"Traffic noise kills"

So motorists don't just kill you by crashing into you or polluting
you. Cyclists must be particularly at risk because of their close
proximity to the noise.

"Between 200 and 500 people in Denmark die every year because of the
noise generated by traffic.

A recent Swedish study of 30,000 people in the province of Skåne has
confirmed what many other studies have suggested. That the noise
generated by traffic causes higher blood pressure and increases the
risk of heart disease, strokes and blood clots.

"We have determined that at noise levels over 60 decibels there is a
connection between high blood pressure in the young and the middle-
aged and that it's an important risk factor in relation to heart
disease and strokes", says Theo Bodin from the University Hospital in
Lund.

Normally traffic noise is considered harmful when the levels are over
55-59 decibels - dB(A) - on average in a 24 hour period, and very
harmful if the level is over 65 decibels.

For example, a level of 58 decibels is what you'd get 200 metres from
a road with 20,000 cars each day..."

Mo
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/09...ise-kills.html


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

On 7 Oct, 14:27, Doug wrote:
So motorists don't just kill you by crashing into you or polluting
you. Cyclists must be particularly at risk because of their close
proximity to the noise.

"Between 200 and 500 people in Denmark die every year because of the
noise generated by traffic.

A recent Swedish study of 30,000 people in the province of Skåne has
confirmed what many other studies have suggested. That the noise
generated by traffic causes higher blood pressure and increases the
risk of heart disease, strokes and blood clots.

"We have determined that at noise levels over 60 decibels there is a
connection between high blood pressure in the young and the middle-
aged and that it's an important risk factor in relation to heart
disease and strokes", says Theo Bodin from the University Hospital in
Lund.

Normally traffic noise is considered harmful when the levels are over
55-59 decibels - dB(A) - on average in a 24 hour period, and very
harmful if the level is over 65 decibels.

For example, a level of 58 decibels is what you'd get 200 metres from
a road with 20,000 cars each day..."

Mohttp://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/09...ise-kills.html

--
UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Here's an idea, why don't the cyclists ride on the roads that they
help pay for & the motorists drive on the roads they pay for then
everybody's happy.

Because i'm sure cyclists contribute as much motorists, don't they?

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 14:44:07 -0700 (PDT), Cpl_Carrott
wrote:

Here's an idea, why don't the cyclists ride on the roads that they
help pay for & the motorists drive on the roads they pay for then
everybody's happy.

Because i'm sure cyclists contribute as much motorists, don't they?

Rather more, as it happens. Cyclists are more likely to have above
average income and the damage done by vehicles to the road goes with
the fourth power of axle weight.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc

On Oct 7, 10:56*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 14:44:07 -0700 (PDT), Cpl_Carrott

wrote:
Here's an idea, why don't the cyclists ride on the roads that they
help pay for & the motorists drive on the roads they pay for then
everybody's happy.

Because i'm sure cyclists contribute as much motorists, don't they?

Rather more, as it happens. *Cyclists are more likely to have above
average income and the damage done by vehicles to the road goes with
the fourth power of axle weight.

Guy
--http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc


What?


PeterG

On 2009-10-07, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 14:44:07 -0700 (PDT), Cpl_Carrott
wrote:

Here's an idea, why don't the cyclists ride on the roads that they
help pay for & the motorists drive on the roads they pay for then
everybody's happy.

Because i'm sure cyclists contribute as much motorists, don't they?

Rather more, as it happens. Cyclists are more likely to have above
average income and the damage done by vehicles to the road goes with
the fourth power of axle weight.

Many quieter roads seem to break up more due to weathering than people
driving over them. In fact they break up quicker if you don't drive over
them, because plants and nature and stuff soon start sprouting up and
tearing them apart.

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 23:04:18 -0700 (PDT), PeterG
wrote:

Because i'm sure cyclists contribute as much motorists, don't they?

Rather more, as it happens. *Cyclists are more likely to have above
average income and the damage done by vehicles to the road goes with
the fourth power of axle weight.

What?

Roads are funded out of general taxation. Cyclists pay just like
anybody else (including the majority users, numerically speaking at
least, pedestrians).

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 23:04:18 -0700 (PDT), PeterG
wrote:

Because i'm sure cyclists contribute as much motorists, don't they?

Rather more, as it happens. Cyclists are more likely to have above
average income and the damage done by vehicles to the road goes with
the fourth power of axle weight.

What?

Roads are funded out of general taxation.

Yes, with at least 10% of the total take coming from taxes applied
specifically to motoring.

Cyclists pay just like
anybody else (including the majority users, numerically speaking at
least, pedestrians).

Yes, if they also use a car as much as everyone else. Otherwise they
miss out on some of the biggies such as fuel duty and car road use tax
(VED).

In fact, you total tax bill can be reduced quite considerably if you do
not use a motor vehicle.

--
Matt B

On 8 Oct, 10:52, Matt B wrote:
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 23:04:18 -0700 (PDT), PeterG
wrote:

Because i'm sure cyclists contribute as much motorists, don't they?

Rather more, as it happens. *Cyclists are more likely to have above
average income and the damage done by vehicles to the road goes with
the fourth power of axle weight.

What?

Roads are funded out of general taxation. *

Yes, with at least 10% of the total take coming from taxes applied
specifically to motoring.

Cyclists pay just like
anybody else (including the majority users, numerically speaking at
least, pedestrians).

Yes, if they also use a car as much as everyone else. *Otherwise they
miss out on some of the biggies such as fuel duty and car road use tax
(VED).

In fact, you total tax bill can be reduced quite considerably if you do
not use a motor vehicle.

And therefore pollute less, congest less, damage roads and pavements
less, put fewer people into hospital and cost insurance companies
less.

--
Car Free Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution
to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.

Doug wrote:

And therefore pollute less, congest less, damage roads and pavements
less, put fewer people into hospital and cost insurance companies
less.

Not to mention the parking places we free up. Of course in that respect
cyclists deprive the NHS of a considerable income so it's not all good!
:-)

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 23:04:18 -0700 (PDT), PeterG
wrote:

Because i'm sure cyclists contribute as much motorists, don't they?

Rather more, as it happens. Cyclists are more likely to have above
average income and the damage done by vehicles to the road goes with
the fourth power of axle weight.

What?

Roads are funded out of general taxation. Cyclists pay just like
anybody else...

....yawn

Heard it all before.

It's always rubbish and everyone always knows it.

The fact that person A (who happens to be a cyclist) pays income tax,
national "insurance", VAT, council tax, air travel duty, insurance tax,
alcohol duty, tobacco duty, road tax (on a motor vehicle) or fuel duty and
VAT (for fuel for a motor vehicle) does *not* mean that he has paid a penny
in tax as a cyclist. In fact, some cyclists quite lawfully pay no taxes
whatsoever.

That fact that person B (who, whether or not he is a cyclist, is the owner
and/or driver of a motor vehicle) *automatically* means (in the absence of an
offence) that he is paying taxes as a vehicle-owner or as a vehicle-user.
That of course, will be in *addition* to all the normal, everyday
non-nmotoring taxes that everyone in a taxable position has to pay.