ossie wrote:I really don't get the argument that not riding is deadlier than riding....complete nonsense and easily said until you've been wiped out.
The argument is far from nonsense and please remember I've been crashed into by motorists a few times over the years. No serious injury yet and I still ride. I'm a statistician and do my best to play the numbers to my advantage. Basically, the probable health benefits of cycling more than outweigh the effects of the probable injuries, even in the UK. This book summarises it well:
Peter Walker: Bike Nation wrote:Don't just take my word for it. Listen to Dr Adrian Davis, who has thirty years' experience advising everyone from the British government to the NHS and the World Health Organization on the links between public health and transport. "When people say cycling is dangerous, they're wrong," he says. "Sitting down — which is what most of the population does far too much of — that's the thing that's going to kill you."
How can that be so? In part it's because cycling in Britain and similarly car-dominated countries, while considerably more dangerous than it should be, is nonetheless safer than many people believe. In contrast, remarkably few people fully comprehend the extent of the health risks brought by an inactive lifestyle.
[...] Seeking to contrast these perils, researchers from Utrecht University's self-explanatory named Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences [...] Even in Britain the life-extending advantages [of cycling] were greater by a factor of seven.
OK, you can argue that once someone stops cycle-commuting, they'll replace that with an hour a day of other exercise, but I think almost no-one does.