DFT Cycling Forecast- tremendously encouraging

Economic modeling carried out for Cycling England3 shows that
increasing cycling levels by 20 per cent by 2015 has the potential to
save £107 million in reducing premature deaths, £52 million in NHS
costs and £87 million in reduced absence from work.



There are also quantifiable benefits in terms of reduced congestion
and pollution. The SQW work quoting a 20% increase in cycling
delivering congestion benefits of £207m and pollution benefits of
£71m. Overall, it is estimated that investing in cycling gives very
good value for money, with benefits estimated to be 3.2 times the
costs. Regular cyclists are also likely to live a healthier, longer
life.


http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainabl...lingfuture.pdf

On 8 Feb, 14:13, spindrift wrote:
Economic modeling carried out for Cycling England3

No bias there then

shows that
increasing cycling levels by 20 per cent by 2015 has the potential to
save £107 million in reducing premature deaths

Doesn't prolonging lives just defer the costs? Or do cyclists tend to
die quick cheap deaths rather than lingering ones requiring lots of
expensive treatment?

On Feb 8, 9:28 am, POHB wrote:
On 8 Feb, 14:13, spindrift wrote:

Economic modeling carried out for Cycling England3

No bias there then

shows that
increasing cycling levels by 20 per cent by 2015 has the potential to
save £107 million in reducing premature deaths

Doesn't prolonging lives just defer the costs? Or do cyclists tend to
die quick cheap deaths rather than lingering ones requiring lots of
expensive treatment?

Very true. We had an economist suggest that discourging smokers put a
strain on the pension system.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

On Feb 8, 8:13*am, spindrift wrote:
Economic modeling carried out for Cycling England3 shows that
increasing cycling levels by 20 per cent by 2015 has the potential to
save £107 million in reducing premature deaths, £52 million in NHS
costs and £87 million in reduced absence from work.

There are also quantifiable benefits in terms of reduced congestion
and pollution. The SQW work quoting a 20% increase in cycling
delivering congestion benefits of £207m and pollution benefits of
£71m. Overall, it is estimated that investing in cycling gives very
good value for money, with benefits estimated to be 3.2 times the
costs. Regular cyclists are also likely to live a healthier, longer
life.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainabl...lingfuture.pdf

Which seems to contradict a recent study from Holland which seems to
say that healthy people are a bigger financial burden on the health
system that obese people and smokers.

quote from paper below...

"Despite the higher annual costs of the obese and smoking cohorts, the
healthy-living cohort incurs highest lifetime costs, due to its higher
life expectancy."

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/per...l.pmed.0050029

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 07:32:02 -0800 (PST), John Kane
wrote:

On Feb 8, 9:28 am, POHB wrote:
On 8 Feb, 14:13, spindrift wrote:

Economic modeling carried out for Cycling England3

No bias there then

shows that
increasing cycling levels by 20 per cent by 2015 has the potential to
save £107 million in reducing premature deaths

Doesn't prolonging lives just defer the costs? Or do cyclists tend to
die quick cheap deaths rather than lingering ones requiring lots of
expensive treatment?

Very true. We had an economist suggest that discourging smokers put a
strain on the pension system.

Compulsory euthanasia would be the economist's solution.

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 07:32:02 -0800 (PST), John Kane
wrote:

On Feb 8, 9:28 am, POHB wrote:
On 8 Feb, 14:13, spindrift wrote:

Economic modeling carried out for Cycling England3
No bias there then

shows that
increasing cycling levels by 20 per cent by 2015 has the potential to
save £107 million in reducing premature deaths
Doesn't prolonging lives just defer the costs? Or do cyclists tend to
die quick cheap deaths rather than lingering ones requiring lots of
expensive treatment?
Very true. We had an economist suggest that discourging smokers put a
strain on the pension system.

Compulsory euthanasia would be the economist's solution.

Oh dear, I think our beloved Prime Minister is an economist

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

John Kane wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 07:32:02 -0800 (PST), John Kane
wrote:

On Feb 8, 9:28 am, POHB wrote:
On 8 Feb, 14:13, spindrift wrote:

Economic modeling carried out for Cycling England3
No bias there then

shows that
increasing cycling levels by 20 per cent by 2015 has the potential to
save £107 million in reducing premature deaths
Doesn't prolonging lives just defer the costs? Or do cyclists tend to
die quick cheap deaths rather than lingering ones requiring lots of
expensive treatment?
Very true. We had an economist suggest that discourging smokers put a
strain on the pension system.

Compulsory euthanasia would be the economist's solution.

Oh dear, I think our beloved Prime Minister is an economist

I thought he was a sociologist?

On 8 Feb, 15:40, Marz wrote:
On Feb 8, 8:13*am, spindrift wrote:

Economic modeling carried out for Cycling England3 shows that
increasing cycling levels by 20 per cent by 2015 has the potential to
save £107 million in reducing premature deaths, £52 million in NHS
costs and £87 million in reduced absence from work.

There are also quantifiable benefits in terms of reduced congestion
and pollution. The SQW work quoting a 20% increase in cycling
delivering congestion benefits of £207m and pollution benefits of
£71m. Overall, it is estimated that investing in cycling gives very
good value for money, with benefits estimated to be 3.2 times the
costs. Regular cyclists are also likely to live a healthier, longer
life.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainabl...lingfuture.pdf

Which seems to contradict a recent study from Holland which seems to
say that healthy people are a bigger financial burden on the health
system that obese people and smokers.

quote from paper below...

"Despite the higher annual costs of the obese and smoking cohorts, the
healthy-living cohort incurs highest lifetime costs, due to its higher
life expectancy."

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/per...document&doi=1....


If you live longer then you draw your state pension for a longer time
too.

JNugent wrote:
John Kane wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 07:32:02 -0800 (PST), John Kane
wrote:


Compulsory euthanasia would be the economist's solution.

Oh dear, I think our beloved Prime Minister is an economist

I thought he was a sociologist?

I think he may be referring to the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen
Harper, an economics graduate.
Gordon Brown studied history at university.
Anyway, who cares? as long as he is not a spits lawyer. :-)

--

Geoff

JNugent wrote:
John Kane wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 07:32:02 -0800 (PST), John Kane
wrote:

On Feb 8, 9:28 am, POHB wrote:
On 8 Feb, 14:13, spindrift wrote:

Economic modeling carried out for Cycling England3
No bias there then

shows that
increasing cycling levels by 20 per cent by 2015 has the potential to
save £107 million in reducing premature deaths
Doesn't prolonging lives just defer the costs? Or do cyclists tend to
die quick cheap deaths rather than lingering ones requiring lots of
expensive treatment?
Very true. We had an economist suggest that discourging smokers put a
strain on the pension system.

Compulsory euthanasia would be the economist's solution.

Oh dear, I think our beloved Prime Minister is an economist

I thought he was a sociologist?

No such luck.

"Stephen Harper was born on April 30, 1959, in Toronto, Ontario. He
moved to Alberta in 1978 to work in the petroleum industry and went on
to obtain both a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in economics from the
University of Calgary."

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada