Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Melanie K on September 26, 2011 at 4:23am

"The study was done by Professor Jonathan Grigg from Barts and the London School of Medicine who tested five pedestrians and five cyclists."

 

I can believe cyclists inhale more exhaust and carbon than pedestrians since we are directly in traffic, but to actually publish an article when the test sample was of 10 people seems a bit ridiculous. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Zumwalt on September 26, 2011 at 2:24pm

It's because we're exercising. I'd bet rush hour on the freeway results in more inhalation over the life of a driver than a biker.

 

No people studied.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave Jacque on September 27, 2011 at 2:01am

Yah, too small a sample size to be scientifically valid. And I would suggest that the health benefits of the exercise *far* outweigh any speculative harm from the additional particulates.

 

Note that mold counts have been off the charts lately; much more likely the cause of your breathing difficulty, Will.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carly on September 27, 2011 at 2:19am

I don't think the article has a sound argument.  10 participants? seriously?  And besides, auto drivers are breathing that same traffic air too, at least a cyclist is exercising their lungs instead of letting them sit in black carbon.  I know my lungs have gained tons of capacity compared to before I started cycling.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric R on September 27, 2011 at 6:05am

"Advantage: cycling" - according to the article in the Tribune.

 

This is why I smugly suggest people should drive with their windows up, especially on "air pollution alert" days, don't want motorists inhaling all the exhaust they emit.

 

Something like this - http://www.respro.com/products/urban-commuting/cycling/city_mask/ - could help filter "pollution" but it would probably just get grody from condensation, coffee breath and sweat.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by S on September 27, 2011 at 8:08am

10 might be significant if the difference is large enough.  It really depends on the statistics.  I think the cyclists come out worse in this study.  Because they're active, they're moving more air in and out of their lungs and getting exposed to more carbon black.  The people in cars aren't breathing as much and they probably get some filtration as the air goes through their air conditioners/heaters/air system in their cars.

Carly said:

I don't think the article has a sound argument.  10 participants? seriously?  And besides, auto drivers are breathing that same traffic air too, at least a cyclist is exercising their lungs instead of letting them sit in black carbon.  I know my lungs have gained tons of capacity compared to before I started cycling.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Juan 2-3 or more mi. on September 27, 2011 at 8:14am

I imagine pedestrians get it just as bad from all the second hand smoke of other pedestrians. It seems like another biased study to make cycling undesirable.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by S on September 27, 2011 at 6:19pm

The study looked at carbon black and not second hand smoke.  Also pedestrians are further away from traffic and probably don't exert as much energy as cyclists so it'd make sense that their exposure is reduced.  In balance cycling is probably better for you than walking or driving but to claim that any study that shows that cycling may have downsides to be biased is frankly showing the same type of bias that you seem to be against.

Juan said:

I imagine pedestrians get it just as bad from all the second hand smoke of other pedestrians. It seems like another biased study to make cycling undesirable.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carly on September 28, 2011 at 2:23am

I think that the article is biased against cycling.  Although they mention this to be an ongoing study, having only ten participants does not warrant a published article.  I've done science experiments in grade school that had more factors than that.  I want more information.  Different cities, times of day, and times of the year at least.  The article was sarcastic in saying somewhere "And you thought cycling was healthier."  Also, the title refers to this as being a "downside" that anyone could add to the list of other "downsides"; cars are scary, it rains sometimes, but I really need to look nice today, and etc... I got the absurd connotation that it may be wiser at times to drive to work to protect yourself from black carbon.  Well, maybe its more of a reason for people not to drive to work.            

S said:

The study looked at carbon black and not second hand smoke.  Also pedestrians are further away from traffic and probably don't exert as much energy as cyclists so it'd make sense that their exposure is reduced.  In balance cycling is probably better for you than walking or driving but to claim that any study that shows that cycling may have downsides to be biased is frankly showing the same type of bias that you seem to be against.

Juan said:

I imagine pedestrians get it just as bad from all the second hand smoke of other pedestrians. It seems like another biased study to make cycling undesirable.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by S on September 28, 2011 at 6:07am

There's a difference between the authors of the study and the authors of the gizmodo article that was linked in this thread. The gizmodo authors may have been biased against cyclists but that doesn't say anything about the study's authors. In fact, looking at the press releaseput out by the study's authors, their conclusion appear to be fairly unbiased.  Also, it looks like at least one of the researchers conducting the study is an active cyclist.

Carly said:

I think that the article is biased against cycling.  Although they mention this to be an ongoing study, having only ten participants does not warrant a published article.  I've done science experiments in grade school that had more factors than that.  I want more information.  Different cities, times of day, and times of the year at least.  The article was sarcastic in saying somewhere "And you thought cycling was healthier."  Also, the title refers to this as being a "downside" that anyone could add to the list of other "downsides"; cars are scary, it rains sometimes, but I really need to look nice today, and etc... I got the absurd connotation that it may be wiser at times to drive to work to protect yourself from black carbon.  Well, maybe its more of a reason for people not to drive to work.            

S said:

The study looked at carbon black and not second hand smoke.  Also pedestrians are further away from traffic and probably don't exert as much energy as cyclists so it'd make sense that their exposure is reduced.  In balance cycling is probably better for you than walking or driving but to claim that any study that shows that cycling may have downsides to be biased is frankly showing the same type of bias that you seem to be against.

Juan said:

I imagine pedestrians get it just as bad from all the second hand smoke of other pedestrians. It seems like another biased study to make cycling undesirable.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Schwab on September 30, 2011 at 6:59am

It is even worse for motorist.  The passenger cabin prevents pollution from being blow away and they get 4times as much pollution as bicyclist.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tony De Sadier on September 30, 2011 at 9:28am

In the late 80s and early 90s, when I worked at my company office on Wacker Drive. I would do my training ride after work (between 4:45 pm and 7pm), Monday thru Thursday. I would ride the bike trail north to Ardmore then take Sheridan to Baha'i Faith Temple or Gillson Park in Winnetka. I began to notice that I was having a tough time riding full throttle when I was riding along the lake. Especially when the wind was coming from the west. Of course I'd just push harder because this is a training ride. But instead of getting faster I was being slowed down because, doing deep breathing at this point on the bike path, was like a panting race horse after the Kentucky Derby. A lot of mucus in my throat and constantly belowing my nose. I was making other excuses for this but I finally realized. The closer I got to Evanston the better I felt. I finally realized that pushing hard along Lake Shore Dr. during rush hour traffic was not good for this kind of effort. So I adjusted my ride to cruising along the lake, then once I got to Loyola Univ. I would pick it up. On the weekends I was fine. I think the the difference was the cars just sitting there releasing exhaust and instead of rolling down Lake Shore Dr. (higher concentration of exhaust gases).  Now my company is out south so no problems.

• ▶ Reply