No, they ranking the usage of a car as less dangerous. Which is correct.
this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
87 points (100.0% liked)
Fuck Cars
11584 readers
766 users here now
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
If we look at it statically, biking is healthier because it reduces health problems.
Bike is healthier until you get pancaked by an SUV or pickup which are increasingly all that people drive on roads nowadays. The roads aren't safe for bikes. If you live somewhere without dedicated bike infrastructure (no, painted bike lanes on the street don't count), biking is basically playing Russian roulette.
Even in area not made for bikes, the health benefits outweight the risk of getting killed by a car in the total longevity.
This become false when the road have too much traffic: air pollution damage start to outweight the health benefits of doing sport.
Areas not made for bikes also tend to have a lot of car traffic
In any case, the health benefits of bikes can be easily achieved by other means, so I don't think it's worth bringing up.
I can find sources if you want, but there are studies that show those who get around by bike live longer on average, even in North America. The danger is definitely there, and I agree I'm playing Russian roulette every time I bike around town. However, I am much, much more likely to extend my life by a couple years by being healthier, than get killed in a collision and die significantly earlier.
Okay but ultimately the graphic is showing how dangerous something is, not how unhealthy it is
Yup, but you responded to a comment about "healthier" and you were talking about "healthier". You can see my comment replying to that same comment about how "healthier" and "dangerous" are different.
I don't think that's how it works when you're talking about death rates.
Yes, for the people that survive, they will see an average and statistically significant increase in lifespan. On the other hand, more of them will die as a direct result of their travel mode than for people that primarily drive. (I.e., you're more likely to die in a bicycle crash--any bicycle crash--than you are in any given car crash.)
There's no good way to make riding a bicycle 'safe', because you can't surround yourself with crumple zones, restraints, and air bags (although you can get airbags for motorcycles, but weight and breathability is less of a concern on a motorcycle). Helmets are about the best you can do, and compliance rates with helmet guidelines on bicycles are pretty low.
Don't get me wrong - I fully support bicycles as a way of commuting and most general transportation, and want to see more infrastructure developed towards that end. But we also need to be realistic about the risks.
I don’t think that’s how it works when you’re talking about death rates.
The comment I was responding to wasn't talking about death rates.
There’s no good way to make riding a bicycle ‘safe’, because you can’t surround yourself with crumple zones, restraints, and air bags (although you can get airbags for motorcycles, but weight and breathability is less of a concern on a motorcycle). Helmets are about the best you can do, and compliance rates with helmet guidelines on bicycles are pretty low.
Infrastructure, my friend, that's how we make bicycling less dangerous. Riding a bicycle itself isn't all that dangerous, even without a helmet. What is dangerous, is interacting with cars.
Riding a bicycle itself isn’t all that dangerous, even without a helmet.
My dude, have you never ridden a bicycle in your life?
Of all of my bike crashes, only two involved a car. One spectacular one involved another cyclist on a fixie--it's always the fucking shitheads on fixies--running a red light and t-boning me because you can't fucking stop quickly on a fixie. (Seriously, don't fucking ride a fixie on public streets or trails, you slack-jawed fucking morons.) My two car incidents were separated by 20-odd years; the first one was in San Diego in the 90s, when a cab cut me off on a steep hill and I tried to put my face through his rear windshield, and the most recent was in Chicago when I got slightly doored (hit my leg, left a huge bruise, but my bike was fine). Otherwise, most of my crashes have involved road conditions, like ice during a sudden winter rainstorm, wet steel plates over construction trenches, or an 8" deep pothole that I couldn't see because it looked like just another puddle. My ex-wife broke her pelvis when she got hit by another cyclist.
In your previous comment, you were equating "Danger" to "Death Rates." How often do you hear of a cyclist dying in an incident that doesn't involve a car?
Yes, accidents and injuries happen. I've literally fallen while walking twice in the past week.
My ex-wife broke her pelvis when she got hit by another cyclist.
And if that was a car, do you think she would have survived?
In your previous comment, you were equating “Danger” to “Death Rates.” How often do you hear of a cyclist dying in an incident that doesn’t involve a car?
First: you said, and I quote, "Riding a bicycle itself isn’t all that dangerous, even without a helmet.". That is blatantly, proveably false, especially when you say that it's not dangerous even without a helmet. I've broken multiple helmet in multiple single-bicycle accidents over the 20-odd years that I was commuting regularly by bicycle; at least one of those would have very likely have been fatal without a helmet.
How many cyclists die outside of interactions with cars? In 2001, 44% of fatal bicycle accidents--377 out of 853--did not involve being hit by, or hitting, a car. So, there ya go. Damn near half of cycling fatalities aren't involving motor vehicles. (The site mentions them as being bicycle transportation fatalities, which seems to exclude bicycle recreation fatalities, but I can't guarantee that they aren't including deaths from mountain biking. Per the same source, helmets appear to reduce the risk of brain trauma by about 60%.)
And if that was a car, do you think she would have survived?
If she had been in a car, and hit by another car? Yes, I think she would have been fine. Cars have airbags, set belts, and crumple zones. If she'd been hit by a car, while on a bicycle? Can't say. Statistically? Yes.
You seem to be having trouble with reading comprehension. Maybe you need to read things more thoroughly? I'll try to provide some clarification.
First: you said, and I quote, “Riding a bicycle itself isn’t all that dangerous, even without a helmet.”. That is blatantly, proveably false, especially when you say that it’s not dangerous even without a helmet.
I didn't say it's "not dangerous", I said it "isn't all dangerous", which implies there is some danger.
In 2001, 44% of fatal bicycle accidents–377 out of 853–did not involve being hit by, or hitting, a car[1].
That's not what your source says. "Of the 1,230 bicyclist deaths in 2021, 853 died in motor-vehicle crashes and 377 in other incidents," is what it says, so that 30% that weren't in a direct motor-vehicle crash. Even then, how many were indirectly caused by motor-vehicles? If a bicycle veers out of the way of a car, that's counted as an "other incident". Speed is one of the most dangerous aspects of bicycles and you feel to cycle faster when riding with traffic. Even you previous noted many incidents which are poor infrastructure or maintenance issues.
If she had been in a car, and hit by another car? Yes, I think she would have been fine.
That's the point...cars are dangerous to people not in cars.
I upvoted you, because what you are saying is true, but so is the original post. "Dangerous" and "Healthier" are very different. Biking is definitely more dangerous in North America, though I'm not sure about bike friendly places, and would be curious to see statistics from somewhere like the Netherlands. Danger does not consider the benefits of an activity, only the downsides. Health, on the other hand is usually short hand for longevity or lack of health conditions, and on average, even with the danger, people who get around by bike live longer.*
*I can provide sources if someone wants them, I just need to find them again
I'd be curious if that holds in bike friendly places, and would be curious to see statistics from somewhere like the Netherlands.
Not really no cars cause a MASSIVE amount of deaths less likely to be the driver potentially but its still far more fatal to other people which imo is actually worse
It's true, there is the added danger of being run over by a car. A lot of them actively hate seeing you on the same street.
What? They are right. But that doesn't mean it's a pro car argument. Cars are definitely safer as bicycles can't utter wrecks you like they do to bicycles
From what I recall it really depends on how you classify danger. Bikes are more dangerous for non-lethal injuries. But any car trip that you drive over 45 mph is slightly more lethal than biking per comparable trip. So it depends on what danger you're willing to risk.
If you're driving over 45mph, there's likely not a comparable bike trip.
By comparable, I mean from point a to point b. If you have a 10 mile commute to work, you have a slightly higher lethality driving a car on a highway, than biking to work, but you have a higher chance of non-lethal injury by biking.
Unless you're also biking on the highway, it's not comparable.
Maybe comparable was the wrong word but I think think your using that to intentionally miss my point. When assessing the risk of a commute, if you are looking at per mile risk, biking is less lethal but more injury prone.
Wut?
So what, does the comment I replied to make sense to people? It has many upvotes but to me seems complete nonsense.
Really, you're going to quote a comedy website/image? It also even depends on what they mean with "dangerous". If they mean dangerous for the passengers (which is a viable assumption since how many deaths are caused by hot air balloons excluding the persons traveling with the hot air balloon?) this could even be a true graph. So hold you "offended" feeling and just laugh at the joke at hand.
Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if electric scooters are legitimately more dangerous in urban environments with sane infrastructure. Those things can go absolutely anywhere, and can reach ridiculous speeds while cars are far more restricted in urban spaces (yet again, the ones with good design).
I agree that you are correct. It's a joke. And it's about safety of the USER.
However, xkcd is a "brainy" and "technical" web comic. The author assuredly has a rigorous definition for anything like the axes in this comic.
I mean, it's more dangerous for someone on a bike or Scooter on car-centric infrastructure than it is for someone in a car.
Only if you consider only the safety of the vehicle's pilot. Another perhaps more rational way to look at it is to look at how it affects the safety of all people. And then it's clear that the car is still more dangerous than the bike, even on infrastructure specifically designed for car safety above all else.
I feel safer being in a car than in front of it. No lies being told there
I mean, when a car hits s bike the car is more dangerous overall but the driver sure won't be injured by it. I know the accident statistic for electric scooters it absolutely lethal because cars keep killing them.
There is also the question if you count number of incidents or overall harm. Bicyclists scrape their knees and bruise their arms all the time, especially if you also use it in winter and fall.
Bicyclists scrape their knees and bruise their arms all the time, especially if you also use it in winter and fall
I've commuted by bike for decades and I have no idea what you're talking about. How? What causes arm bruises or scraped knees?
It depends on where you live I guess. I live in Sweden and bike everywhere so I hit ice and go down at least once or twice every winter. It's usually black ice in early winter where things look fine and nothing is sanded or salted yet and you hit a curve that is just glass.
Some neighborhoods don't plow the local roads so that the cars just pack the snow and Polish it into an icerink. If you then add powdered snow so that it looks fine you can suddenly go down and slide several meters. In those situations you are a bit fucked because there isn't enough traction to get up again and you have to turtle a bit until you find your footing.
Summer and spring is mostly fine tough with the exception of 2 collisions from other bikes and once when one of the pedals mechanically failed. This is over more than a decade tough so it sounds like it's more than it is but it's still more incidents than my brother have had while driving which is zero.
I would never tolerate falling down regularly. Studded tires work extremely well. I ride through blizzard and on ice and slush without any trouble. The only time I went down due to ice was riding on a frozen puddle where my tires gripped the ice but the ice didn't grip the ground under it. That was a decade ago.
Breaking a wrist or collarbone (or worse) happens far too easily to just accept routine crashing.
Good for you, I guess?
More neutral for me, bad for you. Frequent crashing and injury is not normal.
I can say from many, many experiences, you rarely get bruises or scrapes sliding out on ice. It's nearly impossible to get scrapes because the ice is slick, and even if you hit a gritty patch, you are usually completely covered in clothing. Similarly, you aren't very likely to get bruised because sliding out is usually a slow fall, you're not very falling very far, and once again, you're covered in a lot of clothes that cushion your fall.
I'll be sure to take your experience into account next time I fall on my ass.
How do you fall on your ass? The geometry just doesn't make sense to me.
This is why I chose motorcycles.
Riding a Grizzly bear is right up there with hot air ballooning? Wow! How about riding a grizzly while eating a raw meat sandwich and having a large cut on your leg?