cactus flower wrote:

If you think that is criticism, then its not surprising that you are surprised at what I am saying. Where is the criticism? Why when An Taisce, FIE and every Tom Dick and Harriet with an interest in the Dublin environment was howling about this was there not a word I can find from the Greens. Help me here, I would really like to be wrong.

Perhaps Bronwen is out there somewhere and can put me straight.

You're probably right, I can't remember hearing too many Greens speaking out against the deal. Probably afraid to be seen as being against free bikes. Neither do I remember hearing them defend it.

However, the Greens did not negotiate the deal. That was your own invention, and the reason why I posted a response.

If you wish to criticise the Greens for this and that then please just go ahead and do that, without making stuff up.

joemomma wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

If you think that is criticism, then its not surprising that you are surprised at what I am saying. Where is the criticism? Why when An Taisce, FIE and every Tom Dick and Harriet with an interest in the Dublin environment was howling about this was there not a word I can find from the Greens. Help me here, I would really like to be wrong.

Perhaps Bronwen is out there somewhere and can put me straight.

You're probably right, I can't remember hearing too many Greens speaking out against the deal. Probably afraid to be seen as being against free bikes. Neither do I remember hearing them defend it.

However, the Greens did not negotiate the deal. That was your own invention, and the reason why I posted a response.

If you wish to criticise the Greens for this and that then please just go ahead and do that, without making stuff up.

Lets call it quits. Can you stay for the party? Did you bring your togs?

The wealthier you are, the more likely you are to cycle.
According to statistics from England. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2500754.ece
Also, cyclists live longer.

eoinmn wrote:

The wealthier you are, the more likely you are to cycle.
According to statistics from England. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2500754.ece
Also, cyclists live longer.

I may be way off here but can exercise be seen as an 'externality' in an economy that should be given a value instead of being zero? How it could be assessed I don't know (or even if it is assessed at the moment) but immediately you look at heart disease and the effect of exercise on heart disease. So I'd be guessing that the incidence of heart disease is inversely proportional to the amount of exercise we do in a country or in an economy. The more exercise the less heart disease. It might be interesting to see if there is a correlation between infrastructure and rate of heart disease - the radwege that criss-cross Germany are an asset that might have a reducing effect on national heart disease because it's easy to cycle there on those radwege or dedicated cycle lanes. Look in the cycle lanes thread in infrastructure if you don't know what one looks like they're lovely.

Why don't we have radwege criss-crossing the country here? Then everyone would be rich.

eoinmn wrote:

The wealthier you are, the more likely you are to cycle.
According to statistics from England. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2500754.ece
Also, cyclists live longer.

Nice one eoinmn - so the bike is the nouveau Merc.

Auditor #9 wrote:

eoinmn wrote:

The wealthier you are, the more likely you are to cycle.
According to statistics from England. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2500754.ece
Also, cyclists live longer.

I may be way off here but can exercise be seen as an 'externality' in an economy that should be given a value instead of being zero? How it could be assessed I don't know (or even if it is assessed at the moment) but immediately you look at heart disease and the effect of exercise on heart disease. So I'd be guessing that the incidence of heart disease is inversely proportional to the amount of exercise we do in a country or in an economy. The more exercise the less heart disease. It might be interesting to see if there is a correlation between infrastructure and rate of heart disease - the radwege that criss-cross Germany are an asset that might have a reducing effect on national heart disease because it's easy to cycle there on those radwege or dedicated cycle lanes. Look in the cycle lanes thread in infrastructure if you don't know what one looks like they're lovely.

Why don't we have radwege criss-crossing the country here? Then everyone would be rich.

Very true. And ideally such a benefit would be distributed throughout society, not just in terms of those that could implement it into their daily lives - such as some commuters or the (idle?) rich.

I think a job with a certain amount of exercise and fresh air, would be more beneficial than one with none. So that positive externality would be either 'priced' or tagged as more empowering by most people. Would you prefer to sit in a stuffy office or factory all day or have a day or so a week involving cycling or some other physical activity?

So in terms of an ideal jobs allocation system then exercise and cycling would probably be seen as a bonus. However a job which only involved cycling*, as in a cycle courier, would have to be a higher risk occupation, what with - injuries, death and breathing in fumes etc- so that'd knock it back a bit for those people. But then...they might like a break in a 'stuffy' office!

Therefore assuming you have the infrastructure in place, an economy with physical activities evenly distributed (or balanced) throughout it's workforce, would be more healthy than that which would not have such a balancing. It also would have less of a carbon foot-print.



*(likewise of course back-breaking 'exercise' picking strawberry fields, mushrooms in pesticide filled tents, dangerous cockle-picking etc would have to be a negative dis-empowering exercise.)