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: 2) by Immerman on Friday September 08 2017, @04:12PM (5 children)
While I like bikes, I do think you're understating the risks - this page (https://bicycleuniverse.info/bicycle-safety-almanac/) discusses some of the difficulties in approximating actual risks, but comes to the conclusion that you're about 3.4x-11.5x as likely to die per mile on a bike than in a car.
Though of course the leading cause of death in the US is heart disease (611k deaths in 2016), and the top of the list is dominated by diseases whose risks would be reduced by regular exercise. (CDC's 2016 Cause of deaths - Top-10 list on page 9: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr65/nvsr65_02.pdf) [cdc.gov]
Accidents do come in number 3 though, at 130k. And roughly 35k of those are automobile accidents. Scaling bicycle accident deaths to the same mileage would put them at between 119k to 402k, somewhere between number 3 and 6 on the list. Nothing to sneeze at.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 08 2017, @05:33PM (2 children)
It's not just bike deaths that are a concern, but also non-fatal injuries.
Those can take you out of work short term or long term or at least be a real "inconvenience" for a while.
If you have dependents (small children and wife), this becomes disruptive to them too.
I appreciate your fatality statistics. I would also love to see non-fatal injury statistics. Those can also be serious.
And to the cycling fanatics: there are plenty of much safer ways to get exercise. Some even involve cycling on bike/pedestrian paths in parks, not highways.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 08 2017, @05:40PM
Apologies if the accident stats are included in the link you provided; don't have time to go beyond your summary at the moment.
(Score: 2) by rleigh on Friday September 08 2017, @07:58PM
If you have a sedentary job like I do sitting at a computer all day, that inactivity is far worse for your health that the chance of a cycling injury. You could drop dead of a heart attack, or you might have a fatal collision. Not cycling comes with its own risk factors.
I've had a few cycling injuries but nothing to stop me permanently. Our bodies wear out with age and use, but that's not a reason for avoiding reasonable and moderate exercise regimes. Not exercising can cause musculoskeletal problems, so cycling is a net benefit unless you seriously overdo it, and a commute is not going to do that for most people.
Regarding cycling off road, it's not the same. I regularly cycle between 60 and 80 miles on a day at the weekend, and you can't do that on a track in the park.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 08 2017, @06:36PM (1 child)
If you check per hour traveled, motor vehicles are more dangerous due to the higher speeds involved.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 08 2017, @06:54PM
To compare apples to apples, you have to compare incidents per MILE.
I have to commute X miles to work. I compare incidents per MILE in a car vs. a bike because those are my choices of how to travel the commuting distance. Per HOUR is meaningless.