My love of cycling in every form is one of the greatest gifts my dad gave to me. I wish everyone was so lucky to find an activity they were obsessed with that has only upsides.
So much North American rhetoric is focused on hatred of the cyclist - while that bums me out, what bums me out even more is that all the haters are missing out on the wonderful world of cycling. Commuter, road, gravel, mountain, track, indoor, fixed, single speed, folding, electric, uni, cargo, whatever.
I'm gonna go ride now.
Yeah, so weird how biking has become an identity politics thingy. (Not sure if it translates well into English).
I enjoy how it's fast and easy to commute, and I keep healthy. Works even in hilly and snowy Norway. I love how fun it is to use my road bike to go fast and get a good workout. I love my gravel into the woods and the serenity.
This weekend I'm bikepacking 6 hours into the woods,sleeping a night in a hammock, and bike back. Can't wait!
[deleted]
What saddens me about this topic is the large amount of hatred coming at cyclists from drivers in the opinion page of the local newspaper (Seattle Times). Why not have some gratitude they are not contributing to traffic, not taking up parking, not polluting, etc. It comes across as pure madness.
Recumbent...
Nah, they’re freaks.
But unbelievably ergonomic. A decade ago I rented one to do a week's touring (in France and Switzerland). On a standard bike the first two days of such outings were invariably spoiled by sore butt and shoulders. On the recumbent I knocked off 80km on the first day with not the slightest ache. A total revelation.
Recumbent bikes can promote over flexion of the neck, sometimes. Your neck isn’t neutral, it’s bending forward slightly, like tech neck. That’s not to say a recumbent isn’t ergonomic on the whole, but there are trade offs.
Yes, absolutely. Although the neck issue is mostly solved by a 3/4 recumbent (which is what I used), where you are not completely flat.
A potentially worse problem is that recumbents allow enormous force to be applied through the legs (because you can push against the lower back, as in rowing). This is one of their superpowers but you need to be aware of it to avoid knee issues.
> So much North American rhetoric is focused on hatred of the cyclist
My impression is that only people in the bicycling social world believe that. It seems like a victim mentality that they reinforce by repeating it to each other. It's always possible I just haven't seen it, but localities around the country are building bicycling infrastructure, which doesn't correspond to hatred. Where do you see it?
I hardly ever hear someone expressing hatred of cyclists. People who ride obviously like it. The great majority don't care about it - it has little impact on their lives. In cities, on streets I see people honk at, yell at, and flip off cyclists just like they honk, flip off, and yell at other drivers. IME the cyclists generally 'drive' as well/poorly as the automobile drivers.
I do notice that people in spandex racing outfits on road bikes tend to behave with attitude problems toward everyone - pedestrians, non-racing cyclists, cars, etc. They are aggressive and fly by people, often with little margin, at dangerous speeds without warning. It's as if they think they own the road. I was just talking to a bike mechanic I know who brought it up. If people don't like them, it's obvious why.
Some drivers seem to resent the idea that they should have to share the road, or slow down for anyone. Even if cyclists do everything right, they're still slower than cars, and so will present at least a minor inconvenience for drivers.
In Canada the fight has gotten nasty, with governments in Alberta and Ontario putting forward legislation that could remove existing bike lanes.
Maybe "hatred" is too strong of a word, but if I were a cyclist in Toronto or Edmonton I'd feel rather victimized.
Cyclists never do everything right, though. Contested stop signs are a prime example. For every cyclist who stops properly, 99 blaze through with attitude. They are lawless, and cause safety issues for drivers who have to deal with it.
You’ll also see them run red lights, cut off pedestrians, bike right into oncoming traffic (in the same lane, no less), cut across three lanes of without blinking. All in the name of laziness, not safety.
> All in the name of laziness, not safety.
Bikes are different machines with different capabilities and parameters. That they aren't used like cars isn't laziness or even lack of personal safety, but maybe lack of discipline to operate as if it has the capabilities and parameters of a car.
Whatever the motive, it's still dangerous because everything on the road needs to operate in an integrated system of rules. Bikes acting like bikes are unpredictable and using different rules.
But consider the functional differences:
> Contested stop signs are a prime example. For every cyclist who stops properly, 99 blaze through with attitude.
Bicycles both stop much more quickly than cars and take more effort to restart. Restarting from a stop and accelerating to full speed takes energy and wears on tired muscles - and it's not just one intersection but 100 in one ride.
So many times I've seen bikes approach the intersection at moderate speed. That's dangerous in a car - you might need to stop short, you might hit someone or something with your 2,000 lbs metal object which could cause serious harm even at slow speeds. On a bike it's fine - you can easily stop your 200 lbs object, which is also much smaller and more maneuverable and thus avoids collisions easily, and which does little harm at slow speeds.
So the bike does the bike thing, but the car sees a car thing: The car see the bike moving at a normal rate, and assumes it will act like a car and drive right into the intersection. The car stops and lets the bike go first.
> run red lights
At lights, bikes are like (very fast) pedestrians. On foot, at least in the US and many parts of the world, if the road is clear people don't wait for the light, they just cross. Functionally, there's no reason for bikes to do differently. That's dangerous to do in a car because their size and lack of maneuverability makes them big targets and makes accidents hard to avoid, and because they cause serious harm even at slow speeds.
> cut across three lanes of without blinking
Again, bikes are much smaller (able to fit in small spaces) and much moremanueverable. It makes some sense for a cyclist; it would be far more dangerous in a car.
>Bicycles both stop much more quickly than cars
They really don't. Even if you slam brakes and OTB on a bike you will still fly further ahead than a car doing double your speed will travel after applying brakes normally.
This is the insanity of running stop signs on a bike - you can't stop, you cannot swerve nearly as quickly as a car and you will take much more damage when T-boned than a car driver would yet you believe it's safer because:
> take more effort to restart.
Yeah, it's not laziness, it's science and shiet.
While I think cycling is great - environmentally, for health, apparently for mental health - bikes and cars don't mix unless they are going approx. the same speed in 1-2 lanes.
Driving a car, bicycles are hard to see - I wouldn't be surprised if visibility in cars is specified to be sufficient to see other cars. Bicycles appear out of nowhere and disappear. Also, cyclists - no better or worse than their automobile counterparts - don't always drive well, and they do things that cars don't such as weaving through small spaces between cars; running lights as if they are pedestrians, but on the road; appearing from sidewalks and other places - really anyplace. I don't object to creative driving - as I said, (city) drivers aren't much different in their way - but it makes bikes unpredictable and hard to see. Then there's the speed difference - bikes much slower than traffic are as dangerous as cars driving that speed (again, except I can see the cars). As long as there's one lane - and if cyclists 'own the lane' and don't let cars squeeze by - it's safe: you can see the bike; multiple lanes and the bike ends up in blind spots, weaving back and forth itself, etc.
I read that in (Belgium? The Netherlands?) the law is that if there is a small (10 km/h?) difference in speed between cars and bikes, they cannot share the road.
We just had a death on the road, from a driver hitting a cyclist in a group. I'm a life-long cyclists, and I now am somewhat fearful about cycling on the road. I see so many groups that take an entire lane and not even care about the cars behind them - it's easy to understand the frustration of the drivers. It's a knotty problem, I wish we had more bicycle lanes.
Obviously I wasn't there for the "taking the lane" circumstances you've seen, but where I live there are very few sections of road where it would be safe for a vehicle to attempt to occupy the lane while a group of cyclists are in it, and cars should be overtaking instead. It's no more difficult for a car to overtake when the cyclists are "taking the lane."
You clearly haven't spent much time on YouTube, TikTok, Twitter, FaceBook, or really anywhere there is a huge community. Americans fucking HATE cyclists.
> The great majority don't care about it
My own dad will take any opportunity to actively bitch about perceived annoyances perpetrated by cyclists and opine about how useless bike lanes are expensive and not actually productive because people only use them for exercise. Why don't you try actually bringing up cyclists and bike lanes somewhere, especially in the south, and then you tell me what people think.
Drivers mostly hate on other drivers, but they make time to hate other road users as well.
> Americans fucking HATE cyclists.
I haven't met those Americans, somehow. Maybe it's just more social media nonsense - people joining the mob fun and far overestimating the loud voices?
Did you ask them? Lots of things I don't like don't come up until it's relevant.
As a general rule, with this kind of thing, if you're not in a group that's targeted by such comments, you are probably not going to see those comments. Even if the majority don't care, it only takes a small hateful minority to create a lot of hate aimed at a given group.
I'm sure lots of cyclists have anecdata about that hatred. My personal favorite was somebody in a Santa Clara neighborhood a block from the DMV shouting at me to "get off the f***ing road!" Clearly they didn't read the part of the DMV manual that mentions that bicycles must "not ride on the sidewalk"[1], and missed that cyclists are allowed full use of the lane.
I now live in rural suburban Michigan, and even on these rural backroads I have jerks in trucks yelling at me on my e-bike going 20+ mph to "get out of the f***ing way".
Maybe those people do not represent the majority, but it feels like they do, and those actions feel threatening when coming from a multi-ton vehicle directed at a 75 pound vehicle. (Fat-bike ebikes are heavy.) It's also odd to experience this on a rural road on a lake shoreline because isn't the countryside supposed to be slow paced?
My personal favorite was someone shouting "go back to California!" our their window. I'm a TN native born and raised.
Second favorite was, a truck did an illegal pass maneuver around me on a blind turn (another 15s and we'd be around the curve) and almost hit another truck head on, then raced off. The driver of the truck that almost got hit rolled down his window and asked me "do you really have to ride here?"
Yes, many bicyclists are straight up obnoxious and unsafe, and without any license plates on the bikes, it’s hard to hold them to the proper lawful behavior.
None of this has been my experience.
Certainly has a huge impact on my own mental health. My commute options are bike (2hr total pretty much without fail) or drive (on average 1:15 total) and even though the 45 min cost is not nothing, I know I’m happier, more pleasant and have less migraines when I commute more steadily by bike than drive. Doesn’t even matter about weather. I really appreciate my time on the bike to get some exercise, be outside, and just generally not be in a car.
I've kind of gone from regular biking to an ebike and it's still fun and gives exercise but gets me there often quicker than by car.
If it saves time that you would otherwise spend deliberately exercising the comparison can be quite favorable really. +45m of commute but 120m of exercise 'saved'.
Being able to cycle to and from work across a nice university campus, through fields and trees and in good weather, makes me feel as rich as any human who has ever lived
I've been biking to work in Los Angeles for ten years and it's surely been one of my best life hacks ever (to the point where access to biking infrastructure has been a primary consideration when buying my house).
I know a bike mechanic who commutes by bicycle (of course) in a city. I brought up bike infrastructure and they said they don't need much: side streets that are too slow for cars going any distance are perfect 'bike lanes' - either there are no cars or it's one lane of slow cars and the bike fits in fine. All they need to do is figure out a route, but usually they can find their way the first time without a map.
LA is notoriously car-oriented, but is it different in that respect?
Side streets are often designed specifically to make thru traffic difficult. They have dead ends, weird routes, etc.
But yeah, when you can find an empty/slow side street it’s hundreds of times better than a bike lane right next to high speed traffic and cars cutting you off.
Still, many of those things don't limit bikes nearly as much - one way streets, alleys and parks, etc. Even a section of road under construction can be bypassed on the sidewalk.
> Being able to cycle to and from work across a nice university campus, through fields and trees and in good weather, makes me feel as rich as any human who has ever lived
Just wait til you try it with a 7 year old who adores you and just can't wait to go biking again. Or with a 12 year old, just chatting about life's paths. What a blessing.
I currently ride my 2.5 year old 5km to and from daycare every day. Mountain town, glacier in the distance, lake in foreground, tons of leaves and flowers now.
Paradise.
Cycling is great for many reasons, but I feel that the biggest boost to my well-being was giving up driving.
I'm a firm believer in cars ruin cities.
Cycling is great. I ride both for sport/fitness and for errands, has a ton of benefits, but I agree with you that the biggest boost is not driving.
Car culture/motonormativity in the US is a huge problem and transit here is severely lacking, cycling infrastructure or other wise (trains, busses, safe pedestrian paths and areas, trams, etc.).
People point to traffic and stress, but there are overlooked harms of car culture we tend to ignore. It's responsible for a significant portion of emissions, and drivers and those near cars inhale a staggering amount of microplastics.
Those who use public transit are less likely to be overweight, less likely to devlop type 2 diabetes, and less likely to have high blood pressure.
Driving needs to stop being an unavoidable default. EVs and self driving aren't the answer either, all the same problems, except exhaust, are present with EVs.
I agree. This is one reason why I want gas prices to go to $10/gallon. It will hurt, but maybe we'll start having some serious conversations about our awful transportation system and city design
Sadly commuters are the least price sensitive, any gas price which would be enough to convince people to stop using gas would justify buying an electric car. There's also not really an alternative in most American cities as the density prevents public transport.
The low density though is a policy choice, not a geographical constraint. The US is low density because zoning laws criminalized denser housing and mandated excessive parking spaces.
Many smaller municipalities wouldn't be able to afford a drastic uptick in EV usage either, they would be much better off focusing on any kind of public transit to reduce the number of vehicles on the road.
Calgary (Canada) as a similar population density to most US cities and its light rail system has some of the highest per-capita ridership rate in North America, so it absolutely can be done. We just need to stop enforcing car-centric design with our zoning laws and parking mandates.
> There's also not really an alternative in most American cities as the density prevents public transport
I think buses might have something to say about that
That's what how we got fuel economy regulations in the 1970s. But it didn't really usher in a golden age of public transport.
Probably would just help Tesla and BYD.
It'd also be nice because cyclist deaths in the US closely mirror gas prices. When gas prices drop, people drive more, and injure/kill more cyclists.
Absolutely. The US' urban density problems, housing cost crisis - they all go back to car-based society.
While I haven't given up driving, the fact that I don't rely on it to commute (granted I work from home rather than cycling) means that when I do drive, my relative frustration is really low. About the only thing that annoys me is dangerous driving... for obvious reasons!
Same situation, working from home, although my city has decent public transport so even going downtown is easier without driving. But now when I need to drive for whatever reason, I get frustrated at having to drive. I'll complain about having to take the car, that why can't they put a bus route here, why is it the train doesn't stop at the station I need etc etc.
Which actually surprised me, when my SO said to me: but I thought you liked driving? When we first met you were always working on your car...
Oh yeah. I did, didn't I? It just kinda happened without me realizing it.
Biking is great. Find an excuse to do it. Two that have worked for me: Commuting and coaching the HS mountain bike team.
From what I've read from this study it seems that constant cycling it what helps most, not just from time to time.
I gave up cycling for being too stressful. Every dog thinks cyclists are some sort of toy, to chase and bite. And using pepper spray 3 times a day gets old very fast.
You should report that to animal control. In most cities, dogs are not allowed to be running loose off leash and "at large." If they are bothering people, it's clearly an infraction.
Such an interesting comment. I've commuted 1+ hours per day via bicycle for years and never once had a dog encounter. 3 per day is wild.
The first summer after COVID I was bitten by 3 different dogs in 3 separate incidents. I went 48 years without ever getting bitten by a dog until that one season.
Wow you live surrounded by idiots. The dog owners, not the dogs, of course.
Right, except most dog owners are miles away, or dog has no owner.
And any animal this eats its own poop is idiot.
Do you live in rural India?
Is this impact above and beyond just the same amount of physical exercise? E.g. jogging?
I think at this stage it is well understood that physical exercise has all these positives, so it would be interesting to know if anyone knows if bicycling is even better, or if it's just more of the same?
Is cycling special I guess .... Like, I dunno using a pogo stick might have the same benefit as cycling, since it's all just physical activity at the end of the day?
There's a few things unique/special to cycling. Injury prevention is a big one, especially vs. running. Cycling is non-weight bearing and avoids repetitive loading and joint impact. (runners average 11 injuries per 1,000 hours vs. cycling's 6 injuries per 1,000 hours).
Because of that though you can ride for much longer durations comfortably than any other high-impact activity so cycling lets you have a much higher total volume of work and greater calorie expenditure without overtraining.
this also means that more cafes are easily within reach of a cycle, where a jog can't quite get you there. plus cycling after a huge sandwich and a coffee is a lot easier than running :)
> runners average 11 injuries per 1,000 hours vs. cycling's 6 injuries per 1,000 hours
Do you remember the source(s)? I'm hoping to read more about those and other activities.
> Cycling is non-weight bearing and avoids repetitive loading and joint impact.
Sure. I've also seen at least one study [0] that says the lack of weight-bearing means cyclists don't build bone strength and are more prone to fractures. I wonder if just riding in higher gears addresses that.
> Because of that though you can ride for much longer durations comfortably than any other high-impact activity so cycling lets you have a much higher total volume of work and greater calorie expenditure without overtraining.
Doesn't that also make it less efficient? Running seems to provide more exercise/hour. Again, maybe higher gears would solve that problem.
[0] Sorry, I don't remember the source but I discovered it while looking for something else on, I think, PubMed.
The studies were sport specific, so I'm not sure where to find specifics on other activities too but I'm sure there's data out there for other sports.
> that says the lack of weight-bearing means cyclists don't build bone strength and are more prone to fractures
This is true, especially as you get older, and riding in harder gears don't really help either. There is more torque being applied, but its still a smooth, continuous force there's no impact traveling through to stimulate bone density. You need high magnitude, short duration forces (3x+ body weight) to stimulate that.
By far the most effective way is weightlifting/strength training, which IMO everyone should do, at least 1x or 2x/week. Even runners will benefit from strength training, it's necessary for injury prevention.
> Doesn't that also make it less efficient? Running seems to provide more exercise/hour. Again, maybe higher gears would solve that problem.
Running will get you a higher total energy expenditure, yes. A 45 minute run will be more strain than a 45 minute casual bike ride.
The big difference is total weekly volume. With running, because its such high impact, you have a limit on the weekly volume you can hit before you get an injury or start overtraining. About 5 to 10 hours/week for recreational runners.
A cyclist can sustain 15-20+ hours/week of training volume before you run into the same overtraining or overuse risks.
Cycling is technically less time-efficient on an hour by hour basis, but it does allow for significantly more total weekly volume and absolute calorie burn without overtraining stress or injury.
Gearing doesn't really change the formula at all. Gearing changes which system is being used cardio vs. muscular fatigue. If you shift into a harder gear, but your cadence drops proportionally, your power output remains identical. But mashing (a lower cadence) a harder gear changes from using your slow-twitch muscle fibers to fast-twitch fibers. You'll fatigue faster, and burn out well before you hit the time needed for good cardiovascular stimulus. Gearing isn't used to make the ride harder or easier, it's used to maintain your cadence in a specific power band (e.g., 85rpm @ 200W) like the transmission in a car.
Not scientific but I enjoy actually going somewhere. Jogging you can get to places in your neighborhood, but cycling I can get to places in my region.
That’s why I get on the bike, you’re moving through areas slowly enough to enjoy them but quickly enough to really take in a lot.
> Not scientific but I enjoy actually going somewhere. Jogging you can get to places in your neighborhood, but cycling I can get to places in my region.
You just reminded me of my holiday to Biarritz in April where my wife received a text: "Should be back in about an hour or so, I'm just riding back from Spain."
Cycling is special IMHO. It can be strenuous exercise like running, or a casual cruise that's even easier than walking. The speed is highly adjustable and easy to get in the sweet spot for that moment. It's not too slow to get bored, and not too fast to miss out on your environment.
Bikes are also a wonderful expression of physics, and the effect of centrifugal force is a key reason why cycling is special. The property of increasing stability with speed is amazing. Leaning not steering is also wonderful. The flow state you can achieve on a bicycle is unreal. Mind, body, and your physical environment in unison.
There's a mechanical beauty as well, that's easy to understand, but with plenty of depth to dig into and enjoy. Wheels and gear ratios are some of humanity's greatest achievements, and you get to pair that with interesting geometry and materials that have a direct impact on your experience. The difference between riding a junker that's not right for your body and a nice/fitted bike, is like the difference between wearing a burlap sack and a tailored suit.
Physical exercise is good, but bikes are much more than just a means to stay fit and produce endorphins. I wish everyone would bike more. Truly one of life's great joys.
> Bikes are also a wonderful expression of physics
And efficiency! A human on a bicycle is more efficient than any other vehicle or animal. If we ran on gasoline, a cyclist would get the equivalent of roughly 1,000 miles per gallon. A well maintained bike drivetrain can reach 98% efficiency. Compare that to an ICE car which loses up to 70% of its energy to heat and friction.
Where did you get this? Humans, like all mammals, are not very efficient at converting chemical energy into mechanical work, definitely less efficient than ICE at 30% COP (aerobic process gives about 20-25% COP and anaerobic is horrible 5-10).
The Aerovelo Eta, used to set the human powered speed record, has an MPGe of 9544.
Addition to what others have said, it's also therapeutic. Like exploring new places, the feeling/sounds. It's not detached from the environment, like it is in the car, nor it is too loud like it is on the motorbikes. It's not too fast, nor to slow to enjoy the surroundings. And, the sound of the hubs, wheels can feel peaceful even.
In my case, my city is disgustingly depressing. But after I started riding, I realized the city had so much greenery around it. And no car or motorbike could access it. Riding down the village roads, between the trees, that you can not access by a motor vehicle, or walking, is an amazing experience. And, it does not damage the environment, nor ruins the peace with loud noise.
FWIW I have found cyclists to often ruin the experience if you are walking or running through said greenery.
They go fast down the lanes, are often shouting and roaring at walkers to "stand back" or "get out of the way" (...at the polite end of the spectrum...) as they approach from behind at 20-30mph etc (assuming they warn you at all and don't whizz by with just a few cm/inches gap), if it is a soil track they will often leave tramlines in the mud that gets baked in and so on. And let's not even start on what they are like in urban environments (tl;Dr - habitually ignore all the rules including red lights etc)
IME cyclists are entitled, arrogant, and selfish. Maybe you are nice and respectful, but in my lived experience in and around London as a pedestrian and runner 90% of cyclists are total arseholes.
But of course, there are always 2 sides of the coin. So, shitty people exists, but does not represent the whole group.
How many pedestrian, cyclists or runners are killed by drivers?
Where did the term rolling coal comes from?
How many people gets killed by drunk drivers?
Just some examples.
I've many time faced drivers who thinks they own the road. Coming from the wrong side trying to push me. And, I would be an asshole to them, because, I stood my ground.
[deleted]
I like to see a study of impacts on well-being comparing cycling versus walking.
Is the increased risk of testicular cancer simply built in, or can it be avoided?
Don’t do PEDs
Are you riding 8 hours a day every day? No? Get a well-fitting seat that doesn't make your balls go numb and you'll be fine.
(AFAIK link between cycling and TC is inconclusive, link papers if you know otherwise)
I think it’s just a Lance joke - cycling has no correlation with TC.
Perhaps TC increases cycling rates!
There is no consensus that cycling increases the risk of testicular cancer.
My love of cycling in every form is one of the greatest gifts my dad gave to me. I wish everyone was so lucky to find an activity they were obsessed with that has only upsides.
So much North American rhetoric is focused on hatred of the cyclist - while that bums me out, what bums me out even more is that all the haters are missing out on the wonderful world of cycling. Commuter, road, gravel, mountain, track, indoor, fixed, single speed, folding, electric, uni, cargo, whatever.
I'm gonna go ride now.
Yeah, so weird how biking has become an identity politics thingy. (Not sure if it translates well into English).
I enjoy how it's fast and easy to commute, and I keep healthy. Works even in hilly and snowy Norway. I love how fun it is to use my road bike to go fast and get a good workout. I love my gravel into the woods and the serenity.
This weekend I'm bikepacking 6 hours into the woods,sleeping a night in a hammock, and bike back. Can't wait!
What saddens me about this topic is the large amount of hatred coming at cyclists from drivers in the opinion page of the local newspaper (Seattle Times). Why not have some gratitude they are not contributing to traffic, not taking up parking, not polluting, etc. It comes across as pure madness.
Recumbent...
Nah, they’re freaks.
But unbelievably ergonomic. A decade ago I rented one to do a week's touring (in France and Switzerland). On a standard bike the first two days of such outings were invariably spoiled by sore butt and shoulders. On the recumbent I knocked off 80km on the first day with not the slightest ache. A total revelation.
Recumbent bikes can promote over flexion of the neck, sometimes. Your neck isn’t neutral, it’s bending forward slightly, like tech neck. That’s not to say a recumbent isn’t ergonomic on the whole, but there are trade offs.
Yes, absolutely. Although the neck issue is mostly solved by a 3/4 recumbent (which is what I used), where you are not completely flat.
A potentially worse problem is that recumbents allow enormous force to be applied through the legs (because you can push against the lower back, as in rowing). This is one of their superpowers but you need to be aware of it to avoid knee issues.
> So much North American rhetoric is focused on hatred of the cyclist
My impression is that only people in the bicycling social world believe that. It seems like a victim mentality that they reinforce by repeating it to each other. It's always possible I just haven't seen it, but localities around the country are building bicycling infrastructure, which doesn't correspond to hatred. Where do you see it?
I hardly ever hear someone expressing hatred of cyclists. People who ride obviously like it. The great majority don't care about it - it has little impact on their lives. In cities, on streets I see people honk at, yell at, and flip off cyclists just like they honk, flip off, and yell at other drivers. IME the cyclists generally 'drive' as well/poorly as the automobile drivers.
I do notice that people in spandex racing outfits on road bikes tend to behave with attitude problems toward everyone - pedestrians, non-racing cyclists, cars, etc. They are aggressive and fly by people, often with little margin, at dangerous speeds without warning. It's as if they think they own the road. I was just talking to a bike mechanic I know who brought it up. If people don't like them, it's obvious why.
Some drivers seem to resent the idea that they should have to share the road, or slow down for anyone. Even if cyclists do everything right, they're still slower than cars, and so will present at least a minor inconvenience for drivers.
In Canada the fight has gotten nasty, with governments in Alberta and Ontario putting forward legislation that could remove existing bike lanes.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-ford-bike-lan...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-government-b...
Maybe "hatred" is too strong of a word, but if I were a cyclist in Toronto or Edmonton I'd feel rather victimized.
Cyclists never do everything right, though. Contested stop signs are a prime example. For every cyclist who stops properly, 99 blaze through with attitude. They are lawless, and cause safety issues for drivers who have to deal with it.
You’ll also see them run red lights, cut off pedestrians, bike right into oncoming traffic (in the same lane, no less), cut across three lanes of without blinking. All in the name of laziness, not safety.
> All in the name of laziness, not safety.
Bikes are different machines with different capabilities and parameters. That they aren't used like cars isn't laziness or even lack of personal safety, but maybe lack of discipline to operate as if it has the capabilities and parameters of a car.
Whatever the motive, it's still dangerous because everything on the road needs to operate in an integrated system of rules. Bikes acting like bikes are unpredictable and using different rules.
But consider the functional differences:
> Contested stop signs are a prime example. For every cyclist who stops properly, 99 blaze through with attitude.
Bicycles both stop much more quickly than cars and take more effort to restart. Restarting from a stop and accelerating to full speed takes energy and wears on tired muscles - and it's not just one intersection but 100 in one ride.
So many times I've seen bikes approach the intersection at moderate speed. That's dangerous in a car - you might need to stop short, you might hit someone or something with your 2,000 lbs metal object which could cause serious harm even at slow speeds. On a bike it's fine - you can easily stop your 200 lbs object, which is also much smaller and more maneuverable and thus avoids collisions easily, and which does little harm at slow speeds.
So the bike does the bike thing, but the car sees a car thing: The car see the bike moving at a normal rate, and assumes it will act like a car and drive right into the intersection. The car stops and lets the bike go first.
> run red lights
At lights, bikes are like (very fast) pedestrians. On foot, at least in the US and many parts of the world, if the road is clear people don't wait for the light, they just cross. Functionally, there's no reason for bikes to do differently. That's dangerous to do in a car because their size and lack of maneuverability makes them big targets and makes accidents hard to avoid, and because they cause serious harm even at slow speeds.
> cut across three lanes of without blinking
Again, bikes are much smaller (able to fit in small spaces) and much moremanueverable. It makes some sense for a cyclist; it would be far more dangerous in a car.
>Bicycles both stop much more quickly than cars
They really don't. Even if you slam brakes and OTB on a bike you will still fly further ahead than a car doing double your speed will travel after applying brakes normally. This is the insanity of running stop signs on a bike - you can't stop, you cannot swerve nearly as quickly as a car and you will take much more damage when T-boned than a car driver would yet you believe it's safer because:
> take more effort to restart.
Yeah, it's not laziness, it's science and shiet.
While I think cycling is great - environmentally, for health, apparently for mental health - bikes and cars don't mix unless they are going approx. the same speed in 1-2 lanes.
Driving a car, bicycles are hard to see - I wouldn't be surprised if visibility in cars is specified to be sufficient to see other cars. Bicycles appear out of nowhere and disappear. Also, cyclists - no better or worse than their automobile counterparts - don't always drive well, and they do things that cars don't such as weaving through small spaces between cars; running lights as if they are pedestrians, but on the road; appearing from sidewalks and other places - really anyplace. I don't object to creative driving - as I said, (city) drivers aren't much different in their way - but it makes bikes unpredictable and hard to see. Then there's the speed difference - bikes much slower than traffic are as dangerous as cars driving that speed (again, except I can see the cars). As long as there's one lane - and if cyclists 'own the lane' and don't let cars squeeze by - it's safe: you can see the bike; multiple lanes and the bike ends up in blind spots, weaving back and forth itself, etc.
I read that in (Belgium? The Netherlands?) the law is that if there is a small (10 km/h?) difference in speed between cars and bikes, they cannot share the road.
We just had a death on the road, from a driver hitting a cyclist in a group. I'm a life-long cyclists, and I now am somewhat fearful about cycling on the road. I see so many groups that take an entire lane and not even care about the cars behind them - it's easy to understand the frustration of the drivers. It's a knotty problem, I wish we had more bicycle lanes.
Obviously I wasn't there for the "taking the lane" circumstances you've seen, but where I live there are very few sections of road where it would be safe for a vehicle to attempt to occupy the lane while a group of cyclists are in it, and cars should be overtaking instead. It's no more difficult for a car to overtake when the cyclists are "taking the lane."
You clearly haven't spent much time on YouTube, TikTok, Twitter, FaceBook, or really anywhere there is a huge community. Americans fucking HATE cyclists.
> The great majority don't care about it
My own dad will take any opportunity to actively bitch about perceived annoyances perpetrated by cyclists and opine about how useless bike lanes are expensive and not actually productive because people only use them for exercise. Why don't you try actually bringing up cyclists and bike lanes somewhere, especially in the south, and then you tell me what people think.
Drivers mostly hate on other drivers, but they make time to hate other road users as well.
> Americans fucking HATE cyclists.
I haven't met those Americans, somehow. Maybe it's just more social media nonsense - people joining the mob fun and far overestimating the loud voices?
Did you ask them? Lots of things I don't like don't come up until it's relevant.
As a general rule, with this kind of thing, if you're not in a group that's targeted by such comments, you are probably not going to see those comments. Even if the majority don't care, it only takes a small hateful minority to create a lot of hate aimed at a given group.
I'm sure lots of cyclists have anecdata about that hatred. My personal favorite was somebody in a Santa Clara neighborhood a block from the DMV shouting at me to "get off the f***ing road!" Clearly they didn't read the part of the DMV manual that mentions that bicycles must "not ride on the sidewalk"[1], and missed that cyclists are allowed full use of the lane.
I now live in rural suburban Michigan, and even on these rural backroads I have jerks in trucks yelling at me on my e-bike going 20+ mph to "get out of the f***ing way".
Maybe those people do not represent the majority, but it feels like they do, and those actions feel threatening when coming from a multi-ton vehicle directed at a 75 pound vehicle. (Fat-bike ebikes are heavy.) It's also odd to experience this on a rural road on a lake shoreline because isn't the countryside supposed to be slow paced?
1. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/handbook/california-driver-han...
My personal favorite was someone shouting "go back to California!" our their window. I'm a TN native born and raised.
Second favorite was, a truck did an illegal pass maneuver around me on a blind turn (another 15s and we'd be around the curve) and almost hit another truck head on, then raced off. The driver of the truck that almost got hit rolled down his window and asked me "do you really have to ride here?"
Yes, many bicyclists are straight up obnoxious and unsafe, and without any license plates on the bikes, it’s hard to hold them to the proper lawful behavior.
None of this has been my experience.
Certainly has a huge impact on my own mental health. My commute options are bike (2hr total pretty much without fail) or drive (on average 1:15 total) and even though the 45 min cost is not nothing, I know I’m happier, more pleasant and have less migraines when I commute more steadily by bike than drive. Doesn’t even matter about weather. I really appreciate my time on the bike to get some exercise, be outside, and just generally not be in a car.
I've kind of gone from regular biking to an ebike and it's still fun and gives exercise but gets me there often quicker than by car.
If it saves time that you would otherwise spend deliberately exercising the comparison can be quite favorable really. +45m of commute but 120m of exercise 'saved'.
Being able to cycle to and from work across a nice university campus, through fields and trees and in good weather, makes me feel as rich as any human who has ever lived
I've been biking to work in Los Angeles for ten years and it's surely been one of my best life hacks ever (to the point where access to biking infrastructure has been a primary consideration when buying my house).
I know a bike mechanic who commutes by bicycle (of course) in a city. I brought up bike infrastructure and they said they don't need much: side streets that are too slow for cars going any distance are perfect 'bike lanes' - either there are no cars or it's one lane of slow cars and the bike fits in fine. All they need to do is figure out a route, but usually they can find their way the first time without a map.
LA is notoriously car-oriented, but is it different in that respect?
Side streets are often designed specifically to make thru traffic difficult. They have dead ends, weird routes, etc.
But yeah, when you can find an empty/slow side street it’s hundreds of times better than a bike lane right next to high speed traffic and cars cutting you off.
Still, many of those things don't limit bikes nearly as much - one way streets, alleys and parks, etc. Even a section of road under construction can be bypassed on the sidewalk.
> Being able to cycle to and from work across a nice university campus, through fields and trees and in good weather, makes me feel as rich as any human who has ever lived
Just wait til you try it with a 7 year old who adores you and just can't wait to go biking again. Or with a 12 year old, just chatting about life's paths. What a blessing.
I currently ride my 2.5 year old 5km to and from daycare every day. Mountain town, glacier in the distance, lake in foreground, tons of leaves and flowers now.
Paradise.
Cycling is great for many reasons, but I feel that the biggest boost to my well-being was giving up driving.
I'm a firm believer in cars ruin cities.
Cycling is great. I ride both for sport/fitness and for errands, has a ton of benefits, but I agree with you that the biggest boost is not driving.
Car culture/motonormativity in the US is a huge problem and transit here is severely lacking, cycling infrastructure or other wise (trains, busses, safe pedestrian paths and areas, trams, etc.).
People point to traffic and stress, but there are overlooked harms of car culture we tend to ignore. It's responsible for a significant portion of emissions, and drivers and those near cars inhale a staggering amount of microplastics.
Those who use public transit are less likely to be overweight, less likely to devlop type 2 diabetes, and less likely to have high blood pressure.
Driving needs to stop being an unavoidable default. EVs and self driving aren't the answer either, all the same problems, except exhaust, are present with EVs.
I agree. This is one reason why I want gas prices to go to $10/gallon. It will hurt, but maybe we'll start having some serious conversations about our awful transportation system and city design
Sadly commuters are the least price sensitive, any gas price which would be enough to convince people to stop using gas would justify buying an electric car. There's also not really an alternative in most American cities as the density prevents public transport.
The low density though is a policy choice, not a geographical constraint. The US is low density because zoning laws criminalized denser housing and mandated excessive parking spaces.
Many smaller municipalities wouldn't be able to afford a drastic uptick in EV usage either, they would be much better off focusing on any kind of public transit to reduce the number of vehicles on the road.
Calgary (Canada) as a similar population density to most US cities and its light rail system has some of the highest per-capita ridership rate in North America, so it absolutely can be done. We just need to stop enforcing car-centric design with our zoning laws and parking mandates.
> There's also not really an alternative in most American cities as the density prevents public transport
I think buses might have something to say about that
That's what how we got fuel economy regulations in the 1970s. But it didn't really usher in a golden age of public transport. Probably would just help Tesla and BYD.
It'd also be nice because cyclist deaths in the US closely mirror gas prices. When gas prices drop, people drive more, and injure/kill more cyclists.
Absolutely. The US' urban density problems, housing cost crisis - they all go back to car-based society.
While I haven't given up driving, the fact that I don't rely on it to commute (granted I work from home rather than cycling) means that when I do drive, my relative frustration is really low. About the only thing that annoys me is dangerous driving... for obvious reasons!
Same situation, working from home, although my city has decent public transport so even going downtown is easier without driving. But now when I need to drive for whatever reason, I get frustrated at having to drive. I'll complain about having to take the car, that why can't they put a bus route here, why is it the train doesn't stop at the station I need etc etc.
Which actually surprised me, when my SO said to me: but I thought you liked driving? When we first met you were always working on your car...
Oh yeah. I did, didn't I? It just kinda happened without me realizing it.
Biking is great. Find an excuse to do it. Two that have worked for me: Commuting and coaching the HS mountain bike team.
From what I've read from this study it seems that constant cycling it what helps most, not just from time to time.
I'll add to the love for bicycles. I wrote this a while back about how bicycles are, for me, a "thinking machine": https://journal.dedasys.com/2015/04/20/the-bicycle-a-thinkin...
I gave up cycling for being too stressful. Every dog thinks cyclists are some sort of toy, to chase and bite. And using pepper spray 3 times a day gets old very fast.
You should report that to animal control. In most cities, dogs are not allowed to be running loose off leash and "at large." If they are bothering people, it's clearly an infraction.
Such an interesting comment. I've commuted 1+ hours per day via bicycle for years and never once had a dog encounter. 3 per day is wild.
The first summer after COVID I was bitten by 3 different dogs in 3 separate incidents. I went 48 years without ever getting bitten by a dog until that one season.
Wow you live surrounded by idiots. The dog owners, not the dogs, of course.
Right, except most dog owners are miles away, or dog has no owner.
And any animal this eats its own poop is idiot.
Do you live in rural India?
Is this impact above and beyond just the same amount of physical exercise? E.g. jogging?
I think at this stage it is well understood that physical exercise has all these positives, so it would be interesting to know if anyone knows if bicycling is even better, or if it's just more of the same?
Is cycling special I guess .... Like, I dunno using a pogo stick might have the same benefit as cycling, since it's all just physical activity at the end of the day?
There's a few things unique/special to cycling. Injury prevention is a big one, especially vs. running. Cycling is non-weight bearing and avoids repetitive loading and joint impact. (runners average 11 injuries per 1,000 hours vs. cycling's 6 injuries per 1,000 hours).
Because of that though you can ride for much longer durations comfortably than any other high-impact activity so cycling lets you have a much higher total volume of work and greater calorie expenditure without overtraining.
this also means that more cafes are easily within reach of a cycle, where a jog can't quite get you there. plus cycling after a huge sandwich and a coffee is a lot easier than running :)
> runners average 11 injuries per 1,000 hours vs. cycling's 6 injuries per 1,000 hours
Do you remember the source(s)? I'm hoping to read more about those and other activities.
> Cycling is non-weight bearing and avoids repetitive loading and joint impact.
Sure. I've also seen at least one study [0] that says the lack of weight-bearing means cyclists don't build bone strength and are more prone to fractures. I wonder if just riding in higher gears addresses that.
> Because of that though you can ride for much longer durations comfortably than any other high-impact activity so cycling lets you have a much higher total volume of work and greater calorie expenditure without overtraining.
Doesn't that also make it less efficient? Running seems to provide more exercise/hour. Again, maybe higher gears would solve that problem.
[0] Sorry, I don't remember the source but I discovered it while looking for something else on, I think, PubMed.
Running injuries: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1439399/
The studies were sport specific, so I'm not sure where to find specifics on other activities too but I'm sure there's data out there for other sports.
> that says the lack of weight-bearing means cyclists don't build bone strength and are more prone to fractures
This is true, especially as you get older, and riding in harder gears don't really help either. There is more torque being applied, but its still a smooth, continuous force there's no impact traveling through to stimulate bone density. You need high magnitude, short duration forces (3x+ body weight) to stimulate that.
By far the most effective way is weightlifting/strength training, which IMO everyone should do, at least 1x or 2x/week. Even runners will benefit from strength training, it's necessary for injury prevention.
> Doesn't that also make it less efficient? Running seems to provide more exercise/hour. Again, maybe higher gears would solve that problem.
Running will get you a higher total energy expenditure, yes. A 45 minute run will be more strain than a 45 minute casual bike ride.
The big difference is total weekly volume. With running, because its such high impact, you have a limit on the weekly volume you can hit before you get an injury or start overtraining. About 5 to 10 hours/week for recreational runners.
A cyclist can sustain 15-20+ hours/week of training volume before you run into the same overtraining or overuse risks.
Cycling is technically less time-efficient on an hour by hour basis, but it does allow for significantly more total weekly volume and absolute calorie burn without overtraining stress or injury.
Gearing doesn't really change the formula at all. Gearing changes which system is being used cardio vs. muscular fatigue. If you shift into a harder gear, but your cadence drops proportionally, your power output remains identical. But mashing (a lower cadence) a harder gear changes from using your slow-twitch muscle fibers to fast-twitch fibers. You'll fatigue faster, and burn out well before you hit the time needed for good cardiovascular stimulus. Gearing isn't used to make the ride harder or easier, it's used to maintain your cadence in a specific power band (e.g., 85rpm @ 200W) like the transmission in a car.
Not scientific but I enjoy actually going somewhere. Jogging you can get to places in your neighborhood, but cycling I can get to places in my region.
That’s why I get on the bike, you’re moving through areas slowly enough to enjoy them but quickly enough to really take in a lot.
> Not scientific but I enjoy actually going somewhere. Jogging you can get to places in your neighborhood, but cycling I can get to places in my region.
You just reminded me of my holiday to Biarritz in April where my wife received a text: "Should be back in about an hour or so, I'm just riding back from Spain."
Cycling is special IMHO. It can be strenuous exercise like running, or a casual cruise that's even easier than walking. The speed is highly adjustable and easy to get in the sweet spot for that moment. It's not too slow to get bored, and not too fast to miss out on your environment.
Bikes are also a wonderful expression of physics, and the effect of centrifugal force is a key reason why cycling is special. The property of increasing stability with speed is amazing. Leaning not steering is also wonderful. The flow state you can achieve on a bicycle is unreal. Mind, body, and your physical environment in unison.
There's a mechanical beauty as well, that's easy to understand, but with plenty of depth to dig into and enjoy. Wheels and gear ratios are some of humanity's greatest achievements, and you get to pair that with interesting geometry and materials that have a direct impact on your experience. The difference between riding a junker that's not right for your body and a nice/fitted bike, is like the difference between wearing a burlap sack and a tailored suit.
Physical exercise is good, but bikes are much more than just a means to stay fit and produce endorphins. I wish everyone would bike more. Truly one of life's great joys.
> Bikes are also a wonderful expression of physics
And efficiency! A human on a bicycle is more efficient than any other vehicle or animal. If we ran on gasoline, a cyclist would get the equivalent of roughly 1,000 miles per gallon. A well maintained bike drivetrain can reach 98% efficiency. Compare that to an ICE car which loses up to 70% of its energy to heat and friction.
Where did you get this? Humans, like all mammals, are not very efficient at converting chemical energy into mechanical work, definitely less efficient than ICE at 30% COP (aerobic process gives about 20-25% COP and anaerobic is horrible 5-10).
The Aerovelo Eta, used to set the human powered speed record, has an MPGe of 9544.
https://www.aerovelo.com/eta-speedbike
Addition to what others have said, it's also therapeutic. Like exploring new places, the feeling/sounds. It's not detached from the environment, like it is in the car, nor it is too loud like it is on the motorbikes. It's not too fast, nor to slow to enjoy the surroundings. And, the sound of the hubs, wheels can feel peaceful even.
In my case, my city is disgustingly depressing. But after I started riding, I realized the city had so much greenery around it. And no car or motorbike could access it. Riding down the village roads, between the trees, that you can not access by a motor vehicle, or walking, is an amazing experience. And, it does not damage the environment, nor ruins the peace with loud noise.
FWIW I have found cyclists to often ruin the experience if you are walking or running through said greenery.
They go fast down the lanes, are often shouting and roaring at walkers to "stand back" or "get out of the way" (...at the polite end of the spectrum...) as they approach from behind at 20-30mph etc (assuming they warn you at all and don't whizz by with just a few cm/inches gap), if it is a soil track they will often leave tramlines in the mud that gets baked in and so on. And let's not even start on what they are like in urban environments (tl;Dr - habitually ignore all the rules including red lights etc)
IME cyclists are entitled, arrogant, and selfish. Maybe you are nice and respectful, but in my lived experience in and around London as a pedestrian and runner 90% of cyclists are total arseholes.
And it's not just me - arrogant selfish cyclists who don't give a crap about anyone else are causing issues across London, e.g. two random articles of many: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c150n02d10po https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62lp6xzzd0o
What is the source for the 90%?
But of course, there are always 2 sides of the coin. So, shitty people exists, but does not represent the whole group.
How many pedestrian, cyclists or runners are killed by drivers? Where did the term rolling coal comes from? How many people gets killed by drunk drivers?
Just some examples.
I've many time faced drivers who thinks they own the road. Coming from the wrong side trying to push me. And, I would be an asshole to them, because, I stood my ground.
I like to see a study of impacts on well-being comparing cycling versus walking.
Is the increased risk of testicular cancer simply built in, or can it be avoided?
Don’t do PEDs
Are you riding 8 hours a day every day? No? Get a well-fitting seat that doesn't make your balls go numb and you'll be fine.
(AFAIK link between cycling and TC is inconclusive, link papers if you know otherwise)
I think it’s just a Lance joke - cycling has no correlation with TC.
Perhaps TC increases cycling rates!
There is no consensus that cycling increases the risk of testicular cancer.
see page 6: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s12885-018-409...