by TheLarch on 8/25/16, 3:21 PM with 69 comments
by Brendinooo on 8/25/16, 4:47 PM
For example, there's a coffee shop I like that's nine miles away. (The closest coffee shop is a little over two miles away, but I really like this place). In order to get there, the best way is to take a four-lane split highway with a speed limit of 55 MPH (~89 km/h). There are signs that say to 'share the road', but let's be honest: I'm safer in the car than on the bike for that route. I've biked that way twice and probably won't do it again without taking a longer, alternate route. A dedicated bike lane or trail would change the impression here dramatically.
Time matters too. A half-hour round-trip becomes almost two hours. If we trust his conclusion, I lose around 5 minutes of life driving while gaining 234 minutes of life - roughly a 4 hour swing. But 1.5 of those 4 hours are already given back to the ride, and I have to trust that I'll be able to cash out the other 2.5 hours in the future, versus 90 minutes that I can have today with a reasonable amount of confidence.
Plus, what is safe? I've been in two car accidents and I can recall three good bike spills. I was unhurt in both car wrecks and I have scars from all three bike crashes.
The cost comparisons aren't useful for people who live in an area that requires car ownership. If you have to own a car, a lot of those per-mile costs are fixed.
Biking certainly can be safer. In a dedicated bike path it's a lot harder to die due to a collision. But I think this article doesn't accept the reality for a lot of areas.
by Sumaso on 8/25/16, 4:01 PM
there is no assumption about amount of extra time it takes to ride the bike. Somehow riding a bike gains you money, when in fact its the cost of driving the car that should increase instead, and the riding of the bike should be some trivial number per mile (cost of bike maintenance). etc...
The argument might be valid but its presentation is just silly.
by ill0gicity on 8/25/16, 3:59 PM
by krupan on 8/25/16, 4:55 PM
In my experience bicycling did the opposite of that for me. I love biking (way more than I like lifting heavy things, incidentally), but it does nothing to teach you how to lift properly, nor does it really even build the right muscles. Learn the hip hinge if you want to lift heavy things without fear of injury.
by crispyambulance on 8/25/16, 4:28 PM
People get skewed impressions about how safe/unsafe cycling is because they imagine worst case scenarios for cyclists. To be clear the worst-case outcomes for cycling accidents are truly awful and very fatal... getting right-hooked and run over by a garbage truck, getting hit from behind or T-boned by a car travelling at highway speed.
But fatal bike accidents are exceedingly rare. The vast majority of typical bad bike accident outcomes however are little more than road-rash, a broken collarbone or a concussion and frequently these are the fault of the cyclist. A "totaled" bike amounts to something less than the deductible cost of auto-insurance in most cases.
Fatal car accidents are ALSO rare but fender benders (IMHO) have been getting MORE common as a result of mobile phones. Sadly a "fender-bender" can do massive financial damage--- $500 for each popped airbag + $1000++ whatever auto-body damage was incurred. Of course "fender benders" easily extend into "totaled car" when enough damage is done, even if everyone is unscathed.
by intopieces on 8/25/16, 6:01 PM
by mikeash on 8/25/16, 4:27 PM
The trouble with that idea is that if you really want to minimize risk, you should drive for your transportation, and get your exercise from something safer than cycling.
Not that I see the risk of cycling as unacceptable. But if someone is going to argue that cycling is a net gain, the argument had better work!
by foxyv on 8/25/16, 4:59 PM
His argument that the risks of cycling are exaggerated does hold some water. People are pretty bad at assessing risk.
by randomgyatwork on 8/25/16, 4:43 PM
I know this is personal experience, and not representative of everyone, but one accident on a bike costs a tun.
by Bartweiss on 8/25/16, 4:20 PM
- The per-hour evaluation is obviously bad. Per-mile numbers are present and more sane, but a vague handwave at 'unnecessary driving' is used to justify focusing on the prettier, less sensible number.
- Driving at 70 MPH versus biking at 12 MPH is a ludicrous point of comparison. If you're traveling at 70 MPH, you're almost certainly driving somewhere that you couldn't realistically bike. Driving 4 hours to a family gathering is reasonable in a way that biking 20 hours on the highway is not.
- The risk numbers are only appealing because of this absurd conflation. Americans get killed in cars because of drunk/distracted/sleepy drivers, and because highway speeds are life-threatening. At city-commuter speeds, a driver can likely survive a head-on with a bus.
- The bicycling numbers are similarly absurd. The audience for this piece, and the group most likely to cycle for their commute, is an audience living in dense cities. Boston and San Francisco are far, far more dangerous cycling locations than residential, sidewalk biking included in these values.
- The cherrypicking here is fundamentally dishonest. This is a 2013 piece that uses 2010 bicycling risk numbers. Why? Because 2010 was the safest year for bicyclists in two decades.
I could go on, but suffice to say that "that’s the worst case" is simply a lie. It is far better than the best case, because these are complete incomparables.
by cameldrv on 8/25/16, 8:18 PM
by SCAQTony on 8/25/16, 4:40 PM