(continued from previous message)



re: NRMA findings



 RS> and came to quite a different conclusion from memory. Cant remember the

 RS> detail tho. Bit more relevant than a German gov study.



With a duty to their members to come up with those conclusions. The gay

and lesbian mardi-gras society commissioned a study which concluded

that the benefits to Sydney of the event were in the order of $47

million. No surprise that they found that sort of positive conclusion.



 AW>> The UK's Dr D Mulray has done studies which indicate that on a

 AW>> cost-benefit analysis, health gains exceed costs associated with

 AW>> accidents.



 RS> Sounds like the usual vested interest wank to me. I cant see how the

 RS> relatively small cash benefit in some perceived improvement in fitness

 RS> would come within a bulls roar of the cost in repairing the ones run

 RS> over.



I think you should give more weight to Dr D Mulray's conclusions. He

did after all re-write the Japanese constitution after the war, and

he earns a lot of money being a dickhead on the radio ;-)

There was a real study by a real doctor in the UK though.



 RS> It isnt even possible to show conclusively that the fad for exercise

 RS> really does have much benefit for health anyway. And if you measure

 RS> health costs properly some like football actually incur much higher use

 RS> of the health system for the injurys.



How can bike riding be a fad, when it's been around longer than the

car. Dunc Gray and Sir Hubert Opperman may also dispute that it's a

fad, being representative riders from 60-70 years ago.



 AW>> It could be argued from his conference papers - published as "The

 AW>> bicycle:Global Perspectives" - that health budgets should
fund bicycle

 AW>> programs.



 RS> Sounds like the usual vested interest stuff.



How do you know what his interests are? The fact that the findings

don't coincide with your opinion doesn't immediately make them invalid.

I've gone to the trouble of quoting findings. I haven't found any that

say we would be immeasurably better off if bikes were banned. This may

be the sort of thing that the NRMA would be expected to say, but

their view is actually the opposite of that.



 AW>> Well if you play thughby or run on hard surfaces your medical costs

 AW>> may be significant, but not with cycling.



 RS> I cant recall the bike traffic accident stats but the motorbike ones are

 RS> appalling compared with car drivers. I wouldnt be surprised if the bike

 RS> ones are just as bad.



A large proportion of bike accidents are kids under 15. It's generally

accepted that many accidents are the result of skylarking and

distractions.



 AW>> An interesting corollary is that initiatives such as compulsory helmet

 AW>> wearing may actually cost the community through poorer health of those

 AW>> discouraged from cycling, rather than make any gains through reduced

 AW>> injuries.



 RS> Sounds fanciful to me. I think the health benefits are being wildly

 RS> overstated to come to a conclusion like that. You see precisely the same

 RS> claims made by the jogging fools but that doesnt make it true. Its a

 RS> complete wank IMO.



Most people would agree that any exercise in moderation (especially one

that doesn't include regular pounding of knees, hips and ankles) is

beneficial to your health. For a person leading a sedentary lifestyle

plonked behind a monitor all day, these benefits may not be apparent

though.



 AW>> I'm not sure whether you're at the age where you may be looking at

 AW>> problems such as osteo-arthritic hips, but this disability can be

 AW>> managed and the operation postponed, via regular bike riding.



 RS> I think thats pretty bodgy too. What benefits there are in exercise in

 RS> that situation are not the sort of bike riding being we are talking

 RS> about, riding to work thru the heavy traffic. They are talking about

 RS> leisurely short distance stuff in the housing suburbs, a completely

 RS> different thing.



Rubbish, we appear to be discussing all facets of bike riding.



 RS> And anyway, if you are going to have a hip replacement,

 RS> I really cant see the big deal in delaying it a little.



Don't dismiss the operation that lightly. The rehabilitation

process is a painful 18 months, there is the risk of post-operative

infection (possibly leading to crutches for the rest of your

life) and you face the risk of femur pin failure. I neglected to

mention that indefinite postponement of the operation is also a

possibility. I know I'd rather spend a bit of time on the bike

and reap all the other health benefits associated with that form

of exercise rather than face the scalpel and post-operative

complications.



 RS> Maybe worth doing if you choose to, but hardly something of earth

 RS> shattering significance in the design of traffic systems in a major

 RS> city. Quite apart from ignoring the other alternative forms of

 RS> exercise for people like that, walking or swimming. Classic example

 RS> of bodgy arguments IMO, special pleading. If the justification for

 RS> spending heaps on bikes in traffic is based on such a bodgy premise,

 RS> I rest my case.



Ok, so "spending heaps" is the case when it's 1% of the road budget,

but having potentially 8% of a cities commuters travelling by bike is

"trivial".



Walking and swimming superficially provide viable alternatives.

However when you look the mechanics of walking, the advantage of

cycling becomes apparent. When walking, the leg receives the whole of

the body weight when it lands, as the weight is transferred to the leg

through the hip. Because the transfer of the weight is done rapidly,

the acceleration of the impact increases the weight. This vertical

loading is the main culprit in osteo-arthritic pain.



In cycling, the weight of the body is supported by the seat. This means

that the hip joint is relieved of much of the vertical loading.

Swimming is a better option than walking, but many people simply don't

appreciate immersing themselves in a solution of watered down chlorine

and urine. It's also less convenient if you don't live close to the

pool, or are unwilling to pay for the use of the pool. Most people have

a bike in the garage, which makes bike riding a quite economical

option.



 AW>> Well it's not bullshit that cycling provides solutions to health and

 AW>> environmental problems. That's irrefutable plain fact.



 RS> Its not irrefutable at all. Its just the latest example of exercise fad.

 RS> Not that much different from the stupid Victorians with nutty ideas

 RS> about it being essential to sleep with the window open and stuff. Owes a

 RS> hell of a lot more to trendy fashion than to hard science.



The cycling fad has been around for 150 years.



And exercise certainly isn't a fad to be compared to leaving a window

open at night. Look at the potential benefits. Physically, regular and

reasonable levels of exercise develop muscle tone and strength and

control weight. Besides strengthening the muscles (including the

heart), regular exercise makes bones stronger and reduces high blood

pressure and cholesterol levels. Psychologically, regular exercise

contributes to a feeling of well-being, as well as helping to relieve

stress. I for one feel alert, content and relaxed after a good solid

workout in the form of cycling to work. I don't feel those effects

after catching the bus to work.



 RS> There isnt even a simple correlation with much better health in countrys

 RS> like china where the bulk of the people ride to work for example. Its

 RS> vastly overhyped. In fact the main problem in western countrys is just

 RS> too much food.



Rubbish. You'll find that the Chinese are healthier than us. The

problems they face are a lower level of medical care which may lower

their life expectancy. I agree that one of the main problems in western

countries is too much food, but the type of food we ingest is

obviously also a significant factor.



 RS>> Pigs might fly. In a third world country like Cuba, possibly. In a

 RS>> modern western society, its pissing against the wind IMO.



 AW>> What about the other 'third world country' where there are around 8

 AW>> times as many transport cyclists per thousand population as in

 AW>> Australia. Japan.



 RS> I think thats a completely inappropriate country to compare with.

 RS> Their system is almost completely rooted for cars. I agree that it is a

 RS> bit more viable for them than for us, but even then its still a

 RS> tiny minority which use it. Thats all I meant, its only in places like

 RS> Cuba and China where there is any real prospect of it coming to dominate

 RS> the transport mode.



Who has ever suggested that there is any chance of cycling dominating

the transport scene anywhere. I was pointing out how wrong you were in

suggesting that 3rd world countries are the only places where cycling

has a foothold.



 AW>> In Japan, 15% and in some cities 20% of trips to work are by bicycle.



 RS> Pretty trivial IMO. And I bet thats pretty selective stats too, largely

 RS> being on the short trips. Its no use just counting trips, what matters

 RS> is person miles.



Many of their trips would be to the railway station etc. The figures

are not so much trivial as significant. It goes without saying that the

Jap commuter with a 100k's to travel isn't going to use a pushy. My

point is that cycling, for short distances (under 15 k's) is quite

appropriate and desirable.



 RS>> Cant see that myself. Marginally better off possibly. I'm not even

 RS>> convinced its that practical even with a fresh site like Canberra.

 RS>> Completely and utterly infeasible in Sydney IMO. Its far too late now.



 AW>> You mention Canberra as an example, so you obviously aren't aware

 AW>> that Perth is a city known as one of the world's top cycling ones.



 RS> Yeah I was aware of it, just thought it was more likely you would know



Poppycock!.





(continued next message)



--- FMail 0.94