I find it hilarious that Americans made it to the moon but think that commuting to work by bike is practically impossible. Meanwhile millions of people all over the rest of the world, from school children to seniors, are doing just that every single day. I moved to southern California last year (from the UK) and of course I ride my bike to work. My colleagues think that this is a really strange thing to do and some regularly lecture me about how dangerous that is. Never mind that there are dedicated bike routes that are super safe and even safer than most bike lanes in European cities (because hardly anyone else is using them).

> some regularly lecture me about how dangerous that is

I think this is a case of the "vivid example" fallacy. People can easily envision the carnage caused by a bike-car collision. Less easily imagined is the health toll wreaked by 500+ hours / year commuting in a car.

And the financial toll of 500+ hours/year in a car that costs real money every operating hour.

On the plus side, you'll never pick up fast food to eat on the way when you're on a bike.

A handful of Americans made it to the moon. The rest of us watched it on TV.

You are not giving your fellow Americans enough credit. If Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins, and Buzz Aldrin had been born in another country, they would almost certainly not have made it to the moon. It was a gigantic effort and many many Americans helped directly or indirectly to make it happen.

Maybe for you, but I have been run over and otherwise injured while biking. The accident wasn't my fault, but I really don't like anything where my legs (and clothing) will suffer if I miss a single pothole. I do not enjoy it, either, not one iota. It was the only realistic option when I was a kid and even into college so I've done quite a lot of biking, but I got rid of the damn thing as soon as I could.

I'd much rather take public transport.

Cycling in the US really is more dangerous than in Europe. I see two main reasons: 1.) Drivers are not aware of cyclists and don't know how to deal with them. When I cycle on roads with considerable car traffic, it regularly happens that cars drive dangerously close to me or that they cut me off. In Germany, drivers know what distance they should keep and to look for cyclists when turning. 2.) The condition of the streets is incredibly poor in the US. Potholes are a real problem, not just for cyclists. Some ptholes in San Diego are a foot deep and this is of course super dangerous for cyclists. I've never seen potholes like that in Germany.

My accident was in a parking lot, even, rather than on the street. Someone came around a blind corner rather quickly. At least it was a golf-cart type thing, rather than an actual car, or I would've been more seriously injured.

Biking really is dangerous though. Per-mile you are more likely to get injured in an accident on a bike than in a car. Though there are problems with that statistic since cars are also used for long-distance highway driving which inflates the total number of miles. That said, it's absolutely true that biking can be a fairly dangerous activity, though driving itself is also fairly dangerous (one of the most dangerous things people do regularly).

I'm still a huge proponent of biking regularly, but safety is an unfortunate problem, and a lot of people are stuck in situations where there isn't a safe bike route to and from work for them.

And you are absolutely right, there are plenty of cases where there are safe bike routes.

Yes per mile it's worse. However driving is worse for your health in long run. The odds average out in favor of cycling

Also, the statistics can be somewhat misleading because they average over so many details.

For example, there is a huge disparity in the range of safety equipment, level of situational awareness, and caution used by cyclists. Some are very conscientious, use lights, even mirrors, pay close attention to traffic, etc. while others take a cavalier attitude to safety, ignore the laws, are practically invisible on the road, etc. The statistics average both of those extremes into an aggregate risk level (though the same is true for cars as well, which is worth considering). Also, people have the ability to judge which routes they travel and to choose the safest ones.

Overall I would never discourage people from cycling, though there are some routes that I myself would be hesitant to take due to the lack of alternatives for safe places to travel. I commuted to work by bicycle for about a year and a half in Alabama, which is considered the worst state in the US to ride a bike (and I wouldn't disagree). In most cases there are reasonable and safe bike commuting routes, often on less trafficked side streets from main thoroughfares, though there are some cities where it's difficult to travel by bike unless you are a very skilled and aggressive cyclist.

Who said it was impossible? It just has to compete with many other forms of transit. So, put simply, if biking to work means arriving at work late, dripping sweat, and getting grazed by cars doing 60, then people will take other options if they can.

And a lot of the US really is pretty f*cking dangerous to bike during rush hour.

You're comparing a jackfruit to an entire valley's harvest of grapes there.

With the exception of showers and possibly safe routes these problems are addressed by experience. Cycling is not something it takes years to be an expert at or gain fitness in. Biking to work once or twice a week for a month and you'll no longer be going 10 mph and you know what to look for in a route and you'll notice more route options as you get a chance to explore.

Experience can even over come the shower issue. As your fitness level increases you won't have to exert yourself so much and you can also figure out creative to freshen up to an acceptable smell level (i.e. a "sinker")

> and you'll no longer be going 10 mph

If we go back to talk about Copenhagen, that's about the speed the bikes there ride: 16 km/h.