I commute about 6 miles each way between Brooklyn (home) and Manhattan (work). I've been raving about it to everyone I know because it's legitimately changed my life. It feels amazing, saves money, keeps me in much better shape, gives me more energy at work. It's slightly faster than the subway, and significantly faster than driving/cabbing at rush hour.
I also love that transit time is very consistent (even relative to the subway, which has lately been wonky). It's great to arrive for our morning standup exactly 7 minutes early, rather than having to pad in 30 minutes of unproductive dead space in case the subway has some problem.
NYC bike paths have gotten pretty good over the years, such that I can use protected lanes for ~70% of the trip, and dedicated lanes for >90%. No accidents yet but several close calls, mostly with pedestrians. New York streets are crowded and aggressive, but the speeds are low and drivers are relatively vigilant.
The consistency is a vastly underrated quality of bike commuting. One amazing thing I've found is I'm more likely to do social events after work, even ones that are a great distance, if I don't have to worry about traffic.
For example, sometimes after I work I bicycle 90 minutes to San Jose and don't think twice about it. If I had my car it would PROBABLY take 45 minutes, but I honestly have no idea. Or I could go home, and drive to the train station, and catch the train, then walk. But the bike gives me the freedom to not worry about schedules and also not stress about delays.
It sounds so silly to prefer to ride for twice as long as I'd drive and consider that a "win", but there's some kind of psychological block to dealing with traffic and the fact that a 15 minute drive instead takes 45 or 30 or 50 or 60 minutes.. but when the bicycle ride takes 90 minutes with or without traffic, it's so much more appealing.
Sorry for the basic question, but how do you bike for 90 minutes without being covered in sweat and needing a shower when you arrive at your destination?
I'd bet that you could walk for 90 mins even at a fast pace without getting all sweaty? If so then you can cycle for 90 mins without getting sweaty :)
Seriously though, I have 2 main modes of commute cycling:
1 as fast as I can manage, which I only do when I know I can shower at either end
2 at a pretty decent pace but one where I know that I'll stay cool and dry enough to not be a sweaty mess. Depending on the temp and how far I might slow right down for the last few minutes just to cool off.
The right clothes also help - even going pretty fast in lycra you'll stay cool enough. Cycling in full work clothes is doable but not fun for miles and miles.
Main thing for me was not carrying a bag on my back, as that makes me sweaty no matter the speed. I have a small bag for clothes on the front of my road bike (super cheap off ebay) and a rack on the back for bits. I try not to commute with a laptop - I've not needed to really so far.
I've been riding with a pannier on my back rack (instead of using a backpack) for 4 of the 6 months. I still get that "what did I forget?" feeling when I pull out onto the road. It's so amazingly freeing not having the weight tied to my back and the sweat that goes along with it.
It's a good question. In my climate, eight months out of the year it's impossible to ride for more than twenty minutes without getting sweaty, but I find that most days don't need a full shower to freshen up. Just take a washcloth with you, get it wet, and do a once-over when you change clothes. Re-apply deodorant and you're fine.
There are still a lot of days (almost every day in the height of summer) where it's so hot that just being outside is enough to make you sweat, and after any significant time on the bike, you will continue sweating bullets even in the frigid office air conditioning while your body cools down. In that case, arrive a little early, work at your desk until you stop sweating, and then go wipe off and change. You won't smell bad while the sweat is fresh (as long as your bike clothes don't accumulate a vile odor — be careful about this.) Cleaning off before you stop sweating is a mistake.
Alcohol-based wet wipes are the nuclear option if you still have odor issues. Obviously they're not very green to use every day, but having some on hand can give you peace of mind if you're afraid you might unexpectedly need to go face-to-face with upper management or a customer.
Good clothes help. I wear a lot of icebreaker merino wool stuff (yes, even t-shirts) and they simply never stink. But I also commute in 'normal' cotton/poly clothes.
True "workout" gear stinks to high heaven. I'm not sure what they put in gym shirts and shorts but once you sweat, it's all over. Don't wear that stuff when commuting to work!
Normally I commute in a t-shirt, a merino sweater/sweatshirt, and jeans with bike shorts (padded liners) underneath. They're basically like the underwear version of bike shorts -- not something to be worn solo.
Wool works great for me as well. The old synthetic stuff (say, ten years ago) used to just get smellier and smellier until it would gross you out straight out of the washer. Newer synthetics aren't as bad, but they're still stinkier than wool.
Ease off on your pace for the last 10-15 min so your body has a chance to cool off. If you are showering regularly you remove the bacteria that cause the stank, so sweating by itself won't cause most people to be excessively funky.
I'm not the original poster, and I'm about to write something gross, but I commute for long times too and I find the sweat less of an issue than I originally expected (I do live in a climate that is not overly hot and humid, though). I avoid using a backpack (in favor using panniers) so that my back isn't all sweaty, and for the rest I find that the sweat dries up quickly and doesn't leave a trace. In the worst case I take a spare t-shirt and a deodorant stick.
You don't. I would be worried whether the cow-orkers share this view (simply because everybody is habituated to their own smell, not noticing it as much).
Good point with the backpack though - with it, I was sweating like a racehorse, even after coming out of the shower; without, I was only sweating.
On my morning commute it's not bad, because mornings are cool. If I put on a windbreaker due to the chill, then I get a little bit sweaty. Once I stop riding, the sweat naturally dries after a few minutes. I don't need a shower just because I perspired somewhat.
If I'm going down to San Jose I'm probably meeting friends at a bar or going to a show or something. Hardly the end of the world to work up a mild sweat and then my body dries after I stop, then as I start to feel a chill, I put warmer clothes on. It's not an issue.
Yeah, subway being "wonky" lately is putting it lightly.
I'd love to bike to work. When I lived back in Europe, I used to bike every day to work and back. However, biking in NYC is just insanely dangerous in comparison. I'm really surprised how people do it at all. There aren't real bike paths, and you're supposed to bike on the road right next to all the cars. That's constantly being just one small mistake away from injury/death. I just don't want that risk.
There are a few different types of paths - some main avenues have separated, dedicated paths - meaning a row of parked cars separates you from the traffic. There are also dedicated paths on the west side and central park. The bridges are also dedicated paths. You will likely need to spend some time on the "fake" paths to use them, but accessibility to the dedicated paths is pretty good and due to the layout of the manhattan (narrow) - if you're traveling north/south, you can probably spend the majority of your commute on the dedicated ones.
I feel the same way. I would LOVE to bike to work in NYC, but I'm just too terrified that one wrong move will end my life. Several of my friends have been in close-call bike accidents. It's not something I want to risk every single day.
Just be aware that heavy exercise near significant car exhaust is fairly bad for your lungs. If you go a moderate pace it's not that bad, but if you like going all out a face mask is a good investment.
Fine particulate pollution is the easiest to filter, but not the only harm from urban air. Many chemicals like NOx compounds, CO, etc are not healthy.
Including increased accident risks, particulate, and chemical pollution together is a very different risk profile vs comparing all benefits vs a subset of downsides.
That said, you can filter out most particulates and there is little reason not to take this precaution.
I suspect it's age dependent as cycling before 35 is unlikely to extend your life significantly, but adds risks. Some bike heavy countries don't have unusually long lifespans which IMO supports that line of thinking. With age exercise becomes increasingly important, so it probably flips at some point.
However, like a bike helmet an air filter is at most a minor inconvenience.
Depends on the mask. A good one is only really noticeable as something on your face. I find it easier to breath as the air feels cleaner and my chest feels less tight.
PS: I suspect re-breathing a tiny amount of CO2 probably has a measurable impact over a longer race. (Don't have data on this though.)
NYC bike commuting is great. In manhattan, the west side and central park paths are the best - I could do 90% of my commute on them and basically avoided cars except for the side streets. I commuted 5 miles and would often beat the subway time-wise. It's a great way to wake up too, you start the day off feeling good
I think 'it's great' is quite an overstatement. For example, there's a bike lane all the way down 2nd Ave from the 59th Street bridge, but it's largely ignored by cars and parked trucks.
To the degree that it might make cyclists feel confident and less hyper-vigilant b/c there are lines on the pavement, I think it's actually more dangerous than no bike lane.
Accepted. I think the solution involves better delineation and real legal consequences, based on cyclist-friendly laws, when drivers are found at fault in collisions with cyclists.
I have been commuting from Queens to Midtown manhattan for over 2 years now. In the beginning, I was super scared of all the cars and pedestrians.
However, now the situation is a lot better compared to few years back. More bicycling on the road mean the pedestrians, cabs and cars know how to behave.
To a lot of people who think it is dangerous, it can be remarkably non-dramatic affair. With better bike lane markings, traffic that is moving very slow, and more bicyclist on the road, it has never been a better time to start riding in NYC. With experience, you develop almost telepathic sense about the people and cars around you and how to anticipate their moves. If you were scared before, try now and take it easy the first few months while you get used to it.
This is similar to my experience—6 miles between Brooklyn and Manhattan. The protected lanes are surprisingly dangerous when there’s no separate turn signal for cars. Compare 1st Ave to 8th Ave for an example. That said, it still feels way safer than biking in the suburbs, where cars will go 40 mph around a blind corner because there’s not much traffic.
Shower beforehand, keep an easy pace and when you arrive, do a quick clean with wet wipes if necessary. Depending on the distance and temperatures where you live, you might want to keep a change of clothes at work. Use panniers instead if you have a backpack to keep the back from sweating up.
My office has showers. I wouldn't bike to work otherwise. I'm in Austin, so for a few months of the year, just standing outside is enough to start sweating.
Shower beforehand, fresh clothes every day, sport underwear to cool efficiently (it is not visible under typical office clothes), selected clothes to ventilate _gently_ whole body, but to look like normal casual clothes, buff at face in case of cold weather, etc.
I wear a T-shirt (under my jacket in winter) and bring a shirt to change into in my backpack. My T-shirt is usually pretty sweaty but once I change into a fresh shirt it’s fine.
I did this for 2 years, 10 miles in and 10 miles back. There was a shower directly above my office. Everything was super convenient, lost 20 pounds and felt great and rode fast.
Back to driving now, so fed up of the weather here in Seattle to do this during the winter, put the weight back on.
But yes, find someplace to shower. Or, bus in and ride home so you can shower when you get home.
Bikes have few problems with traffic because entire rights-of-way are dedicated to a tiny constituency. As bicycling gains popularity, I fully expect bike lanes to exhibit the same traffic problems as car lanes. You’ll still get more throughout from the space, but with a density of bikes meeting or exceeding the density of cars, traffic will certainly become a thing.
Now, as always, it’s a good idea to arbitrage and take advantage of underutilized infrastructure, but I wouldn’t expect the underutilization to last.
Bicycles are inherently more space-efficient than cars— the space-inefficiency of which is the root cause of urban automobile congestion:
http://urbanist.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83454714d69e2017d3c37d8a...
As cycling becomes more popular, the larger cycling constituency will be able to demand more road space— but congestion will much less of a problem, because it simply requires less space to move a large number of people on bicycles (or in trains or on busses).
NYC definitely has 'bicycle traffic' these days, especially around choke points like the bridges. But it essentially never has traffic jams, except during the 5 Boro Bike Tour.
We have learned from freeway expansion projects that constant-factor improvements in capacity induce growth in utilization until we return to an equilibrium level of congestion. We're in the early stages of this process for bicycles, so the pain is low for now, as it was when early adopters had the brand-new interstate highways all to themselves. As it was, more recently, when hybrids were allowed in the Bay Bridge flyover lane. What happened? Everybody got a Prius.
For environmental, health, and inclusivity reasons (constant factor improvements in transportation capacity do, after all, mean constant factor improvements in access to cities) it may be preferable to have gridlock in bicycles rather than gridlock in private cars.
But don't think for a second that we can grow sprawling mega-regions indefinitely without gridlock.
The limit on growing a mega-region with bicycles is simply that bicycles' limited speed makes them impractical for travel of more than 10 miles for most people.
But Tokyo's 38M-citizen megaregion of train stations accessed by pedestrians and cyclists[0] is probably the best-scaled megaregion yet to exist.
In the Netherlands, a significant part of the population uses bikes. I lived in Groningen, where a large chunk of the students and people who work in the city travel by by bike. I lived there for many years, and the only problem I ever had was bicycle parking.
Never had an accident (well, except the one time I tried to drive from a road onto a pavement with an angle of attach of 10 degrees, which resulted in some scratches ;)). I can't recall any of my friend having a serious accident.
This makes no sense. There's a limit to how densely people can live, and I see no reason bicycle infrastructure can't support all of those commuters, even if it has to be expanded somewhat.
We DEFINITELY know roads can't scale enough to handle the cars, but when each person takes up a tiny fraction of the space they take up now in their cars (plus closer following distances due to lower speeds), there's simply no problem.
I've commuted in places where there is lots of cycling, for example Munich, and yes, you have 'normal' car-like traffic (sometimes in a row of 10 bicycles and you might have to wait for faster bikes to pass before your chance to pull out to pass) but it's not gridlock like in cars on the streets.
You can also consider buying a folding bicycle like a Brompton, which tidily fits under a desk and can be fitted with a cover to disguise its bicycle-ness, bicycles being mysterious anathema to many office buildings:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ic6cssX_50
Sadly junker bike gets stolen as much if not better, because it's easy to scrap.
I know, my beloved piece of shit mountain bike has been stolen, it had zero value (had no seat, one pedal missing, cheapest ruined part everywhere, ugly) except for sentimental one. Yet it's gone.
I'm at my 12 year of every day bike commuting. Before I commuted 10 km each direction, now I'm at 6 km. If I have activities after work, I ride to them too. So my total ride length is a fair bit longer than what my commute is.
The public transportation network here in Stockholm is good, but wouldn't even consider cramming myself into a packed subway train or bus. Even at this time of the year when it's -5 degrees celcius and snowy I really enjoy my daily rides.
It cuts commuting time in half and I shave off another two hours of sitting without moving a day.
If possible, I highly recommend bike commuting. Get a good bike (with gears) and rack mounts for bags. Gravel/adventure bikes are fun to ride and work well on all surfaces. Supple 650b tyres are all the rage these days. They will give you plenty of comfort while sacrificing very little when it comes to performance[1].
Tomorrow I'll be going to the outskirts of town with work. Then it's 50 km. I already look forward to that workday adventure. :)
I commuted by bike for years in NYC and frankly I do not recommend it. The traffic has always been bad but it’s now significantly worse, and the bike lanes that exist make riding even more dangerous. You are always within reach of parked cars doors, and the lack of a physical barrier on most lanes means they are often driven over by cars.
Perhaps worst of all, even faulty bike lanes give cyclists a sense of entitlement and false security. The fact remains the roads were not built for cycling and cars always win in a battle for space.
I’d love to see bike-only roads, routes, or such. But until there is both proper segregation and consequences when cars kill cyclists (there are currently none) it’s a death wish.
Every day I see eager young cyclists riding with no helmet, no lights, and not infrequently without brakes (on fixies) and I am compelled to yell out my advice on working harder at staying alive.
Commuted for years, also Brooklyn to Manhattan about the same distance. Had to stop due to back issues but I can echo all the OP’s benefits.
Biking is somewhat dangerous in NYC, and every other American city. I agree with OP that NYC drivers are generally very good though. It’s the bikers responsibility to bike as though drivers are -trying- to kill you. First heard that advice when riding motorcycles and it’s stuck with me.
I’ve been in a few spills on my bike. A big one with a pedestrian who strolled into a protected high speed path at prospect park. Another one with an invisible pothole at night in park slope. The last was pure user error, riding tipsy from my local bar home :)
Generally, riding in nyc, like walking in nyc, is a unique skill set. You really MUST be able to do things like look behind you while riding, and it’s quite helpful to be able to accelerate to near traffic speeds. Of course you must assume any car door can open at any time. Route planning also goes a long way; it’s usually worthwhile to take a slightly longer route to stay on smooth streets or protected lanes. Extra wide one-way streets in Brooklyn are generally quite good for cyclists as well.
Cycling in NYC can be fun, healthy, and might eventually help push the city into better accommodating non-vehicular traffic. But it's also particularly dangerous, there is no getting around that.
I'm not sure that a story of one experienced rider being struck and killed invalidates the common sense argument that more experience is better than less experience.
I did not mean to impress that the techniques I mentioned above, if mastered, would result in 100% safe riding.
As far as biking being particularly dangerous in NYC, you'd need stats like miles traveled vs fatalities for a number of major cities to make that determination. It might be more dangerous in NYC, but it might not.
> Don't ride in the door zone. Don't let cars make you ride in the door zone. Take the car lane instead.
Please don’t do this. During the time that I commuted on a bicycle, it was very frustrating when other cyclists didn’t follow the rules of the road (zipping through stop signs is another example). It causes resentment in drivers. This leads to aggressive behavior towards cyclists.
You are mistaken about what the rules are in most states. To take one example, in California, you own the lane and cars cannot pass unless they can give you three feet of clearance.
I don't care how much resentment it causes that should never result in aggressive behavior towards cyclists.
As if one cyclists behavior should or could influence a vehicle operators behavior towards other people sharing the road. Utterly ridiculous. Anybody that is not capable of keeping their emotions bottled up to the point where they will take out their frustrations on unprotected bags of fluid from within a ton+ of armor should be relieved of their license.
If you can't safely pass your place is clear: behind the other traffic.
I don't know the rules of the road for NYC. Where I'm from though, you are supposed to take the lane. Quite frankly, it's insane not to take the lane, since people think they can pass you in their car, while staying in the same lane.
Traffic lanes are rarely wide enough for two vehicles to travel side by side with sufficient space between them.
For example, on a street with 10 foot wide lanes, a 6 foot wide car would have a margin of 2 feet on either side of it and 4 feet between it and a car in the adjacent lane. For buses that are 8.5 feet wide, they have about 0.75 feet on each side and 1.5 feet between them and another bus in an adjacent lane.
A cyclist is about 2 feet wide at a minimum. To have a 2 feet of space on each side, they need a lane that's 6 feet wide. To have 0.75 feet on each side, they need a lane that's 3.5 feet wide.
For the car and bus examples above, neither can leave enough space in the lane while they're in it for a cyclist. So the only way to safely pass one is to change lanes.
The UVC (Uniform Vehicle Code) that most states base their traffic laws on states that bicycles do not have to keep as far right as practicable when the lane they're in is a substandard width lane. They further go on to define a substandard width lane as one where a cyclist and another vehicle cannot travel safely side by side with both vehicles within the lane.
Cycling in NYC is highly dependent on the bike lanes on your route. There are good stretches of quality bike lane here and there (especially in Brooklyn), however there are parts of e.g. Chinatown that I would not recommend on a bike.
I would add to that list the entirety of Queens, where I regularly see people cycling down Northern Boulevard. I'm not familiar with roads in other cities to compare it to, so you'll have to use your imagination when I say: it's very dangerous.
have been riding in NYC for past 2 years. I do agree that bike lanes give you a false sense of security. You have to remain vigilant at all times. It's not that stressful. For me, I have come to enjoy riding in the city now. You need time to develop the sense of various moving objects around you.
I'd hate to ride anything 'supple' on my commute path, which includes a lot of debris and broken bottles.
I do miss riding on smaller wheels though. 26" was much nicer to get rolling than 700c, and there's a lot of stop-start. 26" rigid bike are extinct now though it seems.
Parent is suggesting combining 650b/27.5" wheel sets with large volume 27.5" tires. This gives you an outer wheel diameter near a 700c wheel. Something like this Durano 27.5 x 1.10 tire [1] and sealant would make for a bomb proof commuter.
Only thing keeping me from commuting year round is lack of studded tires. I'll have to fix that until next year, because as I'm standing here, hoping for a train that's not jam packed, I really miss cycling.
I've been mostly biking to work for years now, on an island off the northwestern coast of Norway.
I have found that studded tyres are more of an annoyance than an asset on 99 out of 100 winter days.
On anything but wet ice, regular tyres do surprisingly well - to the extent that I've felt no need for studs at all during quite literally thousands of kilometers of riding in the snow - yes, grip is not as good as on asphalt, but then again - studs will not magically make the road bare; they only give you a bit of extra margin under very specific conditions - wet ice, basically.
On wet ice, studded tyres will just postpone the inevitable. You WILL topple. On those days, I just jump in the car.
Additionally, the noise of a set of properly studded tyres is enough to drive me nuts, though obviously YMMV.
Thanks for this! I biked many years throughout the year to work in Finland but after series of bronchitis hitting me on consecutive winters I quit winter biking. I'm thinking maybe I could try again - and given your analysis I'll not let my lack of winter tyres stop me :)
Just avoid slicks (d’oh!) and you’ll likely be fine. The only concession I’ve made to winter conditions is riding at slightly lower tyre pressure to get a larger contact surface. In snow it doesn’t make much of a difference, but on ice it works wonders.
As for the bronchitis, I’ve luckily steered clear - but a colleague of mine who had it good and hard a couple of times swear that since he started wesring a mask, he hasn’t had even a hint of it.
I agree. I biked in today after it snowed maybe 4 inches last night. If i had studded tires it would have been nicer but my slicks do pretty well. And really if there is ice few tires will really protect you from slipping.
The thing that gets me is roads that are sort of driven on. Heavily trafficked roads are great because cars usually expose the bare concrete and roads with no cars are great because you can ride through powder no problem. But when a few cars have created ruts...it make steering very difficult. I don't know if different tires help with this or if that's just the way it goes when you're total mass is <200 lb.
Studded tires make a significant different in ice, and can help to get our of those ice ruts as well. I went down enough times in the ice to move to carbide studded snow tires and it helped a lot. My bike commute is a lot farther now though (~20 miles) so I have downgraded to a fair weather cyclist.
I've fallen thrice (that I can remember). Two of these times was when I was stupid enough to ride on ice with slicks. The third time I tried to pull some fancy trick up a curb (just stupid). So, I've scratched my jeans. Other than that: nothing (touch wood). Nowadays I run studded tyres in the winter and they're crazy effective.
How hostile are the drivers in Stockholm? Bay Area drivers aren’t super friendly to cyclists (to be fair, plenty of cyclists also behave like assholes, cutting in front of cars and crossing intersections when they shouldn’t.) My biggest concern during a year of using my bike to commute was making sure I didn’t get ran over by a car taking a turn, because signaling is not always their forte.
I don't find them to be very hostile. A lot of drivers are extremely stressed (particularly in the morning) and unfocused though. I always try to expect them not to see me at all and I pick safer roads over marginally shorter roads.
Some cyclists get very worked up by ill behavior from motorists, getting into dangerous situations to prove their point. Motorists are protected by a >1000 kg shield of metal, so I try just get on with my day.
cutting in front of cars and crossing intersections when they shouldn’t
What drivers who have never used a bicycle don't even consider is that as a cyclist you are extremely mobile and have a much better overview of the road. A cyclist can cross an intersection on red with little danger, a car attempting the same would be murderous.
In countries like the Netherlands most everyone has biked to school from the age of 6 before they are turned loose in a car at 18, there is much better mutual understanding between car drivers and bike riders over there.
It is NOT OK to go through red lights, whether in a car, on a bike or on foot. The rules are the rules and we should all abide them.
It happens all the time in London where bikes go through red lights and weave through pedestrians (sometimes at speed) who are crossing the road. Pedestrians are even worse - and often walk or run across red lights and almost get hit from a bus, car or bike. It’s madness!
I many places is is allowed and even encouraged for cyclists to go through red lights and stop signs. It's called the Idaho stop [0]. It's believed to be safer than waiting at the red light provided that the intersection is clear. Consider that rear-end collisions are the most common cause of cyclist fatalities [1].
This worries me. What if the intersection is clear but the joining roads are blind (as is often the case in old European cities). Could I cross the red light, get hit and then claim “well I was just following the Idaho stop... I’m not at fault here. The intersection was clear when I set off”?
I’m surprised about it being safer, and would be interested to see some stats on it. It could be more common in the US where cities are grids because I don’t think I’ve ever seen a near miss where a cyclist almost got rear ended in London. However, I do see a lot of cyclists getting cut off by buses and cars on corners and at junctions.
> It is NOT OK to go through red lights, whether in a car, on a bike or on foot.
Actually, it depends.
Just last week, I learned that it is perfectly legal to jaywalk in Germany, IF it does not interrupt flowing traffic or endanger anyone. Also, you must take the shortest path (orthogonal to the lanes) when crossing a road. (§25 Abs. 3 StVO)
I jaywalk all the time. It's just ridiculous to wait at a red light when the street is completely empty.
I bike to work everyday and I don't follow the rules of the road, and neither should other cyclists.
In a system designed for cars, it's just false piety and won't keep you any safer.
The one rule I do follow is that I am courteous and polite to everyone, drivers and pedestrians alike, and I remain hyper alert to everything that is going on around me.
IMO The point of the rules are to remove as much subjection and interpretation to how road users should behave as possible.
For example, what should the rules be when overtaking other riders? Should I overtake on the outside or the inside? We know that having a rule on overtaking makes it much safer.
Courteous and politeness are great, but a lot of people don’t drive/ride/walk like that. What happens then?
But following the rules makes you predictable in terms of what actions you're going to take and makes it easier for other road users to interact with you in a predictable manner.
I think the main problem is that we have traffic control devices that most people don't follow. For example, stop signs at roadways where yield signs would suffice. Traffic lights which don't switch to blinking mode when traffic volumes are low.
But there are situations where not following the rules makes things more dangerous for those involved. For example, a driver stopping to allow someone to make a left turn in front of them. That can be seen as a courteous gesture, but the car the next lane over that doesn't stop ends up broadsiding the vehicle making the left turn. In this case, just following the rules of the road would have prevented a crash like that.
A cyclist can cross an intersection on
red with little danger
Unfortunately, the 30% of riders who can't do this competently spoil things for the 70% of riders who can.
I don't own a car and I cycle thousands of miles a year, so I'm very much on the side of cyclists over motorists - but last year, as I walked across a pedestrian crossing with a green light, I was hit by a bicyclist running a red light - who promptly fled the scene without so much as an apology.
This kind of thing creates strong, memorable emotional responses people are keen to share. If I'd been more seriously injured, or if the fall had broken my expensive consumer electronics, or if I wasn't a cyclist, or if an infirm relative had been in the accident instead of me, even more so.
This being the case, it isn't realistic to convince other road users to approve of cyclists running red lights; getting them to do so is as unlikely as that last 30% of riders spontaneously becoming competent.
I find Bay Area drivers (Palo Alto) area to be polite, almost to a fault. I've had a few aggro assholes, but normally the problem is they're unpredictably nice.
For example, if a car passes me 50 feet before a stop sign and then either has their right turn signal on or otherwise indicates a turn (turns the wheels to the right as they stop), I often just pull in the lane behind them so there is no confusion about whether I'm going to get run over or not... but it seems to more often CAUSE confusion, because they're waiting for me to go by them on the right, which I appreciate the courtesy, they have the right of way.
I often have the same issue at 4-way stops; if they arrive before me and I slow to a stop and put my foot down, THEN they start waving me on and want me to go before them. Of course if I were to blow the stop sign, other people could potentially be annoyed by that. But only about 20% of drivers go before me when I arrive after them and stop and put my foot down.
Also, sometimes I try to pull into the "gaps" between parked cars to allow a car behind me to pass, if there is lots of space and I will not need to pull back into the lane for awhile.... but too often indecisiveness and timidity on the part of the driver mean now I'm having to negotiate my way back into the lane with a car still behind me.
Marathon Winter has more studs. They're placed closer to the edge of the tyre and it's debatable how much difference if it makes if you don't lean into the curves. I try to lean less on frozen ground, so I suspect they would be pointless for me.
Studded tyres actually works best on ice. Theoretically, if snow covers the ice they could be ineffective. I myself have not found this to be a problem.
Yet another vote for them. After I tried my first set of Schwalbes, I've never looked back. They are terrific. (Marathon Plus MTBs, btw - works brilliantly on gravel, in moderate mud, snow and ice.)
Marathon Winters are the only ones that seem to be effective against the copious amounts of sharp stones used here in winter to sand all cycleways. Otherwise I have managed without studs the previous winters. But five flats during 250km of riding was too much.
I use the same tires in winter as in summer (normal city bike tires). But I ride them at much lower pressure (under 2bar vs 3.5bar in summer). Then they don’t slip at all.
I did about ten years from the late 90s through the 2000s tapered off in 2011 but I will say.. knees.. oh my knees.. they are simple small things and they each have a say in what I do
I've been cycling to work in downtown LA for nearly 8 years, 4 miles each way. I'm faster than a car over that commute. The weather is fantastic, and I am physically in great shape. Mental benefits are huge.
I've gone about 15,000 miles in dense urban environments without any accidents of any kind. There are a number of keys to this:
- Think like a driver -- it helps to be a good driver first
- Think, period. Don't listen to music, pay attention.
- Don't ride in the door zone. Don't let drivers make you ride in the door zone. If you need the lane, take the lane. It's your right.
- Use flashing lights on front and back, at all times of day. Nobody else except emergency vehicles is allowed to have flashing lights. There's a good reason: they are unmissable and very distracting.
- Wear brightly colored shirts and a bright colored helmet.
- If you don't wear a helmet, don't worry about it, it doesn't mitigate that much risk. The exercise benefits of biking do way more to increase your life expectancy than skipping a helmet does to reduce it.
> If you don't wear a helmet, don't worry about it, it doesn't mitigate that much risk. The exercise benefits of biking do way more to increase your life expectancy than skipping a helmet does to reduce it.
I've biked heavily for 30 years... advising people to wear a helmet never works. What works 99% of the time is the first freak crash. Not a crash where they felt like they were speeding, or not paying attention, or drunk... then they think it was avoidable. It takes a crash where you hit a rare little crack in the road, or a bump hidden in the shadows, or a car doing a u-turn out of the blue... then it 'clicks' Or, in my case, you witness someone take a minor fall and tap their skull on a curb and seizure and not be quite the same from that point on. If you're reading this and don't wear a helmet, you should consider experimenting with mind altering drugs as well, may as well enjoy the moment.
Take everything you just said and apply it not to a bicycle helmet but to a full face motorcycle helmet.
Now do you see how you sound? Bike helmets marginally help, but the same marginal difference is found going from bicycle helmets to full face motorcycle ones.
I’ve broken my face in 4 places in a bike accident where the only thing that would have helped would have been a motorcycle helmet, but I don’t go around town wearing one or telling other people to. I like the air in my hair and I’m ok with the additional risk that not wearing any helmet carries. I’m careful in otherways but I’m an adult making an informed choice about the relative risk.
You don't actually need a full face motorcycle helmet, that's overkill for cycling speeds (and uncomfortable with exertion). I regularly commute to work by bike and after a bad fall where I almost landed on my face, I decided to upgrade from a normal helmet to a full face bicycle helmet. You can get a decent one for ~$150 and it'll give you some protection even if you fall flat on your face. Highly recommend as a normal helmet doesn't do much for your face and a lot of falls could result in facial damage.
Shoot, now I'm getting paranoid... I've talked to a handful of people in full helmet gear and it's a similar painful story... definitely thought about the face/chin-plant scenario. I prefer the full peripheral vision but I'd be singing a different tune if I lost teeth or broke a facial bone... sorry to hear about your accident.
To throw an anecdote in, my brother was riding straight through an intersection on green when a driver turned into him. Witnesses said he flew up around 10 feet, up and over the car, and completely shattered his helmet when he landed. He got out of the hospital after 2 days with 3 broken vertebrae. He likely would have been in for over a week if he hadn't died. That helmet made all the difference.
Yeah it's still probably a net increase on your life expectancy to ride without a helmet compared to driving, but most people wear seat belts even though almost every mile driven doesn't result in a crash.
But it doesn't change the truth of the sentence: "The exercise benefits of biking do way more to increase your life expectancy than skipping a helmet does to reduce it."
They're uncomfortable, mess up your hair, make you extra sweaty, and you need to put them somewhere.
None of these are good enough reasons to not wear a helmet while you're riding a bike, but any one of them would be a good enough reason to not ride your bike at all. That's the point OP is trying to make by saying you can skip your helmet if you want.
If that comparison was apt, we wouldn't see so many people out riding sans protection.
But we do, and it's because they have a share bike that didn't come with a helmet, or they were worried about messing up their hair, or they lost their helmet, or they left it at the destination, or they're a rebellious teenager who just doesn't care, or no-one educated them about the risks, or they just forgot to put it on.
A better comparison would be to flossing your teeth, or wearing sunscreen: everyone should do it, but not everyone will do it.
There is ZERO reason not to wear a helmet every time you leave the house. You could trip and fall at any moment!
Presumably, you're willing to accept that risk. Biking without a helmet is no doubt riskier than walking without one, but both activities are well within reasonable risk-taking range.
You don't need me to tell you why I don't like wearing a helmet when I bike; you already use all those same reasons to avoid wearing one when you walk.
I'm sorry that you think my position is absurd, but I assure you it's offered in good faith. There are only trade-offs. This isn't just a comment on the wisdom of helmets; this is, as far as I can tell, an actual feature of the universe we inhabit. There aren't "problems" and "solutions to problems"; there are only trade-offs.
I (honestly and in good faith) place walking and biking in the same "helmet not required" risk category. The point isn't whether or not you adjust the risk slider further in one direction than me. The point is to respond to the assertion that there is zero reason to avoid wearing a helmet. We all know that isn't true, or we'd all wear helmets all the way down the risk scale.
Where you place "time to put on a helmet" on the scale isn't really the point. The point is that the scale obviously exists and it's obviously the case that there are places on the scale where not wearing a helmet makes sense, because if it were literally the case that there were no tradeoffs, then there'd literally be no reason not to wear one at all times.
That's the reductio proof I'm trying to illustrate.
Statistics don't work that way. Applying an aggregate metric (life expectancy) to an individual is what gets you statements like "Babe Ruth and I hit a combined 714 home runs", or beliefs like colonial Americans all dying by age 30 (they didn't; the average is heavily skewed due to child mortality).
Wearing a helmet doesn't increase the number of minutes of your life like you're winding a clock or something. It decreases the probability that you're dead by 40 from a preventable tragedy, leaving your parents without a child and your family without a parent.
I'm not sure it is appropriate to think about helmet use as having a bearing on life expectancy. The data on helmet accident avoidance is terrible. i.e. we have no idea what the severity of an accident "would have been" because that kind of data is never reported. Anecdotally, I've needed my helmet many times, but never reported its use to anyone.
you could theoretically look at the injury rate for non-helmeted people, but, again, you don't know how representative that rate is of the population. You are assuming that the non-helmeted accident statistics sample is representative of the cycling population. I am not sure that is true.
Well, That is a very interesting example of why we can't compare populations. Many posts on HN have highlighted just how cycling-savvy the Dutch are both as cyclists and as motorists. Arguably, a Netherlands specific comparison would tell us something about whether helmets improved outcomes, but they wouldn't necessarily tell us anything about the rate, because falls may be less likely in the first place.
Got hit by a car banged my head on asphalt 1986 then wore a helmet all the time every time and never ever ever ever needed it again.. 30 years of riding. now I take my helmet off when I am on a trail but wear it on the street because of the iphone babies.
Your interpretation of these data is misleading at best and dangerously misleading at worst.
>The risk of death from 1 hour of cycling reduces life expectancy by about 24 minutes. Wearing a helmet probably changes this by a couple of minutes.
This data does not take road conditions into account. Most cyclists prefer to bike on roads with very few cars on them. For example the road outside my apartment, a two-lane road outside of town by a lake with no services, is always packed with cyclists. The boulevard connecting my road to the train station, however, is heavily car-trafficked and has almost no cyclists. It is wrong to apply data from cyclists on the first road to those biking on the second.
This is double-counting. If you count sitting as a detriment, you can't turn around and count biking as an increment. There has to be a default from which to decrement or increment.
>[first link]>Every Minute Of Exercise Could Lengthen Your Life Seven Minutes
>[second link]>In fact, exercise was a bigger factor than body weight in many cases. People who were normal weight but were inactive actually lived an average of 3.1 fewer years than obese people who kept up high levels of activity.
This is an unjustified assumption of linear behavior. It's possible (likely IMO) that the first couple hours of exercise make a big difference coming from inactivity, but additional exercise on top of this likely has a smaller impact. The data only strongly indicate that cycling will have such a large impact on life expectancy if you already get very little exercise -- less than 2.5 hours/week of brisk walking. It is hard to believe, for example, that biking for 4 hours per day would increase life expectancy by 13 years -- there are practically no interventions known to have such a large effect!
> "Cyclists without helmets triple their chance of death by head injury"
Nope. The correct interpretation is 'cyclists without helmets who get into a serious crash triple their chance of death by head injury'. The study doesn't look at cyclists who don't crash. This is important, because you can't assume that all cyclists have an equally likely chance of having a serious crash. I'm going to be riding with a helmet on regardless of the law, but by making helmets mandatory, you kill off so much transport and utility cycling which was at low risk levels.
> The study also cites Victoria, Australia, as an example of successful legislation. Helmet use in the city increased from 31 per cent to 75 per cent after the introduction of mandatory helmet legislation, and cycling fatalities decreased by 48 per cent.
Yes, but a major reason for those reductions are because people stopped cycling after the introduction of those laws. See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1194.html - "In 1985-6, 3.4 per cent of trips in Melbourne were by bicycle. In 2004 this was only 2.0 per cent, suggesting that cycling was still much reduced compared with before the helmet law". Trauma surgeons are happy, public health experts are not.
I would suspect that "$PEOPLE without helmets triple their chance of death by head injury". I also suspect that there are more car drivers with head injuries than cyclists, because there are much more car drivers to begin with. Should you wear a helmet in a car? Should you wear a helmet as a pedestrian?
After five minutes of googling, I sadly did not find any relevant statistics.
Pedestrians without helmets triple their chance of death by head injury.
Car drivers without helmets triple their chance of death by head injury.
Bather without helmets triple their chance of death by head injury.
And so on.
The assumption is that wearing a helmet somehow reduces the odds of exercise. Just keep your helmet with your bike, and you'll never forget it.
I've been cycling to work for years, which which has varied from 10 miles one way, to 1 mile. I always wear my helmet, and in all these years an many thousands of bike miles, it only been "useful" once. A drainage grate was covered over with leaves, I didn't see it, my front wheel fell in, fork snapped off, and I flew over the handlebars, headfirst into the curb. My helmet split in two and I had a massive head bruise, but had I not been wearing it, I'd be dead.
> wearing a helmet somehow reduces the odds of exercise
Helmet paranoia DOES reduce the odds of exercise. On a group level, at the level of public health, that's PRECISELY what it does. I encourage you to read about it, that's why they call it the helmet paradox. This piece is a nice summary.
> Helmet proponents are right about one thing: If you're in a serious accident, then wearing a helmet makes the odds of a head injury significantly lower — by somewhere between 15 and 40 percent. (This is why ER doctors and brain surgeons are so pro-helmet — they've seen firsthand what happens in helmet-less accidents.)
So this is why most of us wear a helmet. The logic is not "so few people get in accidents that if I wear a helmet it is likely to be overkill!". The logic is "if I get in an accident I will be very glad I am wearing this."
Generally, you prepare for the worst, not hope that you are on (typo) the right side of statistics.
For this reason, I wear a helmet. But the health benefits of cycling vastly swamp the risk of death, so the helmet gain is only a small marginal difference.
The person who is truly taking a risk is the person who doesn't ride a bike because of the perception that it's dangerous, and continues to be sedentary and drive a car to work. This person is literally reducing their life expectancy by years. (See links I posted elsewhere in the thread.)
You need to be able to think about conditional probability.
> so the helmet gain is only a small marginal difference
This is such, such flawed logic. If you are a cyclist getting hit by a car, the averages and statistics don't matter at all. If you are the cyclist getting hit by a car, the helmet is not a "marginal difference". Your protective gear matters. You need to consider the individual cyclist when you are making sweeping statements about the usage of protective gear.
If I were not wearing a helmet routinely I'd be so paranoid about getting hit/falling/some injury that there would be no health benefits at all. Wearing a helmet is comfortable, relatively in expensive and life saving. There is really no argument to be made to not have one on your head. I can't believe you are needing to even make a pro-helmet case at all here.
2. Car drivers think ‘you’re protected’ thus make larger risks
3. Helmets are inconvenient to carry around at your destination
4. It hampers the development of saver bicycle road situations, since ‘the cyclists are already protected’
I’m dutch, driving without a helmet since forever (started at 2 years old). Most serious accidents on the road that I know of are broken colar bones, broken hips and broken wrists. You really need a strange fall the land on your head. I guess with a head-on collision perhaps?
Wearing safety gear should never be a crutch to lean on for you to practice unsafe acts. A helmet is there should anything go wrong and you should always be riding as cautiously and defensibly as possible.
If a helmet is inconvenient to carry around then certainly the bag full of clothes, shoes, gloves is also inconvenient but none of that should prevent you from biking.
> It hampers the development of saver bicycle road situations, since ‘the cyclists are already protected’
This honestly sounds like very faulty logic. It's like saying there's no need for stop lights because drivers are wearing seatbelts. They'll be ok.
I've fallen sideways on ice several times. Once hitting my head. I would never want to hit my skull on concrete from a ~5 ft fall because not wearing a helmet is slightly more convenient.
The classic bike/head injury is riding into a crack (or grating) that grabs the front tire and stops the bike, hurling the rider over the handlebars and hammering them headfirst into the ground.
Been there, done that. Catch yourself on your hands/elbows. If you can’t, then perhaps you should go slower over such terrain. We dutchies coast on average around 20 km/h (12.5 mph). Anyone going above 30 is deemed “racing bicyclist” and they usually do wear helmets. They are a class on their own and are often hated by car drivers, since they think they have the road for themselves.
It sounds like your recommended safety practice is basically not to get hurt and if something does happen to have the strength to stop yourself form flying over the handles bars unexpectedly. This is not a good long term solution. Maybe if you're putzing around town that works ok but if you are ever riding in traffic or at speed this is a recipe for disaster.
So that's the difference. Anybody commuting in America is going as fast as practicable, and owns a road bike. Cruising is more like 32km/h(20mph). Since the average distance from home to work can be many miles, speed is paramount.
Also, any terrain in the US is 'such terrain'. There's little or no accommodation for bikes, and the roads (for cars) consider cracks of 1 inch or so as negligible. Also gratings by curbs (where bikes are expected to ride) often have slots of that size. There's a public-education effort to get gratings turned at right angles to traffic, but most traffic departments are disdainful of bikes.
Bit of a late reply. I find this difference so difficult to grasp. We use our bikes as a utility first and recreation second. Here the bicycles are generally sturdy, heavy, robust. They can take rain, wind, sand, dust for years with minimal maintenance. We don't go fast, but we arrive at our destination without gasping for a breath. Road bikes are seen as unpractical: the chains require weekly maintenance, sitting forward is more dangerous and gives you a bad overview of the road, they don't take rain well (rust) and they wear down relatively fast. Why use them for your commute? It doesn't make sense! It's like taking a sports-car to work every single day. It's fun the first day, but it gets boring, expensive and impractical rather quickly.
As a gating item to riding at all, its arguably a negative influence on public health. Since otherwise exercise-leaning people might not do it if they couldn't work the helmet into their schedule (have it at all; carry it with them all day)
If car seat belts were designed and tested in frontal impacts at up to 20 mph, then would you believe that they would make a difference when traveling at 60 mph?
Because you're basically saying that bike helmets would make a difference in a collision scenario where the impact force would far exceed their design and impact testing standards.
Yes, absolutely I'd rather be wearing a seat belt designed to to a 20 mph spec in a 60 mph crash than no seat belt at all. I'd take anything at all to slow down my body/brain from coming to a complete stop.
The sudden stopping is what kills. If the only thing slowing down my brain is my skull then that is worst case scenario, unless of course, my skull shatters, then I guess my brain slows down at a more acceptable rate as it spills onto the road.
I'll take anything at all between my brain and a hard object trying to rapidly impart some force unto it. A helmet does this very well.
> I'd take anything at all to slow down my body/brain from coming to a complete stop.
Except that in this case, the belt just comes off its anchor points and doesn't slow you down at all. Just like a bridge rated for a 10,000 lbs load will collapse when a fully loaded 80,000 lbs tractor trailer drives over it.
If something is going to work, then it had to be designed and tested for it. You can't simply believe it's going to work in situations that it wasn't designed and/or tested for.
Let's say you're on the 10th story of a burning building and the fire department is below telling you to jump. They have one of those cartoon sheets to catch you but it's only rated to catch people falling from the 5th story. If you jump you'll hit the sheet at 40 mph but break through it and hit the ground at 10 mph. Do you shout at them to take the sheet away because you want to hit the ground at the full 40 mph because the sheet won't do enough good?
Edit: and just to address this specifically
> Except that in this case, the belt just comes off its anchor points and doesn't slow you down at all.
This is not true because the energy that went into breaking that anchor point is energy your body is no longer carrying. The belt did slow you down and even in breaking could still have saved your life.
> The person who is truly taking a risk is the person who doesn't ride a bike
No, that is not what "risk" means. Sedentary people can still be fairly certain that they will die when they are over 60, even if it's a few years earlier than they would if they were active.
A cyclist without a helmet has a much greater chance of dying an an unpredictable time. That is what "risk" means.
Lots of ordinary activities present a similar or greater risk of head injury than cycling. Do you wear a helmet to get into the bathtub? Do you wear a helmet to climb the stairs?
The problem with the helmet debate isn't that it's wrong, but that it's irrelevant. Every minute spent arguing about helmets is a minute that isn't spent making the most important point - cyclists live longer than non-cyclists, regardless of whether they wear a helmet. Wear a helmet, don't wear a helmet, it doesn't really matter. TO AVOID A PREMATURE DEATH, MOVE YOUR BODY.
> The logic is not "so few people get in accidents that if I wear a helmet it is likely to be overkill!". The logic is "if I get in an accident I will be very glad I am wearing this."
You could use the same logic to justify extreme defenses against all kinds of rare-but-deadly events. You should be wearing a helmet in your car to protect against accidents in which your head hits the side window. You should be carrying a rifle to fight off wildlife every time you go for a hike. You definitely shouldn't be crossing any streets in auto-heavy cities. (And we could go on and on and on like this. There's no reason to even leave your house! Better to get everything delivered and not risk contact with the world at all!)
Everything is a tradeoff. There are no absolutes. Just tradeoffs.
> (This is why ER doctors and brain surgeons are so pro-helmet — they've seen firsthand what happens in helmet-less accidents.)
Except for the fact that the CPSC (Consumer Products Safety Commission) impact testing standards for bicycle helmets only test for impacts for a guided free fall drop from a height of 6.5 feet. That's the equivalent of someone falling over while doing a track-stand on the bicycle.
If you're going 25 mph and hit the ground, the helmet won't protect from an impact it wasn't designed or tested for.
The second problem is that helmets won't protect you from forces that lead to concussive type injuries.
If you really want adequate head protection, then you need to wear a motorcycle helmet.
this is like saying you can keep drinking whiskey after quiting smoking because your life expectancy is greatly increased. these things are additive, not either/ors.
Actually not wearing a helmet is very clever advice. In the Netherlands almost nobody wears a helmet and yet it is one of the safest places to cycle. In fact we all tend to overcompensate safety with more risky behaviour. A car is basically a 1.5t full body steel armor. And then we go and drive at speeds far beyond of what this armor can protect us from. If you'd remove the body work and make it a buggy, people would drive a lot slower.
Personal anecdote: I bought a helmet a few years ago. While it was still in delivery I came into a situation where I was not sure what a car was doing and I caught myself thinking: "with a helmet I'd not braked" - but rather taken the risk.
Thus I have never worn it and it is sitting there collecting dust.
Another abstract example: no country is more obsessed with "low carb" and "low fat" than the US. Yet no other country produces more plus sized people than the US.
Yet another example is Michael Schumacher. Without the helmet he may not have taken the risk to go into unknown terrain.
I feel vulnerable without a helmet and that keeps me alive.
(FWIW, I always use a helmet except when I use shared bikes, which is rare, only a few times a year. I get on one of my own bikes, helmeted, hundreds of times a year.)
I really don't need to cite anything to tell you that if you get in an accident you are better off wearing more protective gear. I don't care that very few cyclists get in bad accidents compared to walkers and joggers. I care that if I am in an accident, my brain doesn't become a smear on the pavement.
You're assuming that accidents are equally likely with and without helmets and ignoring OP's point that, on balance, you're better off biking without a helmet than not biking at all.
You might actually be right here. I do not know. Either way, don't expect "I really don't need to cite anything" to convince anybody serious.
Don't understand why this has been downvoted. The research behind helmets is exactly why in The Netherlands helmets aren't mandatory. For one, they reduce the amount of people who cycle. Thus they take a car with higher speed, etc. Secondly, wearing a helmet causes cars to be less risk adverse when interacting with you. Lastly, most helmets are utter crap. They tested various and the majority sold in shops are of very poor quality (don't help at all).
Strangely, in Denmark most cyclists do wear a helmet. To me it's very inconvenient. E.g. where to store the damn thing when going anywhere?
I think it's better to concentrate on educating riders on bike handling skills and skills they need when riding in traffic rather than concentrate on helmet use to the exclusion of all else.
>>>If you don't wear a helmet, don't worry about it, it doesn't mitigate that much risk. The exercise benefits of biking do way more to increase your life expectancy than skipping a helmet does to reduce it.
I'd read somewhere that up until some fairly high speed (40 kph?) that a helmet doesn't measurably lower the risk of injury. (Citations, pro or con, welcome!)
And as the Vox piece points out, merely wearing a helmet induces drivers to reduce their caution, making the need for a helmet something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I still wear my helmet when I commute or do longer rides but I'm beginning to put my toe in the water by going helmetless for short trips to lunch, the nearby park, etc. It may be my self-awareness about going sans helmet talking, but I'd almost swear that when I ride 'au naturel' drivers make more eye contact and generally seem to acknowledge my presence more than when I'm fully kitted out.
Also: Schwalbe Marathons are the shiznitz. I have 42-622 Marathon Supremes on my new urban bike, and they grip like ... something really sticky ... and are like pillows, to boot (esp. coming off 25-622 road tires). More dough, but worth it for me. Zero flats in over two years, btw.
(me: occasional bike commuter here in West LA for about eight years)
Second vote for the Schwalbe Marathons. I got fed up with fixing a flat once a month when I lived in Pittsburgh and biked everywhere. Replaced my tires with Marathons and had to replace the tires for wear after a couple thousand miles before I patched another flat.
> If you don't wear a helmet, don't worry about it, it doesn't mitigate that much risk. The exercise benefits of biking do way more to increase your life expectancy than skipping a helmet does to reduce it.
What a bizarre contrast. If I'm inferring your point correctly, you're addressing those who would otherwise ride a bike to work but don't because of a helmet requirement? Is literally anyone in that position?
I get that biking + no helmet > no biking, but why is that relevant? Anyone commuting to work should have a plan to deal with a helmet, it's such a trivial thing to plan for and deal with compared to maintaining your bike, having parking for it, arranging showers, etc.
For the one off scenario where you don't have your helmet on hand, then it's more of an interesting question: "should I chance it and ride the bike without a helmet this one time?" But in that case, your statistics about life expectancy aren't going to be relevant in the health case; one bike ride is not going to make you more fit or not, but it's very relevant in the chances of getting hit by a car case.
Key point for this discussion: "In 1993, New South Wales, Australia, commissioned a study to see if a new helmet law for children was increasing helmet uptake. It did—but the researchers also found 30 percent fewer children were riding to school. In New Zealand, where helmet compulsion was introduced in 1994, the number of overall bike trips fell 51 percent between 1989–90 and 2003–6, according to one research paper."
"Meanwhile, it seems that bicyclists wearing helmets may encourage riskier driving by motorists."
Just to be clear, I'm not advocating against wearing a helmet if you DO commute on a bike. As someone who fifteen years ago cracked a helmet instead of his head after falling on some jagged pavement, I appreciate what a helmet can do for you. And there may be statistical support for wearing a bike helmet as well:
> Anyone commuting to work should have a plan to deal with a helmet, it's such a trivial thing to plan for and deal with compared to maintaining your bike, having parking for it, arranging showers, etc.
There are whole countries, like the Netherlands and Germany, where that simply doesn't happen. In fact, biking is much simpler in those countries, they don't even bother with showers (instead they bike more slowly).
Correct, besides that we also don't wear helmets. Note however that our road infrastructure is very different from most of the other countries.
Getting hit by a car is not something we worry much about. Besides the bike friendly roads, chauffeurs are used watching out for bycicles.
Then there's special laws where a car hitting a bycicle is always wrong. The reasoning behind that is that a byciclist is much more fragile. This also makes car drivers more careful.
Yes, but it does demonstrate show that armoring up bike riders isn’t the only sane option (we could improve our bike infrastructure and give them more priority).
Yep, there are more ways as just one correct way. I doubt that armoring up would ever work down here. There are of course fatal casualities, but they are rare.
Riding a bicycle is embedded into our culture, another example is the dutch reach [0].
This’ll sound vain - because it mostly is - but some folks really care about their hair and may have it in an aesthetic construct that helmet-wearing will obliterate.
For those folks, wearing a helmet is anathema.
Personally I recommend simply not riding in this situation, because helmets save lives. But I’m not everybody.
> For the one off scenario where you don't have your helmet on hand, then it's more of an interesting question: "should I chance it and ride the bike without a helmet this one time?"
This is the issue right here. Habits matter, and getting out of a habit can destroy the habit entirely. If the argument is "always wear a helmet" and you cancel rides because of that requirement, I would think you are much more likely to fall out of the habit of riding. If you can continue to ride when you don't have a helmet, you keep that habit going, and next time, you're likely to have the helmet again, and keep accruing the benefits.
I once crashed head-first at 20 mph into hard asphalt. Point of impact was at my right frontal lobe. My helmet cracked. If I wasn't wearing one I'm sure it would have been my skull instead.
Oof, I'll chime in here. My helmet has saved me from two head injuries I'm so glad and grateful I didn't have to endure with my skull alone. I suspect I'd have some terrible scars and possibly some concussion damage if I took your advice.
I treat helmet safety like I do gun safety. ALWAYS TREAT A GUN AS IF ITS LOADED. If you don't, you behave differently around it always. And that's how people accidentally shoot their friends or themselves (even cleaning their gun). If you choose to not compromise on fundamentals like that, you are positioning yourself and others for less risk from the get go.
Thankfully I applied the same ALWAYS mentality to wearing a helmet for my biking commute. I was obeying traffic laws when a pickup truck turned into me while I was traveling through a green light. I had right of way and he wasn't paying attention and clipped me fairly hard. I tried to break and skid about 10 feet as he turned into me. I ended up in the hospital with a severe concussion and a terrifying 6 hours for my wife as she sat next to me. Praying that my lost memory would recover as the concussion wore off. I was initially forgetful of us having been married for less than a year. Eventually I started remembering things again, quite a scary moment for us.
Funny thing was I was riding to visit a friend who was just a few blocks away. He had recently criticised me for wearing a helmet to go less than a mile to visit him.
Fast forward a year and finally getting the nerve to ride again. My first trip out and a teenager blows through a stop sign without looking and almost hits me. In broad daylight, flashing lights on my bike and all.
There is an inherit risk in riding my bike to work. And a helmet may not provide a meaningful mitigation of risk. (I've never bothered to look up statistics, maybe you have?) However, I can control just a few variables to ride or not, ride defensively or not, and wear protective gear or not. I certainly have no control of the motor vehicles drivers or their distractions. So I choose the variables that I can control without losing the joy of commuting as a cyclist.
While any individual might personally engage in risky behavior, it's not correct to make a blanket recommendation. As the number of people who follow risky advice increases, the chance of someone being negatively impacted approaches 100%.
This is why we have public policy to force seatbelts in cars, and why everybody should vote in elections - behaviors adopted on a wide scale can have significant societal impact even though the benefit to the individual is insignificant.
Reasonable except for the helmet part. Anecdotal: I've gone through two smashed helmets. One due to taxi vs. cyclist and another when bicycle lowsided on wet leaves at a walking pace. Both times the helmet absorbed significant damage.
Helmets are a layer in defense. It's not a perfect shield and will not help in catastrophic situations. However in the more likely situation, the helmet does help.
Current cycling helmets are well ventilated and lightweight.
We should be providing information about the risks and rewards. It's up to the cyclist to decide how they want to proceed.
Me: 32km (20mi) each way, slicing through the Tokyo metro area.
I cycle around 3 times the distance he does daily to and from work in London. I've been doing this for 5 years. It's probably fair to say I take more days off than he does though (I leave the bike at home if going for a drink).
I suppose the same could be said for any form of regular exercise, but it makes such an improvement to how I feel when I get to work, and my general well-being. The pollution in London has always been a bit of a concern, however I hope the exercise outweighs this for the most part. I save around £8 a day by not taking the train.
I wish more people would give it a go. More people riding would result in better and safer infrastructure here. I do however, regularly see people get knocked off bikes and can understand the perceived risk and reluctance from others to try it. I'm envious of cities such as Copenhagen with great safe infrastructure, and where riding is the norm.
I live in London and I'd love to cycle to work, but the infrastructure (for my route) just isn't there. And for people who aren't experienced cyclists, it is even worse as lack of confidence actually leads to more accidents.
Maybe try it? Once I started cycling in London there was no looking back, even if I had to be on busy roads. Many residential roads in London are very quiet during the day so there may be a windy circuitous route that is very pleasant to be on. Or a busy direct route that is not as bad as you think. When theres a proper cycle lane that's nice but it is by no means vital.
I was pleasantly surprised by how nice the route to work a cycling route planner gave me in London was. There are less nice parts at the beginning and end (as I get onto and off the cycle-friendly streets), but the majority of the route (some on Q2, some on quiet 20mph roads with no specific cycling provision) is not bad.
https://www.cyclestreets.net/ is one such planner that may have bike only shorcuts that aren't marked on other map sources (it's based on OpenStreetMap and feeds cycle specific data back I believe).
Absolutely true. Once you're confident, you realise how to get good infrastructure anywhere: share the road with motor vehicles if the dedicated infrastructure sucks.
Sure, some people will hate you for that, but I prefer disliked over smeared onto pavement any time of the day.
I cycle commute in London every day and you don't need dedicated cycling infrastructure. It's great to use if it's there but otherwise you make do. Rather than trying to take the most direct route, I cut through small laneways and alleys and ride through a couple of parks. Get on a bike and start exploring. There's nothing more soul crushing than London's public transport during peak hour.
Yet you have quite some cyclists that ride in crazy traffic among double deckers and fast cars. Most of them wear neon yellow clothing. Is it required by law?
I have a face mask (Respro City) that filters out a good part of the particulates. Those are of course only part of the pollution and the mask does look a bit silly.
I'm quite an anxious person and even just the thought of cycling in London puts me off it.
I've looked at the route map and most of it is on incredibly busy roads, including Henleys Corner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henlys_Corner) one of the busiest junctions.
I've always used a bike to go to work, but now I'm in Mexico City. Too many cars, too much air pollution. Cycling here is bad for your health.
The public bicycle sharing system is really good and cheap. Some parts of the city are bike friendly. But the air quality is just so bad. The trucks that spew black smoke continuously. The buses that have never been controlled in 50 years. The SUVs traveling at 100 km/h on the lanes reserved for buses and bicycles. All the cars idling and honking in traffic after 6PM. It's really depressing. This city would be such a beautiful city without all those cars and trucks.
Between where and where? A lot of the obvious routes are terrible, but you can go a long way in this city zigging where everyone else zags.
Avoid the bike lanes for the most part, though. You're probably in more danger in one of our bike lanes than out of one, due to all the morons blithely going the wrong way in them.
I commuted by bike (6km one way) in Tel Aviv, Israel and it was awesome. Great route, bike lanes/parks and a (tiny, but who cares) shower in the office. Did that for one year straight, just like the person in the article.
Now I'm living in Singapore, a city that has a traffic problem and tries to reduce the cars on the streets. You'd think they would welcome bikes, but riding a bike here sucks. Big time. It's basically unbearable.
There are no sidewalks to speak of on a lot of roads. Often the sidewalks are divided in two segments of different heights. Tables will be on the sidewalk, garbage bins will block it.
Riding on the road - the norm in my home country - is discouraged by every local I've met, both bike fans and car drivers. You can ride the bike in this city, sometimes, in some places. But it's a pain in the rear to use it for commutes and a very, very bad experience around the central part of Singapore. Park connectors/outward regions are fine, but the traffic infested center is no place for a bike, which is quite sad..
What I'm trying to say is: I agree that the article describes a great way to live, something I dearly miss. I believe that this isn't possible for a lot of people though, in spite of the benefits it would provide to them and their surroundings.
A lot of the cities in SE Asia weren't even planned with cars in mind, hence narrow roads and lack of space. And then you have these giant freeways springing up haphazardly that bottle necks into these tiny roads. THe result is slow moving traffic yet is just too dangerous for pedestrians, let alone cyclists. The locals rely on motorbikes when they want to beat traffic.
Yes, crazy motorbikes are certainly popular. But then, while they might be fun: They have nothing to do with the "I used my body to get to work" article.
I think we agree that this is a shitty idea in SG. Motorbikes might be fun and are certainly popular, but they're not related to the subject at hand.
Ride where? I can easily find a nice "let's have a pick-nick" route for me and the gf.
But I'm comparing this city to the article, to the idea of commuting to work. My work is in the central district of SG. I _cannot_ ride there without cursing. I actually did find a couple shortcuts and ways etc, but still: It's a PITA. No bike lanes. Shitty sidewalks. There's no way to ignore these issues.
It's actually really nice to bike in Singapore, provided you can shower at work.
I cycled every day for a month along a mix of park connectors (cycle paths) and two and three lane roads.
I only had one close pass from a car because on nearly all roads they have a whole extra lane to use to pass you in so if you ride assertively (in the middle of a lane) they just go around you.
And the park connectors are beautiful, fast tarmac with no cars at all. With some creativity you can link them up to create a great commute to most places. My route home went past a Riverside pub - I was on segregated cycle lanes the rest of the way home so I could easily stop for a beer with little risk.
You do usually arrive soaking wet from sweat or the rain. But that's a minor inconvenience compared to being cold! Biking in Singapore is warm, fast, and safe - much better than most places I've commuted.
NO its not...I grew up here and lived and worked abroad in in UK and US for a few years so I can attest to the difference weather makes...especially the humidity. (I cycled in both here and abroad.)
And no one seemed to mention...two wheeled transport is great, until it rains. And if you have never been to Singapore, Malaysia or the tropics you haven't seen real rain yet.
BTW...in SE Asia, the two wheeled transport of choice is the motorbike. The roads (and motorists attitudes) weren't designed for LOW speed traffic.
Singapore is pretty light on motorbikes compared to places like Hanoi.
I cycle year round in London and would rather cycle commute in Singapore. Once you are acclimatised to the humidity it's not that big a deal, and it's always similar so it's easy to plan for.
You do have to pull off the road to wait out a real tropical rain storm... but so do motorbikes. That's why they have shelters for then under the today bridges.
All these places are ace compared to most US cities, though.
- fast: No. Maybe. Let's hope that you don't ignore traffic lights: There are so many places that don't even care about bikes (underpasses/overpasses exist, but are hard to reach or less friendly to bikes by requiring you to ... wait for an elevator). You can understand the layout of the city, start riding and you will end up stranded. You will need to backtrack. The city hates bikes.
- safe: Yeah ... No. Singapore is not insane, but it's crazy enough. People don't understand turning signals. Drivers instead like to push into the direction they want to go, expecting everyone around them to follow along. This is, with no pun, in traffic terms a Little India.
I personally am fine to drive a bike here and being a nuisance, but most people don't do that. Literally everyone on the road is an asshole, some of these assholes drive Ferrari, Maserati, Lamborghini or whatnot. You do NOT want to scratch those stupid idiot's cars with your bike.
Traffic in Singapore is a huge and utter mess. Do not ride a bike here unless you're convinced that it's a good idea...
Ignoring that I don't have showers at work - some oversight that I dearly miss: I believe that you're not correct.
I cannot get to work via park connectors. Actually I probably have the 'best' way to work already: I'm already in CBD and the distance is small. But .. the city is not ready for bikes. Not at all. There are no bike lanes around my place. The one I found was about 200m long (yay!!) and used by pedestrians exclusively, every time I came there (yay!!!! I can try to ring my bell or push them over. That will help the bicycle community!).
Singapore is a great place. Singapore for bicycles sucks. Do not ride bikes here. Singapore doesn't care, they are not prepared and in general they offer no place to ride safely.
Agreed but only up to a point. I can easily spend 5 minutes in the queue for the lights near my flat (a lot of buses and lorries on that road so I can't always lane split safely), and I was delayed much longer once because police had closed the road after a collision.
Turning round at a road closure is much easier for a cyclist and often they can be very quickly bypassed by becoming a pedestrian and walking your bike via an alternative route.
Most of my commute is along more cycle-friendly routes (not separate paths, but quiet roads) but I've got a "last mile" at both ends (from home onto the route and from the route to work) that runs across quite busy main roads, since ultimately I live on one of those.
I don't whatsoever. I live 4 miles from the office, and I take about 14 back roads to get to it. I still have to cross 3 major roads without a light or anything to help me. San Jose is not bike friendly at all.
I bike to work about 50% of the time. I live in San Jose where traffic is very heavy. I have to cross three roads without a light, and how long that takes really varies a lot. Some days I can wait for up to 5 minutes per road, making my cycle commute just as variable as my drive commute.
As a counterbalance to all the positivity, I cycle to work and don't enjoy it or feel much benefit from it. In comparison, driving is so much more comfortable (especially in bad weather) and a bit quicker.
Driving is much less mentally taxing. It's nice to be able to just... drive down the road without constantly worrying about doors being open or cars pulling out from driveways/side streets without seeing you.
I've never been hit by a car and I want to keep it that way, so my eyes are constantly scanning everything.
That's not what driving is like in my city. When I drive, I continually worry about all the same things I worry about on my bike, plus it's harder to stop and check directions or take a break, because parking is so difficult around here.
Knowing how much danger I pose to everyone around me while operating a 2-ton overpowered steel death machine is incredibly nerve wracking, as opposed to being on my bicycle and only having to really worry about myself.
Actually, it really depends where you are cycling. In fact I don't enjoy cycling in the city, but as soon as you get out of the traffic you can relax your mind much better on the bicycle.
I live about the same distance from work as the writer, and I've been cycling to work since early October. I would have thought that such a short bike ride wouldn't have much of a health benefit, but I feel more energetic and my blood pressure is noticeably lower than it was a year ago.
Short distances on a bicycle are actually healthier than longer distances. Long distance cyclists tend to have issues with losing bone and muscle density.
Speaking as a sometime ultra endurance participant I have to say this is misleading. Bone density loss only significantly affects those who practically live on their bikes, such as professional road racers. And even then it is easily attenuated by visiting the gym.
One that fits your butt. Basically you want to have your weight on the sit bones, not the tissue in between. Seats come in different widths and shapes to accommodate different shaped butts.
Custom ones can be made after they scan your pelvic region. Essentially, there's a depressed, or cutout section in the middle with two pads in parallel which should support your bones as the other poster mentioned.
i don't know, i know i have a bad one, as after 15+ mins of cycling, when i get off the bicycle... can't describe it differently.. my balls sleep... and i can describe that that is not a pleasant feeling. e.g. 10 fold worse then a sleeping foot or leg.
I bike everyday to work in the South Bay, Silicon Valley area. Everyone I talk to here can't imagine life without a car, but I haven't had any issues; lots of bike paths here, and all groceries and the gym are just minutes away.
Sometimes when it rains I carpool, and I see how annoyed and irate most drivers get when commuting. So I don't regret not owning a car.
The downside is not being easily able to take day trips, so I still might buy one some day.
I also lived in the South Bay and found ZipCar and/or renting a car for day, weekend and even week long trips worked fine (which one is cheaper depends on your age and whether you can get a discount through your employer or whatever). There was enough "Neighborhood" rental places around to be easily accessible by bike. A weekend was on the order of $60-180, and so even doing this every weekend only adds up to $3k-9k per year.
Which freeways do you cross under/over? How do you do it safely?
I'd happily ride on trails or small streets (and have) , but most of the regular commute riders I know do ~30mi rt a day... most of them doing it more than 5 yearrs have been in an injury accident. Maybe cyclists talk about accidents more than divers, but the percentage certainly seems higher.
My direct door-to-door commute is 19mi. Takes me about 50-55 minutes. None of it is on bike paths.
I take Foothill from the cupertino border all the way to menlo Park.
I can also go into cupertino and take the bike path to the edge of the 101 (close to the PA airport).
If you want to make it longer, you can take Stevens Canyon to Foothill. This makes the commute 30mi but also less traffic and much more challenging to ride.
I would say on average I commute to work about 3 days a week during the summer. I just don't like commuting back in the dark during the winter.
In terms of accidents, I've had none. I had 2 close calls over the course of 3 years. One was a complete jerk and one was due to the sun angle (something you need to be aware of as a cyclist too).
Bay Area is really awesome for riding to work. Foothill is busy but also gets a lot of rider traffic so drivers tend to be more patient.
I also find that a lot of it is up to you, some riders ride like the road belongs to them.
The bay area was a weird dichotomy to me. I used to live in Berkeley and work in Newark. I'd bart to Fremont, then cycle the last five miles. I got screamed at and swerved at by jerks in brodozers on a routine basis.
Once I was able to avoid the south bay life became far more pleasant.
There are multiple bike bridges/undercrossings across 237.
101 has bike bridges just south of 237, another in Palo Alto (which I use every day), and another up between Willow and Marsh roads in Menlo Park, then another in Belmont. There's also a 101 undercrossing that is seasonal, just south of the bike bridge in Palo Alto.
Those are just the areas I know.
It is truly an amazing place to ride. Generally flat, very nice weather. Even in the rain I don't mind the ride, but I have to wear waterproof shoes, and I bought waterproof pants and a jacket.
fremont ave., stevens creek trail, sunnyvale saratoga, homestead, and stevens creek blvd. are what I frequent most. I'm never on the road (going somewhere on my bike) for more than 25 minutes.
for safety, i guess i just try to follow the rules of the road (i'm not perfect though, coming from a background of not knowing how to drive).
I've never had an issue with general QoL while reading, people generally seem pretty considerate.
Same here, I've biked to work pretty much every day since I moved to South Bay (except for rainy days, I'm not hardcore).
I'm lucky because there is a nice trail that I can ride on for the majority of my ride. But it's a little sad that the South Bay has so many built-in advantages for bike commuting (good weather year-round, mostly flat) but so little good bike infrastructure.
Cycling to work is normal here in the Netherlands, especially in the cities.
Given a few times when I've been sick, I've ridden almost every day to work and back (8km), regardless of the weather (and the Dutch weather is famous for being rubbish).
I'm a cyclist at heart so really enjoy the daily commute along the canals, back streets and cycle paths of the city.
To be fair, even the nightclubs have cycle parking - and an attendant present too for security.
6km one-way isn't very remarkable here indeed, in terms of distance I would consider it a short bike ride. I'm cycling ~8km each day myself now, but I have colleagues who do ~15km one-way each day, which I would consider on the high end for a bike commute.
I agree with the sentiment of the article though, which is that cycling to work basically has only advantages if the weather is good. When it's raining or particularly windy I still take the car, but on all other days I greatly prefer cycling. No traffic, no problems finding a parking spot, it wakes you up in the morning, makes you hungry (in a good way), saves money, and for me it basically eliminates the need to allocate any extra time for additional exercise.
This is a huge plus -"basically eliminates the need to allocate any extra time for additional exercise."
I live too close to work for the ride to be any sort of exercise now (1 km). I certainly like the speed, but sometimes I miss when I had a 40km round trip commute (down the beach for 90% of it no less!). I could eat whatever I wanted and still be in great shape.
Of course, that was when I got hit by a car, and my ribs still ache some mornings 8 years later.
any using e bikes? I keep pondering it, it's ~20km for me to commute one way. Luckily there's bike path nearly the whole way, but seems on the edge of being practical. One advantage is there is no extra charge for taking a bike on a train if I end up with bike troubles.
I wish we had the bike culture in the US that exists elsewhere. Twice in my life I have regularly commuted to work a reasonable distance by bike and each time the habit was punctuated by being hit by a car. I feel safer walking than I do on a bike here.
I bike commuted 20 miles round trip in West Michigan for a time. I stopped because I was tired of getting coal-rolled and having fast food soda cups thrown at me from cars.
Bike commuting is great if you don't live near rednecks.
conclusion: what a lovely route, choosing to cycle it isn't even a decision, especially as the other options seems to take longer. The author is super lucky and I'm jealous. I cycle to work too, but in a busy city.
Totally agree - what a nice route to get to work. From what I could see, it looks like a lot of long, straight and - most importantly! - flat routes. Perfect for nice easy cycling.
I sometimes run to work, but never ever run home as in London it is downhill to get to the centre, but uphill to get back out to the suburbs :)
If I had a bike route to work, I'd take it over driving my car, even if the bike route takes longer and/or is further away. Mr. Money Mustache (https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-saf...) wrote that riding bike is equivalent to printing money, and he has calculated that riding one mile is equivalent to gaining 1350 seconds of life.
Unfortunately, I currently live in part of Florida where the roads are not designed for bikes. I once lived in the east of Bay Area, where it was so much more bike-able.
I cycle to work in a busy city too, but fortunately the city I live in has a lot of parks and my route goes straight through one. It's really nice, especially on summer mornings. Would highly recommend.
I used to have a standard 9-5 gig and then I'd work at a bike shop during the week nights and on the weekends. I started biking in after a co-worker suggested it.
I was pretty surprised. The ride was about 20-25 minutes, mainly through your standard US suburbs so not hard at all. I rode to work 3-4 times a week and then on Saturday or Sunday.
I didn't change anything in my routine except for biking. I lost about 8 pounds, my blood pressure dropped and my already healthy cholesterol levels dropped another 4 points. I had more energy when I got to the shop and then had more energy when I got home. I was more willing to work on various projects when I got home instead of plunking down in front of the tv after being exhausted from a long day at the shop.
I had more energy when I got to the shop and then had more energy when I got home.
I envy you people. I've been cycling to work for about six months now, and while I enjoy it and it probably does me good, I don't feel more energized. Exercise has always left me drained.
>There are about 250 work days in a year in Baden-Württemberg, excluding weekends and public holidays. Of those I was missing for 34 days for vacations, being sick and doing home office. On 11 days I used public transportation, on 5 days a car. That leaves 200 days on which I cycled to work.
A friend of mine recently got one, and she likes it a lot. Her commute is more than mine (nine miles over some of the hillier parts of Boston), so the electric assist makes it easier for her to get to work efficiently without excessive overheating.
I was hoping that someone more knowledgeable would answer this. I think they best community to look at is Endless Sphere[1] but you could also check out /r/ebikes[2] (although I warn you you that they are all about making DIY bikes that are unnecessarily powerful in my opinion.
Then there's electric bike review[3]. He's reviewed an incredible number of different bikes.
I have one and it is fantastic, I can dress for the destination as it's easy to ride without getting drenched in sweat. Also I'll take a pleasant or safer route even if it extends the journey. I'm usually doing 100+ miles a week on it.
The only downside is it does need more maintenance than my normal bike, chains only last for about 1200 miles for instance.
I did 24km one way in hilly terrain for a few months last year. The ebike was really a god send in that situation. Track is here: http://cyclehikemap.eu/view.php?id=95
I was thinking about an ebike to help battle the wind. I can manage the hills between my house and the office, but I never take my bicycle if the forecast projects 13 mph or higher wind. I hate the wind and it feels like I'm always riding into it.
Yeah, I might have been unclear. I've been cycling for a few years before that and that was the first time I touched a car. The driver DID look straight at me though, seemingly noticing me, so I was really confused when she started speeding up anyway.
In my experience it is not necessarily safe to assume that someone looking straight at you implies that they have noticed you. People can be quite distracted by both the environment or the insides of their own heads.
Worse, some take eye contact as meaning you know they are there and are prepared to get out of the way of what-ever manoeuvre they are about to perform!
Before my latest office move (it is not so close that messing around with the shed and locking up the bike at work and changing clothes if needed in bad weather add up to more than cycling saves over walking at a brisk pace) I rode to work for years, 3.5 miles each way for the most part, and while I've had a few near misses (the worst being a bus that halfway through overtaking me decided to shuffle in nearly sandwiching me between the bus and the road-side railings) I've never actually been touched by another vehicle. I'm on city roads, though small city (York, UK) rather than somewhere even more hectic than London, but here I'd say cycling to work is no less safe than walking.
I cycled every day for 7 years all over the San Francisco Bay Area without ever once being hit by a car or getting a door prize. I didn't run red lights and I maintained situational awareness at all times. And I was one of those guys who rode in the middle of the car lane even when a bicycle lane was available.
Thank you. As both a biker and a driver, I appreciate this. Too many bikers don't do this, and I've witnessed too many close calls for those that don't. I've been heckled by other bikers for stopping at red lights, so I know that sometimes this can be a pain to actually stick to.
I do this to "take the lane"; essentially, if I'm in the middle of a lane, there is some reason why I want that lane — usually my own safety due to some other hazard, or perhaps I'm going to make an upcoming left — and I want/need drivers near me to essentially give me the same respect they'd give a car.
Typically, the idea is that I would like drivers behind me to not pass me in the same lane that I'm in — that is, I'm trying to avoid having a driver do the typical half-assed job of passing by trying to squeeze their SUV in the same lane as me. (i.e., if you want to pass me, use another lane, not this one. If there isn't another lane: tough, I'll be out of your way ASAP — I don't like having a car behind me any more than a driver likes having a biker in front of them.)
> Wouldn't this slow the traffic.
Sometimes, yes. For me, most of the routes I take the car traffic moves at approximately the same speed or slower. If there's a huge speed difference and traffic is much faster, I'll usually avoid left turns and use a crosswalk to "turn", if I think that's safer. (Which has its own tradeoffs: one has to be very careful and ensure that drivers in the lane next to you are going to actually stop at the crosswalk before you enter it. Just because the light is red hardly means anything, and a lot of drivers will overshoot the stop line if they don't think anyone is going to be in the crosswalk when they do so.)
Yea I never understood how cyclists are expected to make left turns. If there is a bike lane is in the right corner, how and when are they supposed to get into left turn on only lane. I can't even imagine cyclist making yeild left on red, thats absurd amount of risk to take. Left on arrow are not very common, imagine trying to make a fast turn on your bike while a speeding car is coming right at you.
Only safe way to make a left turn is to get off the bike and do it like pedestrians.
You do it just like a car. Merge from the lane to the turn lane. Signal your move. Stop in the intersection if you need to yield. Take your time waiting for an appropriate gap, then turn left. Don’t worry about cars behind you, they would have to wait for their own gap anyway.
Behaving like a car as much as possible makes you more predictable, and keeps everyone out of trouble. I stop at red lights too.
If traffic is light and not too fast, I just signal, merge into the turn lane, and turn as if I were a car. If it's a multi-lane road, that means "taking the lane" for a bit. I try to minimize that, but it happens.
If traffic is heavy or fast, I will signal, pull off to the side, and cross like a pedestrian.
Generally speaking, I try to be as "car-like" and predictable as possible.
Bright flashers even in the day time. Slowing and waiting for an opening to get over in the center or turn lane, and obviously signalling. It's best to get over when everyone is slowing or stopping for a red so you have more time and space to maneuver into the turn lane. If you make it obvious you're turning to a slow car behind you they serve as decent protection from any cars arriving at an intersection that might otherwise not see you. It feels dangerous at first but you get skilled at it the more you ride.
Personally, for bike lanes I love the protected turns I saw in Germany. A separated bike lane will cross an intersection with a dedicated light. On the far side of the intersection, there will be a fork in the path with another dedicated bike signal to cross the road you were parallel with. I'll see if I can find an example.
There's also the "Copenhagen left". Which is, pull over to the _right_ into the crosswalk of the intersection where you want to go left. Wait for the light to change. (Google it for a picture.)
In Australia, we call this a "hook turn" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_turn . Cars must do it in a limited number of intersections to avoid blocking trams. Cyclists are allowed to make a hook turn in any intersection (unless signposted otherwise). Edit - in Australia we drive on the left side of the road - so it's opposite to Denmark / US / Most the rest of the world.
I'd argue it could be marginally safer to do it the way the other person suggested: like any other vehicle is supposed to, from the left turn lane.
If you think merging across lanes is scary, do it sooner. The more time you give yourself and the people around you to process the maneuver, the easier it gets.
One you know the road, you can even exit an earlier intersection in a way that makes you magically end up in the right lane to begin with.
Sure it slows traffic, but it's not really the bicyclist's fault if the bicycle lane is filled with unloading delivery trucks or the city planners made it too narrow.
I've been biking for ~2 years, and I have had one very very close call, where I had to actually dodge a car, but I wasn't really in control of the situation. Scared the crap out of me, because I did not see him coming. I've had many other incidents where situational awareness let me see the idiot coming in advance enough that I was able to just easily avoid the collision.
(The close call I had was an idiot in lane 1, which was a straight/left lane, who decided to turn right. The only right turn lane is lane 4: he cut off a lane of traffic, the bike lane, and the right-turn only lane. I had to take the right "with" him, essentially, or I would have hit him, and I could feel the traction in my back tire slipping the entire time from the huge amount of braking I was begging for.)
Yes, it's an anomaly. I've been a recreational cyclist for many years, and commuted on and off for years when I lived about 12 miles from the office (close enough to walk now). I've never been hit by a car, but have had a few close calls. Almost all of those were at intersections, where I had the right of way, but a car didn't see me and decided to proceed.
Basically, if you are cycling on the road (and that includes bike lanes that aren't protected/separated), you have to assume cars don't see you. Ride defensively all the time. That will minimize accidents at intersections.
Nothing you can do about getting run down from behind (other than not ride a bicycle). But, that's rare.
I've been biking to work for a bit more than two years now. Same distance to work and not even any close calls with cars. I do ride quite carefully though and make very sure that they see me and stop before I ride out in front of one.
I always try and make eye contact with drivers at junctions which has worked well for me until a couple of weeks ago when someone looked straight at me then pulled out right in front of me. We didn't collide but it was very close.
Cycled to work, weather permitting, for last 3 years. Got hit (more like nudged, but enough to cause a fall) by a car twice - nothing major only because I know how to tumble & roll. It easily could have been much worse.
Been biking to work for 4 years now and never had a close call with a car, but I try to avoid roads as much as possible. Luckily there is a bike trail that goes roughly in the direction I need. That said, there is one section where riding with the traffic is unavoidable and I hate it. I especially hate one particular stoplight that is on a sensor and the sensor is not strong enough to pick up my bike.
I should point out that I ride in the suburbs and road traffic goes much faster than what I can sustain on a bike. Most roads are 35 or 45mph and hilly/curvy, so they are terrifying to cycle on.
I have been doing it for ~15 years, and hit 4 times. I'd say if anything it's more common in your first year or two before you gain the experience to be able to predict driver actions by subtle signals.
I have a short commute to work, only 2.2 miles each way, but I have been doing it for the last 2 years every workday, under any conditions. From the very beginning I told myself, no excuses. I also realized that if I wanted to stick to it, I would want to be comfortable and not miserable, so I bought gear for the rainy days and winter weather, and a nice backpack to carry everything I need. I live in a big city, so driving and parking is always a challenge... it's nice not to worry about it where to park and how bad is the traffic.
Let me make some Spanish propaganda. Riding a bike in Valencia is awesome, as there is a cheap bike sharing service (Valenbici) and lots of bike lanes. The city is flat, it never snows and it rains just a couple of weeks a year, making it perhaps the best bike city in Spain.
Great route! Maybe it isn't necessary in temperate climates, but the most important point is that he has showers at work. In tropical countries it is a must. If more workplaces had showers a lot more people would cycle to work.
I find that packing my clothes to change, toiletries, and then unpacking and trying to shower and change in the shared shower at work to be very time-consuming, and cuts I find that packing my clothes to change, toiletries, and then unpacking and trying to shower and change and we shared shower that were to be very time-consuming. Do you consider the time in the office while showering and changing as part of your workday, or do u work additional time To make up for it. And do you change back To bike clothes for ride home?
Showering and dressing at home is much quicker, saves at least 15 minutes a day.
I would say it's necessary in all climates - in colder climates you wrap up warmer, which means the same amount of sweat. On shower availability - all the companies (big and small) that I've worked for in Glasgow and London have had showers and cycle parking.
I've only had a shower in one of the places I've worked in the last 15 years I've been biking to work. I think the need for a shower is a common misunderstanding. One thing that helps immensely is having an entirely separate, bike specific set of clothes to wear in, and then you can change in a bathroom or dark room if needed.
I live in Chicago (so freezing and very hot at times in the year) ride 11 miles (~18km) each way, almost every day. I keep a pair of shoes, and a towel at work. I take a shower before I leave in the morning, and put deodorant on when I get to work. I rarely need the towel unless it's very hot in the summer. I have a space over a heater I dry out my clothes away from other people. (If anything, having a place to store bike clothes is more important than a shower IMO). I considered that I might be immune to my own smell, but I've had people ask me things like "How come you don't smell bad after riding" and honest friends I've asked and been told no. (The same friends that will happily tell me my outfits look ridiculous)
Getting home at 17:00? I don't even get off work until 17:30, and if I'm lucky I get home before 18:30. Even cycling I'd only shave maybe 15 minutes off my commute, and if I'm really lucky I'd make it home alive.
I wish I lived somewhere with more sustainable work hours and bike-friendly traffic. I'm totally drained when I finally get home.
8:30. My hours aren't all that terrible, but after burning the candle at both ends for the better part of a decade of grad school, I'm a little worried about burning out.
Cycling might help with the burn-out. The exercise is good for you. Getting out of a stressful drive is good for you. Etc. Even if the ride is a bit longer, it's probably a net positive. Especially if you end up at the gym or jogging anyways - you get to double-count the bike commute as part of your workout.
You didn't mention riding after dusk as a problem, but there are plenty of good bike light options available now. LEDs and batteries have come a long way in the last 5-10 years and small, rechargeable lights are now powerful enough to provide adequate lighting for nighttime commutes (some are even bright enough for daytime use - so cars see you better).
Thanks for the lighting tips. I'm actually taking some urban cycling classes next month. I think at this point I need knowledge and confidence to make cycling a part of my commute.
I’ll keep cycling to work in the foreseeable future. I don’t think this post is of much use to anyone, but I had fun reflecting my last year of cycling to work. Thanks for reading.
Good read. Modest author. Often it is the most personal blog postings, where people share details of their life, that attracts most readers.
I run to work 4 days/week (work from home the other day). It's about 6 miles from my place in Brooklyn to the office in Manhattan. Took me a while to work up to 6 miles as a daily routine but can do it easily now. Combining my commute with my daily exercise has been fantastic, I'd recommend it to anyone who is able for a couple reasons: it's efficient (you have to take time out of your day getting to work anyway), and it makes it easy to stick to the routine (I try to put the option of taking the subway out of my mind).
Interesting to see comments about bike commuting in Stockholm and London since I tried it in both cities. Commuting by bike in Stockholm is a breeze even if you are biking in parts of the city with lots of traffic. Its also a beautiful city which adds to the experience.
I have tried to commute by bike in London but its to scary for me. I think it would be fine if you can find a path through residential areas, but for me thats impossible. Biking in the central parts of London I feel that a slight lapse in concentration could end up with a very bad accident.
I found biking in London much easier than in many large European cities, especially since a large fraction of drivers keep enough space on the left for bikers to pass, making commute fast even in heavy traffic. In France or Belgium on the contrary, you often have to slalom between cars, either on the left or on the right.
I wouldn't say it's much safer in London, but definitely a little more than Brussels for instance, where many small streets are a nightmare.
And as I was biking to work with my two kiddos the other day, I was thinking about him.
What would be my ideal day? I wondered. What would I do with my time if I had gotten his diagnosis of a more or less non-treatable form of pancreatic cancer?
I thought about it. And I realized that it would start just like that one. Biking with my kids to daycare and then work.
It is hard to put into words the myriad reasons. Everyone has their own reasons why they go the way they go to get where they want to go.
I know few things in life but I have found my bliss biking to and from work everyday.
I met a nice person once that worked at an IBM location. He was in fantastic shape, he commuted to work 5 miles away—on foot! He ran both ways.
I barely qualified to run the Boston Marathon and had a good time running the race through my old college neighborhoods. This guy, who was a runner friend of a runner friend, was in a very different category, very fast. He trained on top of the weekly 50 miles of commuting.
I don't like bike commuting. I have biked 2 miles/3.2km each way to the office for the past 16 years, at least twice a week and usually all five days. I still don't like it. Maybe I'm just a fat, lazy son of a gun? Maybe I don't have an enjoyable bike?
The commute is pretty, safe, flat, and quiet. Birds, ponds, and trees, with very few cars and no hills. The weather here is tolerable and I don't sweat enough to require a shower. The only close calls I had were at the beginning when I wasn't being careful. (There is a small section mixed with heavy traffic.)
Every time I get to the office I'm glad the ride is over, and every time I must leave to go home I don't look forward to the ride. I don't arrive invigorated, and in fact the opposite. I've lost and gained weight seemingly unrelated to the number of miles ridden.
I've had several bikes in that time but none of them really seem to "fit", nor are they very fast. I want a nice silky commuter with fenders and panniers and thin wheels but that's always pretty far out of reach from budget, and I'm not 100% convinced it will make a big difference anyway. So I stick to a Craigslist special with a backpack, with upgrades to the ride as I get money.
I remember enjoying biking so much as a kid. I would ride all over the place, and hardly a year has passed since childhood that I don't put on a lot of miles on two wheels. But now as an adult it's just drudgery. Don't know why.
And it's not just the commute I don't like. Also tried to do some trails and longer rides for fun, but it turned into the same drudgery quickly.
I don't know what else I can do. But I'll continue to soldier on with the ride.
Hey, thanks for sharing your (unpopular, at least in this thread) opinion. Would you care going a bit more in details about what you hate about it?
In my experience, good gear makes a tremendous difference, and it's a logarithmic curve; the first few hundred dollars get you most of the way. Maintenance also goes a long way, you'd be surprised of the friction losses of severely under-inflated tires, or a rusty chain/cassette. Finally, having the right type of bike is a game-changer, I am always amazed at how many people commute in urban environments with a heavy, slow, double-suspension mountain bike when they could be zipping around on a road bike and having some fun! I've also found that having a GPS watch to record your commute helps a lot with gratification.
At the end of the day, I think commuting by bike in an enjoyable experience compared to the alternative most people have in an urban environment: packed/slow/expensive/unreliable public transport, or traffic jams. Maybe you should alternate between the two to remind you of why you commute by bike ;)
Thanks for asking. I can't say for sure what I hate about it. The grinding ride? It's not fast enough for my desires? The shoulder and sometimes wrist discomfort? The wind slowing me down? (Tail winds are fanTAStic! That really makes it fun.)
Yes I am careful with tire inflation and chain. (However, this morning I had a chain snap for the first time ever, so mayhaps I'm not as careful as I thought... hehe. Only about six months/300 miles on this chain. Had many chains with years and years of use, no problems.)
I have had road bikes but the handlebars were too low so I got sore shoulders. Had a couple old, beautiful Schwinns that had expensive parts with odd sizes, so I never bothered to upgrade the handlebars on those road rides for a better fit.
Current steed is almost decent. I'm probably going to drop some cash soon on taller handlebars. It's an old Walmart "mountain" bike (without shocks) and as parts wore out I've replaced them. By now I could have bought a nice new ride, but this is the first time I've had a bike where so many parts wore out, so I didn't anticipate that.
It is heavier than many rides, but because I'm not climbing hills that's not an issue. I've had heavier, and I've had lighter, with no noticeable difference in enjoyment.
And carrying around a heavy backpack, while it doesn't help, I don't notice much improvement in enjoyment when I am out on a joy ride without the pack.
But as you said I think I really would have a better experience on a $500+ commuter ride? Especially one that's a better fit. I'm 5'11"/155 cm and most everything seems to be made for people just /slightly/ smaller. The frame height seems to be alright, it's the shoulders.
Maybe I'm just fat and lazy. IDK. If I had a tail wind everywhere I'd love it.
Once had an electric motor, and /that/ was pretty fun. Perhaps I ought to get another one.
Am thinking that should my new business take off it'll be time to get a delta trike with a 1000W electric motor. Still requires pedaling, but would be like having a permanent tail wind :-)
I live about the same and walk. It's fantastic. Coming from a 12 mile (30-40 minute) drive, with occasional bike commuting, it really was a game-changer for my sanity. It helps that I walk across a golf course, so it's fairly quiet and green (vs city streets).
I sometimes walk in but since I only work in the winter I never get to do it in the summer so spending 30 minutes in cold, wind and rain is not that nice. On the odd occasion I do walk I bring the dog with me and kill two birds with one stone, his walk and my commute!
I was once at SAP and the roads around their HQ form a maze. No wonder public transport takes so much time. Bike would be vastly preferable, though it depends on weather. I've heard SAP allows fully remote work, so I am wondering why are you commuting to office anyway? You can save 1h/day for living your life easily.
In our team we don't do full remote work, I don't know about other teams. You can occasionally do home office. I prefer being in the office for work for these reasons:
- different space for work and private life makes it easier to separate them
- being able to simply chat with colleagues a bit
- looking over problems together more easily
- get out of the house for a while, have a more regular daily routine
- free lunch ;)
I've been walking to work (2km, 20 mins) every day for almost a year now, rain or shine. Previously I drove about an hour to get to work. There's a huge difference in alertness and energy when I sit down at my desk... early morning exercise is well worth it.
I am so jealous. I did 7000km in the last 2 1/2 years commuting to and from work, which i love and totally agree with most of the benefits that you mentioned, however i do all of this in Berlin city traffic. Really jealous of your route through nature!
I like to ride my bike to work because it's much faster than taking the bus (20 minutes versus 40+ minutes) . However, when it rains, I take the bus. And it rains quite often where I live (Taipei).
Any advice from fellow bikers? Clothes to wear, gear to get, etc.
I take a towel with me to dry my exposed body parts. I use Vaude softshell jacket (Posta) and pants (Tirano), but they are more for colder weather. In summer I'd prefer to switch clothes after arrival. There are also overpants and overshoes for the rain, but personally I don't like them because they make you sweat more.
I think that's amazing that a small-ish town or city in Germany has such great public transport and bike routes. That all seems to be limited to much larger cities in the US.
The bike is great. VSF fahrradmanufaktur. Used to be an organisation, run by a few hundred smallish bike shops who worked together, but was bought up by a company later.
Still great bikes. Steel frame, sensible parts that work well together (none standing out as a customer magnet and coupled with lower-quality other parts), sensible prices. And a really beautiful color scheme.
I have a very similar one as the author (or maybe the same?). But I really should have gotten the sister model with hub gear and chain case.
Cycling to Work in India, since this new year. No gears.
Basic cycle + 3 locks + Air pump = $90USD. 15Kilometers.
Already saved $20USD/ month.
Never going back to Automobiles again. My friends are also trying to start biking to commute after I've made it. Many thought I'd go back to MotorBike after 1 week but I persevered and it's a joy riding the bike.
Highly recommend to people in Indian Metro, just add 10 minutes to average 7km commute. Happy riding !
I've got a relatively short bike commute that takes around 20 minutes. By car it's a bit more due to traffic. I get some serious benefits from biking everyday. I'm always alert and awake when I get to work, I get the bare minimum exercise in for the week, I don't have to drive my car.
I'd highly recommend biking to work if your local infrastructure is accommodating.
I've been biking to work every day for over 6 months now, though mine is considerably shorter - 2 miles in SF.
I got tired of being stuck on cramped muni trains not going anywhere and figured I could use a little exercise every day.
What is your opinion on cycling in the city. I live in SOMA and haven’t started riding yet. I used to ride all the time in GA, but it definitely seems more dangerous out here.
When I lived in SF I would ride pretty everywhere. The SF Bike Coalition is one of the most effective lobbying organizations I've ever seen, and they've done a huge amount to transform the city to make it bike friendly. In return, the number of people biking has really skyrocketed in the last 10 years. There are often good bike lanes along routes, and sometimes they are even separated. They have a pretty good map that shows you bike lanes, so you could use that to plan out some routes while you're getting familiar.
Anecdotally, the motorists are more aware of bikes now than they used to be (just because there are more of them), but you still need to ride pretty defensively.
Only other city I've ridden is Stockholm, and I commute on Folsom which has a striped lane but basically:
a) Make sure you're visible. I always have lights and reflectors, and wear hi-vis jacket if it's dark out
b) Always assume there's an Uber about to do something dumb and dangerous - ride defensively, don't assume that drivers see you, seek eye contact, don't be afraid to take the lane
c) Relax, take it easy, it's a wonderful city to ride in.
Its totally doable, just be wary of your surroundings and try to move with the flow of other bike traffic. Moving as a herd makes you more predictable to cars.
I also have been cycling for 2 years now everyday. 100kms average every week. Never have felt more enthusiastic and energetic at workplace. Helps concentrate on the work, beats bad traffic and gives a very good exercise overall
When I was living in NYC, cycling to work in the summer was the best part of my day. It took me ~30 mins to get from the Upper West Side to the office in Alphabet city. Commuting by subway would take ~50 mins.
Yeah, my ride is about 3 miles each way, so it's pretty easy. I live in the Boston area, so at times the weather can be rough, but it's manageable. If the roads are passable, I can ride (though it is in the 50s today here and expected to get near 70 tomorrow!). In the summer, when it's hot, I leave the house as early as I can manage. After eight years of daily bike commutes, the only serious accident I've had (i.e., injury-causing) was caused by another cyclist, not a car.
That's the argument for mixed zoning: having offices (plus some retail, medical practices etc) within a 5km radius of home is entirely possible. It's easier in a dense urban environment, but as this post shows, you can even do it with single-family homes with a generous garden.
Of course there are still some people who need to use a car or public transport for commuting, especially if you're a couple both invested in specific careers (and can't, say, just transfer and teach at a different school).
You would think so, but my commute to work is a little over 3 km and I used to drive a car to work, until I realized how ridiculous that was. I know co-workers who live even closer and still they drive.I live in a small town, but people still use cars for everything although we have good bike roads.
I went from a 16 km bike commute to a 3 km one, and 3 km isn't far enough. I usually leave early to spend a little more time on my bike. On an average day the morning ride is the best part of my day.
3km is not so much. From spring to fall I also use my bike for going to work. One way is 21km and it feels great. Often In the morning I would like to make an extra round.
If anything, it's a little bit short. At that distance, IMO it's more convenient to just pedal slowly while wearing cotton to avoid the hassle of having to shower at work.
10km or so is about perfect IMO. Long enough that it's worth the hassle to get sweaty and have a "real ride", but short enough that you still do it on days where you have a packed schedule.
But even better is a 2km commute. Walking is by far the most pleasant way to get to work.
I'd definitely recommend it. I had a 2km commute I walked for about a year, and then a similar length commute for half a year I rode by bike. In the time I walked, my fitness was really bad and I'd get pretty winded even by a small sprint (I didn't do any other sport). When I switched to bicycling, my stamina quickly improved, even tough it was not a long distance + I had the freshness impulse as described in the article.
Most people in the states with that short of a commute probably still drive, and I don't blame them (because biking in most American cities is absolutely awful).
Or at least a non-hostile infrastructure. Until last June, I biked to work, year-round, for 18 years. (I didn't even have a car.) My job moved and I've commuted by car, even though I am slightly closer to the office. Part of my potential cycling route has dedicated bike lanes, sharrows, and even a parallel trail; but, part of it is on a busy state road, with no shoulders and often a half-mile backup for the left turn I need to make. (Yet another part is essentially a two-lane, unlit, country road; but, I can deal with that.)
I have not yet ruled out cycling altogether; but, I think I need a better, if longer, route.
Oh, I've done it before. Biking to work was my primary method of transportation when I was in the bay area. By American standards, my route was pretty decent, which means that by any sane, objective standard it was trash. I got hit by cars twice the last year before I moved to Germany. Once I had my son on my bike, that was especially fun.
I was willing to take some risk, but expecting the average person to is unreasonable. Getting around shouldn't involve serious risk to your person. We'd never accept using "painted walk lanes" everywhere, and yet that standard is considered "pretty good" for biking. It's absurd.
Very nice seeing that much nature before and after work, I cycle to work but it's all within the city. It's great, but I would love to see more trees and water.
Where I live, we have a lot of “salmon” I.e. people biking against the traffic (the wrong way). They’ve been my biggest danger. I’ve hit them more than once.
I commute about 6 miles each way between Brooklyn (home) and Manhattan (work). I've been raving about it to everyone I know because it's legitimately changed my life. It feels amazing, saves money, keeps me in much better shape, gives me more energy at work. It's slightly faster than the subway, and significantly faster than driving/cabbing at rush hour.
I also love that transit time is very consistent (even relative to the subway, which has lately been wonky). It's great to arrive for our morning standup exactly 7 minutes early, rather than having to pad in 30 minutes of unproductive dead space in case the subway has some problem.
NYC bike paths have gotten pretty good over the years, such that I can use protected lanes for ~70% of the trip, and dedicated lanes for >90%. No accidents yet but several close calls, mostly with pedestrians. New York streets are crowded and aggressive, but the speeds are low and drivers are relatively vigilant.
The consistency is a vastly underrated quality of bike commuting. One amazing thing I've found is I'm more likely to do social events after work, even ones that are a great distance, if I don't have to worry about traffic.
For example, sometimes after I work I bicycle 90 minutes to San Jose and don't think twice about it. If I had my car it would PROBABLY take 45 minutes, but I honestly have no idea. Or I could go home, and drive to the train station, and catch the train, then walk. But the bike gives me the freedom to not worry about schedules and also not stress about delays.
It sounds so silly to prefer to ride for twice as long as I'd drive and consider that a "win", but there's some kind of psychological block to dealing with traffic and the fact that a 15 minute drive instead takes 45 or 30 or 50 or 60 minutes.. but when the bicycle ride takes 90 minutes with or without traffic, it's so much more appealing.
Sorry for the basic question, but how do you bike for 90 minutes without being covered in sweat and needing a shower when you arrive at your destination?
I'd bet that you could walk for 90 mins even at a fast pace without getting all sweaty? If so then you can cycle for 90 mins without getting sweaty :)
Seriously though, I have 2 main modes of commute cycling: 1 as fast as I can manage, which I only do when I know I can shower at either end 2 at a pretty decent pace but one where I know that I'll stay cool and dry enough to not be a sweaty mess. Depending on the temp and how far I might slow right down for the last few minutes just to cool off.
The right clothes also help - even going pretty fast in lycra you'll stay cool enough. Cycling in full work clothes is doable but not fun for miles and miles.
Main thing for me was not carrying a bag on my back, as that makes me sweaty no matter the speed. I have a small bag for clothes on the front of my road bike (super cheap off ebay) and a rack on the back for bits. I try not to commute with a laptop - I've not needed to really so far.
I've been riding with a pannier on my back rack (instead of using a backpack) for 4 of the 6 months. I still get that "what did I forget?" feeling when I pull out onto the road. It's so amazingly freeing not having the weight tied to my back and the sweat that goes along with it.
It's a good question. In my climate, eight months out of the year it's impossible to ride for more than twenty minutes without getting sweaty, but I find that most days don't need a full shower to freshen up. Just take a washcloth with you, get it wet, and do a once-over when you change clothes. Re-apply deodorant and you're fine. There are still a lot of days (almost every day in the height of summer) where it's so hot that just being outside is enough to make you sweat, and after any significant time on the bike, you will continue sweating bullets even in the frigid office air conditioning while your body cools down. In that case, arrive a little early, work at your desk until you stop sweating, and then go wipe off and change. You won't smell bad while the sweat is fresh (as long as your bike clothes don't accumulate a vile odor — be careful about this.) Cleaning off before you stop sweating is a mistake.
Alcohol-based wet wipes are the nuclear option if you still have odor issues. Obviously they're not very green to use every day, but having some on hand can give you peace of mind if you're afraid you might unexpectedly need to go face-to-face with upper management or a customer.
Good clothes help. I wear a lot of icebreaker merino wool stuff (yes, even t-shirts) and they simply never stink. But I also commute in 'normal' cotton/poly clothes.
True "workout" gear stinks to high heaven. I'm not sure what they put in gym shirts and shorts but once you sweat, it's all over. Don't wear that stuff when commuting to work!
Normally I commute in a t-shirt, a merino sweater/sweatshirt, and jeans with bike shorts (padded liners) underneath. They're basically like the underwear version of bike shorts -- not something to be worn solo.
Wool works great for me as well. The old synthetic stuff (say, ten years ago) used to just get smellier and smellier until it would gross you out straight out of the washer. Newer synthetics aren't as bad, but they're still stinkier than wool.
Ease off on your pace for the last 10-15 min so your body has a chance to cool off. If you are showering regularly you remove the bacteria that cause the stank, so sweating by itself won't cause most people to be excessively funky.
I'm not the original poster, and I'm about to write something gross, but I commute for long times too and I find the sweat less of an issue than I originally expected (I do live in a climate that is not overly hot and humid, though). I avoid using a backpack (in favor using panniers) so that my back isn't all sweaty, and for the rest I find that the sweat dries up quickly and doesn't leave a trace. In the worst case I take a spare t-shirt and a deodorant stick.
You don't. I would be worried whether the cow-orkers share this view (simply because everybody is habituated to their own smell, not noticing it as much).
Good point with the backpack though - with it, I was sweating like a racehorse, even after coming out of the shower; without, I was only sweating.
On my morning commute it's not bad, because mornings are cool. If I put on a windbreaker due to the chill, then I get a little bit sweaty. Once I stop riding, the sweat naturally dries after a few minutes. I don't need a shower just because I perspired somewhat.
If I'm going down to San Jose I'm probably meeting friends at a bar or going to a show or something. Hardly the end of the world to work up a mild sweat and then my body dries after I stop, then as I start to feel a chill, I put warmer clothes on. It's not an issue.
Yeah, subway being "wonky" lately is putting it lightly.
I'd love to bike to work. When I lived back in Europe, I used to bike every day to work and back. However, biking in NYC is just insanely dangerous in comparison. I'm really surprised how people do it at all. There aren't real bike paths, and you're supposed to bike on the road right next to all the cars. That's constantly being just one small mistake away from injury/death. I just don't want that risk.
There are a few different types of paths - some main avenues have separated, dedicated paths - meaning a row of parked cars separates you from the traffic. There are also dedicated paths on the west side and central park. The bridges are also dedicated paths. You will likely need to spend some time on the "fake" paths to use them, but accessibility to the dedicated paths is pretty good and due to the layout of the manhattan (narrow) - if you're traveling north/south, you can probably spend the majority of your commute on the dedicated ones.
I feel the same way. I would LOVE to bike to work in NYC, but I'm just too terrified that one wrong move will end my life. Several of my friends have been in close-call bike accidents. It's not something I want to risk every single day.
The closest I've been to death was in a car, but I still drive. And I bike commute.
Agreed. Most people really underestimate the benefits.
- I save $1700/yr on transit (Toronto TTC Pass). Savings would be even higher if I drove (parking costs, maintenance)
- Massive health benefit from of turning 3hr/week of commute from sitting into cardio: https://theconversation.com/cycling-to-work-major-new-study-...
- Others: Time savings, commute consistency, happiness
Just be aware that heavy exercise near significant car exhaust is fairly bad for your lungs. If you go a moderate pace it's not that bad, but if you like going all out a face mask is a good investment.
The benefits of exercise actually usually outweigh harm from pollution in many developed cities, e.g. London: https://ig.ft.com/sites/urban-cycling/assets/pollution-londo...
Of course if you live in a very polluted city the harm is much more pronounced: https://ig.ft.com/sites/urban-cycling/assets/pollution-world...
Source: https://ig.ft.com/sites/urban-cycling/
Fine particulate pollution is the easiest to filter, but not the only harm from urban air. Many chemicals like NOx compounds, CO, etc are not healthy.
Including increased accident risks, particulate, and chemical pollution together is a very different risk profile vs comparing all benefits vs a subset of downsides.
That said, you can filter out most particulates and there is little reason not to take this precaution.
I read somewhere that being in a car doesn’t protect against it either, so if it’s a choice between driving and biking then biking is still better.
Exercise increases the body's need for oxygen > which increases the rate you breath in air > which increases exposure over the same time frame.
Also, many cars include high quality air filtration which really does help.
But again, just buy a mask and deal with the actual problem.
I assume the study I read about used moderns cars to test.
I wonder how the health trade off between breathing emissions while cycling vs. lack of exercise while driving and obesity risk works.
I suspect it's age dependent as cycling before 35 is unlikely to extend your life significantly, but adds risks. Some bike heavy countries don't have unusually long lifespans which IMO supports that line of thinking. With age exercise becomes increasingly important, so it probably flips at some point.
However, like a bike helmet an air filter is at most a minor inconvenience.
What’s breathing through one like when working hard? I’m imagining I would feel suffocated.
Depends on the mask. A good one is only really noticeable as something on your face. I find it easier to breath as the air feels cleaner and my chest feels less tight.
PS: I suspect re-breathing a tiny amount of CO2 probably has a measurable impact over a longer race. (Don't have data on this though.)
Thus burning fuel around others is a very obvious criminal offense.
It's not just fuel, you get particulate from break pads and tires etc. Remember when car pars get worn down that stuff ends up in the air.
NYC bike commuting is great. In manhattan, the west side and central park paths are the best - I could do 90% of my commute on them and basically avoided cars except for the side streets. I commuted 5 miles and would often beat the subway time-wise. It's a great way to wake up too, you start the day off feeling good
I think 'it's great' is quite an overstatement. For example, there's a bike lane all the way down 2nd Ave from the 59th Street bridge, but it's largely ignored by cars and parked trucks.
To the degree that it might make cyclists feel confident and less hyper-vigilant b/c there are lines on the pavement, I think it's actually more dangerous than no bike lane.
Counterpoint: when there isn't a bike lane, some drivers feel righteous anger against cyclists and engage in extremely dangerous driving tactics.
Accepted. I think the solution involves better delineation and real legal consequences, based on cyclist-friendly laws, when drivers are found at fault in collisions with cyclists.
In Seattle I watch cyclists randomly weave from the bike lane into the car lane and back again. These are adults, not kids. It blows my mind.
There is no such thing as a 'car lane'— just general traffic lanes.
Cyclists usually leave the bike lane because it's blocked by lawbreaking drivers or because they need to make a turn, not for funsies.
I have been commuting from Queens to Midtown manhattan for over 2 years now. In the beginning, I was super scared of all the cars and pedestrians.
However, now the situation is a lot better compared to few years back. More bicycling on the road mean the pedestrians, cabs and cars know how to behave.
To a lot of people who think it is dangerous, it can be remarkably non-dramatic affair. With better bike lane markings, traffic that is moving very slow, and more bicyclist on the road, it has never been a better time to start riding in NYC. With experience, you develop almost telepathic sense about the people and cars around you and how to anticipate their moves. If you were scared before, try now and take it easy the first few months while you get used to it.
This is similar to my experience—6 miles between Brooklyn and Manhattan. The protected lanes are surprisingly dangerous when there’s no separate turn signal for cars. Compare 1st Ave to 8th Ave for an example. That said, it still feels way safer than biking in the suburbs, where cars will go 40 mph around a blind corner because there’s not much traffic.
If you don't mind me asking, how do you deal with the sweat? Do you shower on arrival?
I would love to bike, but no showers at my current workplace :/
Keep your effort below the sweat threshold on the way there. Think walking-effort, not running-effort.
Bikes are about 4x more efficient, so for short and moderate distances, even walking-effort will get you there in reasonable time.
If you sweat at a walking-effort, try dressing lighter or as others have suggested, use wet wipes and spare clothes at work.
You can also consider an e-bike to avoid sweating on the way to work. On the commute home, use less assist if you want more exercise.
Shower beforehand, keep an easy pace and when you arrive, do a quick clean with wet wipes if necessary. Depending on the distance and temperatures where you live, you might want to keep a change of clothes at work. Use panniers instead if you have a backpack to keep the back from sweating up.
I found a gym near my work. You can always cycle slowly from the gym to work.
You can also get an electric bicycle and use less effort so that you don't sweat.
My office has showers. I wouldn't bike to work otherwise. I'm in Austin, so for a few months of the year, just standing outside is enough to start sweating.
Shower beforehand, fresh clothes every day, sport underwear to cool efficiently (it is not visible under typical office clothes), selected clothes to ventilate _gently_ whole body, but to look like normal casual clothes, buff at face in case of cold weather, etc.
Pretend you are walking; move your feet at walking pace and have that be enough to move the pedals without too much force.
You'll still go 3-4x faster than walking, but it'll be the same amount of effort.
I wear a T-shirt (under my jacket in winter) and bring a shirt to change into in my backpack. My T-shirt is usually pretty sweaty but once I change into a fresh shirt it’s fine.
I did this for 2 years, 10 miles in and 10 miles back. There was a shower directly above my office. Everything was super convenient, lost 20 pounds and felt great and rode fast.
Back to driving now, so fed up of the weather here in Seattle to do this during the winter, put the weight back on.
But yes, find someplace to shower. Or, bus in and ride home so you can shower when you get home.
Everything others already said, AND: don't wear a backpack.
Get a cargo rack + Wald folding pannier baskets, and put your cargo there. Ride with a messenger bag, if needed.
Then you'd sweat no more than you would while walking (if cycling at an appropriate pace).
Bikes have few problems with traffic because entire rights-of-way are dedicated to a tiny constituency. As bicycling gains popularity, I fully expect bike lanes to exhibit the same traffic problems as car lanes. You’ll still get more throughout from the space, but with a density of bikes meeting or exceeding the density of cars, traffic will certainly become a thing.
Now, as always, it’s a good idea to arbitrage and take advantage of underutilized infrastructure, but I wouldn’t expect the underutilization to last.
Bicycles are inherently more space-efficient than cars— the space-inefficiency of which is the root cause of urban automobile congestion: http://urbanist.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83454714d69e2017d3c37d8a... As cycling becomes more popular, the larger cycling constituency will be able to demand more road space— but congestion will much less of a problem, because it simply requires less space to move a large number of people on bicycles (or in trains or on busses).
NYC definitely has 'bicycle traffic' these days, especially around choke points like the bridges. But it essentially never has traffic jams, except during the 5 Boro Bike Tour.
We have learned from freeway expansion projects that constant-factor improvements in capacity induce growth in utilization until we return to an equilibrium level of congestion. We're in the early stages of this process for bicycles, so the pain is low for now, as it was when early adopters had the brand-new interstate highways all to themselves. As it was, more recently, when hybrids were allowed in the Bay Bridge flyover lane. What happened? Everybody got a Prius.
For environmental, health, and inclusivity reasons (constant factor improvements in transportation capacity do, after all, mean constant factor improvements in access to cities) it may be preferable to have gridlock in bicycles rather than gridlock in private cars.
But don't think for a second that we can grow sprawling mega-regions indefinitely without gridlock.
The limit on growing a mega-region with bicycles is simply that bicycles' limited speed makes them impractical for travel of more than 10 miles for most people.
But Tokyo's 38M-citizen megaregion of train stations accessed by pedestrians and cyclists[0] is probably the best-scaled megaregion yet to exist.
[0]See this random suburban station in Tokyo full of parked bicycles: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7324121,139.4176845,3a,73.1y...
In the Netherlands, a significant part of the population uses bikes. I lived in Groningen, where a large chunk of the students and people who work in the city travel by by bike. I lived there for many years, and the only problem I ever had was bicycle parking.
Never had an accident (well, except the one time I tried to drive from a road onto a pavement with an angle of attach of 10 degrees, which resulted in some scratches ;)). I can't recall any of my friend having a serious accident.
This makes no sense. There's a limit to how densely people can live, and I see no reason bicycle infrastructure can't support all of those commuters, even if it has to be expanded somewhat.
We DEFINITELY know roads can't scale enough to handle the cars, but when each person takes up a tiny fraction of the space they take up now in their cars (plus closer following distances due to lower speeds), there's simply no problem.
I've commuted in places where there is lots of cycling, for example Munich, and yes, you have 'normal' car-like traffic (sometimes in a row of 10 bicycles and you might have to wait for faster bikes to pass before your chance to pull out to pass) but it's not gridlock like in cars on the streets.
I've ridden a bike in Amsterdam; traffic is definitively a thing. Then again, traffic can be a thing even on foot.
Weather aside, if I had a clear way to secure my bike I'd use that everyday. Robbers are just too damn motivated.
NYC tech employers generally allow bringing your bike into the office.
The city requires buildings to allow bicycles in if tenants want it: https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2016/09/14/three-bills-enhancing...
You can also consider buying a folding bicycle like a Brompton, which tidily fits under a desk and can be fitted with a cover to disguise its bicycle-ness, bicycles being mysterious anathema to many office buildings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ic6cssX_50
Maybe offices are secure enough, but I've read many report of bike stolen in private yards, buildings. Secured or not.
I found that typically as long as the lock cost 10% the value of the bike then the lock was good enough
Use a cheaper, junker bike for commuting, or a folding bike that you bring inside.
Sadly junker bike gets stolen as much if not better, because it's easy to scrap.
I know, my beloved piece of shit mountain bike has been stolen, it had zero value (had no seat, one pedal missing, cheapest ruined part everywhere, ugly) except for sentimental one. Yet it's gone.
I'm at my 12 year of every day bike commuting. Before I commuted 10 km each direction, now I'm at 6 km. If I have activities after work, I ride to them too. So my total ride length is a fair bit longer than what my commute is.
The public transportation network here in Stockholm is good, but wouldn't even consider cramming myself into a packed subway train or bus. Even at this time of the year when it's -5 degrees celcius and snowy I really enjoy my daily rides.
It cuts commuting time in half and I shave off another two hours of sitting without moving a day.
If possible, I highly recommend bike commuting. Get a good bike (with gears) and rack mounts for bags. Gravel/adventure bikes are fun to ride and work well on all surfaces. Supple 650b tyres are all the rage these days. They will give you plenty of comfort while sacrificing very little when it comes to performance[1].
Tomorrow I'll be going to the outskirts of town with work. Then it's 50 km. I already look forward to that workday adventure. :)
[1] https://janheine.wordpress.com/2018/01/03/12-myths-in-cyclin...
I commuted by bike for years in NYC and frankly I do not recommend it. The traffic has always been bad but it’s now significantly worse, and the bike lanes that exist make riding even more dangerous. You are always within reach of parked cars doors, and the lack of a physical barrier on most lanes means they are often driven over by cars.
Perhaps worst of all, even faulty bike lanes give cyclists a sense of entitlement and false security. The fact remains the roads were not built for cycling and cars always win in a battle for space.
I’d love to see bike-only roads, routes, or such. But until there is both proper segregation and consequences when cars kill cyclists (there are currently none) it’s a death wish.
Every day I see eager young cyclists riding with no helmet, no lights, and not infrequently without brakes (on fixies) and I am compelled to yell out my advice on working harder at staying alive.
Commuted for years, also Brooklyn to Manhattan about the same distance. Had to stop due to back issues but I can echo all the OP’s benefits.
Biking is somewhat dangerous in NYC, and every other American city. I agree with OP that NYC drivers are generally very good though. It’s the bikers responsibility to bike as though drivers are -trying- to kill you. First heard that advice when riding motorcycles and it’s stuck with me.
I’ve been in a few spills on my bike. A big one with a pedestrian who strolled into a protected high speed path at prospect park. Another one with an invisible pothole at night in park slope. The last was pure user error, riding tipsy from my local bar home :)
Generally, riding in nyc, like walking in nyc, is a unique skill set. You really MUST be able to do things like look behind you while riding, and it’s quite helpful to be able to accelerate to near traffic speeds. Of course you must assume any car door can open at any time. Route planning also goes a long way; it’s usually worthwhile to take a slightly longer route to stay on smooth streets or protected lanes. Extra wide one-way streets in Brooklyn are generally quite good for cyclists as well.
> Generally, riding in nyc, like walking in nyc, is a unique skill set
I don't mean to fear monger, but I suspect that confidence is just as dangerous as ignorance when you're on a bike in NYC. Very experienced cyclists also end up dead: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/nyregion/cyclists-death-s...
Cycling in NYC can be fun, healthy, and might eventually help push the city into better accommodating non-vehicular traffic. But it's also particularly dangerous, there is no getting around that.
I'm not sure that a story of one experienced rider being struck and killed invalidates the common sense argument that more experience is better than less experience.
I did not mean to impress that the techniques I mentioned above, if mastered, would result in 100% safe riding.
As far as biking being particularly dangerous in NYC, you'd need stats like miles traveled vs fatalities for a number of major cities to make that determination. It might be more dangerous in NYC, but it might not.
> The last was pure user error, riding tipsy from my local bar home :)
Doesn't that count as DUI where you live?
No, that's a common misconception: https://www.nysdwi.com/rochester-dwi-on-a-bicycle-new-york-l... and https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/a-state-by-state-guide...
probably yeah.
Don't ride in the door zone. Don't let cars make you ride in the door zone. Take the car lane instead.
I've gone 15,000 miles safely in dense urban environments because I am heads-up about the 2 main threats: intersections, and the door zone.
Just be prepared to be ticketed by overzealous NYPD cops.
http://gothamist.com/2017/04/28/nypd_bike_lane_tickets.php
> Don't ride in the door zone. Don't let cars make you ride in the door zone. Take the car lane instead.
Please don’t do this. During the time that I commuted on a bicycle, it was very frustrating when other cyclists didn’t follow the rules of the road (zipping through stop signs is another example). It causes resentment in drivers. This leads to aggressive behavior towards cyclists.
You are mistaken about what the rules are in most states. To take one example, in California, you own the lane and cars cannot pass unless they can give you three feet of clearance.
http://ktla.com/2013/09/23/gov-brown-signs-law-requiring-car...
I don't care how much resentment it causes that should never result in aggressive behavior towards cyclists.
As if one cyclists behavior should or could influence a vehicle operators behavior towards other people sharing the road. Utterly ridiculous. Anybody that is not capable of keeping their emotions bottled up to the point where they will take out their frustrations on unprotected bags of fluid from within a ton+ of armor should be relieved of their license.
If you can't safely pass your place is clear: behind the other traffic.
I don't know the rules of the road for NYC. Where I'm from though, you are supposed to take the lane. Quite frankly, it's insane not to take the lane, since people think they can pass you in their car, while staying in the same lane.
Traffic lanes are rarely wide enough for two vehicles to travel side by side with sufficient space between them.
For example, on a street with 10 foot wide lanes, a 6 foot wide car would have a margin of 2 feet on either side of it and 4 feet between it and a car in the adjacent lane. For buses that are 8.5 feet wide, they have about 0.75 feet on each side and 1.5 feet between them and another bus in an adjacent lane.
A cyclist is about 2 feet wide at a minimum. To have a 2 feet of space on each side, they need a lane that's 6 feet wide. To have 0.75 feet on each side, they need a lane that's 3.5 feet wide.
For the car and bus examples above, neither can leave enough space in the lane while they're in it for a cyclist. So the only way to safely pass one is to change lanes.
>Please don’t do this.
Please do. Being doored isn't something you want to have happen to you; and can have pretty life changing results if you're unlucky.
If you're in a car and you can't pass if someones riding out of the door zone then you probably don't have room to pass anyway.
In most (all?) states in the US cyclists are legally allowed to take the lane when it is unsafe to stay to the right.
The UVC (Uniform Vehicle Code) that most states base their traffic laws on states that bicycles do not have to keep as far right as practicable when the lane they're in is a substandard width lane. They further go on to define a substandard width lane as one where a cyclist and another vehicle cannot travel safely side by side with both vehicles within the lane.
Cycling in NYC is highly dependent on the bike lanes on your route. There are good stretches of quality bike lane here and there (especially in Brooklyn), however there are parts of e.g. Chinatown that I would not recommend on a bike.
I would add to that list the entirety of Queens, where I regularly see people cycling down Northern Boulevard. I'm not familiar with roads in other cities to compare it to, so you'll have to use your imagination when I say: it's very dangerous.
Much of Queens Boulevard already has a protected bike lane, and more will soon: https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2017/08/04/eyes-on-the-street-th...
None of the bike lanes on Queens Boulevard are protected. And according to the article, when it is "protected", it will be with "plastic posts".
Here's what cement dividers on Norther Boulevard protect riders from (scroll down for photos): http://qns.com/story/2017/12/07/poorly-designed-hastily-cons...
I have never looked at the data for NYC but for many cities cycling is about as dangerous as walking. The data might surprise you.
Driving without brakes is just ridiculously dumb in general, but especially so in a place like NYC.
have been riding in NYC for past 2 years. I do agree that bike lanes give you a false sense of security. You have to remain vigilant at all times. It's not that stressful. For me, I have come to enjoy riding in the city now. You need time to develop the sense of various moving objects around you.
At least on the island of Manhatto, the roads were not built for cars, either ;)
I'd hate to ride anything 'supple' on my commute path, which includes a lot of debris and broken bottles.
I do miss riding on smaller wheels though. 26" was much nicer to get rolling than 700c, and there's a lot of stop-start. 26" rigid bike are extinct now though it seems.
Parent is suggesting combining 650b/27.5" wheel sets with large volume 27.5" tires. This gives you an outer wheel diameter near a 700c wheel. Something like this Durano 27.5 x 1.10 tire [1] and sealant would make for a bomb proof commuter.
[1] https://www.schwalbetires.com/bike_tires/racing_tires/durano...
Only thing keeping me from commuting year round is lack of studded tires. I'll have to fix that until next year, because as I'm standing here, hoping for a train that's not jam packed, I really miss cycling.
I've been mostly biking to work for years now, on an island off the northwestern coast of Norway.
I have found that studded tyres are more of an annoyance than an asset on 99 out of 100 winter days.
On anything but wet ice, regular tyres do surprisingly well - to the extent that I've felt no need for studs at all during quite literally thousands of kilometers of riding in the snow - yes, grip is not as good as on asphalt, but then again - studs will not magically make the road bare; they only give you a bit of extra margin under very specific conditions - wet ice, basically.
On wet ice, studded tyres will just postpone the inevitable. You WILL topple. On those days, I just jump in the car.
Additionally, the noise of a set of properly studded tyres is enough to drive me nuts, though obviously YMMV.
Thanks for this! I biked many years throughout the year to work in Finland but after series of bronchitis hitting me on consecutive winters I quit winter biking. I'm thinking maybe I could try again - and given your analysis I'll not let my lack of winter tyres stop me :)
Just avoid slicks (d’oh!) and you’ll likely be fine. The only concession I’ve made to winter conditions is riding at slightly lower tyre pressure to get a larger contact surface. In snow it doesn’t make much of a difference, but on ice it works wonders.
As for the bronchitis, I’ve luckily steered clear - but a colleague of mine who had it good and hard a couple of times swear that since he started wesring a mask, he hasn’t had even a hint of it.
I have ridden with studded tires but have found that my normal skinny road tires do surprisingly well for our winters here in (Canada).
I agree. I biked in today after it snowed maybe 4 inches last night. If i had studded tires it would have been nicer but my slicks do pretty well. And really if there is ice few tires will really protect you from slipping.
The thing that gets me is roads that are sort of driven on. Heavily trafficked roads are great because cars usually expose the bare concrete and roads with no cars are great because you can ride through powder no problem. But when a few cars have created ruts...it make steering very difficult. I don't know if different tires help with this or if that's just the way it goes when you're total mass is <200 lb.
Studded tires make a significant different in ice, and can help to get our of those ice ruts as well. I went down enough times in the ice to move to carbide studded snow tires and it helped a lot. My bike commute is a lot farther now though (~20 miles) so I have downgraded to a fair weather cyclist.
I should really get some of these. I keep trying to "muscle through" but...it sucks.
Yeah, I know. It's just one of those things where I can picture myself climbing the Poisson CDF of inevitability...
They're quite affordable if ordered from Germany: https://www.bike24.com/p238233.html
Have you gotten in accidents?
I've fallen thrice (that I can remember). Two of these times was when I was stupid enough to ride on ice with slicks. The third time I tried to pull some fancy trick up a curb (just stupid). So, I've scratched my jeans. Other than that: nothing (touch wood). Nowadays I run studded tyres in the winter and they're crazy effective.
I don't recommend riding without a helmet or hövding, but this article gives you some insights into the risks of riding a bike in cities: https://www.vox.com/2014/5/16/5720762/stop-forcing-people-to...
How hostile are the drivers in Stockholm? Bay Area drivers aren’t super friendly to cyclists (to be fair, plenty of cyclists also behave like assholes, cutting in front of cars and crossing intersections when they shouldn’t.) My biggest concern during a year of using my bike to commute was making sure I didn’t get ran over by a car taking a turn, because signaling is not always their forte.
I don't find them to be very hostile. A lot of drivers are extremely stressed (particularly in the morning) and unfocused though. I always try to expect them not to see me at all and I pick safer roads over marginally shorter roads.
Some cyclists get very worked up by ill behavior from motorists, getting into dangerous situations to prove their point. Motorists are protected by a >1000 kg shield of metal, so I try just get on with my day.
cutting in front of cars and crossing intersections when they shouldn’t
What drivers who have never used a bicycle don't even consider is that as a cyclist you are extremely mobile and have a much better overview of the road. A cyclist can cross an intersection on red with little danger, a car attempting the same would be murderous.
In countries like the Netherlands most everyone has biked to school from the age of 6 before they are turned loose in a car at 18, there is much better mutual understanding between car drivers and bike riders over there.
It is NOT OK to go through red lights, whether in a car, on a bike or on foot. The rules are the rules and we should all abide them.
It happens all the time in London where bikes go through red lights and weave through pedestrians (sometimes at speed) who are crossing the road. Pedestrians are even worse - and often walk or run across red lights and almost get hit from a bus, car or bike. It’s madness!
I many places is is allowed and even encouraged for cyclists to go through red lights and stop signs. It's called the Idaho stop [0]. It's believed to be safer than waiting at the red light provided that the intersection is clear. Consider that rear-end collisions are the most common cause of cyclist fatalities [1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop
[1] https://www.treehugger.com/bikes/how-get-killed-bike-your-ch...
This worries me. What if the intersection is clear but the joining roads are blind (as is often the case in old European cities). Could I cross the red light, get hit and then claim “well I was just following the Idaho stop... I’m not at fault here. The intersection was clear when I set off”?
I’m surprised about it being safer, and would be interested to see some stats on it. It could be more common in the US where cities are grids because I don’t think I’ve ever seen a near miss where a cyclist almost got rear ended in London. However, I do see a lot of cyclists getting cut off by buses and cars on corners and at junctions.
This kind of stuff gives cyclists a bad name. Everyone should follow the same rules. Makes commuting much more predicable.
> It is NOT OK to go through red lights, whether in a car, on a bike or on foot.
Actually, it depends.
Just last week, I learned that it is perfectly legal to jaywalk in Germany, IF it does not interrupt flowing traffic or endanger anyone. Also, you must take the shortest path (orthogonal to the lanes) when crossing a road. (§25 Abs. 3 StVO)
I jaywalk all the time. It's just ridiculous to wait at a red light when the street is completely empty.
No, it isn‘t legal to ignore a red light. How did you get that idea?
"Going through" a red light is not the same as "ignoring".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop
Treating a red light as a stop sign is different from behaving as if it's not there.
In many provinces of Canada, motorists can turn right on a red light after coming to a full stop.
Still illegal in Germany.
I bike to work everyday and I don't follow the rules of the road, and neither should other cyclists.
In a system designed for cars, it's just false piety and won't keep you any safer.
The one rule I do follow is that I am courteous and polite to everyone, drivers and pedestrians alike, and I remain hyper alert to everything that is going on around me.
That's the only rule you need.
IMO The point of the rules are to remove as much subjection and interpretation to how road users should behave as possible.
For example, what should the rules be when overtaking other riders? Should I overtake on the outside or the inside? We know that having a rule on overtaking makes it much safer.
Courteous and politeness are great, but a lot of people don’t drive/ride/walk like that. What happens then?
If people aren't inclined to be polite or courteous, what makes you so sure they will follow 'the rules' anyway?
But following the rules makes you predictable in terms of what actions you're going to take and makes it easier for other road users to interact with you in a predictable manner.
I don't ride erratically because it freaks people and it's impolite.
It depends how many people are around, and on the entire situation.
I've had sketchy situations when stopping at stop signs. The drivers in my area don't expect cyclists to stop at stop signs, since most don't.
So in that case following the rules made me more unpredictable, and confused everyone involved.
I think the main problem is that we have traffic control devices that most people don't follow. For example, stop signs at roadways where yield signs would suffice. Traffic lights which don't switch to blinking mode when traffic volumes are low.
But there are situations where not following the rules makes things more dangerous for those involved. For example, a driver stopping to allow someone to make a left turn in front of them. That can be seen as a courteous gesture, but the car the next lane over that doesn't stop ends up broadsiding the vehicle making the left turn. In this case, just following the rules of the road would have prevented a crash like that.
To add a note of international confusion, in some parts of the US I believe it is legal to turn right through a red light.
Germany has a separate sign for this, the green arrow: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Gr%C3%BC...
It means that when the traffic light shows red and you want to turn right, the traffic light works like a "STOP" sign instead.
I don't own a car and I cycle thousands of miles a year, so I'm very much on the side of cyclists over motorists - but last year, as I walked across a pedestrian crossing with a green light, I was hit by a bicyclist running a red light - who promptly fled the scene without so much as an apology.
This kind of thing creates strong, memorable emotional responses people are keen to share. If I'd been more seriously injured, or if the fall had broken my expensive consumer electronics, or if I wasn't a cyclist, or if an infirm relative had been in the accident instead of me, even more so.
This being the case, it isn't realistic to convince other road users to approve of cyclists running red lights; getting them to do so is as unlikely as that last 30% of riders spontaneously becoming competent.
I find Bay Area drivers (Palo Alto) area to be polite, almost to a fault. I've had a few aggro assholes, but normally the problem is they're unpredictably nice.
For example, if a car passes me 50 feet before a stop sign and then either has their right turn signal on or otherwise indicates a turn (turns the wheels to the right as they stop), I often just pull in the lane behind them so there is no confusion about whether I'm going to get run over or not... but it seems to more often CAUSE confusion, because they're waiting for me to go by them on the right, which I appreciate the courtesy, they have the right of way.
I often have the same issue at 4-way stops; if they arrive before me and I slow to a stop and put my foot down, THEN they start waving me on and want me to go before them. Of course if I were to blow the stop sign, other people could potentially be annoyed by that. But only about 20% of drivers go before me when I arrive after them and stop and put my foot down.
Also, sometimes I try to pull into the "gaps" between parked cars to allow a car behind me to pass, if there is lots of space and I will not need to pull back into the lane for awhile.... but too often indecisiveness and timidity on the part of the driver mean now I'm having to negotiate my way back into the lane with a car still behind me.
What tires do you use to ride on ice? I've wiped out on ice myself, and it has scared me off from riding when it is icy.
Schwalbe Winter (30-622): https://www.schwalbe.com/en/spike-reader/winter.html
I rode a couple of kilometers on an iced lake some weeks ago without trouble.
There's also the more expensive Marathon Winter: https://www.schwalbe.com/en/spike-reader/marathon-winter.htm...
Marathon Winter has more studs. They're placed closer to the edge of the tyre and it's debatable how much difference if it makes if you don't lean into the curves. I try to lean less on frozen ground, so I suspect they would be pointless for me.
Studded tyres actually works best on ice. Theoretically, if snow covers the ice they could be ineffective. I myself have not found this to be a problem.
Another vote for schwalbe. I've put ~10k miles on non-studded marathons without a flat, so I went with those.
Yet another vote for them. After I tried my first set of Schwalbes, I've never looked back. They are terrific. (Marathon Plus MTBs, btw - works brilliantly on gravel, in moderate mud, snow and ice.)
Marathon Winters are the only ones that seem to be effective against the copious amounts of sharp stones used here in winter to sand all cycleways. Otherwise I have managed without studs the previous winters. But five flats during 250km of riding was too much.
I use the same tires in winter as in summer (normal city bike tires). But I ride them at much lower pressure (under 2bar vs 3.5bar in summer). Then they don’t slip at all.
I did about ten years from the late 90s through the 2000s tapered off in 2011 but I will say.. knees.. oh my knees.. they are simple small things and they each have a say in what I do
I've been cycling to work in downtown LA for nearly 8 years, 4 miles each way. I'm faster than a car over that commute. The weather is fantastic, and I am physically in great shape. Mental benefits are huge.
I've gone about 15,000 miles in dense urban environments without any accidents of any kind. There are a number of keys to this:
- Think like a driver -- it helps to be a good driver first
- Think, period. Don't listen to music, pay attention.
- Don't ride in the door zone. Don't let drivers make you ride in the door zone. If you need the lane, take the lane. It's your right.
- Use flashing lights on front and back, at all times of day. Nobody else except emergency vehicles is allowed to have flashing lights. There's a good reason: they are unmissable and very distracting.
- Wear brightly colored shirts and a bright colored helmet.
- If you don't wear a helmet, don't worry about it, it doesn't mitigate that much risk. The exercise benefits of biking do way more to increase your life expectancy than skipping a helmet does to reduce it.
> If you don't wear a helmet, don't worry about it, it doesn't mitigate that much risk. The exercise benefits of biking do way more to increase your life expectancy than skipping a helmet does to reduce it.
This is very, very stupid advice.
I've biked heavily for 30 years... advising people to wear a helmet never works. What works 99% of the time is the first freak crash. Not a crash where they felt like they were speeding, or not paying attention, or drunk... then they think it was avoidable. It takes a crash where you hit a rare little crack in the road, or a bump hidden in the shadows, or a car doing a u-turn out of the blue... then it 'clicks' Or, in my case, you witness someone take a minor fall and tap their skull on a curb and seizure and not be quite the same from that point on. If you're reading this and don't wear a helmet, you should consider experimenting with mind altering drugs as well, may as well enjoy the moment.
Take everything you just said and apply it not to a bicycle helmet but to a full face motorcycle helmet.
Now do you see how you sound? Bike helmets marginally help, but the same marginal difference is found going from bicycle helmets to full face motorcycle ones.
I’ve broken my face in 4 places in a bike accident where the only thing that would have helped would have been a motorcycle helmet, but I don’t go around town wearing one or telling other people to. I like the air in my hair and I’m ok with the additional risk that not wearing any helmet carries. I’m careful in otherways but I’m an adult making an informed choice about the relative risk.
You don't actually need a full face motorcycle helmet, that's overkill for cycling speeds (and uncomfortable with exertion). I regularly commute to work by bike and after a bad fall where I almost landed on my face, I decided to upgrade from a normal helmet to a full face bicycle helmet. You can get a decent one for ~$150 and it'll give you some protection even if you fall flat on your face. Highly recommend as a normal helmet doesn't do much for your face and a lot of falls could result in facial damage.
Shoot, now I'm getting paranoid... I've talked to a handful of people in full helmet gear and it's a similar painful story... definitely thought about the face/chin-plant scenario. I prefer the full peripheral vision but I'd be singing a different tune if I lost teeth or broke a facial bone... sorry to hear about your accident.
To throw an anecdote in, my brother was riding straight through an intersection on green when a driver turned into him. Witnesses said he flew up around 10 feet, up and over the car, and completely shattered his helmet when he landed. He got out of the hospital after 2 days with 3 broken vertebrae. He likely would have been in for over a week if he hadn't died. That helmet made all the difference.
Yeah it's still probably a net increase on your life expectancy to ride without a helmet compared to driving, but most people wear seat belts even though almost every mile driven doesn't result in a crash.
I wear a helmet too!
But it doesn't change the truth of the sentence: "The exercise benefits of biking do way more to increase your life expectancy than skipping a helmet does to reduce it."
But that sentence doesn't make any sense! There is precisely ZERO reason to skip the helmet!
They're uncomfortable, mess up your hair, make you extra sweaty, and you need to put them somewhere.
None of these are good enough reasons to not wear a helmet while you're riding a bike, but any one of them would be a good enough reason to not ride your bike at all. That's the point OP is trying to make by saying you can skip your helmet if you want.
"They're uncomfortable"
If that's true, then you are not wearing a properly fitted one.
Okay, would it be better if I said less comfortable?
That assertion is incorrect. There are reasons. Reasons that you and I might find vain or foolhardy, but reasons nevertheless.
Maybe in the sense that there are reasons to shoot yourself in the dick, but I don't think anyone would take those as being a reasonable argument.
If that comparison was apt, we wouldn't see so many people out riding sans protection.
But we do, and it's because they have a share bike that didn't come with a helmet, or they were worried about messing up their hair, or they lost their helmet, or they left it at the destination, or they're a rebellious teenager who just doesn't care, or no-one educated them about the risks, or they just forgot to put it on.
A better comparison would be to flossing your teeth, or wearing sunscreen: everyone should do it, but not everyone will do it.
There is ZERO reason not to wear a helmet every time you leave the house. You could trip and fall at any moment!
Presumably, you're willing to accept that risk. Biking without a helmet is no doubt riskier than walking without one, but both activities are well within reasonable risk-taking range.
You don't need me to tell you why I don't like wearing a helmet when I bike; you already use all those same reasons to avoid wearing one when you walk.
"There is ZERO reason not to wear a helmet every time you leave the house. You could trip and fall at any moment!"
Not even close to the same thing. By being that absurd, you clearly are not wanting to engage in good faith.
I'm sorry that you think my position is absurd, but I assure you it's offered in good faith. There are only trade-offs. This isn't just a comment on the wisdom of helmets; this is, as far as I can tell, an actual feature of the universe we inhabit. There aren't "problems" and "solutions to problems"; there are only trade-offs.
I (honestly and in good faith) place walking and biking in the same "helmet not required" risk category. The point isn't whether or not you adjust the risk slider further in one direction than me. The point is to respond to the assertion that there is zero reason to avoid wearing a helmet. We all know that isn't true, or we'd all wear helmets all the way down the risk scale.
Where you place "time to put on a helmet" on the scale isn't really the point. The point is that the scale obviously exists and it's obviously the case that there are places on the scale where not wearing a helmet makes sense, because if it were literally the case that there were no tradeoffs, then there'd literally be no reason not to wear one at all times.
That's the reductio proof I'm trying to illustrate.
I totally agree. "Cyclists without helmets triple their chance of death by head injury" https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2012/10/15/cyclists_without...
Look at it in terms of effect on life expectancty.
The risk of death from 1 hour of cycling reduces life expectancy by about 24 minutes. Wearing a helmet probably changes this by a couple of minutes.
- http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safe...
- https://nwurban.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/cyclings-impact-on-...
1 additional hour of sitting and watching TV in the evening, in an already sedentary life, probably has a similar effect on life expectancy.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/get-up-get-out-dont...
The exercise you get from that same session of cycling for 1 hour INCREASES life expectancy from 3-9 hours.
- http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2013/03/minutes-exercise-longer...
- WHO study, http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/exercise-l...
Statistics don't work that way. Applying an aggregate metric (life expectancy) to an individual is what gets you statements like "Babe Ruth and I hit a combined 714 home runs", or beliefs like colonial Americans all dying by age 30 (they didn't; the average is heavily skewed due to child mortality).
Wearing a helmet doesn't increase the number of minutes of your life like you're winding a clock or something. It decreases the probability that you're dead by 40 from a preventable tragedy, leaving your parents without a child and your family without a parent.
I'm not sure it is appropriate to think about helmet use as having a bearing on life expectancy. The data on helmet accident avoidance is terrible. i.e. we have no idea what the severity of an accident "would have been" because that kind of data is never reported. Anecdotally, I've needed my helmet many times, but never reported its use to anyone.
you could theoretically look at the injury rate for non-helmeted people, but, again, you don't know how representative that rate is of the population. You are assuming that the non-helmeted accident statistics sample is representative of the cycling population. I am not sure that is true.
Almost everyone in the Netherlands is driving without. Should give a good comparative analysis.
Well, That is a very interesting example of why we can't compare populations. Many posts on HN have highlighted just how cycling-savvy the Dutch are both as cyclists and as motorists. Arguably, a Netherlands specific comparison would tell us something about whether helmets improved outcomes, but they wouldn't necessarily tell us anything about the rate, because falls may be less likely in the first place.
Not really. Cycling is everpresent in the Netherlands (at least in Amsterdam); drivers are very aware of cyclists. Not at all true in the States.
Got hit by a car banged my head on asphalt 1986 then wore a helmet all the time every time and never ever ever ever needed it again.. 30 years of riding. now I take my helmet off when I am on a trail but wear it on the street because of the iphone babies.
Your interpretation of these data is misleading at best and dangerously misleading at worst.
>The risk of death from 1 hour of cycling reduces life expectancy by about 24 minutes. Wearing a helmet probably changes this by a couple of minutes.
This data does not take road conditions into account. Most cyclists prefer to bike on roads with very few cars on them. For example the road outside my apartment, a two-lane road outside of town by a lake with no services, is always packed with cyclists. The boulevard connecting my road to the train station, however, is heavily car-trafficked and has almost no cyclists. It is wrong to apply data from cyclists on the first road to those biking on the second.
>1 additional hour of sitting and watching TV in the evening, in an already sedentary life, probably has a similar effect on life expectancy. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/get-up-get-out-dont....
This is double-counting. If you count sitting as a detriment, you can't turn around and count biking as an increment. There has to be a default from which to decrement or increment.
>[first link]>Every Minute Of Exercise Could Lengthen Your Life Seven Minutes
>[second link]>In fact, exercise was a bigger factor than body weight in many cases. People who were normal weight but were inactive actually lived an average of 3.1 fewer years than obese people who kept up high levels of activity.
This is an unjustified assumption of linear behavior. It's possible (likely IMO) that the first couple hours of exercise make a big difference coming from inactivity, but additional exercise on top of this likely has a smaller impact. The data only strongly indicate that cycling will have such a large impact on life expectancy if you already get very little exercise -- less than 2.5 hours/week of brisk walking. It is hard to believe, for example, that biking for 4 hours per day would increase life expectancy by 13 years -- there are practically no interventions known to have such a large effect!
> "Cyclists without helmets triple their chance of death by head injury"
Nope. The correct interpretation is 'cyclists without helmets who get into a serious crash triple their chance of death by head injury'. The study doesn't look at cyclists who don't crash. This is important, because you can't assume that all cyclists have an equally likely chance of having a serious crash. I'm going to be riding with a helmet on regardless of the law, but by making helmets mandatory, you kill off so much transport and utility cycling which was at low risk levels.
> The study also cites Victoria, Australia, as an example of successful legislation. Helmet use in the city increased from 31 per cent to 75 per cent after the introduction of mandatory helmet legislation, and cycling fatalities decreased by 48 per cent.
Yes, but a major reason for those reductions are because people stopped cycling after the introduction of those laws. See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1194.html - "In 1985-6, 3.4 per cent of trips in Melbourne were by bicycle. In 2004 this was only 2.0 per cent, suggesting that cycling was still much reduced compared with before the helmet law". Trauma surgeons are happy, public health experts are not.
I would suspect that "$PEOPLE without helmets triple their chance of death by head injury". I also suspect that there are more car drivers with head injuries than cyclists, because there are much more car drivers to begin with. Should you wear a helmet in a car? Should you wear a helmet as a pedestrian?
After five minutes of googling, I sadly did not find any relevant statistics.
Causation/correlation. The population of cyclists who ride without a helmet is unlikely to be the same as the population who rides with one.
Pedestrians without helmets triple their chance of death by head injury. Car drivers without helmets triple their chance of death by head injury. Bather without helmets triple their chance of death by head injury. And so on.
Most people here seems to miss the point. If you tell people to wear an helmet to cycle, they won't cycle.
The assumption is that wearing a helmet somehow reduces the odds of exercise. Just keep your helmet with your bike, and you'll never forget it.
I've been cycling to work for years, which which has varied from 10 miles one way, to 1 mile. I always wear my helmet, and in all these years an many thousands of bike miles, it only been "useful" once. A drainage grate was covered over with leaves, I didn't see it, my front wheel fell in, fork snapped off, and I flew over the handlebars, headfirst into the curb. My helmet split in two and I had a massive head bruise, but had I not been wearing it, I'd be dead.
> wearing a helmet somehow reduces the odds of exercise
Helmet paranoia DOES reduce the odds of exercise. On a group level, at the level of public health, that's PRECISELY what it does. I encourage you to read about it, that's why they call it the helmet paradox. This piece is a nice summary.
http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets
Bike helmets protect our heads, but they also do the following:
1. increase your chances of getting in an accident
2. discourage cycling
Here's what to do:
1. If you want to be healthy, ride a bike instead of driving.
2. If you want to be even healthier, consider maybe putting on a helmet, but be mindful it doesn't increase your risk-taking behavior.
I choose option 2, but option 1 is also great.
It sounds like you're not informed.
https://www.vox.com/2014/5/16/5720762/stop-forcing-people-to...
> Helmet proponents are right about one thing: If you're in a serious accident, then wearing a helmet makes the odds of a head injury significantly lower — by somewhere between 15 and 40 percent. (This is why ER doctors and brain surgeons are so pro-helmet — they've seen firsthand what happens in helmet-less accidents.)
So this is why most of us wear a helmet. The logic is not "so few people get in accidents that if I wear a helmet it is likely to be overkill!". The logic is "if I get in an accident I will be very glad I am wearing this."
Generally, you prepare for the worst, not hope that you are on (typo) the right side of statistics.
For this reason, I wear a helmet. But the health benefits of cycling vastly swamp the risk of death, so the helmet gain is only a small marginal difference.
The person who is truly taking a risk is the person who doesn't ride a bike because of the perception that it's dangerous, and continues to be sedentary and drive a car to work. This person is literally reducing their life expectancy by years. (See links I posted elsewhere in the thread.)
You need to be able to think about conditional probability.
> so the helmet gain is only a small marginal difference
This is such, such flawed logic. If you are a cyclist getting hit by a car, the averages and statistics don't matter at all. If you are the cyclist getting hit by a car, the helmet is not a "marginal difference". Your protective gear matters. You need to consider the individual cyclist when you are making sweeping statements about the usage of protective gear.
If I were not wearing a helmet routinely I'd be so paranoid about getting hit/falling/some injury that there would be no health benefits at all. Wearing a helmet is comfortable, relatively in expensive and life saving. There is really no argument to be made to not have one on your head. I can't believe you are needing to even make a pro-helmet case at all here.
Arguments:
1. Wearing makes you less cautious
2. Car drivers think ‘you’re protected’ thus make larger risks
3. Helmets are inconvenient to carry around at your destination
4. It hampers the development of saver bicycle road situations, since ‘the cyclists are already protected’
I’m dutch, driving without a helmet since forever (started at 2 years old). Most serious accidents on the road that I know of are broken colar bones, broken hips and broken wrists. You really need a strange fall the land on your head. I guess with a head-on collision perhaps?
Wearing safety gear should never be a crutch to lean on for you to practice unsafe acts. A helmet is there should anything go wrong and you should always be riding as cautiously and defensibly as possible.
If a helmet is inconvenient to carry around then certainly the bag full of clothes, shoes, gloves is also inconvenient but none of that should prevent you from biking.
> It hampers the development of saver bicycle road situations, since ‘the cyclists are already protected’
This honestly sounds like very faulty logic. It's like saying there's no need for stop lights because drivers are wearing seatbelts. They'll be ok.
I've fallen sideways on ice several times. Once hitting my head. I would never want to hit my skull on concrete from a ~5 ft fall because not wearing a helmet is slightly more convenient.
The classic bike/head injury is riding into a crack (or grating) that grabs the front tire and stops the bike, hurling the rider over the handlebars and hammering them headfirst into the ground.
Been there, done that. Catch yourself on your hands/elbows. If you can’t, then perhaps you should go slower over such terrain. We dutchies coast on average around 20 km/h (12.5 mph). Anyone going above 30 is deemed “racing bicyclist” and they usually do wear helmets. They are a class on their own and are often hated by car drivers, since they think they have the road for themselves.
It sounds like your recommended safety practice is basically not to get hurt and if something does happen to have the strength to stop yourself form flying over the handles bars unexpectedly. This is not a good long term solution. Maybe if you're putzing around town that works ok but if you are ever riding in traffic or at speed this is a recipe for disaster.
So that's the difference. Anybody commuting in America is going as fast as practicable, and owns a road bike. Cruising is more like 32km/h(20mph). Since the average distance from home to work can be many miles, speed is paramount.
Also, any terrain in the US is 'such terrain'. There's little or no accommodation for bikes, and the roads (for cars) consider cracks of 1 inch or so as negligible. Also gratings by curbs (where bikes are expected to ride) often have slots of that size. There's a public-education effort to get gratings turned at right angles to traffic, but most traffic departments are disdainful of bikes.
Bit of a late reply. I find this difference so difficult to grasp. We use our bikes as a utility first and recreation second. Here the bicycles are generally sturdy, heavy, robust. They can take rain, wind, sand, dust for years with minimal maintenance. We don't go fast, but we arrive at our destination without gasping for a breath. Road bikes are seen as unpractical: the chains require weekly maintenance, sitting forward is more dangerous and gives you a bad overview of the road, they don't take rain well (rust) and they wear down relatively fast. Why use them for your commute? It doesn't make sense! It's like taking a sports-car to work every single day. It's fun the first day, but it gets boring, expensive and impractical rather quickly.
Examples: https://www.batavus.nl/stadsfietsen
...because you're going 20 miles, and can't take 2 hours to get to work?
As a gating item to riding at all, its arguably a negative influence on public health. Since otherwise exercise-leaning people might not do it if they couldn't work the helmet into their schedule (have it at all; carry it with them all day)
If you are a cyclist getting hit by a car, a helmet is not designed to help you.
> If you are a cyclist getting hit by a car, the averages and statistics don't matter at all.
But helmet design standards do. A helmet meeting the CPSC standards isn't designed to protect you in impact with a motor vehicle.
Think about what you're saying. You'd rather it be your skull to get hit directly. Why?
If car seat belts were designed and tested in frontal impacts at up to 20 mph, then would you believe that they would make a difference when traveling at 60 mph?
Because you're basically saying that bike helmets would make a difference in a collision scenario where the impact force would far exceed their design and impact testing standards.
Yes, absolutely I'd rather be wearing a seat belt designed to to a 20 mph spec in a 60 mph crash than no seat belt at all. I'd take anything at all to slow down my body/brain from coming to a complete stop.
The sudden stopping is what kills. If the only thing slowing down my brain is my skull then that is worst case scenario, unless of course, my skull shatters, then I guess my brain slows down at a more acceptable rate as it spills onto the road.
I'll take anything at all between my brain and a hard object trying to rapidly impart some force unto it. A helmet does this very well.
> I'd take anything at all to slow down my body/brain from coming to a complete stop.
Except that in this case, the belt just comes off its anchor points and doesn't slow you down at all. Just like a bridge rated for a 10,000 lbs load will collapse when a fully loaded 80,000 lbs tractor trailer drives over it.
If something is going to work, then it had to be designed and tested for it. You can't simply believe it's going to work in situations that it wasn't designed and/or tested for.
Let's say you're on the 10th story of a burning building and the fire department is below telling you to jump. They have one of those cartoon sheets to catch you but it's only rated to catch people falling from the 5th story. If you jump you'll hit the sheet at 40 mph but break through it and hit the ground at 10 mph. Do you shout at them to take the sheet away because you want to hit the ground at the full 40 mph because the sheet won't do enough good?
Edit: and just to address this specifically
> Except that in this case, the belt just comes off its anchor points and doesn't slow you down at all.
This is not true because the energy that went into breaking that anchor point is energy your body is no longer carrying. The belt did slow you down and even in breaking could still have saved your life.
> The person who is truly taking a risk is the person who doesn't ride a bike
No, that is not what "risk" means. Sedentary people can still be fairly certain that they will die when they are over 60, even if it's a few years earlier than they would if they were active.
A cyclist without a helmet has a much greater chance of dying an an unpredictable time. That is what "risk" means.
Lots of ordinary activities present a similar or greater risk of head injury than cycling. Do you wear a helmet to get into the bathtub? Do you wear a helmet to climb the stairs?
The problem with the helmet debate isn't that it's wrong, but that it's irrelevant. Every minute spent arguing about helmets is a minute that isn't spent making the most important point - cyclists live longer than non-cyclists, regardless of whether they wear a helmet. Wear a helmet, don't wear a helmet, it doesn't really matter. TO AVOID A PREMATURE DEATH, MOVE YOUR BODY.
> The logic is not "so few people get in accidents that if I wear a helmet it is likely to be overkill!". The logic is "if I get in an accident I will be very glad I am wearing this."
You could use the same logic to justify extreme defenses against all kinds of rare-but-deadly events. You should be wearing a helmet in your car to protect against accidents in which your head hits the side window. You should be carrying a rifle to fight off wildlife every time you go for a hike. You definitely shouldn't be crossing any streets in auto-heavy cities. (And we could go on and on and on like this. There's no reason to even leave your house! Better to get everything delivered and not risk contact with the world at all!)
Everything is a tradeoff. There are no absolutes. Just tradeoffs.
> (This is why ER doctors and brain surgeons are so pro-helmet — they've seen firsthand what happens in helmet-less accidents.)
Except for the fact that the CPSC (Consumer Products Safety Commission) impact testing standards for bicycle helmets only test for impacts for a guided free fall drop from a height of 6.5 feet. That's the equivalent of someone falling over while doing a track-stand on the bicycle.
If you're going 25 mph and hit the ground, the helmet won't protect from an impact it wasn't designed or tested for.
The second problem is that helmets won't protect you from forces that lead to concussive type injuries.
If you really want adequate head protection, then you need to wear a motorcycle helmet.
Such a bummer -- the rest of the post was so good. It's really easy to say "I've never had an accident" and "don't worry about not wearing a helmet".
this is like saying you can keep drinking whiskey after quiting smoking because your life expectancy is greatly increased. these things are additive, not either/ors.
Actually not wearing a helmet is very clever advice. In the Netherlands almost nobody wears a helmet and yet it is one of the safest places to cycle. In fact we all tend to overcompensate safety with more risky behaviour. A car is basically a 1.5t full body steel armor. And then we go and drive at speeds far beyond of what this armor can protect us from. If you'd remove the body work and make it a buggy, people would drive a lot slower.
Personal anecdote: I bought a helmet a few years ago. While it was still in delivery I came into a situation where I was not sure what a car was doing and I caught myself thinking: "with a helmet I'd not braked" - but rather taken the risk.
Thus I have never worn it and it is sitting there collecting dust.
Another abstract example: no country is more obsessed with "low carb" and "low fat" than the US. Yet no other country produces more plus sized people than the US.
Yet another example is Michael Schumacher. Without the helmet he may not have taken the risk to go into unknown terrain.
I feel vulnerable without a helmet and that keeps me alive.
This is heavily disputed. I suggest you read both sides of the argument and say something constructive.
Citation needed.
(FWIW, I always use a helmet except when I use shared bikes, which is rare, only a few times a year. I get on one of my own bikes, helmeted, hundreds of times a year.)
I really don't need to cite anything to tell you that if you get in an accident you are better off wearing more protective gear. I don't care that very few cyclists get in bad accidents compared to walkers and joggers. I care that if I am in an accident, my brain doesn't become a smear on the pavement.
You're assuming that accidents are equally likely with and without helmets and ignoring OP's point that, on balance, you're better off biking without a helmet than not biking at all.
You might actually be right here. I do not know. Either way, don't expect "I really don't need to cite anything" to convince anybody serious.
Don't understand why this has been downvoted. The research behind helmets is exactly why in The Netherlands helmets aren't mandatory. For one, they reduce the amount of people who cycle. Thus they take a car with higher speed, etc. Secondly, wearing a helmet causes cars to be less risk adverse when interacting with you. Lastly, most helmets are utter crap. They tested various and the majority sold in shops are of very poor quality (don't help at all).
Strangely, in Denmark most cyclists do wear a helmet. To me it's very inconvenient. E.g. where to store the damn thing when going anywhere?
I think it's better to concentrate on educating riders on bike handling skills and skills they need when riding in traffic rather than concentrate on helmet use to the exclusion of all else.
>>>If you don't wear a helmet, don't worry about it, it doesn't mitigate that much risk. The exercise benefits of biking do way more to increase your life expectancy than skipping a helmet does to reduce it.
I'd read somewhere that up until some fairly high speed (40 kph?) that a helmet doesn't measurably lower the risk of injury. (Citations, pro or con, welcome!)
And as the Vox piece points out, merely wearing a helmet induces drivers to reduce their caution, making the need for a helmet something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I still wear my helmet when I commute or do longer rides but I'm beginning to put my toe in the water by going helmetless for short trips to lunch, the nearby park, etc. It may be my self-awareness about going sans helmet talking, but I'd almost swear that when I ride 'au naturel' drivers make more eye contact and generally seem to acknowledge my presence more than when I'm fully kitted out.
Also: Schwalbe Marathons are the shiznitz. I have 42-622 Marathon Supremes on my new urban bike, and they grip like ... something really sticky ... and are like pillows, to boot (esp. coming off 25-622 road tires). More dough, but worth it for me. Zero flats in over two years, btw.
(me: occasional bike commuter here in West LA for about eight years)
Second vote for the Schwalbe Marathons. I got fed up with fixing a flat once a month when I lived in Pittsburgh and biked everywhere. Replaced my tires with Marathons and had to replace the tires for wear after a couple thousand miles before I patched another flat.
> If you don't wear a helmet, don't worry about it, it doesn't mitigate that much risk. The exercise benefits of biking do way more to increase your life expectancy than skipping a helmet does to reduce it.
What a bizarre contrast. If I'm inferring your point correctly, you're addressing those who would otherwise ride a bike to work but don't because of a helmet requirement? Is literally anyone in that position?
I get that biking + no helmet > no biking, but why is that relevant? Anyone commuting to work should have a plan to deal with a helmet, it's such a trivial thing to plan for and deal with compared to maintaining your bike, having parking for it, arranging showers, etc.
For the one off scenario where you don't have your helmet on hand, then it's more of an interesting question: "should I chance it and ride the bike without a helmet this one time?" But in that case, your statistics about life expectancy aren't going to be relevant in the health case; one bike ride is not going to make you more fit or not, but it's very relevant in the chances of getting hit by a car case.
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/04/how-effective...
Key point for this discussion: "In 1993, New South Wales, Australia, commissioned a study to see if a new helmet law for children was increasing helmet uptake. It did—but the researchers also found 30 percent fewer children were riding to school. In New Zealand, where helmet compulsion was introduced in 1994, the number of overall bike trips fell 51 percent between 1989–90 and 2003–6, according to one research paper."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/do-bi...
"Meanwhile, it seems that bicyclists wearing helmets may encourage riskier driving by motorists."
Just to be clear, I'm not advocating against wearing a helmet if you DO commute on a bike. As someone who fifteen years ago cracked a helmet instead of his head after falling on some jagged pavement, I appreciate what a helmet can do for you. And there may be statistical support for wearing a bike helmet as well:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/22/bicycle...
However, I think the OP's basic point holds. Being sedentary is a greater health risk than riding without a helmet.
> Anyone commuting to work should have a plan to deal with a helmet, it's such a trivial thing to plan for and deal with compared to maintaining your bike, having parking for it, arranging showers, etc.
There are whole countries, like the Netherlands and Germany, where that simply doesn't happen. In fact, biking is much simpler in those countries, they don't even bother with showers (instead they bike more slowly).
Correct, besides that we also don't wear helmets. Note however that our road infrastructure is very different from most of the other countries.
Getting hit by a car is not something we worry much about. Besides the bike friendly roads, chauffeurs are used watching out for bycicles.
Then there's special laws where a car hitting a bycicle is always wrong. The reasoning behind that is that a byciclist is much more fragile. This also makes car drivers more careful.
Yes, but it does demonstrate show that armoring up bike riders isn’t the only sane option (we could improve our bike infrastructure and give them more priority).
Yep, there are more ways as just one correct way. I doubt that armoring up would ever work down here. There are of course fatal casualities, but they are rare.
Riding a bicycle is embedded into our culture, another example is the dutch reach [0].
[0] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/the-dutch-reach-how-o...
This’ll sound vain - because it mostly is - but some folks really care about their hair and may have it in an aesthetic construct that helmet-wearing will obliterate.
For those folks, wearing a helmet is anathema.
Personally I recommend simply not riding in this situation, because helmets save lives. But I’m not everybody.
> For the one off scenario where you don't have your helmet on hand, then it's more of an interesting question: "should I chance it and ride the bike without a helmet this one time?"
This is the issue right here. Habits matter, and getting out of a habit can destroy the habit entirely. If the argument is "always wear a helmet" and you cancel rides because of that requirement, I would think you are much more likely to fall out of the habit of riding. If you can continue to ride when you don't have a helmet, you keep that habit going, and next time, you're likely to have the helmet again, and keep accruing the benefits.
I once crashed head-first at 20 mph into hard asphalt. Point of impact was at my right frontal lobe. My helmet cracked. If I wasn't wearing one I'm sure it would have been my skull instead.
Having seen a cyclist without a helmet killed in a similar accident, I can guarantee you would have been dead.
Oof, I'll chime in here. My helmet has saved me from two head injuries I'm so glad and grateful I didn't have to endure with my skull alone. I suspect I'd have some terrible scars and possibly some concussion damage if I took your advice.
I treat helmet safety like I do gun safety. ALWAYS TREAT A GUN AS IF ITS LOADED. If you don't, you behave differently around it always. And that's how people accidentally shoot their friends or themselves (even cleaning their gun). If you choose to not compromise on fundamentals like that, you are positioning yourself and others for less risk from the get go.
Thankfully I applied the same ALWAYS mentality to wearing a helmet for my biking commute. I was obeying traffic laws when a pickup truck turned into me while I was traveling through a green light. I had right of way and he wasn't paying attention and clipped me fairly hard. I tried to break and skid about 10 feet as he turned into me. I ended up in the hospital with a severe concussion and a terrifying 6 hours for my wife as she sat next to me. Praying that my lost memory would recover as the concussion wore off. I was initially forgetful of us having been married for less than a year. Eventually I started remembering things again, quite a scary moment for us.
Funny thing was I was riding to visit a friend who was just a few blocks away. He had recently criticised me for wearing a helmet to go less than a mile to visit him.
Fast forward a year and finally getting the nerve to ride again. My first trip out and a teenager blows through a stop sign without looking and almost hits me. In broad daylight, flashing lights on my bike and all.
There is an inherit risk in riding my bike to work. And a helmet may not provide a meaningful mitigation of risk. (I've never bothered to look up statistics, maybe you have?) However, I can control just a few variables to ride or not, ride defensively or not, and wear protective gear or not. I certainly have no control of the motor vehicles drivers or their distractions. So I choose the variables that I can control without losing the joy of commuting as a cyclist.
do not turn on your light to flashing at night. It distracts oncoming traffic and makes it more difficult for them to judge you speed and distance. Flashing lights should only be used during the day time https://www.bikelightdatabase.com/faq/ https://averagejoecyclist.com/use-flashing-bike-lights/
Good advice all around until that last point.
While any individual might personally engage in risky behavior, it's not correct to make a blanket recommendation. As the number of people who follow risky advice increases, the chance of someone being negatively impacted approaches 100%.
This is why we have public policy to force seatbelts in cars, and why everybody should vote in elections - behaviors adopted on a wide scale can have significant societal impact even though the benefit to the individual is insignificant.
Reasonable except for the helmet part. Anecdotal: I've gone through two smashed helmets. One due to taxi vs. cyclist and another when bicycle lowsided on wet leaves at a walking pace. Both times the helmet absorbed significant damage.
Helmets are a layer in defense. It's not a perfect shield and will not help in catastrophic situations. However in the more likely situation, the helmet does help.
Current cycling helmets are well ventilated and lightweight.
We should be providing information about the risks and rewards. It's up to the cyclist to decide how they want to proceed.
Me: 32km (20mi) each way, slicing through the Tokyo metro area.
I cycle around 3 times the distance he does daily to and from work in London. I've been doing this for 5 years. It's probably fair to say I take more days off than he does though (I leave the bike at home if going for a drink).
I suppose the same could be said for any form of regular exercise, but it makes such an improvement to how I feel when I get to work, and my general well-being. The pollution in London has always been a bit of a concern, however I hope the exercise outweighs this for the most part. I save around £8 a day by not taking the train.
I wish more people would give it a go. More people riding would result in better and safer infrastructure here. I do however, regularly see people get knocked off bikes and can understand the perceived risk and reluctance from others to try it. I'm envious of cities such as Copenhagen with great safe infrastructure, and where riding is the norm.
I live in London and I'd love to cycle to work, but the infrastructure (for my route) just isn't there. And for people who aren't experienced cyclists, it is even worse as lack of confidence actually leads to more accidents.
Maybe try it? Once I started cycling in London there was no looking back, even if I had to be on busy roads. Many residential roads in London are very quiet during the day so there may be a windy circuitous route that is very pleasant to be on. Or a busy direct route that is not as bad as you think. When theres a proper cycle lane that's nice but it is by no means vital.
I was pleasantly surprised by how nice the route to work a cycling route planner gave me in London was. There are less nice parts at the beginning and end (as I get onto and off the cycle-friendly streets), but the majority of the route (some on Q2, some on quiet 20mph roads with no specific cycling provision) is not bad.
https://www.cyclestreets.net/ is one such planner that may have bike only shorcuts that aren't marked on other map sources (it's based on OpenStreetMap and feeds cycle specific data back I believe).
Absolutely true. Once you're confident, you realise how to get good infrastructure anywhere: share the road with motor vehicles if the dedicated infrastructure sucks.
Sure, some people will hate you for that, but I prefer disliked over smeared onto pavement any time of the day.
I cycle commute in London every day and you don't need dedicated cycling infrastructure. It's great to use if it's there but otherwise you make do. Rather than trying to take the most direct route, I cut through small laneways and alleys and ride through a couple of parks. Get on a bike and start exploring. There's nothing more soul crushing than London's public transport during peak hour.
BRouter might find you a better route
http://brouter.de/brouter-web/#zoom=13&lat=51.5097&lon=-0.12...
Yet you have quite some cyclists that ride in crazy traffic among double deckers and fast cars. Most of them wear neon yellow clothing. Is it required by law?
I have a face mask (Respro City) that filters out a good part of the particulates. Those are of course only part of the pollution and the mask does look a bit silly.
I'm quite an anxious person and even just the thought of cycling in London puts me off it.
I've looked at the route map and most of it is on incredibly busy roads, including Henleys Corner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henlys_Corner) one of the busiest junctions.
I've always used a bike to go to work, but now I'm in Mexico City. Too many cars, too much air pollution. Cycling here is bad for your health.
The public bicycle sharing system is really good and cheap. Some parts of the city are bike friendly. But the air quality is just so bad. The trucks that spew black smoke continuously. The buses that have never been controlled in 50 years. The SUVs traveling at 100 km/h on the lanes reserved for buses and bicycles. All the cars idling and honking in traffic after 6PM. It's really depressing. This city would be such a beautiful city without all those cars and trucks.
Refs:
- air quality: https://air.plumelabs.com/en/year/mexico
- ecoBici: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EcoBici_(Mexico_City)
- "Car ban fails to curb air pollution in Mexico City" http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38840076
You're exposed to more pollution sitting in a car in traffic than you are cycling through it in the open.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-4599572/Avoi...
Breathing hard on a bike when pushing it is really nasty when the air is bad. Sucking in a chest full of exhaust fumes is horrible.
Unless you're saying Mexico City is worse than Beijing, you could go for two hours no problem: https://3kpnuxym9k04c8ilz2quku1czd-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/w...
Between where and where? A lot of the obvious routes are terrible, but you can go a long way in this city zigging where everyone else zags.
Avoid the bike lanes for the most part, though. You're probably in more danger in one of our bike lanes than out of one, due to all the morons blithely going the wrong way in them.
You're in Mexico City? So am I. Maybe we could connect sometime?
I commuted by bike (6km one way) in Tel Aviv, Israel and it was awesome. Great route, bike lanes/parks and a (tiny, but who cares) shower in the office. Did that for one year straight, just like the person in the article.
Now I'm living in Singapore, a city that has a traffic problem and tries to reduce the cars on the streets. You'd think they would welcome bikes, but riding a bike here sucks. Big time. It's basically unbearable.
There are no sidewalks to speak of on a lot of roads. Often the sidewalks are divided in two segments of different heights. Tables will be on the sidewalk, garbage bins will block it.
Riding on the road - the norm in my home country - is discouraged by every local I've met, both bike fans and car drivers. You can ride the bike in this city, sometimes, in some places. But it's a pain in the rear to use it for commutes and a very, very bad experience around the central part of Singapore. Park connectors/outward regions are fine, but the traffic infested center is no place for a bike, which is quite sad..
What I'm trying to say is: I agree that the article describes a great way to live, something I dearly miss. I believe that this isn't possible for a lot of people though, in spite of the benefits it would provide to them and their surroundings.
A lot of the cities in SE Asia weren't even planned with cars in mind, hence narrow roads and lack of space. And then you have these giant freeways springing up haphazardly that bottle necks into these tiny roads. THe result is slow moving traffic yet is just too dangerous for pedestrians, let alone cyclists. The locals rely on motorbikes when they want to beat traffic.
Yes, crazy motorbikes are certainly popular. But then, while they might be fun: They have nothing to do with the "I used my body to get to work" article.
I think we agree that this is a shitty idea in SG. Motorbikes might be fun and are certainly popular, but they're not related to the subject at hand.
Look up one of the Singapore cycling clubs. There are plenty (with lots of Australian and French members as well as locals).
There are some oddities to riding in Singapore, but once understood I found it a very enjoyable place to bike.
Ride where? I can easily find a nice "let's have a pick-nick" route for me and the gf.
But I'm comparing this city to the article, to the idea of commuting to work. My work is in the central district of SG. I _cannot_ ride there without cursing. I actually did find a couple shortcuts and ways etc, but still: It's a PITA. No bike lanes. Shitty sidewalks. There's no way to ignore these issues.
Singapore has nice places to bike. Not in CBD.
Biking in Singapore's humid heat does not sound pleasant at all.
It's actually really nice to bike in Singapore, provided you can shower at work.
I cycled every day for a month along a mix of park connectors (cycle paths) and two and three lane roads.
I only had one close pass from a car because on nearly all roads they have a whole extra lane to use to pass you in so if you ride assertively (in the middle of a lane) they just go around you.
And the park connectors are beautiful, fast tarmac with no cars at all. With some creativity you can link them up to create a great commute to most places. My route home went past a Riverside pub - I was on segregated cycle lanes the rest of the way home so I could easily stop for a beer with little risk.
You do usually arrive soaking wet from sweat or the rain. But that's a minor inconvenience compared to being cold! Biking in Singapore is warm, fast, and safe - much better than most places I've commuted.
NO its not...I grew up here and lived and worked abroad in in UK and US for a few years so I can attest to the difference weather makes...especially the humidity. (I cycled in both here and abroad.)
And no one seemed to mention...two wheeled transport is great, until it rains. And if you have never been to Singapore, Malaysia or the tropics you haven't seen real rain yet.
BTW...in SE Asia, the two wheeled transport of choice is the motorbike. The roads (and motorists attitudes) weren't designed for LOW speed traffic.
Singapore is pretty light on motorbikes compared to places like Hanoi.
I cycle year round in London and would rather cycle commute in Singapore. Once you are acclimatised to the humidity it's not that big a deal, and it's always similar so it's easy to plan for.
You do have to pull off the road to wait out a real tropical rain storm... but so do motorbikes. That's why they have shelters for then under the today bridges.
All these places are ace compared to most US cities, though.
Biking in Singapore is
- warm: Sure, no argument here. Very warm..
- fast: No. Maybe. Let's hope that you don't ignore traffic lights: There are so many places that don't even care about bikes (underpasses/overpasses exist, but are hard to reach or less friendly to bikes by requiring you to ... wait for an elevator). You can understand the layout of the city, start riding and you will end up stranded. You will need to backtrack. The city hates bikes.
- safe: Yeah ... No. Singapore is not insane, but it's crazy enough. People don't understand turning signals. Drivers instead like to push into the direction they want to go, expecting everyone around them to follow along. This is, with no pun, in traffic terms a Little India.
I personally am fine to drive a bike here and being a nuisance, but most people don't do that. Literally everyone on the road is an asshole, some of these assholes drive Ferrari, Maserati, Lamborghini or whatnot. You do NOT want to scratch those stupid idiot's cars with your bike.
Traffic in Singapore is a huge and utter mess. Do not ride a bike here unless you're convinced that it's a good idea...
Ignoring that I don't have showers at work - some oversight that I dearly miss: I believe that you're not correct.
I cannot get to work via park connectors. Actually I probably have the 'best' way to work already: I'm already in CBD and the distance is small. But .. the city is not ready for bikes. Not at all. There are no bike lanes around my place. The one I found was about 200m long (yay!!) and used by pedestrians exclusively, every time I came there (yay!!!! I can try to ring my bell or push them over. That will help the bicycle community!).
Singapore is a great place. Singapore for bicycles sucks. Do not ride bikes here. Singapore doesn't care, they are not prepared and in general they offer no place to ride safely.
Totally feel you! I tried taking Ofos from Boat Quay to Chinatown and it‘s just not working at all. This city is not designed for bikes.
I'm glad you agree, but from Boat Quay to Chinatown (I live close to the latter) is walking distance. I can make that in 8∓2 minutes on foot.
Yes, I love biking as well. That's just an example of something very, very, very close already :)
Another bonus for bicycling/walking is very predictable arrival time as no traffic jams, public transportation issues etc impact them.
Agreed but only up to a point. I can easily spend 5 minutes in the queue for the lights near my flat (a lot of buses and lorries on that road so I can't always lane split safely), and I was delayed much longer once because police had closed the road after a collision.
Turning round at a road closure is much easier for a cyclist and often they can be very quickly bypassed by becoming a pedestrian and walking your bike via an alternative route.
You don't have separate bicycle paths (and traffic lights) where you are ?
Most of my commute is along more cycle-friendly routes (not separate paths, but quiet roads) but I've got a "last mile" at both ends (from home onto the route and from the route to work) that runs across quite busy main roads, since ultimately I live on one of those.
Just walk the bike for that portion of your commute?
Could do, but the stop-start vehicle traffic is still faster than walking.
I don't whatsoever. I live 4 miles from the office, and I take about 14 back roads to get to it. I still have to cross 3 major roads without a light or anything to help me. San Jose is not bike friendly at all.
I bike to work about 50% of the time. I live in San Jose where traffic is very heavy. I have to cross three roads without a light, and how long that takes really varies a lot. Some days I can wait for up to 5 minutes per road, making my cycle commute just as variable as my drive commute.
As a counterbalance to all the positivity, I cycle to work and don't enjoy it or feel much benefit from it. In comparison, driving is so much more comfortable (especially in bad weather) and a bit quicker.
Driving is much less mentally taxing. It's nice to be able to just... drive down the road without constantly worrying about doors being open or cars pulling out from driveways/side streets without seeing you.
I've never been hit by a car and I want to keep it that way, so my eyes are constantly scanning everything.
That's not what driving is like in my city. When I drive, I continually worry about all the same things I worry about on my bike, plus it's harder to stop and check directions or take a break, because parking is so difficult around here.
Knowing how much danger I pose to everyone around me while operating a 2-ton overpowered steel death machine is incredibly nerve wracking, as opposed to being on my bicycle and only having to really worry about myself.
Actually, it really depends where you are cycling. In fact I don't enjoy cycling in the city, but as soon as you get out of the traffic you can relax your mind much better on the bicycle.
I rather enjoy my bicycle commute, but I agree, I don't arrive at work any more ready to tackle the day or productive/energetic than if I drive.
I prefer to bicycle, but I also love driving, and of course the car is always more comfortable.
knees.. they like you I think - your knees. I love my bike my knees dont
I live about the same distance from work as the writer, and I've been cycling to work since early October. I would have thought that such a short bike ride wouldn't have much of a health benefit, but I feel more energetic and my blood pressure is noticeably lower than it was a year ago.
When I ride my 3 miles to work, I don't need caffeine. I think any sustained exercise a couple times a day does help the fitness level.
I ride a little slow (not aggressive), because Boston traffic and I figure the quickest way to get to where I'm going doesn't involve a hospital trip.
I really enjoy it and it does improve my mood.
Short distances on a bicycle are actually healthier than longer distances. Long distance cyclists tend to have issues with losing bone and muscle density.
Speaking as a sometime ultra endurance participant I have to say this is misleading. Bone density loss only significantly affects those who practically live on their bikes, such as professional road racers. And even then it is easily attenuated by visiting the gym.
and don't forget, sitting for long periods are known to lead to prostatitis; specially if you have a poor saddle on your bicycle
What is a good/bad saddle?
One that fits your butt. Basically you want to have your weight on the sit bones, not the tissue in between. Seats come in different widths and shapes to accommodate different shaped butts.
Custom ones can be made after they scan your pelvic region. Essentially, there's a depressed, or cutout section in the middle with two pads in parallel which should support your bones as the other poster mentioned.
i don't know, i know i have a bad one, as after 15+ mins of cycling, when i get off the bicycle... can't describe it differently.. my balls sleep... and i can describe that that is not a pleasant feeling. e.g. 10 fold worse then a sleeping foot or leg.
You could always get a recumbent
Does the same apply to walking?
I also noticed I get sick less often in the winter when I ride my bike everyday.
I bike everyday to work in the South Bay, Silicon Valley area. Everyone I talk to here can't imagine life without a car, but I haven't had any issues; lots of bike paths here, and all groceries and the gym are just minutes away.
Sometimes when it rains I carpool, and I see how annoyed and irate most drivers get when commuting. So I don't regret not owning a car.
The downside is not being easily able to take day trips, so I still might buy one some day.
I also lived in the South Bay and found ZipCar and/or renting a car for day, weekend and even week long trips worked fine (which one is cheaper depends on your age and whether you can get a discount through your employer or whatever). There was enough "Neighborhood" rental places around to be easily accessible by bike. A weekend was on the order of $60-180, and so even doing this every weekend only adds up to $3k-9k per year.
Which freeways do you cross under/over? How do you do it safely?
I'd happily ride on trails or small streets (and have) , but most of the regular commute riders I know do ~30mi rt a day... most of them doing it more than 5 yearrs have been in an injury accident. Maybe cyclists talk about accidents more than divers, but the percentage certainly seems higher.
I live in SJ and work in Menlo Park.
My direct door-to-door commute is 19mi. Takes me about 50-55 minutes. None of it is on bike paths.
I take Foothill from the cupertino border all the way to menlo Park.
I can also go into cupertino and take the bike path to the edge of the 101 (close to the PA airport).
If you want to make it longer, you can take Stevens Canyon to Foothill. This makes the commute 30mi but also less traffic and much more challenging to ride.
I would say on average I commute to work about 3 days a week during the summer. I just don't like commuting back in the dark during the winter.
In terms of accidents, I've had none. I had 2 close calls over the course of 3 years. One was a complete jerk and one was due to the sun angle (something you need to be aware of as a cyclist too).
Bay Area is really awesome for riding to work. Foothill is busy but also gets a lot of rider traffic so drivers tend to be more patient.
I also find that a lot of it is up to you, some riders ride like the road belongs to them.
The bay area was a weird dichotomy to me. I used to live in Berkeley and work in Newark. I'd bart to Fremont, then cycle the last five miles. I got screamed at and swerved at by jerks in brodozers on a routine basis.
Once I was able to avoid the south bay life became far more pleasant.
There are multiple bike bridges/undercrossings across 237. 101 has bike bridges just south of 237, another in Palo Alto (which I use every day), and another up between Willow and Marsh roads in Menlo Park, then another in Belmont. There's also a 101 undercrossing that is seasonal, just south of the bike bridge in Palo Alto.
Those are just the areas I know.
It is truly an amazing place to ride. Generally flat, very nice weather. Even in the rain I don't mind the ride, but I have to wear waterproof shoes, and I bought waterproof pants and a jacket.
fremont ave., stevens creek trail, sunnyvale saratoga, homestead, and stevens creek blvd. are what I frequent most. I'm never on the road (going somewhere on my bike) for more than 25 minutes.
for safety, i guess i just try to follow the rules of the road (i'm not perfect though, coming from a background of not knowing how to drive).
I've never had an issue with general QoL while reading, people generally seem pretty considerate.
Same here, I've biked to work pretty much every day since I moved to South Bay (except for rainy days, I'm not hardcore).
I'm lucky because there is a nice trail that I can ride on for the majority of my ride. But it's a little sad that the South Bay has so many built-in advantages for bike commuting (good weather year-round, mostly flat) but so little good bike infrastructure.
At least these guys are trying: https://bikesiliconvalley.org/
Cycling to work is normal here in the Netherlands, especially in the cities.
Given a few times when I've been sick, I've ridden almost every day to work and back (8km), regardless of the weather (and the Dutch weather is famous for being rubbish).
I'm a cyclist at heart so really enjoy the daily commute along the canals, back streets and cycle paths of the city.
To be fair, even the nightclubs have cycle parking - and an attendant present too for security.
6km one-way isn't very remarkable here indeed, in terms of distance I would consider it a short bike ride. I'm cycling ~8km each day myself now, but I have colleagues who do ~15km one-way each day, which I would consider on the high end for a bike commute.
I agree with the sentiment of the article though, which is that cycling to work basically has only advantages if the weather is good. When it's raining or particularly windy I still take the car, but on all other days I greatly prefer cycling. No traffic, no problems finding a parking spot, it wakes you up in the morning, makes you hungry (in a good way), saves money, and for me it basically eliminates the need to allocate any extra time for additional exercise.
This is a huge plus -"basically eliminates the need to allocate any extra time for additional exercise."
I live too close to work for the ride to be any sort of exercise now (1 km). I certainly like the speed, but sometimes I miss when I had a 40km round trip commute (down the beach for 90% of it no less!). I could eat whatever I wanted and still be in great shape.
Of course, that was when I got hit by a car, and my ribs still ache some mornings 8 years later.
any using e bikes? I keep pondering it, it's ~20km for me to commute one way. Luckily there's bike path nearly the whole way, but seems on the edge of being practical. One advantage is there is no extra charge for taking a bike on a train if I end up with bike troubles.
"and the Dutch weather is famous for being rubbish"
http://itAlmostNeverRains.nl: 90% of rides is dry, 10% slightly or worse wet.
10% is a lot. That being said rain is just a matter of gear. I have waterproof overtrousers and a waterproof jacket and am fine.
I wish we had the bike culture in the US that exists elsewhere. Twice in my life I have regularly commuted to work a reasonable distance by bike and each time the habit was punctuated by being hit by a car. I feel safer walking than I do on a bike here.
I bike commuted 20 miles round trip in West Michigan for a time. I stopped because I was tired of getting coal-rolled and having fast food soda cups thrown at me from cars.
Bike commuting is great if you don't live near rednecks.
Or dbags in bmw's giving you punishment passes. Or people on their phones.
conclusion: what a lovely route, choosing to cycle it isn't even a decision, especially as the other options seems to take longer. The author is super lucky and I'm jealous. I cycle to work too, but in a busy city.
Totally agree - what a nice route to get to work. From what I could see, it looks like a lot of long, straight and - most importantly! - flat routes. Perfect for nice easy cycling.
I sometimes run to work, but never ever run home as in London it is downhill to get to the centre, but uphill to get back out to the suburbs :)
If I had a bike route to work, I'd take it over driving my car, even if the bike route takes longer and/or is further away. Mr. Money Mustache (https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-saf...) wrote that riding bike is equivalent to printing money, and he has calculated that riding one mile is equivalent to gaining 1350 seconds of life.
Unfortunately, I currently live in part of Florida where the roads are not designed for bikes. I once lived in the east of Bay Area, where it was so much more bike-able.
I cycle to work in a busy city too, but fortunately the city I live in has a lot of parks and my route goes straight through one. It's really nice, especially on summer mornings. Would highly recommend.
I would cycle to work if: i) the route was FLAT ii) the weather was DRY (no rain, sleet, snow)
You could consider an electric bike to deal with hills.
I used to have a standard 9-5 gig and then I'd work at a bike shop during the week nights and on the weekends. I started biking in after a co-worker suggested it.
I was pretty surprised. The ride was about 20-25 minutes, mainly through your standard US suburbs so not hard at all. I rode to work 3-4 times a week and then on Saturday or Sunday.
I didn't change anything in my routine except for biking. I lost about 8 pounds, my blood pressure dropped and my already healthy cholesterol levels dropped another 4 points. I had more energy when I got to the shop and then had more energy when I got home. I was more willing to work on various projects when I got home instead of plunking down in front of the tv after being exhausted from a long day at the shop.
I had more energy when I got to the shop and then had more energy when I got home.
I envy you people. I've been cycling to work for about six months now, and while I enjoy it and it probably does me good, I don't feel more energized. Exercise has always left me drained.
>There are about 250 work days in a year in Baden-Württemberg, excluding weekends and public holidays. Of those I was missing for 34 days for vacations, being sick and doing home office. On 11 days I used public transportation, on 5 days a car. That leaves 200 days on which I cycled to work.
Wish we had this here.
TBF, Germany is not an impossible place to get a work permit. They have the blue card as well, which is quite interesting.
That's an understatement :)
As a software engineer, the requirements are fairly trivial compared to pretty much every other developed nation in the world.
Those of you who want to cycle but live far away from work or in a hilly area, get an ebike. I really think they are the future of commuting.
A friend of mine recently got one, and she likes it a lot. Her commute is more than mine (nine miles over some of the hillier parts of Boston), so the electric assist makes it easier for her to get to work efficiently without excessive overheating.
That's me. 15.1 miles each way. Pretty flat (150 ft elevation change). Any recommendations for electric bikes at that range and use?
Assume an average speed of 15 mph will still take me an hour though...
I was hoping that someone more knowledgeable would answer this. I think they best community to look at is Endless Sphere[1] but you could also check out /r/ebikes[2] (although I warn you you that they are all about making DIY bikes that are unnecessarily powerful in my opinion.
Then there's electric bike review[3]. He's reviewed an incredible number of different bikes.
[1]https://endless-sphere.com/forums/ [2]https://www.reddit.com/r/ebikes/ [3]https://electricbikereview.com/
I have one and it is fantastic, I can dress for the destination as it's easy to ride without getting drenched in sweat. Also I'll take a pleasant or safer route even if it extends the journey. I'm usually doing 100+ miles a week on it.
The only downside is it does need more maintenance than my normal bike, chains only last for about 1200 miles for instance.
I did 24km one way in hilly terrain for a few months last year. The ebike was really a god send in that situation. Track is here: http://cyclehikemap.eu/view.php?id=95
I was thinking about an ebike to help battle the wind. I can manage the hills between my house and the office, but I never take my bicycle if the forecast projects 13 mph or higher wind. I hate the wind and it feels like I'm always riding into it.
Getting hit by a car within a year is an anomaly right? He brushed it off as his "only accident" like it's supposed to be more commonplace.
Yeah, I might have been unclear. I've been cycling for a few years before that and that was the first time I touched a car. The driver DID look straight at me though, seemingly noticing me, so I was really confused when she started speeding up anyway.
In my experience it is not necessarily safe to assume that someone looking straight at you implies that they have noticed you. People can be quite distracted by both the environment or the insides of their own heads.
Worse, some take eye contact as meaning you know they are there and are prepared to get out of the way of what-ever manoeuvre they are about to perform!
Before my latest office move (it is not so close that messing around with the shed and locking up the bike at work and changing clothes if needed in bad weather add up to more than cycling saves over walking at a brisk pace) I rode to work for years, 3.5 miles each way for the most part, and while I've had a few near misses (the worst being a bus that halfway through overtaking me decided to shuffle in nearly sandwiching me between the bus and the road-side railings) I've never actually been touched by another vehicle. I'm on city roads, though small city (York, UK) rather than somewhere even more hectic than London, but here I'd say cycling to work is no less safe than walking.
The driver DID look straight at me though, seemingly noticing me
Probably saccadic masking https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccadic_masking
I cycled every day for 7 years all over the San Francisco Bay Area without ever once being hit by a car or getting a door prize. I didn't run red lights and I maintained situational awareness at all times. And I was one of those guys who rode in the middle of the car lane even when a bicycle lane was available.
I also bike in the SFBA. I also drive there, too.
> I didn't run red lights
Thank you. As both a biker and a driver, I appreciate this. Too many bikers don't do this, and I've witnessed too many close calls for those that don't. I've been heckled by other bikers for stopping at red lights, so I know that sometimes this can be a pain to actually stick to.
It's the same as when driving a car. The real time savings of acting like a jerk is so small it's just not worth it.
Sure, but as a cyclist, you frequently have the ability to just slip by without obstructing anybody.
> And I was one of those guys who rode in the middle of the car lane even when a bicycle lane was available.
to avoid getting doored?
Wouldn't this slow the traffic.
I do this to "take the lane"; essentially, if I'm in the middle of a lane, there is some reason why I want that lane — usually my own safety due to some other hazard, or perhaps I'm going to make an upcoming left — and I want/need drivers near me to essentially give me the same respect they'd give a car.
Typically, the idea is that I would like drivers behind me to not pass me in the same lane that I'm in — that is, I'm trying to avoid having a driver do the typical half-assed job of passing by trying to squeeze their SUV in the same lane as me. (i.e., if you want to pass me, use another lane, not this one. If there isn't another lane: tough, I'll be out of your way ASAP — I don't like having a car behind me any more than a driver likes having a biker in front of them.)
> Wouldn't this slow the traffic.
Sometimes, yes. For me, most of the routes I take the car traffic moves at approximately the same speed or slower. If there's a huge speed difference and traffic is much faster, I'll usually avoid left turns and use a crosswalk to "turn", if I think that's safer. (Which has its own tradeoffs: one has to be very careful and ensure that drivers in the lane next to you are going to actually stop at the crosswalk before you enter it. Just because the light is red hardly means anything, and a lot of drivers will overshoot the stop line if they don't think anyone is going to be in the crosswalk when they do so.)
Yea I never understood how cyclists are expected to make left turns. If there is a bike lane is in the right corner, how and when are they supposed to get into left turn on only lane. I can't even imagine cyclist making yeild left on red, thats absurd amount of risk to take. Left on arrow are not very common, imagine trying to make a fast turn on your bike while a speeding car is coming right at you.
Only safe way to make a left turn is to get off the bike and do it like pedestrians.
You do it just like a car. Merge from the lane to the turn lane. Signal your move. Stop in the intersection if you need to yield. Take your time waiting for an appropriate gap, then turn left. Don’t worry about cars behind you, they would have to wait for their own gap anyway.
Behaving like a car as much as possible makes you more predictable, and keeps everyone out of trouble. I stop at red lights too.
This.
If traffic is light and not too fast, I just signal, merge into the turn lane, and turn as if I were a car. If it's a multi-lane road, that means "taking the lane" for a bit. I try to minimize that, but it happens.
If traffic is heavy or fast, I will signal, pull off to the side, and cross like a pedestrian.
Generally speaking, I try to be as "car-like" and predictable as possible.
Bright flashers even in the day time. Slowing and waiting for an opening to get over in the center or turn lane, and obviously signalling. It's best to get over when everyone is slowing or stopping for a red so you have more time and space to maneuver into the turn lane. If you make it obvious you're turning to a slow car behind you they serve as decent protection from any cars arriving at an intersection that might otherwise not see you. It feels dangerous at first but you get skilled at it the more you ride.
Personally, for bike lanes I love the protected turns I saw in Germany. A separated bike lane will cross an intersection with a dedicated light. On the far side of the intersection, there will be a fork in the path with another dedicated bike signal to cross the road you were parallel with. I'll see if I can find an example.
https://bikeeastbay.org/protectedintersection
https://bikeeastbay.org/sites/default/files/images/Alta%27s%...
There's also the "Copenhagen left". Which is, pull over to the _right_ into the crosswalk of the intersection where you want to go left. Wait for the light to change. (Google it for a picture.)
In Australia, we call this a "hook turn" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_turn . Cars must do it in a limited number of intersections to avoid blocking trams. Cyclists are allowed to make a hook turn in any intersection (unless signposted otherwise). Edit - in Australia we drive on the left side of the road - so it's opposite to Denmark / US / Most the rest of the world.
I'd argue it could be marginally safer to do it the way the other person suggested: like any other vehicle is supposed to, from the left turn lane.
If you think merging across lanes is scary, do it sooner. The more time you give yourself and the people around you to process the maneuver, the easier it gets.
One you know the road, you can even exit an earlier intersection in a way that makes you magically end up in the right lane to begin with.
Sure it slows traffic, but it's not really the bicyclist's fault if the bicycle lane is filled with unloading delivery trucks or the city planners made it too narrow.
Traffic in SF is rarely going faster than a bicycle.
Bicycles are traffic.
I've been biking for ~2 years, and I have had one very very close call, where I had to actually dodge a car, but I wasn't really in control of the situation. Scared the crap out of me, because I did not see him coming. I've had many other incidents where situational awareness let me see the idiot coming in advance enough that I was able to just easily avoid the collision.
(The close call I had was an idiot in lane 1, which was a straight/left lane, who decided to turn right. The only right turn lane is lane 4: he cut off a lane of traffic, the bike lane, and the right-turn only lane. I had to take the right "with" him, essentially, or I would have hit him, and I could feel the traction in my back tire slipping the entire time from the huge amount of braking I was begging for.)
Yes, it's an anomaly. I've been a recreational cyclist for many years, and commuted on and off for years when I lived about 12 miles from the office (close enough to walk now). I've never been hit by a car, but have had a few close calls. Almost all of those were at intersections, where I had the right of way, but a car didn't see me and decided to proceed.
Basically, if you are cycling on the road (and that includes bike lanes that aren't protected/separated), you have to assume cars don't see you. Ride defensively all the time. That will minimize accidents at intersections.
Nothing you can do about getting run down from behind (other than not ride a bicycle). But, that's rare.
I've been biking to work for a bit more than two years now. Same distance to work and not even any close calls with cars. I do ride quite carefully though and make very sure that they see me and stop before I ride out in front of one.
I always try and make eye contact with drivers at junctions which has worked well for me until a couple of weeks ago when someone looked straight at me then pulled out right in front of me. We didn't collide but it was very close.
Cycled to work, weather permitting, for last 3 years. Got hit (more like nudged, but enough to cause a fall) by a car twice - nothing major only because I know how to tumble & roll. It easily could have been much worse.
Been biking to work for 4 years now and never had a close call with a car, but I try to avoid roads as much as possible. Luckily there is a bike trail that goes roughly in the direction I need. That said, there is one section where riding with the traffic is unavoidable and I hate it. I especially hate one particular stoplight that is on a sensor and the sensor is not strong enough to pick up my bike.
I should point out that I ride in the suburbs and road traffic goes much faster than what I can sustain on a bike. Most roads are 35 or 45mph and hilly/curvy, so they are terrifying to cycle on.
I have been doing it for ~15 years, and hit 4 times. I'd say if anything it's more common in your first year or two before you gain the experience to be able to predict driver actions by subtle signals.
I have a short commute to work, only 2.2 miles each way, but I have been doing it for the last 2 years every workday, under any conditions. From the very beginning I told myself, no excuses. I also realized that if I wanted to stick to it, I would want to be comfortable and not miserable, so I bought gear for the rainy days and winter weather, and a nice backpack to carry everything I need. I live in a big city, so driving and parking is always a challenge... it's nice not to worry about it where to park and how bad is the traffic.
Let me make some Spanish propaganda. Riding a bike in Valencia is awesome, as there is a cheap bike sharing service (Valenbici) and lots of bike lanes. The city is flat, it never snows and it rains just a couple of weeks a year, making it perhaps the best bike city in Spain.
Great route! Maybe it isn't necessary in temperate climates, but the most important point is that he has showers at work. In tropical countries it is a must. If more workplaces had showers a lot more people would cycle to work.
I find that packing my clothes to change, toiletries, and then unpacking and trying to shower and change in the shared shower at work to be very time-consuming, and cuts I find that packing my clothes to change, toiletries, and then unpacking and trying to shower and change and we shared shower that were to be very time-consuming. Do you consider the time in the office while showering and changing as part of your workday, or do u work additional time To make up for it. And do you change back To bike clothes for ride home?
Showering and dressing at home is much quicker, saves at least 15 minutes a day.
It is a necessity if you live in a warm country. I wouldn't like to do pair programming with you if you didn't shower after cycling for 10 miles :-)
I would say it's necessary in all climates - in colder climates you wrap up warmer, which means the same amount of sweat. On shower availability - all the companies (big and small) that I've worked for in Glasgow and London have had showers and cycle parking.
I've only had a shower in one of the places I've worked in the last 15 years I've been biking to work. I think the need for a shower is a common misunderstanding. One thing that helps immensely is having an entirely separate, bike specific set of clothes to wear in, and then you can change in a bathroom or dark room if needed.
I live in Chicago (so freezing and very hot at times in the year) ride 11 miles (~18km) each way, almost every day. I keep a pair of shoes, and a towel at work. I take a shower before I leave in the morning, and put deodorant on when I get to work. I rarely need the towel unless it's very hot in the summer. I have a space over a heater I dry out my clothes away from other people. (If anything, having a place to store bike clothes is more important than a shower IMO). I considered that I might be immune to my own smell, but I've had people ask me things like "How come you don't smell bad after riding" and honest friends I've asked and been told no. (The same friends that will happily tell me my outfits look ridiculous)
Getting home at 17:00? I don't even get off work until 17:30, and if I'm lucky I get home before 18:30. Even cycling I'd only shave maybe 15 minutes off my commute, and if I'm really lucky I'd make it home alive.
I wish I lived somewhere with more sustainable work hours and bike-friendly traffic. I'm totally drained when I finally get home.
When do you get in though?
8:30. My hours aren't all that terrible, but after burning the candle at both ends for the better part of a decade of grad school, I'm a little worried about burning out.
Cycling might help with the burn-out. The exercise is good for you. Getting out of a stressful drive is good for you. Etc. Even if the ride is a bit longer, it's probably a net positive. Especially if you end up at the gym or jogging anyways - you get to double-count the bike commute as part of your workout.
You didn't mention riding after dusk as a problem, but there are plenty of good bike light options available now. LEDs and batteries have come a long way in the last 5-10 years and small, rechargeable lights are now powerful enough to provide adequate lighting for nighttime commutes (some are even bright enough for daytime use - so cars see you better).
Thanks for the lighting tips. I'm actually taking some urban cycling classes next month. I think at this point I need knowledge and confidence to make cycling a part of my commute.
I’ll keep cycling to work in the foreseeable future. I don’t think this post is of much use to anyone, but I had fun reflecting my last year of cycling to work. Thanks for reading.
Good read. Modest author. Often it is the most personal blog postings, where people share details of their life, that attracts most readers.
I also appreciate more “out of office” articles.
I run to work 4 days/week (work from home the other day). It's about 6 miles from my place in Brooklyn to the office in Manhattan. Took me a while to work up to 6 miles as a daily routine but can do it easily now. Combining my commute with my daily exercise has been fantastic, I'd recommend it to anyone who is able for a couple reasons: it's efficient (you have to take time out of your day getting to work anyway), and it makes it easy to stick to the routine (I try to put the option of taking the subway out of my mind).
Interesting to see comments about bike commuting in Stockholm and London since I tried it in both cities. Commuting by bike in Stockholm is a breeze even if you are biking in parts of the city with lots of traffic. Its also a beautiful city which adds to the experience.
I have tried to commute by bike in London but its to scary for me. I think it would be fine if you can find a path through residential areas, but for me thats impossible. Biking in the central parts of London I feel that a slight lapse in concentration could end up with a very bad accident.
I found biking in London much easier than in many large European cities, especially since a large fraction of drivers keep enough space on the left for bikers to pass, making commute fast even in heavy traffic. In France or Belgium on the contrary, you often have to slalom between cars, either on the left or on the right.
I wouldn't say it's much safer in London, but definitely a little more than Brussels for instance, where many small streets are a nightmare.
How long ago did you bike in London? In the 9 years I've been cycling to work in London that change has been very dramatic.
+ 1 MILLION
Cancer hit a friend of mine not that long ago.
And as I was biking to work with my two kiddos the other day, I was thinking about him.
What would be my ideal day? I wondered. What would I do with my time if I had gotten his diagnosis of a more or less non-treatable form of pancreatic cancer?
I thought about it. And I realized that it would start just like that one. Biking with my kids to daycare and then work.
It is hard to put into words the myriad reasons. Everyone has their own reasons why they go the way they go to get where they want to go.
I know few things in life but I have found my bliss biking to and from work everyday.
I met a nice person once that worked at an IBM location. He was in fantastic shape, he commuted to work 5 miles away—on foot! He ran both ways.
I barely qualified to run the Boston Marathon and had a good time running the race through my old college neighborhoods. This guy, who was a runner friend of a runner friend, was in a very different category, very fast. He trained on top of the weekly 50 miles of commuting.
I don't like bike commuting. I have biked 2 miles/3.2km each way to the office for the past 16 years, at least twice a week and usually all five days. I still don't like it. Maybe I'm just a fat, lazy son of a gun? Maybe I don't have an enjoyable bike?
The commute is pretty, safe, flat, and quiet. Birds, ponds, and trees, with very few cars and no hills. The weather here is tolerable and I don't sweat enough to require a shower. The only close calls I had were at the beginning when I wasn't being careful. (There is a small section mixed with heavy traffic.)
Every time I get to the office I'm glad the ride is over, and every time I must leave to go home I don't look forward to the ride. I don't arrive invigorated, and in fact the opposite. I've lost and gained weight seemingly unrelated to the number of miles ridden.
I've had several bikes in that time but none of them really seem to "fit", nor are they very fast. I want a nice silky commuter with fenders and panniers and thin wheels but that's always pretty far out of reach from budget, and I'm not 100% convinced it will make a big difference anyway. So I stick to a Craigslist special with a backpack, with upgrades to the ride as I get money.
I remember enjoying biking so much as a kid. I would ride all over the place, and hardly a year has passed since childhood that I don't put on a lot of miles on two wheels. But now as an adult it's just drudgery. Don't know why.
And it's not just the commute I don't like. Also tried to do some trails and longer rides for fun, but it turned into the same drudgery quickly.
I don't know what else I can do. But I'll continue to soldier on with the ride.
Hey, thanks for sharing your (unpopular, at least in this thread) opinion. Would you care going a bit more in details about what you hate about it?
In my experience, good gear makes a tremendous difference, and it's a logarithmic curve; the first few hundred dollars get you most of the way. Maintenance also goes a long way, you'd be surprised of the friction losses of severely under-inflated tires, or a rusty chain/cassette. Finally, having the right type of bike is a game-changer, I am always amazed at how many people commute in urban environments with a heavy, slow, double-suspension mountain bike when they could be zipping around on a road bike and having some fun! I've also found that having a GPS watch to record your commute helps a lot with gratification.
At the end of the day, I think commuting by bike in an enjoyable experience compared to the alternative most people have in an urban environment: packed/slow/expensive/unreliable public transport, or traffic jams. Maybe you should alternate between the two to remind you of why you commute by bike ;)
Thanks for asking. I can't say for sure what I hate about it. The grinding ride? It's not fast enough for my desires? The shoulder and sometimes wrist discomfort? The wind slowing me down? (Tail winds are fanTAStic! That really makes it fun.)
Yes I am careful with tire inflation and chain. (However, this morning I had a chain snap for the first time ever, so mayhaps I'm not as careful as I thought... hehe. Only about six months/300 miles on this chain. Had many chains with years and years of use, no problems.)
I have had road bikes but the handlebars were too low so I got sore shoulders. Had a couple old, beautiful Schwinns that had expensive parts with odd sizes, so I never bothered to upgrade the handlebars on those road rides for a better fit.
Current steed is almost decent. I'm probably going to drop some cash soon on taller handlebars. It's an old Walmart "mountain" bike (without shocks) and as parts wore out I've replaced them. By now I could have bought a nice new ride, but this is the first time I've had a bike where so many parts wore out, so I didn't anticipate that.
It is heavier than many rides, but because I'm not climbing hills that's not an issue. I've had heavier, and I've had lighter, with no noticeable difference in enjoyment.
And carrying around a heavy backpack, while it doesn't help, I don't notice much improvement in enjoyment when I am out on a joy ride without the pack.
But as you said I think I really would have a better experience on a $500+ commuter ride? Especially one that's a better fit. I'm 5'11"/155 cm and most everything seems to be made for people just /slightly/ smaller. The frame height seems to be alright, it's the shoulders.
Maybe I'm just fat and lazy. IDK. If I had a tail wind everywhere I'd love it.
Once had an electric motor, and /that/ was pretty fun. Perhaps I ought to get another one.
Am thinking that should my new business take off it'll be time to get a delta trike with a 1000W electric motor. Still requires pedaling, but would be like having a permanent tail wind :-)
Thanks again for asking.
I live 1.2 miles from my unit/office. When looking for premises we actively looked for somewhere close to where us founders live so we could bike
I live about the same and walk. It's fantastic. Coming from a 12 mile (30-40 minute) drive, with occasional bike commuting, it really was a game-changer for my sanity. It helps that I walk across a golf course, so it's fairly quiet and green (vs city streets).
I sometimes walk in but since I only work in the winter I never get to do it in the summer so spending 30 minutes in cold, wind and rain is not that nice. On the odd occasion I do walk I bring the dog with me and kill two birds with one stone, his walk and my commute!
I was once at SAP and the roads around their HQ form a maze. No wonder public transport takes so much time. Bike would be vastly preferable, though it depends on weather. I've heard SAP allows fully remote work, so I am wondering why are you commuting to office anyway? You can save 1h/day for living your life easily.
In our team we don't do full remote work, I don't know about other teams. You can occasionally do home office. I prefer being in the office for work for these reasons:
Very nice. I always think the second best thing to working remotely would be a job I could ride my bike to every day.
I've been walking to work (2km, 20 mins) every day for almost a year now, rain or shine. Previously I drove about an hour to get to work. There's a huge difference in alertness and energy when I sit down at my desk... early morning exercise is well worth it.
I am so jealous. I did 7000km in the last 2 1/2 years commuting to and from work, which i love and totally agree with most of the benefits that you mentioned, however i do all of this in Berlin city traffic. Really jealous of your route through nature!
I like to ride my bike to work because it's much faster than taking the bus (20 minutes versus 40+ minutes) . However, when it rains, I take the bus. And it rains quite often where I live (Taipei).
Any advice from fellow bikers? Clothes to wear, gear to get, etc.
I take a towel with me to dry my exposed body parts. I use Vaude softshell jacket (Posta) and pants (Tirano), but they are more for colder weather. In summer I'd prefer to switch clothes after arrival. There are also overpants and overshoes for the rain, but personally I don't like them because they make you sweat more.
I think that's amazing that a small-ish town or city in Germany has such great public transport and bike routes. That all seems to be limited to much larger cities in the US.
The bike is great. VSF fahrradmanufaktur. Used to be an organisation, run by a few hundred smallish bike shops who worked together, but was bought up by a company later.
Still great bikes. Steel frame, sensible parts that work well together (none standing out as a customer magnet and coupled with lower-quality other parts), sensible prices. And a really beautiful color scheme.
I have a very similar one as the author (or maybe the same?). But I really should have gotten the sister model with hub gear and chain case.
Cycling to Work in India, since this new year. No gears. Basic cycle + 3 locks + Air pump = $90USD. 15Kilometers.
Already saved $20USD/ month.
Never going back to Automobiles again. My friends are also trying to start biking to commute after I've made it. Many thought I'd go back to MotorBike after 1 week but I persevered and it's a joy riding the bike.
Highly recommend to people in Indian Metro, just add 10 minutes to average 7km commute. Happy riding !
Which city in India?
Chennai, Tamilnadu
How bizarre that his bike path cuts across an airfield (with traffic lights and a boom gate) instead of going around it. Never seen that before.
I've got a relatively short bike commute that takes around 20 minutes. By car it's a bit more due to traffic. I get some serious benefits from biking everyday. I'm always alert and awake when I get to work, I get the bare minimum exercise in for the week, I don't have to drive my car.
I'd highly recommend biking to work if your local infrastructure is accommodating.
I've been biking to work every day for over 6 months now, though mine is considerably shorter - 2 miles in SF. I got tired of being stuck on cramped muni trains not going anywhere and figured I could use a little exercise every day.
What is your opinion on cycling in the city. I live in SOMA and haven’t started riding yet. I used to ride all the time in GA, but it definitely seems more dangerous out here.
When I lived in SF I would ride pretty everywhere. The SF Bike Coalition is one of the most effective lobbying organizations I've ever seen, and they've done a huge amount to transform the city to make it bike friendly. In return, the number of people biking has really skyrocketed in the last 10 years. There are often good bike lanes along routes, and sometimes they are even separated. They have a pretty good map that shows you bike lanes, so you could use that to plan out some routes while you're getting familiar.
Anecdotally, the motorists are more aware of bikes now than they used to be (just because there are more of them), but you still need to ride pretty defensively.
Only other city I've ridden is Stockholm, and I commute on Folsom which has a striped lane but basically:
a) Make sure you're visible. I always have lights and reflectors, and wear hi-vis jacket if it's dark out
b) Always assume there's an Uber about to do something dumb and dangerous - ride defensively, don't assume that drivers see you, seek eye contact, don't be afraid to take the lane
c) Relax, take it easy, it's a wonderful city to ride in.
Its totally doable, just be wary of your surroundings and try to move with the flow of other bike traffic. Moving as a herd makes you more predictable to cars.
I also have been cycling for 2 years now everyday. 100kms average every week. Never have felt more enthusiastic and energetic at workplace. Helps concentrate on the work, beats bad traffic and gives a very good exercise overall
When I was living in NYC, cycling to work in the summer was the best part of my day. It took me ~30 mins to get from the Upper West Side to the office in Alphabet city. Commuting by subway would take ~50 mins.
that short of a commute? that's a no brainer for cycling to work.
Yeah, my ride is about 3 miles each way, so it's pretty easy. I live in the Boston area, so at times the weather can be rough, but it's manageable. If the roads are passable, I can ride (though it is in the 50s today here and expected to get near 70 tomorrow!). In the summer, when it's hot, I leave the house as early as I can manage. After eight years of daily bike commutes, the only serious accident I've had (i.e., injury-causing) was caused by another cyclist, not a car.
Medford to Haymarket commute for me, starting tomorrow.
That's the argument for mixed zoning: having offices (plus some retail, medical practices etc) within a 5km radius of home is entirely possible. It's easier in a dense urban environment, but as this post shows, you can even do it with single-family homes with a generous garden.
Of course there are still some people who need to use a car or public transport for commuting, especially if you're a couple both invested in specific careers (and can't, say, just transfer and teach at a different school).
You would think so, but my commute to work is a little over 3 km and I used to drive a car to work, until I realized how ridiculous that was. I know co-workers who live even closer and still they drive.I live in a small town, but people still use cars for everything although we have good bike roads.
I went from a 16 km bike commute to a 3 km one, and 3 km isn't far enough. I usually leave early to spend a little more time on my bike. On an average day the morning ride is the best part of my day.
3km is not so much. From spring to fall I also use my bike for going to work. One way is 21km and it feels great. Often In the morning I would like to make an extra round.
If anything, it's a little bit short. At that distance, IMO it's more convenient to just pedal slowly while wearing cotton to avoid the hassle of having to shower at work.
10km or so is about perfect IMO. Long enough that it's worth the hassle to get sweaty and have a "real ride", but short enough that you still do it on days where you have a packed schedule.
But even better is a 2km commute. Walking is by far the most pleasant way to get to work.
I have 2km and walk but I'm contemplating if I should use my old bike...
I'd definitely recommend it. I had a 2km commute I walked for about a year, and then a similar length commute for half a year I rode by bike. In the time I walked, my fitness was really bad and I'd get pretty winded even by a small sprint (I didn't do any other sport). When I switched to bicycling, my stamina quickly improved, even tough it was not a long distance + I had the freshness impulse as described in the article.
I'd prefer to walk at that distance.
If I drive to work I get to work tense and/or angry.
If I bike I get there over-stimulated, and need some time to drop into the zone.
If I walk I get there relaxed and already in the zone.
Most people in the states with that short of a commute probably still drive, and I don't blame them (because biking in most American cities is absolutely awful).
true. I should caveated my statement - that short of a commute w/ dedicated bike infrastructure? That's a no brainer.
Or at least a non-hostile infrastructure. Until last June, I biked to work, year-round, for 18 years. (I didn't even have a car.) My job moved and I've commuted by car, even though I am slightly closer to the office. Part of my potential cycling route has dedicated bike lanes, sharrows, and even a parallel trail; but, part of it is on a busy state road, with no shoulders and often a half-mile backup for the left turn I need to make. (Yet another part is essentially a two-lane, unlit, country road; but, I can deal with that.)
I have not yet ruled out cycling altogether; but, I think I need a better, if longer, route.
To me it's like voting. I guess I could complain about why it doesn't do any good and justify not doing it.
Or I could just do it, and others see and hear your experiences, and are more likely to do it themselves/consider it 'normal'.
Oh, I've done it before. Biking to work was my primary method of transportation when I was in the bay area. By American standards, my route was pretty decent, which means that by any sane, objective standard it was trash. I got hit by cars twice the last year before I moved to Germany. Once I had my son on my bike, that was especially fun.
I was willing to take some risk, but expecting the average person to is unreasonable. Getting around shouldn't involve serious risk to your person. We'd never accept using "painted walk lanes" everywhere, and yet that standard is considered "pretty good" for biking. It's absurd.
Very nice seeing that much nature before and after work, I cycle to work but it's all within the city. It's great, but I would love to see more trees and water.
Where I live, we have a lot of “salmon” I.e. people biking against the traffic (the wrong way). They’ve been my biggest danger. I’ve hit them more than once.
I'd love to cycle to work, but the terrain and the density plus the weather here in Hong Kong means it just won't work.