One single thing that makes you think "knob" Vol 4

[anonymous-user]

LargeRed said:

Don't go asking questions and making comments on the Pedal Power thread.

Same as any other forum, ask a sensible question and you’ll get a sensible answer. I love the newer contributors who come out with anti-cycling bks completely unaware that PH and cycling have a long history from branded jerseys to supporting guys on long distance rides.

[b80]

BerlinChris said:

fred bloggs said:

Cycling. Ther persuit of staring at another mans lycra clad sweaty ass for hours on end, trying to cause an accident one cannot be held accountable for.
Oh, and by the way, theres enough oil based product in that lycra to power my v8 for months.
You really are not saving the world. just wasting heartbeats.

Its 2020, imagine hating cyclists. I find those who do are generally fat balding boring blokes who do little to no exercise and think driving their car is classed as a 'hobby'. Getting exercise in the sun, exploring the local area, making friends, challenging yourself physically and mentally, I really cant see how anyone dislikes cycling. But ofcourse it boils back down to being a boring angry person who hates people bettering their lives.

I get the same at the moment running with a vest, or sometimes in quiet areas when its boiling... with no top on.

Funny that the only jeer or shout I get is from angry looking, no doubt out of shape of men. I bet they don;t shout out all the average looking chaps that are running/cylcing with no tops on.

Nice smiles and double takes from some of the ladies x

[Graveworm]

Ares said:

Bike - 99 deaths
Car - 1,900 deaths
Motorbike 319 deaths

Not sure how a death can cost more from one source?

It doesn't cost more it's about the same. I was simply saying that the cost in doubling accidents (Not just deaths) from cycling would be more than the 2 billion saving mentioned. There are many more benefits which should have been highlighted. One of the acceptable downsides of moving people from cars to bikes is they are at a much higher (but still very low) risk of injuries and deaths from accidents.

This is not anti cycling. I hope/think the rewards vs benefits argument has been won with most sensible people.

[Mandalore]

Ares said:

Jeez. Can we get back onto cycling....

Ares said:

....and on that subject..

Health economists SQW were commissioned to calculate how much it saves the NHS when someone takes up cycling (from health/pollution gains).
In 2020 that figure is £630/year.

Only c5% of UK adults ride once a week or more. If we double that, the NHS would save nearly £2bn.

This thread title perfectly describes the sort of person, who deliberately starts an argument about cycling, because one of his mates/other users names is having trouble on another subject.

Edited by Mandalore on Monday 22 June 14:03

[markyb_lcy]

Cycling types on here (in answer to the thread title).

Seems we don't even need to go looking for "knobs" anymore, they've kindly came to the thread to save us the hassle. They are even competing with each other to be the biggest knob of all.

[Mandalore]

markyb_lcy said:

Cycling types on here (in answer to the thread title).

Seems we don't even need to go looking for "knobs" anymore, they've kindly came to the thread to save us the hassle. They are even competing with each other to be the biggest knob of all.

It seems I hit a home run with my prior comment.

Clearly any opinion you might convey is highly suspect, if you have to get one of your mates/other username to start an cycling argument because you were looking royally knobbish about another subject.

[NewUsername]

Graveworm said:

Ares said:

....and on that subject..

Health economists SQW were commissioned to calculate how much it saves the NHS when someone takes up cycling (from health/pollution gains).
In 2020 that figure is £630/year.

Only c5% of UK adults ride once a week or more. If we double that, the NHS would save nearly £2bn.

I hope it's more than that as deaths and accidents involving cyclists cost more.

You are assuming of course that isn't already taken into account in the calculations..........

[Algarve]

Cyclists used to annoy me, the way they sometimes clog up the road by cycling 2-3 aside and aren't the easiest to pass safely at times.

Now I've moved to an area thats pretty well known for cyclists, I'm encountering them every single time I drive one of the cars. Now I'm cool with them... it'd be pretty hypocritical if I was going to continue to moan about their use of the road. I don't imagine too many people are impressed by me blasting around in a v10 Lambo or stinking the place up with my diesel truck. So why shouldn't they use the roads and have a bit of fun, exactly like I'm doing

I think anyone moaning about them needs to give themselves a shake and stop getting worked up about something completely irrelevant. Sure you won't catch me out doing it, but it'd be a boring place if we all liked the same stuff.

[Graveworm]

NewUsername said:

You are assuming of course that isn't already taken into account in the calculations..........

I was, thank you.

I have now checked though and it isn't. It would also only be a total of 2 billion if cycling doubled, so only an additional billion. I still think it's a net positive but that isn't the best metric to sell it.

[Ares]

Graveworm said:

Ares said:

Bike - 99 deaths
Car - 1,900 deaths
Motorbike 319 deaths

Not sure how a death can cost more from one source?

It doesn't cost more it's about the same. I was simply saying that the cost in doubling accidents (Not just deaths) from cycling would be more than the 2 billion saving mentioned. There are many more benefits which should have been highlighted. One of the acceptable downsides of moving people from cars to bikes is they are at a much higher (but still very low) risk of injuries and deaths from accidents.

This is not anti cycling. I hope/think the rewards vs benefits argument has been won with most sensible people.

So when you said "I hope it's more than that as deaths and accidents involving cyclists cost more" you were just being incendiary?

...and whilst the % of accidents per km is higher with Cycling, the % of hospital admissions is a third of car drivers (and an 8th for Motorcyclists), mostly as a cyclist accident is usually a sprain, a broken collarbone or a bit of gravel rash as the accidents happen at under 20mph.

Car accidents are higher because if an injury occurs, there are significantly greater forces at play.

But by all means keep peddling (and then 'amending') your hypotheses

[Ares]

Mandalore said:

Ares said:

Jeez. Can we get back onto cycling....

Ares said:

....and on that subject..

Health economists SQW were commissioned to calculate how much it saves the NHS when someone takes up cycling (from health/pollution gains).
In 2020 that figure is £630/year.

Only c5% of UK adults ride once a week or more. If we double that, the NHS would save nearly £2bn.

This thread title perfectly describes the sort of person, who deliberately starts an argument about cycling, because one of his mates/other users names is having trouble on another subject.

Edited by Mandalore on Monday 22 June 14:03

Eh? In English?

[Ares]

Graveworm said:

NewUsername said:

You are assuming of course that isn't already taken into account in the calculations..........

I was, thank you.

I have now checked though and it isn't. It would also only be a total of 2 billion if cycling doubled, so only an additional billion. I still think it's a net positive but that isn't the best metric to sell it.

No, it would be an additional 2 billion (nearly, £1.89bn to be exact).

[Graveworm]

Ares said:

So when you said "I hope it's more than that as deaths and accidents involving cyclists cost more" you were just being incendiary?

...and whilst the % of accidents per km is higher with Cycling, the % of hospital admissions is a third of car drivers (and an 8th for Motorcyclists), mostly as a cyclist accident is usually a sprain, a broken collarbone or a bit of gravel rash as the accidents happen at under 20mph.

Car accidents are higher because if an injury occurs, there are significantly greater forces at play.

But by all means keep peddling (and then 'amending') your hypotheses

What?? My "Hypothesis" was you said it would save the NHS 2 billion. I said I hope it's more than 2 billion because that's what I was replying to.
I was saying that, purely mathematically, the deaths and accidents involving cyclists, if the numbers doubled would cost more that the 2 billion saved. That's not incendiary, it's not saying it's not worth it overall, it was just it was not a good metric to chose.

I wasn't comparing with cars, motorcycling or hang gliding. But your figures are way off. Cyclists have fewer fatal accidents per km than motorcycles but 15 times as many fatalities as cars and 25 times as many casualties.
0.8 percent of car casualties are fatal
11 percent are serious
and (Obviously) 88.2 percent are minor.
For cyclists
it's .5 percent are fatal
23 percent are serious
and that leaves 76.5 percent minor.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

Edited by Graveworm on Monday 22 June 17:45

[Graveworm]

Ares said:

No, it would be an additional 2 billion (nearly, £1.89bn to be exact).

I linked the report you referenced, it concludes that currently, its £1,056,598,000 so doubling that is just over 2 billion unless I am missing something. The university of Leeds estimated it at 1.89 billion overall economic benefits, which may be where you got it from.

Edited by Graveworm on Monday 22 June 17:43

[Drumroll]

Ares said:

....and on that subject..

Health economists SQW were commissioned to calculate how much it saves the NHS when someone takes up cycling (from health/pollution gains).
In 2020 that figure is £630/year.

Only c5% of UK adults ride once a week or more. If we double that, the NHS would save nearly £2bn.

I wonder how that comparison would work if it was compared to walkers as well?

I would suggest if we doubled the amount of people that walk say more than 2 miles twice a week. We would see even more of a saving for the NHS without necessarily increasing hospital admissions.

[Ares]

Graveworm said:

What?? My "Hypothesis" was you said it would save the NHS 2 billion. I said I hope it's more than 2 billion because that's what I was replying to.
I was saying that, purely mathematically, the deaths and accidents involving cyclists, if the numbers doubled would cost more that the 2 billion saved. That's not incendiary, it's not saying it's not worth it overall, it was just it was not a good metric to chose.

I wasn't comparing with cars, motorcycling or hang gliding. But your figures are way off. Cyclists have fewer fatal accidents per km than motorcycles but 15 times as many fatalities as cars and 25 times as many casualties.
0.8 percent of car casualties are fatal
11 percent are serious
and (Obviously) 88.2 percent are minor.
For cyclists
it's .5 percent are fatal
23 percent are serious
and that leaves 76.5 percent minor.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

Edited by Graveworm on Monday 22 June 17:45

The bit in bold is your hyperbole.

And my figures were all from 2019. And it was absolute numbers, not hiding behind percentages. 23% of a small number is a lot less than 11% of a very large number - but the stats I quoted, from NHS England, were for admissions.

[Ares]

Graveworm said:

Ares said:

No, it would be an additional 2 billion (nearly, £1.89bn to be exact).

I linked the report you referenced, it concludes that currently, its £1,056,598,000 so doubling that is just over 2 billion unless I am missing something. The university of Leeds estimated it at 1.89 billion overall economic benefits, which may be where you got it from.

Edited by Graveworm on Monday 22 June 17:43

No, I just used the SQW figure mentioned. 3m people currently ride at least once per week. If that is doubled, it is an extra 3m.

3,000,000 x £630/yr = £1.89bn/yr

...and SQW figures are actually on the low side, 11% of adults cycle once per week according to Statista based on figures from all Local Authorities, and there are just over 50m adults, so that is 5.5m. Double that and it would be an extra £3.4bn.

[Graveworm]

Ares said:

The bit in bold is your hyperbole.

And my figures were all from 2019. And it was absolute numbers, not hiding behind percentages. 23% of a small number is a lot less than 11% of a very large number - but the stats I quoted, from NHS England, were for admissions.

I know it is. But casualties per km, which is the measure of risk or the even less favourable casualties per minute travelled, the much higher number is for cyclists not car drivers...

In overall terms of course it's massively less but that doesn't compare risks. By that measure Chainsaw juggling is less risky than walking as far more walkers are injured than chainsaw jugglers.

The cost of road accident casualties are not Hyperbole It's currently about 2 billion just for cyclist injury accidents that get reported to police.

Sustrans in a championing of cycling claimed cycling saves the NHS the equivalent of 2206 nurses salaries. That's also about the 1 billion mark.

Again I am pro cycling, the benefits do outweigh the downsides including economic but the costs of accidents is greater than the savings to the NHS. Cycling and cyclists get a bad rep. But we have to engage and discuss rationally. Organised cycling and I fell out when they went down the refuse to accept or deflect (But cars/motorcyclists are worse) anything negative. The majority in the UK want more controls and restrictions on cycling. Rather than try to find out why or try to change perceptions it was go on the offensive.

Edited by Graveworm on Monday 22 June 20:47

[NewUsername]

Graveworm said:

NewUsername said:

You are assuming of course that isn't already taken into account in the calculations..........

I was, thank you.

I have now checked though and it isn't. It would also only be a total of 2 billion if cycling doubled, so only an additional billion. I still think it's a net positive but that isn't the best metric to sell it.

Now you're still assuming there is a linear relationship between the volume of cyclists and the accident/mortality rates. Also with more cycling is there a reduction in the accident rates for cars etc so is it just a transfer of existing cost?

[Ares]

Graveworm said:

Ares said:

The bit in bold is your hyperbole.

And my figures were all from 2019. And it was absolute numbers, not hiding behind percentages. 23% of a small number is a lot less than 11% of a very large number - but the stats I quoted, from NHS England, were for admissions.

I know it is. But casualties per km, which is the measure of risk or the even less favourable casualties per minute travelled, the much higher number is for cyclists not car drivers...

In overall terms of course it's massively less but that doesn't compare risks. By that measure Chainsaw juggling is less risky than walking as far more walkers are injured than chainsaw jugglers.

The cost of road accident casualties are not Hyperbole It's currently about 2 billion just for cyclist injury accidents that get reported to police.

Sustrans in a championing of cycling claimed cycling saves the NHS the equivalent of 2206 nurses salaries. That's also about the 1 billion mark.

Again I am pro cycling, the benefits do outweigh the downsides including economic but the costs of accidents is greater than the savings to the NHS. Cycling and cyclists get a bad rep. But we have to engage and discuss rationally. Organised cycling and I fell out when they went down the refuse to accept or deflect (But cars/motorcyclists are worse) anything negative. The majority in the UK want more controls and restrictions on cycling. Rather than try to find out why or try to change perceptions it was go on the offensive.

Edited by Graveworm on Monday 22 June 20:47

Your £2bn costs, are prevention costs, not the costs of the accidents to the NHS - as per the article you linked.

They *could* spend an additional £2bn on prevention costs, but it wouldn't be a) a direct cost, and b) required.


The only people that want greater controls and restrictions on cycling are those with a dislike of cyclists. Ditto with controls and restrictions on driving, drinking,...everything really.