Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Solution to obesity, pollution, congestion and social issues is ‘glaringly, frighteningly simple’ says Boardman

Says investment in cycling will provide a huge return

“We have a long way to go,” says Chris Boardman in response to a British Cycling survey which found that 93% of its members have safety concerns when riding on the road. British Cycling’s policy advisor will appear at a national government conference in Bristol today to speak of a ‘once in a lifetime opportunity’ to change the country for the better through investing in cycling.

Boardman was responding to a survey of British Cycling’s 100,000 members which revealed that 93% have safety concerns when riding on the road. In calling for more investment, he points to the government’s own studies which confirmed that investing in cycling gives a 5:1 return. “I’m not exaggerating when I say that now is a once in a lifetime opportunity to change this country for the better for us and our children.”

Cycling is an obvious solution to many current issues, he says – but one which demands investment.

“Obesity is not only killing 37,000 people in the UK every year, when all the effects are factored in, it’s costing us almost one billion pounds every week. A large part of the solution to this problem – not to mention pollution, congestion and social issues – is glaringly, frighteningly simple.

“For these problems to be solved, the solution needs to be invisible, built into our everyday lives, unnoticed. The solution is in how we move. British Cycling’s member survey highlights that, in this present moment, even regular cyclists are concerned for their safety on our roads. We have a long way to go."

Cycling Minister Robert Goodwill recently revealed that the Department for Transport currently allocates just 0.7% of its total budget to cycling despite around 2% of all journeys in Britain being made by bike. However, this looks set to rise as Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg will today announce £214m in cycling funding. The money will be divided between the Highways agency and eight cities which have previously received Cycle City Ambition funding.

However, Sustrans chief executive, Malcolm Shepherd, contrasted the amount being given to cycling with the £24 billion the coalition has earmarked for spending on roads. Both Sustrans and CTC have backed the call for annual investment in cycling of at least £10 per person.

In the British Cycling survey, the top hazards listed were unsafe road surfaces and vehicles overtaking too closely. Vehicles travelling too quickly and cycle lanes that are too narrow or which stop suddenly were also considered common problems. The top priority for British Cycling members was mutual respect between all road users, closely followed by the need for protected space on main roads.

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

50 comments

Avatar
banzicyclist2 | 9 years ago
0 likes

It's not brain surgery, but in the case of our policy makers it might help.

I've sort of been on a low carb / good fat diet for two years and it really works. I still eat the odd burger (NEVER McDonalds!!!!!). And eat cake at weekends but most days I simply substitute high carb stuff for low carb veg, and red meat for fish and chicken. Simples!

And of course there is a 100 miles or so of cycling to work and back each week.

P.S. I still drink beer, but only real ale; and in moderation. Which reminds me, it's 9 o'clock on Saturday night.... time to go poison myself with some mucky beer  38

Avatar
Beefy | 9 years ago
0 likes

So the people don't go without health care in the USA? Mmm, I wonder why there is a health care charity which visits facilities such as football stadiums to offer one off health care for people, and there are many thousands in the USA who can not afford health care due to low wages. These people camp out over night and travel over 100 mile to attend these free health care opportunities.

People do die in the USA because they can't afford health care. Do a little research and you will find that the USA does not have an enviable health care system unless you are wealthy, oh and don't forget the insurance people have does have limitation with regard to maximum payment for treatment.

I do agree that people should take responsibility for health but do we refuse care to smokers who pay more in taxation as a group than is used by the group in health care, check national audit data if you dispute this. Do we tell people who hill walk it's there fault If they sprain an ankle walking or perhaps we should withdraw free health care for pregnancy?

What about the obese patient who pays higher rate tax, is he not entitled to health care? It a mine field. One thing I'm sure of we have one of the best health care systems in the world

Avatar
ironmancole | 9 years ago
0 likes

The media and supposed social stigma don't help at all.

Clarkson has long peddled his scurvy ridden humour that cyclists are to be pitied as they are forced through desperation to toil away on metal donkeys through all seasons whilst pushing his garbage about being important if you're sat within your car.

Unfortunately this sort of stereotype increases pressure to join the ranks of the 'successful' in life for the weak minded lemmings amongst us and off they pop to get credit on a car.

As usual the media is a mixed, wholly unpredictable poisoned chalice. They could play a huge role in changing attitudes rather than scratching about for sensationalistic gossip about life's important stories, how huge Kim Kardashians arse is for example.

Avatar
Jimmy Ray Will | 9 years ago
0 likes

Wow, this has moved on a bit...

From a personal perspective, I think there needs to be a step change in societies approach to life.

Less than 100 years ago, for many, the main purpose of day to day life was to try and stay alive.

Now, staying alive is treated as a given, almost as a right.

So the fundamentals of staying alive have been rationalised as much as possible...

Food? Ok, there are simple, immediate solutions to food right here... don't grow your own, don't travel around shops to buy your food, don't prepare your food...

Work? No need for manual labour, there is a computer/robot to do that, you just sit down there and make sure its all OK

Etc. etc. etc.

We have been programmed to be lazy, to focus our attention in other areas... the problem is, we have nothing else to focus on... well nothing achievable anyway.

So our lives, in the quest to become easy and more fulfilling, have become emptier, and accordingly more sedentary.

It is a huge task to turn around the last 70 years of change, but it needs to happen.

If I look at my kids, they are both lean, but they both enjoy a MacDonalds, a KFC, chocolate, sweets etc.... the reason they're not fat is because there is an awareness that these foods are the exception and not the rule when it comes to nutrition. That is, as said above, hardly rocket science.

Avatar
andybwhite replied to Jimmy Ray Will | 9 years ago
0 likes
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

If I look at my kids, they are both lean, but they both enjoy a MacDonalds, a KFC, chocolate, sweets etc.... the reason they're not fat is because there is an awareness that these foods are the exception and not the rule when it comes to nutrition. That is, as said above, hardly rocket science.

And I hope they stay that way and healthy.
But as said above, it may not be rocket science but it is complex biochemistry and diabetes is now affecting more and more people who have never been obese, because of the food we eat. Even so called healthy food (ie low fat) is in many cases more of a health risk than their full-fat equivalents. Believe in the simplistic calories in vs calories out message at your peril - its way more complicated than that and the dieticians are only just now waking up to the research that is turning the old certainties on their heads, over the last decade.

Avatar
Jimmy Ray Will replied to andybwhite | 9 years ago
0 likes
andybwhite wrote:
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

If I look at my kids, they are both lean, but they both enjoy a MacDonalds, a KFC, chocolate, sweets etc.... the reason they're not fat is because there is an awareness that these foods are the exception and not the rule when it comes to nutrition. That is, as said above, hardly rocket science.

And I hope they stay that way and healthy.
But as said above, it may not be rocket science but it is complex biochemistry and diabetes is now affecting more and more people who have never been obese, because of the food we eat. Even so called healthy food (ie low fat) is in many cases more of a health risk than their full-fat equivalents. Believe in the simplistic calories in vs calories out message at your peril - its way more complicated than that and the dieticians are only just now waking up to the research that is turning the old certainties on their heads, over the last decade.

Hmmm, I'm not too sure that suggesting the occasional McDonalds etc may generate diabetes in otherwise healthy, lean people is the right are of focus.

For me that is chapter 3 or 4. First up surely, is addressing the extreme ends of the spectrum... you want to change mindsets, saying that everyone can only ever chew on root vegetables is only going to generate resistance to change.

A moderate, varied diet is good enough for the UK I am sure.

Avatar
the_mikey | 9 years ago
0 likes

Taxing food doesn't fix the dangerous roads, the overworked under pressure delivery Van driver, doesn't tame the school run, doesn't fix the workplaces that are overtly hostile to cycling employees, doesn't help people on minimal wages, doesn't help pay the rent, doesn't fix the long working hours culture that doesn't allow many workers to make their own lifestyle choices, it's already decided for them by other factors.

Avatar
IanW1968 | 9 years ago
0 likes

Mmmmm.....difficult to work out why we don't walk about more. !

This is my daughters route to school, the cock mobile will still be there in the morning and the road will be full of stressed parents shuttling overweight kids to school on the road which she has to walk along because the pavements a car park. The actual problem is there no cure for being a cunt and a lot of them have cars.

Avatar
LinusLarrabee replied to IanW1968 | 9 years ago
0 likes
Avatar
Bob's Bikes replied to IanW1968 | 9 years ago
0 likes

IanW1968 Why don't you write the driver a nice polite note pointing out the error of their ways preferable with a set of keys across the bonnet  19

Avatar
wheelsucker | 9 years ago
0 likes

Big Pharma will not be happy if we are all healthy
Who will buy their drugs? Profits will go down jobs will be lost. It is not in the "healthcare" industry's interest to have us healthy.

Avatar
Ush | 9 years ago
0 likes

I think some skepticism on the simplistic "exercise more and eat less" meme is probably required. Stephane Guyenet is worth reading on the idea of the "adipostat".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22238401

Avatar
FatFreddie replied to Ush | 9 years ago
0 likes
Ush wrote:

I think some skepticism on the simplistic "exercise more and eat less" meme is probably required. Stephane Guyenet is worth reading on the idea of the "adipostat".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22238401

Poor storage of glucose in early stage (even subclinical) T2 diabetes where insulin resistance and the resultant hyperinsulinemia cause dietary glucose (carbs) to be stored as fat instead of in the muscles as glycogen is one mechanism - it causes weight gain and simultaneously reduces available energy disincentivising exercise.

There also seems to be some tie in with leptin signalling which provides a more direct feedback loop for adipose homeostasis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leptin).

I've done a lot of reading about various aspects of health and nutrition over the last year and I have shifted considerably from my original "calories in calories out" and "it's just willpower" stance to one where I think we have both a complex and a serious problem and we need to attack it from several angles at once - encouraging cycling is an important part of that but it's just a part

Avatar
Ush replied to FatFreddie | 9 years ago
0 likes
FatFreddie wrote:

I've done a lot of reading about various aspects of health and nutrition over the last year and I have shifted considerably from my original "calories in calories out" and "it's just willpower" stance to one where I think we have both a complex and a serious problem and we need to attack it from several angles at once - encouraging cycling is an important part of that but it's just a part

Agreed. What has become more obvious (in no small part due to the work that Gary Taubes has done) is that this is an extremely complex area and that anyone running around telling other people that they know (preferably in capital letters) what is good for them is at best woefully under-informed. Confidence of ignorance and all that.

Avatar
climber | 9 years ago
0 likes

I've not read every post here, one of the causes is out of town shopping places, where I live they are a right pain to get to by anything other than car. I'd close the lot of 'em. I know some people think that going to the shopping centre is a day out for goodness sake. Oh, and then they moan about the queues of traffic to get in and out of the place.
It's not just that we to cycle more, we also need to walk more.

Rant I know, but how do we get attitudes to change? How do we engage children to realise that MacDonalds etc etc is shit and that we can have a great time walking/cycling/running/swimming? How do get the younger children to educate their parents?

Avatar
bigshape | 9 years ago
0 likes

i blame greggs.

Avatar
Simon E replied to bigshape | 9 years ago
0 likes
bigshape wrote:

i blame greggs.

They are only a company supplying what is wanted. Ditto McDonalds, Marlboro, cocktail bars etc etc. Why should they be expected to set the agenda? They would change instantly if their customers stopped eating the shit they serve and asked for something healthier.

oozaveared wrote:

The obese ones will be the poorer folk that are not paying for healthcare and are covered by either the state or federal programmes.

Lots of seriously overweight professional types in USA. While being defined as obese might seem to be a working class condition there are lots of well-paid fatties too. I also know of plenty of well paid people in the UK who are very overweight, just look at the shape/BMI of our MPs.

I also can't see how you can effectively tax people for being overweight. I'd prefer to tax products, not consumers. Having said that, it appears that charging a premium for cigarettes hasn't deterred many smokers. Binge drinking has been increasing for some time now despite the fact that alcohol is not cheap.

Avatar
climber replied to Simon E | 9 years ago
0 likes
Simon E wrote:

I also can't see how you can effectively tax people for being overweight. I'd prefer to tax products, not consumers. Having said that, it appears that charging a premium for cigarettes hasn't deterred many smokers. Binge drinking has been increasing for some time now despite the fact that alcohol is not cheap.

I think airline ticket prices should be based on total weight of passenger+luggage. Not a tax I agree, but sending out the message that if you weigh more some things cost more.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to Simon E | 9 years ago
0 likes
Simon E wrote:

Lots of seriously overweight professional types in USA. While being defined as obese might seem to be a working class condition there are lots of well-paid fatties too. I also know of plenty of well paid people in the UK who are very overweight, just look at the shape/BMI of our MPs.
.

Both the reported statistics I've seen (which might be out of date) and my personal observations, seem to show that that being obese is correlated with being poor/working class/low-SES (whatever you want to call it) for women, but not for men. For men it doesn't correlate to class or wealth at all, though overall men are slightly fatter than women I think (though there's very little in it).
I don't think this is at all surprising, if you think about it.

(Who deals with the food in poorer families, who is more likely to be out-and-about vs being stuck at home? For men, being broke is as likely to require _more_ physical activity than less, more manual labouring jobs, more walking to work, more keeping fit as a source of status, and, er, possibly more running away from the police. Whereas poorer women are probably stuck in the home dealing with child-care, while posh women seem very keen on staying thin in part to emphasise they aren't poor).

In the US the most overweight group, I think, are black women.

Avatar
CXR94Di2 replied to bigshape | 9 years ago
0 likes
bigshape wrote:

i blame greggs.

I do aswell, after I cycle into town about 10 miles, I treat myself to a warm sausage roll  1

Simple solution, fat fookers get off your arses(I used to be one) and do some physical exercise, eat less. Told you it was simple.  1

Avatar
Simon E | 9 years ago
0 likes

People may seem lazy but I think it's wired into our DNA to save energy and eat lots when the opportunity arises. We didn't evolve to be surrounded by a never-ending supply of energy-dense, sweet food.

Rather than meat, it's the proliferation of starchy carbs and processed junk food that makes a huge difference to calorie intake. Look at the size of the fizzy drinks aisle and the bakery at a supermarket; the shit served at fast food outlets and takeaways; even on cooking programmes and in magazines they are forever showing puddings and cakes as if they are a staple.

The BOGOF, 3-for-2 deals etc are invariably on processed shit you don't need, not on fresh fruit and veg. The factories and shops want you to buy more and more junk. Most of us find it difficult to resist while many don't comprehend the harm it does them.

Changing the amount of exercise we do will only addressing part of the problem, but it's still desperately needed. Also, exercise brings additional benefits, not only to the individual's physical health.

One reason that I think the Tories don't care is because they don't want an NHS; it suits them for it to become more and more expensive so they can trash it, privatise it and let the general population rot. I blame every selfish, tax-averse twat who voted for them.

Avatar
fenix | 9 years ago
0 likes

I dont think its carbs or fat or protein or whatever....

I think the problem is the availability of cheap food.
Look at people in the 50s - fit as butchers dogs. Money was tight.

Now we have more disposable income we can basically eat as much as we can. And we do. We dont need that mega pizza - but we can have it.

You can eat very healthily and still get fat. Look at cows. HUGE and they eat salad all day long...

Its willpower and knowledge. You have to know how many calories you're eating and how many you're burning. If theres a difference - you'll get fat. And most of us have sedentary lives. Drive to work. Sit at desk. Eat like we are doing a labourers job. WHY ARE WE FAT ?

Its really not rocket science. And I dont think you can blame councils or pavements. Humans can get up mountains. A few potholes or some darkness shouldnt put us off.

Avatar
andybwhite replied to fenix | 9 years ago
0 likes
fenix wrote:

I dont think its carbs or fat or protein or whatever....

I think the problem is the availability of cheap food.......

You can eat very healthily and still get fat. Look at cows. HUGE and they eat salad all day long...

Its willpower and knowledge. You have to know how many calories you're eating and how many you're burning. If theres a difference - you'll get fat. .........Its really not rocket science. ..

To answer you fenix:

I agree cheap food is the problem. It's mostly carbohydrate based and produced using lots of additives which you wouldn't want to eat if you knew what they did to you.

As for cows - they may be big but they're not fat - fatty meat doesn't sell so they're pumped full growth hormones (in the USA at least) to bulk them up.

Knowledge. Yes it is all about knowledge. It may not be rocket science but it is biochemistry and its way more complicated than calories in vs calories out. its that simplistic approach beloved of political soundbites which is stopping us from getting out of this mess.

Avatar
Martyn_K | 9 years ago
0 likes

It makes you wonder if the NHS is such a good thing. I wonder what peoples attitudes to healthy living would be if they HAD to pay for their own healthcare instead of having a state funded service.

The NHS should be a safety net, not something relied upon and the first port of call to resolve self inflicted problems.

Avatar
Simon E replied to Martyn_K | 9 years ago
0 likes
Martyn_K wrote:

It makes you wonder if the NHS is such a good thing. I wonder what peoples attitudes to healthy living would be if they HAD to pay for their own healthcare instead of having a state funded service.

The NHS should be a safety net, not something relied upon and the first port of call to resolve self inflicted problems.

That argument doesn't hold water. People choose to buy their own booze and fags but that doesn't stop them trying very hard to kill themselves with one or both of these extremely toxic products.

Avatar
oozaveared replied to Simon E | 9 years ago
0 likes
Simon E wrote:
Martyn_K wrote:

It makes you wonder if the NHS is such a good thing. I wonder what peoples attitudes to healthy living would be if they HAD to pay for their own healthcare instead of having a state funded service.

The NHS should be a safety net, not something relied upon and the first port of call to resolve self inflicted problems.

That argument doesn't hold water. People choose to buy their own booze and fags but that doesn't stop them trying very hard to kill themselves with one or both of these extremely toxic products.

I think he's talking about a more direct and less aggregated connection between what we pay for healthcare and how we regard it. I think there is something in that but not necessarily a straighforward mapping.

Basically if you paid a personal premium to the NHS and not an aggregated one and if it went up 50% for being a smoker and another 30% for being a fatty based on your risk /cost to the NHS then some people might amend their behaviour. Difficult in practice mainly because the ultimate sanction of refusing healthcare to people that abuse the system and refuse to pay premiums isn't available.

but there is plenty that could be done to make the connection stronger such as an annual account of your costs and contributions.

Avatar
TheHound replied to Martyn_K | 9 years ago
0 likes
Martyn_K wrote:

It makes you wonder if the NHS is such a good thing. I wonder what peoples attitudes to healthy living would be if they HAD to pay for their own healthcare instead of having a state funded service.

The NHS should be a safety net, not something relied upon and the first port of call to resolve self inflicted problems.

Indeed, this works great in 'murica... O Wait.

Avatar
oozaveared replied to TheHound | 9 years ago
0 likes
TheHound wrote:
Martyn_K wrote:

It makes you wonder if the NHS is such a good thing. I wonder what peoples attitudes to healthy living would be if they HAD to pay for their own healthcare instead of having a state funded service.

The NHS should be a safety net, not something relied upon and the first port of call to resolve self inflicted problems.

Indeed, this works great in 'murica... O Wait.

Well 'murica does kind of prove his point. People that essentially pay for their own health care in America do tend to take it rather seriously. It's a big expensive bill and matters like smoking, obesity, alcohol abuse whack your premiums right up. But if the state or Fed is picking up the tab as it does for poor people then there does seem to be a disregard.

I think there's a generally held urban myth that if you can't pay the hospital or doctor in America then you don't get one and then you die. All that actually happens in practice is that the state pays the bill. In so doing it sends you to doctors you don't choose in hospitals it specifies and gives you the treatment it deems to be the most cost effective. Instead of your own room, you get put on a ward with others and essentially you get what you're given and you're expected to be grateful. A bit like the NHS in fact.

It's not so very different as it is here. If you go private it's all nice hospitals and a choice of surgeon at a time that suits you. If you use the NHS you get a good medical service but no nice bells and whistles.

Avatar
andybwhite replied to oozaveared | 9 years ago
0 likes
oozaveared wrote:

People that essentially pay for their own health care in America do tend to take it rather seriously. It's a big expensive bill and matters like smoking, obesity, alcohol abuse whack your premiums right up.
.

America - one of the fattest nations on the planet with massive problems of obesity, heart disease, diabetes and obesity related cancers.... and private health care ... sure they take their own health seriously - NOT!

It the country that invented industrial carb based cheap food and they and the rest of us that follow are paying the price.

Avatar
oozaveared replied to andybwhite | 9 years ago
0 likes
andybwhite wrote:
oozaveared wrote:

People that essentially pay for their own health care in America do tend to take it rather seriously. It's a big expensive bill and matters like smoking, obesity, alcohol abuse whack your premiums right up.
.

America - one of the fattest nations on the planet with massive problems of obesity, heart disease, diabetes and obesity related cancers.... and private health care ... sure they take their own health seriously - NOT!

It the country that invented industrial carb based cheap food and they and the rest of us that follow are paying the price.

not reading what I said eh. There is massive inequality in America. They also have some of the fittest and most health conscious people on the planet as well.

The ones that pay for their own healthcare do tend to be quite health conscious because the premiums directly reflect their lifestyle choices among other things.

The obese in America are almost certainly not paying for their own healthcare because no private healthcare insurer would even quote them. Obesity maps very strongly in the UK and the USA on to income.

So if you are well enough off in the USA that you're outside state or Fed health programme eligibility then you pay for your own healthcare usually by insurance. So if you're one of those people then you do take your health seriously because if you are obese you won't get either insurance or be allowed on state or federal programme. So if you get ill you can be bankrupted.

Most what we might term "middle class" America (Middle class means something different over there ie not super rich or super poor ie the vast mass) but well paid professionals do not tend to be obese.

The obese ones will be the poorer folk that are not paying for healthcare and are covered by either the state or federal programmes.

Pages

Latest Comments