Freedom at last...

Nebulous2

modsandmockers wrote: »

Competing? With whom? Why will they need to join a club? Why will you be in the background? It's only biking, !!!!!!...

What can you remember of your Grandfather? What did you learn from him?

Mine taught me to carve wood, to solder, to swim and to drive.

The world has moved on though and for most children they now get their sport through clubs, be it swimming, football, hockey or cycling.

I'd like my grandchildren to have some kind of legacy from me, that bypasses a generation, in the same way that I received one from my grandfather. On reflection I don't care what that is, as long as they are healthy and happy and not spending the time on the internet that I do!

modsandmockers

This thread has helped me to deal with the question of whether and when to consider taking my grandchildren onto the highway - I shall probably do it eventually, but at a much later age than I did it with their parents. It probably depends upon the the rate of acceleration in the decline of my own mental and physical faculties!

My son is the only one of my three ‘children’ who regularly cycles to work, and he is lucky enough to be able to do so without going onto the road. He gets punctures fairly frequently, and he is gradually beginning to believe that decent tyres are not necessarily provided as standard by cycle manufacturers.

I also have a son-in-law who bought himself a high-quality road bike to use for his 6-mile commute, but he gave up, and has taken up running instead.

I have no problem at all with the idea that cycling as a competitive sport is as life-enhancing as any other competitive sport but, in an age of austerity, I think that councils should be relieved of their obligations to paint symbolic, and mostly ignored, white lines and cyclist shapes on their roads and be allowed instead to spend the money on keeping the libraries open.

There seems to be unlimited amounts of money for high-speed rail projects, extra airport runways and major road projects, but cyclists need to understand that they are extremely low on everybody's priorities except their own.

fred246

The best countries for dedicated cycle paths are Holland, Denmark and Belgium. What cars are made in those countries? They have no real car industry (some minis made in Holland by Nedcar). If you read news articles about car sales it is always seen as positive when sales are up. If everyone started cycling then there would be less jobs in the car industry and the government would lose all the tax from fuel, VED etc. So the UK government doesn't really want people to cycle they just pretend they do when they have to talk about climate change etc.

modsandmockers

fred246 wrote: »

If everyone started cycling then there would be less jobs in the car industry and the government would lose all the tax from fuel, VED etc

And because the life expectancy of the population would be extended by ten years, the burden on the NHS and the pensions industry would become even more of a problem than it is already...

Nebulous2

fred246 wrote: »

The best countries for dedicated cycle paths are Holland, Denmark and Belgium. What cars are made in those countries? They have no real car industry (some minis made in Holland by Nedcar). If you read news articles about car sales it is always seen as positive when sales are up. If everyone started cycling then there would be less jobs in the car industry and the government would lose all the tax from fuel, VED etc. So the UK government doesn't really want people to cycle they just pretend they do when they have to talk about climate change etc.

There would be loads of jobs in cycling though. Everyone cycling is not going to be realistic, doubling it would be a big achievement.

Nebulous2

modsandmockers wrote: »

And because the life expectancy of the population would be extended by ten years, the burden on the NHS and the pensions industry would become even more of a problem than it is already...

Living longer should be something to celebrate, not something to worry about. The big problem is not how old people get but how long they spend in poor health before their eventual demise. If you are at all interested try googling "compression of morbidity"

esuhl

modsandmockers wrote: »

And because the life expectancy of the population would be extended by ten years, the burden on the NHS and the pensions industry would become even more of a problem than it is already...

Exactly. We should ban cycling (and other forms of strenuous exercise) in case people become so healthy they become a burden to the NHS.

We should be subsidising cigarettes and junk food to reduce the risk of anyone claiming a pension that they've spent their whole life contributing to.

As a grandfather, I certainly hope you aren't intending to live any longer than the actuaries have calculated for you... (nothing personal, you understand -- I just know how much you'd hate to cause any problems for the NHS and pensions industry).

Johno100

fred246 wrote: »

The best countries for dedicated cycle paths are Holland, Denmark and Belgium. What cars are made in those countries? They have no real car industry (some minis made in Holland by Nedcar). If you read news articles about car sales it is always seen as positive when sales are up. If everyone started cycling then there would be less jobs in the car industry and the government would lose all the tax from fuel, VED etc. So the UK government doesn't really want people to cycle they just pretend they do when they have to talk about climate change etc.

Interestingly the number of motor vehicles per capita in the Netherlands (528 per 1,000 people) is higher than in the UK (519 per 1,000 people), so it seems more people cycling doesn't necessarily mean less motor vehicles.

modsandmockers

Nebulous2 wrote: »

Living longer should be something to celebrate, not something to worry about. The big problem is not how old people get but how long they spend in poor health before their eventual demise. If you are at all interested try googling "compression of morbidity"

Cycling to work and back is most likely to have no long term effect at all on any set of health statistics which any of us can pull off the internet. Has anybody tried to include the stress levels which many cyclists seem to experience?

Heart failure and strokes are sudden - if you manage to avoid heart failure and stroke, then you increase your risk of exposure to one or more of the many slow-burning degenerative conditions which stalk us all in later life.

Last week, there was a news story about the need to build schools etc at least 150 metres from the roadside because of the danger of long term exposure to vehicle fumes.

The only serious rationalisations for commuter-cycling are:-

1. It is completely free of cost, and there are almost no legal pre-conditions.
2. Over some distances, it can be faster than the alternatives.

The health benefits and the green issues are, at best, debatable and, at worst, of no interest at all to many cyclists.

When the weather is bad, or the cyclist has an important meeting to get to, then he or she will probably expect that the public transport system should at all times provide a convenient alternative to cycling even if it means that buses run empty for most of the time.

The fact that the public transport system usually copes successfully with normal variations in weather conditions is an indication that cycling does not make any significant difference to overall traffic patterns.

Nebulous2

modsandmockers wrote: »

Cycling to work and back is most likely to have no long term effect at all on any set of health statistics which any of us can pull off the internet. Has anybody tried to include the stress levels which many cyclists seem to experience?

People who walk, cycle or use public transport are less stressed than motorists.

Heart failure and strokes are sudden - if you manage to avoid heart failure and stroke, then you increase your risk of exposure to one or more of the many slow-burning degenerative conditions which stalk us all in later life.

The compression of morbidity theory I spoke about refers to delaying the onset of the first serious illness. Heart failure rarely kills quickly for instance - I think from memory about 3 per cent of people who have heart attacks die from their first one.

Last week, there was a news story about the need to build schools etc at least 150 metres from the roadside because of the danger of long term exposure to vehicle fumes.

The only serious rationalisations for commuter-cycling are:-

1. It is completely free of cost, and there are almost no legal pre-conditions.

Unfortunately not. Cycling can be done cheaply, but many people will spend a fair bit on it. My work pays me 20p a mile to use my bike which is possibly a fair reflection of costs.

2. Over some distances, it can be faster than the alternatives.

The health benefits and the green issues are, at best, debatable and, at worst, of no interest at all to many cyclists.

When the weather is bad, or the cyclist has an important meeting to get to, then he or she will probably expect that the public transport system should at all times provide a convenient alternative to cycling even if it means that buses run empty for most of the time.

Most people chop and change transport as it suits. Your car goes for a service or repair what do you do? I don't see cyclists doing it more than anyone else.

The fact that the public transport system usually copes successfully with normal variations in weather conditions is an indication that cycling does not make any significant difference to overall traffic patterns.

If buses run empty most of the time then surely they can cope with a few extra cyclists? The main difference cycling makes to traffic is a reduction in cars and improved flows of traffic, particularly at peak times.

You know modsandknockers, you've changed tack so often it is difficult to keep up. I haven't been primarily referring to commuting through this thread, though I do that.

My main interest is the health and weight benefits from exercising. For me cycling fits that gap best but for other people it could equally be running, swimming or the gym. I almost always do 3 miles a day walking with dog regardless of weather, which gives me a baseline for activity.