[not_paul_graham]

In Atlanta, even if you observe all the rules, wear a helmet, use bike lights, wear reflecting clothing, you are more likely to get hit by a car than not; or atleast you might know someone who has been through it. I'm basing my assumptions that Boston is like Atlanta (aka terrible public transit, everything is far away, college campuses are in the middle of the city).

On college campuses (like Georgia Tech) a lot of bikers who are college students ignored traffic stops, rules of the road and signals. So it is likely that people from poor households are also equally or more likely to ignore traffic laws.

Also, lots of roads don't have bike lanes, and riding in the middle of the street is going to get you a lot of honking, stuff thrown at you by rude drivers over-taking you, etc (from personal experience).

On another note, London, a city whose mayor is a vocal proponent of making London bike friendly, has had many fatalities that were bike riders following the rules so this risk for fatality is a very real problem.

[simonholroyd]

I think Bostonians would take issue with your assumption:

- Boston has one of the best public transportation systems in the country (ranked #4 by Us news) [1]

- Boston and the surrounding area is very densely populated making things generally not far away. In fact, Boston is about 4x as dense as Atlanta and the surrounding cites of Cambridge and Somerville are more dense still. [2,3,4,5]

- Boston is pretty much covered in college campuses. They're in the middle of the city, edges of the city, and outskirts of the city.

[1] http://www.usnews.com/news/slideshows/the-10-best-cities-for...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge,_Massachusetts

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerville,_Massachusetts

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta

[schiffern]

>On another note, London… has had many fatalities…, so this risk for fatality is a very real problem.

It's a very visible problem, but it caused only 14 deaths in 2013.

In that same year I estimate 32 Londoners were scalded to death by their hot water (126 death/year in England, and London has 26% of the population).

[michaelochurch]

I rode in New York. Many streets didn't have bike lanes. I'd often be right in traffic. I was hit once (although the car was only going about 10 mph.) And there were a lot of rude assholes, sure.

Did the risk deter me? Not really. 5.8 micromorts for 100km of biking, according to the article. Inactivity or a long commute (stress, disinclination to exercise) are more dangerous. There's always a lot of press when someone dies after a marathon (the risk exists, but it's comparable to skydiving-- very small) but marathons actually reduce total deaths due to fewer traffic accidents (road closings).

Especially when the costs/risks of inactivity are included, roadside running and biking are a no-brainer winner, even in the US. Obviously, it'd be better if streets were laid out to be safer and urban speed limits were lower (in NYC, it's 30 mph, which is too high) but even as things are, it's still worth going out there.