Lock up your pavements, anachronisms are on the rise!

[Squashme]

"The world produced an estimated 130 million bicycles in 2007—more
than twice the 52 million cars produced. Bicycle and car production
tracked each other closely in the mid-to-late 1960s, but bike output
separated sharply from that of cars in 1970, beginning its steep climb
to 105 million in 1988. Following a slowdown between 1989 and 2001,
bike production has regained steam, increasing in each of the last six
years. Much of the recent growth has been driven by the rise in
electric, or “e-bike” production, which has doubled since 2004 to 21
million units in 2007. Overall, since 1970, bicycle output has nearly
quadrupled, while car production has roughly doubled."


http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/indicators/C48/

[Cully J]

Hello,

Can they draw a parallel between the number of bicycles produced and
number of people actually riding bicycles? I know people who own nice
unridden bikes that are just locked away in the garage

Hopefully, we'll soon see the graph's "car line" start going down.
This would probably be a better indicator of more cyclists.

Cullen


On Oct 27, 6:04*pm, Squashme > wrote:
> "The world produced an estimated 130 million bicycles in 2007—more
> than twice the 52 million cars produced. Bicycle and car production
> tracked each other closely in the mid-to-late 1960s, but bike output
> separated sharply from that of cars in 1970, beginning its steep climb
> to 105 million in 1988. Following a slowdown between 1989 and 2001,
> bike production has regained steam, increasing in each of the last six
> years. Much of the recent growth has been driven by the rise in
> electric, or “e-bike” production, which has doubled since 2004 to 21
> million units in 2007. Overall, since 1970, bicycle output has nearly
> quadrupled, while car production has roughly doubled."
>
> http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/indicators/C48/

[Peter Parry]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 18:25:21 -0700 (PDT), Cully J >
wrote:

>Can they draw a parallel between the number of bicycles produced and
>number of people actually riding bicycles? I know people who own nice
>unridden bikes that are just locked away in the garage

>Hopefully, we'll soon see the graph's "car line" start going down.
>This would probably be a better indicator of more cyclists.

The figures largely represent increased electric, not conventional,
bicycle production and purchases in China. About 120 million
domestically produced e-bikes are in use in China now.

Bicycle production in the developed world has continued to fall as has
the production of conventional bicycles in China. Exports of
Chinese-made pedal-driven bikes fell 18.2% in 2009.

China pushbike use is also decreasing as the country becomes more
prosperous, down to 20% of all trips, compared to 33% in 1995. In
Beijing, only 20% of commuters rode bikes in 2002, compared to 60% in
1998.

Cycling is a desirable mode of transport when compared with walking
for low income workers and students. Traditionally the hierarchy of
transport has been foot to pushbike to scooter/motorbike to car.
However, the e-bike alters this. As people grow richer, they want
more convenient means of transportation. However, not everyone can
afford a car, motorcycles are seen as being too dangerous, public
transportation is too crowded and pedal bikes leave you wet and tired.
The e-bikes is a more pleasant and practical alternative to the push
bike at relatively little extra cost and is set to replace many
pushbikes in the utility/commuter market.

As a result the impact of the e-bike (more than 466 million are
predicted to be sold in the next 6 years worldwide) is largely going
to be on conventional pushbike and small scooter sales, not car sales.
For many poor people an e-bike represents a chance to escape from the
drudgery of a pushbike a bit sooner as it has lower purchase and
running costs than a scooter.

Sanyo Electric and Honda are already in the e-bike market and Yamaha
is expected to follow.

[Squashme]

On 28 Oct, 11:43, Peter Parry > wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 18:25:21 -0700 (PDT), Cully J >
> wrote:
>
> >Can they draw a parallel between the number of bicycles produced and
> >number of people actually riding bicycles? I know people who own nice
> >unridden bikes that are just locked away in the garage
> >Hopefully, we'll soon see the graph's "car line" start going down.
> >This would probably be a better indicator of more cyclists.
>
> The figures largely represent increased electric, not conventional,
> bicycle production and purchases in China. *About 120 million
> domestically produced e-bikes are in use in China now. *
>
> Bicycle production in the developed world has continued to fall as has
> the production of conventional bicycles in China. *Exports of
> Chinese-made pedal-driven bikes fell 18.2% in 2009.
>
> China pushbike use is also decreasing as the country becomes more
> prosperous, down to 20% of all trips, compared to 33% in 1995. In
> Beijing, only 20% of commuters rode bikes in 2002, compared to 60% in
> 1998.
>
> Cycling is a desirable mode of transport when compared with walking
> for *low income workers and students. *Traditionally the hierarchy of
> transport has been foot to pushbike to scooter/motorbike to car.
> However, the e-bike alters this. *As people grow richer, they want
> more convenient means of transportation. However, not everyone can
> afford a car, motorcycles are seen as being too dangerous, public
> transportation is too crowded and pedal bikes leave you wet and tired.
> The e-bikes is a more pleasant and practical alternative to the push
> bike at relatively little extra cost and is set to replace many
> pushbikes in the utility/commuter market.
>
> As a result *the impact of the e-bike (more than 466 million are
> predicted to be sold in the next 6 years worldwide) is largely going
> to be on conventional pushbike and small scooter sales, not car sales.
> For many poor people an e-bike represents a chance to escape from the
> drudgery of a pushbike a bit sooner as it has lower purchase and
> running costs than a scooter. *
>
> Sanyo Electric and Honda are already in the e-bike market and Yamaha
> is expected to follow.

"In 2007, worldwide production reached a peak at a total of 73.3
million new motor vehicles.In 2009, production dropped 13.5 percent to
61 million [new motor vehicles]." (Wikipedia)

http://www.ecocitybuilders.org/2010/09/05/rediscovering-simplicity-the-cyclists-of-italy-a-photo-diary/

Drudgery of a pushbike?:-

"And speaking of running errands, doing it on a bicycle is only a drag
if your infrastructure is completely skewed in favor of cars, and
you’re forced to traverse high traffic roads, breathe exhaust, and
don’t have any social interaction. Within that trajectory it’s
understandable how cycling would be considered a chore, a step
backwards, a joyless sacrifice you only do because you want to do
something good for the earth.
See how easily doing something good for the earth gets equated with
drudgery? That’s how the clever marketeers of cars and oil and big air-
conditioned shopping malls like it. As long as we’re stuck in their
paradigm of what’s normal, bicycling and so many other natural ways of
living together will continue to be cute but marginalized “only for
some” leisure activities."

[Peter Parry]

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 04:28:01 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
> wrote:

>On 28 Oct, 11:43, Peter Parry > wrote:

>> As a result *the impact of the e-bike (more than 466 million are
>> predicted to be sold in the next 6 years worldwide) is largely going
>> to be on conventional pushbike and small scooter sales, not car sales.
>> For many poor people an e-bike represents a chance to escape from the
>> drudgery of a pushbike a bit sooner as it has lower purchase and
>> running costs than a scooter. *
>>
>> Sanyo Electric and Honda are already in the e-bike market and Yamaha
>> is expected to follow.
>
>"In 2007, worldwide production reached a peak at a total of 73.3
>million new motor vehicles.In 2009, production dropped 13.5 percent to
>61 million [new motor vehicles]." (Wikipedia)

The sale of cars is influenced by a number of influences- bicycles are
not one of them. The majority of cycling worldwide is done by people
who will never be able to afford a car.

Cycling divides into two quite different groups with little contact
with each other. The vast majority are those for whom a bicycle is a
vital and usually their only form of transport. It carries pigs,
produce and people.

For those in this first group a bicycle is what they have because they
can't afford anything better, they would dearly like to swap it for a
Honda 50 but can't afford to. Cycling is not something they want to do
but something they have to do. It is the top end of that group which
is buying e-bikes as an alternative to the ubiquitous Honda 50.
Nothing going on in that market will affect car sales.

The other group is the vastly smaller number for whom cycling is a
lifestyle choice. Their pushbike is a hobby, entertainment, and for
some a religion. Most will also own a car. With a few localised
exceptions the numbers indulging in this hobby have remained more or
less steady.

What appears to be happening in Holland and Germany, where e-bike
sales are growing rapidly, is that where there is a tradition of bike
commuting , many riders are now swapping their pedal bikes for
e-bikes. Some others who have used public transport or car are also
moving to e-bikes so overall there is an increase in "cycling" but
this is actually a compound number made up from a decline in pushbike
riding and a growth in e-bike use.

As e-bikes (and normal bikes) are not, for the vast majority, an
acceptable alternative to a car for _all_ transport needs the
increased use of e-bikes will not impact upon car ownership.as most
people will want both.

>http://www.ecocitybuilders.org/2010/09/05/rediscovering-simplicity-the-cyclists-of-italy-a-photo-diary/

>Drudgery of a pushbike?:-

The author is clearly someone for whom a bike is not a necessity but a
bit of tourist bling. Someone who witters on about simplicity and CO2
reduction in one sentence and states in the next "Whenever I travel
to different countries and cities...".isn't worth taking seriously but
is just another "do as I preach - not as I do" propagandist. He
witters on about Italy being a cycling nirvana, but in reality only 5%
of journeys in Italy are made by bike. Unlike him, most bike riders
in the world never get to the next town never mind different
countries. For the vast majority of cyclists cycling is a drudge,
less of a drudge than walking but a significantly worse one than
owning a Honda or e-bike.

The e-bike in a number of countries is already the bicycle for mundane
cycling and taking a large market share from pushbikes. Those who
have no interest in pushbikes but use one for economic or convenience
reasons are already transferring to e-bikes in droves and all the
indications are that a decline in pushbike riding and increase of
e-bike riding will continue.

The insignificant minority who like bikes as a hobby and consider that
£2,000 is merely the starting price before adding the same again in
accessories will simply continue as they always have.

[Colin McKenzie]

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:21:20 +0100, Peter Parry > wrote:
> For the vast majority of cyclists cycling is a drudge,
> less of a drudge than walking but a significantly worse one than
> owning a Honda or e-bike.

What you call a drudge, I call healthy exercise that the body needs. I
think your analysis isn't far off, but it shows that the vast majority of
the human race is too lazy even to do enough exercise to stop itself dying
prematurely.

The other factor in many countries is that the general perception that
bikes are for those who can't afford anything better, leads to bullying of
cyclists by motorised road users, making cycling far less pleasant and
less safe than it should be. There is little political will to change this.

Colin McKenzie


--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

[Doug[_10_]]

On 28 Oct, 17:12, "Colin McKenzie" > wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:21:20 +0100, Peter Parry > wrote:
> > For the vast majority of cyclists cycling is a drudge,
> > less of a drudge than walking but a significantly worse one than
> > owning a Honda or e-bike.
>
> What you call a drudge, I call healthy exercise that the body needs. I *
> think your analysis isn't far off, but it shows that the vast majority of *
> the human race is too lazy even to do enough exercise to stop itself dying *
> prematurely.
>
> The other factor in many countries is that the general perception that *
> bikes are for those who can't afford anything better, leads to bullying of *
> cyclists by motorised road users, making cycling far less pleasant and *
> less safe than it should be. There is little political will to change this.
>
Don't forget also than many motorists also own bikes, which they might
occasionally use in the summer. They imagine that this qualifies them
to pontificate at length, especially here, on the lawlessness of
cyclists and how cyclists are usually to blame for their own deaths or
injuries when struck by a car, especial if they are not wearing a hi-
viz vest and a helmet.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Peter Parry]

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:12:03 +0100, "Colin McKenzie"
> wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:21:20 +0100, Peter Parry > wrote:
>> For the vast majority of cyclists cycling is a drudge,
>> less of a drudge than walking but a significantly worse one than
>> owning a Honda or e-bike.
>
>What you call a drudge, I call healthy exercise that the body needs.

You are one of the fortunate pampered few. When you are living on a
few hundred calories a day and working 18 hours in a field you really
don't need the "healthy exercise" your bike ride home gives you. That
is the situation for the vast majority of cyclists throughout the
world and why the relatively cheap e-bike which eases the drudgery of
the pushbike journey home is increasing in popularity in places like
China.

For the small minority who actually need the exercise they have, if
they wish, the time. and money to invest in many ways of obtaining it,
cycling is merely one of them.

> I think your analysis isn't far off, but it shows that the vast majority of
>the human race is too lazy even to do enough exercise to stop itself dying
>prematurely.

The vast majority of the human race has more than enough exercise and
dies of infections from curable diseases at a far earlier age than
heart disease will kill them.

>The other factor in many countries is that the general perception that
>bikes are for those who can't afford anything better, leads to bullying of
>cyclists by motorised road users, making cycling far less pleasant and
>less safe than it should be. There is little political will to change this.

There is little political will because in most countries and for the
vast majority of cyclists in the world your statement is absolutely
true - bicycles are indeed for those who can't afford anything better.
The statement may well be true even within the UK - a large number of
cyclists are youths who can't get a licence and people who can't
afford a car or have lost the licence to drive one.

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Peter Parry wrote:
>
> The vast majority of the human race has more than enough exercise and
> dies of infections from curable diseases at a far earlier age than
> heart disease will kill them.
>

In the developed world though there is a strong negative correlation
between exercise and obesity. Obesity is set to overtake smoking as the
leading cause of preventable death in those countries.

Tony

[Colin McKenzie]

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 21:21:30 +0100, Peter Parry > wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:12:03 +0100, "Colin McKenzie"
> > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:21:20 +0100, Peter Parry >
>> wrote:
>>> For the vast majority of cyclists cycling is a drudge,
>>> less of a drudge than walking but a significantly worse one than
>>> owning a Honda or e-bike.
>>
>> What you call a drudge, I call healthy exercise that the body needs.
>
> You are one of the fortunate pampered few. When you are living on a
> few hundred calories a day and working 18 hours in a field you really
> don't need the "healthy exercise" your bike ride home gives you. That
> is the situation for the vast majority of cyclists throughout the
> world and why the relatively cheap e-bike which eases the drudgery of
> the pushbike journey home is increasing in popularity in places like
> China.
>
> For the small minority who actually need the exercise they have, if
> they wish, the time. and money to invest in many ways of obtaining it,
> cycling is merely one of them.
>
>> I think your analysis isn't far off, but it shows that the vast
>> majority of the human race is too lazy even to do enough exercise to
>> stop itself dying prematurely.
>
> The vast majority of the human race has more than enough exercise and
> dies of infections from curable diseases at a far earlier age than
> heart disease will kill them.

I don't agree. At the level we're talking about - just about able to
afford a motorbike, or richer - most people will be in small-scale
business or paid employment, often very sedentary, propping up a desk or a
shop counter, and more often than not overweight. These people have enough
money to buy medicine, and their life expectancy will not be much lower
than in Europe of America.

>> The other factor in many countries is that the general perception that
>> bikes are for those who can't afford anything better, leads to bullying
>> of cyclists by motorised road users, making cycling far less pleasant
>> and
>> less safe than it should be. There is little political will to change
>> this.
>
> There is little political will because in most countries and for the
> vast majority of cyclists in the world your statement is absolutely
> true - bicycles are indeed for those who can't afford anything better.

Not 'for', but mainly used by. It is the perception of who cycles that is
wrong. That doesn't alter the fact that most people would benefit from
doing more of it.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

[Peter Parry]

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:03:46 +0100, Tony Raven >
wrote:

>Peter Parry wrote:

>> The vast majority of the human race has more than enough exercise and
>> dies of infections from curable diseases at a far earlier age than
>> heart disease will kill them.

>In the developed world though there is a strong negative correlation
>between exercise and obesity.

Throughout the world there is a correlation between obesity, exercise
and heart disease. In most of the world the population does not enjoy
the luxury of becoming particularly obese for long enough for it to
kill them.

>Obesity is set to overtake smoking as the leading cause of preventable death in those countries.

Nice soundbite but dreadful misuse of facts. That transposition has
far more to do with the decline in smoking related deaths than any
growth in heart disease. The last 5 years has seen the number of
deaths resulting from heart disease and cerebrovascular diseases fall
by one-third. In the last 10 years, deaths related to circulatory
disease has fallen by around 40% in men and women.

[PeterG]

On Oct 28, 5:55*pm, Doug > wrote:
> On 28 Oct, 17:12, "Colin McKenzie" > wrote:> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:21:20 +0100, Peter Parry > wrote:
> > > For the vast majority of cyclists cycling is a drudge,
> > > less of a drudge than walking but a significantly worse one than
> > > owning a Honda or e-bike.
>
> > What you call a drudge, I call healthy exercise that the body needs. I *
> > think your analysis isn't far off, but it shows that the vast majority of *
> > the human race is too lazy even to do enough exercise to stop itself dying *
> > prematurely.
>
> > The other factor in many countries is that the general perception that *
> > bikes are for those who can't afford anything better, leads to bullying of *
> > cyclists by motorised road users, making cycling far less pleasant and *
> > less safe than it should be. There is little political will to change this.
>
> Don't forget also than many motorists also own bikes,

You mean 'many motorists are also cyclists' or 'many cyclists are also
motorists'

> which they might
> occasionally use in the summer.

Or of course they might use every day.

> They imagine that this qualifies them
> to pontificate at length, especially here, on the lawlessness of
> cyclists

Who better to complain about cyclists, than cyclists.

By the way, as you complain about motorists, does that make you a
motorist, or does your stupid mantra only work one way?


> and how cyclists are usually to blame for their own deaths or
> injuries when struck by a car, especial if they are not wearing a hi-
> viz vest and a helmet.

So you are going to continue the same old ********, despite it being
explained many times that the motorists is not always to blame & the
cyclist is not always blameless.

>
> -- .
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> *http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Peter Parry wrote:
>
>
> Nice soundbite but dreadful misuse of facts. That transposition has
> far more to do with the decline in smoking related deaths than any
> growth in heart disease. The last 5 years has seen the number of
> deaths resulting from heart disease and cerebrovascular diseases fall
> by one-third. In the last 10 years, deaths related to circulatory
> disease has fallen by around 40% in men and women.

Obesity causes more than heart disease and Type II diabetes is a fast
increasing problem. In the last year obesity has risen 5% in the UK and
over the last 20 years it has tripled.

Tony

[Derek C]

On Oct 28, 5:55*pm, Doug > wrote:
> On 28 Oct, 17:12, "Colin McKenzie" > wrote:> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:21:20 +0100, Peter Parry > wrote:
> > > For the vast majority of cyclists cycling is a drudge,
> > > less of a drudge than walking but a significantly worse one than
> > > owning a Honda or e-bike.
>
> > What you call a drudge, I call healthy exercise that the body needs. I *
> > think your analysis isn't far off, but it shows that the vast majority of *
> > the human race is too lazy even to do enough exercise to stop itself dying *
> > prematurely.
>
> > The other factor in many countries is that the general perception that *
> > bikes are for those who can't afford anything better, leads to bullying of *
> > cyclists by motorised road users, making cycling far less pleasant and *
> > less safe than it should be. There is little political will to change this.
>
> Don't forget also than many motorists also own bikes, which they might
> occasionally use in the summer. They imagine that this qualifies them
> to pontificate at length, especially here, on the lawlessness of
> cyclists and how cyclists are usually to blame for their own deaths or
> injuries when struck by a car, especial if they are not wearing a hi-
> viz vest and a helmet.
>
> -- .
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> *http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

At least people who both drive cars and ride bicycles can see the
problems from both sides, unlike your good self who sounds like an
anti-motorist record stuck in a groove!

Also you would think from some contributors to this news group that
cycling is the only viable form of exercise.

Derek C

[Derek C]

On Oct 28, 5:12*pm, "Colin McKenzie" > wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:21:20 +0100, Peter Parry > wrote:
> > For the vast majority of cyclists cycling is a drudge,
> > less of a drudge than walking but a significantly worse one than
> > owning a Honda or e-bike.
>
> What you call a drudge, I call healthy exercise that the body needs. I *
> think your analysis isn't far off, but it shows that the vast majority of *
> the human race is too lazy even to do enough exercise to stop itself dying *
> prematurely.
>
> The other factor in many countries is that the general perception that *
> bikes are for those who can't afford anything better, leads to bullying of *
> cyclists by motorised road users, making cycling far less pleasant and *
> less safe than it should be. There is little political will to change this.
>
> Colin McKenzie
>
On the contrary, very expensive bicycles and all the Lycra clothing
and gizmos are now very desirable Yuppie accessories. Allegedly even
David Cameron and Boris Johnson ride bikes.

Derek C

[Peter Parry]

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 23:59:14 +0100, Tony Raven >
wrote:

>Peter Parry wrote:

>> Nice soundbite but dreadful misuse of facts. That transposition has
>> far more to do with the decline in smoking related deaths than any
>> growth in heart disease. The last 5 years has seen the number of
>> deaths resulting from heart disease and cerebrovascular diseases fall
>> by one-third. In the last 10 years, deaths related to circulatory
>> disease has fallen by around 40% in men and women.

>Obesity causes more than heart disease and Type II diabetes is a fast
>increasing problem. In the last year obesity has risen 5% in the UK and
>over the last 20 years it has tripled.

Most deaths related to diabetes are from CVD and recorded as such
rather than as from diabetes so CVD is often a more reliable indicator
of trends The recording of deaths from diabetes is inconsistent,
especially between countries.

However, let's look at diabetes diagnosis which is more reliable and
consistent, if we emulate those bicycling fanatics, the Dutch, who do
30% of their journeys by bike compared with 8% in the UK will we
improve things?

2010 percentages of 20 to 79 year olds with diabetes :-

Netherlands 7.79%
UK 4.2%

Seems we have a lot of cycling to do to increase our diabetes rates
and catch up to the Dutch.,

or perhaps the Germans who do 12% of journeys by bike, but also have
12% of their population with diabetes?

The Canadians on the other hand have a similar rate of diabetes as the
Germans, 11.6%, but less than 1% of journeys there are made by bike.

It seems that there is no apparent relationship at all between a
countries rate of diabetes and the use of bicycles in the country.

Country %of trips by Bike Diabetes %
Netherlands 30 7.7
Denmark 20 7.7
Germany 12 12
Switzerland 10 11.3
Sweden 10 7.3
Austria 9 11.2
England/Wales 8 4.9
France 5 9.4
Italy 5 8.8
Canada 1 11.6
United States 1 12.3

(bicycling rates from International Bike Fund, Diabetes rates from the
International Diabetes Foundation Diabetes Atlas).

This does not mean cycling should not to be considered a "good thing"
for an individual cyclist (a bit like wearing cycle helmets is a "good
thing" for individuals), but it is extraordinarily unlikely that
increasing cycling rates in the UK will have any noticeable impact
upon the general health of the population.

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Peter Parry wrote:
>
> It seems that there is no apparent relationship at all between a
> countries rate of diabetes and the use of bicycles in the country.
>

Perhaps because the figures you used are for diabetes total and only
Type II is relevant to obesity. The ratio of Type I to Type II varies
significantly between countries.

Tony

[Peter Parry]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:37:56 +0100, Tony Raven >
wrote:

>Peter Parry wrote:
>>
>> It seems that there is no apparent relationship at all between a
>> countries rate of diabetes and the use of bicycles in the country.
>>
>
>Perhaps because the figures you used are for diabetes total and only
>Type II is relevant to obesity. The ratio of Type I to Type II varies
>significantly between countries.

Unlikely, the figures I quoted were, as I said, for the 20 to 79 year
old age group so over 90% would be Type 2 diabetics.

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Peter Parry wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:37:56 +0100, Tony Raven >
> wrote:
>
>> Peter Parry wrote:
>>> It seems that there is no apparent relationship at all between a
>>> countries rate of diabetes and the use of bicycles in the country.
>>>
>> Perhaps because the figures you used are for diabetes total and only
>> Type II is relevant to obesity. The ratio of Type I to Type II varies
>> significantly between countries.
>
> Unlikely, the figures I quoted were, as I said, for the 20 to 79 year
> old age group so over 90% would be Type 2 diabetics.
>

Type II diabetes typically does not occur in the under 40's so a good
chunk of those years will be Type I only.

Tony

[Peter Parry]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:34:29 +0100, Tony Raven >
wrote:

>Peter Parry wrote:

>> Unlikely, the figures I quoted were, as I said, for the 20 to 79 year
>> old age group so over 90% would be Type 2 diabetics.

>Type II diabetes typically does not occur in the under 40's so a good
>chunk of those years will be Type I only.

The overall split of Type 1 /Type 2 is similar in both the Netherlands
and UK with about one tenth of all cases being Type 1 and 90% being
Type 2. In addition most Type 1 diagnosis occurs in childhood or
adolescence (Hence its old name of juvenile-onset diabetes) so most
(but not all) would have been diagnosed before the age of 20.

No matter how you look at it the cycling Dutch have a much higher
incidence of Type 2 diabetes than occurs in the UK. If you doubled
the amount of cycling in the UK it would be unlikely to make any
noticeable impact upon diabetes levels.

The significance in the context of this particular discussion though
is that the rising trend of e-bike usage throughout the world means
that any future rise of use in the UK is far more likely to be because
existing and new riders will buy e-bikes and push bike usage will
decline even if overall numbers of people using bikes increases.

[Squashme]

On 29 Oct, 18:12, Peter Parry > wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:34:29 +0100, Tony Raven >
> wrote:
>
> >Peter Parry wrote:
> >> Unlikely, *the figures I quoted were, as I said, for the 20 to 79 year
> >> old age group so over 90% would be Type 2 diabetics.
> >Type II diabetes typically does not occur in the under 40's so a good
> >chunk of those years will be Type I only.
>
> The overall split of Type 1 /Type 2 is similar in both the Netherlands
> and UK with about one tenth of all cases being Type 1 and 90% being
> Type 2. *In addition most Type 1 diagnosis occurs *in childhood or
> adolescence *(Hence its old name of *juvenile-onset diabetes) so most
> (but not all) would have been diagnosed before the age of 20.
>
> No matter how you look at it the cycling Dutch have a much higher
> incidence of Type 2 diabetes than occurs in the UK. *If you doubled
> the amount of cycling in the UK it would be *unlikely to make any
> noticeable impact upon diabetes levels. *
>
> The significance in the context of this particular discussion though
> is that the rising trend of e-bike usage throughout the world means
> that any future rise of use in the UK is far more likely to be because
> existing and new riders will buy e-bikes and push bike usage will
> decline even if overall numbers of people using bikes increases.

Would the decline in push-bike usage please you?

[Squashme]

On 28 Oct, 11:43, Peter Parry > wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 18:25:21 -0700 (PDT), Cully J >
> wrote:
>
> >Can they draw a parallel between the number of bicycles produced and
> >number of people actually riding bicycles? I know people who own nice
> >unridden bikes that are just locked away in the garage
> >Hopefully, we'll soon see the graph's "car line" start going down.
> >This would probably be a better indicator of more cyclists.
>
> The figures largely represent increased electric, not conventional,
> bicycle production and purchases in China. *About 120 million
> domestically produced e-bikes are in use in China now. *
>
> Bicycle production in the developed world has continued to fall as has
> the production of conventional bicycles in China. *Exports of
> Chinese-made pedal-driven bikes fell 18.2% in 2009.
>
> China pushbike use is also decreasing as the country becomes more
> prosperous, down to 20% of all trips, compared to 33% in 1995. In
> Beijing, only 20% of commuters rode bikes in 2002, compared to 60% in
> 1998.
>
> Cycling is a desirable mode of transport when compared with walking
> for *low income workers and students. *Traditionally the hierarchy of
> transport has been foot to pushbike to scooter/motorbike to car.
> However, the e-bike alters this. *As people grow richer, they want
> more convenient means of transportation. However, not everyone can
> afford a car, motorcycles are seen as being too dangerous, public
> transportation is too crowded and pedal bikes leave you wet and tired.
> The e-bikes is a more pleasant and practical alternative to the push
> bike at relatively little extra cost and is set to replace many
> pushbikes in the utility/commuter market.
>
> As a result *the impact of the e-bike (more than 466 million are
> predicted to be sold in the next 6 years worldwide) is largely going
> to be on conventional pushbike and small scooter sales, not car sales.
> For many poor people an e-bike represents a chance to escape from the
> drudgery of a pushbike a bit sooner as it has lower purchase and
> running costs than a scooter. *

From where does the electricity for e-bikes come at present?

[The Medway Handyman[_3_]]

Colin McKenzie wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:21:20 +0100, Peter Parry >
> wrote:
>> For the vast majority of cyclists cycling is a drudge,
>> less of a drudge than walking but a significantly worse one than
>> owning a Honda or e-bike.
>
> What you call a drudge, I call healthy exercise that the body needs. I
> think your analysis isn't far off, but it shows that the vast
> majority of the human race is too lazy even to do enough exercise to
> stop itself dying prematurely.

Why do cyclists think riding a push bike is the only form of excercise?

> The other factor in many countries is that the general perception that
> bikes are for those who can't afford anything better, leads to
> bullying of cyclists by motorised road users, making cycling far less
> pleasant and less safe than it should be. There is little political
> will to change this.


Oh goody.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

[Derek C]

On Oct 29, 7:52*pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidno-spam-
> wrote:
> Colin McKenzie wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:21:20 +0100, Peter Parry >
> > wrote:
> >> For the vast majority of cyclists cycling is a drudge,
> >> less of a drudge than walking but a significantly worse one than
> >> owning a Honda or e-bike.
>
> > What you call a drudge, I call healthy exercise that the body needs. I
> > think your analysis isn't far off, but it shows that the vast
> > majority of the human race is too lazy even to do enough exercise to
> > stop itself dying prematurely.
>
> Why do cyclists think riding a push bike is the only form of excercise?
>
>
How does an e-bike keep you slim and fit if you don't have to pedal
it?

[Squashme]

On 29 Oct, 20:58, Derek C > wrote:
> On Oct 29, 7:52*pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidno-spam-
>
> > wrote:
> > Colin McKenzie wrote:
> > > On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:21:20 +0100, Peter Parry >
> > > wrote:
> > >> For the vast majority of cyclists cycling is a drudge,
> > >> less of a drudge than walking but a significantly worse one than
> > >> owning a Honda or e-bike.
>
> > > What you call a drudge, I call healthy exercise that the body needs. I
> > > think your analysis isn't far off, but it shows that the vast
> > > majority of the human race is too lazy even to do enough exercise to
> > > stop itself dying prematurely.
>
> > Why do cyclists think riding a push bike is the only form of excercise?
>
> How does an e-bike keep you slim and fit if you don't have to pedal
> it?

If the plug on your extension lead pulls out of the wall-socket, then
you have to pedal in order to get home, I believe.

[Peter Parry]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:04:50 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
> wrote:

>On 29 Oct, 18:12, Peter Parry > wrote:

>> The significance in the context of this particular discussion though
>> is that the rising trend of e-bike usage throughout the world means
>> that any future rise of use in the UK is far more likely to be because
>> existing and new riders will buy e-bikes and push bike usage will
>> decline even if overall numbers of people using bikes increases.
>
>Would the decline in push-bike usage please you?

Personally, it would be a complete irrelevance. It is something
which is inevitable given what is going on in the rest of the world.

There are a number of campaigning cycling pressure groups in the UK
who have convinced a number of politicians that bicycles are a "good
thing". As a result a variety of bicycling projects (mainly involving
cans of paint and roads because they don't cost much) have been put in
place to ensure this "good thing" is encouraged.

What both appear to have completely missed is that the e-bike, because
it is classed the same as a push bike, is going to completely unhorse
their "good thing" by populating their painted spaces with powered
vehicles and said powered vehicles will replace in large their pedal
powered predecessors.

[Peter Parry]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:58:49 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> wrote:

>How does an e-bike keep you slim and fit if you don't have to pedal
>it?

It doesn't. Its significance is that an e-bike is considered to be a
pushbike and can use all the painted bits of road and other facilities
which pushbikes can. Given the choice of an e-bike or a pushbike at
not hugely dissimilar prices most people who ride through necessity
rather than for masochistic fun will chose the e-bike so wiping out
nearly all of the claimed health advantages of encouraging cycling.

Although Europe has been slow to follow China this is already
happening in Holland where sales of e-bikes are increasing rapidly and
sales of pushbikes are beginning to decline. The future may be two
wheeled - but it is two wheels and an electric motor not two wheels
and pedal power.

[Squashme]

On 29 Oct, 22:55, Peter Parry > wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:04:50 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
>
> > wrote:
> >On 29 Oct, 18:12, Peter Parry > wrote:
> >> The significance in the context of this particular discussion though
> >> is that the rising trend of e-bike usage throughout the world means
> >> that any future rise of use in the UK is far more likely to be because
> >> existing and new riders will buy e-bikes and push bike usage will
> >> decline even if overall numbers of people using bikes increases.
>
> >Would the decline in push-bike usage please you?
>
> Personally, it would be a *complete irrelevance.

Yes, I can sense how irrelevant it is to you. Totally dispassionate.

>*It is something
> which is inevitable given what is going on in the rest of the world.

Yes, I remember "the triumph of socialism" in the same way. In 1963 I
confidently prognosticated that lapels would completely die out, now
that we had the far more rational and sensible lapel-less jackets and
Beatle jackets.

>
> There are a number of campaigning cycling pressure groups in the UK
> who have convinced a number of politicians *that bicycles are a "good
> thing". *As a result a variety of bicycling projects (mainly involving
> cans of paint and roads because they don't cost much) have been put in
> place to ensure this "good thing" is encouraged.
>
> What both appear to have completely missed is that the e-bike, because
> it is classed *the same as a push bike, is going to completely unhorse
> their "good thing" by populating their painted spaces with powered
> vehicles and said powered vehicles will replace in large their pedal
> powered predecessors. *

And the riders of e-bikes will be so much nicer to pedestrians, who
will hardly notice them, as they go further and faster than push-
bikes. Nobody will want them to be registered, or carry number-plates,
or pay special taxes, or be insured.

I'm sure that we will be getting rid completely of printed books, now
that we have e-books. Burn the libraries, and the push-bikes. Stands
to reason.

[The Medway Handyman[_3_]]

Peter Parry wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:58:49 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> > wrote:
>
>> How does an e-bike keep you slim and fit if you don't have to pedal
>> it?
>
> It doesn't. Its significance is that an e-bike is considered to be a
> pushbike and can use all the painted bits of road and other facilities
> which pushbikes can. Given the choice of an e-bike or a pushbike at
> not hugely dissimilar prices most people who ride through necessity
> rather than for masochistic fun will chose the e-bike so wiping out
> nearly all of the claimed health advantages of encouraging cycling.
>
> Although Europe has been slow to follow China this is already
> happening in Holland where sales of e-bikes are increasing rapidly and
> sales of pushbikes are beginning to decline. The future may be two
> wheeled - but it is two wheels and an electric motor not two wheels
> and pedal power.

This is going to create a major problem for the Dougwit. Will they be
'real' cyclists or not?


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

[Peter Parry]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:23:59 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
> wrote:

>On 29 Oct, 22:55, Peter Parry > wrote:


>> Personally, it would be a *complete irrelevance.
>
>Yes, I can sense how irrelevant it is to you. Totally dispassionate.

No, irrelevant. It really won't make any difference one way or
another to me if people ride around on e-bikes or pushbikes.

>>*It is something
>> which is inevitable given what is going on in the rest of the world.

>Yes, I remember "the triumph of socialism" in the same way. In 1963 I
>confidently prognosticated that lapels would completely die out, now
>that we had the far more rational and sensible lapel-less jackets and
>Beatle jackets.

I think you rather have that the wrong way around. Few enthusiastic
religious cyclists will be tempted by e-bikes, many users of bicycles
will be - and this is already occurring not only in China but in
Germany and the Netherlands. Pushbikes won't die out, but I'm pretty
confident that in competition with e-bikes their use won't
grow.significantly.

>> What both appear to have completely missed is that the e-bike, because
>> it is classed *the same as a push bike, is going to completely unhorse
>> their "good thing" by populating their painted spaces with powered
>> vehicles and said powered vehicles will replace in large their pedal
>> powered predecessors. *
>
>And the riders of e-bikes will be so much nicer to pedestrians,

Possibly they will as many pushbike users are aggressive arrogant
young males and e-bike riders will undoubtedly cover a much wider
range of ages and physical capabilities. Undoubtedly many people who
would not have considered using a pushbike will use an e-bike.

For example, around here between the major residential areas and the
major industrial estate is a climb of a few hundred feet. We have had
several Dutch neighbours all of whom brought their bikes and all of
whom abandoned them to lie derelict in a hedge within a week of trying
to go to work on them. None of these people were "cyclists", they
just wanted to use a bike to go to work. It was too painful and
uncomfortable so they stopped and used a car instead. I'm quite sure
that given an e-bike they would happily have used one instead of a
car.

>who will hardly notice them, as they go further and faster than push-
>bikes.

Further? Completely irrelevant. Faster? Most of the problems with
aggressive pushbike riders are related to their wish to never stop and
to conserve momentum. With an e-bike preservation of momentum is an
insignificant factor and stopping and starting effortless. The need
for inappropriate speed is much reduced.

>Nobody will want them to be registered, or carry number-plates,
>or pay special taxes, or be insured.

Oh I'm sure many will, in the same way they presently want pushbikes
to be registered and insured etc. However, having already established
that e-bikes and pushbikes are essentially the same in terms of speed,
mass and danger, that e-bikes are "green" and already exempt from
most regulation it may be a tad difficult to justify regulating
e-bikes but not pushbikes especially as such laws are no longer the
remit of Parliament but of EU functionaries.

>I'm sure that we will be getting rid completely of printed books, now
>that we have e-books. Burn the libraries, and the push-bikes. Stands
>to reason.

I'm not sure if you have noticed but on Amazon ebook sales are already
exceeding hardback and paperback sales by over 2-to-1. You won't
have to burn the pushbikes - they will rust by themselves.

[The Medway Handyman[_3_]]

Squashme wrote:
> On 29 Oct, 20:58, Derek C > wrote:
>> On Oct 29, 7:52 pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidno-spam-
>>
>> > wrote:
>>> Colin McKenzie wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:21:20 +0100, Peter Parry >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> For the vast majority of cyclists cycling is a drudge,
>>>>> less of a drudge than walking but a significantly worse one than
>>>>> owning a Honda or e-bike.
>>
>>>> What you call a drudge, I call healthy exercise that the body
>>>> needs. I think your analysis isn't far off, but it shows that the
>>>> vast majority of the human race is too lazy even to do enough
>>>> exercise to stop itself dying prematurely.
>>
>>> Why do cyclists think riding a push bike is the only form of
>>> excercise?
>>
>> How does an e-bike keep you slim and fit if you don't have to pedal
>> it?
>
> If the plug on your extension lead pulls out of the wall-socket, then
> you have to pedal in order to get home, I believe.

You could get one of these
http://www.toysrus.co.uk/Toys-R-Us/Bikes-and-Rideons/Rideons/Pink-Neox-Motorbike(0073177)

Right up your street - a childrens toy.



--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

[Squashme]

On 29 Oct, 23:53, "The Medway Handyman" <davidno-spam-
> wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 29 Oct, 20:58, Derek C > wrote:
> >> On Oct 29, 7:52 pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidno-spam-
>
> >> > wrote:
> >>> Colin McKenzie wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:21:20 +0100, Peter Parry >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> For the vast majority of cyclists cycling is a drudge,
> >>>>> less of a drudge than walking but a significantly worse one than
> >>>>> owning a Honda or e-bike.
>
> >>>> What you call a drudge, I call healthy exercise that the body
> >>>> needs. I think your analysis isn't far off, but it shows that the
> >>>> vast majority of the human race is too lazy even to do enough
> >>>> exercise to stop itself dying prematurely.
>
> >>> Why do cyclists think riding a push bike is the only form of
> >>> excercise?
>
> >> How does an e-bike keep you slim and fit if you don't have to pedal
> >> it?
>
> > If the plug on your extension lead pulls out of the wall-socket, then
> > you have to pedal in order to get home, I believe.
>
> You could get one of thesehttp://www.toysrus.co.uk/Toys-R-Us/Bikes-and-Rideons/Rideons/Pink-Neo...)
>
> Right up your street - a childrens toy.
>
> --
> Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
> a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

And will you see e-bike riders as e-roadlice, or will they be honorary
motor vehicle drivers, as the Japanese were made honorary Aryans?

[The Medway Handyman[_3_]]

Squashme wrote:
> On 29 Oct, 23:53, "The Medway Handyman" <davidno-spam-
> > wrote:
>> Squashme wrote:
>>> On 29 Oct, 20:58, Derek C > wrote:
>>>> On Oct 29, 7:52 pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidno-spam-
>>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> Colin McKenzie wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:21:20 +0100, Peter Parry
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>> For the vast majority of cyclists cycling is a drudge,
>>>>>>> less of a drudge than walking but a significantly worse one than
>>>>>>> owning a Honda or e-bike.
>>
>>>>>> What you call a drudge, I call healthy exercise that the body
>>>>>> needs. I think your analysis isn't far off, but it shows that the
>>>>>> vast majority of the human race is too lazy even to do enough
>>>>>> exercise to stop itself dying prematurely.
>>
>>>>> Why do cyclists think riding a push bike is the only form of
>>>>> excercise?
>>
>>>> How does an e-bike keep you slim and fit if you don't have to pedal
>>>> it?
>>
>>> If the plug on your extension lead pulls out of the wall-socket,
>>> then you have to pedal in order to get home, I believe.
>>
>> You could get one of
>> thesehttp://www.toysrus.co.uk/Toys-R-Us/Bikes-and-Rideons/Rideons/Pink-Neo...)
>>
>> Right up your street - a childrens toy.
>>
>> --
>> Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a
>> skateboard, is
>> a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.
>
> And will you see e-bike riders as e-roadlice, or will they be honorary
> motor vehicle drivers, as the Japanese were made honorary Aryans?

Just plain road lice.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

[The Medway Handyman[_3_]]

Peter Parry wrote:
>
> Oh I'm sure many will, in the same way they presently want pushbikes
> to be registered and insured etc. However, having already established
> that e-bikes and pushbikes are essentially the same in terms of speed,
> mass and danger, that e-bikes are "green" and already exempt from
> most regulation it may be a tad difficult to justify regulating
> e-bikes but not pushbikes especially as such laws are no longer the
> remit of Parliament but of EU functionaries.

How do you work out that e bikes are 'green'? Where does the power come
from?

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

[Squashme]

On 29 Oct, 23:52, Peter Parry > wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:23:59 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
>
> > wrote:
> >On 29 Oct, 22:55, Peter Parry > wrote:
> >> Personally, it would be a *complete irrelevance.
>
> >Yes, I can sense how irrelevant it is to you. Totally dispassionate.
>
> No, irrelevant. *It really won't make any difference one way or
> another to me if people ride around on e-bikes or pushbikes. *
>
> >>*It is something
> >> which is inevitable given what is going on in the rest of the world.
> >Yes, I remember "the triumph of socialism" in the same way. In 1963 I
> >confidently prognosticated that lapels would completely die out, now
> >that we had the far more rational and sensible lapel-less jackets and
> >Beatle jackets.
>
> I think you rather have that the wrong way around. * Few enthusiastic
> religious cyclists will be tempted by e-bikes, many users of bicycles
> will be - and this is already occurring not only in China but in
> Germany and the Netherlands. *Pushbikes won't die out, but I'm pretty
> confident that in competition with e-bikes their use won't
> grow.significantly.
>
> >> What both appear to have completely missed is that the e-bike, because
> >> it is classed *the same as a push bike, is going to completely unhorse
> >> their "good thing" by populating their painted spaces with powered
> >> vehicles and said powered vehicles will replace in large their pedal
> >> powered predecessors. *
>
> >And the riders of e-bikes will be so much nicer to pedestrians,
>
> Possibly they will as many pushbike users are aggressive arrogant
> young males and e-bike riders will undoubtedly cover a much wider
> range of ages and physical capabilities. *Undoubtedly many people who
> would not have considered using a pushbike will use an e-bike.
>
> For example, around here between the major residential areas and the
> major industrial estate is a climb of a few hundred feet. *We have had
> several Dutch neighbours all of whom brought their bikes and all of
> whom abandoned them to lie derelict in a hedge within a week of trying
> to go to work on them. *None of these people were "cyclists", they
> just wanted to use a bike to go to work. *It was too painful and
> uncomfortable so they stopped and used a car instead. *I'm quite sure
> that given an e-bike they would happily have used one instead of a
> car.
>
> >who will hardly notice them, as they go further and faster than push-
> >bikes.
>
> Further? *Completely irrelevant. *Faster? Most of the problems with
> aggressive pushbike riders are related to their wish to never stop and
> to conserve momentum. * With an e-bike preservation of momentum is an
> insignificant factor and stopping and starting effortless. *The need
> for inappropriate speed is much reduced.
>
> >Nobody will want them to be registered, or carry number-plates,
> >or pay special taxes, or be insured.
>
> Oh I'm sure many will, in the same way they presently want pushbikes
> to be registered and insured etc. *However, having already established
> that e-bikes and pushbikes are essentially the same in terms of speed,
> mass and danger, that e-bikes are "green" *and already exempt *from
> most regulation it may be a tad difficult to justify regulating
> e-bikes but not pushbikes especially as such laws are no longer the
> remit of Parliament but of EU functionaries.
>
> >I'm sure that we will be getting rid completely of printed books, now
> >that we have e-books. Burn the libraries, and the push-bikes. Stands
> >to reason.
>
> I'm not sure if you have noticed but on Amazon ebook sales are already
> exceeding hardback and paperback sales by over 2-to-1. * You won't
> have to burn the pushbikes - they will rust by themselves.

What I read is this:-
"Amazon's also boasting that, for its top 10 bestselling books, Kindle
digital books are outselling print (both hardcover and paperback
combined) at a rate "greater than 2 to 1.""

Its top 10 bestselling books, not ALL its book titles. You had me
worried there.

As long as printed books and push-bikes are around in reasonable
numbers, I shall be happy.

[Squashme]

On 30 Oct, 00:12, "The Medway Handyman" <davidno-spam-
> wrote:
> Peter Parry wrote:
>
> > Oh I'm sure many will, in the same way they presently want pushbikes
> > to be registered and insured etc. *However, having already established
> > that e-bikes and pushbikes are essentially the same in terms of speed,
> > mass and danger, that e-bikes are "green" *and already exempt *from
> > most regulation it may be a tad difficult to justify regulating
> > e-bikes but not pushbikes especially as such laws are no longer the
> > remit of Parliament but of EU functionaries.
>
> How do you work out that e bikes are 'green'? *Where does the power come
> from?
>

Electricity, from coal in China. Cough, cough, cough, cough.

[Peter Parry]

On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 00:12:38 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
> wrote:

>How do you work out that e bikes are 'green'?

I didn't, hence the quotes around the word. Reality and the
perception of politicians are often at right angles to each other and
there is no doubt that in politicians eyes they are "green" no matter
how much reality may complain about being misrepresented.

[Clive George]

On 29/10/2010 23:06, Peter Parry wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:58:49 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> > wrote:
>
>> How does an e-bike keep you slim and fit if you don't have to pedal
>> it?
>
> It doesn't. Its significance is that an e-bike is considered to be a
> pushbike and can use all the painted bits of road and other facilities
> which pushbikes can. Given the choice of an e-bike or a pushbike at
> not hugely dissimilar prices most people who ride through necessity
> rather than for masochistic fun will chose the e-bike so wiping out
> nearly all of the claimed health advantages of encouraging cycling.

I don't really mind if everybody else gets an e-bike. I still ride
faster than them, and having more of them about will mean people are
more used to bikes.