Boris’ fuddled NHS graph

[MattC]

I'm sure that my friend who came off his mountain bike coming downhill and went headfirst into a rock doesn't agree with you there but hey!

And that in essence is the difference between observing individual-level effects and population-level effects.

 

[Velma's Dad]

And that in essence is the difference between observing individual-level effects and population-level effects.

Although even statistics at a sample size of one can be meaningful if you are the sample.

 

[Amarillo]

And that in essence is the difference between observing individual-level effects and population-level effects.

Is is the presence of a helmet on their head that causes individuals to engage in risky behaviour in the the first place, such as evidenced by the hapless rock headbutting cyclist?

And is it the thought that because some cyclists wear helmets, that cycling must be inherently dangerous, that causes my Aunt Mabel to take car to the library instead of her bicycle, usually a perfectly safe activity?

 

[pjm-84]

Well, I've grabbed a coffee and believe that the chart can be summed out rather nicely using:

 

[Velma's Dad]

Well, I've grabbed a coffee and believe that the chart can be summed out rather nicely using:

I hope that's like on the Big Bang Theory where the gobbledegook they have on the whiteboards on the filming sets actually makes complete sense to someone who is actually fully mathematically literate (even if not to me).

 

[edjrb]

Assuming x = time and y = infections, R = 1 is in the right place, before that R > 1, after R < 1. R will be at its maximum at the start of the of the outbreak, when the maximum number of people are susceptible to infection, often, perhaps confusingly, referred to as R(0) which is not the same as R = 0, that will be after the virus has gone away.

The cyclist isn't wearing a helmet because it is safest for cyclists not to wear helmets. Counties with the lowest rates of cycling fatalities tend to have the lowest rates of helmet use.

I'm more concerned that the straw is single use.

Counties with the lowest rates of cycle use will also have the lowest rates of fatalities and the lowest rates of helmet use. Until the figures are normalised to death rates per thousand cyclists (or whatever) or helmet use per thousand then the absolute figures are just that. Even if they were normalised, it would still be a huge leap to infer that going helmetless is the safest option. There are fewer cyclists killed on motorways than on country roads. Do you think motorways are safer for cyclists?

 

[ArunAlec]

A bit of Day Jar View here!
Thought the cycle helmet debate had been put to bed months ago

 

[Big Ron]

A bit of Day Jar View here!
Thought the cycle helmet debate had been put to bed months ago

What are you saying ArunAlec.....if we wore cycle helmets in toilet blocks then we couldn’t get Covid?
Crikey, that’s impressive. Didn’t know that!

 

[Amarillo]

Counties with the lowest rates of cycle use will also have the lowest rates of fatalities and the lowest rates of helmet use.

Not true.

The Netherlands has very high cycle use, very low helmet use and very low rates of cycle fatalities measured by billions of kilometres cycled. However, they have had a recent uptick in the number of fatalities in the over 80s group, linked to greater use of electric bikes.

As cycling in London has boomed, the number of cyclist fatalities has stayed between about ten and about twenty per year, actual numbers, not per billions of miles.

Year	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017
Thousand daily journeys	270	270	270	270	270	270	270	290	320	320	370	380	410	470	470	490	510	540	570	580	590	610	670 [43]	730 [44]	721 [45]
Killed	18	15	15	20	12	12	10	14	21	20	19	8	21	19	15	15	13	10	16	14	14	13	9 [46]	8 [44]	10 [45]
Seriously injured	485	480	521	571	560	595	469	399	434	387	414	332	351	373	446	430	420	457	555	657	475	432	378 [46]	454	-

As the overwhelming majority of cyclist fatalities also involve a motor vehicle, and motor vehicle use has not shown significant changes over the same period, it sort of suggests that the problem lies with drivers, not cyclists.

 

[Velma's Dad]

Oh god oh god make it stop.

 

[Ting Tong]

Not true.

The Netherlands has very high cycle use, very low helmet use and very low rates of cycle fatalities measured by billions of kilometres cycled. However, they have had a recent uptick in the number of fatalities in the over 80s group, linked to greater use of electric bikes.

As cycling in London has boomed, the number of cyclist fatalities has stayed between about ten and about twenty per year, actual numbers, not per billions of miles.

Year	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017
Thousand daily journeys	270	270	270	270	270	270	270	290	320	320	370	380	410	470	470	490	510	540	570	580	590	610	670 [43]	730 [44]	721 [45]
Killed	18	15	15	20	12	12	10	14	21	20	19	8	21	19	15	15	13	10	16	14	14	13	9 [46]	8 [44]	10 [45]
Seriously injured	485	480	521	571	560	595	469	399	434	387	414	332	351	373	446	430	420	457	555	657	475	432	378 [46]	454	-

As the overwhelming majority of cyclist fatalities also involve a motor vehicle, and motor vehicle use has not shown significant changes over the same period, it sort of suggests that the problem lies with drivers, not cyclists.

Ahem, that data needs to be converted to an infographic to make any sense to me.

 

[Amarillo]

Ahem, that data needs to be converted to an infographic to make any sense to me.

 

[Scoobz1]

Perhaps it means the better the infrastructure the more cyclists and the less fatalities - anyway perhaps time to tax them and pay up for road usage like everybody else - times are hard ! And give them dedicated facilitates. Even fishermen and model flyers have to pay for the water and the air they use !

 

[Amarillo]

Perhaps it means the better the infrastructure the more cyclists and the less fatalities - anyway perhaps time to tax them and pay up for road usage like everybody else - times are hard ! And give them dedicated facilitates. Even fishermen and model flyers have to pay for the water and the air they use !

If cycling was taxed I'd happily pay. At what age would you propose cyclists are taxed? First balance bike, on starting primary school, on starting secondary school, 16, 17, 18? Perhaps a mandatory tracker and pay per mile? Are they all taxed, or like motor vehicles would zero/low emissions bicycles be exempt? What about bikes used exclusively off-road?

 

[Scoobz1]

I think there could be a few concessions re children and perhaps older people as per fishing. In aero model flying they manage to tax all adults and children have to be registered under an adult. If you can tax air and water I guess you can tax anything ...In addition all flyers have to pass a test .... and attach ID to their models and or drones

• pass an online test to get a flyer ID if you want to fly a drone or model aircraft
• register for an operator ID if you’re responsible for a drone or model aircraft
• label any drones and model aircraft you’re responsible for with your operator ID.

In terms of a safety record aero model flying's record is probably far better than cycling ...

If some of the money raised was invested in dedicated cycling facilities so much the better.

 

[MattC]

Perhaps it means the better the infrastructure the more cyclists and the less fatalities - anyway perhaps time to tax them and pay up for road usage like everybody else - times are hard ! And give them dedicated facilitates. Even fishermen and model flyers have to pay for the water and the air they use !

In what way are cyclists not taxed and paying for road usage now? Income tax, NI, VAT, capital gains tax, inheritance tax, council tax? No, I've not noticed myself being exempted from any of those. And those are what fund our roads.
And iirc about 80% of cyclists also drive a car so pay VED if it applies and fuel duty too, it's just that sometimes they leave the motor vehicle at home and use the roads they've paid for in a different way.

 

[Velma's Dad]

If there's a societal benefit in achieving a higher level of participation in some activity, say cycling on the basis of lowering chronic disease burden, then it's a bit perverse to impose a selective tax on that activity, even if to provide the infrastructure for it.

It's generally considered much better to tax the activities that impose the biggest societal costs - hence 'sin' taxes such as that on smoking, the sugar tax and driving gas guzzlers. The 'polluter pays' principle.

Where does that leave (for example) paying for gym memberships? Should gyms and swimming pools be provided for free, by the government? Actually there may be a reasonable argument for that, but then what are the pros and cons of means testing so that you target services on the poorest, who are typically also the most unhealthy?

But anyway that's cycling done. This thread started with Boris, so when are we going to get onto Brexit??
(Sorrreee )

 

[Big Ron]

I think there could be a few concessions re children and perhaps older people as per fishing. In aero model flying they manage to tax all adults and children have to be registered under an adult. If you can tax air and water I guess you can tax anything ...In addition all flyers have to pass a test .... and attach ID to their models and or drones

• pass an online test to get a flyer ID if you want to fly a drone or model aircraft
• register for an operator ID if you’re responsible for a drone or model aircraft
• label any drones and model aircraft you’re responsible for with your operator ID.

In terms of a safety record aero model flying's record is probably far better than cycling ...

If some of the money raised was invested in dedicated cycling facilities so much the better.

Good Grief!
Sounds like a great idea to tax the things that make us healthier....and we can always come up with ever increasing rules and complex ways to administer it, after all we wouldn’t want to encourage people to do things that are good for them would we?!

 

[Scoobz1]

In what way are cyclists not taxed and paying for road usage now? Income tax, NI, VAT, capital gains tax, inheritance tax, council tax? No, I've not noticed myself being exempted from any of those. And those are what fund our roads.
And iirc about 80% of cyclists also drive a car so pay VED if it applies and fuel duty too, it's just that sometimes they leave the motor vehicle at home and use the roads they've paid for in a different way.

If you have 2 cars you pay tax on both if you have a motorbike and use it on roads and a car you still pay tax - if you pay one tax it doesn't make you exempt fro others unfortunately. Cyclists unlike any other group use the roads to a greater degree than ever but pay nothing for the privilege - a pretty unique group - and they want and should get more dedicated facilities, albeit partly fund or contribute to it at least .

It would also stop some of the resentment they bring out from other road users ... Anyway going forward we will need every penny we can get ... if you pay taxes to use water & air - fishermen and aero modellors - (health benefits there too) a tax to use the roads for cyclists in return for greater dedicated facilities doesn't seem to be too out of place

 

[Amarillo]

If you have 2 cars you pay tax on both if you have a motorbike and use it on roads and a car you still pay tax - if you pay one tax it doesn't make you exempt fro others unfortunately. Cyclists unlike any other group use the roads to a greater degree than ever but pay nothing for the privilege - a pretty unique group - and they want and should get more dedicated facilities, albeit partly fund or contribute to it at least .

It would also stop some of the resentment they bring out from other road users ... Anyway going forward we will need every penny we can get ... if you pay taxes to use water & air - fishermen and aero modellors - (health benefits there too) a tax to use the roads for cyclists in return for greater dedicated facilities doesn't seem to be too out of place

Do you think that shoes or shoe users should have a specific tax on them to be able to use public footways?

Anyway - I’d be happy to pay a cycling tax if mandated by Parliament, for me or my family, not because I think it is necessary or even reasonable, but to just to shut up those people who (incorrectly) whinge that cyclists pay nothing.

I’m still unclear which cyclists would pay, or what exemptions there may be for children, low or zero emissions or off-road only. You mention fishermen and aviators. I’m pretty sure my children can bait a line with bacon for crabs without being liable for extra tax, or play frisbee in the park, so I’m unsure where the line is between taxable aviation and untaxed aviation, but clearly that line is somewhere.

 

[Big Ron]

Do you think that shoes or shoe users should have a specific tax on them to be able to use public footways?

Anyway - I’d be happy to pay a cycling tax if mandated by Parliament, for me or my family, not because I think it is necessary or even reasonable, but to just to shut up those people who (incorrectly) whinge that cyclists pay nothing.

I’m still unclear which cyclists would pay, or what exemptions there may be for children, low or zero emissions or off-road only. You mention fishermen and aviators. I’m pretty sure my children can bait a line with bacon for crabs without being liable for extra tax, or play frisbee in the park, so I’m unsure where the line is between taxable aviation and untaxed aviation, but clearly that line is somewhere.

I think we should also consider taxing people on what they look at, I mean how dare people just go round looking at the World, and for free!
While we’re at it why not a tax for thinking as well, then we can truly say that the petty minded administrators have put an end to freedom of thought....after all, they’ve shown they’ve already stopped, why should anyone else be allowed?

 

[pjm-84]

So let's use logic. VED is vehicle excise duty. So tax to use the roads. Roads include pavement, crossing, lights, infrastructure (bridges, crossings etc)

So tax to use would fall on all users.

 

[WelshGas]

So let's use logic. VED is vehicle excise duty. So tax to use the roads. Roads include pavement, crossing, lights, infrastructure (bridges, crossings etc)

So tax to use would fall on all users.

Does it?
Have I been wrong all these years? I thought VED gave me the right to park and drive on the Public Highway I didn't realise I could also drive on the pavement and on designated cycle lanes if I paid the VED.
Well you live and learn.

 

[MattC]

If you have 2 cars you pay tax on both if you have a motorbike and use it on roads and a car you still pay tax - if you pay one tax it doesn't make you exempt fro others unfortunately. Cyclists unlike any other group use the roads to a greater degree than ever but pay nothing for the privilege - a pretty unique group - and they want and should get more dedicated facilities, albeit partly fund or contribute to it at least .

It would also stop some of the resentment they bring out from other road users ... Anyway going forward we will need every penny we can get ... if you pay taxes to use water & air - fishermen and aero modellors - (health benefits there too) a tax to use the roads for cyclists in return for greater dedicated facilities doesn't seem to be too out of place

I thought my previous post made it quite clear that cyclists don't "pay nothing" for the "privilege" of using the roads.
Roads are paid for by let's call it society, and if you really want to think of it in terms of taxes, then all our taxes of all kinds go into a great big pot and some of that pot gets spent on roads. There are no taxes directly hypothecated to road spending.
And as far as the "privilege" of use goes, pedestrians and cyclists and horse riders actually have a legal right to use the highway i.e. roads. It's the drivers and riders of motor vehicles who are only permitted to use the roads under licence following supposedly appropriate training and qualification, on account of the far greater potential for danger and harm that they give rise to.

Oh, and do you think that the money taken in by VED and fuel duty has every been sufficient to pay for all the miles of "motor-vehicle-only" motorways that have been built? Or perhaps drivers had a generous hand from everybody else in paying for those dedicated facilities?

 

[pjm-84]

VED is related to a vehicle. Hence it's not applied to cyclists/horses or pedestrians.

The question was the application of tax to use "roads". Well, the logical conclusion would also be applied to pavements, crossings/pedestrian bridges/underpasses etc. The cost of maintaining a road doesn't stop at the kerb line, it includes all the above items. Pedestrian crossings are quite expensive, relative to a road construction.

Actually, it does. There are two types of entrances into developments. A bellmouth or a drop kerb crossover. The later is a pavement where a vehicle has the right to cross over. Similarly, there is a footpath next to me that has vehicle access rights. So rather oddly I can drive a 44 tonne HGV down there but not ride my bike as there is a sign saying so.