Why the health benefits of cycling to work outweigh the risk of injury
Why the health benefits of cycling to work outweigh the risk of injury
Cycling to work has been linked to a higher risk of injury among UK commuters, but the health benefits of getting on your bike still vastly outweigh the risks
The new study, which looked at outcomes over 10 years, shows those fears aren’t unreasonable – commuting by bike is associated with an increased risk of admission to hospital for injury, with 7 per cent of cyclists experiencing such an injury compared to 4.3 per cent of non-cyclists. Squint a bit, and you can turn that into the “50 per cent more likely” figure mentioned above.
But Paul Welsh at the University of Glasgow in the UK, who led the study and who cycles himself, says the risk of death from cycling injury is vanishingly small. In fact, it is far outweighed by the decreased risk of death that comes from the increased physical activity and lower BMI of cyclists. “The data are still very much in favour of cycling for those who are capable of doing so,” says Welsh.
Cyclists have a far lower risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer and death compared with people who drive, take public transport or walk to work – a finding supported by this and previous studies. If an extra 1000 people took up cycling for 10 years, we would expect to see 15 fewer cancers, four fewer heart attacks or strokes and three fewer deaths in that group.
Sometimes, people online and in real life ask why I complain about unsafe or lacking bicycle infrastructure but continue to put myself at risk by cycling. Is it worth it? Yes it is. Even from the perspective of self-preservation, cycling is safer than driving. I'd just like it to be even safer, and make it so that more people can benefit.
The reality is that the majority of people will die from LIFESTYLE RELATED ILLNESS, not cycling.
If cycling can help to prevent or lower the risk of those illnesses, then it's worth it. And that's only benefit 1 of 1000 😁
That’s a great way to put it.
I started commuting on bike last year and I do worry about being injured, so it's a relief seeing that the health-benefits outweigh that risk.
Yeah this reassured me too. Especially because the benefit doesn't seem to be small, but overwhelmingly in favour of cycling even with the increased risk of accidents.
Thanks for posting. I cycle everywhere even though I am also terrified of getting hit by a car. My brother's friend got killed that way. One thing that the statistics don't tell you is that you can reduce your chances of injury by being super careful. Look all around you, assume that every car on the road is trying to kill you, and do your best not to even get into their path whenever you can avoid it. If you see a motorist driving dangerously in your vicinity, just get off the road. That on top of all the normal advice like, you know, always wear a helmet, don't cycle at night without lights, etc.
in the UK
Don't get your hopes up, fellow americans, it doesn't hold true over here. A truck bumper is more likely than a heart attack here.
That's possible, but yours is a separate empirical claim. Do you have a source for that? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. As the article notes, the health benefits in the UK are overwhelming, so even with the increased risk of accidents in the US, it may still end up being worth it.
It should also be noted that the risks of a sedentary life are probably also much higher in the US than the UK, because it's so much more car-centric. Obesity and other health metrics are much worse in the US, so the benefits of cycling might be all that much higher. I would want to see some evidence instead of guessing.
I could show you the roads I'd have to ride down. 12 miles one way, all of it along narrow two lane roads with no sidewalk, no breakdown lane, no bicycle lane. And it's full of those comically large trucks they have in the US, each of them driven by a guy who thinks his dick will rot off if he slows down below 65 mph.
I'll ride on weekends and keep going to the gym instead.
I used to believe this until I realized that exercising in or near areas with running vehicles was causing me to deeply and heavily breath in much more of their emissions than I would typically be exposed to. If there was a bike path I could take away from vehicles, I would, but some routes just aren't accommodating enough to justify the 2x/day, 5-days/week respiratory exposure to vehicular exhaust and the various health risks associated with that.
Surprisingly, the positives of bike exercise seem to outweigh the harms of breathing in even extreme air pollution. Here is a BBC article on the topic.
"Even in Delhi, one of the most polluted cities in the world - with pollution levels 10 times those in London - people would need to cycle over five hours per week before the pollution risks outweigh the health benefits," said Dr Marko Tainio, the lead author of the study.
Permanently Deleted
Yes, separate bike trails away from roads keep bicyclists from enhaling vehicle emissions, but it also reduces the likelihood of car on bicycle collisions. Can't hit what you can't reach.
From what I read, this even holds true for crazy stuff like downhill MTB and BMX: The health benefits outweigh the injury risk.
this sounds like reverse lottery. a high probability of minor gains with a miniscule chance of serious negative outcome.
I don't know, the health gains seem VERY substantial, not minor. I think biking even a moderate amount, 2 or 3 times a week, would be literally life changing for most Americans and Canadians. And this isn't even counting the gains to mental health, happiness, and finances.
and the losses from playing lotto week after week, year after year add up. I'm meaning individual instances, you don't get ripped after one rep.
I get the sense that in the wake of a collision, it’s uncouth to suggest a cyclist victim broke the road rules in the circumstances of their accident; so if you have fears of being hit by an SUV during your commute, you probably help your odds quite a bit just by stopping at red lights.
It's uncouth partially because it's simply not as likely that the cyclist broke the rules.
But also, even if a cyclist did break some road rules, they should be allowed to sometimes. This is like "jaywalking", which doesn't really exist outside North America. When a cyclist makes a mistake, people don't usually die, receive life ruining injuries, or suffer significant property damage. In fact, many places allow cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs precisely because it's actually safer if cyclists have some leeway to make their own decisions.
Road rules are mostly to protect everyone from cars. Cars make streets dangerous, and it's misleading to shift the blame to cyclists.