When the mundane task of cycling is seen as some risk activity, there is something wrong. Anyway, I'm pretty sure that the health benefits of regular cycling far outweighs the relative risk of cycling, even in places that is hostile to bikes.
Cycling isn't risky, sharing poorly designed roads with cars is risky.
Dedicated, fully separated paths with no conflict points have very low fatality rates. Also, even in risky areas there is a net positive effect on mortality.
The point is that ordinary commuter cycling in normal weather on flat, clean roads is a lot less dangerous than standing around while people throw bricks at your head.
And there's a health tradeoff between the exercise benefits of physical activity and the risk of injury. Convincing people that cycling is so dangerous (like people throwing bricks at your head) that you need to wear some goofy-looking, uncomfortable contraption dissuades them from getting the exercise and the fun of cycling around their neighborhood.
Roads are dangerous by their nature and bicycles are unpredictable and unprotected modes of transport to use. It is entirely understandable that there will be a large amount of lethal accidents involving cyclists, particularly on roads which aren't designed to accommodate them safely.
Choosing to cycle subsequently bears significant risk and those who choose to do it surely carry a large proportion of the responsibility if they get injured, not mention the risks they pose to drivers by causing traffic to change speed and be forced to overtake.
I understand cycling where it is safe to but am not convinced cycling on major roads is worth it.
Seems like much of the danger of cycling is due to being near cars though, while the reverse isn't true. Better infrastructure and less car subsidy is likely to make cycling a lot safer, whereas cars already have ~all the infrastructure and subsidy and are still enormously dangerous
For the population as a whole maybe. That doesn't take away the not insignificant risk to any one individual of being killed or crippled.
Biking "could" give you an increased life span of 5-10 years IF you don't replace it with other exercise. In exchange for this, you have a slightly increased chance of being crippled or killed far sooner. There are arguments to be made on both sides, but don't dismiss his argument as being unreasonable. It's not unreasonable at all. I can happily get the benefits on biking on a closed course or at a gym while not subjecting myself to the dangers of biking near people in cars that don't always pay enough attention.
Biking really is dangerous though. Per-mile you are more likely to get injured in an accident on a bike than in a car. Though there are problems with that statistic since cars are also used for long-distance highway driving which inflates the total number of miles. That said, it's absolutely true that biking can be a fairly dangerous activity, though driving itself is also fairly dangerous (one of the most dangerous things people do regularly).
I'm still a huge proponent of biking regularly, but safety is an unfortunate problem, and a lot of people are stuck in situations where there isn't a safe bike route to and from work for them.
And you are absolutely right, there are plenty of cases where there are safe bike routes.
wait. you cycle because driving is too risky? are you statistically less likely to get injured while cycling, or is it mainly about caring for not injuring others?
Interesting take but while there is some argument to be made for being outside... Cycling outside is not always better for you. Many people live in urban areas where cycling outside is dangerous and objectively worse for you due to fumes from cars.
I've lived in rural areas where biking outside was great and in cities where biking was prioritized but I've also lived in many places where biking outside put myself at a much higher risk of being injured than biking inside. Especially at night after work which is when many exercise.
In countries where people bike a lot, biking isn't treated as an inherently risky behavior. Instead, it's more akin to how we treat walking or driving a car, which we feel comfortable doing without helmets even if they would save lives on occasion. This alternative attitude to biking risk encourages more people to bike, which makes it safer for everyone as drivers become more accustomed to seeing and watching out for bikers. Keep in mind, most people don't die from accidents, they die from disease. Riding 20 miles a week on a bike cuts your chance of heart disease in half. Given that heart disease is our biggest killer in the US, we'd do well to stop treating biking as a risky behavior and instead encourage people to bike whether they choose to wear a helmet or not.
We're under no illusions that cycling presents a danger to others in the same way that driving does. When we say cycling is unsafe, we mean it's unsafe for the cyclist.
Clearly riding a bicycle on roads designed for much heavier, much faster vehicles isn't the safest pursuit in the world. Of course you would be much safer sitting at home. But that's a calculation you make any time you decide to step out the door. The way some people talk about cycling you'd think that merely getting on a bicycle for longer than 10km means instant death. That's obviously not the case, because there are always far more people who have successfully cycled any given stretch of road than ones who have died on it. The question people should ask themselves is if the risk is worth the benefits for them. And, if they have decided yes, then it's certainly more enjoyable to not spend every moment on that road terrified of other vehicles, whose behavior you have very little control over. If you want to do it, just do it.
> the "extraordinary low risk of accident" that comes from cycling
No, bicycling is fairly high-risk in general, like skiing, or any other sport that involves a human body travelling faster than the average set of legs can walk it around. Even just going around the block a few times there's always the chance of some random events leading to an unfortunate encounter with a tree.
Of course, it's not skydiving either. And life is a series of risks, I'm not saying don't do it.
I feel notably worse inside a week when I stop cycling.
You know what the worst part of cycling is? The endless noise and pollution from cars.
Cars are a scourge. It is no wonder why drivers are so angry all the time. Who in their right mind wants to spend their time utterly immobilized, doing nothing but trying to avoid hitting other cars?
Cycling is always a bit of an adventure, always exhilarating.
reply