Jump to content

Lets Walk and Cycle to Work...Patronising Twaddle


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 194
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's a lot easier to produce pages of pretentious waffle than to produce efficient public services - like transport.....

It would be great to finish work at 6pm in the winter and cycle up Richmond Hill in the pixxing rain in the dark !  

No I agree with Manx Bean. I dont even understand the IOM anymore. There’s too many wankers telling me what to do to make up for the fact that they can’t actually deliver any of the services I need an

10 minutes ago, benl said:

OK, before I start,  I'll put my cards on the table, I work for a university research group and most of our work is on the consequences of physical exercise on health and well-being. That doesn't mean I'm an advocate of everything, but I see and even produce some research on this topic. 

I don't really know if I can counter your point on the narrative, but this consultation, if done properly, should elicit the barriers people have to exercise to see what the government can do to reduce them. I'd guess it's more about small substitutions, you know, walking into the town centre if you live a couple of miles away etc. Public health is always a battle as the benefits are always seen as intangible. Remeber the uproar about seatbelts. Emerging evidence is showing that providing information isn't enough to encourage healthy behaviours.

Perhaps the best summary of the benefits of physical exercise is in "A systematic review of the evidence for Canada’s Physical Activity Guidelines for Adults". The review shows a cumulative benefit in exercise and activity with an optimum of about 30 minutes per day. There are reductions in seven major illnesses including type 2 diabetes and cancer. Most health outcomes are down to diet and physical activity - really basic things. Genetic elements only account for about 30% (yes there is always going to be a debate about attributable fractions). Preventing these things takes more strain off the health service and increases the quality of your years of life far greater than quantity. Also, fewer cars means less wear on the roads and the tax implications. 

I also read a post saying we're not living longer... we are. The rate has slowed, likely due to social pressures and recession but, we are still gaining a good couple of minutes for every hour of life. We see more reporting of younger people dying due to reporting bias. Death is a little bit of Poisson regression, random events occurring at a fixed rate.

Summary: exercise does work, it's cheaper to prevent than treat, everyone hates public health and probably me. 

Well said sir.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

But the DOI know what the barriers are:

5.5 The barriers include safety and the perception of safety, the provision of facilities at either end of journeys (including changing, storage and charging provision), the weather, the lack of identified routes or networks, the presence of hills, the distances involved, and the cost of equipment. Some of these barriers will affect some areas of the Island more than others, most obviously the presence of hills or the distances between residential areas and centres.

a) safety - that applies to all road users not just pedestrians & cyclists;
b) end of journey facilities - why should making those facilities become the responsibility of DOI? 
c) weather - as good as the MInister's relationship might be with the Almighty I don't think he or anyone in DOI can do anything about that;
d) lack of identified routing - what? you mean we don't have roads, paths and pavements already?
e) hills - please don't tell me DOI intend to flatten a few hills to make it easier to get to work?
f) cost of equipment - so the taxpayer should pick up the cost?

As far as I can see the only thing DOI need to get involved in is a) & d) but only in general terms. The rest should be outwith DOI responsibility or control.

 

Edited by Andy Onchan
Typo
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

But the DOI know what the barriers are:

5.5 The barriers include safety and the perception of safety, the provision of facilities at either end of journeys (including changing, storage and charging provision), the weather, the lack of identified routes or networks, the presence of hills, the distances involved, and the cost of equipment. Some of these barriers will affect some areas of the Island more than others, most obviously the presence of hills or the distances between residential areas and centres.

a) safety - that applies to all road users not just pedestrians & cyclists;
b) end of journey facilities - why should making those facilities become the responsibility of DOI? 
c) weather - as good as the MInister's relationship might be with the Almighty I don't think he or anyone in DOI can do anything about that;
d) lack of identified routing - what? you mean we don't have roads, paths and pavements already?
e) hills - please don't tell me DOI intend to flatten a few hills to make it easier to get to work?
f) cost of equipment - so the taxpayer should pick up the cost?

As far as I can see the only thing DOI need to get involved in is a) & d) but only in general terms. The rest should be outwith DOI responsibility or control.

 

I agree, yes. I know it's frustrating but isn't this the type of thing that's worth submitting to the consultation? I mean for safety, maybe someone has a suggestion for improving legislation that encourages cycling safety (I await the response, make cyclists pay insurance). 

As with the others, yes the weather is fecking horrible and cycling/walking is never going to be favourable. Lack of routing can surely be addressed in the consultation, surely if enough people favour certain routes etc it would show where to focus resources. It might even identify the need for a new crossing or something relatively cheap (though I'm sure the DOI will find a way to make this cost £1million and take 6,852 weeks). 

Isn't there a tax rebate scheme now with cycling? So it does look like there doing something, even if it's just making people angry enough to think about it. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

But the DOI know what the barriers are:

5.5 The barriers include safety and the perception of safety, the provision of facilities at either end of journeys (including changing, storage and charging provision), the weather, the lack of identified routes or networks, the presence of hills, the distances involved, and the cost of equipment. Some of these barriers will affect some areas of the Island more than others, most obviously the presence of hills or the distances between residential areas and centres.

a) safety - that applies to all road users not just pedestrians & cyclists;
b) end of journey facilities - why should making those facilities become the responsibility of DOI? 
c) weather - as good as the MInister's relationship might be with the Almighty I don't think he or anyone in DOI can do anything about that;
d) lack of identified routing - what? you mean we don't have roads, paths and pavements already?
e) hills - please don't tell me DOI intend to flatten a few hills to make it easier to get to work?
f) cost of equipment - so the taxpayer should pick up the cost?

As far as I can see the only thing DOI need to get involved in is a) & d) but only in general terms. The rest should be outwith DOI responsibility or control.

 

.....................spot on Andy..........................and no one has answered my post asking if they have replied to the consultation/ job justification  with their points..................

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, benl said:

I agree, yes. I know it's frustrating but isn't this the type of thing that's worth submitting to the consultation? I mean for safety, maybe someone has a suggestion for improving legislation that encourages cycling safety (I await the response, make cyclists pay insurance). 

As with the others, yes the weather is fecking horrible and cycling/walking is never going to be favourable. Lack of routing can surely be addressed in the consultation, surely if enough people favour certain routes etc it would show where to focus resources. It might even identify the need for a new crossing or something relatively cheap (though I'm sure the DOI will find a way to make this cost £1million and take 6,852 weeks). 

Isn't there a tax rebate scheme now with cycling? So it does look like there doing something, even if it's just making people angry enough to think about it. 

At the end of the day it's a shockingly ill thought out document drawn up by a highly paid someone with a PhD and a lot of time on their hands.

Road safety programs already exist so I'm not sure we need to reinvent the (cycle) wheel :rolleyes: ! But I am in favour of insurance for cyclists (I'm a cyclist myself).

Routing? Yeah OK, I'll acknowledge that additional off road paths/cycle ways need looking at (similar to the disused rail line. But really that's about it.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, benl said:

OK, before I start,  I'll put my cards on the table, I work for a university research group and most of our work is on the consequences of physical exercise on health and well-being. That doesn't mean I'm an advocate of everything, but I see and even produce some research on this topic. 

I don't really know if I can counter your point on the narrative, but this consultation, if done properly, should elicit the barriers people have to exercise to see what the government can do to reduce them. I'd guess it's more about small substitutions, you know, walking into the town centre if you live a couple of miles away etc. Public health is always a battle as the benefits are always seen as intangible. Remeber the uproar about seatbelts. Emerging evidence is showing that providing information isn't enough to encourage healthy behaviours.

Perhaps the best summary of the benefits of physical exercise is in "A systematic review of the evidence for Canada’s Physical Activity Guidelines for Adults". The review shows a cumulative benefit in exercise and activity with an optimum of about 30 minutes per day. There are reductions in seven major illnesses including type 2 diabetes and cancer. Most health outcomes are down to diet and physical activity - really basic things. Genetic elements only account for about 30% (yes there is always going to be a debate about attributable fractions). Preventing these things takes more strain off the health service and increases the quality of your years of life far greater than quantity. Also, fewer cars means less wear on the roads and the tax implications. 

I also read a post saying we're not living longer... we are. The rate has slowed, likely due to social pressures and recession but, we are still gaining a good couple of minutes for every hour of life. We see more reporting of younger people dying due to reporting bias. Death is a little bit of Poisson regression, random events occurring at a fixed rate.

Summary: exercise does work, it's cheaper to prevent than treat, everyone hates public health and probably me. 

very good,  but our government have put up the cost of exercise at the NSC so it isn't cheaper for the exerciser.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uhtred said:

Well, you make a good point - let's take a look at the paragon of physical perfection that is our over-stuffed, florid faced, lard-arsed Chief Minister. How many times when he was Health Minister (a comedy gem that would have silenced even Malcolm Tucker) did he and his roly-poly, 18 stone, jet-set sidekick Charters put their names to healthy eating initiative this, or cut down on your alcohol intake that? Quayle looks like some gout-laden, dissolute, Regency porker and yet we are hectored by his government to cycle to work. After you, fat-boy.

thanks Uhtred another tea down the nose moment ,delightfully composed post :lol:

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Uhtred said:

Well, you make a good point - let's take a look at the paragon of physical perfection that is our over-stuffed, florid faced, lard-arsed Chief Minister. How many times when he was Health Minister (a comedy gem that would have silenced even Malcolm Tucker) did he and his roly-poly, 18 stone, jet-set sidekick Charters put their names to healthy eating initiative this, or cut down on your alcohol intake that? Quayle looks like some gout-laden, dissolute, Regency porker and yet we are hectored by his government to cycle to work. After you, fat-boy.

Now now - no need to sugar coat it.....

(Sorry)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, benl said:

OK, before I start,  I'll put my cards on the table, I work for a university research group and most of our work is on the consequences of physical exercise on health and well-being. That doesn't mean I'm an advocate of everything, but I see and even produce some research on this topic. 

I don't really know if I can counter your point on the narrative, but this consultation, if done properly, should elicit the barriers people have to exercise to see what the government can do to reduce them. I'd guess it's more about small substitutions, you know, walking into the town centre if you live a couple of miles away etc. Public health is always a battle as the benefits are always seen as intangible. Remeber the uproar about seatbelts. Emerging evidence is showing that providing information isn't enough to encourage healthy behaviours.

Perhaps the best summary of the benefits of physical exercise is in "A systematic review of the evidence for Canada’s Physical Activity Guidelines for Adults". The review shows a cumulative benefit in exercise and activity with an optimum of about 30 minutes per day. There are reductions in seven major illnesses including type 2 diabetes and cancer. Most health outcomes are down to diet and physical activity - really basic things. Genetic elements only account for about 30% (yes there is always going to be a debate about attributable fractions). Preventing these things takes more strain off the health service and increases the quality of your years of life far greater than quantity. Also, fewer cars means less wear on the roads and the tax implications. 

I also read a post saying we're not living longer... we are. The rate has slowed, likely due to social pressures and recession but, we are still gaining a good couple of minutes for every hour of life. We see more reporting of younger people dying due to reporting bias. Death is a little bit of Poisson regression, random events occurring at a fixed rate.

Summary: exercise does work, it's cheaper to prevent than treat, everyone hates public health and probably me. 

Excellent post.  Really informative and I agree with you.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, benl said:

OK, before I start,  I'll put my cards on the table, I work for a university research group and most of our work is on the consequences of physical exercise on health and well-being. That doesn't mean I'm an advocate of everything, but I see and even produce some research on this topic. 

I don't really know if I can counter your point on the narrative, but this consultation, if done properly, should elicit the barriers people have to exercise to see what the government can do to reduce them. I'd guess it's more about small substitutions, you know, walking into the town centre if you live a couple of miles away etc. Public health is always a battle as the benefits are always seen as intangible. Remeber the uproar about seatbelts. Emerging evidence is showing that providing information isn't enough to encourage healthy behaviours.

Perhaps the best summary of the benefits of physical exercise is in "A systematic review of the evidence for Canada’s Physical Activity Guidelines for Adults". The review shows a cumulative benefit in exercise and activity with an optimum of about 30 minutes per day. There are reductions in seven major illnesses including type 2 diabetes and cancer. Most health outcomes are down to diet and physical activity - really basic things. Genetic elements only account for about 30% (yes there is always going to be a debate about attributable fractions). Preventing these things takes more strain off the health service and increases the quality of your years of life far greater than quantity. Also, fewer cars means less wear on the roads and the tax implications. 

I also read a post saying we're not living longer... we are. The rate has slowed, likely due to social pressures and recession but, we are still gaining a good couple of minutes for every hour of life. We see more reporting of younger people dying due to reporting bias. Death is a little bit of Poisson regression, random events occurring at a fixed rate.

Summary: exercise does work, it's cheaper to prevent than treat, everyone hates public health and probably me. 

But exercise doesn't prevent.  It does lessen the risk, but many of those who partake even the approved amount will still suffer.  The biggest component of 'cause' is still random - 'environmental' factors (and genetics) will still be less than that.  And that's before you consider the inevitable problems of cause/correlation.  As I pointed out in my footnote the people who do take additional exercise may well be those who are healthier in the first place.  You can't do double-blind trials in public health.

This doesn't mean that moderate exercise shouldn't be encouraged of course, but even then you need to have evidence that particular exercise initiative will work.  There are all sorts of problems and impracticalities in what is being proposed regarding work travel.  Maybe people would be better going for a walk at lunchtime instead?  And it still doesn't answer why a formal consultation is needed when commonsense and informal surveys can be quicker and easier.  Far too much public health promotion can be PR-driven virtue-signalling rather than encouraging long-term behaviour changes.

Meanwhile if the Government is really serious about this, I assume the first thing they will be doing is getting rid of all all the reserved parking spaces for their workers in Douglas, so as to encourage healthier travel habits.  And dropping all the charges for the NSC that they have just put up.  And, given the well known health benefits of a more equal society that you refer to, putting up taxes on the better-off and transferring that to those less rolling in money.  Or we might just suspect that these exhortations are not entirely sincere.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...