Hello Rod!



 AW>> The gay and lesbian mardi-gras society commissioned a study which

 AW>> concluded that the benefits to Sydney of the event were in the order

 AW>> of $47 million. No surprise that they found that sort of positive

 AW>> conclusion.



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

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

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

 RS> excise etc.



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

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

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

etc



 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

 RS>> use of the health system for the injurys.



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

 AW>> car.



 RS> Its the use for going to work today which is a fad compared with say the

 RS> 70s.



I'm willing to bet that more people in Australia travelled to work by

bike in the 70's.



 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 bike

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

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

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

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

 RS> A much smaller percentage than in the 90s tho. Thats why its called a

 RS> fad.



Its the sort of sport that has been waxing and waning for 150 years.

For instance, it was popular, much more popular than today, in the

1920's. Like most things, it increases and decreases over the year.

You're just noticing it more today, because the fad is to wear bright

lycra.



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

 AW>> generally accepted that many accidents are the result of skylarking

 AW>> and distractions.



 RS> It would be pretty simple to eliminate that stuff from the stats. For

 RS> example you could just look at the accident stats for the CBD area. I

 RS> would imagine that you would be shocked speechless if you did. The

 RS> motorbike stats are pretty unspeakable, you are at a hell of lot higher

 RS> risk of serious injury. I cant see why the push bike stats would be any

 RS> different in a high traffic situation like that.



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

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

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

road - was in 1983, when Andrew Lowrey was killed on the northern

approach. The bike lane over the spit bridge may now eliminate some of

the risks in this area.



 AW>> Most people would agree that any exercise in moderation (especially

 AW>> one that doesn't include regular pounding of knees, hips and ankles)

 AW>> is beneficial to your health. For a person leading a sedentary

 AW>> lifestyle plonked behind a monitor all day, these benefits may not be

 AW>> apparent though.



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

 RS> 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.



I think I'll go with my stats rather than your opinion. I can only

continue to post the results of studies, and you will continue to

claim that they're all wrong (except for any that might agree with

your point of view, which you don't seem to have produced)



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

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



 AW>> Don't dismiss the operation that lightly. The rehabilitation process

 AW>> is a painful 18 months, there is the risk of post-operative infection

 AW>> (possibly leading to crutches for the rest of your life) and you face

 AW>> the risk of femur pin failure.



 RS> Thats all essentially irrelevant if you have the operation anyway. I was

 RS> just making the point that if it was deferred for say 2 months, so what.

 RS> In fact there is an argument that deferral is not a terrific idea for

 RS> the elderly, the older they are, the worse the prognosis.



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

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

beneficial to try and indefinitely postpone the operation.



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



 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.



The fact that you deny that virtually all new freeways have

shoulders/breakdown lanes is a sticking point.



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

 AW>> "trivial".



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



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

available of estimations.





(Continued to next message)



--- FMail 0.94