undefined | Better HN

0 pointskiliantics3y ago0 comments

There's really no question. Cost of bike maintenance vs car maintenance. Societal cost of road wear due to a huge car vs a tiny bike. Burden on healthcare system, regulation and enforcement for dangerous driving habits. We all pay so much for cars, even when not driving one, when usually a bicycle is perfectly sufficient.

0 comments

toast03y ago

maintenance and road wear are clear winners for bikes being cheaper.

Healthcare burden, I'm not so sure. Even with the massive difference in usage, street car tracks in Seattle cause a lot more healthcare burden to bikers (and pedestrians) than car drivers. There's certainly a benefit from exercise, but bicycling also has more exposure to injury during use, and not all of them are superficial injuries. Add in things like poor form inducing nerve injuries and it looks even worse.

matsemann3y ago

Thousands are dying directly from car usage ("accidents"). A lot more indirectly from being sedentary, and lots of shortened life spans due to the pollution.

So it's not even comparable. It's probably multiple orders of magnitude better on a societal level to be biking. Even better if we got rid of the cars causing the cyclists to be killed.

toast03y ago

There were apparently 454 non-traffic bicycle deaths in 2020[1], compared to 38,824 traffic deaths reported by NHTSA in 2020 [2]. I don't feel like bicycles are doing 1% of the trips in the US, even though they're more than 1% of the deaths. I feel like non-traffic death eliminates car vs bike deaths, but captures the basic idea that bicycles are more immediately risky.

All sorts of terrain issues that are minor for a car are dangerous for a bicycle, especially at higher speeds. Where I live, it's very hilly, so it's hard to go anywhere on a bike without hitting speeds of at least 25 mph at some point on the journey. Mechanical issues, unexpected objects in the road, or errors in piloting at that speed will result in an injury for sure.

[1] https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics...

[2] https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/2020-traffic-crash-data...

toast03y ago

Found some data on person trips by transportation mode [1] and person miles by transportation mode [2]. Based on that, about 75% of miles are done with car/truck/suv/van, and 0.2% with bicycles; but trips are more balanced, 80% by car/truck/suv/van and 1% by bike.

So I think the fatality rate per trip is probably about the same for bike vs car/etc; but the rate per mile for bikes is significantly higher. It'd be interesting to look at comparable rates from say the Netherlands or another country where bicycling is better positioned.

[1] https://nhts.ornl.gov/person-trips [2] https://nhts.ornl.gov/person-miles

faeyanpiraat3y ago

You are also 17× more likely to pay the ultimate price if you travel the exact same amount on a bicycle (according to UK stats).

Edit: Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

uoaei3y ago

Are you making a point? What is it?

faeyanpiraat3y ago

The comment I replied to makes the point that bikes are better "no question" from the cost perspective since car maintenance is obviously more expensive.

It is a more complex equation than that..

Probably the hardest variable to quantify is the risk of injury/death.

While I agree it could be better if everyone used bikes, but in the current reality if I choose to ride my bycicle, I'm going to share the road with 2000Kg metal boxes which are sometimes driven by distracted drivers, and I'm not willing to take that risk.

So even if I combine all the costs associated with both options, and bikes are cheaper objectively, it will still be more expensive for me.

Moru3y ago

But you can't compare the negative impact of one thing to the positive impact of the other vehicle. The bikers get hurt by the cars so that is negative on the car account, not negative on the bicycle account.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

toast03y ago

maintenance and road wear are clear winners for bikes being cheaper.

matsemann3y ago

Thousands are dying directly from car usage ("accidents"). A lot more indirectly from being sedentary, and lots of shortened life spans due to the pollution.

So it's not even comparable. It's probably multiple orders of magnitude better on a societal level to be biking. Even better if we got rid of the cars causing the cyclists to be killed.

toast03y ago

[1] https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics...

[2] https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/2020-traffic-crash-data...

toast03y ago

[1] https://nhts.ornl.gov/person-trips [2] https://nhts.ornl.gov/person-miles

faeyanpiraat3y ago

You are also 17× more likely to pay the ultimate price if you travel the exact same amount on a bicycle (according to UK stats).

Edit: Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

uoaei3y ago

Are you making a point? What is it?

faeyanpiraat3y ago

The comment I replied to makes the point that bikes are better "no question" from the cost perspective since car maintenance is obviously more expensive.

It is a more complex equation than that..

Probably the hardest variable to quantify is the risk of injury/death.

So even if I combine all the costs associated with both options, and bikes are cheaper objectively, it will still be more expensive for me.

Moru3y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse