I usually reply "well then, stop making it so dangerous."

Seriously, when someone says this I assume that it means that they realize that THEY don't drive safely enough and that they could easily hit a cyclist.

I get a double dose of the danger speeches. The people who don't ride feel the necessity to tell me the dangers of biking and the bikers who, because I don't wear a helmet, feel the need to educate me on the use of helmets. I don't own a robe so I don't judge. I kind of wish more people, to say it bluntly, would just STFU.

It is dangerous. But so is driving a car on the freeway. That's life... Pink Floyd: "Walk-on part in a war or lead role in a cage"

There are so many other things that can shorten the life of a person including not getting exercise. I am not worried about the dangers of cycling in the road I actually hate riding on sidewalks now.

She went a little too far, but it is dangerous to commute by bike, mostly because cagers are morons.

My usual reply is, "yes, but at least it's safer than driving."

Transportation is dangerous, no question about it, but peer-reviewed public health research from multiple continents over decades of observation show that bicycle commuters have a dramatically lower risk of premature death than drivers, something like 40% lower risk of premature mortality.

"So, feel free to risk your life and health driving, and I'll try to be safe on my bike."

It dangerous because they don't realize that they too are in danger driving their 3000 or 4000 pound air-bagged coffins. Their illusion of safety is our peril.

Exactly... and don't forget to add copious amounts of complacency. Thinking that it's safe to do other tasks whilst driving.

And TractorTom, hopefully you manage to let your wife's friend know gently -or not so gently haha- that she can think what she wants, but you're still gonna do it. It's OK to express concern for someone but to try and bring the other person down because she disagrees (and/or has a deep-seated issue with it for whatever reason) is just frickin' rude. :rolleyes:

i also wonder if some drivers who proclaim it's dangerous just haven't seen many competent cyclists. during my commute on Friday, i saw a couple obviously taking their new his/hers "comfort bikes" out for a spin. great! unfortunately, they were wobbily riding side by side against traffic down the busiest street in town with no shoulder.

both had their gazes fixed firmly about 1' in front of their front tires.

freaked me right out.

have to assume that they made a bigger impression on passers-by than me riding with/in traffic flow.

It is dangerous, but not as dangerous as the couch. I work in a hospital and know lots of doctors. One I know is an ER doctor and he goes on and on about how dangerous it is and how I ought to quit ridind in city traffic and drive my car. The other is an Oncologist, he rides his bike to work too. Maybe it is just a perspective thing.

Why listen to stupid people? Especially advice coming from Facebook; the dribble resource of the world. It is much safer riding a bike in the street than it is logging into Facebook. HAHhAHhahaa

"It's been proven that flying is safer than driving a car, so why don't you fly instead?"

landing in the parking lot would be kinda dangerous.

I like to use these as teachable moments....if they'll listen.

But you need to do your research and to have your facts ready.

Couplea years ago, there was a rash of "anti-cycling" opinion letters in our local paper. Most claiming that "they should PAY for the road!"

I did some research, and found the information I needed so I could respond with facts, rather than opinion.

Below is my rebuttal letter. The social costs, mentioned in that letter, for motor vehicle use totals 62.7 billion per year in Canada. That figure is from the Transport Canada website. http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/t...0-menu-159.htm

Since we (Canucks) only have about 34 million people then this social costs in the USA must be 10 times that, you guys have nigh on 300 million right?

So, I'd suggest do some research, get your facts ready, and you can have this information in your holster. The people who claim it is dangerous, just have an opinion, no facts.

I find that when these types of people realize that they have no facts to back up their argument, and you do. They shut up.

Digger

I am responding to a number of recent letters regarding cyclists on our roadways, demanding a tax and often lamenting about scoff law bicyclists. It is true that many cyclists drive through stop signs and red lights, it is also true that many motorists speed, fail to signal, roll through stop signs, don’t use seatbelts and text while driving. Every milieu, has its own scoff laws. Cyclists are – sadly – no different.

In an attempt at mitigation, I became a CAN-BIKE Instructor in 2006 (a program funded by Transport Canada). Unfortunately, as with the many driver education programs, the CAN-BIKE program is completely voluntary. Some cyclists, as well many motorists, feel that “they” do not need any training - a typical human failing. Undaunted, I became a member of a team of cyclists that co-authored the Nova Scotia Bicycle Safety Handbook. It details proper road etiquette for bicyclists and motorists.

The motor vehicle is a wonderful technology for traveling long distances, carrying heavy loads or giving more independence to those with limited physical mobility. I use mine to transport my bike to ride the Cabot Trail. However, along with that prized freedom comes a huge debt to society as a whole. That’s because motor vehicle use has many generally negative consequences as well.

It is against that backdrop that I would like to address those who demand a tax to control the cycling public.

The latest attempt at a bicycle licensing system was scrapped in 1976/77. It failed because the cost to administer and police the program was prohibitive and taking valuable resources off the street for minor infractions. Such a system has been tried in other provinces and countries and the result was the same.

One of the main reasons for charging motorists to obtain a license, register their vehicles and have insurance is that automobile operators are responsible for thousands of fatalities and tens of thousands of injuries every year. According to the Transport Canada, Statistics Canada, and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics websites, an average of 2,957 annually died in motor vehicle collisions in Canada between 1995 and 2004. The same period averaged 600,000 motor vehicle collisions annually on Canadian roadways. Additionally in 1990, 1995 and 1996, the only years for which the statistics are readily available, an average of more than 204,000 people were injured annually.

A quick mental calculation would reveal that these sad events result in billions of dollars in rescue, care, treatment, personal injury compensation and repair costs. These observations ignore the other health care burdens which are resulting from the chronic overuse of the automobile: obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart and stroke and a host of other serious physical ailments. Bicycles and their riders simply don’t account for any such things.

Unlike the motor vehicle, bicycles also have a minimal impact on street expansion and on street maintenance and repair. Thus, those who argue that cyclists should pay “their share” should consider how small – proportionally – that share would really be.

As more people ride bicycles instead of driving motor vehicles, positive spin-offs result: cleaner air, healthier people, reduced traffic congestion, reduced noise, reduced parking difficulties, and cost savings on road maintenance and on public transit.

Cycling is neither inherently dangerous nor particularly difficult; therefore, like walking, we allow people to do it for free. Requiring cyclists to pay a license fee would be like requiring pedestrians to pay a toll to use sidewalks or ped-ways—an absurdity that most members of society would agree disincentivizes behavior (cycling) that’s beneficial to everyone.

Different vehicle types have different advantages and disadvantages, and different people have different needs and preferences. Fortunately, our roadways and traffic laws allow accommodation of a diversity of vehicle types for transportation. If this were not the case, many people would be limited to vehicles they don't need, don't want, can’t afford, or can't use. However, this diversity requires co-operation and patience of all road users because an unfortunate reality of our roadway system is that all forms of traffic affect all other forms of traffic. No road user is immune to traffic delays nor innocent of creating them for others.

Some motorists who wish to avoid their responsibilities and occasional inconveniences of motor vehicle travel have claimed that use of slow, open vehicles on roadways is unreasonably dangerous. However, bicycle riders who follow the rules of the road and motorists who exhibit patience, pass cyclists when safe, and at a safe distance will all enjoy a better safety record. Our society's respect for the travel rights of vulnerable but lawfully operating road users is what keeps all road users safe. Those impatient road users (thankfully a minority) who treat others with disrespect and make inflammatory statements intent on depriving other groups of their legal right to travel upon our public system are the ones creating the real danger.


<snip>
Vice President of Education, Bicycle Nova Scotia
www.bicycle.ns.ca
CAN-BIKE Instructor/National Examiner
www.canbike.net

That's an interesting letter. One thing that it doesn't address, and I don't know if this is true in Canada but it is in the US, is that cyclists actually pay for MORE than their fair share of roadways.

The gasoline and licensing taxes that they're always on about cyclists not paying, those go primarily to pay for limited-access expressways that cyclists aren't allowed on anyway.

The surface streets that cyclists use are paid for primarily from property and income taxes, which cyclists pay just as much as car drivers do. Factor in the fact that cyclists cause essentially zero damage to the road when using them and that they require far less space, and it's easy to see that a cyclist is paying for more than their fair share of the roads that they're allowed to use.

Living in the city is dangerous! :eek:

Eating swordfish is dangerous! :eek:

Skiing is dangerous! :eek:

Driving is dangerous! :eek:

Dropping out of high school is dangerous! :eek:

Obesity is dangerous! :eek:

Coal mining is dangerous! :eek:

Jay-walking is dangerous! :eek:

Etc...etc...etc...

Well, since you put it like that...

Don't go muddying the issue with facts, figures, and empirical research. I'm the guy that starts arguments about politics and religion just for fun and one thing that I have found is that people DO NOT want facts getting in the way of their beliefs.

Those are good points, but I was unable to find any information on what EXACTLY the automobile taxes pay for. Yes, Canada is the same as the USA, where property tax goes toward street maintenance, as well as snow clearing, garbage pickup, school/education, etc.

But it was difficult for me to get the figures or compile the figures on just how much MORE a cyclist would pay. It wasn't a concrete figure.

I think though, that your very last sentence, "Factor in the fact that cyclists cause essentially zero damage ..." was mentioned in the latter part of my letter.

I was trying to get many points in my letter, but the one I had hoped to get accross is that automobile use has a high social cost, THAT is why you pay. Cycling does not have as high a social cost (I'd say it is quite negligable).

I had also created a spreadsheet where I compare the revenue generated by automobile fees and taxes (including gas tax) to the $62.7 billion in social costs including road maintenance.

I do not have that spreadsheet here, but if memory serves, the automobile fees and taxes only paid for half of that $62.7 billion. Essentialy, motorists are not paying enough.


I am also limited to about 750 words and its hard to get it all in there.

I had reread my original post, and I see that it may be taken as me shaking a finger at the OP. That was not my intention. What I had intended to suggest to the OP was that facts such as these go a long way to shooting down the complaining. So if (s)he spent just a little time getting such info together, or a bunch of cycling advocates, then they can wear a look of smug satisfaction when they shoot down the complaining (Gawd it feels good, let me tell you).

The death toll, the health care costs, the cost to community and the environmental costs of automobile have become.....accepted or common place. One person dies from a coyote attack here in Nova Scotia and everyone demands a cull on coyotes. But none complain about the 300 that die in Nova Scotia every year in auto accidents. None complain about the high health care costs that come out of the tax paying dollars for treatment of injuries due to auto accidents.

Then it is demanded that cyclists "pay for roads." :rolleyes:

"Get your facts straight first, THEN you can distort them all you please."
- Mark Twain a.k.a Samuel Clemmens

The issues of P and R often have very valid points on both ends of the spectrum. There is no one right answer, but often it comes down to what is the best answer to mitigate the disadvantages and boulster the advantages for any situation, and EVERY situation is different.

You're right, people do not what facts to muddy their beliefs. When I shoot down their anti-cycling rant, and they finally see that life is larger than their own narrow-minded POV, then they often resort to threats...as a way to save face.

Still feels good.

Turn up your iPod so all you see is their lips moving.

That was a great rebuttal letter! Hope you don't mind if I save a copy and borrow your ideas.

some women find danger exciting, maybe seeing Tractor Tom pedal on the highway stirred some desire and she dealt with it by trying to make him give up his sexy ways so she wouldnt be tempted

Don't mind at all. Please, copy verbatim and call it your own. It only helps me.

You have to send me a dollar though.

Yeah, if they factored the externalities of burning fossil fuels into what people paid for it (vastly increased health care both due to pollution and lack of physical fitness, the need for much larger and complex road systems and many other things) gasoline would probably cost $15/gallon and then they might have the beginnings of an argument.

But the fact that I'm paying for all that stuff even when I'm riding a bike and not contributing to the problem means that I'm paying for more than my fair share.

And almost everyone who rides a bike also owns a car, so the licensing thing is really nonsense as well.

Can I send you a euro or swiss franc instead? ;)