Hacker News Reader

Comment by notauser | Hacker News Reader

There have been quite a few studies with conclusions like this:

"On average, the estimated health benefits of cycling were substantially larger than the risks relative to car driving for individuals shifting their mode of transport."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920084/

Cycling could be made better, but, it is already safer than getting fat in your car.

View on HN

I grew up in the UK (0-25) and now live in The Netherlands (26-39).

There's no way that you can compare the two countries. Car drivers in the UK are entitled t*ts who think that they own the road.

In the UK the total costs of driving a large car premium car (Mercedes, BMW, Volvo) are lower than the costs of driving a small city car in The Netherlands (Kia Picanto, Renault Clio, VW Up) so you see a lot more SUVs on the road there.

Further the infrastructure for cycling in the UK is poor.

I cycled a lot in the UK but never felt safe doing so. The Netherlands, although far from perfect, is heaven in comparison.

I really hope that they learn from the things the Dutch have done right (having significant infrastructure) and from the things they do wrong (inconsistent right-of-way for cyclists are standard crossings - the cyclist/pedestrians should always have priority).

Here in Norway it is the cyclists that are entitled.

I often use bike myself, even prefer it, but there's a huge difference between using a bike and being one of those people who'll cross into the road right ahead of you and then ride slowly (happened yesterday) or insisting on riding in the middle of the road uphill, even when there was a wide sidewalk next to the road (also happened yesterday).

Is biking on the sidewalk allowed in Norway? Hear arguments like that here too, and am always surprised how cyclists are somehow "entitled" for following the law.

Absolutely, as long as you are careful and there isn't any sign or other markings put up to tell you otherwise.

Walk and bike path (gang og sykkelsti) we often call them. One major disadvantage though if you are biking fast is that everytime you have to cross the road you have to yield or walk as cars (technically) don't have to yield for bikes[0]. That's the reason I pointed out that bike was going uphill, slowly. I get it that when someone is traveling at 30-40 km/t they shouldn't have to stop every 50m.

[0]: Although of course that does not mean you will get away with it. A good friend of mine was more or less run into by a bike crossing. He had right-of-way but police still fined him something along the lines of 6000NOK.

> In the UK the total costs of driving a large car premium car (Mercedes, BMW, Volvo) are lower than the costs of driving a small city car

I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Large engined cars use more fuel and are taxed higher, plus the insurance costs are higher, as are parts etc. Small city cars are cheaper on all fronts AFAICT.

I fudge-fingered "in The Netherlands" out somehow whilst editing my post.

It's worth noting that that study came to that conclusion for the Netherlands, which is one of the most bike-friendly countries in the world.

Sitting in your car getting fat isn't scary, though. Not in the same way. If you fear cars hitting you while cycling, that is scary. And it is that last one that humans are more likely to pay attention to.

If we are serious about folks walking and cycling, we'd - as a society, both in one's country and not - fix the issues surrounding it.

Sadly, that’s not how most people measure risk. Even if the risk of slowly dying due to obesity is technically higher than being run over by a car, people are going to weight the low frequency, high impact scary events more.

In many ways this is like the discussion about road trips vs. the risk of terrorist attacks when flying. Statistically you’re far more likely to die on the highway, but terrorism is very scary, which after 9/11 caused tons of people to revert to road trips.

9/11 changed the risk of dying in a terrorist attack when flying, and no one knew what the change was at the time.

That said, a lot of the damage done by cars is quality-of-life, not direct physical harm. It really sucks to have to leap off your bike, or even just feeling under pressure from somebody in a car who you have to share road with. Cycling on a dedicated path is relaxing and enjoyable. Cycling in the grit and spray of a bunch of cars, any of which may be driven by somebody on their phone or half-asleep, is no fun at all.

I'd bet that that doesn't hold true in SF. Cycling on Market street turned me in to a Veteran with PTSD.

Thankfully the people of SF have voted for some change for the better.

https://sfbike.org/market-street-2020/

It isn't perfect, but, keep hopefully people will keep voting for improvements.

I remember reading a study that looked at life expectancy of cycling vs driving, which I unfortunately can’t find right now, in many cities around the world.

The TL;DR in almost all cities you’ll live longer cycling (even considering extra exposure to pollution and road accidents) than driving. Except in a very small handful of city, none of which were in the US.

So cycling in SF is probably better for you than driving. But that doesn’t mean it’s gonna be a pleasant experience. (I mean getting injections isn’t fun, but vaccines are definitely good for you).

I'd be surprised if those studies modeled the survivor bias. For example; this link was a standard reference:

http://www.phred.org/~alex/kenkifer/www.kenkifer.com/bikepag...

The author of it died in a bike crash.

The studies looked at predicted life expectancy when you consider the various health benefits of cycling vs increased severity of road accidents and expose to pollution. They don’t need to model for survivor bias, they weren’t tracking individuals, but deriving specific population stats from larger general populations stats.

> The author of it died in a bike crash.

I’m not sure what your point is?

People die that’s not a surprise, the fact the author died in a bike crash doesn’t invalidate their work.

Doctors die of smoking, some scientists studying nutrition are fat. None of that changes the validity of their work.

When I cycle, I dont use same roads as when I go by car. I search for smaller streets parallel to main street etc. Typically they are available.

I think that bicycle safely campaigns (like the ones for helmets) greatly exaggerated risks of cycling. Which means that the more people are afraid, the less they cycle and the more they see accidents as being the fault someone being too reckless just for driving bike.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com