Commuting by car or public transport is bad for your health, that's the not very shocking conclusion of a Swedish public health survey in to the commuting habits of 21,000 people which has been published in the journal BMC Public Health
The snappily titled "Detection Relationship between commuting and health outcomes in a cross-sectional population survey in southern Sweden" was carried out by researchers from Lund University gathered information on full time workers aged between 18 and 65 in southern Sweden. In a press release explaining their findings Erik Hansseen from the university's division of occupational and environmental medicine said:
"Generally car and public transport users suffered more everyday stress, poorer sleep quality, exhaustion and, on a seven point scale, felt that they struggled with their health compared to the active commuters.
"The negative health of public transport users increased with journey time. However, the car drivers who commuted 30 – 60 minutes experienced worse health than those whose journey lasted more than one hour."
While most of this might seem confirmation of the staggeringly obvious the Lund researchers say that all might not be as it seems. They point out, (we'd like to imagine while leaning forward at their desks and pressing their fingertips together before possibly taking their rimless glasses off for a quick polish), that some of the health outcomes might relate to the economic circumstances of their research subjects as much as their chosen methods of commuting. Thus poorer people might be more likely to commute by public transport, but their health would also be adversely affected by the very fact of being poor. However the economic argument doesn't necessarily explain why cyclists and walkers are healthier other than the active nature of their commutes. While in the UK cyclists are generally slightly more affluent than the general population that may or may not be true for Southern Sweden. Pedestrians are likely to be drawn from all economic strata of a society.
That they say, probably while staring out of the lab window at a fiord (do they have those in Sweden - ed), might also explain one of the seeming anomalies of the research, that commuters who drove for over an hour to work were more relaxed and less stressed than those that drove for under an hour. This they posit could be down to the relaxing nature of driving through Southern Sweden or the fact that people driving longer distances could be more affluent, high achieving males who didn't really have very much to worry about anyway.
The Lund researchers conclude that more research is needed to tease this knotty one out. Well fancy that.
Add new comment
8 comments
I've been to Sweden many times. The Swedes are quite orderly when cycling.
As for this report, I think we all agree it's not exactly a surprise. Whatever next? Drinking too much alcohol and smoking can damage your health?
Like the fact that the pedestrians are not taking up all the pavement , walking side by side or in larger groups trying to jostle for position
Fair point abudhabiChris, I will update the story, there have been a number of other research projects that have highlighted the possible harm cycle commuters might face from the pollutants they are breathing in, but I can't think of even one of them that didn't also go on to qualify that by saying that the health benefits of cycle commuting on balance outweigh the health risks. But you are right it does at least establish a benchmark.
Wasn't there a study that suggested that you breathe in more pollutants sat in your traffic jam than the cyclists outside the cars? I think it's a non-factor/excuse as much as anything.
I've been to Sweden. I did not stare at Elks. I stared at the tall fit females. They were probably cyclists.
Elk... that would be what you might stare at, I am led to believe.
Seriously though, I know it is blindingly obvious on a general (qualitative) level but if the study helps to quantify the benefits of cycling then it is a useful contribution.
It's the sort of thing that can be used to justify investment in cycling infrastructure, company support, reduced health insurance or the opposite applied to motorised commuting.
Also interesting that it applies to public transport. Cycling often tends to get lumped in with public transport as an environmental alternative to cars, but differentiating it by delivering additional benefits is a good thing. (And public transport in Sweden is a lot less stressful than SE England, I can tell you without conducting a study)
I think you are being a trifle harsh, even if they do have polished rimless glasses.
No fjords in Sweden, just lots of lovely fresh clean air to breathe on your cycle every day.
Look at that - the cyclists have to ride on the bloody pavement because the road is blocked by cars!
They ought to shout obscenities and tell them to get out of the way. Or point out rudely that they don't pay Road Tax...
Seriously, if Swedish high earners are like their UK counterparts I'd expect them to be more stressed (and prone to road rage) than their poorer brethren.