of dying would be 100x the average.  This is just a ballpark but hopefully you understand the main idea.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: Chris22 on May 16, 2018, 01:53:12 PM
Take 100,000 ppl over a life time. 1000 will die in car crashes. 25 in bike crashes. People here are arguing back and forth over which tiny group they want to avoid, while ignoring the 16000 who died from heart disease and 14000 from cancer. If you can do something to reduce your risk of heart disease/cancer by a mere 3%, you've essentially cancelled out the entire risk of driving.

But again, biking to work requires me to drive on major roads.  I can bike on my own time, or exercise in countless other ways, on bike paths, trails, side roads, whatever, and be much safer.  Bike commuting advocates seem to live in this weird world where the only way to be healthy is to commute via bike, when in fact you can get all the good effects of biking with minimal risk by, say, riding on our extensive bike path network through the park districts here.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: HBFIRE on May 16, 2018, 01:55:10 PM
Sorry, I think I did the calc wrong on the per year bike commuting injury rate, I'm going to remove that post for now until I double check it.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: Incandenza on May 16, 2018, 02:21:17 PM
Quote
Bike commuting advocates seem to live in this weird world where the only way to be healthy is to commute via bike, when in fact you can get all the good effects of biking with minimal risk by, say, riding on our extensive bike path network through the park districts here.

If true that would be an idiotic position.  But that's not what's happening here. 

Here, we have people saying bike commuting is A) perilously dangerous to the point where it is irresponsible to do so, or B) at a minimum, that the risk alone justifies a decision not to bike to work. 

That argument has been confronted with a study of a quarter of a million people showing that people who bike commute live longer than average. 

So yeah, it you simply prefer to drive and don't like biking, fair enough, although from a budgetary and environmental POV it's not ideal.  But if you aren't biking because of the risk of an early death, the statistics do not back you up.   
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: wageslave23 on May 16, 2018, 02:50:52 PM
Quote
Bike commuting advocates seem to live in this weird world where the only way to be healthy is to commute via bike, when in fact you can get all the good effects of biking with minimal risk by, say, riding on our extensive bike path network through the park districts here.

If true that would be an idiotic position.  But that's not what's happening here. 

Here, we have people saying bike commuting is A) perilously dangerous to the point where it is irresponsible to do so, or B) at a minimum, that the risk alone justifies a decision not to bike to work. 

That argument has been confronted with a study of a quarter of a million people showing that people who bike commute live longer than average. 

So yeah, it you simply prefer to drive and don't like biking, fair enough, although from a budgetary and environmental POV it's not ideal.  But if you aren't biking because of the risk of an early death, the statistics do not back you up.   

Did the study control for diet, activity levels outside of biking, income level, urban vs. rural, randomized to assign bike commuting vs. driving?  If not that this is all correlation and not causation.  If you forced the otherwise healthy bikers (sickly people can't bike commute) to drive to work instead, I think you would find that they live the same if not longer lives than they already do.  Their diets are probably better because they tend to health conscious.  They are probably more highly educated than the general population and wealthier since they tend to live in urban areas.  So while the study might be interesting, it doesn't prove anything.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: Seadog on May 16, 2018, 07:12:38 PM
Sorry, I think I did the calc wrong on the per year bike commuting injury rate, I'm going to remove that post for now until I double check it.

I was looking into it more, and also found this study saying that cycling was 5 times safer than driving in the UK.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9729218/Driving-is-five-times-more-dangerous-than-cycling-for-young-men.html

Then I found this:

https://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2013/08/21/is-cycling-more-dangerous-than-driving/

It says in one study cycling was 11-19 x more dangerous, and another study in a different city found 4.5x more dangerous.

To me this says that all the numbers are bunk or they need better methods. We literally have a variation of 100x in the level of risk between 3 studies. A fifth that of driving, to nearly 20x. 
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: inline five on May 16, 2018, 07:37:00 PM
There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Living in CA or major city? Sure bike to work and shed the car, which would cost a fortune to just park.

Live in a more rural or less public transit friendly area? Buy an inexpensive older car and learn to wrench on it yourself.

Motorcycles get good mpg (up to around 80) and are cheap to buy if you want to combine the two.

But I just can't get behind the concept of intentionally shedding a car and putting yourself in a worse situation. Some folks have jobs where they can work from home, some people need to carry luggage back and forth to their jobs, some live in an area where their job is good and doesn't exist outside that area but it's crazy expensive to buy right next to their job.

Maybe some work jobs in less secure industries, and living next to your job isn't a prudent choice.

List goes on.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: runbikerun on May 16, 2018, 11:50:45 PM
Quote
Bike commuting advocates seem to live in this weird world where the only way to be healthy is to commute via bike, when in fact you can get all the good effects of biking with minimal risk by, say, riding on our extensive bike path network through the park districts here.

If true that would be an idiotic position.  But that's not what's happening here. 

Here, we have people saying bike commuting is A) perilously dangerous to the point where it is irresponsible to do so, or B) at a minimum, that the risk alone justifies a decision not to bike to work. 

That argument has been confronted with a study of a quarter of a million people showing that people who bike commute live longer than average. 

So yeah, it you simply prefer to drive and don't like biking, fair enough, although from a budgetary and environmental POV it's not ideal.  But if you aren't biking because of the risk of an early death, the statistics do not back you up.   

Did the study control for diet, activity levels outside of biking, income level, urban vs. rural, randomized to assign bike commuting vs. driving?  If not that this is all correlation and not causation.  If you forced the otherwise healthy bikers (sickly people can't bike commute) to drive to work instead, I think you would find that they live the same if not longer lives than they already do.  Their diets are probably better because they tend to health conscious.  They are probably more highly educated than the general population and wealthier since they tend to live in urban areas.  So while the study might be interesting, it doesn't prove anything.

This is utter sophistry. You haven't read the study, and you've dismissed it out of hand. What the hell is the point of discussing anything if you're going to respond to actual sourced research by making up flaws you haven't bothered checking for and dismissing the results?

As I already pointed out, the study was conducted in a country where over a quarter of all journeys are done by commute. Everything you're assuming in your post is based on a set of assumptions about the profile of cyclists that doesn't hold true in the Netherlands. It's not my job to convince you that an article from the American Journal of Public Health draw correct conclusions: it's your job to prove it doesn't, not simply blandly assume so by carrying over a bunch of entrenched ideas about cyclists from your own experience.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: BuildingFrugalHabits on May 17, 2018, 07:36:44 AM
Makes me sad to see so many people who seem like they want to give biking a shot but are maybe a little intimidated by the traffic and the prospect of riding with cars.  I say be the change that you want to see in the world.  It's not going to become safer for cyclists to have more people riding in the parks, more people need to take to the streets on their bikes and advocate for bicycle infrastructure.  I also try to ride my mountain bike to the trailhead when time allows for the same reason.  Hence where I live, local governments have responded by putting in more bike lanes because they see the demand for it. 

Also, try exploring different alternative routes and maybe on a weekend when you aren't pressed for time.  My bike commute route cuts through neighborhoods so I stay off the main roads.  There's usually a safe route if you look around a bit.  Also, when you ride a lot, you start to get a feel for when drivers are distracted or don't see you, you become more observant.  I always try to make eye contact with drivers so I know they see me.  In my almost 20 years of bike commuting, I've had one or two close calls which I've anticipated and avoided.  Overall, most drivers I encounter are courteous to a fault though i.e. "you go, no you go". 

Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: wageslave23 on May 17, 2018, 10:23:25 AM
Quote
Bike commuting advocates seem to live in this weird world where the only way to be healthy is to commute via bike, when in fact you can get all the good effects of biking with minimal risk by, say, riding on our extensive bike path network through the park districts here.

If true that would be an idiotic position.  But that's not what's happening here. 

Here, we have people saying bike commuting is A) perilously dangerous to the point where it is irresponsible to do so, or B) at a minimum, that the risk alone justifies a decision not to bike to work. 

That argument has been confronted with a study of a quarter of a million people showing that people who bike commute live longer than average. 

So yeah, it you simply prefer to drive and don't like biking, fair enough, although from a budgetary and environmental POV it's not ideal.  But if you aren't biking because of the risk of an early death, the statistics do not back you up.   

Did the study control for diet, activity levels outside of biking, income level, urban vs. rural, randomized to assign bike commuting vs. driving?  If not that this is all correlation and not causation.  If you forced the otherwise healthy bikers (sickly people can't bike commute) to drive to work instead, I think you would find that they live the same if not longer lives than they already do.  Their diets are probably better because they tend to health conscious.  They are probably more highly educated than the general population and wealthier since they tend to live in urban areas.  So while the study might be interesting, it doesn't prove anything.

This is utter sophistry. You haven't read the study, and you've dismissed it out of hand. What the hell is the point of discussing anything if you're going to respond to actual sourced research by making up flaws you haven't bothered checking for and dismissing the results?

As I already pointed out, the study was conducted in a country where over a quarter of all journeys are done by commute. Everything you're assuming in your post is based on a set of assumptions about the profile of cyclists that doesn't hold true in the Netherlands. It's not my job to convince you that an article from the American Journal of Public Health draw correct conclusions: it's your job to prove it doesn't, not simply blandly assume so by carrying over a bunch of entrenched ideas about cyclists from your own experience.

You should ask this question of any study (was it randomized?).  Its what separates correlation and causation, an amusing study and an informing study.  I put no weight in the study results, so I have no inclination to look into their methods.  I am just reminding everyone that it is important to ask what their controls were before you make life altering changes based on it.  If they did randomize and the results influence you to bike more then go for it.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: mschaus on May 17, 2018, 11:14:31 AM
I agree that this whole thread appears to be like the twilight zone. If some particular person is scared to ride their bike, great, but complaining about it won’t get anyone anywhere. We should be discussing how to make the infrastructure and education better so that our communities can improve.

I know everyone has gotten bogged down in the statistics, but I’d encourage everyone to take a step back and look at the big picture, too. That’s the main purpose of this blog. The bicycle is an automatic life rebalancing machine. It improves both your wallet and body, and the more of it people do the better it is for every person in our society. You’ll get more vitamin D, spend more time with your family, and strengthen your community. The list of benefits go on and on, and you won’t fully understand until you start riding your bike on a regular basis (for recreation or commuting). Just take the commutes one day at a time; no need to commit to doing it forever. Lots of discussions here have helpful tips on how to get started and find a safe route.

Note that drivers in every town are terrible and that your town is not special in this regard, but that there is almost always a reasonable route to take in every town. Many people are reaping the benefits. Why not be one of them?

I’d highly encourage everyone to read the MMM blog to which this forum belongs.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/05/07/what-do-you-mean-you-dont-have-a-bike/

Quite succinctly… “It’s time for this silliness to come to an end. You must ride a bike. We all must. It’s not a weird fringe form of transportation that only people in Portland and Colorado do. It’s just simply the way we all get around for moderate intra-city distances.”

Ride safe and enjoy!

(Also I'm glad we can all agree the Medium article was poorly written, regardless of correct/incorrect)
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: Chris22 on May 17, 2018, 11:38:48 AM
I’d highly encourage everyone to read the MMM blog to which this forum belongs.

https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safest-form-of-transportation/


That article is literally the poster child for tortured math in support of bicycles. 
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: mschaus on May 17, 2018, 11:44:31 AM
I’d highly encourage everyone to read the MMM blog to which this forum belongs.

https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safest-form-of-transportation/


That article is literally the poster child for tortured math in support of bicycles.

OK thanks for the feedback, I removed that link because it was clearly distracting and unrelated to my post, my mistake. I wanted us to look at the big picture.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/05/07/what-do-you-mean-you-dont-have-a-bike/
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: Kyle Schuant on May 18, 2018, 07:22:23 AM
But wouldn't a person who drove to work and then biked after/before hours on a bike trail away from traffic gain all the benefits of the exercise + the smaller chance of being run over by a cell phone wielding SUV pilot?
Yes. But in practice, most won't do that activity. If you are going from A to B, rather than from A to A again scenically, you are more likely to take the trip. You're commuting, and you just happen to be exercising while doing so.

You also happen to be saving money on driving, too - however you count the costs, whether you externalise them or not, a car driven less is cheaper than one driven more.

I used to bike to work, but it was 25km each way, and old knee injuries played up, so I drove. I couldn't move closer to work, so I moved my work closer to me - my garage. Obviously that's not an option for everyone, but most can, I think, get closer to work than 25km.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: dogboyslim on May 18, 2018, 07:52:16 AM
A study done on the statistics of commuting by bicycle and driving found that a person riding a bike is 17 times more likely to die, per mile, than someone driving. It may not sound like it, but this is HUGE. Driving a car is already one of the most dangerous things human beings do on a daily basis.  To increase that risk by a factor of 17 is pretty insane.  This was a UK study.

In the US, the numbers are not much different.  1.48 deaths per 200 million miles driven by passenger car versus 16.08 deaths per 200 million miles ridden by bike.  The numbers get much worse when you look at serious injuries (going to hospital) outside of death.

Serious Injury statistics for the US (Serious Injury = requiring hospital care).

Driving: 43 injuries per 200 million miles driven by car

Riding: 11,166 injuries per 200 million miles ridden by bike

That's a seriously massive difference, and not something to casually overlook.  You are 78 times more likely to be seriously injured by riding a bike than driving a car, with every mile you travel.

It's something to take into account, particularly if you are a parent.  Much safer ways to get your exercise.

By the way, when I worked for a company I used to commute to work by bike, but only because almost the entire trip was a bike trail.

Consider the time per hour of exposure and it drops significantly.  Average driving speeds are probably 35-40 mph while average cycling speeds are probably 8-9 mph, so the risk per hour is really only 2-3x as bad as driving.  Is cycling dangerous?  Yep.  Can I mitigate the danger?  Yep.  Can I eliminate it?  Nope.  But it is still fun, and good for my health generally.  I have been hit by a car, and I still ride. S**t happens, go live your life.  Just my $.02
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: Seadog on May 18, 2018, 08:09:25 AM
But wouldn't a person who drove to work and then biked after/before hours on a bike trail away from traffic gain all the benefits of the exercise + the smaller chance of being run over by a cell phone wielding SUV pilot?
Yes. But in practice, most won't do that activity. If you are going from A to B, rather than from A to A again scenically, you are more likely to take the trip. You're commuting, and you just happen to be exercising while doing so.

This. I always like how many parallels between health and finance there are. If you drive 1 mile to work, it certainly doesn't preclude you from having a healthy life style and being in great shape. However if you look at everyone that does that, I think you'd find the vast majority simply *are not* making health a priority. However, if everything else is in check, and you still do the 1 mile trek because of time/equipment concerns or hell just to be lazy, you can be fine.

Same thing with buying lunch out and $5 Lattes. Look at everyone who does that and I bet on average their finances suck. That said, I'm sure there are people in there that live in a tiny house, own no car, save 50% take home, but they just really like fancy coffees and lunches out and that's where they splurge.

Neither tells the whole story, but it's highly indicative of greater lifestyle choices and priorities.

I own no car. I also have camera equipment worth what a decent used car would cost. To me that's what mustachianism is. Doing things consciously while being aware of their total costs and values and if its a good deal for your particular situation.

I just get a kick out of the sweeping generalizations on both sides.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: Raenia on May 18, 2018, 08:26:49 AM
Consider the time per hour of exposure and it drops significantly.  Average driving speeds are probably 35-40 mph while average cycling speeds are probably 8-9 mph, so the risk per hour is really only 2-3x as bad as driving.  Is cycling dangerous?  Yep.  Can I mitigate the danger?  Yep.  Can I eliminate it?  Nope.  But it is still fun, and good for my health generally.  I have been hit by a car, and I still ride. S**t happens, go live your life.  Just my $.02

Not trying to be dense here, but why does it make sense to consider risk per hour rather than per mile?  If I have a 10 mi trip to make, it's the same 10 mi regardless of if it takes me 10 min, 30 min, or 2 hrs to get there.  If the risk per hour is 1/3 as much, but the time taken is 3x as much, the total risk is the same, right?

((Note: numbers for explanation only, not accurate based on expected speeds)
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: koshtra on May 18, 2018, 09:18:59 AM
Consider the time per hour of exposure and it drops significantly.  Average driving speeds are probably 35-40 mph while average cycling speeds are probably 8-9 mph, so the risk per hour is really only 2-3x as bad as driving.  Is cycling dangerous?  Yep.  Can I mitigate the danger?  Yep.  Can I eliminate it?  Nope.  But it is still fun, and good for my health generally.  I have been hit by a car, and I still ride. S**t happens, go live your life.  Just my $.02

Not trying to be dense here, but why does it make sense to consider risk per hour rather than per mile?  If I have a 10 mi trip to make, it's the same 10 mi regardless of if it takes me 10 min, 30 min, or 2 hrs to get there.  If the risk per hour is 1/3 as much, but the time taken is 3x as much, the total risk is the same, right?

((Note: numbers for explanation only, not accurate based on expected speeds)

Yeah, I think as far as the risk goes, risk per mile is a better measure. Although in real life they're not independent variables -- if your default mode of transport is a bicycle, I can pretty much guarantee you will choose to cover a LOT fewer miles :-)
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: runbikerun on May 18, 2018, 10:40:37 AM
Per hour is imperfect, but it's regarded by plenty of commentators as being a better option than per mile for a few reasons:

1. Per mile figures for cars are heavily influenced by time spent on intercity motorways and freeways, which are precisely the kind of driving miles a regular cyclist will still use a car for. People don't generally replace 500 miles a week of driving with an equivalent amount of cycling: you're far more likely to see a replacement of maybe 100 miles, with 400 remaining the same. For perspective, the British motorway network sees 33% of all road traffic, but only 9% of accidents - so non-motorway driving is about five times as likely to result in an accident than motorway driving, going by my very rough calculations.

2. Per hour measurements are still imperfect, but the time focus means that slower intra-urban driving - the type that's typically being replaced when someone opts to commute by bike - is more heavily weighted than by mile. It's still not perfect, but it's better.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: HBFIRE on May 19, 2018, 12:58:51 AM


Consider the time per hour of exposure and it drops significantly.  Average driving speeds are probably 35-40 mph while average cycling speeds are probably 8-9 mph, so the risk per hour is really only 2-3x as bad as driving.  Is cycling dangerous?  Yep.  Can I mitigate the danger?  Yep.  Can I eliminate it?  Nope.  But it is still fun, and good for my health generally.  I have been hit by a car, and I still ride. S**t happens, go live your life.  Just my $.02

Well, most of this discussion is comparing a work commute via bicycling versus a car.  So for this purpose since the distance is equal, the per mile metric works well.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: runbikerun on May 19, 2018, 04:12:50 AM
It doesn't, though, because the per mile figure for cars includes all types of driving rather than the type of driving which cycling tends to replace. In the UK, non-motorway driving is five times more likely per mile to lead to an accident: what's the equivalent figure for the US? Is there a further subset of driving types that might enable us to get a clearer idea of the relative risks involved?
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: DreamFIRE on May 19, 2018, 07:21:56 AM


Consider the time per hour of exposure and it drops significantly.  Average driving speeds are probably 35-40 mph while average cycling speeds are probably 8-9 mph, so the risk per hour is really only 2-3x as bad as driving.  Is cycling dangerous?  Yep.  Can I mitigate the danger?  Yep.  Can I eliminate it?  Nope.  But it is still fun, and good for my health generally.  I have been hit by a car, and I still ride. S**t happens, go live your life.  Just my $.02

Well, most of this discussion is comparing a work commute via bicycling versus a car.  So for this purpose since the distance is equal, the per mile metric works well.

Exactly, "per mile" is the only metric that makes sense when talking about the work commute.   It's absurd to use "per hour" when the bike trip normally takes much longer.  "Per mile" compares apples and apples.

And I will keep advising people not to ride bicycles in the city among traffic, even in the bike lanes that run along side traffic.  If there are completely separated bike paths, using those is much safer.  Personally, I avoid all city riding and do my biking outside of the city in low traffic areas where there are no surprises.  I stay in very good health without the biking to work - there are plenty of ways to get exercise without subjecting yourself to an accident waiting to happen.

Regarding the person that said they were hit by a car while riding and that shit happens.  No, shit didn't just happen.  You were intentionally putting yourself at risk.  Over time, it's a pretty high possibility of happening if you continually open yourself up to that that level of risk.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: runbikerun on May 19, 2018, 07:35:30 AM


Consider the time per hour of exposure and it drops significantly.  Average driving speeds are probably 35-40 mph while average cycling speeds are probably 8-9 mph, so the risk per hour is really only 2-3x as bad as driving.  Is cycling dangerous?  Yep.  Can I mitigate the danger?  Yep.  Can I eliminate it?  Nope.  But it is still fun, and good for my health generally.  I have been hit by a car, and I still ride. S**t happens, go live your life.  Just my $.02

Well, most of this discussion is comparing a work commute via bicycling versus a car.  So for this purpose since the distance is equal, the per mile metric works well.

Exactly, "per mile" is the only metric that makes sense when talking about the work commute.   It's absurd to use "per hour" when the bike trip normally takes much longer.  "Per mile" compares apples and apples.

For the second time in three posts: per mile is a flawed comparator, and per hour is a less flawed one, because figures for accidents involving motor vehicles are skewed by motorway miles, which are perhaps five times less risky than intra-urban miles.

I assume, since we're talking about risk minimisation, that you never head off a motorway and onto smaller roads to avoid a toll? I mean, if you have a choice between three miles on the motorway, or four miles on small roads, then you're at almost seven times as much risk of injury for the length of that detour.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: ender on May 19, 2018, 08:06:39 AM
Makes me sad to see so many people who seem like they want to give biking a shot but are maybe a little intimidated by the traffic and the prospect of riding with cars.  I say be the change that you want to see in the world.  It's not going to become safer for cyclists to have more people riding in the parks, more people need to take to the streets on their bikes and advocate for bicycle infrastructure.  I also try to ride my mountain bike to the trailhead when time allows for the same reason.  Hence where I live, local governments have responded by putting in more bike lanes because they see the demand for it. 

Also, try exploring different alternative routes and maybe on a weekend when you aren't pressed for time.  My bike commute route cuts through neighborhoods so I stay off the main roads.  There's usually a safe route if you look around a bit.  Also, when you ride a lot, you start to get a feel for when drivers are distracted or don't see you, you become more observant.  I always try to make eye contact with drivers so I know they see me.  In my almost 20 years of bike commuting, I've had one or two close calls which I've anticipated and avoided.  Overall, most drivers I encounter are courteous to a fault though i.e. "you go, no you go".

I've biked far less than I've driven in my life and yet still had far more close calls with drivers while biking than I have driving.

It seems to be part of the pro-bike mantra to have a "my experience, roads/paths, and driver pool where I live obviously applies to everyone who ever might bike!" attitude which consistently ignores the reality that across particularly the USA, there are so many localized factors to whether biking is actually safe or not.\





Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: Seadog on May 19, 2018, 09:51:18 AM

Exactly, "per mile" is the only metric that makes sense when talking about the work commute.   It's absurd to use "per hour" when the bike trip normally takes much longer.  "Per mile" compares apples and apples.

And I will keep advising people not to ride bicycles in the city among traffic, even in the bike lanes that run along side traffic.  If there are completely separated bike paths, using those is much safer.  Personally, I avoid all city riding and do my biking outside of the city in low traffic areas where there are no surprises.  I stay in very good health without the biking to work - there are plenty of ways to get exercise without subjecting yourself to an accident waiting to happen.

Regarding the person that said they were hit by a car while riding and that shit happens.  No, shit didn't just happen.  You were intentionally putting yourself at risk.  Over time, it's a pretty high possibility of happening if you continually open yourself up to that that level of risk.

I agree per mile makes the most sense. But what exactly is the accident rate per mile driven in low speed, stop and go commuter traffic? in either cars or bikes for that matter?

As other's correctly pointed out, the car rate includes very low risk, very high distance intercity travel which will invariably skew the rate downwards, as others said by a factor of 5. Could be higher or lower, but definitely isn't the same quoted number for all car driving. It also includes obvious huge risk factors such as drunk driving, reckless behavior, stunting, and other stupid stunts which you can easily avoid.

Similarly with biking. The number is skewed because it likely includes very low risk, off road travel on designated paths.

The reason why hour to hour might be a decent comparison because the risk factor is being out there in traffic and not inherently related to distance. Two cyclists who travel the same distance, but one who goes at half the speed probably has close to twice the risk. Twice as many motorists will pass, twice as many distracted people on cell phones. Maybe a bit less than twice since you have the same number of higher risk encounters like intersections. Even as a pedestrian you have big risks which on a per mile basis, can even exceed those of cycling simply because you travel so much slower, yet time in the danger zone is higher.

This is why this whole argument is sort of stupid. As I posted above in 3 studies, there was a variance of 100 times in the concluded risk of biking compared to driving. Where else would shitty meaningless results like that be considered remotely acceptable?

That's why I think they best you can reasonably do is huge studies to identify the most general of trends such as the study runbikerun pointed out. If you're the kind of person who cycles a lot including to work, or everywhere else to the tune of 100 miles a week *except* to work because the only way is 50 miles on a 100 series highway then you can likely expect a positive effect on health.

However, if you group everyone who drives to work, my expectation is that 90%+ don't bike everywhere else.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: koshtra on May 19, 2018, 10:11:24 AM

Exactly, "per mile" is the only metric that makes sense when talking about the work commute.   It's absurd to use "per hour" when the bike trip normally takes much longer.  "Per mile" compares apples and apples.

And I will keep advising people not to ride bicycles in the city among traffic, even in the bike lanes that run along side traffic.  If there are completely separated bike paths, using those is much safer.  Personally, I avoid all city riding and do my biking outside of the city in low traffic areas where there are no surprises.  I stay in very good health without the biking to work - there are plenty of ways to get exercise without subjecting yourself to an accident waiting to happen.

Regarding the person that said they were hit by a car while riding and that shit happens.  No, shit didn't just happen.  You were intentionally putting yourself at risk.  Over time, it's a pretty high possibility of happening if you continually open yourself up to that that level of risk.

I agree per mile makes the most sense. But what exactly is the accident rate per mile driven in low speed, stop and go commuter traffic? in either cars or bikes for that matter?

As other's correctly pointed out, the car rate includes very low risk, very high distance intercity travel which will invariably skew the rate downwards, as others said by a factor of 5. Could be higher or lower, but definitely isn't the same quoted number for all car driving. It also includes obvious huge risk factors such as drunk driving, reckless behavior, stunting, and other stupid stunts which you can easily avoid.

Similarly with biking. The number is skewed because it likely includes very low risk, off road travel on designated paths.

The reason why hour to hour might be a decent comparison because the risk factor is being out there in traffic and not inherently related to distance. Two cyclists who travel the same distance, but one who goes at half the speed probably has close to twice the risk. Twice as many motorists will pass, twice as many distracted people on cell phones. Maybe a bit less than twice since you have the same number of higher risk encounters like intersections. Even as a pedestrian you have big risks which on a per mile basis, can even exceed those of cycling simply because you travel so much slower, yet time in the danger zone is higher.

This is why this whole argument is sort of stupid. As I posted above in 3 studies, there was a variance of 100 times in the concluded risk of biking compared to driving. Where else would shitty meaningless results like that be considered remotely acceptable?

That's why I think they best you can reasonably do is huge studies to identify the most general of trends such as the study runbikerun pointed out. If you're the kind of person who cycles a lot including to work, or everywhere else to the tune of 100 miles a week *except* to work because the only way is 50 miles on a 100 series highway then you can likely expect a positive effect on health.

However, if you group everyone who drives to work, my expectation is that 90%+ don't bike everywhere else.

Good heavens, you're not helpless in the face of contradictory studies. You can go read them and examine their methods and data and see who did a better job. You don't have to just give up.

I would like to just note the obvious, which is that pretty much all the people killed in either case are killed by cars. When you bike instead of driving, the chances that you'll kill somebody else drop drastically.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: Morning Glory on May 19, 2018, 12:02:50 PM
Hey, guys, you're all missing the point. I think that the author was trying to say that living within biking distance of work, and not spread out in suburbs, will save both you and the government money whether you actually bike or not.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: Morning Glory on May 19, 2018, 12:54:14 PM
Another thing I was thinking, is that "biking is dangerous" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because people add cars to the road because they are afraid to bike because there are too many cars. The only way to make biking safer is to bike.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: swampwiz on May 19, 2018, 02:17:09 PM
You talk about time savings, but to me it seems silly to drive one mile to work or the store, one mile back, and then go out and walk the exact same distance for the hell of it. Essentially you just wasted the time/gas on the drive.
One mile walking takes about 15 minutes, so back & forth is 30 minutes.  About grocery shopping, if I need to haul anything that can't fit in my backpack (bookbag sized), I'll need the car.  As for work, those 15 minutes on the shoulder of work are important, especially the commute to work, as that allows me an extra 12 minutes of sleep.

As it turns out, I live very close to a Wal-Mart now (like 1/4 mile), so except for the times I need to get a lot of stuff, I just walk there with my backpack, and do it as part of my exercise time.  Of course, the key thing is that I have a lots of time to do this, instead of having the depressingly constrained free time of being a wage slave.
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: swampwiz on May 19, 2018, 02:20:07 PM
Suburbia is not environmentally sustainable as the article mentions, nor is it fiscally sustainable. This is just as true for individuals as it is for governments. If you look at tax revenue on a cost per acre basis, urban places provide a higher rate of return, and are thus better for local government to be able to fund the things you want them to fund (ie: transportation investments, water/sewer lines, etc). Even if you live in a suburb, you need density to exist in order to subsidize your lifestyle. It's worth pointing out that I'm not talking about New York and San Francisco levels of density. I'm talking about the downtown of where you live, no matter what size.
If suburbs are not sustainable, than I suppose that rural areas are not either?  Suburbs have to be cheaper to install infrastructure like electricity, water & sewerage.  And just where are all those folks going to go?  Expensive central cities?
Title: Re: Medium Article on The Hidden Cost of Cars
Post by: Arbitrage on May 20, 2018, 04:05:07 PM
Regarding the biking injuries, I'd be willing to bet that biking (as a mode of transportation) injuries are skewed as well by those involved in riskier forms of leisure activity - racing or race training, single-track mountain biking, etc.  It would be somewhat akin to reporting car accident statistics by including motocross or drifting, if those were a significant percentage of all driving.  Also, another factor in the "well, I can just get my exercise somewhere else" argument is that many of the activities being chosen may have just as high an injury rate as biking.  Beyond that, there's the fact that while one person may choose to get their exercise elsewhere, statistically people are just not doing that.  70% overweight in the US, remember?

Deaths are probably more fairly representative of the bike commuting risk, though.