It’s Hard to Overstate the Health Benefits of Biking to Work

Photo: Tony Webster/Flickr
Photo: Tony Webster/Flickr

A massive new study of commuters in the United Kingdom reveals that people who bike to work tend to live longer and are at lower risk of heart disease and cancer. While the study establishes correlation without proving causation, the size of the sample and the magnitude of the effects strongly suggest that biking to work can yield major health benefits.

People who bike to work have a mortality rate 41 percent lower than people who take transit or drive, and are also significantly less likely to develop heart disease and cancer, according to the study published last week in the British Medical Journal.

The study tracked 263,450 adults from England, Scotland, and Wales over five years. It controlled for a wide variety of factors, including the risk of traffic crashes, to compare the incidence of heart disease, cancer, and death.

Two of the researchers break it down in a post at The Conversation:

We adjusted for other health influences including sex, age, deprivation, ethnicity, smoking, body mass index, other types of physical activity, time spent sitting down and diet. […]

We found that cycling to work was associated with a 41% lower risk of dying overall compared to commuting by car or public transport. Cycle commuters had a 52% lower risk of dying from heart disease and a 40% lower risk of dying from cancer. They also had 46% lower risk of developing heart disease and a 45% lower risk of developing cancer at all.

Results were less spectacular, though still robust, for people who combined cycling with a “non-active” commute, like driving or taking transit. This group had a 24 percent lower risk of death, including a 36 percent reduction in the risk of dying from cancer.

People who walked to work also saw some health benefits, primarily due to a reduced risk of developing and dying from heart disease, but the study found they did not see a reduced risk of all types of mortality. The benefits for people who walked to work were not as large as those for people who biked, the researchers say, possibly because the physical activity was not as intense as cycling, or because commutes on foot don’t typically cover as much distance as commutes by bicycle.

The study is notable because it concerns a large population in a region where bicycling is not already a dominant form of transportation. (Only 3 percent of UK commuters bike to work.) Investments in bike-share, bike lanes, and other forms of cycling infrastructure, the authors write, “present major opportunities for the improvement of public health.”

  • Jesse

    As stated in the article the study doesn’t prove causation of the health benefits. It does, however, debunk the notion that cycling is an exceptionally dangerous activity that will increase mortality. That’s a pretty cool message they could be promoting.

  • Joe R.

    I would be more interested in the “health span” of regular cyclists, as opposed to the life spam. I suspect that anyone who regularly exercises enjoys decades more healthy life than someone who doesn’t. This doesn’t necessarily mean they live decades longer, only that they don’t experience the declines typically associated with “old age”. Just to throw some numbers around, perhaps a person who engages in regular exercise might on average live to 90 but they’ll be healthy and independent until, say, 89. Someone who doesn’t exercise might live to 80, but they’ll start having major health issues at 50 or 55 (and be a virtual invalid by the time they’re perhaps 65).

    I tend to think a lot of the people we now see in nursing homes are there as a result of growing up in a time when the automobile was idolized. As a result, they eschewed physical activity for much of their adult lives. There are lots of reasons the US spends more on health care for inferior outcomes than any other first world country. In my opinion the general lack of physical activity caused by automobile dependence is a major cause.

  • betty barcode

    I often say that my bicycle is my health insurance.

  • Jeff

    But if they controlled for the risk of traffic crashes, doesn’t it fail to prove this point?

  • Larry Littlefield

    This is a source of funding for bicycles and bicycle maintenance. My health insurer offers subsidies for health club membership. What about biking to work?

    All that is needed is a device to prove the biking is going on that can be read by the insurer, which gets attendance records from the health club.

    I’ve seen a life insurance brokerage offering discounts for regular cyclists.

    https://www.healthiq.com/affinity/cyclist

    How about health insurers?

  • Jesse

    You’re right. I didn’t catch that. I would really like to know what this data looks like without that disaggregation.

  • Joe R.

    Funny but I say the exact same thing. I actually don’t have any type of health insurance, either, other than my bicycle, so I have a strong incentive to stay healthy, especially until I’m old enough to qualify for Medicare (that would be in November 2027 for me).

  • Joe R.

    Back when I was in college the school actually accepted cycling 3,000 miles per year or more in lieu of taking any type of physical education. They had no way to verify it other than the honor system when I submitted my cycling logs, although in my case the logs were 100% honest.

    Nowadays you can use GPS as a means to verify you ride x number of miles. I’m surprised health insurers aren’t all over this.

  • Carter O’Brien

    Whatever happened to the “bike commuter benefit” that the Obama Administration had passed? My recollection is it was too cumbersome for employers given the modest amount of the benefit. Worth revisiting.

  • Larry Littlefield

    My company offers it, but It’s not worth all the paperwork.

    Money off the health insurance employee share is far more direct.

  • Larry Littlefield

    That’s what it would have to be. Honor isn’t what it used to be.

  • Vooch

    even at Princeton

    🙂

  • Vooch

    After I ditched the car and became 100% dependent on cycling for mobility;

    I lost 30 pounds, reduced my cholesterol significantly, blood pressure dropped, my lung capacity increased dramatically, and more.

    I always cycled for errands and such perhaps 20-30% of my trips. Thanks to JSK, I was able to go 100% car free.

  • ohnonononono

    It doesn’t really work the same way the transit/parking commuter benefits work. It doesn’t allow you to use your pre-tax income. Your employer must offer it as an additional benefit out of their own pocket.

  • djx

    I would too.

  • Jacob Wilson

    I think they controlled to INCLUDE the risk of crashes. Which is actually an incredibly profound point. From the article cited:

    “Any potential differences in risk associated with road accidents is also accounted for in our analysis”

    Let that sink in; 41% mortality reduction even WITH the heightened risk of injury from crashes. It seems it certainly does prove cycling is overall much safer than just about any other mode of transportation when you look at it over a lifetime.

    I’ve never been to the UK but from what I gather it’s not even that progressive when it comers to cycling compared to other parts of Europe.

  • Carter O’Brien

    Yep, our experience was it made no sense to go through all the red tape when it ended up being an additional cost for the institution with a pretty negligible benefit.

  • vnm

    This article is great. I’m going to send it to anyone who scoffs at my bicycling to work by saying: But aren’t you just breathing in car exhaust? (Sure, I guess, but, that’s what car drivers are breathing in too. AND the various lacquers and other chemicals used is plastics and upholsteries, so they get a double-whammy.)

  • Joe R.

    While on the subject of chemicals used in car interiors, that may well be worse than the air pollution drivers breathe. I rarely ride in cars these days. Usually it’s to go to my sister’s house in Yaphank. When we go in my brother’s 1994 Mark VII, which has mostly leather inside and better quality plastics, I feel fine. When we use my mom’s 2006 300C, I get nauseous. Last ride so did my mom. That car seems to use a lot more plastics and coatings which emit volatile hydrocarbons.

    My ideal car interior would be stainless steel and fiberglass, like a typical transit vehicle.

  • davistrain

    Or we could go back to the 1960 Ford pickup I drove between 1973 and 1989. Most of the interior was stamped steel sheet metal, with a fiberboard headliner and a rubber mat on the floor. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fae91739b641873afe5b7ddfd3e17c66995ac2301663305c51face0c973ad632.jpg

  • FlamingoFresh

    I think it is important to note that this study was conducted in the UK, which is know to be more pedestrian and multi-modal friendly than the U.S. They have more facilities for the cycling community and live in a society where drivers know to look out for cyclists more so than the U.S.

    Another note, no one should be surprised that an exercise activity (riding a bike) is healthier than a non-exercise activity (sitting in a vehicle) when it comes to cardiovascular health.

  • Kenny Easwaran

    I do want to know a lot more about what they do and don’t control for. I suspect that people with chronic diseases are less likely to be regular cycle commuters, and probably have much higher mortality. I’d want to know how much of the effect is being driven by that kind of thing.

  • Courtney

    I recently shared a Lyft with a guy who said driving a “new” rental car made him physically ill. He rolled down the windows and wondered why more car companies are not taking that issue seriously.

    I’d also love for transit agencies to do some campaigning around synthetic scents on the bus or train OR at the very least have a scent free car on the train. I often move to another train car when someone has on LOUD perfume or cologne. Sometimes just sniffing that crap can cause a migraine, nausea, feeling faint, etc.

  • Courtney

    Eh. I’ve sometimes left my Endomondo fitness track app on when I hopped the bus or train and it still recorded the mileage. Some folks could conceivably game the system in that way.

  • Joe R.

    I haven’t regularly ridden public transit since the early 1990s but the rare times I’m on it I haven’t encountered much in the way of perfume or cologne. Is it still much of an issue these days? It used to be a problem back in the 1960s or 1970s when seemingly every other person either used perfume or cologne but fragrances have largely gone out of style from my perspective. Good riddance as far as I’m concerned. I also get physically ill smelling the stuff.

  • Concobhar Mac Conmara

    Not sure what you are getting at with your first point. Are you saying the positives should be even more so for Americans?

  • Joe R.

    I guess you could cheat that way but if someone bothered to check the speed data they would frequently see speeds well beyond those achieved by even the fittest cyclists.

  • FlamingoFresh

    I’m saying that the safety issues that bicycle users in the UK face are a lot less than a bicycle user in America. They are less likely to get into a fatal accident on a bicycle.

    The positives of bicycling can be more beneficial to the unhealthier people of the US but the negatives (fatalities) are also more prevalent.

  • Concobhar Mac Conmara

    Gotchya. Thanks for the clarification

  • Ken Dodd

    What figures are you basing that on? I cannot find data to compare the two. You’d want to compare deaths per billion miles, or deaths per 100,000 cyclists or whatever. I did find this article however which says that in the UK, you’re 17x more likely to be killed on a bicycle than in a car.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cyclist-deaths-you-17-times-6021412

    I’ve cycled extensively in the UK (albeit many years ago) and although it wasn’t quite as bad as cycling in NYC, I still faced similar problems from aggressive and hostile motorists, and significant dangers from trucks and bus drivers.

    I think you’d probably find that it’s a lot safe cycling in Holland or Germany than the UK.

  • Ken Dodd

    We have those volatile chemicals in our homes, too. That’s why I filled my apartment with plants known to absorb and/or neutralize them – peace lilies, snake plants, spider plants, aloes etc.

  • Ken Dodd

    It’s quite shocking to visit parts of the US in which walking or cycling is virtually unheard of, and the food culture leans toward endless helpings of red meat, puddings and cakes. Huge, huge roly poly people everywhere you look.

  • FlamingoFresh

    I couldn’t find any comparable data and statistics of bike crashes when looking at the UK and the US side by side but it’s well known that bicycling involves a greater risk when it comes to modes of transportation.

    I found this information on a fact sheet online:
    “Bicycle fatalities represent less than two percent of all traffic fatalities, and yet bicycle trips account for only one percent of all trips in the United States.”
    http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm

    So even if bicycle use is known to reduce cardiovascular disease is it really that much more beneficial if you have a high chance of getting into a fatal accident or a serious injury.

    If one is just biking to improve their cardiovascular health they should know that there are other ways that are safer to do that.

  • flipperfeet

    Respectfully, I think you are reaching here, and inferring from an incomplete data set at best.

    Using your logic, walking is even more dangerous than cycling. 14.9% of all fatalities, but only 10.9% of trips.

    It is a risk benefit analysis, and I do not believe there is any data that supports what you are implying; specifically, that cycling in the US represents a greater risk of fatality than the reduction of risk of heart disease, cancer, and death that comes with commuting by bicycle.

    pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm

  • Amie Ashton

    I am saying that Americans are lazy wussies, we just are. It is a cultural thing to just drive everywhere, even if the journey is short and safe – and even if the journey is to the gym!!!! It takes a real cultural/mind set change to think of a bike before a car. I simply realized that (at least where I live) cycling is faster to just about any destination within about 4 or 5 miles. Also, it is way more fun than driving. Get a small trailer for your bike (like I did) and never drive a car again!

  • Ken Dodd

    I’m still not sure why you claimed that you’re more likely to be in a bicycle accident in the US than the UK. I’m not saying that’s not true, just that I don’t know because I don’t have the figures (and neither do you). And while nobody’s denying that bicycling isn’t significantly more dangerous than driving, it still remains that the chance of being killed on a bicycle is almost negligible when you consider how many are killed versus how many cyclists there are.

  • FlamingoFresh

    Yes I am Inferring and implying this based off what I see in the news everyday. It’s an observation that I’m sure bicycle users can attest to.

    As for using my logic for your explanation, you are incorrect proportionally cycling is more dangerous than walking. For every 1% of trips that bike they account for nearly 2% of fatalities. If you grow that user percentage up to match walking at 10% of trips that bike then you would have nearly 20% of fatalities. Or to put it in another way if 1% of trips were conducted through walking then walking would contribute roughly 1.4% of all fatal accidents.

    But to each their own. Personally for me the fact that I view it dangerous to bike in a city like Chicago is the reason why I don’t bike. To occupy a space with a machine than can take your life instantly is not worth it. Yes, that can happen as a pedestrian too but where I commute there are sidewalks and street parking and other barriers to give me that safety and my face isn’t glued to my phone which is probably a large percentage of pedestrians today.

  • flipperfeet

    I ride an event that travels 540 miles from SF to LA that includes city, rural and even highway miles. The riding takes place during daylight hours and riders are on the road during typical peak commute windows. On average, there are 2,100 cyclists every year. In 20 years of running the event, all fatalities have been attributable to heart failure. That is 1,134,000 cycling miles each trip, or 22,680,000 miles over the life of the event without a traffic-related cycling fatality.

    The cyclists range from seasoned triathletes (the minority) to folks who have not been on a bicycle since their childhood. Before taking part in the ride, the average participant completes approximately 1,000 miles of training in the very same city and rural riding environments with an equal absence of fatalities.

    Despite the extreme differences in fitness and experience, there is one thing they have in common, a requirement that they adhere to 100% of traffic laws, even when cars are not present, the wearing of proper safety gear, and a review of safe riding guidelines before each training ride and the event.

    I appreciate your healthy respect of the physics and risk with sharing a road with heavy machinery, but I commute fifteen miles round-trip by bike 85% of the year, and I often observe the type of riding that can easily get cyclists killed. It is the same inattentive, aggressive or outright reckless riding/driving that gets motorists killed. As with driving a car, the causality lies more in the type of rider, than in the activity itself.

  • flipperfeet

    With cycling I am on none of the cholesterol and heart medications of my peers or even younger relatives. The savings and resulting improved quality of life and increased disposable income is justification enough.

  • Joe R.

    Flawed logic. You can’t use the assumption if you grow cycling by ten times then the number of fatalities will increase by ten times. There is such a thing as safety in numbers. We’ve seen this in places where bicycling mode share grew rapidly like NYC. The number of cycling fatalities more or less remained flat despite the fact the number of cyclists increased by a factor of five.

    Also, cycling is safer than walking, even in the US ( http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/on-men/2008/05/15/6-myths-about-commuting-by-bicycle ).

    Incidentally, I’ve personally ridden over 74,000 miles without any injury more serious than road rash. I haven’t fallen at all in two decades. You’re grossly overstating the risk of cycling.

  • Joe R.

    Just a minor point here regarding traffic laws and safety gear. Obeying some traffic laws can actually make cycling less safe. That especially includes obeying red lights because it can put a cyclist in close proximity to accelerating packs of vehicles when the light changes. Far better to pass reds if it can be safely done. That puts you on the other side of the intersection, and essentially gives you an entire street mostly free of vehicles until the pack at the red light catches up. I’ve tried it both ways. I find passing red lights much less stressful and much safer, provided of course you look carefully.

    On the safety gear, I’m of the opinion that the best and only safety gear which makes any difference is your brain. A rider who can leave an out for when others make mistakes can generally avoid the vast majority of common cycling mishaps. Those they can’t, like being hit from behind by a vehicle traveling at high speeds, generally aren’t survivable anyway. If a rider feels more comfortable or confident wearing a helmet or knee/elbow pads, that’s their prerogative but I think it’s bad policy to require these things as a prerequisite to participating in any group rides. It feeds into the idea that cycling is a dangerous activity when it really isn’t.

    1000 times yes to reviewing safe riding guidelines. Operator error is the most common cause of bike mishaps. As I’ve already said, with proper training nearly all incidents can be avoided, or at least mitigated. I’ll add that learning how to fall properly is another thing which should be taught. They used to stress this more back before helmets became common. It’s still important because helmets only protect in a very limited set of circumstances, and some riders for whatever reason will opt to not wear them.

  • flipperfeet

    This recurring argument that traffic laws and safety gear makes us less safe and should only apply to motorists is exhausting.

    It is ridiculous the effort certain members of the cycling community put into arguing this POV.

    The hypocrisy of demanding motorists obey all laws while cyclists can make personal judgment calls when there is absolutely no standardized training or licensing for cyclists prior to sharing the road with motor vehicles is ridiculous. Add to this the predominant cycling club culture that encourages riders to take over the road as if they are on a closed course whether they are solo or in a peloton and it is no mystery cyclists encounter anti-cyclist sentiment and behavior from motorists.

    Our cars now have hundreds of safety standards that must be met to be sold or operated on public roads, including crash survival minimums. Licensing and seat-belt requirement are a requirement in all states. All of this has led to lower rates of injury and fatality. But raise the suggestion that riders should use a helmet, or a headlight and taillight at night or inclement weather to reduce their exposure to injury, and without fail, someone will chime in that it is the responsibility of motorists to keep us safe and that taking precautions is an admission that cycling can be dangerous. Baloney! What I get from drivers for these precautions are a thumbs up, a wider birth during passing, and more respect on the road. I have had tens of people roll down their window and thank me for stopping when some other cyclist ran the stop sign or light. Using your head also includes taking advantage of what is available to make yourself more visible, predictable, and a traffic incident more survivable.

  • Vooch

    da’ wife’s nickname for me is…flipperfeer

  • flipperfeet

    Respectfully, this recurring argument that traffic laws and safety gear makes us less safe and should only apply to motorists is exhausting. It is astounding the effort members of the cycling community put into arguing this POV.

    The hypocrisy of demanding motorists obey all laws while cyclists can make personal judgment calls when there is absolutely no standardized training or licensing for cyclists before sharing the road with motor vehicles is ridiculous. Add to this the pernicious cycling club culture that encourages riders to take over the road and run stop signs as if they are on a closed course whether they are solo or in a peloton and it is no mystery cyclists encounter anti-cyclist sentiment and behavior from motorists.

    Our cars now have hundreds of safety standards that must be met to be sold or operated on public roads, including crash survival minimums; licensing and seat belts are a requirement in all states. All of this has led to lower rates of injury and fatality. But raise the suggestion that riders should use a helmet, or a headlight and taillight at night or inclement weather to reduce their exposure to injury, and invariably someone will chime in that it is the responsibility of motorists to keep us safe and that taking precautions is an admission that cycling can be dangerous. Hogwash. What I get from drivers for these precautions are a thumbs up, a wider birth during passing, and more respect on the road. I’ve had tens of people roll down their window and thank me for stopping when some other cyclist ran the stop sign or light. Using your head also includes taking advantage of what is available to make yourself more visible, predictable, and a traffic incident more survivable.

  • flipperfeet

    The UCI has required helmets since 2003, they made this decision after determining there were injuries in closed course races in which helmets would have lessened or prevented serious injury or death. It is not a fetish, it is a sound safety measure judged to be prudent even when riding with professional cyclists in top condition and training.

    I am not advocating for a helmet law or gearing up in off-road armor to ride in the streets, but please stop promoting this false narrative that helmets make riders less safe.

  • Joe R.

    I never came out against headlights or taillights. Those are common sense safety measures which make a cyclists much more visible, and more importantly have NO downsides whatsoever for the cyclist.

    As for traffic laws, remember it’s already legal in one state for cyclists to pass red lights and stop signs if conditions warrant it. It should be nationally, and the same thing should apply to pedestrians. The data show safety has not been compromised as a result of the Idaho stop. It’s a common sense measure which has the safety benefits I mentioned. The onus is still on the cyclist to ensure there’s no cross traffic. I don’t understand why any mention of passing red lights or stop signs results in the assumption that it automatically means cyclists blindly acting like they’re on a closed course. I rarely see cyclists behaving this way. Remember they have skin in the game. If they get it wrong passing a red light they’ll get the worst of it, not the motorist who hits them.

    Note also since you mentioned training, perhaps if we had an Idaho stop or yield nationally then maybe cycling clubs would have a good reason to train cyclists as to how to properly pass red lights and stop signs. In the absence of such a law there’s little incentive to do so. In fact, quite the contrary. A cycling club might catch a lot of flak training cyclists to do something which is technically illegal, so most don’t.

    But raise the suggestion that riders should use a helmet, or a headlight and taillight at night or inclement weather to reduce their exposure to injury, and invariably someone will chime in that it is the responsibility of motorists to keep us safe and that taking precautions is an admission that cycling can be dangerous.

    A suggestion to use a helmet is fine but what I hate is the attitude by a lot of riders here in the US especially that you shouldn’t ride a bike unless you’re wearing a helmet. As for headlights/taillights, those are rightfully required by law if you ride at night and there’s little reason nowadays not to have one. There WERE good reasons back in the day when batteries were crap and all you had were dim, incandescent bulbs which sucked batteries and constantly burnt out. With LEDs which are shock-proof and 10 to 20 times more efficient, plus modern batteries, any reasonable excuse not to have a light is long gone.

    I’m the last person to say it’s the responsibility of motorists to keep us safe. I personally advocate a philosophy of riding as if you’re invisible. This doesn’t mean actually being invisible but not having lights at night, for example. Rather, it means operating on the assumption a motorist can’t see you.

    The hypocrisy of demanding motorists obey all laws while cyclists can make personal judgment calls when there is absolutely no standardized training or licensing for cyclists before sharing the road with motor vehicles is ridiculous.

    Again, I’m not someone who feels this way. There are some instances where motorists can safely not obey laws to the letter. A good example is speed limit laws which are almost always set well below the level needed for safety. Other examples include red lights or stop signs in places where those devices are improperly used. Here in the US we have often improperly used traffic controls at the behest of ignorant politicians or community boards. Yielding at a red light which was put in an intersection where a yield sign actually would have been safe is another example where I might feel a motorist needn’t obey all laws. Obviously if traffic controls and speed limits were all set up properly then motorists would really need to obey every single traffic law for safety but such is not the case here in the US. In Europe they tend to do things by the book. Speed limits are really the maximum speed you can safely drive under good conditions. Traffic signals are really only used where absolutely needed. End result is drivers (and cyclists) tend to take traffic laws as gospel.

    Incidentally, it’s this very misuse and overuse of certain traffic controls which has resulted in the cycling culture you speak up. When you encounter red lights every two blocks, as you might in NYC at cycling speeds, it’s unrealistic to expect cyclists to obey them. I’m not sure what the conditions are like where you ride. If cyclists might hit one or two red lights in a 50 mile ride then I don’t really take any issue with the policy of your club to obey all traffic controls. In countries with high cycling mode share cycling routes are purposely laid out so that stopping is seldom required. The planners realize if you ask a cyclist to stop too often, they just won’t. This can have detrimental effects in places where such stopping is really needed for safety. As a result of this design philosophy, cyclists know the few times they hit red lights they really need to stop for their own safety. This is quite different from the US where traffic signals are often used frivolously.

    All of this has led to lower rates of injury and fatality.

    No it hasn’t. The number of traffic deaths actually went up last year. Unfortunately, every safety innovation has also resulted in changes in driving which more or less undo any benefits of that innovation. Anti-lock brakes in theory should have resulted in fewer collisions due to the ability to better avoid obstacles. Instead, motorists now tend to leave less space on the theory they can stop faster. Roads which are designed for increased safety with wider lanes and wider shoulders generally result in higher driving speeds which again undo the safety benefits of those things. Even for cycling, I’ve heard helmeted cyclists tend to take more risks because they feel better protected. And drivers pass helmeted cyclists a bit more closely for the same reasons.

  • Joe R.

    The latest studies put the effects of helmets as neutral or slightly negative. As for the UCI and the cycling helmet requirement here’s an interesting article you might want to read: http://davesbikeblog.squarespace.com/blog/2011/6/21/pro-cycling-and-helmets.html

    In the decade following the helmet requirement 8 cyclists died, compared to an average of 4 per decade in the 40 years prior to that. Granted, there were more events and more riders, maybe even more dangerous courses, but the fact the number of deaths increased seems odd to me. It seems to point in the same direction as the studies, namely that at best helmets are neutral with regards to safety.

    I’m not privy to why the UCI required helmets starting in 2003 and neither are you. Their publicly stated reasons may have little to do with the reality. Remember there is a good amount of money to be had from endorsements from helmet manufacturers. It’s my feeling in the near to medium term the helmet requirement will be dropped.

  • uniblab_2.0

    prejudice is so fashionable amongst the left, I guess. If you hate us so much, move to France.

  • Amie Ashton

    The French won’t take Americans, trust me I have tried. You have been suckered my friend.

    Health care, daycare, university education, mass transit that works, 6 weeks of vacation, a population where voter turnout is above 80% (all for about the same taxes as we pay here in the US)- I will very happily be a Frenchwoman. Also, don’t get me started on the lower rates of just about every disease from cancer to diabetes to childhood asthma. Sometimes I think the Spanish and French just laugh at us all the time. Fools.

  • FlamingoFresh

    Well I’m glad you live in an area and region where you can commute on a bike safely from point A to point B but just because you haven’t faced any bad luck on a bike doesn’t mean it’s not happening. Just look at the data provided above. I don’t have a problem biking their way around I was just merely stating that you are taking a greater risk than walking according to the numbers. I myself have walked my whole life and have not been hit by a vehicle. Does that mean people don’t get hit by vehicles on foot?

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Our Waistlines Are Expanding In Sync With Our Car-Dependence

|
States with the highest adult obesity rates also tend to be where the fewest people bike or walk to work. Image: CDC Two reports released last week underscored the increasing severity of America’s obesity epidemic. And the eye-opening findings add to the mounting evidence that stopping the spread of obesity and its attendant health risks […]

Researchers Confirm Link Between Active Commuting and Better Health

|
It makes intuitive sense that cycling and walking to work regularly would help people stay healthy, but until now there’s only been anecdotal evidence suggesting that places where walking or cycling to work is common also have lower rates of obesity. Bike traffic in Philadelphia. Photo: Kyle Gradinger, Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia That changed […]

Measuring the Global Health Impact of Transportation Reform

|
The relationship between active transportation and public health can seem so plainly obvious that we tend to take it for granted. Who could question that air pollution, obesity, and road fatalities are major public health concerns that have a direct connection to the availability of safe and convenient travel options other than driving? But as […]