Drugs a significant health issue for cyclists?
 

University of Arkansas researchers are calling drugs a "Significant health issue" because 2 percent of people who are riding their bikes and are injured have drugs in their system. Cars cause way more injuries than drugs. Why didn't they call cars a "significant health issue?" When are researchers going to stand up and say what is really threatening public health? https://www.healthline.com/health-ne...awing-concerns

Drugs and alcohol + motor vehicles has been known to be a public health & safety issue for many decades. There is no 'Mothers Against Drunk Biking' group, as far as I know.

Mostly because the researchers spent the time and effort (money) to collect and analyze the data, and there is no future funding for saying that "it is no big deal". To Public health officials, everything is a public health issue.

Only two percent? I figured it'd be higher. Perhaps cycling is healthier. I'd be certain that drivers have more drugs in their system. Some of my friends that don't ride bikes have a small pharmacy worth of drugs to take daily for their blood pressure, cholesterol and many other health issues.

The judicial is too lenient on drunk drivers. When drivers are suspended from driving, the driver begs to the judge that he can't get to work without his car. Then he's given back his licence.


Other times, drivers just get back in their cars and drive away from court regardless of the sentence.

Don't be surprised if there are a whole bunch of drivers with suspended licences on the road right now.

Breathalyzers should be standard equipment on all automobiles.

everything in moderation, including sobriety.

That's not the kind of drugs they're talking about.

After you said you'd figured it would be higher, I though you were going to go in the direction of how much weed you can smell coming out of cars when you ride through the city. Heck, I smelled it this morning coming in to work.

The objective/purpose of the study was "The purpose of this study was to analyze the descriptive epidemiology of bicycle-related injuries associated with substances of abuse other than alcohol and to examine types of drugs involved and injury diagnoses." Bicycle Injuries Associated With Drug Use in the United States, 2019–2020

IOW the population "studied" consisted of bicyclists who were treated in ER's and were found to have been taking psychoactive drugs.
Even a quick glance at the HealthLine summary of the report indicates that the population "studied" was highly weighted towards "studying" the results of bicycle riding done by the homeless and/or psychoactive drug using populations.
Extract:

Drunk biking is hard, I recommend shrooms.

As someone who used to work as a police dispatcher, I guarantee there are.

No, that's just punishing the innocent. I don't want to have to blow into a machine every time I want to go somewhere, and I have enough brains to know not to drive if I've been drinking.

People that use illegal drugs are absolutely stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They will get killed in traffic, they make good organ donors, and it cleans the gene pool.

Based on what I hear from the gen pub, a cyclist should be a habitual crack smoker.
We do often ride in such ways "normal" folk would rather not do. Normal folk also tend to sit in a pub drinking all evening too...

I haven't seen that many exclamation points in years. You must really know a lot about riding under the influence.
I've used all sorts of illegal drugs, before, during, and after riding, and I'm above average in intelligence, athleticism, and almost any conceivable way (which is scary if you knew me).
The study mentions homeless people, so there goes your dreams of harvesting all those drugged-up but otherwise good organ donors. It may be a good study - doubtful - but the article is just clickbait.
If you are worried about the gene pool of the world, try eliminating synthetic chemicals used in agriculture.

I'm also not surprised someone will have this response. The innocent-dead don't complain.

Can we just ask and beg for drivers to not get back into their cars after drinking a lot? Like we have been doing for at least 50 years? Maybe this time they'll all listen.

There once was a time when everybody complained about having to put on seat belts before driving off. And the same thing about bike helmets.

Is crazy bad policy advocacy a hobby of yours? All that would happen if you installed this on every vehicle is you'd get an industry of products designed to disable/fool the testing device. Not to mention, it's absolutely useless for preventing drug dui.

Pssst--lots of people don't wear bike helmets.

Walk, check. Chew gum, check.

False dichotomy much? Does every article on bike health risks need to mention every other risk that bicyclists face?

BTW-- https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-...safer-d-c.html

Drugs vs Cars - which are more dangerous?
 

Nice story about doctors as advocates. Would you consider issuing a statement calling cars a "Significant health risk" to other forms of transportation?

To answer your question, yes, I dichotomy often. The similarity between drugs and cars is the researcher's statement "significant health risk." Calling drugs a "significant health risk" at a 2 percent injury rate requires them to examine the opinion statement of what constitutes a "significant health risk." If everything over 2 percent constitutes a significant health risk, then the researchers should have context of what are the significant health risks for cyclists. By telling the public that drugs are a significant health risk to cyclists, they are drawing people's attention away from the real significant health risk, which is cars. They are likely afraid to call cars a significant health risk or a much greater health risk than drugs because they would run afoul of public opinion and the media is unlikely to pick up and run with the story. What do you think is a more significant public health risk? Cars or drugs? Do we need to re-start the war on drugs? lol

We just had the Dutch Cycling Embassy in Reno and they said not to wear a helmet because it gives the impression that cycling is dangerous. Driving is much more dangerous and no one is suggesting that people who drive cars wear helmets.

Legality of drugs and intelligence
 

What about people who use drugs that were illegal and are now legal? Are they absolutely stupid or smarter than the ones who use drugs that are still illegal?

The dichotomy is still absurd, just as is your assumption that identifying the patterns of how drug use affects mortality and morbidity in bicycle accidents is only useful in a war on drugs scenario. I won't get too much into this because it's more a P&R forum issue, but I consider a public health approach (instead of a criminal approach) to drug abuse to be a significant change that needs to be made to save lives so I think your false dichotomy obscures that.

The labeling of "public health problem" really only matters if it's somehow going to affect how policy gets made in the particular area. If you want to advocate for labeling cars a public health risk, make the case that it would change anyone's thinking on this matter. Frankly, I just think you're proposing shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic. Most, if not all, of our economy relies on motor vehicles, that's where the parallel to drug abuse just makes the comparison silly.

Idiotic
 

At least 2% of people have drugs in their system, period. Idiotic statement by researchers desperate to fund their next "research."

The definition of dichotomy is that there is, or is not a relationship. I think it is absurd that you do not see cars as a bigger public health issue for cyclists than drugs. The fact that you equate my advocacy as shufflng the chairs on the titanic shows that you are throwing up your hands and saying there is nothing we can do. Apathy is also a public health problem. With regard to your comment on how our economy relies on motor vehicles, I am well aware of that as a former tow truck driver. That does not mean we shouldn't point out the negative public health consequences. You are advocating for economics over public health - and that is the root of our society's problems. BTW, most of our economy also relies on drugs, legal and illegal. The fact is that cars are a WAY bigger public health problem for cyclists than drugs and you, the researchers and everyone should not be afraid to say it.

Anything to discount the existence of anyone with a bicycle hobby & you'll notice certain large groups of Americans throwing money & donating all there time to make it happen. Very hateful people out there, & for no real good reason.

.

1) The relative size of the problems has nothing to do with whether either, both or neither should be discussed as being primarily a "public health" problem. You've made no case for relabeling cars in this way other than they kill more people than are killed riding under the influence. That's not an argument that makes any sense.

2) No one here is arguing or has ever argued that the danger cars create for people should not be discussed nor that we should just give up advocacy. I have no problem with you being an advocate, I just think you're giving us a prime example of bad advocacy. My point is that you haven't said anything that makes me think that relabeling this as primarily a public health problem instead of a law enforcement/engineering/education/economic problem is going to move the ball in any meaningful way. And by denigrating unnecessarily a public health approach to an issue of drug abuse, you simply alienate people who actually consider the abandonment of the "war of drugs" approach a very important thing.

3) Our entire economy is not reliant on drugs, and certainly nowhere near the extent that it is on motor vehicles. Crashing our economy would itself create a rash of public health problems, so even in terms of public health the range of structural reforms are constrained by that reality. Where are you going with this? Do you think cars should be eradicated as a public health scourge? Do you think the relabeling somehow will make that more palatable?

4) So you're ok with trucks, they can do whatever? I can't tell what you're actually identifying as the actual public health problem. If you mean all motor vehicles on roads, then good luck spelling out what the practical implications of getting them banned as public health problems. If it's just cars that are going to get banned, we already kind of did that when auto manufacturers figured out that trucks have lesser safety standards and invented the SUV as the category buster.

5)Be careful, you're looking for medical people to weigh in on here. What makes you think they might not see the presence of cyclists on the road as being the public health problem? You think they're any more anxious to give up their SUVs than any other interest group?

Obviously, neither of you actually read the study, the recommendations are really about how best to get resources out to disadvantaged people so their only transportation option is not riding while intoxicated, and how to more effectively treat people who are brought into the ER under these circumstances, including getting them treatment for drug and mental health problems.
They take great pains to delineate who these cyclists are likely to be and if they're talking about throwing money anywhere, it's into meeting the safety, transportation and health care needs of the very poor.

Sorry if those aren't the cyclists you think we should care about.