Cyclists saving Govt 200m in health costs: report

[John Pitts]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/04/2264271.htm
(ABC News)

Cyclists saving Govt 200m in health costs: report

A new report has found the Federal Government is saving more than
$200 million a year in health costs through people riding bicycles.
...


We all knew that anyway, but it's nice to see something official.

The reader comments have little to do with the story: some troll has
brought up the "bicycle registration" canard, and the usual bunfight is
in progress.

--
John
....so I cheered up, and sure enough...

 

[cfsmtb]

We all knew that anyway, but it's nice to see something official.

Additional info: ABC: Health benefits of cycling
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2008/2264337.htm
When the Labor government came to power last November, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd promised to make the fight against obesity a national health priority. Current figures suggest that around three million Australians are obese, and more than 7 million Australians are overweight. Now a new report suggests that cycling could be part of the solution.


CPF: Launch of Cycling: Getting Australia Moving
http://www.cyclingpromotion.com.au/content/view/329/9/
Cycling: Getting Australia Moving report and the presentation of the National Bicycling Achievement Awards is being held on Wednesday 4th June 2008, 11am to 1pm at Old Parliament House, Members Room, King George Terrace, Canberra

Cycling: Getting Australia Moving Report, it's about 3.1M
http://www.cyclingpromotion.com.au/images/stories/downloads/CPFHlthRpr08V3prf1.pdf

 

[ken]

I'm afraid this is nonsense. I'm all in favour a promotion of cycling
but I don't think that implausible arguments like this help.

 

[John Pitts]

On 2008-06-04, ken <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm afraid this is nonsense. I'm all in favour a promotion of cycling
> but I don't think that implausible arguments like this help.

Which arguments do you find implausible?

--
John
Tragically I was an only twin. - Peter Cook

 

[TimC]

On 2008-06-03, John Pitts (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/04/2264271.htm
> (ABC News)
>
> Cyclists saving Govt 200m in health costs: report
>
> A new report has found the Federal Government is saving more than
> $200 million a year in health costs through people riding bicycles.
> ...
>

T-shirt design for the next CM anyone?

Saving the world
And $200 million

Although Lindsay McDougal may cringe

--
TimC
Error: Fuzzy Pointer Exception

 

[Tomasso]

"John Pitts" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On 2008-06-04, ken <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'm afraid this is nonsense. I'm all in favour a promotion of cycling
>> but I don't think that implausible arguments like this help.
>
> Which arguments do you find implausible?

Troll are implausible, and predictable.

 

[cfsmtb]

"John Pitts" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On 2008-06-04, ken <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'm afraid this is nonsense. I'm all in favour a promotion of cycling
>> but I don't think that implausible arguments like this help.
>
> Which arguments do you find implausible?

Troll are implausible, and predictable.

Trolls can also have tendencies to be shape-shifting, asexual polymorphs with deep-seated boundary issues. On the other hand, giant killer squid are far more predictable and entertaining.

 

[ken]

If you read the report, which is here,
http://www.cyclingpromotion.com.au/images/stories/downloads/CPFHlthRpr08V3prf1.pdf
you will see that it is a piece of advocacy, not peer reviewed
research. In other words, a lobbying document. That doesn't make it
wrong but as with anything commissioned and written to argue a case,
you need to look at it carefully.
If it had been done by a company to sell its products (eg a
pharmaceutical company) it would quite properly be laughed at and
rejected out of hand.
For the $200 million figure to be right, those currently cycling would
need to be people who would otherwise do no regular exercise and who
would be prone to one of the diseases attributable to lack of
exercise. So it's a figure built on a set of fairly brave assumptions
and guesses.
I can believe that more exercise - such a cycling - might improve the
health of some individuals if they don't get any other exercise. But
to expand this to the community and then translate it into a health
cost saving is drawing a long bow.
Now, I am in favour of better facilities for cycling - it is a fairly
important part of my life - but using "evidence" like this really
doesn't help in the long run.
Cycling deserves to be encouraged because it is, for many, enjoyable,
healthy and inexpensive.
And I am always uncomfortable when people feel they need to show a
saving to the public purse to justify improvement of services. The
government is there to provide us with the services that we want,
dammit!

 

[BtC]

Cycling has not prevented me being hospitalised 4 times in the last 4 years.
Dammit.

Then of course you have add back the cost of those of us who get barrelled
by cars or simply miscalculate and wind up in intensive care (if we get
lucky).

As a general statement it might be right, but I do not think that the
savings are anywhere as great as suggested.

As always, a sceptic.

BtC

 

[terryc]

On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:54:34 -0700, ken wrote:


> I can believe that more exercise - such a cycling - might improve the
> health of some individuals if they don't get any other exercise. But
> to expand this to the community and then translate it into a health
> cost saving is drawing a long bow.

Lol, it seems that christians are not the only mob into self-flagellation.
I'll pass here too.

1) Bicyclists are part of the community.

2) Of all those people who commute by bicycle, how many do you think would
actually walk to work instead? The turth is that the vast majority
currentlly have no choice but to be cagers.

3) Of all those people who go for dayrides or weekend tours, how many do
you think would go for an equally long walk instead?

Do you actually look at the community around you?

4) Look at families/groups that go for a picnic. Some will tke bicycles
along and go for a ride and this is in addition to any other activity,
mostly sedentary, they might do. Very few will go for a long walk instead.
Personally, I think this is where the vast majority of the figure comes
from.

It all adds up.

5) We are ALL prone to disease. Once you've gained the ability to pass
on your genetic seed, you are surplus to the human species and any time
after puberty is just a bonus really. This concept that specific people
are prone to a disease is just about total fantasy. (Statistical
coincidence for most).


> And I am always uncomfortable when people feel they need to show a
> saving to the public purse to justify improvement of services. The
> government is there to provide us with the services that we want, dammit!

So I gather you are holding your breath.
You need to listen to Jonathan Livingstone Budgerigar

 

[cfsmtb]

And I am always uncomfortable when people feel they need to show a
saving to the public purse to justify improvement of services. The
government is there to provide us with the services that we want,
dammit!

And how does the government know what the lumpenproletarian need, if the ramble don't start organising themselves and telling the pollies what they may what? If democracy functioned perfectly then maybe pundits, lobbyists, advocates and general shitstirrers would cease to exist. *Pause for thought*

 

[ken]

On Jun 6, 12:45 pm, cfsmtb <cfsmtb.3ak...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> ken Wrote:
>
>
>
> > And I am always uncomfortable when people feel they need to show a
> > saving to the public purse to justify improvement of services. The
> > government is there to provide us with the services that we want,
> > dammit!
>
> And how does the government know what the lumpenproletarian need, if
> the ramble don't start organising themselves and telling the pollies
> what they may what? If democracy functioned perfectly then maybe
> pundits, lobbyists, advocates and general shitstirrers would cease to
> exist. *Pause for thought*
>
> --
> cfsmtb

You misunderstand me. I was not objecting to advocacy for cycling
facilities - just to fairly wobbly pseudo-scientific arguments that
try to justify it on the grounds of cost saving.
In the end, the best argument is that lots of (noisy) people want it.

 

[cfsmtb]

You misunderstand me. I was not objecting to advocacy for cycling
facilities - just to fairly wobbly pseudo-scientific arguments that
try to justify it on the grounds of cost saving.
In the end, the best argument is that lots of (noisy) people want it.

Ditto - isn't that the process we're actually partaking in?

 

[Fractal]

There is a long line of argument that increasing cycling as everyday
transport instead of driving or p/t use would increase the communities
exercise level substantially. Active Transport and all that. Think healthy
Dutch and Germans - tallest and thinnest people in the world, due mainly to
extra cycling in those countries(no other credible explanation has been
found). Build exercise into your daily routine. 10000 steps, etc etc. The
BFA website has a resource page on health benefits
http://www.bfa.asn.au/bfanew/resources/cycling_and_health.htm

Probably started off with the book Cycling: Towards Health and Safety, put
out by the British Medical Association in 1992(author Dr Mayer Hillman,
famous UK bike advocate), in which much evidence was given of health
benefits of cycling as transport. Numerous articles on the BMJ website can
also be found - just do a search on cycling- and Australia brought out the
report http://tinyurl.com/3k9add by (Dr) Harry Owens from Adelaide in
the 90's on health aspects, the main statistical finding is increased life
span amonst regular cyclists. Improved health and savings due to less
medical care for heart and other sedentary type disease far outweigh any
increased costs due to accidents. OK, regular walkers would probably show
similar benefits but cycling is more efficient than walking so can do more
trips than walking can, so is, as a community wide thing, worth encouraging
on a mass scale for everyday transport. But, as ZB said, most cyclists do it
because it's fun. Makes you feel better- improves your outlook- reduces
depression- a whole set of other well worth it reasons for being a cyclist.
Does raise the question though, is being a cyclist advocate good or bad for
you? Health gains from cycling (assuming there is time for cycling after all
the letter writing etc) are counteracted by the banging of head on brick
walls. Someone should do a study.

fb in sydknee