https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1102082804.htm

$3.8 Bn.

But, but...

Why'd you have to go and muck up the thread, man.

People tell me riding a bike is risky, yet the numbers show riding save lives, it doesn't risk them.

+1

lol

It's not bikes that prolong lives, but the exercise. Riding a bike is has it's own risks. You can get the exercise in ways that are safer than riding a bike.

Of course, but the exercise you get by making a bike move serves another purpose - transport, and that is one of the beauties of a bicycle, it's practicality.

It's also important to note that almost nothing is without risk and so it is important to place that risk in context and consider the benefits against the risk.

Taking the stairs instead of an elevator or escalator isn't without it's risks either, but I'd doubt any doctor would caution their patients about these risks when recommending to take the stairs instead of an elevator to improve their patients health

Yes, but it's also a demonstrated fact that people are more likely to make exercise a regular part of their lives when it is integrated into their daily routines. Additionally, there appears to be some evidence that more frequent smaller bursts of exercise may actually be more beneficial to people's health than going to the gym and working out harder only a couple of days a week. A big part of the problem we have with sedentary lifestyles is caused by the fact that exercise is not routinely integrated into people's lives unless they choose to seek it out for health benefits, as a hobby, etc. The path of least resistance is often simply to not exercise, while biking for transportation breaks that pattern.

And everything in life has "risks". Walking down the street on the sidewalk has a risk of death that is close to on par with cycling. Exercise of any kind has a small risk of death from heart attack, overheating, dehydration, etc. Constantly worrying about risks without weighing them against the benefits (both in terms of health and general psychological well-being/enjoyment) is silly. We don't live our lives in empty rubber rooms, so we have to accept the possibility of death or injury. Living means taking risks.

Low energy vehicle use reduces numerous health risks to other members of the public besides the operator. When we read about a bicyclist who turned left in front of an oncoming car and was killed by his mistake, we automatically think about the vulnerability of the cyclist, but we rarely think how the fatality count might have been substantially greater if he had made the same mistake in a truck, and that a number of those fatalities would have been innocent people.

I can recall a number of studies that show cycling offer benefit to risk ratios of 5, 10, even 20 to 1 odds, but my favorite was done on Bacelonas public bike share program that revealed a benefit ratio of 77 to 1.

This study took into account the better air quality provided by transport by bicycle as well as the lack of collaterall damage when bicycles crash, but mostly it included responsibly behaved adult cyclists running errands on bikes rather than including all cyclists thereby eliminating the majority of cyclists who crash and are not neccesarily representative of a responsible cyclist

That leaves me out, and most of my roadie buddies too. Other than us getting exercise, there's nothing at all beneficial about our riding.

I'll have to dig up the link, but there was a study done in Boston that concluded that the particulates in the air, primarily from motor vehicles, was causing IQ damage to children that was comparable to that caused by lead paint chips.

So, if we get folks out of their cars, we'll get a smarter society. The problem is, most of the people who seem to be able to understand the value of minimizing motor vehicle use are already smarter than average.

You need to talk to my knees. If I did the same amount of exercise by running rather than limiting my running and cycling way more; I would not be able to walk anymore.

But I guess you could consider using a wheel chair great exercise. But then again, either running or wheel chairing across an intersection is greater risk than cycling where I live.

Knee-friendly aerobic exercise might include spinning classes, indoor trainer, elliptical machine, Nordic Trac, ... None of these expose you to the hazards of bicycle riding on the road.

swimming!

Only if you wear a life vest.

But put another way, their habit of short trips in the car is killing people and costing you - and the rest of us- a lot of money.

Agreed. Locally, driving an automobile is faster transport, but the time gained by driving is mostly lost since one still has to allot time later on if they chose to do any exercises at all.

Left on their own, usually most people will exercise to their own comfort level, but generally it is not to the level of what urban commuting or heavy cargo carrying dictates. Like comparing working at one's own pace at the workplace versus what the employer/customers/clients want.

So the authors say that this study should motivate cities to install a pro-biking infrastructure. Is is a general observation that, assuming that the infrastructure is installed, that folks are actually motivated to cycle?

-G

That's a dangerous question in this forum. It may be that infrastructure is a dangerous delusion foisted on inferior cyclists by a motorist conspiracy (or something like that) But I think it's a pretty good bet that at the very least, occasional cyclists will be motivated to cycle more. I'm also pretty sure that frequently seeing people cycling for transportation does encourage new cyclists, so I guess that part would depend on where the infrastructure was.