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.
Maybe comparable was the wrong word but I think think your using that to intentionally miss my point. When assessing the risk of a commute, if you are looking at per mile risk, biking is less lethal but more injury prone.
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.
If you’re driving over 45mph, there’s likely not a comparable bike trip.
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.
Unless you’re also biking on the highway, it’s not comparable.
Maybe comparable was the wrong word but I think think your using that to intentionally miss my point. When assessing the risk of a commute, if you are looking at per mile risk, biking is less lethal but more injury prone.
Wut?
So what, does the comment I replied to make sense to people? It has many upvotes but to me seems complete nonsense.