source: autocosts.info ]]>

According to this: http://peoplepoweredmovement.org/site/images/uploads/2010%20Benchmarking%2011.20.10%20Web.pdf only 0.5% of people ride bikes to work. Even if 2 times that much ride a bike every day (even though it isn’t commuting to work), that’s 1% of the population. If this guess is accurate (and nobody knows, even the above report admits that), that means that 1% of the population would have to be at risk of vehicle impacts for 2500% of the TIME that ALL of us spend walking outside for the risk of fatality to be equal. There’s just no way. A recent survey showed that about 25% had ridden a bike at least once during the summer of 2010. Even if we use this value, the bikers have to spend as much time biking as all of us do walking.

Here’s the math I used (we’re trying to solve for bicycle risk time, assuming equal risk, which will give us a lower value than the situation that the OP states – biking is safer than walking):

Pedestrian fatalities/bike fatalities = (about 4).

So if the risk pool is the same number of people, and the same amount of time, bikers risk is 25% of that of walkers. But the risk pool for bikers is nowhere near the size of pedestrians. The assumption that only 1% of the population rides daily (2 times the amount that commute) means that the people in the bike risk pool are 1/100th of the number of walkers (bikers also walk). To account for the ratio of deaths, assuming equal risk time, 1/100th of the number of people have to generate 1/4th the number of deaths. That means that per unit of time, the biker’s risk would be actually 25 times the walkers. So for the risk over time to be equal to walkers, the bikers have to spend 25 times the time biking than the average person spends walking. That’s 125 minutes per day assuming everyone in the country only spends 5 minutes as a pedestrian each day. If the average daily pedestrian time is only 15 minutes for everyone, that jacks up the required time for bikers to 375 minutes, or over six hours. Sound reasonable? Then add in winter, where in large parts of the country it isn’t practical to ride a bike (try riding a bike on an unplowed road with just 4 inches of snow on it; it’s very hard, and gets harder with each extra inch), and you add even more time needed in the summer to make up for it. The claim just doesn’t pass the reasonable test.

It’s a great idea in the places where the weather cooperates and sidewalks exist to ride on (there’s no way I’d ride on some of the roads I’ve driven on to commute), but it puts restrictions on where you live relative to where you work (no 30+ mile commutes by bike), as well as shopping, etc. I’m glad you’re enthusiastic and able to do it, but your post clearly ignores these issues and asks us all to do it as if it were possible; it isn’t and hasn’t been for decades.

]]>While high quality cycle lanes would be nice, claiming that it is too dangerous to share the road with cars is nonsense. It’s fashionable to paint cycling as dangerous but the facts don’t bear this out – it’s actually safer per mile travelled than being a pedestrian!

It even compares favourably with driving once you take in to account the fitness benefits; cycling increases your life expectancy overall.

Save money, be healthier, live longer. Win, Win, Win.

]]>I’m driving a ’99 BMW m3 convertible that I bought 3 years ago. KBB value indicated a drop of $800 for value for the 3 years owned.

I’m driving an amount of 10kmiles a year.

I do the maintenance myself.

The car cost me (including depreciation, maintenance, gas (ok..25mpg..), insurance, parts…) $4100 a year – much less than what a new chevvy econo-box would cost me… ]]>