Irish cyclists looking for a €1b investment? - note stay on-topic warning, post #160

Zynks

Deedsie wrote: »

Ya I do understand the argument but personally I would value my health and free time more than the fact that I pay motor tax. My motor tax is €200 per year so not that bad really.

I keep finding good reasons to abolish road tax and to add a tax to fuel instead - effectively turning it into a pay per use.

Roadhawk

Zynks wrote: »

I keep finding good reasons to abolish road tax and to add a tax to fuel instead - effectively turning it into a pay per use.

Imagine the cost of public transport or a taxi if that was the case. Unless exemptions are allowed.

Not a bad idea entirely. Id be glad to see that tax implemented.

Roadhawk

And so it becomes a private vehicle tax...

Zynks

Roadhawk wrote: »

Imagine the cost of public transport or a taxi if that was the case. Unless exemptions are allowed.

Not a bad idea entirely. Id be glad to see that tax implemented.

In the same way there is private and commercial motor tax, there could also be something in the style over fuel, I guess.

magicbastarder

that raises a question - if i have to pay X amount for fuel getting from A to B in my car, on principle, why shouldn't i pay X amount for the same fuel in a taxi journey doing the same?

Zynks

For whatever reason, taxis pay less motor tax already (€95 p.a., see link), so this would be a different discussion. Having said that, i see your point.

http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-roads-and-traffic-motor-tax/motor-tax-rates

shootermacg

If you live 5km from work and take a car, well...you're really lazy. If you're really lazy, then you're probably over weight, not because you drive, but because you're lazy.

Zynks

shootermacg wrote: »

If you live 5km from work and take a car, well...you're really lazy. If you're really lazy, then you're probably over weight, not because you drive, but because you're lazy.

That's an indisputably logical argument there.

John_Rambo

Roadhawk wrote: »

Obesity in general is not going to solved by exercise alone. There are many factors that can contribute including:

Genetics, Family lifestyle, Inactivity, unhealthy diet, medical problems, certain medications, social and economic issues, age, pregnancy, giving up smoking and lack of sleep.

At best, (social or commute) cycling will make you slightly fitter than you would be if you didn't cycle.

This is bizarre. The denial is amazing. I've bolded the stupidest part of your stupid post.

When you see overweight cycle couriers or overweight Tour De France competitors and they start removing static bikes from gyms I'll take you seriously. Otherwise, your posts can be taken with a pinch of salt. No credibility whatsoever.

cython

Zynks wrote: »

For whatever reason, taxis pay less motor tax already (€95 p.a., see link), so this would be a different discussion. Having said that, i see your point.

http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-roads-and-traffic-motor-tax/motor-tax-rates

I've heard it said before that this was (in particular under the old system) to make larger/more comfortable cars more affordable to run as taxis, rather than having thousands of Fiestas (for example) roaming the streets with taxi plates. It is a bit of a legacy/archaic provision now if this is the case, as a lot of taxis are post-2008, and should have much lower motor tax rates than they otherwise would have had under the old system.

Carawaystick

shootermacg wrote: »

If you live 5km from work and take a car, well...you're really lazy. If you're really lazy, then you're probably over weight, not because you drive, but because you're lazy.

unless say you live in Mahon and work in little island

Johnny Jukebox

Roadhawk wrote: »

At best, (social or commute) cycling will make you slightly fitter than you would be if you didn't cycle.

If you're Mo Farah maybe...

Works wonders on the average Irish couch potato.

plodder

shootermacg wrote: »

If you live 5km from work and take a car, well...you're really lazy. If you're really lazy, then you're probably over weight, not because you drive, but because you're lazy.

LOL! It would be amazing if the DoH ran an ad campaign using this is the main message. Might not be 100% accurate, but purely for the shock value, of being true for a significant cohort. Won't happen, but one can dream.

Also, I just can't believe that there are people who think that cycling actually gave them (chronic) health problems.

Chivito550

When I was in Copenhagen, a city with a strong cycling culture, the only fat people I saw during the entire time there were American tourists.

When I am in USA, a country obsessed with the private car, I see fat people everywhere.

Chivito550

Roadhawk wrote: »

Obesity in general is not going to solved by exercise alone. There are many factors that can contribute including:

Genetics, Family lifestyle, Inactivity, unhealthy diet, medical problems, certain medications, social and economic issues, age, pregnancy, giving up smoking and lack of sleep.

At best, (social or commute) cycling will make you slightly fitter than you would be if you didn't cycle.

Genetics? Get out of it. Genetics don't change so much in 40 years to account for the soaring levels of obesity compared to the 60s and 70s.

Age? Nonsense. The amount of auld lads I see competing in track and field here would put the average Irish sedentary slob to shame.

Pregnancy? Nah, if a woman does the right things the only weight gained will be the baby, placenta, and some additional weight which can be worked off reasonably quickly. Problem is many women use pregnancy as an excuse to eat absolute sh1te and in massive quantities. Kind of funny how many wont afford themselves one glass of wine a week (perfectly fine) but will gorge on mars bars, curry chips, and monster munch. Saturated fat is not exactly good for the baby. Also, Sonia O'Sullivan didn't become fat because of pregnancy. She won an Olympic silver medal a year later.

Giving up smoking? How many people does that really apply to in this day and age?

Cycling not having much benefit to one's health? That's too stupid to even deserve a reply.

Not sure if you have some vested interest in some car company or what!

Mortpourvelo

Chivito550 wrote: »

Genetics? Get out of it. Genetics don't change so much in 40 years to account for the soaring levels of obesity compared to the 60s and 70s.

Age? Nonsense. The amount of auld lads I see competing in track and field here would put the average Irish sedentary slob to shame.

Pregnancy? Nah, if a woman does the right things the only weight gained will be the baby, placenta, and some additional weight which can be worked off reasonably quickly. Problem is many women use pregnancy as an excuse to eat absolute sh1te and in massive quantities. Kind of funny how many wont afford themselves one glass of wine a week (perfectly fine) but will gorge on mars bars, curry chips, and monster munch. Saturated fat is not exactly good for the baby. Also, Sonia O'Sullivan didn't become fat because of pregnancy. She won an Olympic silver medal a year later.

Giving up smoking? How many people does that really apply to in this day and age?

Cycling not having much benefit to one's health? That's too stupid to even deserve a reply.

Not sure if you have some vested interest in some car company or what!

Just FYI - walking is also a massive benefit to your health, which is why I do so much of it each day. Best way to commute.

Well, after getting off the train like but sure who can walk 50 miles to work each way!!!

CramCycle

Roadhawk wrote: »

Haha you may awsell have said "heres one i made earlier" with that picture on your desk.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/obesity/basics/risk-factors/con-20014834

http://frac.org/initiatives/hunger-and-obesity/what-factors-contribute-to-overweight-and-obesity/

https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/obe/causes

From first link:

Genetics. Your genes may affect the amount of body fat you store, and where that fat is distributed. Genetics may also play a role in how efficiently your body converts food into energy and how your body burns calories during exercise.

All of which can be countered, quite drastically by exercise and a good diet

Family lifestyle. Obesity tends to run in families. If one or both of your parents are obese, your risk of being obese is increased. That's not just because of genetics. Family members tend to share similar eating and activity habits.

Hence if you break the cycle (pun tastic) and start exercising more than your unhealthy relatives, you will be healthier than them.

Inactivity. If you're not very active, you don't burn as many calories. With a sedentary lifestyle, you can easily take in more calories every day than you burn through exercise and routine daily activities. Having medical problems, such as arthritis, can lead to decreased activity, which contributes to weight gain.

So if you start exercising, the earlier the better in life, it goes along way to countering these issues.

Unhealthy diet. A diet that's high in calories, lacking in fruits and vegetables, full of fast food, and laden with high-calorie beverages and oversized portions contributes to weight gain.

Again, eat better and exercise.

Medical problems. In some people, obesity can be traced to a medical cause, such as Prader-Willi syndrome, Cushing's syndrome and other conditions. Medical problems, such as arthritis, also can lead to decreased activity, which may result in weight gain.

Or as we like to call it the outliers in this scenario. There are many diseases and illnesses where excercise is preventative in the onset of symptoms and can help alleviate those that have already appeared.

Certain medications. Some medications can lead to weight gain if you don't compensate through diet or activity. These medications include some antidepressants, anti-seizure medications, diabetes medications, antipsychotic medications, steroids and beta blockers.

Highlighted the important point.

Social and economic issues. Research has linked social and economic factors to obesity. Avoiding obesity is difficult if you don't have safe areas to exercise. Similarly, you may not have been taught healthy ways of cooking, or you may not have money to buy healthier foods. In addition, the people you spend time with may influence your weight — you're more likely to become obese if you have obese friends or relatives.

All quite true with processed food often appearing cheaper and more accessible than alternatives. Still does not change the fact that if you can stick at excercise and eating better, this disappears.

Age. Obesity can occur at any age, even in young children. But as you age, hormonal changes and a less active lifestyle increase your risk of obesity. In addition, the amount of muscle in your body tends to decrease with age. This lower muscle mass leads to a decrease in metabolism. These changes also reduce calorie needs, and can make it harder to keep off excess weight. If you don't consciously control what you eat and become more physically active as you age, you'll likely gain weight.

Shock horror if you don't eat well and exercise, you will put on weight.

Lack of sleep. Not getting enough sleep or getting too much sleep can cause changes in hormones that increase your appetite. You may also crave foods high in calories and carbohydrates, which can contribute to weight gain.

Good diet and exercise are known to contribute to better sleep.

BuffyBot

Any chance we can veer back towards the topic in hand?

Mortpourvelo

BuffyBot wrote: »

Any chance we can veer back towards the topic in hand?

Easily!

The investment should instead be put towards establishing pedestrian ONLY areas - and unlike now, strictly controlled.

It could pay for cameras at crossings, attendants if needed (creating employment). Making the fixed fines system actually pay - monitoring dangerous behaviour from the so small, tiny minority of cyclists who do not obey the rules of the road.

Scrap Dublin Bikes - you want to cycle, you pay for a bike, safety gear and equipment.

That way pedestrians can happily walk to work from their transport, will stay fit and healthy and not affect any other road users.

Win/win.

eeguy

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

Easily!

The investment should instead be put towards establishing pedestrian ONLY areas - and unlike now, strictly controlled.

Pedestrians already have plenty of pedestrian only areas. They're called footpaths.
The investment should create bike ONLY areas, segregated with bollards. Not places for taxis and delivery vans to pull in and park.

It could pay for cameras at crossings, attendants if needed (creating employment). Making the fixed fines system actually pay - monitoring dangerous behaviour from the so small, tiny minority of cyclists who do not obey the rules of the road.

There should be a system of on the spot fines or bike confiscation for people who can't obey simple rules of the road. Fair enough, I can understand why it's safer to get out in front of traffic, but cycling through a pedi crossing isn't on.

Scrap Dublin Bikes - you want to cycle, you pay for a bike, safety gear and equipment.

Scrap the most popular shared bike scheme in Europe? Ridiculous. You only need safety gear and equipment if there's a good chance of being smashed by a car. The lights on the bike are sufficient. Again, segregated lanes is the way to go.

That way pedestrians can happily walk to work from their transport, will stay fit and healthy and not affect any other road users.

I would introduce a congestion charge in DCC, between the canals. There's no reason why anyone working in the city centre needs a private car to get to work. Encourage park and ride at public transport links around the M50. Get a taxi if that doesn't suit you.

Mortpourvelo

eeguy wrote: »

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

Easily!


The investment should create bike ONLY areas, segregated with bollards. Not places for taxis and delivery vans to pull in and park

There should be a system of on the spot fines or bike confiscation for people who can't obey simple rules of the road. Fair enough, I can understand why it's safer to get out in front of traffic, but cycling through a pedi crossing isn't on.

Scrap the most popular shared bike scheme in Europe? Ridiculous. You only need safety gear and equipment if there's a good chance of being smashed by a car. Again, segregated lanes is the way to go.

I would introduce a congestion charge in DCC, between the canals. There's no reason why anyone working in the city centre needs a private car to get to work. Encourage park and ride at public transport links around the M50. Get a taxi if that doesn't suit you.

Congestion charge +1

Too many cars. My point about Dublin Bikes was when you see idiots on a bike, it does tend to be the DB ones.

Anyone buying their own and taking it seriously tends to act like a responsible road user.

Chuchote

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

The investment should instead be put towards establishing pedestrian ONLY areas - and unlike now, strictly controlled.

If there were good quality, roomy protected cycleways, cyclists would use them and the current pedestrian-only areas, known as pavements, wouldn't have any cyclists, scooters and other criminal elements on them. Win/win.

eeguy

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

Congestion charge +1

Too many cars. My point about Dublin Bikes was when you see idiots on a bike, it does tend to be the DB ones.
Anyone buying their own and taking it seriously tends to act like a responsible road user.

Hah, my experience is the opposite. At least with a Dublin bike, you know it's maintained and has lights.
It's the lads on the €40 fifth-hand bikes with no lights, no brakes and a wobbly front wheel that you need to watch out for

CramCycle

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

The investment should instead be put towards establishing pedestrian ONLY areas - and unlike now, strictly controlled.

Very much in favour of more pedestrian spaces, something the council are looking at around dame street, the more of these pockets, the better for everyone.

It could pay for cameras at crossings, attendants if needed (creating employment). Making the fixed fines system actually pay - monitoring dangerous behaviour from the so small, tiny minority of cyclists who do not obey the rules of the road.

But that won't work and is unsustainable. More Gardai funding with the caveat that it would lead to more feet on the street, makes far more sense, coupled with a streamlining of gardai paperwork so that the task of any misdemeanor is not a paperwork nightmare but a fairly simple affair.

Scrap Dublin Bikes - you want to cycle, you pay for a bike, safety gear and equipment.

I have no words about what a retrograde step this would be, actually wait, I have loads but may stray further off topic. Dublin bikes come with safety gear (lights + brakes). If nothing else , it should be expanded. Not everyone who uses DB wants to cycle, they want to use a reliable PT system that serves their needs, in this case, the most sensible one is the DB scheme.

That way pedestrians can happily walk to work from their transport, will stay fit and healthy and not affect any other road users.

???? Not sure what point you are trying to make here.

monument

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

Easily!

The investment should instead be put towards establishing pedestrian ONLY areas - and unlike now, strictly controlled.

It could pay for cameras at crossings, attendants if needed (creating employment). Making the fixed fines system actually pay - monitoring dangerous behaviour from the so small, tiny minority of cyclists who do not obey the rules of the road.

Scrap Dublin Bikes - you want to cycle, you pay for a bike, safety gear and equipment.

That way pedestrians can happily walk to work from their transport, will stay fit and healthy and not affect any other road users.

Win/win.

Cut of the trolling.

This warning is not just based on the above post but your general posting record on this and other boards. If you can't behave on this thread you will be soon asked not to post on it.

-- moderator

schemingbohemia

Are we surprised that someone with a user name that's death to bicycles is trolling about cycling?

Mortpourvelo

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Are we surprised that someone with a user name that's death to bicycles is trolling about cycling?

More surprised that it's took someone four months to work that out.

Thought it would be a year.

BuffyBot

I've deleted some off topic posts. It doesn't matter if someone is the biggest troll in the world, it doesn't give you a carte blanche to act in a similar manner.

josip

Will we ever see this ratio in Dublin?
Are we currently where Copenhagen/Amsterdam were back in the 70s?

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/nov/30/cycling-revolution-bikes-outnumber-cars-first-time-copenhagen-denmark

London seems to have serious momentum in a sustainable direction.
Having a mayor with effective powers seems to be a requirement.

Chuchote

josip wrote: »

Will we ever see this ratio in Dublin?
Are we currently where Copenhagen/Amsterdam were back in the 70s?

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/nov/30/cycling-revolution-bikes-outnumber-cars-first-time-copenhagen-denmark

London seems to have serious momentum in a sustainable direction.
Having a mayor with effective powers seems to be a requirement.

Effective powers and a commitment to decarbonise the city. Our own capital's Lord Mayor, Críona Ní Dálaigh used her casting vote against allowing cyclists to ride contraflow on some Dublin streets.

http://irishcycle.com/2015/10/05/push-to-secure-contra-flow-cycling-on-key-dublin-streets-fails-by-one-vote/

And councillors too - 19 Fingal councillors voted against safe cycle and walking paths for schoolkids (16 voted for - note who was who when the next vote comes up)

http://www.thejournal.ie/cycling-schools-3020766-Oct2016/

ThisRegard

Chuchote wrote: »

And councillors too - 19 Fingal councillors voted against safe cycle and walking paths for schoolkids (16 voted for - note who was who when the next vote comes up)

http://www.thejournal.ie/cycling-schools-3020766-Oct2016/

I mailed all of my local Fingal councillors regarding this the day after the vote, 14 in total. Only 2 bothered to reply to me, 1 from Sinn Fein, the other from AAA.

Chuchote

ThisRegard wrote: »

I mailed all of my local Fingal councillors regarding this the day after the vote, 14 in total. Only 2 bothered to reply to me, 1 from Sinn Fein, the other from AAA.

When the next council elections come up, I trust you'll be out canvassing and leafletting and talking to local voters and families about how their local representative voted on it?

monument

ThisRegard wrote: »

I mailed all of my local Fingal councillors regarding this the day after the vote, 14 in total. Only 2 bothered to reply to me, 1 from Sinn Fein, the other from AAA.

Those emails helped win another vote about cycling routes to a school. Some councillors said on the record how parents contacting them changed their minds.

CramCycle

Far better than out canvassing is targeted vocals. If your kids are in the catchment area for any of the schools, highlight to the parent teacher meeting which councillors thought their child's safety was a bit too much hassle (despite being no more hassle than several projects they did approve).

magicbastarder

Chuchote wrote: »

When the next council elections come up, I trust you'll be out canvassing and leafletting and talking to local voters and families about how their local representative voted on it?

you'd come across as some crank if you were out canvassing and distributing leaflets, though, if you're not running or aligned to any candidates.

Chuchote

magicbastarder wrote: »

you'd come across as some crank if you were out canvassing and distributing leaflets, though, if you're not running or aligned to any candidates.

Pfft, so I care? Only time I've canvassed in the last 50 years was for the gay marriage vote, but I was bloody glad to do it. If they thought I was a crank, fine, but people talked to me about how they felt, and I talked politely to them about the kind of Ireland I wanted (them talking: 90%; me talking 5%, me calling over my co-canvassers to talk about their personal experience and wanting to marry their partner of years 5%), and maybe some people changed how they voted.

If people think your telling them about how councillors voted in relation to their child's safety, and asking them what kind of roads policy they'd like, is cranky, they're perfectly entitled to… but…

coolbeans

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

More surprised that it's took someone four months to work that out.

Thought it would be a year.

Since you're such a smart guy I feel the need to point out that "la mort pour les vélos" is actually what you're trying to say with your moniker. 'Mortpourvelo' just means 'dead for bike' which means nothing at all in English or in French. If you're gonna be a hater at least do it with a bit of panache and get your grammar right.

monument

coolbeans wrote: »

Since you're such a smart guy I feel the need to point out that "la mort pour les vélos" is actually what you're trying to say with your moniker. 'Mortpourvelo' just means 'dead for bike' which means nothing at all in English or in French. If you're gonna be a hater at least do it with a bit of panache and get your grammar right.

Let's get back on topic now -- thank you!

-- mod

Corca Baiscinn

Chuchote, I take your point re the need, come the local elections, to let the electorate know how their councillors voted re cycle safety but I think that the referendum was a different type of canvassing because of it being a Referendum rather than election so lots of individuals/groups were weighing in. Cram Cycle's angle of targeting neighbourhood groups, parent- teacher associations, residents' associations, local media etc may be more effective in this particular case.
I think you'l love this link if you haven't seen it! You are passionate in promoting the health benefits of cycling!

http://www.cycling-embassy.dk/2016/11/29/bicycle-lanes-traffic-reorganization-save-gladsaxe-municipality-half-billion-dkk/

magicbastarder

exactly - the referendum stood apart from politics, the local elections are all about politics.

Chuchote

How Utrecht changed to a city where people want to live, rather than a commuter city (skip the intro in Dutch; presentation starts around 2 minutes in)

Chuchote

Last time I looked, cycling was transport.

monument

Chuchote wrote: »

How Utrecht changed to a city where people want to live, rather than a commuter city (skip the intro in Dutch; presentation starts around 2 minutes in)

Worth noting that the main predestination is in English... I was about to turn it off.

Chuchote

A study by Columbia University has found that bicycle lanes may be the most cost-effective way to improve public health

http://www.zmescience.com/medicine/bike-lanes-public-health-22112016/

The figures they came up with are impressive. For instance, back in 2005, New York City spent $10 million on curbing traffic. They widened sidewalks, redesigned traffic lights, and constructed bike lanes. The net societal benefit of that project? A whopping $230 million…

“We conclude that investments in bicycle lanes come with an exceptionally good value because they simultaneously address multiple public health problems. Investments in bike lanes are more cost-effective than the majority of preventive approaches used today.”

Another piece

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-costbenefit-bike-lanes-idUSKCN11Z23A

has some criticism of its methodology (conflating painted bike lanes and broad, well-designed, protected cycleways):

The study did not distinguish between bike lanes, bikeways, shared-use paths and other bike facilities, said Anne Lusk, a research scientist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston who was not part of the new study.

One study, cited by Mohit and coauthors, found that bike lanes made the city safer for drivers and pedestrians but less safe for bicyclists, Lusk told Reuters Health by email.

“In sum, I am glad to read the conclusion that bicycle facilities are a worthwhile health investment but saddened that the author did not clearly specify that the facilities built in NYC starting in 2007 were primarily Class IV cycle tracks (barrier-protected bicycle-exclusive paths beside sidewalks),” she said…

“Once considered desirable because they were 'low hanging fruit,' we need to stop painting door zone bike lanes and start creating barrier protected cycle tracks,” Lusk said. Riding in the so-called door zone can be fatal if someone in a parked car opens their door at the wrong time, she said.

And in news from Sweden, the invisible cyclist

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092575351600045X

In about half of these collisions the drivers reported that they did not see the cyclists beforehand.

eeguy

Deedsie wrote: »

I have no idea how these incidents occurred and I'm not blaming motorists or pedestrians but surely we are long past time where motorists are separated from cyclists and pedestrians where possible?

By the time political will has swung around to this idea, we'll be living in an eradicated of autonomous cars.
All evidence so far says they're already safer than humans and estimated to reduce crashes by more than 90%.
Most companies plan on releasing some form of limited autonomous car in 5 years and full autonomous in 10.

check_six

eeguy wrote: »

By the time political will has swung around to this idea, we'll be living in an eradicated of autonomous cars.
All evidence so far says they're already safer than humans and estimated to reduce crashes by more than 90%.
Most companies plan on releasing some form of limited autonomous car in 5 years and full autonomous in 10.

Could be big traffic problems with private autonomous cars. If everyone with a regular car now sent their future autonomous car home to wait after it dropped them off it would double the number of trips by each vehicle on the road. Double the trips means double the traffic. Might be time to look at some other way of travelling that can skirt around the traffic? Autonomous bicycles would be something we could all get behind!

CramCycle

check_six wrote: »

Could be big traffic problems with private autonomous cars. If everyone with a regular car now sent their future autonomous car home to wait after it dropped them off it would double the number of trips by each vehicle on the road. Double the trips means double the traffic. Might be time to look at some other way of travelling that can skirt around the traffic? Autonomous bicycles would be something we could all get behind!

Could pass legislation that autonomous cars are not allowed be in operation unless the registered vehicle owner or insured party is there to ensure there is someone there to take over if needs be (alas very unlikely).

check_six

CramCycle wrote: »

Could pass legislation that autonomous cars are not allowed be in operation unless the registered vehicle owner or insured party is there to ensure there is someone there to take over if needs be (alas very unlikely).

Perhaps, but right now I'm down in the garden shed designing an autonomous bicycle that can wield a 'morning star' spiked ball and chain thing to chase off bike thieves.
Just need some more spikes...

Hexen

Chuchote wrote: »

A study by Columbia University has found that bicycle lanes may be the most cost-effective way to improve public health

http://www.zmescience.com/medicine/bike-lanes-public-health-22112016/

[...]

Also, here's an interesting study from Auckland NZ. It modelled potential benefits from investing in cycling infrastructure. It monetised the impact of cycle friendly policies finding that, depending on the policies pursued, potential benefits outweighed harms anywhere from 6 to 24 times. That is, for every $1 (NZ) invested in cycling infrastructure there was a long-term return of between $6 and $24. According to their model, the greatest benefits would accrue from the combined implementation of segregated cycling network (arterial segregated bicycle lanes) and what they term "self-explaining roads" ('creating low-speed local streets using nontraditional, endemic road features such as street narrowing, trees, and art').

The Societal Costs and Benefits of Commuter Bicycling: Simulating the Effects of Specific Policies Using System Dynamics Modeling

Hexen

Chuchote wrote: »

A study by Columbia University has found that bicycle lanes may be the most cost-effective way to improve public health

The most interesting finding of this study was that non-bike riders benefit more than bike riders from investment in cycling and associated infrastructure.

“New bike riders gain an average of 0.033 QALYs [quality-adjusted life years] per year from increased exercise and New Yorkers as a whole gain 0.047 QALYs per year from reduced exposure to pollution.” This suggests the average New Yorker benefits from the increase in biking even more than the bikers do themselves — when the chance of an accident is factored into the bikers’ overall health.

Bike lanes benefit non-riders more than riders: New research