Anti-social vehicle - test case

Yes, it takes into account all mortality from all causes.

Even though they are now even safer, following introduction of the Congestion Charge. Unfortunately there is at least one large industry with a vested interest in making you believe that cycling is dangeorus. The industry which has a vested interest in telling you the truth - that cycling is not unduly dangerous - is much smaller hnd has much less money.

London is one of the safer places to cycle, actually; there are so many cyclists that drivers are reasonably used to them. Depending on which bit of London, obviously.

looks like a good list of numbers plucked from publications, although you'd have to follow the references to see evidence.

On Tue, 18 May 2004 09:16:07 GMT, MrBitsy wrote (more or less): ...

Of course, sometimes they move near an airport where the government has guaranteed there would not be another runway going in.

It's when the government goes back on the guaranteed behaviour they then complain.

Of course, there are other folk who just complain no matter.

No, more like it varies only slowly and therefore averages out, so there is a constant mid-level concentration which you get used to.

Outside the car the concentration varies over a wider range and much more quickly, so it is significantly less pleasant.

: Outside the car the concentration varies over a wider range and much : more quickly, so it is significantly less pleasant.

But better for you - you notice the peaks since you don't get used to it but the overall exposure is lower. Especially if you can use ASLs to get ahead at lights.

Wish I could find the reference, but the study I saw showed that car drivers had higher levels of pollutatants in their blood than either cyclists or peds.

Arthur

OTOH, in a car you are stuck in the fug, on a bike you can get through and away.

I don't think anyone would wish to dispute any of that.

I've certainly never encountered any gainsaying of any of it here.

Thats a relief - I always worried that the heavier/deeper breathing would make it a lot worse for cyclists.

On 18 May 2004 14:52:45 GMT, "Arthur Clune" wrote (more or less):

IIRC it's because outside the fume sdissipate, but in the car's cabin they just stay there, buiding up.

It's astonishing that the take-up is so low, then.

--

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (WilliamPitt, 1783)

If you insist...

Accompanying my daughter cycling to and from school today did not do involve time which would otherwise be spent sitting in traffic.

(Unless 'in traffic' means 'within sight of a road')

Surprising indeed that take-up is not rising faster than it is. There seems to be a lobby out there trying to persuade people it's dangerous; I can't think why. Who could possibly profit from persuading people to go by car instead of by bike? Oh, wait...

Guy

-- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Quite. Are you tempted?

and by bus. A cynic might suggest Transport 2000 are guilty of deliberately playing up the dangers of cycling to 1) further their war against motoring, thus forcing motorists to pay public transport companies for the priviledge of travelling and 2) scaring people off their bikes (and footpaths) onto buses etc. so (wait for it) they have to pay public transport companies for the priviledge of travelling.

It's a way of calculating costs, but it's subject to debate. A lot of motorists will drive miles to the out of town supermarket and say they have saved money on their baked beans because the cans are 9p not 28p or thereabouts as they would be in the local shop. Now if we count the cost of the car, the petrol and the travel time then they are losing money. However if they say they want the car anyhow and are willing to spend the time travelling then if we calculate the petrol alone then they are probably saving money.

There are of course other costs involved in out of town supermarkets i.e. environmental costs and damage to small traders.

I cycle about 1 mile to a biggish Tesco when I am feeling active and fill a small backpack. Not sure how much my shopping habits will change when I get my licence and have 4 wheels not 2.

It generally seems to be anti-car pressure groups who make most noise about the dangers of cycling, to gain support for their own particular agenda.

And if you believe there's a campaign by car manufacturers to discourage cycling then you really are into the realms of fantasy conspiracy theories. To GM and Toyota, cycling is no more than a gnat bite on an elephant's bum.

--

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (WilliamPitt, 1783)

You don't think there might possibly, just, be the odd drawback?

--

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (WilliamPitt, 1783)

In as much as they have been known to push for segragated "facilities" for cyclists, that amounts to fair comment.

Guy

-- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University