Why the health benefits of cycling to work outweigh the risk of injury
Why the health benefits of cycling to work outweigh the risk of injury
Cycling to work has been linked to a higher risk of injury among UK commuters, but the health benefits of getting on your bike still vastly outweigh the risks
The new study, which looked at outcomes over 10 years, shows those fears aren’t unreasonable – commuting by bike is associated with an increased risk of admission to hospital for injury, with 7 per cent of cyclists experiencing such an injury compared to 4.3 per cent of non-cyclists. Squint a bit, and you can turn that into the “50 per cent more likely” figure mentioned above.
But Paul Welsh at the University of Glasgow in the UK, who led the study and who cycles himself, says the risk of death from cycling injury is vanishingly small. In fact, it is far outweighed by the decreased risk of death that comes from the increased physical activity and lower BMI of cyclists. “The data are still very much in favour of cycling for those who are capable of doing so,” says Welsh.
Cyclists have a far lower risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer and death compared with people who drive, take public transport or walk to work – a finding supported by this and previous studies. If an extra 1000 people took up cycling for 10 years, we would expect to see 15 fewer cancers, four fewer heart attacks or strokes and three fewer deaths in that group.
Sometimes, people online and in real life ask why I complain about unsafe or lacking bicycle infrastructure but continue to put myself at risk by cycling. Is it worth it? Yes it is. Even from the perspective of self-preservation, cycling is safer than driving. I'd just like it to be even safer, and make it so that more people can benefit.
You're viewing a single thread.
in the UK
Don't get your hopes up, fellow americans, it doesn't hold true over here. A truck bumper is more likely than a heart attack here.
That's possible, but yours is a separate empirical claim. Do you have a source for that? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. As the article notes, the health benefits in the UK are overwhelming, so even with the increased risk of accidents in the US, it may still end up being worth it.
It should also be noted that the risks of a sedentary life are probably also much higher in the US than the UK, because it's so much more car-centric. Obesity and other health metrics are much worse in the US, so the benefits of cycling might be all that much higher. I would want to see some evidence instead of guessing.
I could show you the roads I'd have to ride down. 12 miles one way, all of it along narrow two lane roads with no sidewalk, no breakdown lane, no bicycle lane. And it's full of those comically large trucks they have in the US, each of them driven by a guy who thinks his dick will rot off if he slows down below 65 mph.
I'll ride on weekends and keep going to the gym instead.
I believe you that your personal trip isn't worth it. But you claimed that "it doesn't hold true over here", which is a bold claim that's not just about your personal situation, which you're declaring without any evidence.
Um, anyone else who tries to ride a bicycle to work in my area is going to have the same issue, so Im not sure what your arguing.
OK, agreed. Please edit your original comment to say "Don’t get your hopes up, fellow people who bicycle to work in my area"
Maybe after yours is edited to reflect reality.