pj7

How about just reply with a simple "STFD/STFU"? Obviously this guy knows way more than you do anyhow.

Nitram

"Compiled by Failure Analysis Associates, Inc."

Thats a great name for a company

robmcl

Here is a quote from the WSJ from this thread.

"The biggest downside of cycling is wrecks, particularly with cars. Per kilometer traveled, a cyclist in America is 12 times likelier than a car occupant to be killed, according to a 2003 American Journal of Public Health article."

[Edit] Here is thread again.
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=195045

syn0n

Cycling cannot possibly prevent cancer unless it is cancer that is linked to obesity. Cancer is often genetic, though, so you can pedal all you want; you'll end up with a tumor regardless given genetic predisposition and other factors. Not to mention, when you cycle you're in the sun, and if you don't use sunscreen you can potentially develop skin cancer.

Lung cancer, too, isn't going to be stamped out by cycling. I know a few cyclists that smoke, but beyond that, lung cancer is caused by all sorts of things, and usually avoiding them is the best method to preventing this type of cancer. Exercise doesn't prevent you from intaking harmful chemicals.

As for the other two - diabetes that's not a product of obesity is usually genetic, and I know that no matter how much I pedal, I still have a very real risk of developing it due to my own genetics. And I'm a fit person. Heart problems aren't going to be prevented by exercise either as diet significantly impacts the health there.

Exercise is good, but to think cycling will prevent these things is genuinely laughable.

robmcl

Funny, because I thought obesity signigficantly increases your risk for certain types of cancer, heart disease, and Type 2 diabetes.

Here is the next paragraph in the Wall Street Journal artical that I post a link for above.

The danger of cycling is far outweighed by the benefits, says Rutgers University's John Pucher, a professor of urban planning specializing in cycling issues. Cycling builds muscle, deepens lung capacity, lowers heart rate and burns calories. "The health benefits of cycling outweigh the health risks by two to one, if not something like five to one," says Dr. Pucher, whose voice mail describes him as "car-free John."

syn0n

I responded in the context of what I quoted. Yes, exercise can certainly help, but it doesn't prevent, like that poster suggested. With the exception of heart health, for that poster to suggest that riding bikes prevents cancer, etc, is absurd. At least, I've seen no study to date that says exercise alone will largely eliminate risk for developing cancer in general. And in terms of lung cancer, I'd say I'm positive that exercise doesn't have much of a bearing on it, as it is typically caused by the inhilation of carcinogens.

donnamb 

Because my mom would disapprove of such language, pj.

Sammyboy

I would simply point out that while there are inherent dangers in cycling, there are inherent dangers in most things. Cycling is fun, and healthy, and whilst it's more dangerous than driving, the number of people who actually get injured is still tiny. The phrasing of his statement makes it sound as though cycling in Portland is equivalent in danger to wrestling gorillas, and it's not.

Ornery

Seven bikes riders have been killed in Washington county in the last two years. Be carfull where you ride your Bicycle. Most of the roads are really not made for them and the car drivers are not all going to be good. It's better to be safe than sorry and dead. "And I'm a bicycle rider". Ride your bicycle in a safe place and watch out.
Good Luck;

Don't know why you even took issue with this. I could only reply, "Yep, you're right. You do have to be extra careful, but the joy of riding is worth the risk."

He's also correct about how "un-bike friendly" our cities (any cities) are, compared to places like Amsterdam. Our cities are poorly planned for cars, let alone bikes.

DoB

Not really, lung cancer is an extremely rare form of cancer in people who do not smoke and who are not exposed to smoke.

And exercise does lower the risk of many types of cancer, including hereditary cancers.

freako

Right, exercise may lower the risk but does not eliminate the risk. Lets keep this in proper prospective.

Lamplight

30+ people have been killed in car crashes in my county in the last three months, and there are probably nearly as many cyclists in Portland as there are people total in my town (which is where most of those crashes happened). I know that's a strange comparison, but 7 bikers in two years doesn't seem that high to me (although any is too high).

davit70

Well you can't totally fault her for wanting you to stay safe even if it is a narrow view. Does she know that bikes have the same rights to be on roads as cars, they have to follow the same laws, and cars have laws to follow regarding bikes. So when their is an accident, most likely a law was being broken. Should we stay locked in our house to avoid people who might break the law?

Hendley

slagjumper already hinted at this, but the per km comparison is a poor one because different transportation occurs at different speeds. (Although if you are trying to determine risk for a specific, single journey, such as what the safest way is to get from point A to point B, then I suppose it matters.)

In assessing general risk, over a lifetime, it should be injuries/mortalities per hour (or other time unit), in which case cycling and automobiles aren't that far apart. (Again, see slagjumper's post).

Mr. Underbridge

I would disagree. Speed doesn't matter for normalization purposes- since the point of cyclocommuting is to get from point A to point B, as you point out, I would say then that distance is the appropriate metric over which to average. Otherwise you're effectively saying 'My bike is far safer - it takes me forever to get anywhere!'

That's not to say speed doesn't matter at all, but I think it's complicated to figure out. If you're traveling slower, you have more cars pass you, but may be in better control of your bike and have more time to react. So I'm not sure how that plays out.

The question is, when replacing a car with a bike, are you replacing the time you're in the car, or the distance you travel with the car? If it's a hobby then maybe time is the appropriate metric, but if you're going to work, you're going to work.

This does point out that the math can be done at a personal level. If one is interested in calculating some relative risk, compare the two lifestyles as you will personally implement them.

ItsJustMe

The stats you really need are unfortunately either difficult or impossible to find.

What you want is the percentage of good riders who follow the rules and ride vehicularly and understand how to direct the flow of traffic around them, who are killed.

Looking at all bike accidents is lumping you in with morons riding the wrong way at night with no lights or reflectors, weaving around the road, running red lights and wearing black clothing. Also with kids, and drunk riders and who knows what else.

If you watch most "bicyclist killed" news stories, you will notice a common theme; they're almost always doing something stupid; riding the wrong way, leaving a sidewalk onto a crosswalk at speed in front of a right turner, filtering on the right between a right turning truck and a curb, etc.

A very small percentage of them are riding properly. Of course, this could also be skewed; it could be that all cyclists are killed in equal percentage no matter their behavior, but only 5% of cyclists ride properly so it's expected that 5% of those killed would be riding properly.

But I really doubt it. When I first started riding, I got honked, cut off, squeezed and hooked. I've got about 12,000 and 3 years under my belt now, and it's been > 1 year since I've had anything near a close call or even someone honking at me. I ride in such a way that I'm sure everyone approaching me sees me, knows what I'm going to do, and has a pretty good idea of what I expect them to do. Given all that, all you need to really worry about is the person who does see you and actually WANTS to hurt you. Those people are pretty rare.

ItsJustMe

One more thing to keep in mind is that cyclists tend to travel less km than car drivers. When I used to come to work in a car, I'd jump on the expressway at lunchtime and drive 20 miles to grab something to eat, drop by a store and shop, etc.

Since I ride a bike, I am very frugal about extraneous travel, and I brown bag it pretty much every day (MAYBE I'll go to the subway a mile away).

A 50% reduction in miles travelled when your cycling has got to significantly impact your odds of an accident as well.

jyossarian

A stat I heard yesterday from the Transportation Alternatives guy before the start of the NYC Century was that by tripling the number of cyclists on the streets, the accident rate for cyclists gets cut in half. Essentially he was saying there's safety in numbers. The stats might be on their website if you want to check.

knobster

Slagjumper has an interesting point. I bet if you looked at the deaths that are in these statistics, you'll find a majority of them are inexperienced cyclists. Most are probably DUrIders, riding at night with no lights, dark clothes, wrong direction and a 40 oz. in one hand. I passed one the other night that I almost hit. He was riding next to a concrete barrier going against traffic on a 55mph highway that is prohibited to bikes.

filtersweep

don't waste your time. you cannot reason with people like that.

DoB

I don't understand this statement. There is of course only one way to eliminate the risk of cancer or heart disease and that is to kill yourself immediately.

Also, I don't like the suggestion of "reduction" of risk. It's better to think about avoiding severe increases in risk. A person of normal weight who eats a good diet and exercises regularly might have a 5% of heart disease by age 50 (I'm inventing the figures). Same person leads a sedentary life, eats a diet loaded with saturated fats and weighs 100 pounds more than the recommended weight might push that risk to 50%.

So picking the former lifestyle only reduces the risk (a mere 90%) but it does not of course eliminate it.

The way my MD likes to put it, you're born with a set of genes that set the upper limit on how long you might live. For some people this is 90 years, for others it might only be 60. You may be unable to extend that number higher, but you can very easily make it much shorter. Smoking, being obese, poor eating habits, being sedentary....these all take years off of your potential.

robmcl

I think there is some truth to this. I think defensive riding can reduce your odds. Just today in Chicagoland I read about a cyclist who was wearing ipod head phones. He crossed a railroad track that did not have lights or signals and got flattened by a freight train because he apparently did not see or hear the train. Needles to say the guy died.

Although, I think more than 5% of cyclists ride properly.

robmcl

This is more in line of what I thought.

gew0419

This is the most stimulating, thought provoking, and laughable thread I have read in a long time. Let's talk about the potential benefits of bicycle commuting, or just plain riding for enjoyment, for that matter. People who are active (at any age) will live better, fuller and more productive lives. Even if they get hit by a car and die at age 27. So get out and ride and forget about the danger...just be careful and obey the rules of the road.
Oh, and I agree with freako, who said, "You want to prevent something then believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and then you won't have to worry about what happens to you after your physical body dies." (Note the proper use of quotation marks.)

donnamb 

Not the ones that died in Washington County, OR. That's why our local and state advocacy groups are so concerned.

Portland's city government strongly believes this, and it shows in the number of fatalities.