Cyclists !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nice article winky, and in general there's a lot to be said for its proposals.

I think I referred to "brisk" walking in a recent post. This was to increase the "active" commuting element of my proposals and should improve the walking benefits outlined in your reference. Whether it would bring them into line with cycling is another matter. The other factor being relative distances which are more difficult to evaluate as noted in the article.

However, before we all rush out shouting halilulia (or whatever !) I will paste the authors' "get-out" clause...

It is important to stress that while we did our best to eliminate other potential factors which might influence the findings, it is never possible to do this completely. This means we cannot conclusively say active commuting is the cause of the health outcomes that we measured.

This should encourage others to read the article, if only to put the get-out clause into context !!

Don Atkinson posted:

Nice article winky, and in general there's a lot to be said for its proposals.

I think I referred to "brisk" walking in a recent post. This was to increase the "active" commuting element of my proposals and should improve the walking benefits outlined in your reference. Whether it would bring them into line with cycling is another matter. The other factor being relative distances which are more difficult to evaluate as noted in the article.

However, before we all rush out shouting halilulia (or whatever !) I will paste the authors' "get-out" clause...

It is important to stress that while we did our best to eliminate other potential factors which might influence the findings, it is never possible to do this completely. This means we cannot conclusively say active commuting is the cause of the health outcomes that we measured.

This should encourage others to read the article, if only to put the get-out clause into context !!

Qualifiers are important for sure. Hard (but not impossible) to differentiate between a world where already healthy people choose to cycle and one where people who choose to cycle become healthy. I'm always amused by those at my office who consider my 45km round-trip cycle commute "out of reach" for them and only suitable for fit people. Chicken and egg.

As for walkers, the fact that their health benefits were more modest may be related to distance, since they commute fewer miles on average in the UK – six per week compared to 30 for cyclists. They may therefore need to walk longer distances to elicit meaningful benefits. Equally, however, it may be that the lower benefits from walking are related to the fact that it’s a less intense activity.

The "commute" distances are very modest - just over a mile per day for walkers and 6 miles a day for cyclists. Not clear if this is each-way or round-trip ?

At the moment I drive to work, 60 mile round trip. But I then walk (briskly) 1/2 mile to the hangers, two or three times to taxi aeroplanes onto the apron. Same at the end of the day to put them away. So my each-way "commute" is more like 30 miles car drive, 1 to 1.5 mile walk and two or three heavy pull/push exercises. Looks like I shall have to volunteer to get all 8 aeroplanes out each morning.

Don Atkinson posted:

As for walkers, the fact that their health benefits were more modest may be related to distance, since they commute fewer miles on average in the UK – six per week compared to 30 for cyclists. They may therefore need to walk longer distances to elicit meaningful benefits. Equally, however, it may be that the lower benefits from walking are related to the fact that it’s a less intense activity.

The "commute" distances are very modest - just over a mile per day for walkers and 6 miles a day for cyclists. Not clear if this is each-way or round-trip ?

At the moment I drive to work, 60 mile round trip. But I then walk (briskly) 1/2 mile to the hangers, two or three times to taxi aeroplanes onto the apron. Same at the end of the day to put them away. So my each-way "commute" is more like 30 miles car drive, 1 to 1.5 mile walk and two or three heavy pull/push exercises. Looks like I shall have to volunteer to get all 8 aeroplanes out each morning.

 

Don , that might not be enough you might have to push four of them down the runway!

Don Atkinson posted:

As for walkers, the fact that their health benefits were more modest may be related to distance, since they commute fewer miles on average in the UK – six per week compared to 30 for cyclists. They may therefore need to walk longer distances to elicit meaningful benefits. Equally, however, it may be that the lower benefits from walking are related to the fact that it’s a less intense activity.

The "commute" distances are very modest - just over a mile per day for walkers and 6 miles a day for cyclists. Not clear if this is each-way or round-trip ?

At the moment I drive to work, 60 mile round trip. But I then walk (briskly) 1/2 mile to the hangers, two or three times to taxi aeroplanes onto the apron. Same at the end of the day to put them away. So my each-way "commute" is more like 30 miles car drive, 1 to 1.5 mile walk and two or three heavy pull/push exercises. Looks like I shall have to volunteer to get all 8 aeroplanes out each morning.

 

I'm not certain about walking, but running burns typically 100kCal per mile and is largely irrespective of speed, since the slower you walk the longer you're exercising. When cycling, according to my Garmin, I burn about 100kCal each 20 minutes, although I'd expect to cover about 5-7 miles in that time, allowing for stopping and starting for traffic lights. Hence, cycling 30 miles would take about 1:30 to 1:40, burning ~500kCal. Walking 6 miles would burn ~600kCal. Allowing for errors of gross approximation, it's likely that the pedestrian walking 6 miles would burn about the same number of calories as the cyclist cycling 30 miles.

I know which I'd rather be doing though.

Clive B posted:

I'm not certain about walking, but running burns typically 100kCal per mile and is largely irrespective of speed, since the slower you walk the longer you're exercising. When cycling, according to my Garmin, I burn about 100kCal each 20 minutes, although I'd expect to cover about 5-7 miles in that time, allowing for stopping and starting for traffic lights. Hence, cycling 30 miles would take about 1:30 to 1:40, burning ~500kCal. Walking 6 miles would burn ~600kCal. Allowing for errors of gross approximation, it's likely that the pedestrian walking 6 miles would burn about the same number of calories as the cyclist cycling 30 miles.

 

The  energy you use running or walking depends on your weight and the speed you do, and there is a difference between walking and running (because in running you propel your entire weight off the ground in each 'step', while walking retains most of your weight on the ground). I believe your level of fitness also comes into it, with the same exercise requiring less energy for a fit person than an unfit one..

Probably in the region of 1 kCal/kg body weight/km is a more accurate if still crude estimate for running than blanket 100 kCal/mile.

As far as running compared to walking, I have seen one study that compared people walking at about 3 mph and running at 6 mph, which found the latter to use about 25% more energy - and that speed is only barely running.

Clive,

These are weekly figures ( 6 miles and 30 miles), not daily figures. Not sure if the article makes this really clear.

On my days off, I typically play a round of golf or go hiking, up and down hills, even the little local ones. A couple of weeks ago we spent most days mountain walking in Norway (albeit returning to the cruise ship each evening to refuel !) and in a couple of weeks it's back to Canada and the Rockies. I prefer these to cycling, simply because off-road cycling is somewhat limited and on-road cycling is so dangerous !

But I do agree with your analysis that brisk walking and cycling can burn off similar amounts of calories. However, I think winky's article was suggesting that cycling provided further "hidden" benefits that walking didn't. And these weren't just based on calorie burn. So you are probably on to a "winner"

But "each to his own", walking or cycling is certainly enjoyable to many of us.

Pcd posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

As for walkers, the fact that their health benefits were more modest may be related to distance, since they commute fewer miles on average in the UK – six per week compared to 30 for cyclists. They may therefore need to walk longer distances to elicit meaningful benefits. Equally, however, it may be that the lower benefits from walking are related to the fact that it’s a less intense activity.

The "commute" distances are very modest - just over a mile per day for walkers and 6 miles a day for cyclists. Not clear if this is each-way or round-trip ?

At the moment I drive to work, 60 mile round trip. But I then walk (briskly) 1/2 mile to the hangers, two or three times to taxi aeroplanes onto the apron. Same at the end of the day to put them away. So my each-way "commute" is more like 30 miles car drive, 1 to 1.5 mile walk and two or three heavy pull/push exercises. Looks like I shall have to volunteer to get all 8 aeroplanes out each morning.

 

Don , that might not be enough you might have to push four of them down the runway!

eeekk !!

I suppose Cyclists on country roads are not so suicidal as random walkers on country roads.  When there is no walkers path on the side of the road and I see a pair of walkers (obviously tourists to the area) chancing on meandering bendy roads where cars, trucks, lorries and the occasional tractor are impatient to get to the city I usually say three Hail Mary prayers on their behalf and hope their journey ends peacefully without incident or trauma.

Romi posted:

I suppose Cyclists on country roads are not sosuicidal as random walkers on country roads.  When there is no walkers path on the side of the road and I see a pair of walkers (obviously tourists to the area) chancing on meandering bendy roads where cars, trucks, lorries and the occasional tractor are impatient to get to the city I usually say three Hail Mary prayers on their behalf and hope their journey ends peacefully without incident or trauma.

Being run down by an impatient motorist should never be characterised as "suicide".

We avoid walking along country roads for that very reason. But for the same reason, we drive well within twice our stopping distance, just in case we meet walkers or cyclists or oncoming vehicles.

Don Atkinson posted:

 

At the moment I drive to work, 60 mile round trip. 

 

I'll never regret not spending more time driving.

winkyincanada posted:

I'll never regret not spending more time driving.

There are too many negatives in that sentence for me to be able to decode it!

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

At the moment I drive to work, 60 mile round trip. 

 

I'll never regret not spending more time driving.

Training airfields tend to be a bit out of the way. I don't mind the drive, I just take my time. I find it relaxing despite the concentration.

Clive B posted:

winkyincanada posted:

I'll never regret not spending more time driving.

There are too many negatives in that sentence for me to be able to decode it!

I will regret the time I spend driving. (It is a slightly different meaning, but close enough. For me, time spent in a car is time wasted)

winkyincanada posted:

Romi posted:

I suppose Cyclists on country roads are not sosuicidal as random walkers on country roads.  When there is no walkers path on the side of the road and I see a pair of walkers (obviously tourists to the area) chancing on meandering bendy roads where cars, trucks, lorries and the occasional tractor are impatient to get to the city I usually say three Hail Mary prayers on their behalf and hope their journey ends peacefully without incident or trauma.

Being run down by an impatient motorist should never be characterised as "suicide".

Then you have little imagination.  When it comes to roads and vehicles it would be unwise to assume that the 'other driver' will do the right, legal, common sense act, if you rely on that then its suicide by denial.

Romi posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Romi posted:

I suppose Cyclists on country roads are not sosuicidal as random walkers on country roads.  When there is no walkers path on the side of the road and I see a pair of walkers (obviously tourists to the area) chancing on meandering bendy roads where cars, trucks, lorries and the occasional tractor are impatient to get to the city I usually say three Hail Mary prayers on their behalf and hope their journey ends peacefully without incident or trauma.

Being run down by an impatient motorist should never be characterised as "suicide".

Then you have little imagination.  When it comes to roads and vehicles it would be unwise to assume that the 'other driver' will do the right, legal, common sense act, if you rely on that then its suicide by denial.

So in your world any time a driver kills a vulnerable road user, say by driving onto the footpath (which happens a lot), or by taking a blind corner too fast, the pedestrian has committed suicide by legally walking near or even on the roadway. The pedestrian should have imagined the collision and stayed home instead.

winkyincanada posted:

Romi posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Romi posted:

I suppose Cyclists on country roads are not sosuicidal as random walkers on country roads.  When there is no walkers path on the side of the road and I see a pair of walkers (obviously tourists to the area) chancing on meandering bendy roads where cars, trucks, lorries and the occasional tractor are impatient to get to the city I usually say three Hail Mary prayers on their behalf and hope their journey ends peacefully without incident or trauma.

Being run down by an impatient motorist should never be characterised as "suicide".

Then you have little imagination.  When it comes to roads and vehicles it would be unwise to assume that the 'other driver' will do the right, legal, common sense act, if you rely on that then its suicide by denial.

So in your world any time a driver kills a vulnerable road user, say by driving onto the footpath (which happens a lot), or by taking a blind corner too fast, the pedestrian has committed suicide by legally walking near or even on the roadway. The pedestrian should have imagined the collision and stayed home instead.

In your above scenario whether the pedestrian is walking legally or not is in reality a red herring, a false foundation to the reality that he or she is walking on a busy bendy country road  (no pedestrian path or footpath by side of road) taking risks to the immediate situation is as good as suicide by default.  

Romi posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Romi posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Romi posted:

I suppose Cyclists on country roads are not sosuicidal as random walkers on country roads.  When there is no walkers path on the side of the road and I see a pair of walkers (obviously tourists to the area) chancing on meandering bendy roads where cars, trucks, lorries and the occasional tractor are impatient to get to the city I usually say three Hail Mary prayers on their behalf and hope their journey ends peacefully without incident or trauma.

Being run down by an impatient motorist should never be characterised as "suicide".

Then you have little imagination.  When it comes to roads and vehicles it would be unwise to assume that the 'other driver' will do the right, legal, common sense act, if you rely on that then its suicide by denial.

So in your world any time a driver kills a vulnerable road user, say by driving onto the footpath (which happens a lot), or by taking a blind corner too fast, the pedestrian has committed suicide by legally walking near or even on the roadway. The pedestrian should have imagined the collision and stayed home instead.

In your above scenario whether the pedestrian is walking legally or not is in reality a red herring, a false foundation to the reality that he or she is walking on a busy bendy country road  (no pedestrian path or footpath by side of road) taking risks to the immediate situation is as good as suicide by default.  

What a completely senseless argument. So what should a pedestrian do if there is no other option to get from A to B, as is the case on many of the lanes where I live?

Clive B posted:

Romi posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Romi posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Romi posted:

I suppose Cyclists on country roads are not sosuicidal as random walkers on country roads.  When there is no walkers path on the side of the road and I see a pair of walkers (obviously tourists to the area) chancing on meandering bendy roads where cars, trucks, lorries and the occasional tractor are impatient to get to the city I usually say three Hail Mary prayers on their behalf and hope their journey ends peacefully without incident or trauma.

Being run down by an impatient motorist should never be characterised as "suicide".

Then you have little imagination.  When it comes to roads and vehicles it would be unwise to assume that the 'other driver' will do the right, legal, common sense act, if you rely on that then its suicide by denial.

So in your world any time a driver kills a vulnerable road user, say by driving onto the footpath (which happens a lot), or by taking a blind corner too fast, the pedestrian has committed suicide by legally walking near or even on the roadway. The pedestrian should have imagined the collision and stayed home instead.

In your above scenario whether the pedestrian is walking legally or not is in reality a red herring, a false foundation to the reality that he or she is walking on a busy bendy country road  (no pedestrian path or footpath by side of road) taking risks to the immediate situation is as good as suicide by default.  

What a completely senseless argument. So what should a pedestrian do if there is no other option to get from A to B, as is the case on many of the lanes where I live?

Its because I live in the country I know not to risk my life by walking on 'busy' country roads.  No one local ever does it, its just plain common sense! 

Romi posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Romi posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Romi posted:

I suppose Cyclists on country roads are not sosuicidal as random walkers on country roads.  When there is no walkers path on the side of the road and I see a pair of walkers (obviously tourists to the area) chancing on meandering bendy roads where cars, trucks, lorries and the occasional tractor are impatient to get to the city I usually say three Hail Mary prayers on their behalf and hope their journey ends peacefully without incident or trauma.

Being run down by an impatient motorist should never be characterised as "suicide".

Then you have little imagination.  When it comes to roads and vehicles it would be unwise to assume that the 'other driver' will do the right, legal, common sense act, if you rely on that then its suicide by denial.

So in your world any time a driver kills a vulnerable road user, say by driving onto the footpath (which happens a lot), or by taking a blind corner too fast, the pedestrian has committed suicide by legally walking near or even on the roadway. The pedestrian should have imagined the collision and stayed home instead.

In your above scenario whether the pedestrian is walking legally or not is in reality a red herring, a false foundation to the reality that he or she is walking on a busy bendy country road  (no pedestrian path or footpath by side of road) taking risks to the immediate situation is as good as suicide by default.  

So by your logic, the motorist's actions are also "as good as" manslaughter "by default". After all, by knowingly driving too quickly on narrow lanes with blind corners, where there is unrestricted legal access for pedestrians and cyclists, they are undertaking actions that they know could result in them killing someone. And I'd agree.

Romi posted:

Clive B posted:

Romi posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Romi posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Romi posted:

I suppose Cyclists on country roads are not sosuicidal as random walkers on country roads.  When there is no walkers path on the side of the road and I see a pair of walkers (obviously tourists to the area) chancing on meandering bendy roads where cars, trucks, lorries and the occasional tractor are impatient to get to the city I usually say three Hail Mary prayers on their behalf and hope their journey ends peacefully without incident or trauma.

Being run down by an impatient motorist should never be characterised as "suicide".

Then you have little imagination.  When it comes to roads and vehicles it would be unwise to assume that the 'other driver' will do the right, legal, common sense act, if you rely on that then its suicide by denial.

So in your world any time a driver kills a vulnerable road user, say by driving onto the footpath (which happens a lot), or by taking a blind corner too fast, the pedestrian has committed suicide by legally walking near or even on the roadway. The pedestrian should have imagined the collision and stayed home instead.

In your above scenario whether the pedestrian is walking legally or not is in reality a red herring, a false foundation to the reality that he or she is walking on a busy bendy country road  (no pedestrian path or footpath by side of road) taking risks to the immediate situation is as good as suicide by default.  

What a completely senseless argument. So what should a pedestrian do if there is no other option to get from A to B, as is the case on many of the lanes where I live?

Its because I live in the country I know not to risk my life by walking on 'busy' country roads.  No one local ever does it, its just plain common sense! 

Anytime something is ascribed to "common sense" I know it is likely some sort of irrational assertion.

winkyincanada posted:

Romi posted:

Clive B posted:

Romi posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Romi posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Romi posted:

I suppose Cyclists on country roads are not sosuicidal as random walkers on country roads.  When there is no walkers path on the side of the road and I see a pair of walkers (obviously tourists to the area) chancing on meandering bendy roads where cars, trucks, lorries and the occasional tractor are impatient to get to the city I usually say three Hail Mary prayers on their behalf and hope their journey ends peacefully without incident or trauma.

Being run down by an impatient motorist should never be characterised as "suicide".

Then you have little imagination.  When it comes to roads and vehicles it would be unwise to assume that the 'other driver' will do the right, legal, common sense act, if you rely on that then its suicide by denial.

So in your world any time a driver kills a vulnerable road user, say by driving onto the footpath (which happens a lot), or by taking a blind corner too fast, the pedestrian has committed suicide by legally walking near or even on the roadway. The pedestrian should have imagined the collision and stayed home instead.

In your above scenario whether the pedestrian is walking legally or not is in reality a red herring, a false foundation to the reality that he or she is walking on a busy bendy country road  (no pedestrian path or footpath by side of road) taking risks to the immediate situation is as good as suicide by default.  

What a completely senseless argument. So what should a pedestrian do if there is no other option to get from A to B, as is the case on many of the lanes where I live?

Its because I live in the country I know not to risk my life by walking on 'busy' country roads.  No one local ever does it, its just plain common sense! 

Anytime something is ascribed to "common sense" I know it is likely some sort of irrational assertion.

Is it irrational to try be safe?

Romi posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Romi posted:

Clive B posted:

 

Its because I live in the country I know not to risk my life by walking on 'busy' country roads.  No one local ever does it, its just plain common sense! 

Anytime something is ascribed to "common sense" I know it is likely some sort of irrational assertion.

Is it irrational to try be safe?

No, but deciding what is safe and what is not safe by the application of "common sense" is often way wide of the mark. Our ability to assess risk is generally terrible.

Lets get something straight: ALL motorists should drive in such a manner, including speed, that they can stop in the available distance before an obstruction, which where visibility is limited by bends, vegetation etc means within the visible distance, and whether the obstruction is a pedestrian, animal, tractor, broken down car, fallen tree, flood, sinkhole etc. Not to do so is at the very least driving without due care and attention, at least in the UK, and depending on the circumstances may constitute dangerous driving.

At the same time, all road users have a duty of care to themselves and others, therefore pedestrians walking on a road without footpaths and having blind bends etc should maintain due awareness, including listening and watching - the latter meaning walking on the side of the road facing oncoming traffic - and being aware that they may not be readily visible to a car,  and walking in, or being prepared to rapidly move into, single file close to the edge of the road.

Walking on the road where there is no footpath (other than one signed as for vehicular traffic only) is quite legal, and quite expected, certainly not not suicidal, and provided pedestrians take due care as outlined above they would not be negligent. In many parts of the country Where I have lived or spent some time it has been common for both locals and visitors to walk on such roads, and that has included several places where roads are narrow and twisting with limited forward visibility.