(from previous message)



 RS>> Those are quite different when you attempt to quantify intangible

 RS>> contributions. Its much easier to compare the amount of money spent

 RS>> on roads with the amount collected via rego and license fees and fuel

 RS>> excise etc.



 AW>> Ah Ha! I know what's happening now. You're neglecting to realise that

 AW>> the German study factored in environmental costs. Yeh I know, its

 AW>> wrong, the only other option is walking, its overstated, its a myth

 AW>> etc etc



 RS> Nope, a more subtle point that its completely academic to be counting

 RS> those costs when there is no prospect whatever of replacing cars as the

 RS> dominant mode of travel in Sydney. There is no chance of that whatever.

 RS> So its pretty silly to be indulging in some academic wank about what the

 RS> cost of the pollution caused by cars in Sydney is, cos whatever we do

 RS> with the transport system in Sydney which is realistically possible, the

 RS> car will remain the dominant transport mode. Thats life, no point in

 RS> trying to calculate the benefit if everyone always used bikes, a classic

 RS> example of an academic wank IMO and completely irrelevant to transport

 RS> planning in Sydney cos its just not ever going to happen like that.



Thats what I meant by 'Yeh I know, the only other option is walking'.

It was a thought provoking study, but clearly there is no better way to

move people or produce around. But if people started riding to the rail

stations and catching electric trains, that has to reduce this reliance

we have on cars. Even you admit that residential streets are viable to

ride on.



 AW>>> Dunc Gray and Sir Hubert Opperman may also dispute that it's a fad,

 AW>>> being representative riders from 60-70 years ago.



 RS>> Surely even you can see that just because some people rode bikes 70

 RS>> years ago that that says absolutely nothing about it being a fad. It

 RS>> becomes a fad when the trendoids infest the streets in a way they

 RS>> previously didnt. I dont think anyone would seriously dispute that

 RS>> bike riding has become trendy again. Thats says nothing about whether

 RS>> it ever died out in say the 60s either, it was just dominated by kids

 RS>> in that era, and became more populate amongst the trendoid adults in

 RS>> later times. Even in the say 60s there were still some adults who

 RS>> rode bikes. A much smaller percentage than in the 90s tho. Thats why

 RS>> its called a fad.



A few things have happened which make me think it isn't a fad. Cars are

more costly to run nowadays. Todays average car costs 32 weeks of the

average wage, compared to a figure in the 20's back in 1960. People are

more aware of the benefits of fitness. Less and less people are working

in physical jobs that provide this benefit. People are becoming aware

of the costs on the environment of cars. All of these are factors

behind the popularity of cycling. The mountain bike has also provided

some of the extra popularity, with it's strength, reliability and

granny gears.



 AW>> I've got some stats for NSW in 1990. 247 reported car - bike hits for

 AW>> the year. Taking the whole state into account, no I'm not shocked

 AW>> speechless. I think the last cyclist that got killed on my route -

 AW>> spit road - was in 1983, when Andrew Lowrey was killed on the

 AW>> northern approach. The bike lane over the spit bridge may now

 AW>> eliminate some of the risks in this area.



 RS> Yeah but when talking about the risk in the high traffic situations the

 RS> NSW figures are irrelevant. No one disputes that there is a quite

 RS> serious problem with rather uncoordinated kids having accidents with

 RS> cars. But thats irrelevant to the question of what the risk is when

 RS> riding in the CBD traffic as an adult.



I've been doing CBD riding for 7 years with no real probs. In the

absence of hard evidence on your side of the argument, I'll have to go

by my own experiences.



 RS> Presumably you have also seen the bit in the paper in last few days on

 RS> the under reporting of accidents too.



No doubt. The cops are quite happy in some ways, because if someone

hasn't been killed or seriously injured, it saves them the paperwork.



 RS>> I'm saying its mostly hype which turns out on a thorough analysis to

 RS>> be hype. The jogging fools and the footballers have been thoroughly

 RS>> analysed and its clear that their bodgy arguments for the health

 RS>> benefits are just that, bodgy arguments.



 AW>> I think I'll go with my stats rather than your opinion.



 RS> I see, yours are stats, mine are opinions. Thanks. In fact there are

 RS> hard stats for the sports, particularly things like football.



I didn't mean to devalue what you wrote. I just got the impression that

much of it was purely opinion.



 RS> I havent seen you actually produce any stats, just say what they

 RS> conclude. The sports injury rate stats are relatively easy to chase up

 RS> if you want to, you likely have even seen them reported in the paper

 RS> yourself. Its not my opinion.



I remember the cycling injury rate wasn't that high. If it was, it

would have stuck in my mind.



 AW>> There are always going to be examples where the operation should be

 AW>> carried out. There are also going to be examples where it is clearly

 AW>> beneficial to try and indefinitely postpone the operation.



 RS> But the point is that unless the number of complete postponements are

 RS> significant, its a bodgy argument. Particularly as its well known that

 RS> major operations in the extremely elderly arent a terrific idea. In many

 RS> cases they just dont do them at all cos the person is 'too old'.



Well just shoot them then.



 RS>> I'm not convinced it is that cheap when analysed properly. I dont

 RS>> believe its that cheap for some of the freeway changes for example.



 AW>> The fact that you deny that virtually all new freeways have

 AW>> shoulders/breakdown lanes is a sticking point.



 RS> Yep, its just not true.



It seems to be in NSW.



 RS>> I'm not even convinced that thats much more than bodgy stats either.



 AW>> It's simply extrapolating current trends. It's the best method

 AW>> available of estimations.



 RS> And can end up with some remarkably stupid conclusions too. At one time

 RS> someone concluded that the phone system just couldnt work cos at the

 RS> projected rates of growth, all women would be required to man the

 RS> switchboards to manually connect the calls.





(continued next message)



--- FMail 0.94