4 ms·
The potential cost injuries from cycling are far less than the health benefits from it. Cars on the other hand are as dangerous as smoking for its user: https:
by lucioperca 5y ago
The potential cost injuries from cycling are far less than the health benefits from it. Cars on the other hand are as dangerous as smoking for its user:
https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/article/33/2/160/1591440 https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/article/33/2/160/1591440
In this sense an SUV is like smoking lots of cigarettes around others but without inhaling as much.
- nbzso 5y agoPlease stop. Comparing cars to tobacco and using a bike to transport your family or goods. Where is the parallel? It is obvious that we have to change towards reality of EV and optimization of cars. In EU SUV is not predominant form factor (yet), but there are use cases for different people. You cannot paint with this big and bold "everything on bicycles" brush, trucks are America's problem exclusively. The solutions are obvious. Create adequate public transportation grids for the cities and manage all car traffic. People living outside the cities cannot do they work on a bicycle.
- lucioperca 5y agoThe parallel of tobacco and cars is that they both have potential bad health effects to it user. And Lol, car culture with EV just removes the very local emission part for now. All other problems in terms of space, accidents etc. remain. Sure bicycle is only a partial solution. But I only pointed out that using cars is bad for your health while bicycle has a net plus health benefit.
- hytdstd 5y agoYou're right, although vehicle crashes remain the leading cause of death in young adults in the US. I'm just saying that SUVs and trucks externalize their costs onto other road users.