Cycling to work slashes risk of heart disease and cancer, major study finds

alansmurphy wrote:

Paul - that's easy "erratic cyclist not wearing helmet causes bus to crash"...

more like

"erratic road tax avoiding uninsured cyclist not wearing helmet or hi vis causes bus to crash by daring to cycle more than 3 mm from the kerb to avoid pothole he should have cycled through and acting like he owned the road " 

alansmurphy wrote:

Paul - that's easy "erratic cyclist not wearing helmet causes bus to crash"...

Or....."erotic cyclist not wearing helmet causes bus to crash"...

flathunt wrote:

So I'm 41% less likely to die of old age? Get this thing away from me!

Nobody has ever died from "old age".  Regular cyclists live two years longer than average and suffer less from all forms of illness and have a better quality of life in old age.

I'm sorry, your point was?

burtthebike wrote:

Nobody has ever died from "old age". 

Unless they had this red crystal implanted in the palm of their hand.

wellsprop wrote:

 I'm fairly certain regular commuter cyclists are more likely to die in a bicycle crash than those who commute in motor vehicles.

Vice versa, I'm pretty certain bus passengers are more likely to die in a bus crash than someone who cycles to work.

For clarification, if a bus crashes in to a cyclist, is it a bus crash or a bicycle crash?

PaulBox wrote:

wellsprop wrote:

 I'm fairly certain regular commuter cyclists are more likely to die in a bicycle crash than those who commute in motor vehicles.

Vice versa, I'm pretty certain bus passengers are more likely to die in a bus crash than someone who cycles to work.

For clarification, if a bus crashes in to a cyclist, is it a bus crash or a bicycle crash?

I imagine it depends on whether the cyclist is wearing a helmet or not

wellsprop wrote:

 "compared to people who commuted by car or on public transport, regular commuter cyclists were 41 per cent less likely to die from any cause"

I'm often dubious of statistics, more so the way they are worded when trying to prove a point, what exactly does "any" mean?

I'm fairly certain regular commuter cyclists are more likely to die in a bicycle crash than those who commute in motor vehicles.

Vice versa, I'm pretty certain bus passengers are more likely to die in a bus crash than someone who cycles to work.

it means "41 per cent less likely to die.".

Ever.

wellsprop wrote:

 "compared to people who commuted by car or on public transport, regular commuter cyclists were 41 per cent less likely to die from any cause"

I'm often dubious of statistics, more so the way they are worded when trying to prove a point, what exactly does "any" mean?

I'm fairly certain regular commuter cyclists are more likely to die in a bicycle crash than those who commute in motor vehicles.

Vice versa, I'm pretty certain bus passengers are more likely to die in a bus crash than someone who cycles to work.

Well, the BMA report "Cycling Towards Health and Safety" by Mayer Hillman published about thirty years ago, found that regular cyclists lived on average two years longer, and suffered less from all forms of illness.

Which bit of "any" didn't you understand?

burtthebike wrote:

wellsprop wrote:

 "compared to people who commuted by car or on public transport, regular commuter cyclists were 41 per cent less likely to die from any cause"

I'm often dubious of statistics, more so the way they are worded when trying to prove a point, what exactly does "any" mean?

I'm fairly certain regular commuter cyclists are more likely to die in a bicycle crash than those who commute in motor vehicles.

Vice versa, I'm pretty certain bus passengers are more likely to die in a bus crash than someone who cycles to work.

Well, the BMA report "Cycling Towards Health and Safety" by Mayer Hillman published about thirty years ago, found that regular cyclists lived on average two years longer, and suffered less from all forms of illness.

Which bit of "any" didn't you understand?

I'm not sure that you've got such a great grasp of 'any' yourself. You appear to have equated 'all forms of illness' with 'all forms of death'.

You see, it is possible to die of other causes: a piano falling from a hoist during removal, or over-extension of one's neck due to not appreciating when to wind it in, say.

davel wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

wellsprop wrote:

 "compared to people who commuted by car or on public transport, regular commuter cyclists were 41 per cent less likely to die from any cause"

I'm often dubious of statistics, more so the way they are worded when trying to prove a point, what exactly does "any" mean?

I'm fairly certain regular commuter cyclists are more likely to die in a bicycle crash than those who commute in motor vehicles.

Vice versa, I'm pretty certain bus passengers are more likely to die in a bus crash than someone who cycles to work.

Well, the BMA report "Cycling Towards Health and Safety" by Mayer Hillman published about thirty years ago, found that regular cyclists lived on average two years longer, and suffered less from all forms of illness.

Which bit of "any" didn't you understand?

I'm not sure that you've got such a great grasp of 'any' yourself. You appear to have equated 'all forms of illness' with 'all forms of death'.

You see, it is possible to die of other causes: a piano falling from a hoist during removal, or over-extension of one's neck due to not appreciating when to wind it in, say.

I think the disagreement is because 'less likely to die from any cause' is an intrinsically ambiguous phrase. The English language isn't as precise as maths, I guess.

Does it mean every cause of death is individually less likely, or that the total likelihood of death (summed over all causes) is less? The two would be expressed differently in maths but come out the same in English.

It obviously is intended to mean the latter but a pedant could could interpret it as the former.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

davel wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

wellsprop wrote:

 "compared to people who commuted by car or on public transport, regular commuter cyclists were 41 per cent less likely to die from any cause"

I'm often dubious of statistics, more so the way they are worded when trying to prove a point, what exactly does "any" mean?

I'm fairly certain regular commuter cyclists are more likely to die in a bicycle crash than those who commute in motor vehicles.

Vice versa, I'm pretty certain bus passengers are more likely to die in a bus crash than someone who cycles to work.

Well, the BMA report "Cycling Towards Health and Safety" by Mayer Hillman published about thirty years ago, found that regular cyclists lived on average two years longer, and suffered less from all forms of illness.

Which bit of "any" didn't you understand?

I'm not sure that you've got such a great grasp of 'any' yourself. You appear to have equated 'all forms of illness' with 'all forms of death'. You see, it is possible to die of other causes: a piano falling from a hoist during removal, or over-extension of one's neck due to not appreciating when to wind it in, say.

I think the disagreement is because 'less likely to die from any cause' is an intrinsically ambiguous phrase. The English language isn't as precise as maths, I guess. Does it mean every cause of death is individually less likely, or that the total likelihood of death (summed over all causes) is less? The two would be expressed differently in maths but come out the same in English. It obviously is intended to mean the latter but a pedant could could interpret it as the former.

Fluffy know's what I'm on about 

davel wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Well, the BMA report "Cycling Towards Health and Safety" by Mayer Hillman published about thirty years ago, found that regular cyclists lived on average two years longer, and suffered less from all forms of illness.

Which bit of "any" didn't you understand?

I'm not sure that you've got such a great grasp of 'any' yourself. You appear to have equated 'all forms of illness' with 'all forms of death'. You see, it is possible to die of other causes: a piano falling from a hoist during removal, or over-extension of one's neck due to not appreciating when to wind it in, say.

Seems perfectly clear to me: regular cyclists live two years longer than average, that's one proven fact.  Another proven fact is that they suffer less from all forms of illness.  I haven't equated the two which are quite discrete and different.  Nowhere did I mention "all forms of death" you invented it.

I hope your neck gets better soon.