My Evening Commute

[Terpfan]

Riding home tonight? Good, your changes of dying are 10x less than driving home. Or so the WaPo seems to imply here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/world/how-deadly-is-ebola/

This will be one of my new talking points to people I’m trying to convince to join me.

[dbb]

@Terpfan 98402 wrote:

Riding home tonight? Good, your changes of dying are 10x less than driving home.

And your chance of heart disease (currently 1 in 534 for the year) will also drop dramatically

[GB]

@dbb 98404 wrote:

And your chance of heart disease (currently 1 in 534 for the year) will also drop dramatically

If the chances for heart disease decrease do the chances for being hit by a car while biking increase?

[DismalScientist]

@Terpfan 98402 wrote:

Riding home tonight? Good, your changes of dying are 10x less than driving home. Or so the WaPo seems to imply here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/world/how-deadly-is-ebola/

This will be one of my new talking points to people I’m trying to convince to join me.

I’m afraid that article does not compensate for exposure rate. If the average person (over the entire population) spent as much time commuting on a bicycle as commuting in a car that would be a proper implication.

[cyclingfool]

@DismalScientist 98409 wrote:

I’m afraid that article does not compensate for exposure rate. If the average person (over the entire population) spent as much time commuting on a bicycle as commuting in a car that would be a proper implication.

Ssssshhhhh…

[worktheweb]

I thought that was a cool interactive too, but I’m wondering where they’re getting those numbers. They list the annual number of car related deaths at 8009 in 2010. But wikipedia claims the actual number is 32,999 (22,187 in passenger vehicles according to this from NHTSA). Big discrepancy.

Also their cycling numbers are close, but don’t quite check out with NHTSA. The other thing about these numbers is they’re looking at general American populations. Most people don’t ride bikes regularly. DC has more than most, and according to LAB data in 2010 it was a 3.1% share for commuting, which is just a segment. But since data is limited, if we go with LAB’s number that there are 731,286 commuters in the US in 2010 and NHTSA’s number of 618 fatalities, that would mean in 2010 (assuming that commuters are all cyclists, not true) 0.085% (8.5 per 10,000) of bike commuters were killed .

In 2010 there were 210,114,939 drivers in the US (source) so if we calculate the percentage that year for all passenger vehicles, we’ve got 0.011% (1.1 per 10,000) of passenger vehicle riders who died in 2010.

So, unless I did that wrong (and I may have, this is kinda off the cuff with google and a calculator here), if you look inside the active population and not the population at large cycling is 8 times more likely to see you getting killed (in 2010 with spotty data). Now there are probably a lot more people riding bikes in the aggregate, so the percentage is probably lower, but in terms of vehicle miles (which isn’t what they’re calculating), I would think commuters predominate. Maybe it is a factor of 4 or a factor of 2 instead of 8, but cycling on the whole is more dangerous for the people who do it when examined by itself. That said, heart disease, cancer, and other ailments are more dangerous than either of them, and being active reduces your changes of getting those things. You may end up winning in the long run, even if your particular mode is more dangerous.

[Terpfan]

@DismalScientist 98409 wrote:

I’m afraid that article does not compensate for exposure rate. If the average person (over the entire population) spent as much time commuting on a bicycle as commuting in a car that would be a proper implication.

No raining on the fun parade.

[jrenaut]

@DismalScientist 98409 wrote:

I’m afraid that article does not compensate for exposure rate. If the average person (over the entire population) spent as much time commuting on a bicycle as commuting in a car that would be a proper implication.

If the average person spent as much time exchanging bodily fluids with people who have Ebola as commuting in a car, then Ebola would totally be the number one killer.

[lordofthemark]

@GB 98408 wrote:

If the chances for heart disease decrease do the chances for being hit by a car while biking increase?

I do not remember the source, but I think I know this by heart now. Your odds of being killed as a cyclist are higher per mile, but lower per hour, than as a motorist. because despite ELITE cyclists, and traffic jams, average speed for drivers is still quite a lot higher than for cyclists. So if you are looking at a 10 mile ride vs a 10 mile drive you are safer driving, but looking a lifestyle with a 1 hour drive vs a 1 hour ride (and adjust where you live accordingly) riding is better.

Excluding the cardio-vascular effects which are several times the magnitude of the safety effect (though that study is from the NL where bike safety is better) Though that is offset slightly by the health effects of breathing car fumes while you bike.

And of course all that is averages. For example I don’t drink and drive. But then I also don’t drink and bike, I do wear a helmet, and most of my commute is on MUT’s. Oh, and I do have elevated bad cholesterol. So I think the more I bike the better my actuarial odds, clearly.

[lordofthemark]

@jrenaut 98425 wrote:

If the average person spent as much time exchanging bodily fluids with people who have Ebola as commuting in a car, then Ebola would totally be the number one killer.

If everyone who various governors want to quarantine, just spent 21 days on extended bike rides instead, we could all be more be more chill.

[cyclingfool]

@lordofthemark 98426 wrote:

I do not remember the source, but I think I know this by heart now. Your odds of being killed as a cyclist are higher per mile, but lower per hour, than as a motorist. because despite ELITE cyclists, and traffic jams, average speed for drivers is still quite a lot higher than for cyclists. So if you are looking at a 10 mile ride vs a 10 mile drive you are safer driving, but looking a lifestyle with a 1 hour drive vs a 1 hour ride (and adjust where you live accordingly) riding is better.

That’s my memory of the interpretation of the generally accepted universe of statistics on this from my transportation planning coursework.

[cyclingfool]

@lordofthemark 98427 wrote:

If everyone who various governors want to quarantine, just spent 21 days on extended bike rides instead, we could all be more be more chill.

Free Kaci Hickox! (though her morning ride was certainly less than 21 days)

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 98427 wrote:

If everyone who various governors want to quarantine, just spent 21 days on extended bike rides instead, we could all be more be more chill.

And if we sent the governors on a 21 day bike ride we’d need to invent a new scary controversy!

[ShawnoftheDread]

@DismalScientist 98409 wrote:

I’m afraid that article does not compensate for exposure rate. If the average person (over the entire population) spent as much time commuting on a bicycle as commuting in a car that would be a proper implication.

No no, stats mean whatever the hell we want them to mean at any given moment.

[ShawnoftheDread]

@lordofthemark 98426 wrote:

I do not remember the source, but I think I know this by heart now. Your odds of being killed as a cyclist are higher per mile, but lower per hour, than as a motorist. because despite ELITE cyclists, and traffic jams, average speed for drivers is still quite a lot higher than for cyclists. So if you are looking at a 10 mile ride vs a 10 mile drive you are safer driving, but looking a lifestyle with a 1 hour drive vs a 1 hour ride (and adjust where you live accordingly) riding is better.

My one hour bike ride is the same distance as my one hour car commute. Spin me out of that vortex, Mr. Actuary.

[Author]

Posts