No, they ranking the usage of a car as less dangerous. Which is correct.
If we look at it statically, biking is healthier because it reduces health problems.
Bike is healthier until you get pancaked by an SUV or pickup which are increasingly all that people drive on roads nowadays. The roads aren’t safe for bikes. If you live somewhere without dedicated bike infrastructure (no, painted bike lanes on the street don’t count), biking is basically playing Russian roulette.
Even in area not made for bikes, the health benefits outweight the risk of getting killed by a car in the total longevity.
This become false when the road have too much traffic: air pollution damage start to outweight the health benefits of doing sport.
I can find sources if you want, but there are studies that show those who get around by bike live longer on average, even in North America. The danger is definitely there, and I agree I’m playing Russian roulette every time I bike around town. However, I am much, much more likely to extend my life by a couple years by being healthier, than get killed in a collision and die significantly earlier.
I upvoted you, because what you are saying is true, but so is the original post. “Dangerous” and “Healthier” are very different. Biking is definitely more dangerous in North America, though I’m not sure about bike friendly places, and would be curious to see statistics from somewhere like the Netherlands. Danger does not consider the benefits of an activity, only the downsides. Health, on the other hand is usually short hand for longevity or lack of health conditions, and on average, even with the danger, people who get around by bike live longer.*
*I can provide sources if someone wants them, I just need to find them again
It’s true, there is the added danger of being run over by a car. A lot of them actively hate seeing you on the same street.
What? They are right. But that doesn’t mean it’s a pro car argument. Cars are definitely safer as bicycles can’t utter wrecks you like they do to bicycles
From what I recall it really depends on how you classify danger. Bikes are more dangerous for non-lethal injuries. But any car trip that you drive over 45 mph is slightly more lethal than biking per comparable trip. So it depends on what danger you’re willing to risk.
By comparable, I mean from point a to point b. If you have a 10 mile commute to work, you have a slightly higher lethality driving a car on a highway, than biking to work, but you have a higher chance of non-lethal injury by biking.
Really, you’re going to quote a comedy website/image? It also even depends on what they mean with “dangerous”. If they mean dangerous for the passengers (which is a viable assumption since how many deaths are caused by hot air balloons excluding the persons traveling with the hot air balloon?) this could even be a true graph. So hold you “offended” feeling and just laugh at the joke at hand.
Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if electric scooters are legitimately more dangerous in urban environments with sane infrastructure. Those things can go absolutely anywhere, and can reach ridiculous speeds while cars are far more restricted in urban spaces (yet again, the ones with good design).
I mean, it’s more dangerous for someone on a bike or Scooter on car-centric infrastructure than it is for someone in a car.
Only if you consider only the safety of the vehicle’s pilot. Another perhaps more rational way to look at it is to look at how it affects the safety of all people. And then it’s clear that the car is still more dangerous than the bike, even on infrastructure specifically designed for car safety above all else.
