Dear Umbra,
My question regards my daily half-hour (each way) bicycle commute through fairly heavy city traffic. I've been wondering if the benefits (exercise, sunshine, free and fast transport) are outweighed by the negatives (primarily breathing in diesel and other exhaust, but I'd also throw in the risk of almost getting run over, despite the cheap thrills).
I am fortunate enough that my alternative would be to take the subway, not drive. Perhaps you could comment on the personal and environmental health effects of different types of commutes.
Indie
Washington, D.C.
Dearest Indie,
Spoke truth to power.
Biking, biking, we love biking.
You have two questions here. The first is whether you are hurting your health by biking in traffic. The second is a health comparison between the bike and other modes.
Clearly, biking not only maintains but improves your general physical health, in terms of muscles and heart rate and mental peace, and has little impact on the environment. It beats motorized vehicles -- or, as I like to call them, Mobile Emissions Sources -- of all types on both these counts.
Being near or in traffic has an impact on our health and the environment, no matter what vehicle we choose. Chemicals and particulate matter flow from car and bus and taxi engines and into the mini-weather system of the traffic zone. These nasties include carbon monoxide, the BTEX volatile organic compounds (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene), and nitrogen oxides. Yummy.
The nasties are densest at the middle of the traffic zone, and less intense on the edges. So, to put it simply, the position of your lungs is key. Of course, there are many variables for air-pollution scientists to play with, and each situation is different, and so on -- but, basically, studies show you get the biggest hit of the nasties when you're inside a car. Sure, a personal Mobile Emissions Source appears hermetic, but it's an illusion: MES occupants are very close to sucking on the tailpipe of the MES just ahead of them. In a bus, riders' lungs are a bit above these sources. And bikers and pedestrians are on the outskirts.
The little information I was able to find on subways compared them to buses. Pollutants in the subway tunnel are fairly equivalent to bus pollutants, so I will extrapolate that biking wins over all mechanized transport. And that, very briefly, is the answer to both your questions. While you may be hurting your health by biking in urban traffic, you are not hurting it as badly as you could be.
Now be careful out there!
Pantingly,
Umbra
Lawsuit accuses Virginia power company of poisoning Dominican community with toxic coal ash
While scientists fight over BPA studies, Congress could just act
Ask Umbra on climate-skeptic teachers, low-flow toilets, and more
Comments
View as Flat
ckaiser Posted 5:57 am
28 Sep 2005
I too worried about my lungs. I wrote to some knowledgeable source about it (wish I could remember who he was). The guy said that one study he knew about showed that carbon monoxide levels in the lungs of rush-hour bicyclists were actually lower than those of rush-hour automobilists, presumably, he speculated, because of the increased respiration rate and depth of the bicyclists.
Permalink
bertport Posted 6:39 am
28 Sep 2005
Permalink
SyracuseAustin Posted 6:46 am
28 Sep 2005
bikelockers, bike racks, SHARROWS ICONS (like San Francisco, share-the-lane iconson city streets, especially near colleges/high schools), bike lanes, bike paths, bikeracks on public buses, et al.
As Tip O'Neill famously said:
All Politics is Local;
and somebody else ranted,
Build it (pedalbike amenities) and they will come
(and pedal their bikes to work and school.
Permalink
jefffiedler Posted 7:09 am
28 Sep 2005
Google "respro bicycle mask" for some sites that sell different models.
They may not look good, but may be of interest to folks in bad air cities.
Permalink
Zino Posted 7:51 am
28 Sep 2005
I've cycled for years, including over a decade using a bike as primary transport in Tokyo. But not out here in the country! I want to get the exercise, and save gas/ozone by not driving, but I also prefer to be breathing at the end of the trip.
This clip from the 'eMedicine Health' website sums it up:
With more than 100 million bicycle owners, the popularity of bicycling has reached an all-time high.
Along with increased use of bicycles comes the risk of significant injuries. According to national statistics, more than 1.8 billion bicycle outings occur each year, resulting in nearly 580,000 visits to Emergency Departments. Injuries attributable to bicycling range from common abrasions, cuts, and bruises to broken bones, internal injuries, head trauma, and even death.
Almost 800 bicyclists die annually, and 20,000 are admitted to hospitals. From a statistical standpoint, bicycle riding has a higher death rate per trip or per mile of travel than being a passenger in an automobile.
Permalink
mvc Posted 9:23 am
28 Sep 2005
Permalink
Payton Chung Posted 6:38 pm
29 Sep 2005
What Umbra said about pollution levels up high is correct, but others are right that bicyclists breathe more air than drivers, since they're outside longer and breathe deeper. In particular, soot (PM), largely from diesel engines, gets more dangerous the deeper it's breathed in. However, many urban bicyclists have many choices when it comes to routes. I don't like riding behind foul-smelling, erratic-moving diesel buses and trucks, anyways, so I usually take advantage of my city's grid to bicycle on calmer, quieter, better smelling residential streets for 85% of my route.
On safety, I would point out that driving is indeed quite lethal, and that many cycling injuries or deaths occur from potentially dangerous activities like racing or downhill mountain biking. Using safety to argue against bicycling creates a dangerous (hah) tautology, as well: studies have amply proven that bicyclists have safety in numbers: biking is safer where biking is popular. Car drivers in cities with many bicyclists are more aware of cyclists' presence on the roads and watch out for bikes. So, people should take a stand for bicycle safety not only by riding safely but by riding often.
I won't say that everyone in every situation can learn to comfortably ride in traffic -- I feel uncomfortable riding in the exurbs, so I stick to the city -- but that defeatist attitude won't help to save the world.
Permalink
Howell Haus Posted 3:03 am
08 Aug 2006
As I rolled onto the Bayside Bridge near Clearwater, I sat for a moment as hundreds of cars and trucks zoomed by, and I watched the sun - slowly rising, glowing a warm orange color, and its continual change of color and intensity as it raised up from the horizon. Then I looked around and saw dolphins surfacing, seagulls and terns chasing each other to a fish, and oodles of pelicans following each other in a line above the thermals created by the bridge. And as I neared the end of the bridge this morning I was challenged by 8 pelicans, gliding peacefully in my direction, whom I had to sprint to stay up with. My lungs were heaving in particulate, I'm certain... but, my happiness was overflowing.
Ask yourself this lengthy question. Would you rather experience a life of happiness, filled with moments of wonder, excitement, exhiliration, and yes - perhaps even danger? Or, would you prefer to sit slightly more safely in a Mobile Emissions Source, listening to yack radio, getting cut off by a Stupendously Underutilized Vehicle (SUV), and never remembering a minute of your commute?
Above my desk I have a saying from an unknown author that reads, "Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body... but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming... Wow, what a ride !!!" With that, I'll see you out there. And if you get a chance, bookmark our blog to see what we're up to these days at Cut20.blogspot.com. - JD
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 3:30 am
08 Aug 2006
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 5:53 am
08 Aug 2006
Permalink