SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Most cycle-commuters will tell you cycling to work is the best way to get to and from work and it's probably doing you some good. However a recent major study, published in the British Medical Journal, suggests that the health benefits are staggering, slashing the risk of heart disease and cancer. FTFA:
Research has consistently shown that people who are less physically active are both more likely to develop health problems like heart disease and type 2 diabetes, and to die younger. Yet there is increasing evidence that physical activity levels are on the decline.
The problem is that when there are many demands on our time, many people find prioritising exercise difficult. One answer is to multi-task by cycling or walking to work. We've just completed the largest ever study into how this affects your health.
You can read an article here at The Conversation website and you the original research is here at the BMJ website.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Justin Case on Friday September 08 2017, @12:32PM (33 children)
I used to commute by bicycle. I loved getting double duty -- exercise and transportation -- in the same hour.
But in city traffic, I found myself dodging cars on the average of once every two blocks. (Multiply that by 13 miles each way, per day...) No, I wasn't ignoring traffic laws or in the wrong place. Drivers simply don't expect to see bikes, so they don't.
I found myself arriving at work steaming with anger at yet another close call that I prevented. Often the driver still didn't see me even after I saved their vehicle from a collision due entirely to their rule-breaking and inattention. Failing to stop at a red light before entering the bike lane is the most common offense.
I had fantasies of attaching a nest of raw eggs to my helmet. When I had to swerve or stop abruptly, the eggs would keep going, marking the spot on the car where I would have hit if not for my evasive action.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Friday September 08 2017, @12:42PM
Cities are getting better though. I'm in Ottawa, Canada, and we now even have physically separate bike lanes. I'm imagine European cities are way ahead, and cities with better weather sure should be.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by VLM on Friday September 08 2017, @12:59PM (13 children)
This is the appealing time saving part. But the experience of working out at my gym is better than your description of cycling, the showers take care of the whole "arrive at work all sweaty" aspect, the HVAC takes care of the whole "the weather is only good outdoors for cycling roughly two months per year", I can carry a laptop a little easier in my car than on a bike, etc.
There are weird aspects of the story. The implication is waving ones legs repetitively in a circular pattern magically scares away cancer much like the gravitational fields of distant planets when I was born somehow determine the course of my entire life. Obviously its more of a multi-step "bicycling to work can theoretically be good exercise although in practice it isn't for most people" "good exercise leads to good shape" "good shape leads to long life" therefore tenuously "bicycling to work prevents cancer". Although to be honest breathing in all those exhaust fumes for hours while working hard must be very bad, so the exercise effect must be extremely strong to over rule the exhaust fume effect.
As a business idea, someone could build a class A RV with a small gym inside it, and use it as a commuter's taxi. I'm actually kinda surprised stuff like this doesn't already exist. Aside from a RV with a gym inside it, I could see a spa with massages and hot tubs, maybe a gentlemans club. Mass transit currently means cheap smelly mobile homeless shelter, but it doesn't necessarily have to. First class mass transit COULD be a thing... I'd be happy as a start with first class bus accommodations merely meaning a clean on-bus restroom with restroom attendant, comfy seats with laptop desk, and maybe some kind of steward selling me icy cold bottled water or coffee when they're not cleaning.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 08 2017, @01:30PM (8 children)
"the HVAC takes care of the whole "the weather is only good outdoors for cycling roughly two months per year""
Sahara or Alaska?
Here in Denmark we always complain about the weather, and 2017 has been especially bad, so I'm up to maybe four times the weather has been so bad that I've preferred getting into my car.
("Preferred" as in "before I bought a car I would have gotten on my bicycle anyway").
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 08 2017, @02:47PM (5 children)
Denmark is also flat.
A combination of factors are what make biking practical or impractical.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday September 08 2017, @03:27PM (4 children)
Bah! The only factor really at work here is the mental one. People are afraid to change, or go against their perception of how the people around them will judge them. On this subject as in so many other things humans can be so distressingly akin to cattle.
Sure, if you live in a mountain monastery in northern Greece, or in a lighthouse off the coast of Maine, or the middle of Death Valley then a bike probably isn't the commuting method you'd want to choose. But how many of us actually are constrained by such unusual circumstances?
You can bike up and down hills. There are things called lower gears and thigh muscles, which are large, massy things you usually only employ as makeshift drink coasters, and gluteus maximus, which can generate a ton of force but which most people nowadays use as seating. If you really want to be pathetic and weak you can attach an electric motor to a bike to get you up the tough inclines.
Don't bike if you don't want to, but please stop niggling naysaying based on nothing real. We don't need to encourage each other to be ninnies.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 08 2017, @05:00PM (1 child)
Don't let reality hinder you there... There are valid reasons yo not bike, safety being #1.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 09 2017, @04:10PM
What good is being safe if you die of a heart attack at 50 due to lack of exercise?
It may depend on where you live, but the beneficial health effects far outweigh any dangers you face. This research was published by the British Medical Journal, so naturally would be focused on Britain. I would be surprised if there are places where cycling is a reasonable option to start with, where the health effects don't outweigh the dangers, but maybe they exist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 08 2017, @05:17PM (1 child)
Your knees will likely go bad before you retire. Your back, feet, and hips might go too.
One day you are athletic, and the next day you are in pain and facing the near-inevitability of putting on weight because you can't exercise well. You could fall while hiking, causing your knee to twist. (done it) You could fall while skiing. I got one knee messed up while peacefully lying in bed: my wife threw herself on me, thinking it would be romantic, and *SNAP* goes the knee. She actually cracked a bone.
I now have a bit of a limp. If you don't have one yet, consider yourself lucky.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 08 2017, @05:29PM
I should be fine. I don't have a wife, and I never leave my bed. I only drink weak tea and eat saltine crackers. I should live longer than Aristarchus!
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday September 08 2017, @03:04PM
Western Europe has fantastic weather, if you average it over the year, compared to much of America; the climate in Europe is very mild, which is why civilization there has been so historically successful compared to other places. We have hotter summers and colder winters in North America.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 08 2017, @05:48PM
Sahara or Alaska?
H for Alaska, V for both, AC for Sahara.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 08 2017, @05:46PM (2 children)
"bicycling to work can theoretically be good exercise although in practice it isn't for most people" "good exercise leads to good shape" "good shape leads to long life"
Looks like it's a correlation study. so it's more like: "People who bike to work die from cancer less."
(insert required correlation v. causation trope here)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 09 2017, @12:24AM
Always something to be aware of when examining data, but I think this is the rare instance where there actually is a plausible mechanism for causation, and even more rare, the causation is in the direction the sensationalist author wants it to be.
The human body is meant to move. Sadly, I'm in the same boat as Justin Case up there. I biked to work for about a month before I gave up. I think SUVs were trying to see how close they could get to me without hitting me. I swear I came within half an inch of an SUV knocking my handlebars and sending me flying head over heels over bike at least once per mile.
I live close enough to work that if I feel like an hour walk, I can get there on time with a reasonable pace. Did that for a while too. Then something strange happened. I decided to buy a car new. Then I felt compelled to use my status symbol to get around everywhere.
In the USA (outside of the big city at least), only homeless people and children walk or ride bikes. So if you're not a child, people will assume you're homeless.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 10 2017, @03:36PM
Well if you die in a traffic accident you're a lot less likely to die of heart disease and cancer ;).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 09 2017, @04:02PM
While true that a car can carry a laptop easier than you can while cycling, laptops aren't really that heavy and by themselves won't make that much difference. I also leave my laptop at work most of the time.
The fumes are actually worse in your car, your car's intake is closer to road level so picks up more exhaust emissions.
Other studies have indicated that the positive health effects of cycling far outweigh the negative health effect of pollution.
The sweat from cycling tends to dry off soon enough after getting to work and doesn't lead to me being smelly as long as I had a shower that morning and put on some deodorant. There are also showers at my office should I wish to use them.
My commute by bicycle is about 20 minutes, by car I can do it in 15, then I have to park and walk from the car park, which takes about 5 minutes, so timewise it is a wash.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Friday September 08 2017, @01:04PM (2 children)
Protected bike lanes make a big difference. The way Montreal does it works well: the cars park next to a stand-alone curb, or with a painted margin, and the bike lanes are between that and the sidewalk's curb. That way the parked cars constitute a metal wall between car and bike traffic, and the bikes don't infringe on pedestrian space.
Shared bike lanes don't work very well in my experience, because cars, taxis, cops, delivery vans treat the bike lane like a double-parking lane. Drivers are supposed to be ticketed for that. Last year I saw the Scofflaw Patrol's van doing the same thing.
Cycling with other bike commuters cuts down on the aggravations you experienced, however. As a group you have a lot greater visibility and the cars slow down much more. With a pack of multiple riders, taking off from red lights is never a problem because drivers won't plow through to do a right-hand turn (in the US).
Once you have sorted those matters out, cycling is really the best way to get to work. Because vehicular traffic has exploded so much, and because the actual distances the average commute cover are bike-able, the travel times are not too different. You do also lose a lot of weight and get much fitter. If you have to wear nice clothes in the office, take them in a backpack and change in the bathroom. If you're worried about arriving sweaty, don't ride so hard--it's a commute and not a race, and exercise clothes will help a lot.
When I commuted to work by bike, 17 miles each way, I had to wear a full suit in the office and managed it that way. There wasn't secure bike parking at my office or in my 3rd-floor apartment, so I got a foldable Dahon mountain bike off Craig's List and a bike bag with a shoulder strap. It would take 2-3 minutes upon arrival to fold up the bike, pop it into the bag, and ride the elevator up to my floor, where I stored the bag next to my chair at my station.
I see a lot of other people riding around now with after-market electric motors on their bikes, which seems like it would be an option for people who feel less physically able to bike. One parent at my kids' school has 5 kids and lives 1.5 miles away and he picks them up on his cargo bike, switches on the motor, and trucks them up the long hill home.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Friday September 08 2017, @01:13PM (1 child)
I live in a recreational city which is into having continuous green strips of parkway running along the river thru its flood plain, so 99.999% of the time when the river isn't flooding, the bicyclists commute on the dedicated bike paths along the river thru the parks. Obviously a city doesn't need a river to have a greenway of parks run thru it, it merely needs good planning (merely, LOL...). The parks are multi-use, obviously, so outside commuter hours the bike paths are mostly full of little kids, which is also good.
Just saying its possible to put bikes on roads, but putting bikes on bike paths inside multi-use parks is even better.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday September 08 2017, @03:01PM
Absolutely. It's a joy to be able to cycle along and not have to worry about stop signs or traffic lights or cross streets. I solved a lot of code challenges that way by tuning out on the ride to/from work and letting my mind mull over the problem. I was lucky that 2/3rds of the distance I had to ride was within the Hudson River Park and then Riverside Park on the west side of Manhattan, but the protected, on-street bike lanes were appreciated on the other 1/3 where I could get them.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 08 2017, @02:00PM (5 children)
Many drivers think cyclists are assholes because they're born that way. We must be assholes for reasons though.
My experience basically mirrors yours and I'm in Europe (Germany, big city/metropol area). Round here we mostly have separate bike lanes, the closer to city center the better develoved. But the most common (legacy) type are lanes shared with the sidewalk area instead of the road. Quality usually declines the further away from city centre you get. Quite a few of these legacy bike lanes are a no-go if...
So riding in traffic is sometimes the better option even when a bike lane is available. It's also allowed by law to do so. Not many car drivers are aware, so you often get the horn just for existing in "their" space. Near red traffic lights, asshole drivers like to block the rightmost half-metre of asphalt when they have just overtaken a cyclist in order to force them to the back of the line. Naturally, turning left by giving hand-signals can be quite dangerous if drivers are being aggressive towards you just for the perceived violation of their territory.
All the above is just business as usual though. I've lost count how many near-misses I've had because of inattentive drivers. And when you're on a bike with no realistic crash protection (yeah, that helmet will save you in 50-70km/h motor traffic...), you start developing a spidey sense. On some occasions, you have time and see the slowpokes coming. Often, you don't and it's literally a split second reaction seperating you from grave injury or death.
Because of this, I became an "asshole cyclist". I'll take more space than I need on the road so drivers notice and don't cut me. I'll sometimes swerve intentionally to make space before a lane change, because hand signals appear to be non-binding to some drivers.
I will yell at people who don't see me and scream and curse at people who only missed me because I was on the ball and evaded, often with additional risk to myself. I hope this serves some purpose and they'll remember the shock of the moment. But honestly, the most important part of it is venting immediately so you don't carry the road rage with you.
Become an asshole cyclist and you'll be a happier cyclist.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 08 2017, @02:29PM (4 children)
We think cyclists are assholes because so many can't be bothered to follow basic traffic rules: blowing through red lights and stop signs, crossing a road when the signal tells them "Don't cross", etc.
But hey, in a competion of car vs. biker flesh, car wins every time, so there is that justice.
Justice isn't there when cyclists mow down pedestrians, though. Cyclists hate pedestrians and sometimes use their paths anyway like they belong exclusively to them.
ASSHOLE CYCLISTS. They don't want to stop or slow down because it TIRES them to speed up again, the delicate blossoms, so they disobey any traffic rule that requires that.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Justin Case on Friday September 08 2017, @03:32PM
Totally agree that 75% of cyclists make the other 25% look bad. That doesn't it make it OK to kill the 25%.
Well they do have a nasty habit of abandoning all situational awareness and meandering aimlessly into the path of traffic. But it is the biker's responsibility to plan ahead for this.
(Score: 2) by http on Friday September 08 2017, @04:30PM (1 child)
Cyclists have zero monopoly on breaking the rules of the road, and to be honest I've seen way more stories about cars mowing down pedestrians than cyclists. There's a reason, cyclists know they won't "win" any collision with a pedestrian.
Good luck with yoru next lying post.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Friday September 08 2017, @11:13PM
But most don't have any idea about how to share footpaths with pedestrians*.
*No, theyre not permitted on normal (as in not signposted "shared") footpaths, but that doesn't stop them.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 08 2017, @04:34PM
No need to tire yourself accelerating from stops when you know traffic light timings. Timings are pretty systematic here, if you commute the same route for a while you'll figure them out.
I'll admit to being an asshole to pedestrians in one specific case: them being in my lane and not giving way in time. When I'm going 45 to catch the next light and some sleepwalking ped dreams about my bell being the ice cream man, I'll keep going. There's gonna be a gap, eventually.
I don't hate pedestrians though, can always use some dodging exercise - gonna need it when I run into "competition" motorists like yourself. When you're competing on your phone/satnav/fixing makeup in the mirror/falling asleep because your AC is turned up too high/dreaming about the ice cream man...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 08 2017, @03:56PM (3 children)
I had a close call this morning with a bicyclist. He was riding on the sidewalk in a direction against the flow of traffic, and had not intended to stop before he crossed the driveway.
There enough ahole bicyclists out there as well.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Friday September 08 2017, @08:44PM (2 children)
Why would a bicycle be expected to stop before crossing a driveway? Would you also expect a wheelchair or pedestrian to stop?
And if a bicycle was going "the right way" in your opinion, then it would have been OK?
Something is missing from your story. Where were you, and how did you get there, such that anything on the sidewalk would be part of a close call?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 08 2017, @09:01PM (1 child)
If you are on a sidewalk you stop and look both ways before crossing the street. Don't you? This was not an intersection with a pedestrian signal either. Yes, yes I would expect someone walking or in a wheelchair, or on a scooter, or hovering 6 inches off the ground to stop before they
If you are on a bike why would you ride on the sidewalk when there is a bike lane? Which there was.
Turning right you are looking primarily to the left. You expect traffic from the left. You look right right before you go only to check for pedestrians, not fast moving bicycles moving in a direction you dont expect, somewhere they shouldn't be.
Also due to obstructions it would be impossible to see someone on the sidewalk, especially moving quickly until the driver has already entered the crosswalk preparing to turn.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Justin Case on Friday September 08 2017, @10:17PM
Street yes. Driveway no. In my town at least there are maybe 10 driveways per block. It is the responsibility of the person entering the street to check for oncoming traffic.
Just seconds ago you advised me to look both ways. Try it yourself. Especially now that you realize traffic (not just bikes) can come from both directions.
Why can't you see the bikes and wheelchairs at the same time?
Start expecting them. It's called defensive driving.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Saturday September 09 2017, @02:54AM (4 children)
I've just got to ask...
Your current sig indicates you're extremely hostile to self-driving cars, but self-driving cars are much more likely to see you than human drivers. They'll not only save lives; they very well might make it safe enough for you to bike again.
You don't think that's worth swallowing your philosophical opposition for?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Justin Case on Saturday September 09 2017, @11:15AM (3 children)
When a person causes an accident, they are (usually, supposed to be) held responsible.
Who is responsible for self driving cars? I have never heard that answered.
It is going to be just like Windows Updates. Yeah, oh, sorry, our stuff is crap. Here's an update. No, that didn't end the crap. But the EULA says it's nobody's fault. And by the way, we just unblocked telemetry again.
(Score: 1) by terryk30 on Saturday September 09 2017, @02:04PM
So far, Volvo [forbes.com] has stated it will accept responsibility, as well as Google and Mercedes-Benz [engineering.com] (all with expected caveats of course).
Of course how accidents are investigated or reported will be affected. At the scene, if one driver (or the driver, in the case of driver/cyclist) tells the cop "my car was driving", of course this would be verifiable, but then how does the investigation continue?
I suppose the car manufacturer would (in the early stages of adoption at least) dispatch a small tech & legal team w. accident telemetry in a format suitable for accident investigation. However for those cases where the other operator was a human driver (or cyclist) who did something bone-headed (i.e. was clearly at fault) and the self-driving car could not avoid the collision, perhaps investigation-tailored telemetry could be obtained (or uploaded) by the cops and it would suffice as the "other side of the story". Lotsa "hmmm's..."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 09 2017, @04:32PM (1 child)
That should be decided by law-makers. Personally, I think they should be insured by the owner (or lease-holder if leased), and the insurance company pays out for any damage they cause. If you have an opinion, you should let your local representative know so suitable laws can be passed.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Saturday September 09 2017, @05:19PM
If someone deliberately designs, builds, and sells a machine that through the carelessness of its makers autonomously and uncontrollably kills people, the designers makers and sellers should be held for multiple murder charges. No, it doesn't make it OK if you call that machine a "car" instead of a "terminator".
So, which legislator exactly do you have in mind, who listens to the public instead of the corporate lobbyists?