I'm pro-biking, but if you live in areas that aren't friendly to bikers, I don't think these comparisons are as apt. For example, there's a coffee shop I like

I'm pro-biking, but if you live in areas that aren't friendly to bikers, I don't think these comparisons are as apt. 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.