> --- jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
> > affects behavior. Your risk of injury is
> > astronomically higher
> > on a bike in the US than in a car or SUV.
> Nah. As far as anybody can tell (how do you reliably
> measure the rate bicycle injuries?), per mile it's
> about the same as car injuries or maybe as much as
> 1.5x more. A risk, but not a huge one, and it's
> wildly outweighed by the health benefits.
There are absolutely no reliable statistics that one can use to determine this so you have to infer quite a bit. No one knows how many vehicle miles are logged on bicycles and the "official" estimates vary widely. Work at an ER or work with cycling organizations and you'll find that a good 25% of regular cyclists (subjectively defined as 30 miles per week or more) have been either hit by cars or injured by thrown debris within a 2 year period. Find me any study that suggests this is even remotely true for motorists. My great cardio health didn't mean much when my back was broken so health is relative. How do you figure the cost of lost mobility and freedom from such an injury? I rather have slightly diminished cardio health than never be able to do long-range through hikes with a backpack again so which health stat is more relevant?
John Thornton