One single thing that makes you think "knob" Vol 4
Discussion
NewUsername said:
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.
It's just being honest and realistic.
Health benefits are not confined to what it directly saves the NHS, wellbeing is important for productivity and mental health etc. Then there are the congestion and environment benefits so I love cycling and think it's obvious that more is better. Just trying to get some balance.
Ares said:
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... 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.
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
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.
I don't accept that those who want greater controls must dislike cyclists. It makes no sense as the same study, that found the majority wanted more controls, also found they wanted greater protections and more measures to encourage cycling. In any event if the majority dislike cyclists, that should be something to try to address rather than confront? I don't think they do and that has not been my experience at all.
Edited by Graveworm on Tuesday 23 June 11:38
Graveworm said:
The per km travelled is and has been pretty constant. It's by its nature linear. Cyclists have 25 times more casualty accidents than cars per km so moving from cars to cycling is not better for accidents or casualties plus a much higher proportion of cycling journeys are not utility & tandems are pretty rare, so more distance cycled is not a 1-1 reduction in car journeys.
It's just being honest and realistic.
Health benefits are not confined to what it directly saves the NHS, wellbeing is important for productivity and mental health etc. Then there are the congestion and environment benefits so I love cycling and think it's obvious that more is better. Just trying to get some balance.
There's a big safety in numbers effect, though. The more cyclists there are, the more used to driving around cyclists motorists are - and thus you get less SMIDSY at junctions, because drivers actually look for cyclists.It's just being honest and realistic.
Health benefits are not confined to what it directly saves the NHS, wellbeing is important for productivity and mental health etc. Then there are the congestion and environment benefits so I love cycling and think it's obvious that more is better. Just trying to get some balance.
Take what happened with New Zealand's helmet law.
The total rate of head injuries didn't change significantly. Meanwhile, the danger of injury per cyclist was higher - because compulsory helmets put people off cycling!
So assuming a linear relation is a very dodgy assumption.
Furthermore, this is why I'm against any regulation of cycling. The more people on bikes, the safer it is for all of us. Sure, there'll be some idiots, but I'd rather that they were on a bike than behind the wheel of a car!
Edited by Solocle on Tuesday 23 June 11:58
Graveworm said:
NewUsername said:
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.
It's just being honest and realistic.
Health benefits are not confined to what it directly saves the NHS, wellbeing is important for productivity and mental health etc. Then there are the congestion and environment benefits so I love cycling and think it's obvious that more is better. Just trying to get some balance.
NewUsername said:
Too many assumptions here, you cannot know the nature of the relationship with the unprecedented volumes we would be talking about, also the nature of cycling journeys is changing with ebikes and the c2w scheme meaning more purposeful journeys.
We used to have far more cycling and the deaths per km didn't increase in any meaningful way with falling numbers of cyclists. I don't know the future but I know the past and the present, so to say the assumption is erroneous, because it is an assumption is too easy, what I can say with some certainty is we won't get the unprecedented volumes so its always going to be conjecture. Edited by Graveworm on Tuesday 23 June 15:02
What is it with Merc C220 owners? Was doing a motorway drive on Sunday, pulling off the M4 at Bath. Mr C220 flies past on the slip road, overtakes on the left and then brakes hard at the lights. I pull up behind C220 with obligatory AMG badge stuck next to the CDI badge, nice.
On the way home later, driving back along the M4 two cars sitting in the middle lane for mile after mile despite lane one being empty most of the time. Their speed varying from 60mph to 75mph depending on how alert they felt at that given time. I suspect lads in convoy, both in.....C220 diesel Mercs and another with that AMG badge on it. Also I think one of their seats was broken as one was sat almost horizontal in the car.
I'm no Merc hater, I own one but what is it about the C220 that seems to attract cretins and wannabe C63 owners!
On the way home later, driving back along the M4 two cars sitting in the middle lane for mile after mile despite lane one being empty most of the time. Their speed varying from 60mph to 75mph depending on how alert they felt at that given time. I suspect lads in convoy, both in.....C220 diesel Mercs and another with that AMG badge on it. Also I think one of their seats was broken as one was sat almost horizontal in the car.
I'm no Merc hater, I own one but what is it about the C220 that seems to attract cretins and wannabe C63 owners!
Graveworm said:
A fatal accident costs about the same to investigate as the prevention cost. That's without medical costs etc. I don't have the figures for other accidents but I would be astonished if the true cost of a serious accident, as defined, is less than their figures. Reported minor injuries are a small proportion of all accidents.
EH??? So the building of a cycle lane, or placing of a barrier, or signage costs, about the same as investigating a death??
I don't accept that those who want greater controls must dislike cyclists. It makes no sense as the same study, that found the majority wanted more controls, also found they wanted greater protections and more measures to encourage cycling. In any event if the majority dislike cyclists, that should be something to try to address rather than confront? I don't think they do and that has not been my experience at all.
When non cyclists are greater in number (89% of adults), finding the ones who chose to respond are in a majority that dislike the thing they don't do, isn't really a surprise is it?EH??? So the building of a cycle lane, or placing of a barrier, or signage costs, about the same as investigating a death??
I don't accept that those who want greater controls must dislike cyclists. It makes no sense as the same study, that found the majority wanted more controls, also found they wanted greater protections and more measures to encourage cycling. In any event if the majority dislike cyclists, that should be something to try to address rather than confront? I don't think they do and that has not been my experience at all.
Edited by Graveworm on Tuesday 23 June 11:38
Ares said:
When non cyclists are greater in number (89% of adults), finding the ones who chose to respond are in a majority that dislike the thing they don't do, isn't really a surprise is it?
Christ, are you still prattling on. 
You deserve a ban for boring the rest of us to bloody tears. 
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff