DFT Cycling Forecast- tremendously encouraging

spindrift said:

Economic modeling carried out for Cycling England3

No bias there then

Quoted message said:

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?

spindrift said:

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

John Kane said:

POHB said:

spindrift said:

Economic modeling carried out for Cycling England3

No bias there then

Quoted message said:

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.

Tom Crispin said:

John Kane said:

POHB said:

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

John Kane said:

Tom Crispin said:

John Kane said:

On Feb 8, 9:28 am, POHB <[email hidden]> 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?

Marz said:

spindrift said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

JNugent said:

John Kane said:

Tom Crispin said:

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

JNugent said:

John Kane said:

Tom Crispin said:

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

> On Feb 8, 9:28 am, POHB <[email hidden]> 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

Marz said:

spindrift said:

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.

John Kane said:

JNugent said:

John Kane said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>> Economic modeling carried out for Cycling England3

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> No bias there then

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> 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?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Compulsory euthanasia would be the economist's solution.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I thought he was a sociologist?

Quoted message said:

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.

JNugent said:

John Kane said:

JNugent said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>> No bias there then

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>> 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?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I thought he was a sociologist?

Quoted message said:

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

"Sir Jeremy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Marz said:

spindrift said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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?

"Marz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

spindrift said:

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.

Adam Lea said:

"Sir Jeremy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Marz said:

On Feb 8, 8:13 am, spindrift <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

quote from paper below...

Quoted message said:

"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."

Quoted message said:

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.

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

[snip]

Quoted message said:

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"

Den 2008-02-09 23:31:12 skrev John Kane <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Marz said:

spindrift said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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