13

So in riding to work on a daily basis, do the physiological benefits gained from cycling to work get outweighed by the harm that pollution does to the body? I.e. does it cause more harm that it prevents.

My concern is that when riding to work, I am breathing harder and riding with the daily traffic, so exposing myself potentially to higher levels of pollution than I would riding on a weekend day or away from heavy traffic. This has the potential for causing respiratory issues, especially in Arizona where dust particles can cause irritation. Does this concern negate the positive benefits such as increased respiratory capacity, reduced blood pressure, etc.?

Improve this question
5
  • 10
    I don't have access to sources right now, but generally speaking the net effect of cycling is about 13 minutes of lifespan gained per mile ridden (or roughly 2.5 hours of lifespan gained per hour of cycling, compared to a sedentary lifestyle). The health benefits of cycling without question greatly outweigh the net of all additional risks combined. This is, of course, on average, so specific cases may vary; I make no claims as to the safety of cycling the wrong way down streets on a smoggy day in Beijing while drunk.
    – Stephen Touset
    Jun 25, 2013 at 16:26
  • (upvoting the above comment for that hilarious "specific case")
    – D.Salo
    Jun 25, 2013 at 16:52
  • 1
    Yeah, depends on where you're riding. In Beijing just stepping outside for five minutes takes a year off your life. (Note that the human body can handle ordinary non-industrial dust quite effectively, however.)
    – Daniel R Hicks
    Jun 25, 2013 at 19:39
  • 1
    Be aware also that some of the losses are unevenly distributed. Statistically every cyclist loses a few seconds of life per kilometre ridden to motorist mayhem, but that is distributed as a very few cyclists losing all their life while the rest lose none.
    – Móż
    Jun 25, 2013 at 23:18
  • 1
    While silicosis is mostly an industrial disease, natural sand dust can also cause problems. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicosis#Desert_lung_disease en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_pneumonia (Though in the case of the Dust Bowl, you could argue that over-farming is industrial, not natural.) From azdot.gov/ccpartnerships/haboob, the main danger of dust storms is poor visibility, but there are other health risks: usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/storms/story/2012-07-27/…
    – armb
    Jun 29, 2013 at 7:41

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
19

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920084/ - "On average, the estimated health benefits of cycling were substantially larger than the risks relative to car driving for individuals shifting their mode of transport."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22124913 - "We estimate that beneficial effects of increased physical activity are substantially larger (3-14 months gained) than the potential mortality effect of increased inhaled air pollution doses (0.8-40 days lost) and the increase in traffic accidents (5-9 days lost)."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21816732 - "Public bicycle sharing initiatives such as Bicing in Barcelona have greater benefits than risks to health"

(Maybe your Arizona dust is an exception though. And dust masks do make it harder to breathe hard comfortably.)

Improve this answer
2

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.