Cycling UK Forum

Looks like war is the safest option!

Of the top seven causes of death, I think six of them (ie excluding cancer) would be what gets ticked on the forms because there is no box marked "old age". So impossible to separate out premature deaths from timely deaths.

There does seem to be an impression from these graphs that if you live a good life and avoid such things you will live for ever, rather than just delaying your entry into one of the tick boxes.

Slightly strange lists. They are on different scales and smoking is there but so is heart disorders and cancer. Are the deaths from cancer as a result of smoking counted twice? Low fruit and vegetables?

What's the difference between death by murder, and death by war?
Same thing, as you're killing people intentionally?

"Upsetting the Mrs" seems to have been missed off?

Al

There was a news piece a few months back about how dementia/Alzheimers is something like the second or third biggest killer of women and close to that of men but it is not mentioned. Don't know how exactly Dementia kills but that was a NICE or NHS figure (or similar official body).

I think I will take these with a pinch of salt afterall in our family heart disease has yet to kill anyone in living memory but cancer just eats through our older family members back through living memory.

Also as the lifespan of people increases so have certain conditions (such as dementia) become more prevalent. Then there is the fact that we have had the first boys born who are believed to have a higher life expectancy than the girls born at the same time (actuarily or statistically speaking). I am sure that will also filter through into causes of death eventually (well beyond my lifespan).

Basically I do not pay any heed to these lists/graphs and especially when there is no scale to the axis. That is just stupid missing out an axis like that. Meaningless twaddle! Pedants unite!!

I take it that these figures are for us in the UK, where water-borne diseases, and so on are not such big killers. But it's nice to see that the risks cycling helps to combat are so much more significant than the risks it incurs. I'm sure I once heard that the BMA estimated the health risks of cycling were outweighed by the benefits by something like 20 to 1.

But it's nice to see that the risks cycling helps to combat are so much more significant than the risks it incurs.

That would be a function of the low numbers who are cycling, if cycling was more popular the other risks (that cyclists are prone to) would be the high ones.

beardy wrote:

But it's nice to see that the risks cycling helps to combat are so much more significant than the risks it incurs.

That would be a function of the low numbers who are cycling, if cycling was more popular the other risks (that cyclists are prone to) would be the high ones.

That's an assumption
If more people cycled,say local short,<3mile journeys,less people would use a car for the same journeys,which would mean less traffic=less risk,possibly .

Mick F wrote:What's the difference between death by murder, and death by war?
Same thing, as you're killing people intentionally?

Killing in war is legal. Murder isn't. Seems like a reasonable choice to separate the two groups in the stats.

(assuming rules of engagement are followed etc)

I'm definitely keeping out of the path of low-flying fruit and vegetables!

Which ever way you look at the figures, cycling is more likely to make you healthier than it is to harm your health. Your chances of being seriously hurt or killed whilst cycling are low (assuming you are an average cyclist). Your chances of being healthier and living longer are higher if you cycle a lot. If you want a form of transport likely to damage the health of the person using it, the car is a prime contender because time spent driving is time spent sat on your BFA getting fatter.

But those graphs are about how you die, not when you die.
All cycling will do is delay your death, not prevent it. As they dont have a "ripe old age" category, all cycling may do is increase the fraction for cancer at the expense of the others in the top six.

Saying cycling will prevent you dyeing of the main contenders there is simply untrue, what else are you going to die of instead? It gives you a longer and healthier life but you still end up dead and probably from something that gets a tick in the same tickbox.

beardy wrote:But those graphs are about how you die, not when you die.
All cycling will do is delay your death, not prevent it. As they dont have a "ripe old age" category, all cycling may do is increase the fraction for cancer at the expense of the others in the top six.

Saying cycling will prevent you dyeing of the main contenders there is simply untrue, what else are you going to die of instead? It gives you a longer and healthier life but you still end up dead and probably from something that gets a tick in the same tickbox.

I really like a cheerful poster