Green transport specialist tells its workers to ‘get off your bikes’

[Tom Crispin]

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 08:28:10 +0100, Marc Brett
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 06 Jul 2007 06:22:39 GMT, full duplex <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2034087.ece
>
>"It’s patently obvious that if you are struck by a wayward vehicle when
>you are on a bicycle or motorbike you are going to be more severely
>affected than if you were in a car. The reason for this policy is to
>protect our employees from other vehicles on the road."
>
>...should be rephrased...
>
[Snip]

"It's patently obvious that if you are struck by a wayward motor
vehicle you are going to be more severely affected than if you were
struck by a wayward bicycle."

 

[naked_draughtsman]

On Jul 6, 1:52 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> if cycling to work is their main physical activity, the alternatives
> will demonstrably shorten the life of the employee.

The article also says:

"A US medical study found that people who cycled regularly beyond
their mid30s lived on average two years longer."

2 years doesn't really seem worth it to me. At least I ride because I
enjoy it and usually find it more practical - the health benefits are
just a side effect.

pete

 

[Adrian Boliston]

"naked_draughtsman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> 2 years doesn't really seem worth it to me. At least I ride because I
> enjoy it and usually find it more practical - the health benefits are
> just a side effect.

The *number* of years is not really that important, it's the *quality* of
those years that counts. If the last 10 years of your life are affected by
poor health due to never excercising then I'd rather not have those years.

cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>,
naked_draughtsman
[email protected] says...
> On Jul 6, 1:52 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > if cycling to work is their main physical activity, the alternatives
> > will demonstrably shorten the life of the employee.
>
> The article also says:
>
> "A US medical study found that people who cycled regularly beyond
> their mid30s lived on average two years longer."
>
> 2 years doesn't really seem worth it to me.

I'm pretty sure other studies have found it to be longer.

 

[naked_draughtsman]

On Jul 7, 8:45 am, Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm pretty sure other studies have found it to be longer.

I think the article also said a UK study found it significantly
extended life although significance didn't seem to be defined (might
be in the actual report).

Adrian's point is a good one though - better to go out with a bang I
guess!

pete

 

[marc]

naked_draughtsman wrote:
> On Jul 6, 1:52 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> if cycling to work is their main physical activity, the alternatives
>> will demonstrably shorten the life of the employee.
>
> The article also says:
>
> "A US medical study found that people who cycled regularly beyond
> their mid30s lived on average two years longer."
>
> 2 years doesn't really seem worth it to me.

The perspective of whether 2 years is worth it will alter depending how
close you are to needing those extra 2 years!

 

[John Kane]

On Jul 6, 3:41 am, Membrane <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Josey" <jc@nospam> wrote:
> >> I can't imagine that their instructions apply to how employees travel to
> >> and from work. It would only apply to what modes of transport they are
> >> allowed to use whilst exercising their work duties.
>
> >Thats what it says.
>
> Ah yes, missed that.
>
> Seems a bit of a storm in a tea cup. effectively little different from
> the way most companies operate.
>
> --
> Membrane

Your company has a stated policy on how you travel on work related
trips that forbids using bicycles? I think I have heard of one or two
organizations in the USA but it sounds like a rare thing.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

 

[John Kane]

On Jul 6, 6:48 am, [email protected] (Roger Merriman) wrote:
> Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Roger Merriman wrote on 06/07/2007 10:07 +0100:
> > > full duplex <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2034087.ece
>
> > > heh can you say own goal?
>
> > Not really. They are an $8Bn+ business for which this is a small part
> > of their activity which includes aerospace, automotive and oil and gas.
>
> true but as pr goes while it gets you in the papers it's not ideal
>
> roger
> --www.rogermerriman.com

I would not want to be explaining the evironmental consulting balance
sheet to the directors next year. Can't you just see the next time a
municipality calls for bids the competion submitts the bid with a
cover emblazened with bikes, a pious statement how they provide
company bikes to all employees, and has the bid delivered by a cycle
riding consultant[1]

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

1. Even if they have to dump the consultant out of a white van, 100m
from the muni offices.

 

[David Lloyd]

"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 08:28:10 +0100, Marc Brett
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 06 Jul 2007 06:22:39 GMT, full duplex <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2034087.ece
>>
>>"It's patently obvious that if you are struck by a wayward vehicle when
>>you are on a bicycle or motorbike you are going to be more severely
>>affected than if you were in a car. The reason for this policy is to
>>protect our employees from other vehicles on the road."
>>
>>...should be rephrased...
>>
> [Snip]
>
> "It's patently obvious that if you are struck by a wayward motor
> vehicle you are going to be more severely affected than if you were
> struck by a wayward bicycle."

So which idiot thinks they will solve the problem by putting more
potentially wayward motor vehicles on the road? Statistically, they should
ban walking first.

David Lloyd

 

[Ace]

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 18:39:00 GMT, "David Lloyd"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>> "It's patently obvious that if you are struck by a wayward motor
>> vehicle you are going to be more severely affected than if you were
>> struck by a wayward bicycle."
>
>So which idiot thinks they will solve the problem by putting more
>potentially wayward motor vehicles on the road? Statistically, they should
>ban walking first.

You've been to the US then?