I'd use a car share service if we had one here.
Don't people get sweaty when they bike to work? That's always seemed like the biggest drawback, to me.
I've got a gym right by work, and could shower and change. I bet most people could figure something out. And on a shorter commute, how sweaty is anyone going to get riding a couple of miles?
I bet most people could figure something out.
You're beautiful when you wave your hands, LB.
I do get fairly sweaty riding 4.5 to work during July and August in Memphis.
But I change clothes when I get to work, so I don't really care.
I get incredibly sweaty riding 3 - 3.5 miles to work -- as in soaking wet. I change my t-shirt when I get to work, but, tbh, I'd really rather have a shower (not an option).
Also, commuting 11 miles in 1 hr sounds incredibly ambitious. I think you'd be surprised how hard that is.
4: Again, we're talking policy changes. With all the money I just spent on dedicated separate bike lanes, there should be some left over to spend on, e.g., tax incentives for larger businesses to put in showers for bike commuters, or for gyms to offer low cost locker-room only memberships.
My fear wrt bike lanes is that they create a presumption bicyclists belong in them and not on the road like other vehicles. The upshot could and probably would be restrictions on cyclists riding where they do now. In addition, bike lanes and bike paths are often wretchedly engineered for anyone riding at more than a slow recreational pace, and tend to be clogged with people pushing strollers or kids on bikes with training wheels. If you can use the adjoining road you can avoid all this and feel a great deal safer to boot. "Vehicular cyclists" like me a very suspicious of bike lanes in the American context.
I'd have thought, also, that good cycling lanes would be easier to build in the US than in Europe. Wider streets, less of a space premium, etc.
6: You think? I haven't biked much since Samoa -- what with the traffic it's not a practical way for me to get around NY, and there's other things I'd rather do for fun. But back in Samoa I'd go thirty miles to visit people for the weekend (once went fifty to a party that turned out to have been cancelled), and if I'm remembering right three hours for a thirty mile ride was loafing.
In addition, bike lanes and bike paths are often wretchedly engineered for anyone riding at more than a slow recreational pace
I'm not an urban cyclist, nor a civil engineer, so I don't actually know what I'm talking about. But the point of the linked article (which may be all wrong, of course) is that American bike lines tend to be wretched, but that better jobs have been done elsewhere.
(And I am talking big about my commute. I hadn't actually checked the mileage till I started writing the post -- I thought it was more like six or seven miles. Eleven is right at the outer limit of what sounds practical to me.)
10: Riding in the city is a lot slower than along rural roads.
re: 10 and 12
Yeah, that's what I meant. Leisure cycling is just completely different from urban commuting. Harder work per mile too, in my experience.
That's not a reason not to do it, of course. My dad used to work about 6-10 miles from home, and he commuted there and back by bike. At one point he worked split shifts and used to commute there and back twice a day.
I've been trying to bike to work once or twice a week. Google tells me it's a 4.6-mile trip; it takes me about the same time as taking the train, and there's a gym near work where I shower. On days when I bike in I feel really invigorated -- don't even need coffee. And along with a renewed effort at going to the gym, the biking has me feeling and looking a little more fit.
But it really is scary sometimes. There's one really nasty stretch in Brooklyn where I have to share the road with crazed car commuters and big trucks, even merge across traffic coming off the Manhattan Bridge. And then going uptown on the Bowery/Third Ave you have to deal with insanely high speeds, unpredictable taxis, and parked cars that can open their doors at any time. Going back downtown, there's a bike lane on Second Ave that makes things a little easier but doesn't adequately separate you from traffic.
The separated bike lanes in Amsterdam looked like a dream.
12: What I'm visualizing is bikeways paralleling the FDR and the Westside Highway (the second kind of exists already), with local bike routes spreading out from there. For my commute, there'd be a slowish half-mile on either end, but a long straight stretch where you should be able to go at whatever speed was practical. Look, I'm daydreaming.
I want a t-shirt that says "Help LizardBreath bike to work! Bikeways now!"
I have several friends who always bug me about riding my bike, but my reason for not doing so is ultimately the safety concern. Public transit works perfectly well for me, and I can't see how I'm going to derive enough benefit from biking to make it worth possibly getting seriously injured. (Other people might have a higher risk tolerance in that regard than me.)
Plus I fear change.
As for the "Europeans do bike lanes well" thing -- whenever I hear about some type of public good that has been well provided for, I instinctively think, "This could absolutely never happen in America." The very fact that it's public and done well would mean that it would be intolerable to Americans. Does anyone else feel that way?
That said, maybe we could make privately-owned bike tollways.
I can commute into work via a cycle route. It's not got much in the way of dedicated cycle lanes but it runs along quiet residential streets that parallel the main road. However, a lot of the time if I'm in a hurry, I take the main road. It's more direct, and it's a faster ride.
[I'm a lazy git though, and have commuted to work by bike about twice in the past 3 weeks]
But the point of the linked article (which may be all wrong, of course) is that American bike lines tend to be wretched, but that better jobs have been done elsewhere.
But if you've a personal interest in an issue, your support or opposition is based on your estimate of what you're likely to get. In general, learning to ride comfortably and safely on existing roads is a much better solution, fiercely defended by active cyclists. And lots of things are done better elsewhere.
This thread is making me think I need to get started on my biking to work project, which is basically "get in good enough shape to be able to get over South Mountain" -- after I ride over South Mountain there is another 5 miles including a smaller mountain ridge but if I can make it over that first ridge I'm confident I can do the ride. No shower facilities at my office though, so I'll have to work something out. I get there early enough, I should be able to just splash my pits in the men's room sink without causing too much of a stir.
I walk to work most days (~2 miles), but I'm kind of confused by the attitude of Kotso's friends. You take public transportation, and they bug you about it? "Get off the bus, parasite!"?
The shower issue is a big one. I sweat freely. There is a huge athletic club where I work. But I am a contractor and not eligible to use it. It'd be great if the government created incentives for these companies to open up these facilities. Then again, this is a government facility.
As to lanes. I am a road-bike rider. I think most trails/lanes in the US suck. They are usually multi-use recreational trails and are built with an inch of asphalt while meandering all over creation. (Not to mention the dogs, etc.) The other lanes are on roads and are usually widened parking lanes. This means that I'd end up riding in the door zone. I was taught from the first day I rode to stay out of the door zone. Here in Arlington, VA we have lots of rec trails and the door-zone ones too. Arlington thinks it does a great job.
Euorpean-style lanes seem to be better. The ones I saw in Amsterdam were good and got used. Even Paris is building them and doing them right. They are separated from other traffic and dedicated to bikes. Don't try to walk yourself or your dog in them. You will get a lecture.
Yeah, I hate that dedicated bike trails/paths tend to be recreational and meandering. Fuck that noise!
Chicago has public shower facilities, lockers and bike lockups in a dedicated facility in Millenium Park right downtown. But thousands of people commute using the lakefront pathway, which is subject to all of the problems md detailed in 23. I know serious cyclists badly injured there in the last month, avoiding the sort of walker/stoller/dog whom no one will lecture in the US. For bikelanes to work here we would, as usual, need a different society.
And lo, shorter me, once again: "!"
How I would love to lecture cyclists who nearly knock me down on the sidewalk.
26: But that pathway isn't dedicated for bikers -- it's supposed to be shared, so a lecturer would be formally in the wrong. The ideal would be actually separated bike lanes.
27: I was echoing enthusiastically! Not chastising for conciseness.
21: They're bike fundamentalists.
But I did my part by selling my vehicle. Now I am completely reliant on public transit. I think it was the day the check cleared that the head of the CTA started threatening brutal cuts. (Maybe I can take the Metra to Hyde Park from downtown or something.)
Bikes don't belong on the sidewalk in cities. (Exceptions made for small kids in residential areas.) Pedestrians are walking at 3-4 MPH and I am wanting to ride at 12-20 MPH. Pedestrians on sidewalks stop to talk, look in windows, change direction turn into stores, cross streets. This is a recipe for disaster. (Likewise the multi-use trails.)
Olmsted and Vaux got it right in Central Park. Grade separation for carriages, horses, and pedestrians. Just update.
In general, learning to ride comfortably and safely on existing roads is a much better solution, fiercely defended by active cyclists.
But the percentage of the population of, say, NYC that fits this category is tiny. Commuter bike paths in NYC are very unlikely to be clogged with toddlers on tricycles, and ordinary people might be able to bike without having to cultivate the bike messenger's kamikaze mentality. You can't even drive "comfortably and safely" in New York traffic.
People riding bikes on pavements (aka sidewalks) are generally bastards, in my experience.
Ditto cyclists who run red lights.
Concealed carry for pedestrians and bicyclists is the only answer. A 007 Bicycle Club.
We need bike tubes, a la the deposit kind at the bank. Whoosh!
Right. I'm never going to learn to ride comfortably in NYC (or Chicago) traffic, and I'm not interested in learning, and I think anyone, comfortable or not, who thinks they're riding safely under those circumstances has a very different definition of safe than I do.
Instead of a "bike", just ride your hamster ball to work. Safety first!
In general, learning to ride comfortably and safely on existing roads is a much better solution, fiercely defended by active cyclists.
Yeah, but this just makes me sad, because it means that the odds are excellent that I will never be able to commute happily by bike. I doubt very highly that I will ever feel comfortable and safe riding in real city traffic.
Or best of all, perhaps, install a pneumatic hamster ball system.
real city traffic
Thought you lived in Ohio or something?
People riding bikes on pavements (aka sidewalks) are generally bastards, in my experience.
I hope you make an exception for sidewalks that hardly anyone ever walks on. I'm planning to experiment with commuting to work, but there's a bottleneck between me and downtown where the traffic is truly terrifying, but where I rarely see pedestrians. I'd never ride in that traffic stream.
Well, right now I walk to work, but I'm also about to finish my dissertation, try to get a proper tenure-track job, etc., so who knows where I will wind up? Probably somewhere where I won't be lucky enough to be able to live within walking distance of campus, I suspect.
I will resolutely resist the temptation to let you wind me up about what does and does not constitute a real city.
I hear that Ogdenville, North Haverbrook, and Brockway have made substantial innovations with respect to transit planning.
In general, learning to ride comfortably and safely on existing roads is a much better solution, fiercely defended by active cyclists.
As LB and mcmc and rfts have all noted, this is hard to do as an adult. My dad has many faults, but the first day I learned to ride a bike he took me for a 5 mile ride on Boston streets—halfway we stopped at a bar for a boilermaker for him. Some of the streets were residential but some were very busy (one was Dorchester Ave). Folks in places with good systems learn as drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists that the dedicated lanes are just that. They also learn that absent bike lanes, bikes do belong on the roads.
I think I'm going back to playing in my pneu-Habitrail. I get too exercised by this topic.
A carefully constructed transit schema with attention paid to using mass transit and bike lanes as a component of public health planning is really more of a Shelbyville idea, eb.
45: Tell us your plan, and we'll vote for it!
Like md, I've always been a vehicular cyclist, although for many years I was about the only one I ever saw. Now that there are tens of thousands of others, of all ages, fitnesses, and both genders I feel more cultural reinforcement. Major Chicago thoroughfares, like Elston or Western or Broadway have a continuous stream of commuters these days.
When I was last in NYC, I saw a lot of bicycle commuting in Manhattan that didn't look kamikaze to me, but I may have skewed ideas.
Cycling in London can be pretty unpleasant - where there are bike paths, they are usually blocked with parked cars or roadworks. I generally get forced back off onto the road. Luckily nothing tends to move very fast in inner London so it doesn't seem too hideously dangerous, but I can expect a moderately hair-raising experience every other day or so.
But as far as getting sweaty goes, cycling on a hot day compares pretty well with taking the tube. At least it's just your own sweat and healthy exhaust particles, not a steamroom fueled with the fetid emanations of a thousand baked commuters.
i dont like steamroom
I still can't get past ttaM's 6. 11 miles in 1 hour is the opposite of ambitious, particularly if you're talking about dedicated bike lanes (plus the relative flatness of Manhattan). My old 4.6 mile Pittsburgh (read: hilly) commute never exceeded 20 minutes except in the snow, and involved only one, incidental section of trail.
As for Kotsko's concerns, no one should lecture you about your own risk/reward perceptions, but statistically speaking, you're nuts: the health benefits of riding far exceed the health risks. Among other things, you're overestimating the actual likelihood of injury - I did the aforementioned commute 3+ days/week for 4 1/2 years, and never had so much as a scary incident, much less a scrape - even though my route included a narrow bridge with neither shoulder nor sidewalk. So that's, let's see, 6200 vehicle miles without the least harm to my person (or bike). And do you think maybe my health improved over what sitting on a bus would achieve?
Oh, I will note that I had a shower at that job, and a very supportive boss. But there are tens (hundreds) of thousands of bike commuters without showers, and tips like wet-wipes for cleaning, walking/coasting the last couple blocks to slow the heart and cool the body, etc., are all well-established. I'd also add that the bike clothes that people love to mock are really effective at wicking away sweat and minimizing overheating.
the bike clothes that people love to mock are really effective at wicking away sweat and minimizing overheating.
But they look ridiculous in an office setting.
mcmc has my permission, as possibly the most severe cyclist likely to converse with her, to use an empty sidewalk for safety. There are roads and streets I avoid too, and sometimes a shortcut, like a short distance wrongway on a one-way street, makes the whole journey easier and faster. But some people make a habit of it.
In my experience the real hazard from sidewalk riding is that people cross roads just like pedestrians, and drivers aren't looking for you there I've nearly hit prim-expressioned riders many times blythly crossing streets from sidewalk to sidewalk, no doubt thinking themselves safer than if they were in the road. I've read somewhere that very very few cyclists are hit from behind, which is the main fear people have of riding on streets. Crossing unexpectedly, which is almost inevitable for sidewalk riders, is much more dangerous.
Rain pants were the only bike clothes that I've ever considered a necessity. The one day I tried to ride in the rain in jeans, I got to work looking like I'd waded there.
? I don't get that -- why is a bicyclist crossing the street less safe than if they were a pedestrian? Because the sort of idiot who bikes on the sidewalk bikes across traffic without looking?
I'd think the reason for bicyclists to stay off sidewalks is courtesy toward pedestrians, rather than their own safety. (And while I snarl at, and occasionally lecture sidewalk cyclists, I wouldn't take exception to someone riding slowly and cautiously, and giving pedestrians a wide and attentive berth. If you're on the sidewalk pedaling at speed with your head down, I'll be considering putting a stick in your spokes.)
Because cyclists get into the crosswalk a lot faster and more suddenly than pedestrians. Drivers are not looking for anyone approaching a crosswalk at 15-20 MPH, so their visual scan doesn't take in enough area to include such a rider. When a rider crosses an intersection in the traffic lane - as they should - then the driver spots them just as she would another auto (setting aside biker visibility issues - another benefit of garish jerseys!).
LB--because they often cross with the pedestrians but move much much more quickly than them. Cars don't expect them in the crosswalk and can't predict how they'll dart. Or where the pedestrians dodging them (grumble grumble) will end up.
Because the sort of idiot who bikes on the sidewalk bikes across traffic without looking?
Idiocy for sure, but common enough to be a hazard. I see adults do this, riding fast enough to dart in front motorists without warning to the driver, several times a week. I don't know what's in their heads, but safety must be part of it, or else why would they ride there?
Santiago has bike lanes which suddenly merge with sidewalks. I've had more near-misses on my two-block walk to the bus stop than I care to count. Something about being a foreigner makes me reluctant to shout "Get off the sidewalk!" But once I actually get hit, I figure this gives me the right to react.
56: Once I started commuting in jerseys, I couldn't bear to wear cotton T-shirts anymore. I'm certainly sweat-prone, so it's worse for me than it might be for others. Shorts (under baggies or other, regular shorts) were just practical - I wasn't going to spend all day in underwear that I'd biked and gotten sweaty in, so why not go for the comfort of padding?
That said, I also ride recreationally, so I have a use for this gear beyond the commute; I doubt I'd invest a couple hundred bucks in clothes just to get to and from work.
Santiago has bike lanes which suddenly merge with sidewalks.
This sort of thing is why vehicular cyclists disdain bike lanes. Unless they are done near-perfectly, they create more hazard than they prevent - and that's aside from the cultural implications of bikes seeming not to belong out of their lanes.
Cycling posts are the new swimming posts.
Not so. Cycling posts have that blithe air of fantasy about them, given that I don't actually ride a bike.
51: But I have a really high metabolism and fear that my food budget will skyrocket if I start exercising beyond my 2-3 miles of walking a day.
Trying to link to Trinity Trails of Fort Worth, but the site won't open. Basically, these are dedicated linear parks for hiking/biking about 12 feet across, protected with limited access and underpasses, mostly tree-covered that will extend from North Dallas (2008-09) through the mid-cities to SW or NW Fort Worth, and from SW Fort Worth to SW Dallas. Check a metroplex map.
Basically within that rectangle you are 2-5 miles from everything else. Dallas is way behind.
re: 51
Your commute was approximately 15 mph in hilly urban terrain? That's quite quick. I don't think many people would do that on an ordinary bike who weren't already quite fit. It's nothing compared to the speeds averaged by serious recreational cyclists, but for the commuting cyclist, that's relatively fast.
If I average about 15mph* on my commute home (which I do) I'll overtake pretty much everyone on the road with the exception of a few nutters on road bikes.
I don't think I am unrealistic when I say that an 11 mile commute in an hour is a non-negligible bit of effort. Perhaps I am thinking in terms of more hilly terrain.
* I average more like 10 - 12 mph going the other way because the route into work is largely uphill.
with the exception of a few ^other^ nutters on road bikes.
"Santiago has bike lanes which suddenly merge with sidewalks."
There are a couple places in the DFW trail system this happens, but those places currently and indefinitely have almost zero pedestrian traffic.
The reason Dallas is not decently connected is likely the reason this won't work for NYC or other older metropolises:land prices and development.
re: 71
Nah, I am riding a normal mountain bike/hybrid. I ride at a fairly leisurely speed going to work.
More on 51: I've known several bike fundamentalists who've had knee or ankle problems as well -- so I hope you can save up all that great cardio for when you're lying in a hospital bed preparing for knee surgery.
re: 74
Yeah, I am a non-serious cyclist -- I rarely do more than 20 miles a week -- and I get the occasional bout of patella problems.
Good shoes with minimally flexible soles go a long way toward preventing those knee problems.
74: Bike fit is crucial, the more so the older the rider; most knee and ankle problems are due to the saddle being positioned wrong, or the bike being the wrong size. Like every other activity cycling requires knowledge you may not how to get, or even know you need. Mechanical self-reliance is another big stumbling block for would-be cyclists.
In general, learning to ride comfortably and safely on existing roads is a much better solution, fiercely defended by active cyclists.
For my own riding, I'm with IDP and JRoth. But a couple of these threads has shifted my perspective. I feel safer taking over a lane and riding with traffic, but I used to be a bicycle messenger. More people will not ride bikes if they have to muscle their way through urban traffic.
If we want to draw more average people into using bikes for short trips, then these dedicated use (not mixed use) lanes through cities could be a real boon. If you read the linked article you'll see that they've even retimed the lights so that bicyclists riding at average speeds have the lights timed for them at rush hour. And these bikeways have the capacity to move more people than the same square footage of roadway.
I don't think the ethic of existing bike commuters is great for informing a campaign to move more drivers onto their bikes.
BTW, I've always had to have a shower to pull off a bike commute - I'm a copious sweater, even in the dead of winter.
Proper positioning on the bike is also critical - if your frame is the right size and your seat is set right (and note that these are one-time settings, fix it and forget it), you can ride tens of thousands of miles without any knee problems (I've never had so much as a mildly sore knee).
70: It wasn't all hills, but, OTOH, I was on a mountain bike with knobbies. I probably would've done more like 18 MPH on a road bike. I fully acknowledge that I was riding hard ("best time ever" was my mantra), but I wasn't riding 200% of a moderate pace, either.
68: bike commuting doesn't burn huge numbers of calories (unless you ride the way I did). The distances are generally such that you're either not going far enough to really burn a lot, or it's far enough that you ride leisurely. Remember, bikes are super-efficient machines - 2 miles on a bike is far less strenuous than 2 miles on foot (again, except at sprint speeds).
a copious sweater
Like one of those thick Tibetan sweaters that make you smell like a sheep? They're really copious.
78: Am I recalling incorrectly, or is there a fair number of former bike messengers among the Unfoggetariat?
one of those thick Tibetan sweaters
For God's sake, don't wear one of those. No wonder you sweat so much.
A certain number of people are comfortable riding their bikes through car traffic. These people already ride their bikes in car traffic. Other people are not comfortable riding their bikes through car traffic. These people would like to ride bikes to work, but can't.
I'm actually less of an anti-bike lane purist than IDP (despite what I said above) - I think that they can play a role comparable to freeways in helping cyclists traverse dicey urban routes so that they can get from comfortable neighborhood to comfortable neighborhood. Here in Pittsburgh, they're about to add "sharrows" along one major artery that basically runs from the riverfront trail network up a long hill and into a dense, bike-centric neighborhood (actually, Dr. Oops' neighborhood, more or less). This road is quite broad, so there's room for bikes and drivers and parked cars and open car doors, which makes it well-suited for such a lane, plus I think that it will do what cw suggests - reassure nervous novice cyclists about traveling through the city.
I think that, as long as non-dedicated bike lanes aren't so common as to create the perception among drivers that bikes belong only in those lanes, they can play a positive role in getting more people on their bikes, with the dual benefits of creating more cyclists and raising the visibility of cyclists.
Bike commuting seems to step the metabolism up to a higher level, where it stays for hours. The calories burned while doing it are only part of the equation. Apparently a half-hour ride twice a day is more effective for weight control than a single hour ride for this reason. I certainly noticed a difference when I did it.
79: So you're telling me that my current habit of walking 2-3 miles a day is actually better exercise than biking? I'm getting more and more set in my ways as this conversation procedes, even if it's for contradictory reasons at every step.
Fort Worth Trinty Trails ...map jpg. The mid-cities may be even better
Dog Walkers Site with Many Pictures
One advantage(?) DFW has is that the Trinity River System is really complicated (many creeks & wetlands) and periodically floods up to 40 feet(clay, non-absorbent soil). A very smart lady thirty years ago convinced councils that instead of concrete dams and viaducts the old-growth forest would absorb the runoff faster and more efficiently. Now most DFW developments are required to have dedicated connected trails.
I am a walker, not a biker, and most of what I meet are recreational and sports bikers, not comuters. But I don't hike during the commuting hours, so what do I know.
83: To some extent yes, but to a greater extent no. Bike commuting in Pittsburgh, for instance, has probably tripled in the last 5 years (based on my own eyeballs). This suggests that the number of people comfortable riding in traffic is not, in fact, fixed.
Look, it's largely a matter of visibility - the more people see others bike-commuting, the more plausible it seems. And when you see a businesswoman in a skirt riding through Oakland, it makes it seem a lot less dangerous/risky/bike messenger-ey.
I don't actually think that creating Amsterdam-style bike infrastructure is even vaguely possible in any US (big) city. We can argue about cause and effect, but I simply don't see it happening. Short of Amsterdam-style infrastructure, we're talking about bike commuters riding in urban traffic. So my interest is in what actions increase the safety of that activity. All sorts of traffic-calming measures that are also better for pedestrians are helpful to cyclists. Walkable cities are also bikable cities, and they both improve national health and the environment.
Bike commuting in Pittsburgh, for instance, has probably tripled in the last 5 years (based on my own eyeballs).
That's good to hear. I hadn't noticed.
86: My understanding was that the 2-3 miles of walking was in addition to X miles of mass transit, to be replaced by biking. 15 miles of biking is certainly far more exercise than 2 miles of walking.
That said, 85 is right - I was underestimating the after-effects of riding. What I was trying to get at was that bike commuting does not consume thousands of additional calories (Tour de France = 10,000 cal/day). It varies based on lots of factors, but I think we're looking at something like 1000 calories or fewer; if you ride like ttaM, probably closer to 500. A candy bar and a can of soda. I don't think it'll bankrupt you, Adam.
on a mundane level, is there a place to lock your bike anywhere near the Chicago lakefront path around 800-900 North (which doesn't require you to carry it up and down a flight of stairs to get under the highway)?
You've got to be careful riding in a skirt, though. I once got a skirt so entangled in the gears and chain that I really feared I was going to have to ride home in my underwear. (Through the Place de la République---it would have been bad, very bad.)
Well, you should leave the wedding dress at home, certainly.
90: JRoth, do you know Adam in real life? Are you one of those friends that's been after him to ride his bike?
I normally don't commute at all -- it's very rare for me to have a week when I need to leave the house every weekday. I just walk around the neighborhood 2-3 miles a day for the sake of exercise/sanity. In fact, I'm going to do that now.
Also, if I were to switch to bike-riding, I would lose a substantial amount of reading time during the school year. Is it considered safe to retrofit one's bike with a reading stand?
Without disagreeing with the larger point, I don't believe that encouraging biking qualifies as a public health measure as I believe the risk of injury will outweigh any health benefits.
I set up Adam's friend Anthony with a bike week before last; I don't know that I'd call him a fanatic but he's certainly an enthusiast. Once again, my standards may be skewed.
I found a study that doesn't give any information about injury rates, but does indicate that there were over 3 times as many jogging-related injuries as cycling-related in 2002. Softball, touch football, volleyball and fitness walking all have more injuries than cycling. Golf, tennis and cheerleading run just behind cycling.
94: Not at all. I just thought Adam's concerns in 17 (which I misunderstood to be a commuting issue) were ill-founded, and it's kind of snowballed from there.
But I'll bug/encourage anyone to ride. You may not recall, but I was one of the ones making positive noises when you were talking about riding more a few months ago.
There's safety in numbers, so I want to see as many cyclists out there as possible.
Oh, hey, since we're talking about cycling, something happened to me the other day that reminded me of the great Critical Mass/Dirty Hippies vs. Dick Cheney thread:
As y'all may recall, there were numerous claims that these cyclists had intentionally thrown their bikes under the van to create an incident. Well, through my own stupidity, I totaled my beloved road bike last Thursday (roof rack + public garage), and I assure you that A. no self-identified cyclist would ever do that to a bike, and B. the related emotions are deep and real. I was about ready to puke over this. I am not, in fact, a Dirty Hippie, but I feel pretty comfortable in making this assumption: no one threw her bike under a moving car just to make a fleeting protest point.
Also, commuting 11 miles in 1 hr sounds incredibly ambitious. I think you'd be surprised how hard that is.
I'd have to second that. My bike commute (when I do it) is 5 and a quarter miles and it takes 45 minutes. Even though, as a London cyclist, you are expected (by other cyclists) to run each and every red light as it presents itself, there are still plenty of stops. If there were a straight, non-stopping dedicated cycle lane available I might get the time down, but in practice even an ideal city cycle network is going to have junctions. However, 45 mins is still better than my one hour average on the tube, which includes 20-25 minutes walking.
My company is nice enough to provide changing rooms and showers for cyclists and I'd say this is essential for encouraging take-up. It works: around half of us bike in regularly. Half of them, I should say.
Road safety is a problem. It's not as bad cycling in city traffic as you might think - and assertiveness helps a lot - but you're still running a real risk of having your foot crushed, or worse. Getting more cyclists on the road does seem to help (and in terms of numbers, London beats the UK average, but remains quite a bit worse than, say, Amsterdam).
Fitness: not sure it's better for me than the gym. I seem to thrive on shorter cardio workouts.
re: 100
I wonder about acute versus chronic injuries, though. Which makes a direct sport-by-sport comparison difficult. There are some sports that lead to a lot of acute injuries -- impact sports, sports with lots of twisting, explosive movements, etc -- and other sports that lead to chronic over-use/joint-degeneration type injuries.
Cycling is more one of the latter.
Argh. This is making me miss my daily commute (which used to be about 1.5 miles of walking each way, plus transit). Working from home and going out to lunch in the middle of the day just isn't cutting it, and it means that even the gym is an extra trip, instead of something I can do on the way to/from work.
100/104: running is much harder on your body than cycling, assuming you are doing both properly.
If a cyclist hits me on the sidewalk, can I throw her bike under a moving car to make a point?
104: Well, if fitness walking is on the list as having more injuries than cycling, I think it's safe to say that the study looks at chronic injuries - there's no way that walking has more acute injuries than cycling.
Furthermore, I don't think that most people who cite "risk of injury" as a reason not to bike in cities are thinking, "in just 10,000 miles, my knees might start to ache a bit." Even if straw-grasping Adam cited that fear.
re: 106
Oh yes. I don't run at all. Chronic shin splints.
Cycling is fairly low impact for me with the sort of mileage I do -- i.e. a 3 or 4 mile cycle each way to work on days when the weather isn't bad.
But in people who cycle a lot, I gather there are quite a lot of chronic over-use injuries.
90: But isn't this true of pretty much all exercise, if it's a regular thing? The actual burn during the exercise is swamped by metabolic effects.
I don't think you're actually required to wait for her to hit you to do that.
109: I think that's only true at the pretty extreme ends, and falls under the over-use injuries you get from over doing pretty much anything. What I mean is that as forms of exercise go, cycling is at the low end of injury statistics, I thought. I could be wrong. Fwiw, I rode quite a bit (300-500km/week or so) for a few years without any adverse effect, but maybe I just didn't do it long enough.
re: 113
Yeah, you are probably right. Cycling non-obsessively on a properly fitted bike probably lies quite low down the injury list for sports in terms of injury-per-hour.
but maybe I just didn't do it long enough.
Well obviously, 15,000 miles a year isn't enough to risk repetitive stress injury.
On the subject of dedicated bikeways, Minneapolis has converted an old below-grade railroad right-of-way to a bike/ped corridor called the Midtown Greenway. I tried it out when back home once, and it's pretty incredible how much fast you can now get across the city biking on it. Lake Street, which it runs just north of, is stoplight-ridden and often fairly congested.
The below-grade nature of the corridor raises some safety concerns, however.
115: Sure kept me regularly replacing drive trains though. One of those things that makes you realize how well engineered (backs notwithstanding) our bodies are.
108
Yes, I was referring to acute injuries like the guy I know who broke his hip cycling when someone biking the other way on the bike trail ran into him.
one of those thick Tibetan sweaters
I love the internet since no one knows I'm a yak. But I can't lose the fur when I ride.
118:
Sure. On the other hand, bike related injuries of the sort you describe (particularly when you seperate out bike & car interactions) aren't very common anyway, and are less frequent with a reasonable infrastructure. Injuries due to poor physical condition are quite common, too. From that, it certainly isn't clear that increased biking as a public health initiative would have a net negative effect, as you suggest. Got anything to back it up?
Upstate Minnesota has a biketrail on a railroad grade which will ultimately be 200 miles long. Rail curves and slopes are as gradual as possible, so it's easy but not exciting biking.
And it ends up -- in Fargo!
"A very smart lady thirty years ago convinced councils that instead of concrete dams and viaducts the old-growth forest would absorb the runoff faster and more efficiently."
This marks the first time I've ever been jealous of Texas.
To the larger points: Kotsko is crazy, there do seem to be a lot of former bike messengers about unfogged and anything that gets more people comfortable riding their bikes sounds good to me, whether the comforted are deluded or no.
Also, I will have a sweat-off with anyone at any time. Biking, hell, I sweat playing foosball. Where's the showers for that?
121: Except for a few miles at the Pittsburgh end (a water park on the riverfront is being obstructionist), you can bike canal/rail-trails from Georgetown, DC to Downtown Pittsburgh. There are a few steeper slopes getting across the Alleghenies (not surprising), but with the help of things like the 1/2 mile long Big Savage Tunnel, it's pretty manageable (I've heard).
But still, it's no Fargo. Sigh.
It seems possible that everyone here who's convinced that they sweat more than others are totally normal.
"are" s/b "is. I can't believe I did that.
124: it does not.
Seriously, have you ever played foosball? This is not an athletic game.
I have an idea for a fun activity at the next meet-up....
128/129: with weigh-ins before and after, just to prove JM s point.
120
Statistics no, but I think you are overly optimistic about the safety of no auto bike paths. With heavy use accidents are inevitable and a serious accident can wipe out the health benefits of ten years of exercise.
I sometimes walk on a mixed use trail (old railroad right of way) and I think from a public health and safety point of view it would be better to ban bikers (and roller bladers).
Perhaps you exert yourself very excitedly while playing foosball?
Sweat lodge? Sauna?
Texas! Bienvenidos!
132: it's foosball! I'm standing completely still, holding on to two basically immobile grips the entire game.
Really, though, I know I sweat a ton because I have always sweated a ton and people always comment on it. When I dance I'm a lawn sprinkler, when I wear a suit I am slicked with a sheen of moisture all day, when DJing I regularly have to swab the mixer clean lest I cause a short, etc.
131: curmudgeonly contrarianism is not necessarily 100% identical to public health and safety, POV-wise.
I will kick sifu's ass in a sweating contest. The tropics provide marvellous training opportunities the year around.
I tell my kid that a high-performance machine requires a high-performance cooling system. He laughs at me. But not so much since he started becoming a notable sweater his own self.
136: yeah, in S.E. Asia people would literally point and laugh when they saw how sweaty I was.
131: So your lack of optimism comes from a vast well of experience .... walking on mixed-use paths?
If you have decent space for bikes as transportation, then accidents are inevitable in exactly the same way that car accidents are inevitable.
Problem is, all of these factors have to be considered together before you can asses net impact. Your `I think risk of injurie outweighs health benefits' seems to be based on an overly simplistic view of the systemic effects, which is why I wondered if you had any real support for it.
Personally, I think it's really difficult to predict, since we really don't have such a system in place anywhere in the the relevent population.
131 b. You could make the same argument to disallow walkers on those paths. In other words, you are noting that `mixed use' raises the possibility of injuries. This, of course, isn't news to anyone but you should ponder the political reality of selling such projects as `single use'.
In SE Asia "sweaty" is a euphemism for "smelly, horny, and with big feet".
134, 137: Although I have to admit that I don't generally sweat unless I'm actually doing something at least mildly physical or it's really, really hot.
One of my sisters was so nervous about her first day of middle school that she applied anti-persperant to her entire body, and ended up passing out with heat exhaustion. Or at least that's how the family legend has it.
140: I used to go out with a Khmer girl; her little cousins nicknamed me "big nose," which might also have been a euphemism.
I will kick sifu's ass in a sweating contest.
You know, some of these comments are making me less eager to ever attend an Unfogged meetup.
133: Yeah, can you imagine, some people pay for that stuff?
138
"Personally, I think it's really difficult to predict, since we really don't have such a system in place anywhere in the the relevent population."
I think it would be possible to answer whether banning bicycles from public roads would be good or bad for public health and safety. I don't have the numbers but I know which way I would bet.
And I don't see why the burden of proof is on me. If you want to spend a lot of public money building bike transportation infrastructure on the basis of putative public health benefits I think the burden is on you to show these benefits exist.
139
I am not opposed to mixed use as the main benefit of these trails is recreation not health.
148: Public roads is a seperate issue, really, and not worth revisiting.
I wasn't advocating one way or another, actually, just wondering if your contention that increased bike use would be a net public heath loss was backed up by anything (it is a bit surprising as a contention). Since it wasn't it seems we've gone round this one as far as is even potentially useful.
This may be tongue-in-cheek, although I can't tell with him, but I've noticed before and it's part of what's going on with me that talk of bike lanes often leads someone to suggest banning bikes from the roads altogether.
149: Didn't you just say that it would be better to ban bikes & rollerblades though? Then your path isn't mixed use anymore.
I just want to chime in as someone who got in a (not very bad) accident on the Lakeshore path last week. That is not a place for evening commuting unless you enjoy the physical and psychic pain of hitting a roller-blader and falling into another biker.
(I should point out that I'm an experienced urban cyclist just not used to roller bladers swinging their arms and feet back and forth...)
The trouble, James, is that you're making absurd claims. We have right here on this thread 2 riders who've already claimed 20,000+ bike-miles without catastrophic injury (or, actually, any injury whatsoever). And you hand-waving "one accident wipes that out" doesn't actually mean that you're right.
Furthermore, the health and environmental benefits of replacing auto miles with bike miles are staggering - it would take a very high rate of catastrophic injuries to even make a dent in these benefits. And, other than one guy you saw once, you've got no evidence whatsoever.
153: Yeah, it's pretty clear that mixed-use recreational/commute trails are just a problematic idea. Rollerbladers are bad enough (unless they are actually good at it they both need a lot of space and tend not te be aware of what's behind them) but you really don't want to cycle at reasonable commuting speeds on a path that may contain 3 year-old on tricycles.
151: Particularly in Chicago, I seem to recall.
I've taken the path before with fewer problems (at a less hectic speed). It shaves a good 15 minutes+ on a trip from the South Loop to Evanston (vs. taking Clarke the whole way).
Maybe they should build a second level on the path for bikers a la the L.
Now that I can only ride on weekend days, I've given up on the Lakeshore path altogether. A friend of mine's in the hospital after a collision with a skater. It's ok in winter or bad weather or close to nightfall, but if I'm riding in the day, I just ride straight down Western to Ukrainian Village and back. An hour.
An elevated bike path? Wow. That sounds exciting, at least.
I actually dislike using mixed-use trails quite a bit, but I think they're pretty well-suited to novices, who won't be going as quickly, and will be much more conservative around arm-swinging 'bladers. Plus, they're more likely to have (and use) bells.
If we're going to ban somebody from mixed-use railtrails, I have to insist that we start with snowmobilers. Children and newly-minted exercise enthusiasts wobbling unsteadily and unpredictably about on bicycles come next. Geezers on walkers, third. Or make a special lane for them.
"I have to insist that we start with snowmobilers"
Southern California has been really ahead of the curve in this regard.
In SE Asia "sweaty" is a euphemism for "smelly, horny, and with big feet".
When I was an avid cycler I decided I wanted one of these. Screw bells, I want people in cars to be able to hear me.
152
I said in 131 it would be better to ban bikes and roller bladers if all you cared about was public health and safety. Since that is not all I care about and considering other factors such as recreation (149) I am ok with mixed use trails.
I totaled my beloved road bike last Thursday ... the related emotions are deep and real.
I KNOW. You get so attached. That's why I hate bike thieves so much. I'm pretty much anti-death penalty, except for fucking bike thieves.
Commuting time on bikes:
I was told from some unverifiable source that any place where parking is difficult, riding your bike and driving take about the same amount of time for distances under seven miles. I don't think it is a law of the universe or anything, but it sounded plausible to me. (My thinking was that a few minutes cruising for parking and a few minute walk back to where you wanted to go against the convenience of biking up to the doorway evens out the difference in travel time.)
a high-performance machine requires a high-performance cooling system
A coach once told me that the better shape you are in, the faster you break a sweat. You're on to something there.
165: Ah, ok I see what you mean.
Of course, if all you are concerned about was public health and safety, banning automobiles is a no-brainer. So it's not a very interesting condition.
Outside of Unfogged, I'm pretty sure that everyone I know who bikes a lot has been in at least one relatively major accident (breaking ankles, messing up knees and backs), and they tend to have a lot of stories about other people they know who have been more seriously messed up. It may just be bad luck and bad conditions -- I have the impression that city biking in Boston is somehow extra perilous -- combined with morbid fascination with the horror stories, but it affects my risk perception. Plus I feel like there are hundred of things that one is supposed to do in order to be a good city street bike citizen that I just don't know and will never manage to learn. I dunno. I used to bike around Berkeley quite a bit, but it's easy to do that without spending any time on major streets.
166: fwiw, when living in a medium-sized city (Vancouver) I serveral times repeated a challenge with friends when we were meeting up in town. Car vs. Bike vs. metro (which happened to have a station across the street from the apartment we started from). Distance here more like 12 or 15 miles, minimum.
If they were lucky with the metro timings, metro and bike (me) were pretty close. Otherwise, bike wins. The car never got close.
168: If you presuppose a good bike infrastructure (which I thought was the point of this particular discussion) the dynamics really are different. Car+bike in crowded conditions is a different story.
I was intentionally seperating out (significant) traffic issues from other potential sources of injury.
162: Where California leads, the nation follows.
Whenever the subject of profuse sweating comes up, I always think back to my poor 7th grade biology teacher, laboring away at the overhead projector at the front of an under-conditioned Florida classroom. He kept two tall stacks of paper towels by his side; one for wiping the projector clean as he filled it up; the other to control the waterfall coming off his forehead. It was hard to watch.
RFTS: the two nice things about biking in Boston are that the roads are so messed up that drivers can't get up much speed (making it easier to keep up with/move around traffic) and that everybody is an asshole, so if you have to be an asshole on your bike in order to be safe people won't think too much ill of you.
I biked there for many years without sustaining a serious injury, although that certainly involved some luck. But I think if you're less crazy than I was it's really not so bad.
Clearly, cars should be banned in the interest of public health.
Also, I'm not going to any meetup with Tweety that's not held in a walk-in freezer.
A coach once told me that the better shape you are in, the faster you break a sweat.
I believe this, at least for me. I was a complete non-athlete until college, and I could half-kill myself when I did try to do something requiring exertion and not break a sweat. I got in fair shape rowing in college, and quite suddenly a couple of months after I began working out, started sweating easily.
If you presuppose a good bike infrastructure (which I thought was the point of this particular discussion)
Well, there was all that talk about "no no, what you need is just to get comfortable riding safely in traffic."
"A coach once told me that the better shape you are in, the faster you break a sweat"
And I thought it was Dallas, with the 80 degrees with 80 percent humidity and 70 degree dewpoints.
I feel studly.
I don't know why people in Boston aren't more careful about hitting things with their cars. It took me two street crossings to figure out that it was a different world, and all I've heard since then has been confirmation.
Maybe they're rich fucks.
175: On this thread? I missed it. It does (as you noted) somewhat depend on the sort of traffic, I suppose. Some california bike routes work well, but I dont' know how practically it scales. Things started talking about European cities with good bike paths.
177: pedestrian crossing safety in Boston: walk briskly and unexpectedly into the street someplace other than a crosswalk, giving every impression that you are completely unaware of the cars coming towards you.
See, that's exactly the approach favored in Santa Cruz where I was living at the time that I visited Boston. Maybe I was just freaked because in Santa Cruz they don't accelerate towards you to see if you're really paying attention.
178: See my 88, for instance (it was buried deeper than I realized).
But there are sort of 2 parallel discussions, sparked by LB's contention that she would totally bike 11 miles to work on grade-separated, dedicated bike lanes. I think she and I, at least, are at consensus on bike lane "highways" that get you across town swiftly and safely, and then you can manage the last few blocks on your own.
179: Seriously, moving to Boston from NY, I got the impression that what you describe really was safer than behaving sanely. In NY, if you make eye contact with a driver, they stop: they aren't going to hit someone who they see and who sees them. In Boston, if you make eye contact with a driver, they speed up and aim at you.
169: Pretty much the same here in Portland. Even outside of downtown, keeping up with cars over much of town isn't difficult, and during rush hours, it's no contest.
The best in-town biking experience I've ever had was in Xian, China, where the main streets were huge, whirring rivers of cyclists, and cars were few. Sadly, I gather that that scene in Chinese cities is increasingly a thing of the past.
180: right, that's just a bluff. Never break character and they'll eventually swerve around.
181: I'm now somewhat embarrassed by my original contention after everyone saying that 11 miles is really far to bike in an urban environment. If I can back down to "I'd commute on a bike if I had grade separated lanes, and the distance was such that I could reasonably do it under an hour."
182: I wasn't being facetious at all. It really is the way to do it.
A coach once told me that the better shape you are in, the faster you break a sweat. You're on to something there. Another euphemism. He was coming on to you, Megan.
in Santa Cruz they don't accelerate towards you to see if you're really paying attention.
Like I've always said - California is for the weak.
179.---That works in Paris, too. It works much better if you're wearing high heels.
157, 159: Meet this comment from the last bike path thread.
I do think elevated bike paths would be awesome. They would be put over the main north-south and east-west arteries of the city, stair access would keep out the slower recreational users, they could be made relatively wide since they'd be built over existing main routes for cars, and the engineering requirements and expenses would be minor since they'd only need to support bicycle weight.
Hell, I'd almost never take the CTA again if I could just bike to within quarter- or half-mile of wherever I wanted to go.
185: Don't back down, LB! You never said you'd hurtle down 8th Ave as-is. With some Euro-infrastructure, you could totally do it.
But that will never happen.
185: Time really is more important. I used to commute 50km (there and back) and people would think I was crazy but at the the time that was about 1h30 (good day) to 1h45 total, which is fine. Road conditions etc. make a lot of differenct too. For a little while I was commuting 3+ h and started to resent it, though.
heck, for a while in california, I stopped commuting by bicycle because it was too short ... switched to walking or blading because break was nice at either end of the day. Weather makes a difference too.
91: Katherine, I don't know if you're still reading this thread, but you can get off the Lakefront path at Oak Street Beach. There are ramps that go down into the underpass and then come out on the intersection of Michigan, Oak, and inner LSD. Use the crosswalk to head south on Michigan, stay on the east side of the road, and around the Hancock there are a fair number of black curvy metal racks for locking up bikes.
875 North Michigan work well enough for you? It's only a bit over a block off the path.
stair access would keep out the slower recreational users
Aw, see, now you're thwarting me again! I already have a messed up shoulder from when I was going upstairs with my bike and stupidly caught a pedal on the railing. I'm terrible at bike-carrying. Maybe someone could give me a remedial course in it, though.
PS. What about the slower non-recreational bikers?
193: yup. In pleasant weather I often want my commute to be longer. I walk to school most of the time; there's no real point getting all sweaty to save fifteen minutes, especially when there's nice weather and things to see.
195: re variable speeds: the best way to handle this is the same as with other vehicles. When you have high density, you want passing lanes and seperated directions. When you don't, it doesn't matter so much and people can wait to pass if needed.
Maybe they're rich fucks
No, we're just not attached to material things.
PS. What about the slower non-recreational bikers?
If you've got a wide elevated path above a road (and even keeping narrower than existing L tracks), there should be no problem with muliple lanes of traffic in each direction. It should allow passing and faster moving people as easily as three-lane roads do at the moment.
My main point with keeping out recreational users is that people are pretty unlikely to carry a bike up a flight of steps or a steep side-ramp unless they've got a good reason for traveling on that path, like needing to get somewhere else.
Another euphemism. He was coming on to you, Megan.
195: There's also a bit of a nifty side-step of the bike-carrying problem that some of the underpasses around here use. They stick a super-steep ramp that's about a foot wide on each side of the stairs. While you're climbing the stairs, you have to push or pull the bike pretty hard to fight gravity and keep it moving properly on the ramp, but it's nowhere near as unwieldy as lifting and carrying the bike.
202: That would be perfect, in my view. Go forth and make it so!
201: Must have made it easier psyching yourself up to get to practice.
202: That's clever. I kind of hate carrying bikes because I always bash myself with them, but a ramp like that would be cool.
202/204 I've seen those too, they work well.
202: I'm putting one in for a client (a bike commuter, no less!) - the drawings are printing right now.
I sweat a lot during any kind of physical activity, and when it's hot. The amount I sweat doesn't seem to have much to do with my perceived level of physical effort.
I'm fairly fit at the moment, although still overweight, and I still pour with sweat at my martial arts class.* Certainly no less than I did when I was less fit.
I've also wondered if it's being a bit fat but thinking back, I sweated like this during sport going right back to my teens (when I had something like 5-10% bodyfat).
It's a pain in the arse.
* boxing gloves get really stinky, too. Which is nasty.
The charming Scottish expression* for this kind of sweaty, btw, is 'sweating like a rapist' ...
* sure it's not exclusive to there, but I've rarely heard it used by anyone else.
"* boxing gloves get really stinky, too. Which is nasty."
You think that's gross, try smelling some dude's gi that he never washes.
I think we're agreeing. Under my coach's theory, more fit ==> sweating sooner and more.
re: 210
Hmm, there's a special kind of fungal stinky that boxing gloves get that I've never smelled off even the foulest sports clothing. But I haven't stuck my nose in some dude's gi recently to check.
A bit of a digression, but one bit of design that I liked in Stockholm was stroller ramps.
They were fairly narrow (the width of a normal baby stroller) and had a tiny set of stairs in the middle. Looked like a human operated funicular. They were as steep as the normal staircases. Still they seemed easier than using the stairs with a stroller.
PS. What about the slower non-recreational bikers?
That's easy. When you're like two feet behind them, you shout (or, if you prefer, mutter) "on your left", then swear at them as you whip by them, never reducing your speed in the slightest.
When you're like two feet behind them, you shout (or, if you prefer, mutter) "on your left",
This works particularly well because as soon as you yell that, a person will suddenly turn his head to the left, so you can punch him in the face.
212: The downside of training BJJ.
During the year I had a gi, I had no idea how it might be washed. Presumably if I had found judo more compelling I would have seen the gi as a long-term investment and actually asked somebody.
LB: If I can back down to "I'd commute on a bike if I had grade separated lanes, and the distance was such that I could reasonably do it under an hour."
I do my daily 10 km in 25 minutes. Translating to your quaint measurement system, that works out to almost 15 mph, so an 11 mile commute in less than an hour is feasible.
217: people will intentionally avoid washing them for "chemical warfare" in a fight.
re: 216
I assume the real downside would be dislocated things that you don't want dislocated.
213: Thanks - I think I'll be stealing that.
Instead of being unfogged computer nerds and talking about riding a bike, go out and buy one and ride the thing. You'd be surprised how easy it is. And it's not difficult to ride a bike in heavy traffic. I ride in Paris all the time (although I am a very serious cyclist), but my roommate rides too (on the Champs-Élysées and he's a total novice. You very quickly learn how to ride defensively. All you need to do is keep two fingers on the brakes, and your eyes and ears open for oncoming cars.
Also, never listen to James B. Shearer. He is a complete crank.
Here are two websites with cycling related safety data:
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html
No new roads!
(On a side-note, I wonder if anyone has ever studied the effect of big American cars/trucks on traffic. I certainly see much traffic in Paris, but I bet smaller cars ease traffic flow.)
"I have stated that people tend to spend about the same amount of time traveling to work no matter what method of transport they use; thus when better roads are built, people simply move farther from the city. This argument has been often hotly denied, but the transportation issue of Scientific American establishes this as statistical fact. The average person, worldwide, travels for about 66 minutes a day to and from work. This suggests that the average pedestrian lives about a mile and a half from the job, the average cyclist about six miles, and the average motorist about twelve miles. Then, if traveling to work takes the same amount of time whether by car or by bicycle, the cyclist still comes out ahead." - From the first link of the previous post
