4 ms·

It's important that cities build great biking infrastructure to alleviate this problem. At the same time, this is used by a lot of people as an excuse to not g

by shafyy 6y ago

It's important that cities build great biking infrastructure to alleviate this problem. At the same time, this is used by a lot of people as an excuse to not get a bike. In fact, it's not that dangerous as you make it out to be as is proven by statistics I guess (didn't look them up)

lemming 6y ago
Here are the stats for New Zealand: https://ehinz.ac.nz/indicators/transport/road-traffic-injury-deaths-and-hospitalisations/#motorcyclists-were-at-much-greater-risk-of-injury-or-death-per-time-spent-travelling https://ehinz.ac.nz/indicators/transport/road-traffic-injury... Bikes are definitely far more dangerous than cars. Not as much as motorcycles, but that’s scant comfort.
- shafyy 6y ago
  This is a bit misleading. With bikes, you usually only do a couple of km per day, whereas with your car you probably do 10x that. If you look at the absolute number of deaths, biking is reasonably safe. As I said before, cities can do a lot to make it even safer, such as good bikelanes, better traffic lights for turns, better driver's education and so on.
  - lemming 6y ago
    Not really - most of this subthread is about people replacing their use of a car with a bike. In that case, you have to do the same number of km. They're probably not people who commute 50 km each way, but there aren't that many of those anyway. I also disagree with looking at absolute numbers. Of course bikes look better there because compared to cars, very few people cycle in most places. Relative numbers are the only ones that make sense. Apart from this, I drive and cycle, and it seems obvious to me that cycling is considerably more dangerous. Everyone I know who cycles accepts that it's a case of when, not if, something goes wrong, and the consequences are obviously much worse on a bike.

4 ms·

It's important that cities build great biking infrastructure to alleviate this problem. At the same time, this is used by a lot of people as an excuse to not g

by shafyy 6y ago

lemming 6y ago
Here are the stats for New Zealand: https://ehinz.ac.nz/indicators/transport/road-traffic-injury-deaths-and-hospitalisations/#motorcyclists-were-at-much-greater-risk-of-injury-or-death-per-time-spent-travelling https://ehinz.ac.nz/indicators/transport/road-traffic-injury... Bikes are definitely far more dangerous than cars. Not as much as motorcycles, but that’s scant comfort.
- shafyy 6y ago
  This is a bit misleading. With bikes, you usually only do a couple of km per day, whereas with your car you probably do 10x that. If you look at the absolute number of deaths, biking is reasonably safe. As I said before, cities can do a lot to make it even safer, such as good bikelanes, better traffic lights for turns, better driver's education and so on.
  - lemming 6y ago
    Not really - most of this subthread is about people replacing their use of a car with a bike. In that case, you have to do the same number of km. They're probably not people who commute 50 km each way, but there aren't that many of those anyway. I also disagree with looking at absolute numbers. Of course bikes look better there because compared to cars, very few people cycle in most places. Relative numbers are the only ones that make sense. Apart from this, I drive and cycle, and it seems obvious to me that cycling is considerably more dangerous. Everyone I know who cycles accepts that it's a case of when, not if, something goes wrong, and the consequences are obviously much worse on a bike.