Before I get down to brass tacks, let's get people's sensitivities out of the way. Yes, the bicycle is the messiah of environmental restoration. Yes, the bicycle is the best invention since the wheel. Yes, biking is still a great way to go long distances. And yes, biking is a far better choice than driving.
I have heard plenty of horror stories about the bike throughout my life, always shrugging them off as freak occurrences or misinformation, things that could have happened whether or not the bike was involved. The story that should have opened my eyes was the one about my girlfriend's father. He took a big white work truck head-on at about 30 mph while going 15 mph himself rounding a blind turn on a quiet mountain road. He was nearly killed.
Even when Andrew at Evolvify recently broke his clavicle mountain biking I thought, "Terrible news, but it could've happened anywhere, anytime -- bike or no bike." I'm writing this post in admission of my previously faulty logic.
Every method of transportation has costs. The problem is that many of those costs are hard to measure, and some are hard to think of measuring in the first place. I believe strongly that risk of personal injury and the opportunity cost of bicycling are two of those things.
I'm not talking about erectile dysfunction or arterial iliac endofibrosis, which has been argued compellingly before; I'm talking broken bones, missing teeth or -- lord forbid -- a curb to the temple. Helmet or not, you're screwed. Most people don't even wear their helmet correctly to begin with.
The very first car-related death in our country's history was in 1896 when a car crashed into a bicyclist. And per mile, a bicyclist is 3 to 10x more likely to die at any given moment than a motorist. Under a thousand bicyclists die each year and 90% of them are men, which may imply speed and/or risk-taking as major factors. That's Lesson #1: Understand the real dangers.
But perhaps the most overlooked aspect of the bike debate is the opportunity cost, something that I didn't consider until I threw a disc with an avid cyclist. He was the pillar of youth and health: sun-kissed skin, powerful calves, a lean physique. I was a little nervous to display my rusty Frisbee-throwing skills ... until I saw him attempt to run and jump. It was a little bit like actual running and jumping, except he never left the ground with stride or hop, and he just looked old, like he was manipulating the skeleton of a decrepit elderly man. I'm not exaggerating. This guy ran with shoes on over grass like it was hot coals on his bare feet. It was shocking to see such lethargy from someone who looked so fit.
And then it hit me: If you spend all your exercise time on a bicycle, you are replacing time that could be spent moving naturally, developing useful and lasting strength and body coordination. You know, things like lifting, running, jumping, throwing, etc. Things that are paleo. So Lesson #2: Don't let bicycling replace real exercise.
I don't think die-hard fans of the bicycle should quit, but the dangers should be known and the alternatives should be flushed. Consider walking instead. Long walks are the base of the paleo exercise pyramid. The benefits are profound, the dangers are nil, and the opportunity cost is little. It's better for fat burning, too. But don't take my word for it.
"If the body be feeble, the mind will not be strong. The sovereign invigorator of the body is exercise, and of all the exercises walking is best. A horse (read: bicycle) gives but a kind of half exercise, and a carriage is no better than a cradle. No one knows, till he tries, how easily a habit of walking is acquired." - Thomas Jefferson
