I always thought of the white line dividing us from where motorists commit their rage against one another as, hopefully sort of a barrier from their crazyness. In this day where subcompacts are increasingly necessary, what is the difference. I think its crazier on the left side our bike lane barrier.

Too much risk aversion = No life What's better, to exist with no risk, but no joy, or to live life to the fullest, even though you are taking a risk?

I'll accept the risk to do things I enjoy.

+1x1000! Couldn't agree more. When I met my wife 4 years ago I was cycle-commuting in an urban enviornment. She posed the question of danger. My reply was that I'd been doing fine for over 15 years, so all of I sudden I meet her and it becomes dangerous? We agreed she'd go w/me on my commute on a Saturday(less traffic). She said she was nevous at first and then after a couple of miles she said she calmed down as I was so confident. I was riding behind her to her left, slightly the whole way. We ride to church together now that we live rural and she's ridden the 12.5 miles to our old church several times by herself. She's riding clipless now and loves her bike. We've done weekend tours together and ride the 6 miles to our new church, frequently. My daily commute is 40 mi rt and she never brings up the 'dangerous' aspects, anymore as she's an experienced, confident cyclist now.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that ignorance and/or inexperience inspire fear. Get a worthy bike for your co-worker and have him ride your commute w/you on a light traffic day or agree to go from his residence to your work w/him by bike to show how most of the danger is in his imagination. The least you'll do is build a healthy respect from him for what you do. If he wont agree than you've every right to discount his opinion as invalid and let him know that. It, also sounds like there may be some jealousy as people often are critical of behavior that doen't fit into their standard of normalcy.

I found out that most people that are trying to talk me OUT of commuting, are really trying to talk themselves OUT of commuting. Later many come on board anyway. The loudest shouters seem to take up commuting.

Cycling isn't safe and neither is driving a car. Even after being taken out by an idiot motorist last Wed I still feel safer riding a bike than driving a car. Not that I can ride a bike with a broken arm and a bunch of stitches in my left knee.
I feel it is easier to mitigate your risk while riding a bike and relatively cheap.

Besides... life is not fun without risk.

Here's a nice graphic that illustrates how poorly people gauge risk



Notice the rather large circle (2004 statistics) for motor vehicle accidents, the smaller but still sizable circle for pedestrian accidents, the still smaller circle for motorcycle accidents...everyone knows how dangerous they are and then the tiny circle for bicycle accidents...about the same chance as dying in an air/space accident

We kill over 45,000 people per year in the US in car accidents (the number 1 nonmedical cause of death!) and think not a second thought about getting in a car. But the news will run 12" headlines about the risk of dying in a bicycle accident, boating accident or getting squished by a stingray . Lots of concerned looks and hand wringing followed by calls to ban jumping stingrays

Print out the chart, macteacher, and ask your co-worker if he's going to stop driving the death trap

His argument wasn't that your more likely to get into an accident with a bike than a car. The argument was those cars that do get into accidents have a good chance of involving a bike the more a cyclist rides on the road.
Nice chart Cycocommute. I saved it!!!!

Try living in Five Minute Segments. The last 5 is now gone forever. The Next 5 are unknown.
Enjoy your rides. Smile and Wave at the auto drivers. You are having more fun then they are.

Wow! I hadn't realized that being legally executed was less risky than driving a car or bicycling! That is what that chart demonstrates isn't it?

My take: Totally useless graphical representation of risk since no exposure factors are considered.

Six million ways to die choose one. I might be hit by falling plane/space debris, so I don;t leave the house anyone either. Let's RIDE, harder to be hit that way.

There are a few people at my office who used to do that. They'd tell me how I'm insane, going to get killed, etc. A few high-profile cyclist deaths out here fueled them even more, then they'd send me e-mails with links to the news sites, and tell me how cycling is equivalent to suicide.

Now, whenever I hear news of a really bad auto crash here in town, I send them a link to the story and tell them how awful and scary it must be to drive in to work every day.

They've since stopped berating my riding.

Your friend seems to be arguing that both the greater good of society and your own personal well-being would be better served if neither you nor anyone else rode bicycles on the roads. While superficially well-formed, it is a argument based on an assumption about an unestablished statistic. I mistrust any argument based on either of those things--one based on both is, shall we say, weak?

I would argue exactly the opposite, in fact. If anyone should be put off the roads, it should be your friend and his/her automobile. This argument is supported by the health benefits to the riders, the reduction of ca$h flowing into the coffers of the many corporations that profit from an oil-based infrastructure, the harm to the environment caused by motor vehicle use on a large scale, and the crazy foreign policies our oil-dependent lifestyles bring about.

A lot of times we believe what we believe because it is convenient, not because it actually makes sense.

Tell him that (UK) 60% of all head injuries involve alcohol in the bloodstream. Ask him if he is going to wear a safety helmet, next time he goes to a bar.

More people die of head injuries from falling down stairs than from cycling accidents. Ask him if he is going to wear a safety helmet, next time he goes to bed. Or, better still, only sleep downstairs, on a futon, since people get injured falling out of bed.

In the UK in 06, half a million people received medical treatment for injuries caused by walking into street furniture while using a mobile (cellphone). Ask him if he's going to wear a safety helmet and body armour before making a cellphone call.

British Medical Association research showed that cycling 4 miles a day reduced your chances of having a heart attack by 50% and that daily cycling was twenty times more likely to extend your life because of greater health and fitness than it was likely to result in a fatal collision. Tell him you'll visit him in the cardiology department of your local hospital.

Alternatively, he is a plonker and ignoramus and should be ignored. Until you visit him in the cardiology department of your local hospital.

(1) I think a lot of the adversion to bicycle commuting comes form the incredibly self-centered bunker mentality which suggests that the ultimate goal of suburban living is to aquire a Ford Expedition to better protect yourself and your family. Why else do you think so many grown adults are whining about how "expensive" it is to fuel their V8? Note, of course, that this also means the vehicle of choice is all the more deadly to those around you, not only in sheer mass but also in more limited visibility.

(2) Of course, that's only part of the story. Perhaps an even bigger part of the story is the extreme shortsightedness of the US's ridiculous zoning laws which suggest that every quart of milk requires making a trip in said Ford Expedition. Since things are so far away, more driving is done which as we all know makes things more difficult for those on bikes. It's now finally becoming clear how incredibly stupid it was to do things this way. Unfortunately things are so far gone now that we may be largely stuck with what we have for a long time.

(3) People are lazy. Let's face it, America wants to drive, and it's willing to put up with all of the pollution and environmentally destructive practices required to keep driving, including such insanities as burning our food supply (corn).

So, once you consider (2) and (3), item (1) is all the more easily justifiable. Fortunately (and unfortunately), I believe we're now starting to run into the real natural limits that almost everyone has pretended don't exist. Hopefully we'll finally realize that we should start to do things better, unfortunately (4) the vast majority of people don't seem to be capable or willing to consider the future. I hope that we'll start to behave that way less, and that we bicycle commuters will eventually be seen as the early adopters of a more sustainable and responsible lifestyle. Time to start doing things that we should be doing instead of the things that we can do.

Wow... thanks for all the good rebuttals... I'll make good use of them the next time someone starts with me again

I've got more than 100,000 miles and 35 years of riding (I started when I was 9 and most of miles are in the last 10 years). I feel safer on my bike than I do in my car. I'm pretty certain I'm not even close to being unique as I know a bunch of people who ride a *lot* more than I do.

Every form of travel is risky and has it's own dangers. Cycling, driving, flying, motorcycles,walking, they all have their own dangers. Tell your friend that when he gets into his vehicle and starts driving there is no guarantee that he is gona arrive at his destination alive. And that news article that he used to try to discourage you is really a cheap shot. Next time there is a collission between two vehicles and it's in the news, make sure you show that to him.

Overall mortality risk is lower on a bike. On average a full-time bicycle commuter will live longer than the same guy driving every day, because the guy in the car is safer while travelling, but will have a much higher incidence of diseases which are less likely to happen to people who get daily vigorous exercise.

In other words, odds are the guy in the car is going to die in a hospital bed of cancer or heart disease while the other guy is still out riding around on his bicycle.

And here's a published report that backs that up:
https://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/~ulric...viro-jul06.pdf

The graphic was developed from this data and only represents the lifetime odds of dying of any single activity. The NSC site also has yearly odds of dying and includes this disclaimer

The odds given below are statistical averages over the whole U.S. population and do not necessarily reflect the chances of death for a particular person from a particular external cause. Any individual's odds of dying from various external causes are affected by the activities in which they participate, where they live and drive, what kind of work they do, and other factors.

The graphic is just an easy way of looking at the data. It's also a good way of showing someone how risky one activity is over another...especially if they haven't a clue.

As for the odds of dying of legal execution being less than bicycling or driving, I don't see your point. Should they be higher? Few people in the population are convicted and executed so the odds of that method of death should be low...for any one member of the population. Don't do the crime, etc.

That link went to a story with practically no information. There could be many explanations for what happened, many of which could involve errors on the part of the biker. If the crash WAS caused by an error on the part of the biker, that slants the statistics. How many crashes take place with bikers who are making mistakes (running stop lights, unlit, not yielding right-of-way, etc.) and how many take place with bikers who aren't. I would think that if you are in the latter class your risks are even lower than average. But I'm not a mathematician.

I-Like-To-Bike is on to something. The graphic only makes sense once you read the disclaimer. And who reads disclaimers?
If I did my math right -and there is statistical significant change I did not- the change of dying in a motorvehicle accident for a regular user of a motorvehicle (1 in 74) are in the same range as the chances of dying in bicycle accident for a regular user of a bicycle (1 in 63). I assumed that 75% of the popluation regularly uses a motorvehicle and 1.5% regularly uses a bicycle.

I am sure that if you wanted to reach a different conclusion you can work the number in such a way that they will. It is statistics after all...

Of course while I type this I see a banner to the right side for car insurance. It repeatedly shows to cars colliding
Duppie

I'm not a mathematician, but it seems to me that a response to this is that, yes, if a blind 80-year-old driver sideswipes you, you certainly will be injured or killed, but how likely is that to happen?

In Minneapolis recently, some guy was driving on one side of a divided freeway going to work, and on the opposite side, going in the opposite direction, beyond the physical median that separates the different directions, was a garbage truck. A wheel detached from the truck, bounced over the median, hit the front of the guy's vehicle, and killed him. All it takes is one garbage truck with a loose wheel and, bam, you're dead.

That's kind of what I was getting at. Save for the part where they take up commuting...I really wish they'd do that.

On a somewhat unrelated note... it's another truck! The last five or six of Toronto's cycling fatalities involved trucks as I recall, and here is a pretty-close-to-fatal accident again. This definitely has some statistical significance, especially given that there are far fewer trucks on the roads than other vehicles. If you want to increase your safety on the road, be especially vigilant when trucks are around.