A scoping review of bicycling interventions’ impacts on well-being
frontiersin.org
frontiersin.org
So much North American rhetoric is focused on hatred of the cyclist - while that bums me out, what bums me out even more is that all the haters are missing out on the wonderful world of cycling. Commuter, road, gravel, mountain, track, indoor, fixed, single speed, folding, electric, uni, cargo, whatever.
I'm gonna go ride now.
A potentially worse problem is that recumbents allow enormous force to be applied through the legs (because you can push against the lower back, as in rowing). This is one of their superpowers but you need to be aware of it to avoid knee issues.
I enjoy how it's fast and easy to commute, and I keep healthy. Works even in hilly and snowy Norway. I love how fun it is to use my road bike to go fast and get a good workout. I love my gravel into the woods and the serenity.
This weekend I'm bikepacking 6 hours into the woods,sleeping a night in a hammock, and bike back. Can't wait!
My impression is that only people in the bicycling social world believe that. It seems like a victim mentality that they reinforce by repeating it to each other. It's always possible I just haven't seen it, but localities around the country are building bicycling infrastructure, which doesn't correspond to hatred. Where do you see it?
I hardly ever hear someone expressing hatred of cyclists. People who ride obviously like it. The great majority don't care about it - it has little impact on their lives. In cities, on streets I see people honk at, yell at, and flip off cyclists just like they honk, flip off, and yell at other drivers. IME the cyclists generally 'drive' as well/poorly as the automobile drivers.
I do notice that people in spandex racing outfits on road bikes tend to behave with attitude problems toward everyone - pedestrians, non-racing cyclists, cars, etc. They are aggressive and fly by people, often with little margin, at dangerous speeds without warning. It's as if they think they own the road. I was just talking to a bike mechanic I know who brought it up. If people don't like them, it's obvious why.
> The great majority don't care about it
My own dad will take any opportunity to actively bitch about perceived annoyances perpetrated by cyclists and opine about how useless bike lanes are expensive and not actually productive because people only use them for exercise. Why don't you try actually bringing up cyclists and bike lanes somewhere, especially in the south, and then you tell me what people think.
I haven't met those Americans, somehow. Maybe it's just more social media nonsense - people joining the mob fun and far overestimating the loud voices?
that could easily be another row of houses or a pretty big park, over and over and over again through the whole city.
its an incredible amount of government money and city land tied up in black top that needs regular resurfacing, cleaning, plowing, etc
You happen to have a social circle that doesn't have any issues with cyclists, perhaps there are a number of them in your group.
But there are almost assuredly social circles that feel otherwise, that revel at the opportunity to roll coal as they pass a group of cyclists, that joke about running them off the road.
A quick google indicates there have been numerous studies on the subject that seem to support the idea that bicyclists are often reviled by some portion of the population, correlated with those who rely heavily on automobiles.
And, I mean, just scrolling this thread seems to show plenty of anecdotes to support the idea. Seems pretty systemic given the breadth of the anecdata.
> just scrolling this thread seems to show plenty of anecdotes to support the idea. Seems pretty systemic given the breadth of the anecdata
That reasoning is the epitome of social media self-deception.
In Canada the fight has gotten nasty, with governments in Alberta and Ontario putting forward legislation that could remove existing bike lanes.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-ford-bike-lan...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-government-b...
Maybe "hatred" is too strong of a word, but if I were a cyclist in Toronto or Edmonton I'd feel rather victimized.
Driving a car, bicycles are hard to see - I wouldn't be surprised if visibility in cars is specified to be sufficient to see other cars. Bicycles appear out of nowhere and disappear. Also, cyclists - no better or worse than their automobile counterparts - don't always drive well, and they do things that cars don't such as weaving through small spaces between cars; running lights as if they are pedestrians, but on the road; appearing from sidewalks and other places - really anyplace. I don't object to creative driving - as I said, (city) drivers aren't much different in their way - but it makes bikes unpredictable and hard to see. Then there's the speed difference - bikes much slower than traffic are as dangerous as cars driving that speed (again, except I can see the cars). As long as there's one lane - and if cyclists 'own the lane' and don't let cars squeeze by - it's safe: you can see the bike; multiple lanes and the bike ends up in blind spots, weaving back and forth itself, etc.
I read that in (Belgium? The Netherlands?) the law is that if there is a small (10 km/h?) difference in speed between cars and bikes, they cannot share the road.
You’ll also see them run red lights, cut off pedestrians, bike right into oncoming traffic (in the same lane, no less), cut across three lanes of without blinking. All in the name of laziness, not safety.
Bikes are different machines with different capabilities and parameters. That they aren't used like cars isn't laziness or even lack of personal safety, but maybe lack of discipline to operate as if it has the capabilities and parameters of a car.
Whatever the motive, it's still dangerous because everything on the road needs to operate in an integrated system of rules. Bikes acting like bikes are unpredictable and using different rules.
But consider the functional differences:
> Contested stop signs are a prime example. For every cyclist who stops properly, 99 blaze through with attitude.
Bicycles both stop much more quickly than cars and take more effort to restart. Restarting from a stop and accelerating to full speed takes energy and wears on tired muscles - and it's not just one intersection but 100 in one ride.
So many times I've seen bikes approach the intersection at moderate speed. That's dangerous in a car - you might need to stop short, you might hit someone or something with your 2,000 lbs metal object which could cause serious harm even at slow speeds. On a bike it's fine - you can easily stop your 200 lbs object, which is also much smaller and more maneuverable and thus avoids collisions easily, and which does little harm at slow speeds.
So the bike does the bike thing, but the car sees a car thing: The car see the bike moving at a normal rate, and assumes it will act like a car and drive right into the intersection. The car stops and lets the bike go first.
> run red lights
At lights, bikes are like (very fast) pedestrians. On foot, at least in the US and many parts of the world, if the road is clear people don't wait for the light, they just cross. Functionally, there's no reason for bikes to do differently. That's dangerous to do in a car because their size and lack of maneuverability makes them big targets and makes accidents hard to avoid, and because they cause serious harm even at slow speeds.
> cut across three lanes of without blinking
Again, bikes are much smaller (able to fit in small spaces) and much moremanueverable. It makes some sense for a cyclist; it would be far more dangerous in a car.
They really don't. Even if you slam brakes and OTB on a bike you will still fly further ahead than a car doing double your speed will travel after applying brakes normally. This is the insanity of running stop signs on a bike - you can't stop, you cannot swerve nearly as quickly as a car and you will take much more damage when T-boned than a car driver would yet you believe it's safer because:
> take more effort to restart.
Yeah, it's not laziness, it's science and shiet.
I will give you that they're much more maneuverabile and accidents can often be avoided by putting the bike into a space in the road that a car couldn't go into.
I've long wondered about that tradeoff: I've heard some (non-physics-aware) people say that heavier cars/trucks stop faster because they have more traction, but obviously there's a big tradeoff in that equation. As a guess, on a moving wheeled vehicle, 1 kg adds forward energy proportional to velocity, and downward energy constant and independent of velocity? And maximizing that tradeoff would seem to be an engineering goal in order to minimize muscle/gas expenditure. (I'm sure it's well-known but I'm too lazy to look up the details.)
That ignores road/tire and air resistance which are proportional to velocity. And I suppose a key question is the degree to which traction depends on vehicle weight: maybe it depends more on tire and road characteristics, for example. Certainly ice or some kind of low-grip tire would be a big factor.
And that ignores locking up the wheel, as you pointed out.
You have crazy bikers, and you have crazy drivers. I’ve seen way more of one in my life, and that one’s definitely more dangerous.
Cyclists quite literally do it every single day
I don’t think the behavior is equally distributed
I now live in rural suburban Michigan, and even on these rural backroads I have jerks in trucks yelling at me on my e-bike going 20+ mph to "get out of the f***ing way".
Maybe those people do not represent the majority, but it feels like they do, and those actions feel threatening when coming from a multi-ton vehicle directed at a 75 pound vehicle. (Fat-bike ebikes are heavy.) It's also odd to experience this on a rural road on a lake shoreline because isn't the countryside supposed to be slow paced?
1. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/handbook/california-driver-han...
Second favorite was, a truck did an illegal pass maneuver around me on a blind turn (another 15s and we'd be around the curve) and almost hit another truck head on, then raced off. The driver of the truck that almost got hit rolled down his window and asked me "do you really have to ride here?"
> not if you sign this to get dedicated infrastructure put in
The awful infrastructure (poorly considered bike lanes, at best) doesn't make it easy to co-exist, either.
The three most avid cyclists I know have all had life-changing accidents on their bicycles - my best friend who introduced me to cycling, my brother in law, and an ex-business partner who I introduced to cycling. All broke their hips and various other bones, and all had to have surgery and extensive rehab. So “only upsides” is perhaps a little too rosy.
those shouldn't exist. therefore, they are free.
Just wait til you try it with a 7 year old who adores you and just can't wait to go biking again. Or with a 12 year old, just chatting about life's paths. What a blessing.
Paradise.
LA is notoriously car-oriented, but is it different in that respect?
But yeah, when you can find an empty/slow side street it’s hundreds of times better than a bike lane right next to high speed traffic and cars cutting you off.
Those are really next level because they are essentially bike freeways; completely separated from car traffic (no intersections because the river & bike trail go underneath road bridges).
In fact, it's not only safe and fun, but also much faster than driving during rush hour.
Apart from that it is a net positive for me and I wouldn't stop. You have to die one death they say and if it is lung cancer or COPD for me, so be it.
Cycling is great. I ride both for sport/fitness and for errands, has a ton of benefits, but I agree with you that the biggest boost is not driving.
Car culture/motonormativity in the US is a huge problem and transit here is severely lacking, cycling infrastructure or other wise (trains, busses, safe pedestrian paths and areas, trams, etc.).
People point to traffic and stress, but there are overlooked harms of car culture we tend to ignore. It's responsible for a significant portion of emissions, and drivers and those near cars inhale a staggering amount of microplastics.
Those who use public transit are less likely to be overweight, less likely to devlop type 2 diabetes, and less likely to have high blood pressure.
Driving needs to stop being an unavoidable default. EVs and self driving aren't the answer either, all the same problems, except exhaust, are present with EVs.
Many smaller municipalities wouldn't be able to afford a drastic uptick in EV usage either, they would be much better off focusing on any kind of public transit to reduce the number of vehicles on the road.
Calgary (Canada) as a similar population density to most US cities and its light rail system has some of the highest per-capita ridership rate in North America, so it absolutely can be done. We just need to stop enforcing car-centric design with our zoning laws and parking mandates.
I think buses might have something to say about that
Which actually surprised me, when my SO said to me: but I thought you liked driving? When we first met you were always working on your car...
Oh yeah. I did, didn't I? It just kinda happened without me realizing it.
Cycling vs. Walking: Which Is the Better Workout for You? - https://www.healthline.com/health/fitness/cycling-vs-walking
The above article has lots of links to actual studies.
I think at this stage it is well understood that physical exercise has all these positives, so it would be interesting to know if anyone knows if bicycling is even better, or if it's just more of the same?
Is cycling special I guess .... Like, I dunno using a pogo stick might have the same benefit as cycling, since it's all just physical activity at the end of the day?
Because of that though you can ride for much longer durations comfortably than any other high-impact activity so cycling lets you have a much higher total volume of work and greater calorie expenditure without overtraining.
Do you remember the source(s)? I'm hoping to read more about those and other activities.
> Cycling is non-weight bearing and avoids repetitive loading and joint impact.
Sure. I've also seen at least one study [0] that says the lack of weight-bearing means cyclists don't build bone strength and are more prone to fractures. I wonder if just riding in higher gears addresses that.
> Because of that though you can ride for much longer durations comfortably than any other high-impact activity so cycling lets you have a much higher total volume of work and greater calorie expenditure without overtraining.
Doesn't that also make it less efficient? Running seems to provide more exercise/hour. Again, maybe higher gears would solve that problem.
[0] Sorry, I don't remember the source but I discovered it while looking for something else on, I think, PubMed.
The studies were sport specific, so I'm not sure where to find specifics on other activities too but I'm sure there's data out there for other sports.
> that says the lack of weight-bearing means cyclists don't build bone strength and are more prone to fractures
This is true, especially as you get older, and riding in harder gears don't really help either. There is more torque being applied, but its still a smooth, continuous force there's no impact traveling through to stimulate bone density. You need high magnitude, short duration forces (3x+ body weight) to stimulate that.
By far the most effective way is weightlifting/strength training, which IMO everyone should do, at least 1x or 2x/week. Even runners will benefit from strength training, it's necessary for injury prevention.
> Doesn't that also make it less efficient? Running seems to provide more exercise/hour. Again, maybe higher gears would solve that problem.
Running will get you a higher total energy expenditure, yes. A 45 minute run will be more strain than a 45 minute casual bike ride.
The big difference is total weekly volume. With running, because its such high impact, you have a limit on the weekly volume you can hit before you get an injury or start overtraining. About 5 to 10 hours/week for recreational runners.
A cyclist can sustain 15-20+ hours/week of training volume before you run into the same overtraining or overuse risks.
Cycling is technically less time-efficient on an hour by hour basis, but it does allow for significantly more total weekly volume and absolute calorie burn without overtraining stress or injury.
Gearing doesn't really change the formula at all. Gearing changes which system is being used cardio vs. muscular fatigue. If you shift into a harder gear, but your cadence drops proportionally, your power output remains identical. But mashing (a lower cadence) a harder gear changes from using your slow-twitch muscle fibers to fast-twitch fibers. You'll fatigue faster, and burn out well before you hit the time needed for good cardiovascular stimulus. Gearing isn't used to make the ride harder or easier, it's used to maintain your cadence in a specific power band (e.g., 85rpm @ 200W) like the transmission in a car.
That’s why I get on the bike, you’re moving through areas slowly enough to enjoy them but quickly enough to really take in a lot.
You just reminded me of my holiday to Biarritz in April where my wife received a text: "Should be back in about an hour or so, I'm just riding back from Spain."
In my case, my city is disgustingly depressing. But after I started riding, I realized the city had so much greenery around it. And no car or motorbike could access it. Riding down the village roads, between the trees, that you can not access by a motor vehicle, or walking, is an amazing experience. And, it does not damage the environment, nor ruins the peace with loud noise.
They go fast down the lanes, are often shouting and roaring at walkers to "stand back" or "get out of the way" (...at the polite end of the spectrum...) as they approach from behind at 20-30mph etc (assuming they warn you at all and don't whizz by with just a few cm/inches gap), if it is a soil track they will often leave tramlines in the mud that gets baked in and so on. And let's not even start on what they are like in urban environments (tl;Dr - habitually ignore all the rules including red lights etc)
IME cyclists are entitled, arrogant, and selfish. Maybe you are nice and respectful, but in my lived experience in and around London as a pedestrian and runner 90% of cyclists are total arseholes.
And it's not just me - arrogant selfish cyclists who don't give a crap about anyone else are causing issues across London, e.g. two random articles of many: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c150n02d10po https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62lp6xzzd0o
But of course, there are always 2 sides of the coin. So, shitty people exists, but does not represent the whole group.
How many pedestrian, cyclists or runners are killed by drivers? Where did the term rolling coal comes from? How many people gets killed by drunk drivers?
Just some examples.
I've many time faced drivers who thinks they own the road. Coming from the wrong side trying to push me. And, I would be an asshole to them, because, I stood my ground.
In my personal experience, as an avid hobby cyclist and commuter, those people are not like that because they are cyclists. They just happen to be like that - and cycle.
Bikes are also a wonderful expression of physics, and the effect of centrifugal force is a key reason why cycling is special. The property of increasing stability with speed is amazing. Leaning not steering is also wonderful. The flow state you can achieve on a bicycle is unreal. Mind, body, and your physical environment in unison.
There's a mechanical beauty as well, that's easy to understand, but with plenty of depth to dig into and enjoy. Wheels and gear ratios are some of humanity's greatest achievements, and you get to pair that with interesting geometry and materials that have a direct impact on your experience. The difference between riding a junker that's not right for your body and a nice/fitted bike, is like the difference between wearing a burlap sack and a tailored suit.
Physical exercise is good, but bikes are much more than just a means to stay fit and produce endorphins. I wish everyone would bike more. Truly one of life's great joys.
And efficiency! A human on a bicycle is more efficient than any other vehicle or animal. If we ran on gasoline, a cyclist would get the equivalent of roughly 1,000 miles per gallon. A well maintained bike drivetrain can reach 98% efficiency. Compare that to an ICE car which loses up to 70% of its energy to heat and friction.
A human on a bicycle is efficient because of mass and that the bicycle itself is a very efficient machine. A cyclist will burn around 30cal/mile of riding. If a gallon of gas has about 31.5k kcal of energy, then that's about 1,000MPGe for a human on a bike. A 200lb person + 20lb bike requires very little energy to overcome rolling resistance compared to a 2000+ lb ICE vehicle that spends the majority of its energy just to move its own mass.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-human-on-a-bicy...
And any animal this eats its own poop is idiot.
You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
(AFAIK link between cycling and TC is inconclusive, link papers if you know otherwise)
see page 6: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s12885-018-409...