Good news for cycle commuters

[rendelharris]

...and as powerful a reason as any to keep building cycling infrastucture!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39641122

[malumbu]

No S... Sherlock!

Cardiovascular benefits also outweigh health impacts of air pollution for a number of hours. Not so clever if you are cycling all day cycle couriers....

It's great being smug.

[titch juicy]

Exercise is good for you? get away!

[rendelharris]

Malumbu - wasn't trying to be smug, I don't even cycle commute, I work from home, just thought it would be nice to point out some benefits as a counterpoint to those who want cycle infrastructure curtailed or even removed in favour of more sedentary transport. Yes pollution's dreadful, now what can be done to counter that - encourage zero pollution transport perhaps like...

Titch - the point is, as made in the article, that cycling to work is exercise which has a practical benefit and fits into the day rather than having to force oneself to the gym.

I just thought it would be of interest to some people to see a study showing cycle commuters halve their risk of heart disease and cancer, sorry it seems to have irked you chaps.

[Sue]

Thanks for posting.

I found it interesting, so I expect other people will too.

[Nigello]

But are they DIRECT links, or is it that, say, cyclists are less likely to smoke and more likely to do other things that prevent cancers? I think "cycling beats cancer" is just too unlikely to be true in its most face-value sense? (I still think the easiest and cheapest thing is to walk more.)

NB - The research also looked at people who walked and didn't cycle: "Walking cut the odds of developing heart disease but the benefit was mostly for people walking more than six miles per week."

[rendelharris]

Nigello Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But are they DIRECT links, or is it that, say,

> cyclists are less likely to smoke and more likely

> to do other things that prevent cancers? I think

> "cycling beats cancer" is just too unlikely to be

> true in its most face-value sense? (I still think

> the easiest and cheapest thing is to walk more.)

> NB - The research also looked at people who walked

> and didn't cycle: "Walking cut the odds of

> developing heart disease but the benefit was

> mostly for people walking more than six miles per

> week."

"However, the effect was still there even after adjusting the statistics to remove the effects of other potential explanations like smoking, diet or how heavy people are."

Absolutely agree that walking is a fine exercise and one to which I'm greatly partial, but for anyone living more than three miles or so from their workplace it's not really practical as a means of commuting.

[BrandNewGuy]

Walking's fine for my commute ? four miles and an hour and ten minutes door-to-door (ED to London Bridge) with a pleasant enough walk through the back streets of Cmaberwell and Walworth via three parks. I jump on the train if it's wet or too cold or too hot. I wish the pedestrian lobby was as vociferous as the cycling lobby, but I guess there's not so much cash in it ? perhaps shoe leather manufacturers could take up the cause.*

* Unnecessary cynicism

[Nigello]

Agreed - but cycles are costly, as is the infrastructure. A much smaller amount of money could be spent ensuring pavements are safe, pedestrian areas are well-lit with a bit of greenery added and signs are useful (amongst other efforts) but the pedestrian lobby is very unhip and disregarded, even if it exists at all. A two mile walk is not that effortful but I doubt any politician is likely to try to persuade people to walk "such a long distance" because people, alas, just don't want to hear that, on the whole.

[rendelharris]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Walking's fine for my commute ? four miles and an

> hour and ten minutes door-to-door (ED to London

> Bridge) with a pleasant enough walk through the

> back streets of Cmaberwell and Walworth via three

> parks. I jump on the train if it's wet or too cold

> or too hot. I wish the pedestrian lobby was as

> vociferous as the cycling lobby, but I guess

> there's not so much cash in it ? perhaps shoe

> leather manufacturers could take up the cause.*

>

> * Unnecessary cynicism

Serious question - what extra do you need for walking? Cyclists lobby for segregated provision etc, generally as long as pedestrians have pavements...

[Nigello]

You could say to cyclists - you already have roads, so just get on them and ride! That would be the same as saying to pedestrians - there are loads of pavements, so just walk (or push your wheelchair, etc). I would argue that the latter example rings true, mostly.

My meaning is that there is always a way to encourage anything. In this case, as I suggested, a modest amount of ?? spent on ensuring even pavements, safe crossings, clear signage and pleasant environments (inlcuding trees and plants) would help pedestrians know that their interests are being taken care of in a specific way, not just letting them think that once there is a pavement, then that's all they get.

[malumbu]

Rendel - I was being smug not you - another failed attempt at being self deprecating I am afraid! (and doing a sense check on my posting).

Nothing wrong with reminding the world how good cycling is. At the end of the day car sadly is still king but that discussion should be for a separate thread.

PS funnily enough I noted that the embankment cycle lane is also being used by lunch time joggers.

[BrandNewGuy]

Nigello Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You could say to cyclists - you already have

> roads, so just get on them and ride! That would be

> the same as saying to pedestrians - there are

> loads of pavements, so just walk (or push your

> wheelchair, etc). I would argue that the latter

> example rings true, mostly.

> My meaning is that there is always a way to

> encourage anything. In this case, as I suggested,

> a modest amount of ?? spent on ensuring even

> pavements, safe crossings, clear signage and

> pleasant environments (inlcuding trees and plants)

> would help pedestrians know that their interests

> are being taken care of in a specific way, not

> just letting them think that once there is a

> pavement, then that's all they get.

Exactly. For the record, I am all for promoting cycling at the expense of the motor car, but the Townley Rd / E Dulwich Grove junction episode showed how much a lobby that brings in cash can skew completely the best use of resources ? in that case, ?200,000 was p*ssed away just because there was a pot of Boris's money to be spent. For every well-meaning activist, there's someone else eager to get their hands on Other People's Money.

[DulwichLondoner]

@rendelharris, as I said here: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1810370,1810924

I would simply like a cost-benefit analysis to be carried out before loads and loads of public money is spent on a major initiative. What's so wrong with this? This should be a basic common-sense principle for any initiative, regardless of bicycles.

Now that cycle lanes have been built, there is little to estimate and loads to measure objectively: it shouldn't be too hard to count the number of pushbikes using the cycle lanes during and outside rush hours, the reduction (or not) in bus or tube passenger numbers, the increase (or not) in bus journey times now that some bus lanes have been removed, the change (or not) in the rest of the traffic.

Like I said, my impressions of segregated cycle lanes are negative, but they are impressions because I do not have hard data, because it is not my job to collect it (I'd love to, but I can't).

My impressions may be wrong. If the benefits of the cycle lanes are so obvious, and my experience of longer bus journey times, and empty bus lanes outside rush hour, is unrepresentative, it will be super easy for TFL to show it. I am not saying I am 100% confident I am right. I am saying we should have a discussion informed by data and facts, not by ideology, and that it is crazy that these data are not being collected, and that more and more money is being spent without a proper assessment of the cycle lanes already built.

Do you disagree? If so, why?

[rendelharris]

@malumbu: thought that wasn't your style! ;-)

@Nigello: completely agree, all the better if improvements for cyclists and pedestrians come at the same time - on Blackfriars Bridge Road, for example, hand in hand with the new cycle lanes came new broad pavements, planters and traffic control measures to improve things for pedestrians.

@DulwichLondoner: well until someone does a study we're left with I think/you think, which isn't getting us anywhere. However, as noted before, segregated cycle lanes are not intended to be a zero sum game; they're intended to act not just as a better way of getting people to work/leisure activities but to get people out of cars and off public transport and exercising, with the obvious public health benefits as per link above and reducing our desperate pollution problems (and this applies not just to the congestion charge zone, where for once we agree few commuters drive). Signs are, from the massive explosion in cycling, this is starting to work.

[DulwichLondoner]

@rendelharris, so you think it's fine to spend loads and loads of public money without a proper cost-benefit analysis, even in a situation like this one, in which some of the impact of the cycle lanes can be measured very reliably and cheaply (counting cyclists and road users)?

[Applespider]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I wish the pedestrian lobby was as

> vociferous as the cycling lobby, but I guess

> there's not so much cash in it ? perhaps shoe

> leather manufacturers could take up the cause.*

>

> * Unnecessary cynicism

Pedestrians and cyclists should lobby together for better conditions. We would be stronger together when campaigning for improved junctions, traffic light phasing and for each group to have appropriate space. In cities, both groups should take priority, alongside public transport users, over private vehicles.

[DulwichLondoner]

Applespider Wrote:

> Pedestrians and cyclists should lobby together for

> better conditions. We would be stronger together

> when campaigning for improved junctions, traffic

> light phasing and for each group to have

> appropriate space. In cities, both groups should

> take priority, alongside public transport users,

> over private vehicles.

I agree. Which is precisely why one of my main gripes with segregated cycle lanes is that a number of bus lanes have been removed to make way for them. Even the most fervent pro-cycling lobby should acknowledge that everyone can take a bus, while not everyone can cycle.

[rendelharris]

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Applespider Wrote:

>

> > Pedestrians and cyclists should lobby together

> for

> > better conditions. We would be stronger

> together

> > when campaigning for improved junctions,

> traffic

> > light phasing and for each group to have

> > appropriate space. In cities, both groups

> should

> > take priority, alongside public transport

> users,

> > over private vehicles.

>

> I agree. Which is precisely why one of my main

> gripes with segregated cycle lanes is that a

> number of bus lanes have been removed to make way

> for them. Even the most fervent pro-cycling lobby

> should acknowledge that everyone can take a bus,

> while not everyone can cycle.

So, as I've suggested to you before, take the lanes away from private transport and not buses or cyclists. I believe I pointed out to you the other day that on Vauxhall Bridge, one of your pet peeves, there are six lanes available, currently distributed one bus lane (northbound), four open vehicle lanes and one two-way cycle lane. If you want another bus lane coming south, why shouldn't that be taken away from the vehicle lanes instead of, as you wish, from the one cycle lane?

[DulwichLondoner]

@rendelharris, what you propose is not always feasible. Part of the road from Oval to Vauxhall has a single lane of traffic, now that bus lane has been removed. If you make that lane a bus lane, where would the rest of the traffic go?

If you do what you propose on Vauxhall Bridge, what would the impact on traffic and congestion be? Wouldn't more congestion cause even more pollution?

[rendelharris]

So yet again, you want capacity taken away from completely non-polluting vehicles and given to polluting vehicles because if that doesn't happen the polluting vehicles will keep causing congestion. You approach the whole issue from a "right to drive" point of view which is literally choking London.

[DulwichLondoner]

You seem unwilling to accept that a big city like London needs a certain level of vehicular traffic to function.

You seem to think (or at least this is what I infer, correct me if I am wrong) that with the right incentives traffic could be cut to an acceptable level, so that happy pedestrians and cyclists can all hug each other while singing kumbaya in a finally pollution-free city. I beg to differ. That's not going to happen.

Sure, polluting vehicles should be disincentived as much as possible. Private cars already are (between the congestion charge and the cost of parking, getting to zone 1 by helicopter might be cheaper than driving :) ). I talked about looking into whether London has too many minicabs, and into higher congestion charge fees for large vehicles at rush hour. Apart from this, there will still be goods that need to be carried back and forth. The larger supermarkets and stores get their deliveries at night, but not every shop can feasibly restock at night.

There will always be some vehicular traffic which cannot be reduced. I don't like it but that's the way it is. Causing even greater misery to this traffic, by closing roads etc, does nothing to punish these nasty motorists, while paradoxically causing greater pollution. Not exactly a win-win.

It's nothing to do with a right to drive and all to do with the physiological level of vehicular traffic a big city like London needs in order to function properly.

[hammerman]

There's so many of these studies appearing recently but you have to take them with a pinch of salt I think.

My dear Dad walked for miles every week up until his 70s (sometimes walking to the Elephant and Castle from Denmark Hill and swam three times a week and grew his own fruit/veg but still developed Alzheimers which goes against all the studies that are out there i.e. walking, exercise, good diet.

[rendelharris]

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You seem to think (or at least this is what I

> infer, correct me if I am wrong) that with the

> right incentives traffic could be cut to an

> acceptable level, so that happy pedestrians and

> cyclists can all hug each other while singing

> kumbaya in a finally pollution-free city. I beg to

> differ. That's not going to happen.

Leaving aside the childish comments (wanting clean air does not necessarily make one a happy clappy hippy, you know), so your solution is just to give up: traffic in London will never be cut to an acceptable level. Thank goodness not everyone shares that attitude. Massive traffic free areas are spreading across Europe, they'll come to London one day. The alternative is to carry on having 10,000+ premature deaths per year from pollution, 2000+ KSIs from accidents and numberless children with breathing problems, developmental difficulties and lifelong illness caused by exposure to toxicity. The poor little buggers will be lucky if they have the breath to sing Kumbaya.

[DulwichLondoner]

We all want clean air. No one wants pollution. That's not the point. The point is that, without a proper assessment of what makes up current traffic, your approach risks worsening it. Your approach of punishing drivers by making driving even more miserable than it already is may discourage the handful (and statistically irrelevant, I'd guess) of people who still commute to central London by car, but does little to discourage all the lorries, vans etc that must get somewhere to work and to deliver goods; it does little to discourage the Uber driver who sees it as part of his routine, and who will still want to reach central London because that's where most of his business his. It does little to discourage the HGV that must reach a construction site in zone 1, and will reach it regardless of how many roads you close to make him miserable.

My solution is not to give up (again, putting words in my mouth...). As i said countless times, my solution is:

1) understand what on Earth makes up current traffic

2) try to incentivise large vehicles to enter the congestion charge zone after 9am and before 4pm

3) assess how many minicabs are in London, determine if we have too many, and if some kind of specific congestion charge for them makes sense

Without an approach like this, your approach of simply closing down roads to make way for cyclists worsens the problem, because, guess what, goods still need to be delivered to central London, construction works will still take place, etc, and all the related traffic will simply cause more congestion and more pollution.

Oh, and it would also help if cyclists were encouraged to use secondary and narrower residential roads. For example, for cyclcists going from East Dulwich to, say, Oval, it would make more sense to ride along Camberwell Grove than Dog Kennel Hill, along Calais street and Foxley road than along Camberwell new road, etc. Yet I have never seen this encouraged: the official policy seems to be that cycle lanes should be on the main road, where they breath a more polluted air, share the road with dangerous vehicles, and cause congestion by removing other lanes (especially bus lanes) to make way for them.