Tripleshot Cycling

I was talking to a non-riding friend who was driving out at rush hour to pick up his 15 year old very athletic daughter at PISE. When I suggested he get his daughter a bike to ride home, saving them both time and frustration of sitting in traffic, he stated, "I like biking, but I know too many people who have had life changing accidents on their bikes."

I thought I would tap into the vast knowledge of the group and find out what your experience has been, both you and folks you know. Is cycling all that dangerous in Victoria? This group likely has some bias, but maybe you've given this some consideration for you or your children.
Rob

What about all the people that have had life changing vehicle accidents?

Just get on your bike, do not ride with headphones in and music up loud. Be aware of your surroundings. Be patient. Be kind and courteous! Riding my bike is life changing! Kids should be on bikes, riding on the street, not the sidewalk. Teach them well! A confident cyclist is a safe cyclist!

The more bikes, the better.

Biking is as dangerous as you choose to make it.
Bike to Work Victoria do learn to ride courses for all ages.
That would be a good starting point.

http://biketoworkvictoria.ca/bike-skills

I wonder why Alan didn't post this yet:
http://journal.cpha.ca/index.php/cjph/a ... /3621/2744

much less dangerous than hockey or football

Robgrant wrote:I wonder why Alan didn't post this yet:
http://journal.cpha.ca/index.php/cjph/a ... /3621/2744

More dangerous than driving. Less dangerous than walking. Safest way to travel is taking the bus, if you can find a way to get to the bus stop without walking.

When I look at risks vs benifits, I feel absolutely comfortable encouraging my loved ones to get out and cycle - including my kids.
Having spent many years as a driving instructor looking at the harm and carnage that our use of motor vehicles lead to, I know that the car only provides the illusion of safety some times. There is a long way to go in the areas of training, education and infrastructure before I call cycling "safe" though.

In the end, what gives me piece of mind is when I remember what my old football coach used to say - "If at the end of the game your uniform isn't at least a little dirty, you weren't really playing."

Rooks

To anyone who bikes on city streets, I highly recommend reading The Art of Urban Cycling: Lessons from the Street by Robert Hurst.

I actually credit this book for keeping me alive through several years of commuting through Calgary – perhaps the most perilous place on the planet for a person in Spandex to venture out into rush-hour traffic.

A key message throughout the book is the importance of constant vigilance and personal responsibility. Hurst goes so far as to suggest cyclists should assume responsibility for everything that happens to them while cycling in an urban setting. If you get assailed by a parked car’s door that suddenly swings open – your fault. If you get sideswiped by a Smart Car that ignores the stop sign and shoots out from a side street – your fault. If you get flattened by a bus that doesn't cut you a wide enough berth – your fault. I quote:

The most effective way for a cyclist to stay out of trouble on city streets is to forget entirely about the possibility of blaming others, and to take on full responsibility for his or her own safety. This attitude will be fundamentally different from the prima donna mind-set displayed by many humans, drivers and cyclists among them, who put their safety in the hands of others, count on everything working out just right, and have a royal freak-out at the first sign of trouble. The successful urban cyclist counts on nothing but chaos and stupidity.

It doesn't absolve other users of the road of accountability. It simply underscores the need for mindful, heads-up riding guided by 360º awareness, forward thinking and a perpetual assumption that the drivers, pedestrians, deer and raccoons all around you are going to do the very thing they shouldn't.

Clearly riding a bike is more dangerous than driving, when one considers fatalities and injuries related to collisions and accidents. By that measure I'm sure that running is more dangerous than walking, given the increased velocity of the unprotected body.

But what about the risks of sitting on your ass in a car rather than moving your legs on a bike?

If you commute 40 km a day driving in rush-hour traffic, this likely takes approximately 60-75 minutes a day - the same amount of time recommended by Health Canada as the minimum amount of exercise you should get. Riding a bike at 25 km an hour along the same route would give you about 1 hour and 45 minutes of exercise.

The risks of a sedentary lifestyle includes:
• Increase in triglycerides
• Decreases in ‘good’ cholesterol levels
• Increased risk of chronic diseases (e.g., Type 2 diabetes)
• Increased bone loss
• Impaired metabolic function
• Increased risk of overweight and obesity
• Reduced attention
• Increased risk of tobacco use
• Lower self-esteem
• Increased aggression
• Lower self-esteem

So you increase your risk of death and injury, yet increase the likelihood of a longer lifespan and improved quality of life.

No brainer...

See, that's the thing, it isn't clearly more dangerous than driving. It just seems wrong to me that the most dangerous activity listed in the study is walking. I think they have the numerator wrong- deaths/ km and deaths/ trip aren't the best metrics. Maybe deaths/ hour make more sense, but no one has done this (as this study notes). Cars travel faster than bikes travel faster than walkers. If you apply average speeds to each activity and normalize them for 100million hours of activity, walking will be safest, while cycling and driving will be close to the same (depending on what you set the average speed to). And don't calculate it with a B1 average of 35.7km/h (or even 25km/h).

It depends on the route. My commute is exclusively on the Goose, so I'm crossing traffic rather than riding in it. It's a lot less hassle than riding streets with or without a cycling lane.

But it's not like there aren't risks. Some intersections are poor (IE out by Swan lake), and it can be anybody's guess for who will let you cross at Mackenzie. Once in a while, I see traffic try to get around someone who has stopped to let cyclists/etc cross

I make an effort to signal, and do it entirely with my left hand because it's more visible to drivers. I've watched when driving, and found that using your right to signal for a righthand turn is almost invisible to me (as a driver) if there's more than one cyclist. Yes, it's legal to use either signal... Legality is not a great justification when you think about it Similarly, the people who signal right with their right don't seem to know how to signal stopping with their left (admittedly, anecdotal). Older drivers (from the days when cars didn't have signals) know what I'm doing/signalling/indicating, but the recent generations - not so much.