Bike is healthier until you get pancaked by an SUV or pickup which are increasingly all that people drive on roads nowadays. The roads aren’t safe for bikes. If you live somewhere without dedicated bike infrastructure (no, painted bike lanes on the street don’t count), biking is basically playing Russian roulette.
I can find sources if you want, but there are studies that show those who get around by bike live longer on average, even in North America. The danger is definitely there, and I agree I’m playing Russian roulette every time I bike around town. However, I am much, much more likely to extend my life by a couple years by being healthier, than get killed in a collision and die significantly earlier.
I don’t think that’s how it works when you’re talking about death rates.
Yes, for the people that survive, they will see an average and statistically significant increase in lifespan. On the other hand, more of them will die as a direct result of their travel mode than for people that primarily drive. (I.e., you’re more likely to die in a bicycle crash–any bicycle crash–than you are in any given car crash.)
There’s no good way to make riding a bicycle ‘safe’, because you can’t surround yourself with crumple zones, restraints, and air bags (although you can get airbags for motorcycles, but weight and breathability is less of a concern on a motorcycle). Helmets are about the best you can do, and compliance rates with helmet guidelines on bicycles are pretty low.
Don’t get me wrong - I fully support bicycles as a way of commuting and most general transportation, and want to see more infrastructure developed towards that end. But we also need to be realistic about the risks.
I don’t think that’s how it works when you’re talking about death rates.
The comment I was responding to wasn’t talking about death rates.
There’s no good way to make riding a bicycle ‘safe’, because you can’t surround yourself with crumple zones, restraints, and air bags (although you can get airbags for motorcycles, but weight and breathability is less of a concern on a motorcycle). Helmets are about the best you can do, and compliance rates with helmet guidelines on bicycles are pretty low.
Infrastructure, my friend, that’s how we make bicycling less dangerous. Riding a bicycle itself isn’t all that dangerous, even without a helmet. What is dangerous, is interacting with cars.
Riding a bicycle itself isn’t all that dangerous, even without a helmet.
My dude, have you never ridden a bicycle in your life?
Of all of my bike crashes, only two involved a car. One spectacular one involved another cyclist on a fixie–it’s always the fucking shitheads on fixies–running a red light and t-boning me because you can’t fucking stop quickly on a fixie. (Seriously, don’t fucking ride a fixie on public streets or trails, you slack-jawed fucking morons.) My two car incidents were separated by 20-odd years; the first one was in San Diego in the 90s, when a cab cut me off on a steep hill and I tried to put my face through his rear windshield, and the most recent was in Chicago when I got slightly doored (hit my leg, left a huge bruise, but my bike was fine). Otherwise, most of my crashes have involved road conditions, like ice during a sudden winter rainstorm, wet steel plates over construction trenches, or an 8" deep pothole that I couldn’t see because it looked like just another puddle. My ex-wife broke her pelvis when she got hit by another cyclist.
In your previous comment, you were equating “Danger” to “Death Rates.” How often do you hear of a cyclist dying in an incident that doesn’t involve a car?
Yes, accidents and injuries happen. I’ve literally fallen while walking twice in the past week.
My ex-wife broke her pelvis when she got hit by another cyclist.
And if that was a car, do you think she would have survived?
In your previous comment, you were equating “Danger” to “Death Rates.” How often do you hear of a cyclist dying in an incident that doesn’t involve a car?
First: you said, and I quote, “Riding a bicycle itself isn’t all that dangerous, even without a helmet.”. That is blatantly, proveably false, especially when you say that it’s not dangerous even without a helmet. I’ve broken multiple helmet in multiple single-bicycle accidents over the 20-odd years that I was commuting regularly by bicycle; at least one of those would have very likely have been fatal without a helmet.
How many cyclists die outside of interactions with cars? In 2001, 44% of fatal bicycle accidents–377 out of 853–did not involve being hit by, or hitting, a car. So, there ya go. Damn near half of cycling fatalities aren’t involving motor vehicles. (The site mentions them as being bicycle transportation fatalities, which seems to exclude bicycle recreation fatalities, but I can’t guarantee that they aren’t including deaths from mountain biking. Per the same source, helmets appear to reduce the risk of brain trauma by about 60%.)
And if that was a car, do you think she would have survived?
If she had been in a car, and hit by another car? Yes, I think she would have been fine. Cars have airbags, set belts, and crumple zones. If she’d been hit by a car, while on a bicycle? Can’t say. Statistically? Yes.
You seem to be having trouble with reading comprehension. Maybe you need to read things more thoroughly? I’ll try to provide some clarification.
First: you said, and I quote, “Riding a bicycle itself isn’t all that dangerous, even without a helmet.”. That is blatantly, proveably false, especially when you say that it’s not dangerous even without a helmet.
I didn’t say it’s “not dangerous”, I said it “isn’t all dangerous”, which implies there is some danger.
In 2001, 44% of fatal bicycle accidents–377 out of 853–did not involve being hit by, or hitting, a car[1].
That’s not what your source says. “Of the 1,230 bicyclist deaths in 2021, 853 died in motor-vehicle crashes and 377 in other incidents,” is what it says, so that 30% that weren’t in a direct motor-vehicle crash. Even then, how many were indirectly caused by motor-vehicles? If a bicycle veers out of the way of a car, that’s counted as an “other incident”. Speed is one of the most dangerous aspects of bicycles and you feel to cycle faster when riding with traffic. Even you previous noted many incidents which are poor infrastructure or maintenance issues.
If she had been in a car, and hit by another car? Yes, I think she would have been fine.
That’s the point…cars are dangerous to people not in cars.
Even in area not made for bikes, the health benefits outweight the risk of getting killed by a car in the total longevity.
This become false when the road have too much traffic: air pollution damage start to outweight the health benefits of doing sport.
I upvoted you, because what you are saying is true, but so is the original post. “Dangerous” and “Healthier” are very different. Biking is definitely more dangerous in North America, though I’m not sure about bike friendly places, and would be curious to see statistics from somewhere like the Netherlands. Danger does not consider the benefits of an activity, only the downsides. Health, on the other hand is usually short hand for longevity or lack of health conditions, and on average, even with the danger, people who get around by bike live longer.*
*I can provide sources if someone wants them, I just need to find them again
If we look at it statically, biking is healthier because it reduces health problems.
Bike is healthier until you get pancaked by an SUV or pickup which are increasingly all that people drive on roads nowadays. The roads aren’t safe for bikes. If you live somewhere without dedicated bike infrastructure (no, painted bike lanes on the street don’t count), biking is basically playing Russian roulette.
I can find sources if you want, but there are studies that show those who get around by bike live longer on average, even in North America. The danger is definitely there, and I agree I’m playing Russian roulette every time I bike around town. However, I am much, much more likely to extend my life by a couple years by being healthier, than get killed in a collision and die significantly earlier.
I don’t think that’s how it works when you’re talking about death rates.
Yes, for the people that survive, they will see an average and statistically significant increase in lifespan. On the other hand, more of them will die as a direct result of their travel mode than for people that primarily drive. (I.e., you’re more likely to die in a bicycle crash–any bicycle crash–than you are in any given car crash.)
There’s no good way to make riding a bicycle ‘safe’, because you can’t surround yourself with crumple zones, restraints, and air bags (although you can get airbags for motorcycles, but weight and breathability is less of a concern on a motorcycle). Helmets are about the best you can do, and compliance rates with helmet guidelines on bicycles are pretty low.
Don’t get me wrong - I fully support bicycles as a way of commuting and most general transportation, and want to see more infrastructure developed towards that end. But we also need to be realistic about the risks.
The comment I was responding to wasn’t talking about death rates.
Infrastructure, my friend, that’s how we make bicycling less dangerous. Riding a bicycle itself isn’t all that dangerous, even without a helmet. What is dangerous, is interacting with cars.
My dude, have you never ridden a bicycle in your life?
Of all of my bike crashes, only two involved a car. One spectacular one involved another cyclist on a fixie–it’s always the fucking shitheads on fixies–running a red light and t-boning me because you can’t fucking stop quickly on a fixie. (Seriously, don’t fucking ride a fixie on public streets or trails, you slack-jawed fucking morons.) My two car incidents were separated by 20-odd years; the first one was in San Diego in the 90s, when a cab cut me off on a steep hill and I tried to put my face through his rear windshield, and the most recent was in Chicago when I got slightly doored (hit my leg, left a huge bruise, but my bike was fine). Otherwise, most of my crashes have involved road conditions, like ice during a sudden winter rainstorm, wet steel plates over construction trenches, or an 8" deep pothole that I couldn’t see because it looked like just another puddle. My ex-wife broke her pelvis when she got hit by another cyclist.
In your previous comment, you were equating “Danger” to “Death Rates.” How often do you hear of a cyclist dying in an incident that doesn’t involve a car?
Yes, accidents and injuries happen. I’ve literally fallen while walking twice in the past week.
And if that was a car, do you think she would have survived?
First: you said, and I quote, “Riding a bicycle itself isn’t all that dangerous, even without a helmet.”. That is blatantly, proveably false, especially when you say that it’s not dangerous even without a helmet. I’ve broken multiple helmet in multiple single-bicycle accidents over the 20-odd years that I was commuting regularly by bicycle; at least one of those would have very likely have been fatal without a helmet.
How many cyclists die outside of interactions with cars? In 2001, 44% of fatal bicycle accidents–377 out of 853–did not involve being hit by, or hitting, a car. So, there ya go. Damn near half of cycling fatalities aren’t involving motor vehicles. (The site mentions them as being bicycle transportation fatalities, which seems to exclude bicycle recreation fatalities, but I can’t guarantee that they aren’t including deaths from mountain biking. Per the same source, helmets appear to reduce the risk of brain trauma by about 60%.)
If she had been in a car, and hit by another car? Yes, I think she would have been fine. Cars have airbags, set belts, and crumple zones. If she’d been hit by a car, while on a bicycle? Can’t say. Statistically? Yes.
You seem to be having trouble with reading comprehension. Maybe you need to read things more thoroughly? I’ll try to provide some clarification.
I didn’t say it’s “not dangerous”, I said it “isn’t all dangerous”, which implies there is some danger.
That’s not what your source says. “Of the 1,230 bicyclist deaths in 2021, 853 died in motor-vehicle crashes and 377 in other incidents,” is what it says, so that 30% that weren’t in a direct motor-vehicle crash. Even then, how many were indirectly caused by motor-vehicles? If a bicycle veers out of the way of a car, that’s counted as an “other incident”. Speed is one of the most dangerous aspects of bicycles and you feel to cycle faster when riding with traffic. Even you previous noted many incidents which are poor infrastructure or maintenance issues.
That’s the point…cars are dangerous to people not in cars.
Even in area not made for bikes, the health benefits outweight the risk of getting killed by a car in the total longevity.
This become false when the road have too much traffic: air pollution damage start to outweight the health benefits of doing sport.
Areas not made for bikes also tend to have a lot of car traffic
In any case, the health benefits of bikes can be easily achieved by other means, so I don’t think it’s worth bringing up.
I upvoted you, because what you are saying is true, but so is the original post. “Dangerous” and “Healthier” are very different. Biking is definitely more dangerous in North America, though I’m not sure about bike friendly places, and would be curious to see statistics from somewhere like the Netherlands. Danger does not consider the benefits of an activity, only the downsides. Health, on the other hand is usually short hand for longevity or lack of health conditions, and on average, even with the danger, people who get around by bike live longer.*
*I can provide sources if someone wants them, I just need to find them again