onewheeldave Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I cant see it ever being any different. The whole world and his brother owns a car. I think one of the disadvantages of cycling is that its not conveinient for families shopping trips/day trips etc. It is popular with commuters who work within a reasonable distance to work, but not for a lot who work many miles from home. A debatable subject that will go on and on for ever, with no winners, which is indeed a real shame. In the interests of inspiration/hope, I'll repost that excellent documentary link again- For anyone interested in seeing what is possible when sanity prevails, here's a short documentary, on both youtube and vimeo (Groningen: The World's Cycling City) I think one of the reasons it's worth watching is that it covers all the objections and dire warnings of financial collapse that were raised in opposition to the plan- clearly now it's been enacted it's obvious that making a road system cycle based can indeed work very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Yep, and your comment makes it all one sided yet again. When will people accept responsibility for themselves? And when will posters read a full post before writing this crap? Probably never.:suspect: ---------- Post added 03-01-2015 at 19:23 ---------- Im sure and also know that it is healthy. Just not the safest, and can never take priority over the risk of injury/death. Ever. I'm not sure you got my point. The risk of injury or death on average might reduce your lifespan by 1/2 year. The increase in health on average might increase your lifespan by 2 years. Of course the way averages work it tends to be that someone loses 40 or 60 years of life, it's not spread out, and that many other people gain 2.5 or whatever, but the average is that you're better cycling, than not. Still up to you of course, and a near miss can colour your opinion more than any statistics will. ---------- Post added 03-01-2015 at 20:15 ---------- I cant see it ever being any different. The whole world and his brother owns a car. I think one of the disadvantages of cycling is that its not conveinient for families shopping trips/day trips etc. It is popular with commuters who work within a reasonable distance to work, but not for a lot who work many miles from home. A debatable subject that will go on and on for ever, with no winners, which is indeed a real shame. Why is there any debate though? I use both car and bike as appropriate. As you say, I commute to work on the bike, it makes far more sense than trying to take the car, and it's quicker than taking public transport. When I go shopping though, I take the car. And when I encounter a cycle, I pass them carefully and with their safety in mind. And when an idiot in dark clothes cycles through a red light, I shout at them after trying not to kill them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roosterboost Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Overall (health benefits vs risk) cycling is healthier than not cycling. And that includes the risk of injury or death. Cycling is not more healthy than not cycling. Jess Ennis seems rather healthy and she doesn't cycle. A healthy life style is healthy, and not riding a bike cuts down your chances of being knocked off a bike to zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 True, if you run to work that will probably be more healthy again. So for the sake of pedants, cycling is more healthy than not cycling if the alternative is motor driven (or indeed a horse drawn carriage). ---------- Post added 03-01-2015 at 20:21 ---------- Cycling is not more healthy than not cycling. Jess Ennis seems rather healthy and she doesn't cycle. A healthy life style is healthy, and not riding a bike cuts down your chances of being knocked off a bike to zero. Not riding a bike in favour of using a car decreases your lifespan. For the average person you gain 1 hour in lifespan (on average) for every 30 minutes cycled... (The effect reduces the more you do, so you cannot live for ever by staying on a bike all the time). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roosterboost Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 True, if you run to work that will probably be more healthy again. So for the sake of pedants, cycling is more healthy than not cycling if the alternative is motor driven (or indeed a horse drawn carriage). No it isn't. A healthy life style is healthy. It has nothing to do with cycling. But getting knocked off a bike isn't healthy. That does require cycling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) Believe whatever you like. You appear to be trolling. I don't really care. Edited January 3, 2015 by Cyclone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roosterboost Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Believe whatever you like. :hihi::hihi::hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gimp27 Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I'm not sure you got my point. The risk of injury or death on average might reduce your lifespan by 1/2 year. The increase in health on average might increase your lifespan by 2 years. Of course the way averages work it tends to be that someone loses 40 or 60 years of life, it's not spread out, and that many other people gain 2.5 or whatever, but the average is that you're better cycling, than not. Still up to you of course, and a near miss can colour your opinion more than any statistics will. ---------- Post added 03-01-2015 at 20:15 ---------- Why is there any debate though? I use both car and bike as appropriate. As you say, I commute to work on the bike, it makes far more sense than trying to take the car, and it's quicker than taking public transport. When I go shopping though, I take the car. And when I encounter a cycle, I pass them carefully and with their safety in mind. And when an idiot in dark clothes cycles through a red light, I shout at them after trying not to kill them. I do get your point Cyclone, but I dont agree that you are better off cycling than not cycling. My son in law does the karate thing. Not something I do, but he seems very fit for it. And he does not cycle! And he always takes his car to training evenings because its full of his mats and things. I said that I didnt feel as fit as when I used to cycle, but im not the right mindset for running or gyms etc. So yes, im probably one of the unlucky ones who will have two years less than yourself to live, but I have reduced the risk of dying by a cycling accident to zero. So you see, it is a very debatable subject indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Stop moving the goalposts. You know your original posts were about lights all the way down the side of the trailers. Trying to wriggle out of it by suddenly saying you only meant within a meter of the back is something I thought would be beneath you. Mind you I thought you'd be man enough to look it up yourself as well.Don't forget, it was also the simplest solution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I do get your point Cyclone, but I dont agree that you are better off cycling than not cycling. My son in law does the karate thing. Not something I do, but he seems very fit for it. And he does not cycle! And he always takes his car to training evenings because its full of his mats and things. I said that I didnt feel as fit as when I used to cycle, but im not the right mindset for running or gyms etc. So yes, im probably one of the unlucky ones who will have two years less than yourself to live, but I have reduced the risk of dying by a cycling accident to zero. So you see, it is a very debatable subject indeed. I didn't say that you couldn't be fit without cycling, that would clearly be nonsense. If your SIL added cycling to his routine, he'd be even fitter than he is now (although already active and fit people benefit less by adding more exercise, law of diminishing returns). And cycling isn't in any way unique, any exercise increases longevity (on average). And they all come with risks. Footballing is a high injury risk, but low risk of being hit by a bus. We can't talk about you and me though, it's really all about averages. I might get unlucky and be hit by that bus, you might live till your 100. I'm playing the numbers though, statistically, cycling is better for me than alternative means of transport (apart from maybe running, which I do to work 2 or 3 times a week as well). It's not debatable at all, statistically. But you make your own choices, you can't live life by what is statistically the best decision to make, you can however understand it and take it into account. You can get this cheap on kindle, I'd thoroughly recommend it, it's informed a lot of what I'm talking about here, although I haven't finished the book yet. http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Norm-Chronicles-Stories-numbers/dp/1846686202 ---------- Post added 03-01-2015 at 22:38 ---------- :hihi::hihi::hihi: If you feel like trying to understand the topic more, instead of trying to score points... Try that book I just posted a link to, it really is good. Also Have a think about this http://www.bikeforums.net/commuting/896396-risk-analysis-micromort-microlife.html and these are for extra background. Once you understand micromorts and microlives you'll be able to grasp what I was trying to explain. http://nwurban.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/cyclings-impact-on-life-expectancy/ http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1185.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts