Hacker News Reader

Comment by graeme | Hacker News Reader

You're committing a fallacy. MORE risk than driving doesn't mean you're in worse health if you cycle. The health benefits may outweigh the increased risk of life loss.

Such risks also aren't set in stone. The Netherlands has much lower risks. Encouraging more cycling here could lower the odds of danger.

Snark is fun, but it doesn't add anything to the discussion.

View on HN

I think the poster understood what you said, but has a moral outlook where even positive expected value interventions can be immoral. I don't really understand that viewpoint, but it is a very common one. Usually it is expressed in terms like "how Would you explain all this stuff about averages to the daughter of the man whose bike got ran over by a truck "

Wow, that position actually exists? Presumably, you explain it the same way you'd explain it to the daughter of the man who was killed in a car accident while driving his car.

> how Would you explain all this stuff about averages to the daughter of the man whose bike got ran over by a truck

The greatly increased chances of seeing any grandchildren I may end up having is way more important, to me anyway, than the tiny increase in risk that I may not see my children reach adulthood (or even their teenage years).

Those are not your only options. You can get exercise, and improve your health, in ways other than commuting by bike. Ways that reduce risk, not increase them, even.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com