noglider 

Everyone knows that cycling is dangerous. Except that everyone who knows this is wrong. Traveling by bike is one of the safest ways to commute, safer than driving a car.

​​​​​​​Cycle, walk, drive or train? Weighing up the healthiest (and safest) ways to get around the city

NiGoCo

I've been Motorcycle only for the last five years. I don't own a car. But to be honest I'm much more apprehensive about cycle commuting than I ever have been about my motorcycle. A large part of it is that we have zero cycling infrastructure here. Like literally none. And I don't see anyone out on the roads cycling apart from the occasional group of roadies out around the outskirts. On the other hand motorcycles are very common. I feel like most people are used to having motorcycles around and therefore look for them. I don't feel they would have the same amount of awareness for a cyclist.

I live in a relatively small town. Population of around 74,000 so take that into consideration. My response would likely be different if I were in a large city.

JonathanGennick 

Doesn't the article have it backward? The article say 47 km bike versus 330 km car to reach a 1/1,000,000 chance of dying. That makes the bike seven times more dangerous, not seven times safer. Am I missing something? It looks like the article writer did the math backward.

aggiegrads

JonathanGennick 

wphamilton

I think you have a "blind spot", maybe reading it backwards? The car is safer, as both the article and you say. And I agree with seven times greater risk of fatality on a bike, per mile, although that's in the middle of a very wide range of estimates. Because we don't really know how many miles we do by bike in the USA, and the "high" estimate is 2 or 3 times the "low" estimate.

Even including the accident fatality risk, life expectancy is higher for the cyclist. Maybe that's your whole point. and if so I'd agree with that also.

JonathanGennick 

Oh, interesting! Yeah, was I seeing it backward earlier? I was sure that I had checked several times before posting. I'll blame lack of coffee and will now go into the corner and hang my head in shame!

wphamilton

I wouldn't, since all your points were on target IMO.

JonathanGennick 

Eh. I should have seen that text correctly. It's amazing my brain's ability to see that which isn't really there.

Kedosto

Not that I’m gonna stop commuting by bicycle, but recent research has suggested urban bicyclists and runners have significantly greater respiratory complications secondary to vehicle exhaust exposure. *cough*


-Kedosto

Gresp15C

Cycling statistics are useless unless they're accompanied by data on the circumstances under which people are injured or killed. There just aren't enough data.

CliffordK

From the linked article:

So, the risk of death by bike is about 10x that of death by car.

It really isn't surprising there. Although, as @Gresp15C mentions, that risk may not be distributed evenly among all cyclists. Some may well have a much lower risk.

Most cyclists also ride less than the average person drives, even for the most avid cyclists... although, I'm getting in as many miles by bike as many drivers.

But, as also mentioned in the article:

Now, that 1 in a million per 47km is a bit of a concern...

So that means every day I get out on the bike, I have about that 1 in a million risk.

Say I ride 200 days a year, I am now down to a 1 in 5000 risk of getting smashed.

Now, do that over 50 years, and one is now up to a 1 in 100 lifetime risk of getting flattened, or about 1%.

Whew!!!

Still, getting back to all cause mortality, heart attack, diabetes, & etc. The reduction is apparently there.

Of course, calculating the risk of injury vs risk of death, it becomes much more grim for one's lifetime risk of serious injury, and an injury could have a significant overall impact on one's health.

KraneXL

These are averages so you can't extrapolate like that. I walk, cycle, run everywhere and I don't cough. I suspect they're leaving out other important variables (hence the limitation of these studies). Conversely, maybe I'm eating, drinking, or doing something, e.g. lifestyle, that mitigates my exposure to these elements?

Jim from Boston

Commute by bike? But that's dangerous!

Quote:

Originally Posted by noglider

Everyone knows that cycling is dangerous. Except that everyone who knows this is wrong. Traveling by bike is one of the safest ways to commute, safer than driving a car...

Without getting into statistical arguments, it’s my decision to live a cycling lifestyle, so “say no more.” The only time I have to discuss the topic is with others (non-cyclists):Furthermore, FWIW:

chelvel

Those who are supposed to live longer choose cycling. We yet do not know the reason why.

We need some statistics based on twins. Who has any?

joesch

As the article suggest, where you ride is a big factor on the safety risks.
Try to avoid cars and your commute will be pretty safe. Most US cities are continually improving by adding more commuter lanes and trails for alternatives to driving a car.

Jim from Boston

And perhaps double-blinded to the researcher?...Don't hold you breath.

And just ride in circles in a park? As I posted:Just do it! (on your own volition):..

Gresp15C

No, we need to use common sense. There will never be enough data. We have relatively good statistics on cars because there are many more miles driven, and both the insurance industry and the government are hell bent on gathering data.

But there's nothing like that for cycling, and there won't be. If somebody were to publish something like twin studies on cycling, a reasonable first reaction would be to assume that it's bunk. We can either wait for credible scientific knowledge to emerge on this subject, or get on with our lives, which we have to do anyway. That's where common sense enters the picture.

What are the statistics for a sober middle aged person who primarily rides on low traffic residential streets and bike paths, wearing a helmet for all but the shortest trips?

In my view, the statistics are just barely good enough to tell me: 1) Cycling is safe enough for me to justify engaging in cycling based on other factors such as health and enjoyment. 2) Cycling is not safe enough for me to engage without additional layers of protection and caution, that probably make me safer, but also remove me from the statistical pool.

wphamilton

We don't know why they chose cycling, but we do know that the physical exercise in general is responsible because of related studies of life expectancy. Some of the research was controlled very well for other factors such as diseases, body mass index, diet, and other lifestyle habits, in order to address your objection.

It sometimes IS reported that the subjects who cycle may have been just generally healthier than the population at large, and it is a limitation of the study. But not an invalidating limitation IMO.

Colnago Mixte

It's a bit of an oversimplification to say that people who ride bikes were already healthy, so we can disregard any health benefits, it's just a self-selected group of people with no health problems out there "showing off" their great health.

But people can start out in the sport when they're in an extremely unhealthy state. And they find the more they ride, the healthier they get.

A self-reinforcing cycle begins of exercise giving the person better health, enabling more intense efforts, which in turn enable still better health, which allow even greater levels of exertion, and so on. That's really how it works, IMO. And at the end of the day, the "Oh, they were already healthy" people just use this as one more excuse not to exercise.

wphamilton

There aren't that many identical twins, where one takes up cycling and the other doesn't.

It's not scientific by any stretch, but coincidentally I DO have an identical twin, and I took up cycling at around 46 or 47 years old, he did not. It was 100% for commuting and transport, not recreation or training. He did start some fitness running sometime in that period, illustrating the weird twin-coincidence thing that people like to ponder, but he stopped after a year or two citing joint problems I think. I of course continued cycling. My own sample set of one is consistent with the general studies that purport health and fitness advantages for the cyclist.

Gresp15C

In addition, a person could start out healthy, and become un-healthy if they don't find a form of exercise that they can keep up with. For example, the people I know who played team sports in high school were all healthier than me. Now they're almost all obese, and are getting knee and hip replacements like clockwork.

There are some super-self-disciplined people who can force themselves to exercise because they know that they need exercise. I'm not one of those people. For me, it has to be something that I enjoy for its own sake. I've tried running and low intensity weight lifting. The only two things that have clicked for me are cycling and walking / hiking.

noglider 

My large amount of exercise has led me to eat better. My better eating has led me to exercise more. It's a virtuous cycle. I look at what a lot of people eat, and it looks like poison to me. I mostly avoid it, and I don't enjoy it. I am enjoying all my exercise and good eating. I spend a lot on food, and I eat an obscene amount, so much I don't want to tell people. Compared with driving a car, I'm not saving on fuel, because fueling my body is so expensive. But it's worth it to me.

noglider 

Two or three years ago, there was a large scale study in the NHS of the UK. It found that people who bike commute routinely for most of their careers, even when they commute slowly and gently for 2 or three miles round trip daily, the live expectancy is raised substantially. So you don't even have to be athletic if you're just a casual bike commuter. The trouble is, there aren't many places with that opportunity. That's one reason I'm enjoying living in NYC. I wanted to commute by bike as a quality of life choice. I was looking for a job this past winter, and I had concentrated my search in IT departments in colleges and universities. I live one mile from New York University, but I didn't put much energy into applying there, since the commute would be too short. I wanted, ideally, a six mile commute. I got lucky and got a job in February at Columbia University. It's 6.5 miles between home and work (each way). I feel very lucky. I'm now at the point where I even ride in the rain, because it's more pleasant (or less unpleasant) than riding the subway, my alternate mode of travel. My current commute is half of what my previous one, and since it's such a more enjoyable distance, I do it more than twice as often as I did my previous commute by bike. I'm commuting by bike more miles now than I did a year ago.

Another lucky aspect of my commute is that while Manhattan has brutal traffic in the streets, I don't take the streets. I take the Hudson River Greenway and need to deal with hardly any motor vehicles, so it's safe and stress free. The scenery is gorgeous and always changing.

So clearly for me, bike commuting has the most benefits of all possible commute modes available to me. I'm very lucky to have it as an opportunity. It's not advisable or practical in other places.

chelvel

Wow, Just Wow! I wish long live to you both.