DFT Cycling Forecast- tremendously encouraging

[spindrift]

Economic modeling carried out for Cycling England3 shows that
increasing cycling levels by 20 per cent by 2015 has the potential to
save £107 million in reducing premature deaths, £52 million in NHS
costs and £87 million in reduced absence from work.



There are also quantifiable benefits in terms of reduced congestion
and pollution. The SQW work quoting a 20% increase in cycling
delivering congestion benefits of £207m and pollution benefits of
£71m. Overall, it is estimated that investing in cycling gives very
good value for money, with benefits estimated to be 3.2 times the
costs. Regular cyclists are also likely to live a healthier, longer
life.


http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/cycling/cyclingfuture.pdf

 

[POHB]

On 8 Feb, 14:13, spindrift wrote:
> Economic modeling carried out for Cycling England3

No bias there then

> shows that
> increasing cycling levels by 20 per cent by 2015 has the potential to
> save £107 million in reducing premature deaths

Doesn't prolonging lives just defer the costs? Or do cyclists tend to
die quick cheap deaths rather than lingering ones requiring lots of
expensive treatment?

 

[Marz]

On Feb 8, 8:13 am, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> Economic modeling carried out for Cycling England3 shows that
> increasing cycling levels by 20 per cent by 2015 has the potential to
> save £107 million in reducing premature deaths, £52 million in NHS
> costs and £87 million in reduced absence from work.
>
> There are also quantifiable benefits in terms of reduced congestion
> and pollution. The SQW work quoting a 20% increase in cycling
> delivering congestion benefits of £207m and pollution benefits of
> £71m. Overall, it is estimated that investing in cycling gives very
> good value for money, with benefits estimated to be 3.2 times the
> costs. Regular cyclists are also likely to live a healthier, longer
> life.
>
> http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/cycling/cyclingfuture.pdf

Which seems to contradict a recent study from Holland which seems to
say that healthy people are a bigger financial burden on the health
system that obese people and smokers.

quote from paper below...

"Despite the higher annual costs of the obese and smoking cohorts, the
healthy-living cohort incurs highest lifetime costs, due to its higher
life expectancy."

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 07:32:02 -0800 (PST), John Kane
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Feb 8, 9:28 am, POHB <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 8 Feb, 14:13, spindrift wrote:
>>
>> > Economic modeling carried out for Cycling England3
>>
>> No bias there then
>>
>> > shows that
>> > increasing cycling levels by 20 per cent by 2015 has the potential to
>> > save £107 million in reducing premature deaths
>>
>> Doesn't prolonging lives just defer the costs? Or do cyclists tend to
>> die quick cheap deaths rather than lingering ones requiring lots of
>> expensive treatment?
>
>Very true. We had an economist suggest that discourging smokers put a
>strain on the pension system.

Compulsory euthanasia would be the economist's solution.

 

[John Kane]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 07:32:02 -0800 (PST), John Kane
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 8, 9:28 am, POHB <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 8 Feb, 14:13, spindrift wrote:
>>>
>>>> Economic modeling carried out for Cycling England3
>>> No bias there then
>>>
>>>> shows that
>>>> increasing cycling levels by 20 per cent by 2015 has the potential to
>>>> save £107 million in reducing premature deaths
>>> Doesn't prolonging lives just defer the costs? Or do cyclists tend to
>>> die quick cheap deaths rather than lingering ones requiring lots of
>>> expensive treatment?
>> Very true. We had an economist suggest that discourging smokers put a
>> strain on the pension system.
>
> Compulsory euthanasia would be the economist's solution.

Oh dear, I think our beloved Prime Minister is an economist

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

 

[JNugent]

John Kane wrote:
> Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 07:32:02 -0800 (PST), John Kane
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 8, 9:28 am, POHB <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On 8 Feb, 14:13, spindrift wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Economic modeling carried out for Cycling England3
>>>> No bias there then
>>>>
>>>>> shows that
>>>>> increasing cycling levels by 20 per cent by 2015 has the potential to
>>>>> save £107 million in reducing premature deaths
>>>> Doesn't prolonging lives just defer the costs? Or do cyclists tend to
>>>> die quick cheap deaths rather than lingering ones requiring lots of
>>>> expensive treatment?
>>> Very true. We had an economist suggest that discourging smokers put a
>>> strain on the pension system.
>>
>> Compulsory euthanasia would be the economist's solution.
>
> Oh dear, I think our beloved Prime Minister is an economist

I thought he was a sociologist?

 

[Sir Jeremy]

On 8 Feb, 15:40, Marz <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 8:13 am, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Economic modeling carried out for Cycling England3 shows that
> > increasing cycling levels by 20 per cent by 2015 has the potential to
> > save £107 million in reducing premature deaths, £52 million in NHS
> > costs and £87 million in reduced absence from work.
>
> > There are also quantifiable benefits in terms of reduced congestion
> > and pollution. The SQW work quoting a 20% increase in cycling
> > delivering congestion benefits of £207m and pollution benefits of
> > £71m. Overall, it is estimated that investing in cycling gives very
> > good value for money, with benefits estimated to be 3.2 times the
> > costs. Regular cyclists are also likely to live a healthier, longer
> > life.
>
> >http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/cycling/cyclingfuture.pdf
>
> Which seems to contradict a recent study from Holland which seems to
> say that healthy people are a bigger financial burden on the health
> system that obese people and smokers.
>
> quote from paper below...
>
> "Despite the higher annual costs of the obese and smoking cohorts, the
> healthy-living cohort incurs highest lifetime costs, due to its higher
> life expectancy."
>
> http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=1....


If you live longer then you draw your state pension for a longer time
too.

 

[GeoffC]

JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> John Kane wrote:
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 07:32:02 -0800 (PST), John Kane
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Compulsory euthanasia would be the economist's solution.
>>
>> Oh dear, I think our beloved Prime Minister is an economist
>
> I thought he was a sociologist?

I think he may be referring to the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen
Harper, an economics graduate.
Gordon Brown studied history at university.
Anyway, who cares? as long as he is not a <spits> lawyer.

--

Geoff

 

[John Kane]

JNugent wrote:
> John Kane wrote:
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 07:32:02 -0800 (PST), John Kane
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 8, 9:28 am, POHB <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On 8 Feb, 14:13, spindrift wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Economic modeling carried out for Cycling England3
>>>>> No bias there then
>>>>>
>>>>>> shows that
>>>>>> increasing cycling levels by 20 per cent by 2015 has the potential to
>>>>>> save £107 million in reducing premature deaths
>>>>> Doesn't prolonging lives just defer the costs? Or do cyclists tend to
>>>>> die quick cheap deaths rather than lingering ones requiring lots of
>>>>> expensive treatment?
>>>> Very true. We had an economist suggest that discourging smokers put a
>>>> strain on the pension system.
>>>
>>> Compulsory euthanasia would be the economist's solution.
>>
>> Oh dear, I think our beloved Prime Minister is an economist
>
> I thought he was a sociologist?

No such luck.

"Stephen Harper was born on April 30, 1959, in Toronto, Ontario. He
moved to Alberta in 1978 to work in the petroleum industry and went on
to obtain both a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in economics from the
University of Calgary."

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

 

[John Kane]

Marz wrote:
> On Feb 8, 8:13 am, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Economic modeling carried out for Cycling England3 shows that
>> increasing cycling levels by 20 per cent by 2015 has the potential to
>> save £107 million in reducing premature deaths, £52 million in NHS
>> costs and £87 million in reduced absence from work.
>>
>> There are also quantifiable benefits in terms of reduced congestion
>> and pollution. The SQW work quoting a 20% increase in cycling
>> delivering congestion benefits of £207m and pollution benefits of
>> £71m. Overall, it is estimated that investing in cycling gives very
>> good value for money, with benefits estimated to be 3.2 times the
>> costs. Regular cyclists are also likely to live a healthier, longer
>> life.
>>
>> http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/cycling/cyclingfuture.pdf
>
> Which seems to contradict a recent study from Holland which seems to
> say that healthy people are a bigger financial burden on the health
> system that obese people and smokers.
>
> quote from paper below...
>
> "Despite the higher annual costs of the obese and smoking cohorts, the
> healthy-living cohort incurs highest lifetime costs, due to its higher
> life expectancy."
>
> http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029

Presumably the cycling is expected to reduce the obesity and perhaps
reduce the number of smokers?

Given some things I've read and a couple of lectures I've been at, the
positive effects of regular exercise ( cycling specifially in one or two
studies) suggests that this will reduce health costs even for the
moderately obese.

Of course to really have money a general massacure of the innocents à la
Herod would save tremendous amounts in health care and educational costs.

 

[JNugent]

John Kane wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> John Kane wrote:
>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>> John Kane <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> POHB <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> spindrift wrote:

>>>>>>> Economic modeling carried out for Cycling England3

>>>>>> No bias there then

>>>>>>> shows that increasing cycling levels by 20 per cent by 2015 has
>>>>>>>the potential to save £107 million in reducing premature deaths

>>>>>> Doesn't prolonging lives just defer the costs? Or do cyclists
>>>>>> tend to die quick cheap deaths rather than lingering ones requiring
>>>>>> lots of expensive treatment?

>>>>> Very true. We had an economist suggest that discourging smokers put a
>>>>> strain on the pension system.

>>>> Compulsory euthanasia would be the economist's solution.

>>> Oh dear, I think our beloved Prime Minister is an economist

>> I thought he was a sociologist?

> No such luck.
> "Stephen Harper was born on April 30, 1959, in Toronto, Ontario. He
> moved to Alberta in 1978 to work in the petroleum industry and went on
> to obtain both a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in economics from the
> University of Calgary."
> John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

Sorry, I forgot that you have Prime Ministers over there too.

 

[John Kane]

JNugent wrote:
> John Kane wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> John Kane wrote:
>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>> John Kane <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> POHB <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> spindrift wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> Economic modeling carried out for Cycling England3
>
>>>>>>> No bias there then
>
>>>>>>>> shows that increasing cycling levels by 20 per cent by 2015 has
>>>>>>>> the potential to save £107 million in reducing premature deaths
>
>>>>>>> Doesn't prolonging lives just defer the costs? Or do cyclists
>>>>>>> tend to die quick cheap deaths rather than lingering ones requiring
>>>>>>> lots of expensive treatment?
>
>>>>>> Very true. We had an economist suggest that discourging smokers put a
>>>>>> strain on the pension system.
>
>>>>> Compulsory euthanasia would be the economist's solution.
>
>>>> Oh dear, I think our beloved Prime Minister is an economist
>
>>> I thought he was a sociologist?
>
>> No such luck.
>> "Stephen Harper was born on April 30, 1959, in Toronto, Ontario. He
>> moved to Alberta in 1978 to work in the petroleum industry and went on
>> to obtain both a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in economics from
>> the University of Calgary."
>> John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
>
> Sorry, I forgot that you have Prime Ministers over there too.

You can have this one if you want.

--
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

 

[Adam Lea]

"Sir Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 8 Feb, 15:40, Marz <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 8:13 am, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Economic modeling carried out for Cycling England3 shows that
> > increasing cycling levels by 20 per cent by 2015 has the potential to
> > save £107 million in reducing premature deaths, £52 million in NHS
> > costs and £87 million in reduced absence from work.
>
> > There are also quantifiable benefits in terms of reduced congestion
> > and pollution. The SQW work quoting a 20% increase in cycling
> > delivering congestion benefits of £207m and pollution benefits of
> > £71m. Overall, it is estimated that investing in cycling gives very
> > good value for money, with benefits estimated to be 3.2 times the
> > costs. Regular cyclists are also likely to live a healthier, longer
> > life.
>
> >http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/cycling/cyclingfuture.pdf
>
> Which seems to contradict a recent study from Holland which seems to
> say that healthy people are a bigger financial burden on the health
> system that obese people and smokers.
>
> quote from paper below...
>
> "Despite the higher annual costs of the obese and smoking cohorts, the
> healthy-living cohort incurs highest lifetime costs, due to its higher
> life expectancy."
>
> http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=1...


If you live longer then you draw your state pension for a longer time
too.

Wow, you think there will be a state pension when I retire?

 

[Adam Lea]

"Marz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:513dbc42-915d-4632-a4e2-224e0926e0ed@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 8, 8:13 am, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> Economic modeling carried out for Cycling England3 shows that
> increasing cycling levels by 20 per cent by 2015 has the potential to
> save £107 million in reducing premature deaths, £52 million in NHS
> costs and £87 million in reduced absence from work.
>
> There are also quantifiable benefits in terms of reduced congestion
> and pollution. The SQW work quoting a 20% increase in cycling
> delivering congestion benefits of £207m and pollution benefits of
> £71m. Overall, it is estimated that investing in cycling gives very
> good value for money, with benefits estimated to be 3.2 times the
> costs. Regular cyclists are also likely to live a healthier, longer
> life.
>
> http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/cycling/cyclingfuture.pdf

Which seems to contradict a recent study from Holland which seems to
say that healthy people are a bigger financial burden on the health
system that obese people and smokers.

quote from paper below...

"Despite the higher annual costs of the obese and smoking cohorts, the
healthy-living cohort incurs highest lifetime costs, due to its higher
life expectancy."

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029

And at the bottom it states that indirect costs of obesity are not included.

 

[Sir Jeremy]

On 11 Feb, 19:13, "Adam Lea" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Sir Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On 8 Feb, 15:40, Marz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 8, 8:13 am, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Economic modeling carried out for Cycling England3 shows that
> > > increasing cycling levels by 20 per cent by 2015 has the potential to
> > > save £107 million in reducing premature deaths, £52 million in NHS
> > > costs and £87 million in reduced absence from work.
>
> > > There are also quantifiable benefits in terms of reduced congestion
> > > and pollution. The SQW work quoting a 20% increase in cycling
> > > delivering congestion benefits of £207m and pollution benefits of
> > > £71m. Overall, it is estimated that investing in cycling gives very
> > > good value for money, with benefits estimated to be 3.2 times the
> > > costs. Regular cyclists are also likely to live a healthier, longer
> > > life.
>
> > >http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/cycling/cyclingfuture.pdf
>
> > Which seems to contradict a recent study from Holland which seems to
> > say that healthy people are a bigger financial burden on the health
> > system that obese people and smokers.
>
> > quote from paper below...
>
> > "Despite the higher annual costs of the obese and smoking cohorts, the
> > healthy-living cohort incurs highest lifetime costs, due to its higher
> > life expectancy."
>
> >http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=1....
>
> If you live longer then you draw your state pension for a longer time
> too.
>
> Wow, you think there will be a state pension when I retire?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Depends on how old you are.

 

[Mike Clark]

In message <[email protected]>
"Adam Lea" <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]
>
> Which seems to contradict a recent study from Holland which seems to
> say that healthy people are a bigger financial burden on the health
> system that obese people and smokers.
>
> quote from paper below...
>
> "Despite the higher annual costs of the obese and smoking cohorts, the
> healthy-living cohort incurs highest lifetime costs, due to its higher
> life expectancy."
>
>
>http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029
>
> And at the bottom it states that indirect costs of obesity are not
> included.
>
>

Yes but that study is flawed in that it only calculates costs and not
contributions made by healthier people.

You need to calculate the full net value not just the gross costs.


Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | reader in immunology, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

 

[Erik Sandblom]

Den 2008-02-09 23:31:12 skrev John Kane <[email protected]>:
>
>> Sorry, I forgot that you have Prime Ministers over there too.
>
> You can have this one if you want.


Don't be mean to the Britons.

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies

 

[David Lloyd]

On 8 Feb, 16:40, Marz <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 8:13 am, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Economic modeling carried out for Cycling England3 shows that
> > increasing cycling levels by 20 per cent by 2015 has the potential to
> > save £107 million in reducing premature deaths, £52 million in NHS
> > costs and £87 million in reduced absence from work.
>
> > There are also quantifiable benefits in terms of reduced congestion
> > and pollution. The SQW work quoting a 20% increase in cycling
> > delivering congestion benefits of £207m and pollution benefits of
> > £71m. Overall, it is estimated that investing in cycling gives very
> > good value for money, with benefits estimated to be 3.2 times the
> > costs. Regular cyclists are also likely to live a healthier, longer
> > life.
>
> >http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/cycling/cyclingfuture.pdf
>
> Which seems to contradict a recent study from Holland which seems to
> say that healthy people are a bigger financial burden on the health
> system that obese people and smokers.
>
> quote from paper below...
>
> "Despite the higher annual costs of the obese and smoking cohorts, the
> healthy-living cohort incurs highest lifetime costs, due to its higher
> life expectancy."
>
> http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=1....

This is why the age at which we will become elegable for the state
pension is going up.

David Lloyd