For decades my social circle has included mostly people who ride more miles than they drive. However, other than the occasional broken collar bone, broken arm and road rash, no one in my immediate group of friends and relatives has ever been seriously damaged while riding a bike. I have, however, lost many friends and a few family members to car wrecks. My sister even had her back broken when she was run off a road near Redding while driving her car. (Full recovery, no paralysis.)
Originally Posted by Wut
It is quite strange that our society likes to exaggerate the risks of cycling and other healthy activities while downplaying the risk of sedentary lifestyle choices like car dependence. I don't know if this is driven by profit or tribalism, but we really shouldn't participate in that game. If golf is a good walk ruined, let's not let our irrational fears make cycling a good trip ruined.
I don't think it's feasible to be car free this day and age. But using cycling as a primary mode of transportation is certainly reasonable, but everyone needs a car. Especially with some of these zero emission cars available, I just think being car free is a bit ludicrous unless you live very close to your job, and everyone you know lives within 50 miles from you...maybe.
Originally Posted by B. Carfree
One need not own a car to have access to one (rent, borrow). One need not use a car to travel distances in excess of fifty miles (train, bus, bike, airplane). There are something like 40 million car free people in this nation. I suspect they are doing it in nearly 40 million different ways. Considering that the number of unlicensed people under-twenty-five years of age is higher than it has been in many decades, I'd say that a growing number of people don't think that not owning a car is ludicrous. Also, as you imply, one can own a car and not be dependent on it. It's pretty easy for most folk to go weeks at a time without using one if they wish to. Why do so many people deny their addiction to and dependence on their cars? It certainly seems to be an emotional subject.
Originally Posted by Wut
But that wasn't my point. If a cyclist is killed, it's big news and people are concerned that cycling may be too dangerous an activity to participate in. Yet the relative number of motorists killed per hour of use is comparable (slightly higher by some estimates I have seen). Still, how many people look at the daily CARnage on our roadways and decide that it would be a good idea, from a personal safety standpoint, to drive less? The tragedy here is that if more people did choose to drive less, then the deaths on our roadways from all causes would drop, as would our diabesity numbers.
No, I didn't know anyone that died on a bike. He is the first one. A fellow was hit here locally in Loomis two weeks ago and is critically injured. I was ignorant and less concerned before. It is just seeping in.
Originally Posted by UmneyDurak
The topic was the area around Riverbank Oakdale CA. It seems particularly, statistically deadly. I was adding data.