https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/11/healt...ess/index.html

The headline says,"Biking to work appears more dangerous than other commuting options, study finds"

But quoting the article it could (and should) say,"...Compared with all other commuters, (bike commuters) showed a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease like heart attacks and stroke, lower risk of first cancer diagnosis and lower risk of death overall."

But I guess CNN (and others) would rather "scare up" clicks than shine a positive light on life.

(And that's why the accompianing video show a cycling "daredevil" instead of a reponsible bike commuter.)

I've always thought the "C" is an intentionally scratched out "G"... GNN, Government news, all the time... and by "Government", they/I mean the business oriented, 1%. Money-fanatics can't have you buckin' their self-serving, oily paradigm!

Even if true, these numbers need way, way more specifcity to be of any use to us. For example, if you ride in to work in City X, departing home at 0430 and returning at, say, 1400ish, your risk is very likely much, much lower than someone else doing the exact same route at 0700 and 1530--give or take. You must account for total traffic volume and density in order to have this mean anything. I am sure there are many other factors as well, such as overall cycling experience and skill level. Beginners are, in my opinion, at especially high risk. Etc., etc.

These reports or articles always omit two key factors 1) the number of cars on the road (no cars, no injuries); 2) comparable injury and fatality rate of motorists.

My takeaway from the CNN article was that there were fewer all-cause deaths for the bicycle commuters, but remember that cause and effect cannot be assumed.

Drivers kill cyclists, study finds

Here's a link to the BMJ paper. I scanned it and did not see where their methodology screened for causes of injury. This would mean that a hospital admission for a injury (e.g. a cycling stress injury) not directly related to other road traffic would be counted as well . The paper did show a significant increase in head/neck injuries as well as fractures, but again no described links to the cause of the event. My only severe commuting injury was cause by a fall when my front wheel hit a flattened red plastic cup in the parking lot at work. Those things are slipperier than ice. It was dark and I missed seeing it. The bottom line is that my injury was more related to littering than traffic (unless we assume that a driver did the littering).

The survey that prompted this research is a good read. Here's a link.

Right. I only skimmed the paper, but was curious as to whether this includes all cycling-related injuries or only those incurred directly through commuting.

On the one hand, many of us commuters also ride recreationally. IME, group road rides are a heck of a lot more dangerous than my daily commute, and I've witnessed and known people that have incurred some fairly gnarly injuries as a result of crashing on group rides and races. Same for MTB enthusiasts.

On the other hand, many of us commuters also ride for the purpose of general transportation. I think most people on this forum are probably using appropriate safety gear, such as lights after dark, but this is not universally true. That's just to say that riding into work in the daylight is a bit different from heading home from the pub in the dark without headlights; the latter is a bit more dangerous.

As a general rule, I do not believe that commuting to work is particularly dangerous; it's the other cycling activities that can be problematic.

For some reason negative headlines sell more dead tree newspapers and get more hits on the web than positive headlines do. Peoples' morbidity at play perhaps? Or is it a subtle plot to scare more people off of riding a bicycle on any road with traffic?

Cheers

While the headline is negative, The article actually encourages bike riding suggesting more lives are saved through improved health then lost from accidental deaths.

I agree that the main reason many folks, Including myself won't bike to work is because we don't want to be crippled or worse riding on roads dangerous to bicyclists. If I had a safe route to my work, I might be inclined to ride my bike in good weather.

When I was a teenager many days I used to bike the short 5 mile commute to the restaurant where I worked. Even after a 6 hr shift after school on weekdays I really enjoyed the ride home. The fresh air, Quite peaceful side roads.

Meanwhile, the response to the covid-19 threat is to ride bike more.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/14/n...sultPosition=1

I'm okay with an article pointing out the on-the-road risks of an activity, in comparison to other modes of travel.

If an authoritative and all-inclusive study were ever attempted that considered ALL of the short- and long-term pros and cons of a given mode of travel as compared to others ... well, I'd say: color me surprised.

Takes more cardio and physical activity to run versus riding a bike. Takes more cardio and physical activity riding a bike as compared to driving a car. So, short-term comparative benefits are clear, along with the long-term ones. At least, insofar as being physical versus more-sedentary is concerned. At the cost of increased risks of getting struck, the difference in probability of crippling/deadly injury being sustained if one does get struck on a bike as compared to driving a car.

Doesn't strike me as a negative thing, to focus on the on-road, at-the-moment travel risks in an article. It is just that: a bit more likely that one might sustain very bad injuries on a given road if struck with little protection as compared to much, and probably more likely that one might not be seen until it's too late if the visual space one takes up on a bike (versus in a car) makes one harder to see.

One of the reasons I don't ride a skateboard, or those puny powered scooters that seem to prevalent these days, let alone on roadways.

JMO

The shocking truth, more at 11.

Drama sells papers. No one wants to read happy news.