5 ms·

I'd definitely consider cycling for work if I wasn't certain that doing so on a daily basis would get me run over before retirement. I'd also consider walking

I'd definitely consider cycling for work if I wasn't certain that doing so on a daily basis would get me run over before retirement. I'd also consider walking to work if doing so didn't mean walking next to noisy, polluted high-traffic roads most of the time. This could be addressed e.g. by cities progressively forcing a transition to electric cars (e.g. by switching parking spots to electric-only).

notauser 7y ago
There have been quite a few studies with conclusions like this: "On average, the estimated health benefits of cycling were substantially larger than the risks relative to car driving for individuals shifting their mode of transport." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920084/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920084/ Cycling could be made better, but, it is already safer than getting fat in your car.
- conanbatt 7y ago
  I'd bet that that doesn't hold true in SF. Cycling on Market street turned me in to a Veteran with PTSD.
  - notauser 7y ago
    Thankfully the people of SF have voted for some change for the better. https://sfbike.org/market-street-2020/ https://sfbike.org/market-street-2020/ It isn't perfect, but, keep hopefully people will keep voting for improvements.
  - avianlyric 7y ago
    I remember reading a study that looked at life expectancy of cycling vs driving, which I unfortunately can’t find right now, in many cities around the world. The TL;DR in almost all cities you’ll live longer cycling (even considering extra exposure to pollution and road accidents) than driving. Except in a very small handful of city, none of which were in the US. So cycling in SF is probably better for you than driving. But that doesn’t mean it’s gonna be a pleasant experience. (I mean getting injections isn’t fun, but vaccines are definitely good for you).
    - scottlocklin 7y ago
      I'd be surprised if those studies modeled the survivor bias. For example; this link was a standard reference: http://www.phred.org/~alex/kenkifer/www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm http://www.phred.org/~alex/kenkifer/www.kenkifer.com/bikepag... The author of it died in a bike crash.
      - avianlyric 7y ago
        The studies looked at predicted life expectancy when you consider the various health benefits of cycling vs increased severity of road accidents and expose to pollution. They don’t need to model for survivor bias, they weren’t tracking individuals, but deriving specific population stats from larger general populations stats. > The author of it died in a bike crash. I’m not sure what your point is? People die that’s not a surprise, the fact the author died in a bike crash doesn’t invalidate their work. Doctors die of smoking, some scientists studying nutrition are fat. None of that changes the validity of their work.
  - watwut 7y ago
    When I cycle, I dont use same roads as when I go by car. I search for smaller streets parallel to main street etc. Typically they are available.
- paulgb 7y ago
  It's worth noting that that study came to that conclusion for the Netherlands, which is one of the most bike-friendly countries in the world.
- Broken_Hippo 7y ago
  Sitting in your car getting fat isn't scary, though. Not in the same way. If you fear cars hitting you while cycling, that is scary. And it is that last one that humans are more likely to pay attention to. If we are serious about folks walking and cycling, we'd - as a society, both in one's country and not - fix the issues surrounding it.
- radicalbyte 7y ago
  I grew up in the UK (0-25) and now live in The Netherlands (26-39). There's no way that you can compare the two countries. Car drivers in the UK are entitled t*ts who think that they own the road. In the UK the total costs of driving a large car premium car (Mercedes, BMW, Volvo) are lower than the costs of driving a small city car in The Netherlands (Kia Picanto, Renault Clio, VW Up) so you see a lot more SUVs on the road there. Further the infrastructure for cycling in the UK is poor. I cycled a lot in the UK but never felt safe doing so. The Netherlands, although far from perfect, is heaven in comparison. I really hope that they learn from the things the Dutch have done right (having significant infrastructure) and from the things they do wrong (inconsistent right-of-way for cyclists are standard crossings - the cyclist/pedestrians should always have priority).
  - eitland 7y ago
    Here in Norway it is the cyclists that are entitled. I often use bike myself, even prefer it, but there's a huge difference between using a bike and being one of those people who'll cross into the road right ahead of you and then ride slowly (happened yesterday) or insisting on riding in the middle of the road uphill, even when there was a wide sidewalk next to the road (also happened yesterday).
    - detaro 7y ago
      Is biking on the sidewalk allowed in Norway? Hear arguments like that here too, and am always surprised how cyclists are somehow "entitled" for following the law.
      - eitland 7y ago
        Absolutely, as long as you are careful and there isn't any sign or other markings put up to tell you otherwise. Walk and bike path (gang og sykkelsti) we often call them. One major disadvantage though if you are biking fast is that everytime you have to cross the road you have to yield or walk as cars (technically) don't have to yield for bikes[0]. That's the reason I pointed out that bike was going uphill, slowly. I get it that when someone is traveling at 30-40 km/t they shouldn't have to stop every 50m. [0]: Although of course that does not mean you will get away with it. A good friend of mine was more or less run into by a bike crossing. He had right-of-way but police still fined him something along the lines of 6000NOK.
- ashtonkem 7y ago
  Sadly, that’s not how most people measure risk. Even if the risk of slowly dying due to obesity is technically higher than being run over by a car, people are going to weight the low frequency, high impact scary events more. In many ways this is like the discussion about road trips vs. the risk of terrorist attacks when flying. Statistically you’re far more likely to die on the highway, but terrorism is very scary, which after 9/11 caused tons of people to revert to road trips.
  - daveFNbuck 7y ago
    9/11 changed the risk of dying in a terrorist attack when flying, and no one knew what the change was at the time.
  - pasabagi 7y ago
    That said, a lot of the damage done by cars is quality-of-life, not direct physical harm. It really sucks to have to leap off your bike, or even just feeling under pressure from somebody in a car who you have to share road with. Cycling on a dedicated path is relaxing and enjoyable. Cycling in the grit and spray of a bunch of cars, any of which may be driven by somebody on their phone or half-asleep, is no fun at all.
- watwut 7y ago
  I think that bicycle safely campaigns (like the ones for helmets) greatly exaggerated risks of cycling. Which means that the more people are afraid, the less they cycle and the more they see accidents as being the fault someone being too reckless just for driving bike.
flyGuyOnTheSly 7y ago
I was just talking about this exact same thing with a friend last night. We were passing a cement truck at an intersection near my house, when she said "be careful, this corner is dangerous". When I inquired as to what she meant, she explained that an acquaintance of hers was mowed down by a cement truck a few years earlier while riding his bike. The truck didn't see him. We really do need to separate car and bike traffic. It is accepted that pedestrians cannot intermingle with cars on the road, which is why we have sidewalks. Why is it so common to have a 50 pound bicycle compete for road space with aggressively driven 5,000 pound vehicles?
- alrs 7y ago
  Building a bicycle infrastructure parallel and separate from the existing transportation infrastructure is absolutely infeasible. This boils down to "bicycles should not be allowed on the road." If that's your argument, make it.
  - avianlyric 7y ago
    > Building a bicycle infrastructure parallel and separate from the existing transportation infrastructure is absolutely infeasible. This just isn’t true, and countries like the Netherlands demonstrate that. And it doesn’t boil down to “bicycles should not be allowed on the road”. I think the argument GP is making is “car shouldn’t be allowed in the same spaces as bikes”. Just like we don’t allow cars on pavements.
    - alrs 7y ago
      The Netherlands does not have a 1:1 parallel infrastructure that completely separates bicycles from cars. If a car isn't allowed where a bicycle is, then a bicycle isn't allowed on the road.
      - avianlyric 7y ago
        > If a car isn't allowed where a bicycle is, then a bicycle isn't allowed on the road. This again is not a given. Cars aren’t allowed where pedestrians reside. But (in the EU a least) pedestrians are allowed on roads, and have priority. You should stop considering these relationships as purely exclusive, and consider them as a hierarchy. Pedestrians -> Bike -> Car. Each can use the space of the lower mode of transport but not the higher. In many European countries this also dictates default liability in accidents. The reason for this is quite simple, pedestrians are more exposed than cyclists, cyclists are more exposed than drivers. So each class of transport should yield to more vulnerable forms of transport. Rather than attempting to claim that one form of superior to another, we should be aiming to build systems that encourage the cheapest and most efficient forms or transport first, and then find ways to allow more expensive and less efficient forms of transport to co-exist with them.
pwrdbytmr 7y ago
How privileged can one be?
- whitebread 7y ago
  Not wanting to die is privileged? I walked to work pre-coronavirus, and had been nearly run over on 3 separate occasions. Jumping out of the way, hands on the hood level nearly. Yes, the walk sign was on. I was constantly breathing in pollution from construction and old vehicles/diesel/huge trucks. I live in a major metropolitan city in the southern usa. It was not a pleasant experience.
  - pwrdbytmr 7y ago
    I may be coming off as too direct. But I feel you are coming off too dramatic. Either you are not aware of your surroundings or you’re trusting others too much for your own well being due to the egocentric Identity instilled in modern society. “Walking” and “biking” are basic traits you should be able to manage on your own. If there’s variables elsewhere affecting such actions. You’re not being proactive enough. There’s no excuse with multiple countries in the world having less resources and facilities to manage lifestyles whom go through much worse to make ends meet. Please. All it take is to cross the street for most in the states for instance. Edit: before we prioritize biking and walking to work. We should prioritize efficiently getting the long distance workforce into hubs with less pollution and min cost.
    - whitebread 7y ago
      Your assumptions are ugly. There is no possible way for me to know an Audi 6 cylinder (relevant because quiet and fast) is going to come flying around a blind corner when there are huge red stop lights all around it. The only reason I didn't die was because I always am watching the street for cars that aren't paying attention. Stop comparing to other countries. The usa (especially the south) actively legislates to keep car as king. All of those resources you speak of don't go towards this country's public transportation or self transportation options. Bike lanes are a joke in most big cities. I've watched cars actively try to mess with bikers, run them off the road and such. I won't try to guess their motives. You are naive.
Angostura 7y ago
I've been cycling into central London for about 20 years now. During that time, community every day I've day 4 accidents. 1 x pedestrian walking off the pavement and into me without looking 2x objects in the road that I hit 1 x Car cutting me up turning left. As long as you keep your wits about you, I really don't think its that dangerous. However when you start out it can feel very very dangerous. I would suggest aclimatising yourself with regular short rides.

notauser 7y ago

There have been quite a few studies with conclusions like this: "On average, the estimated health benefits of cycling were substantially larger than the risks relative to car driving for individuals shifting their mode of transport." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920084/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920084/ Cycling could be made better, but, it is already safer than getting fat in your car.

conanbatt 7y ago
I'd bet that that doesn't hold true in SF. Cycling on Market street turned me in to a Veteran with PTSD.
- notauser 7y ago
  Thankfully the people of SF have voted for some change for the better. https://sfbike.org/market-street-2020/ https://sfbike.org/market-street-2020/ It isn't perfect, but, keep hopefully people will keep voting for improvements.
- avianlyric 7y ago
  I remember reading a study that looked at life expectancy of cycling vs driving, which I unfortunately can’t find right now, in many cities around the world. The TL;DR in almost all cities you’ll live longer cycling (even considering extra exposure to pollution and road accidents) than driving. Except in a very small handful of city, none of which were in the US. So cycling in SF is probably better for you than driving. But that doesn’t mean it’s gonna be a pleasant experience. (I mean getting injections isn’t fun, but vaccines are definitely good for you).
  - scottlocklin 7y ago
    I'd be surprised if those studies modeled the survivor bias. For example; this link was a standard reference: http://www.phred.org/~alex/kenkifer/www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm http://www.phred.org/~alex/kenkifer/www.kenkifer.com/bikepag... The author of it died in a bike crash.
    - avianlyric 7y ago
      The studies looked at predicted life expectancy when you consider the various health benefits of cycling vs increased severity of road accidents and expose to pollution. They don’t need to model for survivor bias, they weren’t tracking individuals, but deriving specific population stats from larger general populations stats. > The author of it died in a bike crash. I’m not sure what your point is? People die that’s not a surprise, the fact the author died in a bike crash doesn’t invalidate their work. Doctors die of smoking, some scientists studying nutrition are fat. None of that changes the validity of their work.
- watwut 7y ago
  When I cycle, I dont use same roads as when I go by car. I search for smaller streets parallel to main street etc. Typically they are available.
paulgb 7y ago
It's worth noting that that study came to that conclusion for the Netherlands, which is one of the most bike-friendly countries in the world.
Broken_Hippo 7y ago
Sitting in your car getting fat isn't scary, though. Not in the same way. If you fear cars hitting you while cycling, that is scary. And it is that last one that humans are more likely to pay attention to. If we are serious about folks walking and cycling, we'd - as a society, both in one's country and not - fix the issues surrounding it.
radicalbyte 7y ago
I grew up in the UK (0-25) and now live in The Netherlands (26-39). There's no way that you can compare the two countries. Car drivers in the UK are entitled t*ts who think that they own the road. In the UK the total costs of driving a large car premium car (Mercedes, BMW, Volvo) are lower than the costs of driving a small city car in The Netherlands (Kia Picanto, Renault Clio, VW Up) so you see a lot more SUVs on the road there. Further the infrastructure for cycling in the UK is poor. I cycled a lot in the UK but never felt safe doing so. The Netherlands, although far from perfect, is heaven in comparison. I really hope that they learn from the things the Dutch have done right (having significant infrastructure) and from the things they do wrong (inconsistent right-of-way for cyclists are standard crossings - the cyclist/pedestrians should always have priority).
- eitland 7y ago
  Here in Norway it is the cyclists that are entitled. I often use bike myself, even prefer it, but there's a huge difference between using a bike and being one of those people who'll cross into the road right ahead of you and then ride slowly (happened yesterday) or insisting on riding in the middle of the road uphill, even when there was a wide sidewalk next to the road (also happened yesterday).
  - detaro 7y ago
    Is biking on the sidewalk allowed in Norway? Hear arguments like that here too, and am always surprised how cyclists are somehow "entitled" for following the law.
    - eitland 7y ago
      Absolutely, as long as you are careful and there isn't any sign or other markings put up to tell you otherwise. Walk and bike path (gang og sykkelsti) we often call them. One major disadvantage though if you are biking fast is that everytime you have to cross the road you have to yield or walk as cars (technically) don't have to yield for bikes[0]. That's the reason I pointed out that bike was going uphill, slowly. I get it that when someone is traveling at 30-40 km/t they shouldn't have to stop every 50m. [0]: Although of course that does not mean you will get away with it. A good friend of mine was more or less run into by a bike crossing. He had right-of-way but police still fined him something along the lines of 6000NOK.
ashtonkem 7y ago
Sadly, that’s not how most people measure risk. Even if the risk of slowly dying due to obesity is technically higher than being run over by a car, people are going to weight the low frequency, high impact scary events more. In many ways this is like the discussion about road trips vs. the risk of terrorist attacks when flying. Statistically you’re far more likely to die on the highway, but terrorism is very scary, which after 9/11 caused tons of people to revert to road trips.
- daveFNbuck 7y ago
  9/11 changed the risk of dying in a terrorist attack when flying, and no one knew what the change was at the time.
- pasabagi 7y ago
  That said, a lot of the damage done by cars is quality-of-life, not direct physical harm. It really sucks to have to leap off your bike, or even just feeling under pressure from somebody in a car who you have to share road with. Cycling on a dedicated path is relaxing and enjoyable. Cycling in the grit and spray of a bunch of cars, any of which may be driven by somebody on their phone or half-asleep, is no fun at all.
watwut 7y ago
I think that bicycle safely campaigns (like the ones for helmets) greatly exaggerated risks of cycling. Which means that the more people are afraid, the less they cycle and the more they see accidents as being the fault someone being too reckless just for driving bike.

flyGuyOnTheSly 7y ago

I was just talking about this exact same thing with a friend last night. We were passing a cement truck at an intersection near my house, when she said "be careful, this corner is dangerous". When I inquired as to what she meant, she explained that an acquaintance of hers was mowed down by a cement truck a few years earlier while riding his bike. The truck didn't see him. We really do need to separate car and bike traffic. It is accepted that pedestrians cannot intermingle with cars on the road, which is why we have sidewalks. Why is it so common to have a 50 pound bicycle compete for road space with aggressively driven 5,000 pound vehicles?

alrs 7y ago
Building a bicycle infrastructure parallel and separate from the existing transportation infrastructure is absolutely infeasible. This boils down to "bicycles should not be allowed on the road." If that's your argument, make it.
- avianlyric 7y ago
  > Building a bicycle infrastructure parallel and separate from the existing transportation infrastructure is absolutely infeasible. This just isn’t true, and countries like the Netherlands demonstrate that. And it doesn’t boil down to “bicycles should not be allowed on the road”. I think the argument GP is making is “car shouldn’t be allowed in the same spaces as bikes”. Just like we don’t allow cars on pavements.
  - alrs 7y ago
    The Netherlands does not have a 1:1 parallel infrastructure that completely separates bicycles from cars. If a car isn't allowed where a bicycle is, then a bicycle isn't allowed on the road.
    - avianlyric 7y ago
      > If a car isn't allowed where a bicycle is, then a bicycle isn't allowed on the road. This again is not a given. Cars aren’t allowed where pedestrians reside. But (in the EU a least) pedestrians are allowed on roads, and have priority. You should stop considering these relationships as purely exclusive, and consider them as a hierarchy. Pedestrians -> Bike -> Car. Each can use the space of the lower mode of transport but not the higher. In many European countries this also dictates default liability in accidents. The reason for this is quite simple, pedestrians are more exposed than cyclists, cyclists are more exposed than drivers. So each class of transport should yield to more vulnerable forms of transport. Rather than attempting to claim that one form of superior to another, we should be aiming to build systems that encourage the cheapest and most efficient forms or transport first, and then find ways to allow more expensive and less efficient forms of transport to co-exist with them.

pwrdbytmr 7y ago

How privileged can one be?

whitebread 7y ago
Not wanting to die is privileged? I walked to work pre-coronavirus, and had been nearly run over on 3 separate occasions. Jumping out of the way, hands on the hood level nearly. Yes, the walk sign was on. I was constantly breathing in pollution from construction and old vehicles/diesel/huge trucks. I live in a major metropolitan city in the southern usa. It was not a pleasant experience.
- pwrdbytmr 7y ago
  I may be coming off as too direct. But I feel you are coming off too dramatic. Either you are not aware of your surroundings or you’re trusting others too much for your own well being due to the egocentric Identity instilled in modern society. “Walking” and “biking” are basic traits you should be able to manage on your own. If there’s variables elsewhere affecting such actions. You’re not being proactive enough. There’s no excuse with multiple countries in the world having less resources and facilities to manage lifestyles whom go through much worse to make ends meet. Please. All it take is to cross the street for most in the states for instance. Edit: before we prioritize biking and walking to work. We should prioritize efficiently getting the long distance workforce into hubs with less pollution and min cost.
  - whitebread 7y ago
    Your assumptions are ugly. There is no possible way for me to know an Audi 6 cylinder (relevant because quiet and fast) is going to come flying around a blind corner when there are huge red stop lights all around it. The only reason I didn't die was because I always am watching the street for cars that aren't paying attention. Stop comparing to other countries. The usa (especially the south) actively legislates to keep car as king. All of those resources you speak of don't go towards this country's public transportation or self transportation options. Bike lanes are a joke in most big cities. I've watched cars actively try to mess with bikers, run them off the road and such. I won't try to guess their motives. You are naive.

Angostura 7y ago

I've been cycling into central London for about 20 years now. During that time, community every day I've day 4 accidents. 1 x pedestrian walking off the pavement and into me without looking 2x objects in the road that I hit 1 x Car cutting me up turning left. As long as you keep your wits about you, I really don't think its that dangerous. However when you start out it can feel very very dangerous. I would suggest aclimatising yourself with regular short rides.