Is Bicycling Transportation?
Apparently Mary Peters thinks it isn’t. And she’s Secretary of Transportation, so her opinion counts for a lot. Thus, her department’s plans for improving transportation in the United States includes a proposal to cut funding for bike trails in order to free up money to be spent on good old fashioned highways.
Now clearly it’s true that a lot of people bike for recreational purposes. That said, I got to work today by . . . riding my bike. And I got to work Friday by . . . riding my bike. Indeed, I commute to work on my bike most every day. And to buy groceries. I use it, in other words, to transport myself from place to place. That sounds a lot like transportation to me. And encouraging people, at the margin, to substitute cycling for some of their driving trips would be good for the environment and good for public health. So I don’t see a really compelling case for shifting funding further in the direction of highways.
77 Responses to “Is Bicycling Transportation?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 15th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
“… riding my book”
Do you ride into CAP like Aladdin on a magic carpet?
September 15th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Matt, you meant “WRITING your book”, not “RIDING your book.”
Gotta watch those typos, though at least this time we know whatcha meant.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
A few years back, I had the opportunity to spend a few days in Amsterdam. In that wonderful city, bikes are more popular modes of transportation than cars. Look I’m not saying it’s the best way to get from one side of Montana to the other… but if you’re in a city, it’s often better than taking a car or even public transit.
And frankly, Matthew, Mary Peters sounds like another Browniesque idiot.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Oh rats — Matt went and corrected “riding my book” and ruined my clever comment. But trust me, it used to say “book.”
September 15th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
a lot of people commute to work by bike. all over the world, and here in the u.s.
cutting funding for bike paths is incredibly stupid.
what a typical bush appointee.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Bicycling is only transportation if you’re an elitist…
September 15th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
This is the FEDERAL Department of Transportation, right? Do you use your bike for interstate travel?
September 15th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Prior to joining Bush’s gang, Peters worked at HDR Inc., a firm that build highways. Prior to that she worked for the Arizona DOT as a cheerleader for the sort of sprawl that is imploding right now. To Peters, any means of getting around that does not enrich oil companies and Al Queada is tantamount to treason. Its why she got the job.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
matt rides fixed? or is that just a random bike pic
September 15th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Here in the UK things are a little different. I just bought a bike to commute and my employer pays the upfront cost and recoups the (tax deducted) cost by payroll deduction over 12 months.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
There are bajillions of interstate highways that don’t cross state lines. Near me there’s a 1.5-mile interstate with the minimum number of exits. Our bike path is fibe times longer, and some people do commute on it (though not as many).
Anyway, the DoT by no means restricts itself to interstate travel.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
This is the FEDERAL Department of Transportation, right? Do you use your bike for interstate travel?
Missing the point FTW!
September 15th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
I have commuted by bike for the last 9 years. I commuted in 3 major US cities. This kind of response for cycling really pisses me off.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
I know it’s quaint to think that there’s anything that’s not the federal government’s business, but if anything qualifies as a purely local or state matter, I think bike paths would. That’s all I was saying.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
But isn’t the question here whether bike paths are for transportation? I got to my office by bike today, but I used the street [including streets with bike lanes] I think I’d actually be OK with less money for bike paths, provided the money was redirected to help create coherent systems of bike lanes that get us where we need to go without having to deal with left turns across three lanes of traffic. Something tells me, though, that that’s not on Ms. Peters’s agenda.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
I do think that there is a legitimate case to be made that Bicycling is not federal transportation. In other words it is largely a local issue. That said lots of federal transportation projects are local issues. Why not have the Federal Government worry about Flying and Supertrains and other interstate travel and let states set their own internal transportation policies. I realize this is sort of idealistic and I agree with your general point, but it really would be better to have local control over this.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Here we are in an energy crisis, trying to find solutions in alternate energy and we are actively going to DISCOURAGE cycling investments? Really, you would have to be spectacularly dense to think this was wise.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
David in Nashville makes a good point that bicyclists can use existing roads with the exception of Interstate highways. Here in VA, I often see elite cyclists using the road even when a parallel bicycle trail has been built, probably because it’s a little faster and doesn’t have people walking their dogs on it, etc.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Any funds designated for biking would be a drop in the bucket compared to highway funds. What’s the logic behind diverting the funds for a uptick of a percent or two to the highway fund? Really asinine. Whereas taking half a percent away from highway funds and putting them towards bike transit would probably increase the bike budget astronomically.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Matt’s blogging about something from last September, which is funny enough.
Matt doesn’t use bike trails to get to work. I commute by bike during summer months and I don’t use a bike trail. Almost no one does. The bikes trails where I live wouldn’t take anyone to work, and if they tried to use them in the morning or evening they’d run over joggers and baby strollers. Bike paths have next to nothing to do with transportation.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Key word there is elite. I am an out-of-shape IT guy who’s pushing 40 and want to start biking to work; the major disincentive for me is that I would have to spend much of that commute on a 6-lane divided boulevard where the speed limit is 45 and the typical speed is around 55. A bike path would make my decision a no-brainer today, even if in two years I might end up biking on the road because I can’t go 40mph on the bike trail. The trick is not just to support existing cyclists, but to make it more possible for non-cyclists to start.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Duncan thnks we are in an energy crisis? Drill Baby Drill
September 15th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Coversely, driving can also be done for recreation. We used to go for rides as a family all the time when we were kids. Even today I like to occasionally get out and drive for a bit. I grew up in L.A., now live in Chicago and take the train to work so I hardly ever drive, but once in a while on a weekend, I like to get out for a drive. I like my car, and driving is fun on occasion.
Point being, bicycling is absolutely transportation, and the fact that it’s also recreation doesn’t render it any less so.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Hot dog carts have wheels. If I sit on one and ride down a hill, it will take me to the bottom.
Therefore, hot dog carts are transportation.
QED!
September 15th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
This is way off topic, but this video of Mitt Romney calling McCain out on lying is amazing.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Well let’s see here. Yesterday (Sunday), I pedaled over into the Balduccis in McLean to get lunch and later to the Arlington County Library to return some books. Today, I pedaled over to the Wegmans in Fairfax to pick up some dinner from the hot bar there. The per mile cost of bike riding is a hell of a lot less then driving, even if one is riding on $50 tubular tires.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
The OP needs a link to back up its claim about what Sec. Peters thinks or does not think. Did she actually say bikes aren’t transport, or did she just cut the budget. Two different things.
Also, Matt Y does live in DC, so Congress does have direct oversight of transportation resource allocation, regardless of whether or not the paths cross into VA or MD.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
I commute to work on my bike 3-4 days a week (here in Milwaukee) and about 50% of my commute is on a bike trail, so yes, it seems like transportation to me. Although it does run right along Lake Michigan so there are plenty of people using it for recreation as well.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
I have used a bicyle for shopping/commuting for 3 years now. One simple innovation has greatly extended my use of both my bicycle and of public transit: bus bike racks.
(While hypothetically the subways in Boston would have worked even better in combination with a bike, the subway rules against bikes during rush hour make it impossible to subway/bike somewhere during the times one generally has to get there in a rush.)
September 15th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
“…I got to work today by . . . riding my bike. And I got to work Friday by . . . riding my bike. Indeed, I commute to work on my bike most every day. And to buy groceries. I use it, in other words, to transport myself from place to place….”
Do you get to and from these places riding on bike trails, or roads? Just curious.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
“…I got to work today by . . . riding my bike. And I got to work Friday by . . . riding my bike. Indeed, I commute to work on my bike most every day. And to buy groceries. I use it, in other words, to transport myself from place to place….”
Do you get to and from these places riding on bike trails, or roads? Just curious.
Exactly. I don’t see people biking to work on bike trails. I see people in cities biking a couple miles on roads or sidewalks or bike lanes.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Right now I live in a townhouse. One occupant commutes by car, one, by bus, I use mostly bicycle. I have under 2 miles to office, when I have other shopping or appointments, the distances are 0.5 to 6 miles.
Clearly, I save a lot of money on gas and car. With “classic” lifestyle, every occupant would need a different car.
In Germany I have seem many provisions for bicyclists. For example, in the central train station of Cologne there is large indoor facility for parking bicycle, where you can rent a spot, and for some extra money, you can have “reserved spot”, exactly like in large parking lots. A commuter can bike in another town to the train station there, park — for free in a small town — go to Cologne, and then take bike again. As a rule, bicycle is faster then buses, and of course a bicycle brings you exactly to your target destination. Gasoline is ca. 8-9 dollars per gallon, while monthly transit passes for commuters are very affordable.
It should be explained that in a transportation mix bicycles are very helpful. They decrease street and highway congestion and competition for parking. A street/parking used at 90% capacity has happy users, and 101% capacity, quite unhappy. Increasing the capacity is VERY expensive. And then we have carbon issues.
By the way, German example shows that with very active life style of commuters, as well as plentiful and cheap beer and chocolate you can have population almost as chubby as in USA.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Just as a data point, my wife does commute to work by bike, and she uses a bike trail. (We live in a MD suburb of DC.) And some people around here do, indeed, cross state lines in their bike commutes.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
That’s not a fixed-gear bike, as is obvious by the three cables descending from the handlebars. Not knowing exactly which model of Jamis that is, I think it’s probably got an eight-speed internal hub on the rear wheel. These are rather nice for stop-and-go commuting, as you may shift all you want when the bike is stopped, as opposed to derailleur-shifted bikes. I myself ride a fixed, not for the hipster thing but because I like it better than any other bike I’ve ridden. I’m guessing Matt does not, but go ahead and prove me wrong, Matt.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
“…I got to work today by . . . riding my bike. And I got to work Friday by . . . riding my bike. Indeed, I commute to work on my bike most every day. And to buy groceries. I use it, in other words, to transport myself from place to place….”
“Do you get to and from these places riding on bike trails, or roads? Just curious.”
Exactly. I don’t see people biking to work on bike trails. I see people in cities biking a couple miles on roads or sidewalks or bike lanes.”
I usually use roads, but I’d much rather use bike lanes. Madison, WI has perhaps the best bike lane system in the country, and a significant number of commuters use it on a daily basis. They converted an old rail line into a bike path using a mixture of state and federal funds. It cuts across the entire city, with local exits clearly marked. It works well, so I see no reason to dismiss the idea out of hand because of some misguided sense of anti-federalism.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
There are bajillions of interstate highways that don’t cross state lines. Near me there’s a 1.5-mile interstate with the minimum number of exits. Our bike path is fibe times longer, and some people do commute on it (though not as many).
That’s a case for making 189 a state highway rather than a case for making bike trails covered by the DoT.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
BubbaDave, you make a good point. After a wreck in traffic (not serious, just scary), I lost my bike commute vibe. Same thing happened to another guy at my office, just didn’t seem worth it, that is, we ride our bikes at other times in safer places (at least, psychologically safer) instead of commuting.
That said, the “slow” commute, along residential and side streets, and with lots of time built-in for the trip is a good way to do it. Also eliminates the need to shower upon arrival a large part of the year. In any event, even a leisurely bike to work is, at most, 10 minutes longer than my 30 minute bus ride (which I still do a fair amount, especially if it is nasty weather here in Seattle). After work, I can roll home, or, if I am in the mood, take a longer ride and get in some exercise.
Copenhagenize.com is a great site for photos (I learned of it on MY’s website) and also emphasizing the ethos of getting there on a bike, instead of getting there quickly on a bike. Just make it a normal part of your life instead of something that requires special clothes, showering, etc.
I do think that in the U.S., helmets should be encouraged due to the low awareness of bikes. Hopefully that will change over time (I never wore a helmet as a kit, and only started when I got into racing, where they were required).
September 15th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
I don’t see people biking to work on bike trails.
I don’t see people biking to work on bike trails. This is mostly because I do not use bike trails, and thus am not around to see the bicyclists in them.
I have, been told by people that they bike to work on bike trails. I take them at their word.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Re too many steves’ (and others’) comments on whether bike trails are appropriate subject for the (Federal) DOT:
Here in the DC area, a ton of people commute across state (or “state”) lines to work (VA and MD to DC being the main routes, but some VA-MD trips too). I don’t have figures on it, but I know a dozen, and I don’t know very many people here. There’s also a fair amount in the NYC and Phila areas. So yes, there is plenty of interstate bike commuting.
As for whether bike trails or paths are useful to commuting, the question seems to assume a much higher standard for bike-related projects than car-related ones. Yes, bike trail projects that go in a circles out in the boondocks may be pretty for recreation, but not so useful for commuting. Same with raods (although the pretty circle routes for cars tend to fall under the jurisdiction of Interior and the Park Service, not DOT). However, bike trails built where people commute really *are* useful for commuting. Many of the aforementioned interstate bike commuters in the DC area rely on the Custis trail, which parallels the Metro Orange Line in Virginia, or the Capital Crescent Trail, which arcs through large swathes of Bethesda, MD, including a large area out of walking distance from Metro. (I’m not including the bike trails within Rock Creek Park, which are also used by Maryland commuters to downtown DC, and are administered by the Park Service rather than DOT, but those are big thoroughfares too.) Some bike commuters prefer surface streets for a variety of reasons. But, much like a car commuter might prefer to use an Interstate highway that followed her commuting route, and an Interstate hwy might alleviate* some surface traffic, I’d sure love the option of having a trail/path, and a lot of other potential bike commuters could be persuaded to hop on the bandwagon if they didn’t have to brave busy surface streets to do it. (One of the big reasons that there isn’t *more* Interstate bike commuting is that it’s often really difficult to get across major obstacles that divide states, like rivers, on a bike. If there were, say, a bike/ped bridge over the Potomac, a fair number of Virginia commuters might opt for a bike. As it is, they have to squeeze onto a small sidewalk on an Interstate next to 4+ lanes of speeding cars, so it’s a strong disincentive. Likewise, if one made it easier to get across the Hudson on a bike, perhaps by making PATH trains more bike-friendly, one could see an uptick in NJ-NYC bike commuting.)
* I realize that the question of whether Interstates alleviate traffic on surface streets, or just generate *more* traffic, is ca matter of some disagreement. But if DOT’s rationale is that more Interstates are needed because of crowding, the argument would (in many cases) apply to bike commuting as well.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
By the way, lest someone find my speculation on the number of bike commuters in the DC area (I know a dozen of them, ergo there are “tons”) to be, er, lacking in empirical rigor, there is some census data on this from 2000. (summarized here: http://www.bikesatwork.com/carfree/census-lookup.php?state_select=ALL_STATES&lower_pop=250000&upper_pop=999999999&sort_num=1&show_rows=25&first_row=0)
The numbers from DC are in the neighborhood of 2800 to 4600. The Virginia number is about double that, while Maryland is in the 3000-7000 range. Other studies say the numbers are several times higher (in the 1.7 to 2.8 million range nationwide). (see http://www.bikefed.org/PDF/CASE15.PDF)
While I can’t vouch for the numbers, they seem sufficiently large (and yet not necessarily as large as would be optimal) to warrant at least a bit of attention.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
The bike trail EK uses in Milwaukee proves Thomas (”most people don’t use bike trails for commuting”) wrong. I believe that trail is an old rails-to-trails conversion, and it acts as a sort of bike “freeway” for those living on the east side of Milwaukee to get to and from jobs downtown. Plenty of people commute on it, free from the traffic and lights above, until it meets the lakefront about 1 mile north of downtown.
Not that Thomas and Ms. Peters opinions aren’t widely shared. In graduate school my studio did a project for a health club on that trail, and my proposal was to have secondary access (with bike racks) from the trail. My professor said much the same thing; I was floored. Fortunately, I’d spent time on the trail and he hadn’t, so I was able to win that battle, if not the war…
September 15th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Here in the DC area, a ton of people commute across state (or “state”) lines to work (VA and MD to DC being the main routes, but some VA-MD trips too). I don’t have figures on it, but I know a dozen, and I don’t know very many people here. There’s also a fair amount in the NYC and Phila areas. So yes, there is plenty of interstate bike commuting.
I would love to commute from my home in VA to my job in DC but there are too many “elite” spandex wearing douchebags who take the 15mph limit on the GW trail as an advisory and nearly run over my fat ass on a regular basis, because as a person who can’t go much faster than 15mph on the trail, I get in the way of a prick going 25 or more. Thats like going 70 on the Beltway when everyone else is eaking out 40.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
i commute to work most days by bike (weather is an issue–i don’t ride much in February or like that). and so does my wife–no we don’t work together. more and more of our friends have been trying it, seeing how it works for us, and the now HUGE price penalty of driving.
the Republicans in Washington would never in a million years consider this transportation ’cause it adds nothing to oil company revenues. same reason they consider all trips by car or truck to be ‘transportation’ even though we know many such trips are at least as recreational as –and at much greater economic and environmental cost than–the bike trips that they disdain.
are we really really gonna keep electing these awful characters?
September 15th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Here is an article on what appears to be an old story:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/14/bike_paths/
But apparently the distinguished Secretary did in fact say that bike paths “are really not transportation.”
Incidentally, also from that article:
September 15th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
I hate to say it but bike trails are recreational in almost every circumstance. Starting nowhere and ending nowhere, or almost, on the edges of towns, or further.
I still think they should be funded but it’s bike lanes and bike paths and bike friendly changes in urban and suburban roads that need funding even more.
Scooters too by the way.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
And encouraging people, at the margin, to substitute cycling for some of their driving trips would be good for the environment and good for public health. So I don’t see a really compelling case for shifting funding further in the direction of highways.
Under any reasonable assumption of the prospects for inducing people to switch from driving to cycling, the impact on the environment would be negligible. I’d like to see your evidence of the alleged benefit to public health. Any public health benefits from increased exercise may be more than offset by public health costs from accidents.
In fact, only about 1.5 percent of federal transportation dollars go to fund bike paths and walking trails. In the meantime, 10 percent of all U.S. trips to work, school and the store occur on bike or foot, and bicyclists and pedestrians account for about 12 percent of annual traffic fatalities, according to the Federal Highway Administration.
The Census Bureau’s Journey to Work 2000 reports that a mere 0.4% of workers commute by bicycle. Biking’s share of passenger-miles is certainly much lower than even that tiny figure.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Those who say that bike trails are for recreation and not transportation don’t know what they’re talking about.
I’ve used a bicycle for transportation most of my life. I currently use bike trails for transportation most days. I have also used them extensively in the two other cities and states where I have lived for long periods.
Many, many other people used and continue to use these trails for commuting and other transportation.
The trails you may be familiar with are not representative of the whole universe of bike trails in the US.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Here in Seattle, the Burke-Gilman trail serves as a major biking commute corridor. It’s converted railroad in the north part of the city. However I suspect it’s pretty rare for there to be rail conveniently located in high density areas that it makes sense to convert to bike trail.
However, bike paths by common definition are different than bike trails – these are dedicated lanes on roadway making an interconnected network. They definitely make a difference to me in my year-round every day commute.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Mixner #46:
“I’d like to see your evidence of the alleged benefit to public health. Any public health benefits from increased exercise may be more than offset by public health costs from accidents.”
And I’d like to see you produce some figures about the “offsets” in public health costs from accidents other than talking out your ass.
September 16th, 2008 at 4:44 am
Brendan @43: “(weather is an issue–i don’t ride much in February or like that)”
What’s the weather like in there at February? Thick layer of wet sleet is the most unpleasant surface to cycle on, but when the weather gets colder, cycling becomes fun again. I heavily recommend using studded bicycle tires (at least Nokia makes them), they make icy surfaces as easy to use as dry and clean tarmac. Wear appropriate clothing, too.
When it drops below -30F, the axle grease seems to freeze solid, but I can take a bus or taxi on those few days each year with a good conscience.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Just for fun, lets do a back-of-the-envelope calculation.
There was a twin cohort study in Finland that showed aerobic exercise for periods of around 30 minutes at least six times a month reduced the frequency of death by disease from 12% to 4.9% over a 17 year period.
So lets say you commuted by bicycle to get your exercise every working day. At a reasonable average of 20 MPH, 30 minutes of biking covers about 10 miles. I’ll be generous and say you do this both ways, for a total of 20 miles of biking a day, for 5 days a week (this is generous because this is considerably more exercise than in the Finnish study, but I’ll assume no more health benefit for this amount of riding).
So how much does that biking increase your mortality risk by accident? 20 miles a day, 5 days a week, say 50 weeks a year, is 5000 miles a year, or over 17 years 85000 miles. Scary, right?
Well, the statistics I have seen suggest the general fatal accident rate for bicycles is about 0.04 per million miles, which is 0.0034 per 85000 miles. So your bike commute over 17 years increased your chance of dying in a fatal accident by a total of around 0.34%, while the exercise reduced your chance of dying by disease by about 7%. In other words, even given lots of conservative assumptions about the health benefits, they still outweighed the accident risk by a factor of about 20.
September 16th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Another idiotic Republican. I’ve been commuting back and forth to work on my bicycle for more than 20 years now, I switch off every other day, Bicycle, Vespa, Bicycle, Vespa, it is almost 40 miles a day so I need a break every other day. She is dumb. I’ve been hit by a car twice in 20 years. One time I was on a side walk, which doubles as a bike trail. I am 46 now, and still weight what I did when I was 22. I still wear the same size and my over all health with the exception of Graves disease which is inherited is fantastic! Ask my physician, other than methimasole I take Advil and that is it. No other complications, no cholesterol problems, no high blood pressure. But I think, and as much as I can’t stand Bush he wouldn’t agree with this, he is a cyclist, it is his one redeeming factor!
September 16th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Mo Says: (#36) September 15th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
That wouldn’t take it out of the Federal funding system would it? It can be a township highway and receive a share of Federal funding … just so long as it is not a town or city street.
Most bike trails are more for recreational use, but that is a reflection of low funding levels … with most bike trails requiring local funding and sweat equity, getting a mixed-use recreational trail is simply much easier than a dedicated paved bikeway to circumvent a traffic or elevation bottleneck.
And it goes without saying that most bike lanes on roads are to get bikes out of the way of motorists, and most expose effective cyclists to greater danger than if the rightmost lane was widened by the width of the bike lane with period “share the road” signs.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Most riders would not be able to sustain 20mph. 12-15mph would be a more reasonable estimate.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:56 am
You know, this is one of those posts where an actual link to what the DOT is proposing would have helped.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:58 am
So your bike commute over 17 years increased your chance of dying in a fatal accident by a total of around 0.34%…
Not so fast, DTM. You neglected to mention that other means of transport also have risks. Driving a car is more dangerous, generally speaking, than cycling. Public transit is the safest, but it isn’t available everywhere, and it has its drawbacks (inconvenience, the annoyance of riding in crowded conditions, etc). And of course you lose the benefit of exercise in either case.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Silver,
You may be right about average cyclists, although I would think regular bike commuters might end up being above-average cyclists. In any event, if you reduce the speed that reduces the number of miles per 30 minute commute, and thus would reduce the total miles ridden over 17 years in my back-of-the-envelope calculation, and thus the total risk of a fatal accident. In that sense assuming a relatively high speed was actually a “conservative” assumption for my purposes (meaning I wanted to make sure I wasn’t underestimating the miles one would ride in the course of getting 30 minutes of good exercise).
Medium Dave,
I actually believe the fatalities per mile are slightly higher for bikes than cars, but in any event you are right that one would have to subtract from the accident risk of biking the accident risk of alternative modes of transport which one has avoided. Again, ignoring those other risks thus ends up being a “conservative” assumption.
Generally, I hope it was clear I wasn’t trying to come up with a definitive risk analysis. Rather, I was just trying to see if it was even remotely plausible that the increased accident risk of regular biking could outweigh the decreased disease risk (the answer, of course, is no).
September 16th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Well – let’s hope Mary Peters loses her job in an Obama administration…
September 16th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
DTM:
Riding 100 miles a week isn’t going to turn you into Lance Armstrong. Sure, you’ll be in decent shape, but don’t get carried away. For a solo ride on fairly flat terrain, being able to average 20mph on a road bike is pretty good. You’re in full spandex and leg shaving territory there.
To average 20mph inside a city for a half hour ride would be incredibly difficult for anyone short of a professional bike messenger, I think.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
DTM,
Well, the statistics I have seen suggest the general fatal accident rate for bicycles is about 0.04 per million miles, which is 0.0034 per 85000 miles.
Ah yes, your “statistics I have seen” nonsense again. Where have you seen them? Give us a link.
September 16th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Here is one relevant link:
http://davesbikeblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/cyclists-live-longer.html
It says:
By the way, I just noticed at the end of that article it says:
Interesting they came up with roughly the same ratio as I did. Of course the broader point is the numbers are so far off the hypothesis that bike accidents would outweigh the health benefits of the exercise is laughable.
Indeed, a little thought on the subject should have made that clear: it is commonly known that regular exercise significantly decreases TOTAL mortality risk. So for bike accidents to outweigh the exercise benefits of regular biking, regular bikers would have to be meeting their makers in bike accidents in equally significant percentages. That would undoubtedly lead to biking being well-known as an exceptionally high risk pasttime, and of course it isn’t.
So, this was clearly an implausible suggestion from the start, the kind of thing someone would say if they wanted to make a point and didn’t really think first about whether it made any sense.
September 16th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Matt rides his bike to buy groceries …
Matt, do you even know any women with children?
You should pitch a magazine article where for one week you take over the transportation duties of a mother of a family of four and do them all via bicycle, walking, or public transit.
September 16th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
I commute on Rock Creek bike path, which runs through northwest DC to the national mall and downtown a few times a week. They are used for commuting – lots of people are biking on that path to or from work during rush hour. Lots of people are using it for recreation as well.
Many bike paths would be used for commuting if they went through major commercial or industrial areas where jobs are. Unfortunately land in these areas is expensive and there’s limited funding available for bike paths, so they tend not to get built (or are underbuilt in comparison with the latent demand) in these areas.
Land is relatively cheap on the outskirts of town, so bike paths tend to get built there because municipalities can get more mileage built for less money. These paths are used only for recreational purposes because they don’t go to or from anywhere very useful. If they went to commercial districts where people could shop, eat, or work, people would use them for those purposes as well as for recreation. This situation won’t change as long as we underfund biking facilities.
September 16th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Since the 1970s, bike riding in Los Angeles County, the nation’s most populous, has declined precipitously. Why? The single most obvious factor is the increase in population density, leading to more crowded and thus more dangerous streets for bikes. In turn, higher density means higher land prices, which means that the cost of buying land and knocking down buildings for bike paths has become prohibitive.
Los Angeles is America’s future. Welcome to it.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
DTM,
Here is one relevant link:
A link to a blog post. In case you haven’t noticed, blogs are not exactly a reliable source of factual information. The author of the post you quote provides absolutely no attribution for his “statistics” whatsoever. Not even a vague reference, let alone a link to actual data. Moreover, he’s a biking enthusiast trying to portray biking in a highly positive light, which makes his unsourced factual claims even more dubious.
You don’t have any actual evidence to support your claim, do you DTM? You don’t have any data. You don’t have any actual facts and figures. Just more of your endless stream of bullshit guesses and wishful thinking.
Of course the broader point is the numbers are so far off the hypothesis that bike accidents would outweigh the health benefits of the exercise is laughable.
What’s laughable is your wishful-thinking-presented-as-fact, and your apparently limitless gullibility.
September 18th, 2008 at 10:58 am
R said: “Bicycling is only transportation if you’re an elitist…”
Fabulous. So if I’m barely making it and I choose to sell my car and commute by bike to have enough money left over to pay my bills that makes me an elitist? Are you saying it’s better I should work myself into the ground and drive a car so that I’m NOT an elitist?
This is the WORST argument I’ve ever seen against adults who bicycle for transportation. Pound sand.
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:56 am
levitraExcellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:11 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 17th, 2009 at 2:36 am
Great site. Good info
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:33 am
tramadol
I want to say – thank you for this!
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:29 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 6th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Great stuff. Nice to read some well written posts that have some relevancy !
April 6th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
A fantastic read….very literate and informative. Many thanks….where is your RSS button ?
April 9th, 2009 at 8:13 am
thanks !! very helpful post! viagra
April 14th, 2009 at 9:39 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
viagra