Advocacy & Safety - Wired Magazine analysis on bike safety

In order to manage spousal fears on the dangers of cycling, I had been looking for an actuarial analysis of both sides of this issue (dangers vs health benefits).

I finally found it in Wired magazine a couple months back. They projected fatality likelihood, how it statistically shortens lives in bicycle riders as compared to car drivers/passengers. Then, they looked at the life elongating effects of the exercise of bicycling.

They're results? All things being equal, bicycling slightly improves longevity. When one factors in helmet use and controlling for safer cycling routes, the benefits of cycling far outweigh the dangers from an actuarial viewpoint.

I showed this study to my wife, to which she retorted, "Oh you think some little study is a match for my worrying power? Think again!"

Your mileage may vary.

Why does bicycling appear so tenuous in North Carolina?

Riders there are primarily recreational, and group up for safety.

link?

You just make me all the more glad to be single; guess I'll live even longer without anyone trying to beat me over the head with their groundless worries!

In order to manage spousal fears on the dangers of cycling, I had been looking for an actuarial analysis of both sides of this issue (dangers vs health benefits).

I finally found it in Wired magazine a couple months back. They projected fatality likelihood, how it statistically shortens lives in bicycle riders as compared to car drivers/passengers. Then, they looked at the life elongating effects of the exercise of bicycling.

They're results? All things being equal, bicycling slightly improves longevity. When one factors in helmet use and controlling for safer cycling routes, the benefits of cycling far outweigh the dangers from an actuarial viewpoint.

I showed this study to my wife, to which she retorted, "Oh you think some little study is a match for my worrying power? Think again!"

Your mileage may vary.

Hmmm....If you accurately quoted your wife, she sounds pro-car to me, like walking to the corner store to get a few groceries, or biking to get the mail is beneath her. She is an OPEC jewel.

I am not trying to be insulting towards your wife. It is just that, she sounds exactly like one of my relatives who didn't want me biking or biking very far. I told that relative that I will not be pidgeon-holed as to their biking worries. It doesn't mean that I am not capable of judging where I can(and cannot) bike.

They just have to accept that I make that judgment call and their worries will not dictate where I ride.

My fiance doesn't even worry about my biking, to the amount that my other relative does.

Why does bicycling appear so tenuous in North Carolina?

Riders there are primarily recreational, and group up for safety.

I am not sure I understand your meaning. Please enlighten?

And how do you define "recreational". If it is doing stuff for fun, then are most cyclists in the US "primarily recreational"? I derive a great deal of pleasure out of my daily commute, and would say that would make me a recreational rider then. Perhaps you mean "avocational", i.e. not doing it for money. But then why do the "vocational" (i.e. professional) cyclists group up? Oh, that's right - because then they go faster. But wait, when I group up with other riders, I go faster too, but then I feel a bit less safe due to the threat of wheel overlap. I have heard that this grouping up affect occurs in locations other than North Carolina, though.

What does it all mean?

-G

PS: Todzilla, I have had a heck of a lot more close calls as a pedestrian than a cyclist. Show your wife some stats on dangers of walking.

Why does bicycling appear so tenuous in North Carolina?

Riders there are primarily recreational, and group up for safety.

I wouldn't characterize bicycling as "tenuous" in North Carolina. To the contrary, my neck of the tarheel state is very cycle friendly. My bike commute is nicely coincidental with a state bike route and 95% of motorists are very respectful.

Hmmm....If you accurately quoted your wife, she sounds pro-car to me, like walking to the corner store to get a few groceries, or biking to get the mail is beneath her. She is an OPEC jewel.

I am not trying to be insulting towards your wife. It is just that, she sounds exactly like one of my relatives who didn't want me biking or biking very far. I told that relative that I will not be pidgeon-holed as to their biking worries. It doesn't mean that I am not capable of judging where I can(and cannot) bike.

They just have to accept that I make that judgment call and their worries will not dictate where I ride.

My fiance doesn't even worry about my biking, to the amount that my other relative does.

To her credit, she understands there's a strong component of irrationality to her worrying. She probably secretly fears I'll get paralyzed and she'll have to change the Depends. Alternatively, if I die of an obesity related heart condition while watching "So You Think You Can Dance" there's less messy work ahead.

But then why do the "vocational" (i.e. professional) cyclists group up? Oh, that's right - because then they go faster. But wait, when I group up with other riders, I go faster too, but then I feel a bit less safe due to the threat of wheel overlap.

You could do wheel overlap drills, preferably in tennis shoes on grass and dirt. See this thread: Wheel Bumping "Drills??" Good or Bad idea, who has tried it? (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=748801)

I don't think it's horribly irrational. Most of us will live through our cycling careers without a major accident, but it does seem that the population of people that put in a lot of miles has a higher incidence of serious accidents than I feel comfortable with. And many of these victims are safe riders that get into situations that is beyond their control. That being said, we tend to discount the incidence of car accidents in this sort of risk calculation. I think the closest I've gotten to a fatal accident due to my cycling activities was during the drive home.

I wouldn't usually think of Wired for actuarial analysis.

Peer-reviewed health research suggests the advantage is hugely in favor of cycling benefits vs. accident risk. (Some studies come a bit higher, some lower, but I'm not aware of any that have put it anywhere close to breakeven.) And that advantage holds in countries with very low helmet use.

Cycling to work reduces the risk of premature death by 40%. (Copenhagen Heart Study, Andersen et al., 2000)

Cyclists who cover at least 25 miles each week can halve their risk of heart disease (Morris et.al., 1990)

Cycling increases bone density, which offsets osteoporosis. (Hillman, 1992; Cavill and Davis, 2003)

Cycling improves psychological and mental wellbeing and self-esteem as well as reducing the risk of stress, depression and anxiety (Pearce et al.. 1998; Shayler et al., 1993; Cavill and Davis, 2003)


Life years gained by cycling outweigh life years lost in accidents by 20 to 1 (Baden et al., 1998)

I like road riding and am willing to accept the risks, but I'll just mention the obvious. It's exercise that provides benefits, not bicycles. You can get the benefits of exercise doing something less dangerous than road riding.

I like road riding and am willing to accept the risks, but I'll just mention the obvious. It's exercise that provides benefits, not bicycles. You can get the benefits of exercise doing something less dangerous than road riding.

That's maybe 70 to 80 % true.

Cycling improves psychological and mental wellbeing and self-esteem as well as reducing the risk of stress, depression and anxiety (Pearce et al.. 1998; Shayler et al., 1993; Cavill and Davis, 2003)Riding a bike on a trainer in your living room, for many people at least, won't have the same benefits in terms of reduction of stress, depression, and anxiety. It's true that any exercise will be beneficial in these terms, but cycling provides things like fresh air, sunshine, and a more intimate connection with the communities you ride through (regularly) that isn't matched by lifting weights at the gym.

link?

is this the article?

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/09/st_kia_bike/


According to a 2006 study by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, there were just 0.07 fatalities per every million miles traveled by the state’s bicyclists, versus 0.02 fatalities for every million miles logged by cars. Also, the fitness-boosting benefits of cycling may outweigh the risks: A 2010 Dutch study concluded that people who switch from driving to cycling for short trips actually increase their average life expectancy by up to 14 months.

There's all kinds of info out there.

Dave Moulton wrote a blog on this too

http://davesbikeblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/cyclists-live-longer.html


When comparing the fatality risk by miles traveled, every one million miles cycled, (1.6 Million Kilometers.) produces 0.039 cyclist fatalities, compared to 0.016 fatalities for motorists...
However, this statistic is flawed to the point that it can be ignored, for the simple reason it would take a cyclist riding slightly under 385 miles per week, 50 years to ride one million miles..

.For every million hours spent cycling the fatality rate is 0.26, compared to 0.47 deaths per million driving hours. Therefore, driving a motor vehicle has nearly twice the risk of fatality as riding a bike for a given duration...

Statistics confirm that you can also reduce your risk of an accident if you don’t do the following: Don’t ride on the sidewalk and suddenly appear in front of motorists at intersections, especially if you are going the wrong way...

To her credit, she understands there's a strong component of irrationality to her worrying. She probably secretly fears I'll get paralyzed and she'll have to change the Depends. Alternatively, if I die of an obesity related heart condition while watching "So You Think You Can Dance" there's less messy work ahead.

At least she knows that her worrying has an element of irrationality to it.

This might sound mean to say to her, but with her irrational worry, I wouldn't be surprised if she would suddenly say something like 'I don't want you to end up being a story on the Spike TV cable channel's show '1000 Ways To Die'.

You just make me all the more glad to be single; guess I'll live even longer without anyone trying to beat me over the head with their groundless worries!

Ditto.

My wife has her concerns, but she no longer voices them since I keep coming home without incident. Now on the other hand, someone really needs to have word with my employer.

You could "Ride Defensively" and yield to cars and trucks, instead of trying to argue that you have the "Right of Way" , could you not?

Why does bicycling appear so tenuous in North Carolina?

Riders there are primarily recreational, and group up for safety.


I am not sure I understand your meaning. Please enlighten?
Just more of Bek's Troll **** directed towards sggoodri's cycling advacacy in NC.

In order to manage spousal fears on the dangers of cycling, I had been looking for an actuarial analysis of both sides of this issue (dangers vs health benefits).You did it all wrong. See, I did sky diving before cycle commuting. My wife does not say a thing about cycling being dangerous.

Here in Australia our natural environment is so full of lethal flora and fauna that my wife is actually relieved of her worry when I decide to go play in traffic on my bike instead of fishing, hiking, camping, ect. as I often do with my friends.

Last summer we had a great white shark come up and harass us on our kayaks, I'm so glad I wasn't out there alone that time. Another time my buddy had a big chunk of his kayak torn off by a bull shark well inside Sydney harbor, fortunately he managed to climb up the navigation marker before the shark turned its attention from his 'yak to him. We were back in the water the following weekend eager to try out his brand new 'yak. I had a great run last summer, I only had one redback (black widow) spider bite all summer. I came very close to getting bit by a nasty old brown snake, although admittedly I was in the process of catching it for dinner so you can't really blame the snake for that one.

I try to reassure my wife by reminding her that there's virtually no chance of running into saltwater crocs where we fish. :D

is this the article?

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/09/st_kia_bike/



There's all kinds of info out there.

Dave Moulton wrote a blog on this too

http://davesbikeblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/cyclists-live-longer.html

I agree with the general conclusion, but Moulton is repeating some completely groundless numbers there.

Dave Moulton wrote a blog on this too

http://davesbikeblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/cyclists-live-longer.html

When comparing the fatality risk by miles traveled, every one million miles cycled, (1.6 Million Kilometers.) produces 0.039 cyclist fatalities, compared to 0.016 fatalities for motorists...
However, this statistic is flawed to the point that it can be ignored, for the simple reason it would take a cyclist riding slightly under 385 miles per week, 50 years to ride one million miles..Wow. That is some really impressive logic (proof by handwaving? (http://everything2.com/title/Proof+by+handwaving)) that Dave has used there!

Using his reasoning, since it would also take a motorist riding slightly under 385 miles per week (a figure that I think is a a bit higher than the average motorist actually drives in the US, but it's really close -- so perhaps he's found the actual figure?) 50 years to ride one million miles, then we can ignore all the people who die while traveling in cars too?

I'm sure it is even more dangerous for pedestrians under those conditions dougmc.

Maybe your wife thinks you're a garbage cyclist and can't tell you.

I agree with the general conclusion, but Moulton is repeating some completely groundless numbers there.

Me too. I find behavior is the more reliable indicator but in general, the guideline of numbers can place the issue in some form of context.

I'm sure those numbers would be far different if most bike riders didn't pay attention, rode through intersections without thinking, and weren't lit in the dark. If we got rid of all those who do that, the numbers would look a whole lot better than they already do.

I think I worry more about my wife when she's on her bicycle than she worries about me. Fortunately, the worry is never enough to keep either of us off of our bicycles.

I'm sure those numbers would be far different if most bike riders didn't pay attention, rode through intersections without thinking, and weren't lit in the dark. If we got rid of all those who do that, the numbers would look a whole lot better than they already do.

Our locale is not going to be of much help in improving the stats, with two cyclists being killed in the past few weeks.

I like road riding and am willing to accept the risks, but I'll just mention the obvious. It's exercise that provides benefits, not bicycles. You can get the benefits of exercise doing something less dangerous than road riding.

Actually, not so. Several of these studies controlled for other exercise activities, and the results for bicycle commuting held up, a significant reduction in all-cause mortality compared to people who got their exercise elsewhere. For example,

"During 433,000 person-years of observation, 2738 women and 4672 men died. Physical inactivity during leisure time predicted mortality in both men and women in all age groups. In women and men, the most physically active in leisure time experienced only half the mortality of the sedentary. Even in the moderately and highly active persons, sports participants experienced only half the mortality of non-participants. Physical activity at work predicted mortality in women only. The men and women who rode a bicycle to work had a 39% lower risk of mortality after multivariate adjustment including leisure time physical activity."

--"Mortality associated with physical activity in leisure time, at work, in sports and cycling to work," Andersen, Schnor, Scroll, & Hein, 2002

You could "Ride Defensively" and yield to cars and trucks, instead of trying to argue that you have the "Right of Way" , could you not?

Why would increasing his risk of being hit reduce his wife's worries?

I wouldn't usually think of Wired for actuarial analysis.

Peer-reviewed health research suggests the advantage is hugely in favor of cycling benefits vs. accident risk. (Some studies come a bit higher, some lower, but I'm not aware of any that have put it anywhere close to breakeven.) And that advantage holds in countries with very low helmet use.

Cycling to work reduces the risk of premature death by 40%. (Copenhagen Heart Study, Andersen et al., 2000)

Cyclists who cover at least 25 miles each week can halve their risk of heart disease (Morris et.al., 1990)

Cycling increases bone density, which offsets osteoporosis. (Hillman, 1992; Cavill and Davis, 2003)

Cycling improves psychological and mental wellbeing and self-esteem as well as reducing the risk of stress, depression and anxiety (Pearce et al.. 1998; Shayler et al., 1993; Cavill and Davis, 2003)


Life years gained by cycling outweigh life years lost in accidents by 20 to 1 (Baden et al., 1998)

While all of this is true the main reason I cycle-commute to work is because it's fun. Within the framework of that fun is an element of risk, a sprinkle of anti-social existentialism, a core of non-conformist antidisestablishmentarianism and a practice of zen. Coupled of course with reaching an endorphic state each ride allows me to have legal intoxication while paying no penalty under law. Unless I run someone over as a result of being blissed out there's nothing 'the man' can do about it. Except try to pass laws restricting where I can pursue one of the major joys in my life.

"Get a bicycle. You will not regret it...if you live." - Mark Twain

"Bicycles are almost as good as guitars for meeting girls - Bob Weir

"I ride my bicycle to work and back home because it allows me to feel smug and superior." - Nashcommguy

Here in Australia our natural environment is so full of lethal flora and fauna that my wife is actually relieved of her worry when I decide to go play in traffic on my bike instead of fishing, hiking, camping, ect. as I often do with my friends.

Last summer we had a great white shark come up and harass us on our kayaks, I'm so glad I wasn't out there alone that time. Another time my buddy had a big chunk of his kayak torn off by a bull shark well inside Sydney harbor, fortunately he managed to climb up the navigation marker before the shark turned its attention from his 'yak to him. We were back in the water the following weekend eager to try out his brand new 'yak. I had a great run last summer, I only had one redback (black widow) spider bite all summer. I came very close to getting bit by a nasty old brown snake, although admittedly I was in the process of catching it for dinner so you can't really blame the snake for that one.

I try to reassure my wife by reminding her that there's virtually no chance of running into saltwater crocs where we fish. :D

Yep, and Steve Irwin showed children around the world that playing with dangerous animals is nothing more than child's play.

Don't get me wrong, I think Steve Irwin was a good teacher, and taught the world a lot about nature. But in the end, he showed the world that nature will thin out humanity if it tries to treat potentially dangerous animals like kittens in a pet shop.

When you compare the dangers of cycling to the dangers of co-existing with wildlife, especially wildlife in Australia, it's apples and oranges to commuting here in the US.

Wow. That is some really impressive logic (proof by handwaving? (http://everything2.com/title/Proof+by+handwaving)) that Dave has used there!

Using his reasoning, since it would also take a motorist riding slightly under 385 miles per week (a figure that I think is a a bit higher than the average motorist actually drives in the US, but it's really close -- so perhaps he's found the actual figure?) 50 years to ride one million miles, then we can ignore all the people who die while traveling in cars too?

Kind of relieved someone else took note of these weirdo statistics. All I could think when I first read this was, while I occasionally ride 385 miles per week or more I don't drive that many miles all that often.

A sense of statistical safety is an illusion I seldom buy into anyway. Bicycling is about being in the moment you're in not thinking about how a bunch of abstracted numbers would apply to who you are and how, where, when and what you ride.

I know this probably means nothing if someone wants to worry about something, but hhere's an interesting peice of work on cycling safety

http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/article-fear-of-cycling/

Conclusions

Fear of cycling constitutes a significant emotional barrier to cycling. Ironically, this fear is partly produced through attempts to make cycling safer. For as long as cycling remains something to fear, it remains a marginal and marginalised practice. The constant cultural construction of cycling as dangerous justifies the continued spatial marginalisation of cycling practice, which then enables the continued construction of the cyclist as other, a stranger pedalling on the margins. The ideological, spatial and cultural marginality of cycling are continuously reproduced, together.

While all of this is true the main reason I cycle-commute to work is because it's fun. Within the framework of that fun is an element of risk, a sprinkle of anti-social existentialism, a core of non-conformist antidisestablishmentarianism and a practice of zen. Coupled of course with reaching an endorphic state each ride allows me to have legal intoxication while paying no penalty under law. Unless I run someone over as a result of being blissed out there's nothing 'the man' can do about it. Except try to pass laws restricting where I can pursue one of the major joys in my life.


What he said (I don't think I do the Zen part, though).

What he said (I don't think I do the Zen part, though).

You may be doing the Zen part without realizing it (oh, how Zen)... if you reach a state in which you are one with the bicycle.

This can never hope to compete with the worry of a wife, but all the same:

Fear of Cycling 01 - Essay in five parts by Sociologist Dave Horton
(http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/09/fear-of-cycling-01-essay-in-five-parts.html)


Most people seem finally to have realised that cycling is ‘a good thing’, but many still don’t cycle. So what stops them getting on their bikes? Explanations typically focus on physical factors such as climate, hills and infrastructure. Emotional barriers to cycling are easily overlooked, but are also massively important. Chief among these emotional barriers is a fear of cycling. You probably already know this – certainly in the UK, talk to friends who don’t cycle and you quickly figure out that they actually feel a bit scared at the prospect of cycling.

I know this probably means nothing if someone wants to worry about something, but hhere's an interesting peice of work on cycling safety

http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/article-fear-of-cycling/

Conclusions

Fear of cycling constitutes a significant emotional barrier to cycling. Ironically, this fear is partly produced through attempts to make cycling safer. For as long as cycling remains something to fear, it remains a marginal and marginalised practice. The constant cultural construction of cycling as dangerous justifies the continued spatial marginalisation of cycling practice, which then enables the continued construction of the cyclist as other, a stranger pedalling on the margins. The ideological, spatial and cultural marginality of cycling are continuously reproduced, together..



It is certainly an interesting article, quite lengthy and full of interesting theoretical interpretation and opinions on some data. Lest someone read only the quote you pulled and jump to a wrong "conclusion" I will add this quote below from the same article.


I am not suggesting that fear of cycling is somehow wrong, or not real. To the contrary, we must recognise the realities of the situation currently confronting cyclists.

Kind of relieved someone else took note of these weirdo statistics. All I could think when I first read this was, while I occasionally ride 385 miles per week or more I don't drive that many miles all that often.My guess is that 385 miles/week is what an average driver does or something along those lines.

Dave's ultimate point would seem to be that "risk per mile" is not the proper thing to look at because cyclists travel fewer miles. (The rest of of that argument is that "risk per hour" is a better figure to look at, and that figure for bikes is lower than it is is for cars, therefore bikes are safer than cars.) There is some truth to this line of reasoning, but --

1) if I'm riding to work, it's not a shorter trip than if I drive to work. (in fact, it's a longer trip if I take the "bike-friendly" route.)
2) ditto for going to the store (though I might go to the closer, more expensive store.)
3) if bikes are safer simply because they can't go as far, then all we have to do is put a similar cap on how far people drive, and then cars will be even safer. (Of course, the auto drivers will then be constrained in where they can go like people who only own bicycles are, so they probably won't accept that.)
4) safety is more than simply not dying today. Statistics are hard to find (since deaths are tracked carefully and injuries are not), but it would seem that cycling is more likely to result in a significant injury than driving. When driving, only exceptional crashes result in any injuries at all, where with biking, most crashes result in some sort of injury.

But Dave's real crime here is to ignore the auto deaths. Yes, it'll take 50 years to go 1 million miles if you only go 385 miles/week, even in a car. And yet cars collisions are the largest cause of accidental death in this country, so obviously this is a big enough problem that we can't just ignore it.

If we want to dismiss this statistics (deaths per mile or hour) ... the best reason to do it is that the number of miles and/or hours for bicycle users is hard to accurately determine. It's fairly easy for automobiles -- but not for bicycles. But certainly we can't do it just because it takes many years to go a million miles. The reality is that about 1% of the population of the US is likely to die in an automobile collision of some sort (assuming current rates -- which have been going down, so the rate was significantly higher 30 years ago, and may be significantly lower 30 years from now.)

Either way, I think 1% (or 0.1%, if we assume that massive improvements will be made in the near future) is too high to ignore. (Personally, I think the largest improvement will be computer driven cars that never make a mistake. But time will tell.)

It is certainly an interesting article, quite lengthy and full of interesting theoretical interpretation and opinions on some data. Lest someone read only the quote you pulled and jump to a wrong "conclusion" I will add this quote below from the same article.

I get your point but I think that saying something can happen is not the same thing as saying it's likely to happen.

Some perspective and context is useful here as is consideration of the proven benefits of cycling to provide some balance in the equation.

Fear is an emotional response and can be a factor even if there is no logical basis for it's presence. This fear is often exploited and can have some unintended results.

You can get yourself so scared you'd want to hide in your bed under the covers all day, but you'd still be running a risk of dying there too. After all, there are just about as many who die from falls out of bed as there those who die on bicycles :)

I get your point but I think that saying something can happen is not the same thing as saying it's likely to happen.

Absolutely. As you say, plenty of people fall out of bed and die but it's likelihood for a particular individual could be extremely low. But if you are in a certain demographic it could be quite high- for example, elderly, disabled, alcoholic or being an infant.


Some perspective and context is useful here as is consideration of the proven benefits of cycling to provide some balance in the equation.

How true. To continue the falling out of bed analogy- certainly sleeping has it's advantages (and pleasures, as do the myriad of other things one does in bed ;)) But still, for some people, certain extraordinary precautions may be necessary- Railings, cribs, hospital beds. It's possible that a larger percentage of people die from falls out of cribs, hospital beds and beds with railings than regular beds but we don't assume those beds are "less safe". We understand the context.

As far as bicycling, similar context applies for individual cyclists. Bicyclists who ride during the day, on roads or paths with little exposure to automobiles, are not intoxicated, are not racing, speeding or riding out of control, follow traffic rules and ride a well maintained bicycle are highly unlikely to have an accident or suffer a serious injury on a bike. However, bicyclists, who ride at night, ride recklessly, ignore traffic rules, ride while intoxicated, ride poorly maintained bikes and ride on roads with multiple intersections and large numbers of automobiles are quite likely to be involved in an accident.


Fear is an emotional response and can be a factor even if there is no logical basis for it's presence. This fear is often exploited and can have some unintended results.

True.

But fear is also a useful barometer and not always to be ignored. It often, but certainly not always, trumps logic as a survival tool. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist so I'm not quite sure who is "exploiting" fear of bicycling and what advantages are gained by so doing. There can be a certain "politics" of fear as well as cultural aspects of fear that may be useful to maintain a kind of group control but I don't know if those things are necessarily an outgrowth of any kind of rationale or logic.

World wide the life expectancy of males is less than that of females. The more patriarchal societies (men exerting maximum cultural control) have the shortest male life expectancy. In societies where women have more cultural control males have longer life expectancy. Males die in accidents at a much higher percentage than females, they die of alcohol related illnesses at a greater rate, they smoke more and die of smoking related diseases at a greater rate.

The OP's wife may seem subject to "irrational fear", lacking "logic", responding "emotionally" but she may be expressing a biological imperative to preserve her mate. Males do a ton of frontal lobe rationalizing about the risks they take, they can sound very "logical" and dispassionate when talking about them but they are often justifying risks that do have consequence. If males were right about all the risks they take then they would have a longer life expectancy than females.

If the OP's wife is concerned about his riding a bike it may be in response to other aspects of his behavior that she is intuitively factoring into how he might behave on the bicycle. "Todzilla(?!)" might want to do a little analysis of what he could be doing that's causing his spouse so much "worrying". And before we all jump on the irrational fear bandwagon it might be worth it to realize we don't have any information upon which to base the OP's level of risk on an individual basis.

...The OP's wife may seem subject to "irrational fear", lacking "logic", responding "emotionally" but she may be expressing a biological imperative to preserve her mate...

Yes. It's quite possible that her brain (that hasn't evolved since the stone age) is causing her react the way she has.

Maybe reading up on the subject would help.

According to Dan Gardner, such madness demonstrates that the modern world is too much for the Stone Age brain – or "Gut" as the author calls it – to comprehend. The modern mind – or "Head" – is locked in a battle with the gut to react rationally to the supernormal stimuli the media throws at us. Our instincts evolved to cope with a far simpler environment and their sense of proportion is easily thrown. (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/risk-the-science-and-politics-of-fear-by-dan-gardner-801570.html)

Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other. - Ben Franklin

'Ol Ben had it right a long time ago.

Yes. It's quite possible that her brain (that hasn't evolved since the stone age) is causing her react the way she has.

Maybe reading up on the subject would help.

According to Dan Gardner, such madness demonstrates that the modern world is too much for the Stone Age brain – or "Gut" as the author calls it – to comprehend. The modern mind – or "Head" – is locked in a battle with the gut to react rationally to the supernormal stimuli the media throws at us. Our instincts evolved to cope with a far simpler environment and their sense of proportion is easily thrown. (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/risk-the-science-and-politics-of-fear-by-dan-gardner-801570.html)

Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other. - Ben Franklin

'Ol Ben had it right a long time ago.

Actually, I've read extensively on the subject. I suggest you give this book a good read:


Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain is a book by neurologist Antonio R. Damasio presenting the author's "somatic marker hypothesis", a proposed mechanism by which emotions guide (or bias) behavior and decision-making, and positing that rationality requires emotional input. In part a treatment of the mind/body dualism question, the book argues that René Descartes' "error" was the dualist separation of mind and body, rationality and emotion.'Damasio argues in his well-known book that it is wrong to think that only minds think. The body and our emotions have a key role in the way we think and in rational decision-making'.[1] Since, in his words, 'the body...contributes a content that is part and parcel of the workings of the normal mind', it follows that 'the mind is embodied, in the full sense of the term, not just embrained'.[2]

Damasio's theory stresses 'the crucial role of feeling in navigating the endless stream of life's personal decisions....The intuitive signals that guide us in these moments come in the form of limbic-driven surges from the viscera that Damasio calls "somatic markers" - literally, gut feelings'.[3] Listening to your gut reactions, 'the somatic marker...may lead you to reject, immediately, the negative course of action and thus...allows you to choose from among fewer alternatives." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes'_Error)

However, bicyclists, who ride at night, ride recklessly, ignore traffic rules, ride while intoxicated, ride poorly maintained bikes and ride on roads with multiple intersections and large numbers of automobiles are quite likely to be involved in an accident.
my observation is that riding at night is not that dangerous given proper reflective gear/lighting. If this was the commuting forum, I'm sure I'd have lots of backup on this assertion.

my observation is that riding at night is not that dangerous given proper reflective gear/lighting. If this was the commuting forum, I'm sure I'd have lots of backup on this assertion.

I totally agree!

I include night time riding as part of a collection of factors not as a single contributor to accidents.

I ride at night frequently and do so responsibly. But riding at night without proper equipment would definitely increase the likelihood of an accident. I do think it would be appropriate to say that even with good lighting and reflective gear night time riding carries greater risk than during daylight hours. Just as riding in the rain or snow would increase risk even with appropriate equipment- again, something that many of us in the commuting forum do with some regularity and a certain level of safety but hopefully with the realization that it may require extra precaution.

Yes. It's quite possible that her brain (that hasn't evolved since the stone age)


What on earth makes you believe this silly assertion?

Actually, I've read extensively on the subject. I suggest you give this book a good read:

I'll look for it.

It certainly seems people can better benefit by considering more than one impulse, which regretably is often the case.

What on earth makes you believe this silly assertion?While the way he put it is rather provocative (suggesting that she's dumb or something), I think the point is that our brains haven't evolved significantly since the stone age. After all, the stone age ended, what, only 8000 or so years ago? For complex organisms such as ourselves, evolution needs much more time than that, and it's not clear that civilization is allowing evolution to favor those of us with more advanced brains any more anyways.

I certainly didn't mean it in a provocative way. I meant to point out that sometimes, people don't make the wisest choices, partly because they are relying on a brain that has evolved to help in situations that aren't applicable in the modern world. Stories told around the camp fire may have kept tribe members alive 50,000 years ago, but relying on those same stories today may not yield the same results. Just because it happened to 1 person, doesn't mean it'll happen to another.

While the way he put it is rather provocative (suggesting that she's dumb or something), I think the point is that our brains haven't evolved significantly since the stone age. After all, the stone age ended, what, only 8000 or so years ago? For complex organisms such as ourselves, evolution needs much more time than that, and it's not clear that civilization is allowing evolution to favor those of us with more advanced brains any more anyways.

But this is precisely what I am objecting to. I think it is reasonable to say that civilization has introduced changes so rapidly that many behaviors which would have been advantageous to our stone age ancestors are now disadvantageous, which is a more accurate way to state the thesis of the cited articles. But then to suggest that there is an absence of selective pressure for brain evolution in the modern world completely contradicts this statement. If these ancient behaviors are causing people to make decisions which are more likely to get them killed, then that is a selective pressure, and will drive adaptation.

To say that environmental change has happened too quickly for us to evolve in response is a reasonable (but not inevitable) conclusion, but to say that evolution somehow shut off 10,000 years ago pretty ridiculous, and is beginning to be challenged by recent research.

I don't think that's what I'm saying.

What I am saying is sometimes, making a decision based on a gut reaction might not be the best decision. Sometimes it is, but in this instance assessing the risk of riding a bicycle based on a gut reaction might not be the best way to understand the worry that a spouse may have.