@Bc
That's some personal/heroic confession!
Perhaps slightly worrying too.
Have you ever asked for professional/appropriate advice on diet?
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
census data
(91 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
Good summary of fit vs. fat
Posted 11 years ago # -
Measures of subjective health (rating health as 'poor' or 'good') are a good indicator of wellness i.e. not being unwell, sick, laid up, etc. Wellness is not the same as being in good health (as in good physical condition) and not a good indicator of the absence of elevated risk of becoming unwell. Wellness is now, health is the future.
By the same token, being overweight or obese is a marker for increased risk of underlying conditions that lead to unwellness (high blood pressure, arteriosclerosis, bronchial problems etc) because people who are overweight are more like to have a poor quality diet, to take too little exercise or to drink too much sugary drinks (including alcohol, which has another dimension of long term risks of liver damage). But you can get overweight by eating lots of "healthy" food.
There's no disconnect between being overweight and well. The question is why people are overweight and the disconnect lies in believing that being well now is a good guide to future health. Mind you, it's not like being skinny offers that much protection from underlying health problems. And maintaining that skinny exposes you to a different set of health risks. Scotland was the sick man of Europe long before it had an obesity "epidemic" and I know plenty of skinny blokes who smoke, drink too much and take too little exercise. Obesity is just a visible indicator of the potential for a poor lifestyle which might lead to poor health. It's not itself poor health.
But still, just because there's a statistical relationship between being overweight and poor health at a population level that doesn't mean it's universally true for individuals. To think that population level relationships and correlations hold true for individuals is a logical or inferential fallacy. At this point I can either call on Wikipedia or Monty Python.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Presumably this census data only measures cycling as transport rather than cycling for recreation ?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Good question!
Posted 11 years ago # -
Well certainly I do not show up on the census data as a "cyclist" because IIRC the question was something along the lines of "What is your main mode of transport to work?" and I said train, because the bike is just something I hop on for a few minutes at each end.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Some nice graphical representations here - showing Edinburgh broken down by wards
http://celiamac58.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/census-statistics-on-method-of-travel.html
Posted 11 years ago # -
Most striking thing is that in most wards there are more people travelling by bike than as passenger in cars!
And obviously the large number of single occupancy cars taking a disproportionate 'share' of roadspace...
Posted 11 years ago # -
@Charterhall, indeed leisure/sport cycling is not counted. Then neither is leisure/sport driving, motorbiking, rail travel or walking. The Transport Scotland stats do include questions about walking for 'pleasure/fitness'.
Looking at the stats overall, it is not difficult to draw the conclusion that much rush hour congestion has been exacerbated by a rise in single occupant private motor vehicles. Car sharing, ie. taking a passenger, is down significantly.
Surely government policy ought to be doing something to reduce such wasteful use of road space rather than increasing road capacity?
Posted 11 years ago # -
More number crunching on cycling modal share from census stats:
- Glasgow's cycle commuters form 11.83% of the Scottish total, broadly in line with the city's population share of 11.27%.
- Aberdeen does surprisingly well, with 6.03% of Scotland's cycle commuters versus a 4.15% population share.
- Dundee could do better, with 2.35% of Scotland's cycle commuters versus a 2.95% population share.
- As stated earlier, Edinburgh is the joker in the pack, with 28.34% of Scotland's cycle commuters from a 9.32% population share.Cycle commuters in the four cities combined form 48.55% of the Scottish total, despite being home to just 27.69% of the Scottish population. Most of that is the Edinburgh effect, with a wee bit of help from Aberdeen.
I would break down other towns and cities above 30,000 population but it becomes more difficult to find the data as the administrative areas are not necessarily congruent with what may be regarded as the settlement boundaries (I'm aware that many Glaswegians would argue that's the case with their city too).
Posted 11 years ago # -
Re. all the single-occupancy cars, that confirms what the spokes traffic counts have shown, with remarkably consistent figures over the years.
Celia's data is also interesting in that it shows that much of the non-single-occupancy is child travel to school (as one might expect) - and if one excludes that then the single occupancy is much higher. Our Spokes count obviously does not distinguish between the two, which is presumably why our single-occupancy figure of around 78% looks part way between the level's in Celia's two graphs.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Posted 11 years ago #
-
From link -
"
These census figures should be a wake up call for the Scottish Government. It’s plans to increase cycling up to now appear to amount to no more than wishing and hoping, which is only really effective in fairy tales. It’s time to take real steps towards the changes we need to make Scotland a truly cycle-friendly country"
Or give up. SG already saying 'aspiration' rather than target.
Or make a big deal of it in Referendum year?
Easier for people wanting independence - 'for a new country'.
Though if there is a Yes vote it would also need a Government not run by the SNP (judging by current policies).
So on that basis it's easy to vote No as (cycling) things unlikely to get worse!
The census figures clearly show that Edinburgh is 'above average'.
So perhaps just campaign harder here and (if it works) hope that other parts of Scotland will want to copy.
Though I think it must be clear that it's not just about 'better cycling facilities' - really needs a roll-back on 'priority for private motoring'.
Well that's not going to happen in an "oil rich country"...
Posted 11 years ago # -
Aargh - how did that apostrofly sneak in to the POP post? I'd have expected SRD to pick it up if no-one else. Now fixed.
Posted 11 years ago # -
you don't think I read stuff you write do you?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Or make a big deal of it in Referendum year?
...
Though if there is a Yes vote it would also need a Government not run by the SNP (judging by current policies).
So on that basis it's easy to vote No as (cycling) things unlikely to get worse!
As discussed previously...
I'm determined to use the referendum to signal my lack of confidence in the SNP in the same way that I voted for them in both the last two Holyrood elections to kick the other parties aboot the heid a bit (and also, I admit, in the hopes that they wouldn't be as bad as they've turned out to be).
I can understand the argument that we should vote for indy even if strongly opposed to the SNP's policies because eventually other people may govern new Scotland, but personally I think a Yes vote would just entrench the SNP and potentially we'll end up committed to these huge non-active transport spends and other crap regardless of who wins far-future elections.
Better safe than sorry for me.
Posted 11 years ago # -
The census figures clearly show that Edinburgh is 'above average'.
So perhaps just campaign harder here and (if it works) hope that other parts of Scotland will want to copy.
Though I think it must be clear that it's not just about 'better cycling facilities' - really needs a roll-back on 'priority for private motoring'.
As the saying goes, "all politics is local". Easier and likely more effective to press foreward where there is some momentum for change (however short it may fall of 'our' aspirations) than to bang heads against a brick wall at national level.
I can understand the argument that we should vote for indy even if strongly opposed to the SNP's policies because eventually other people may govern new Scotland, but personally I think a Yes vote would just entrench the SNP and potentially we'll end up committed to these huge non-active transport spends and other crap regardless of who wins far-future elections.
Why this would be any different following a No vote is a mystery. Seems increasingly likely there will be another Conservative government in Westminster from 2015, possibly with a majority (ie. no Lib Dem fig leaf). Even if there is a Lib/Lab coalition in London and something similar in Edinburgh from 2016, Holyrood's track record on cycling infrastructure investment is not exactly world beating, whichever party has been in power.
Under Labour/Lib Dems the priorities were heavy rail (GARL/EARL, Borders rail), Edinburgh trams, and completing M74. Arguably the SNP have been worse for cycling/active travel, and for rail investment. However it's not clear what would have actually happened with Labour in power from 2007 instead of the SNP. Probably not that much different. Bridge tolls might have stayed, more investment in central belt rather than north east. Otherwise I reckon it would have been quite similar.
If the Conservatives are in Downing Street after 2015, we'll be staring another referendum in the face, on leaving the EU. Maybe that's what you want, Dave, but I'd rather be shot of the increasingly rabid right wing tone of Westminster politics. An independent Scotland is currently the only realistic way out of that scenario, for those living in Scotland at least.
Frankly to vote either way in September's referendum on Scottish independence based on the active travel policies (or lack of) from the main parties is, in my opinion, ludicrous. You can barely get a cigarette paper between the manifesto commitments on transport of SNP versus the unionist parties (Labour, Lib Dem, Conservative). The only party with significant manifesto commitments to active travel is the Scottish Green Party. The party is backing Scottish independence.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Oh, and if anyone wishes to check what the Scottish parties said in their manifestos for the 2011 Holyrood elections about transport policy (or anything else) you can compare pledges here:
http://www.comparetheparties.co.uk/
Specifically the cycling agenda:
Posted 11 years ago # -
Re: 2007 election, if Labour had been the largest party instead of the SNP here is a taste of how transport policies would have differed, in the 2007 election manifesto.
Scarcely any different to what the SNP minority government prioritised. A very small, "business as usual" mention for active travel.
Posted 11 years ago # -
So. essentially my point is that whatever your decision on the vote in the referendum next September, there is little reason to base it on the transport policies of the four largest parties at Holyrood.
Their current and recent policies are all very similar, what differences exist are largely nuances or omissions*. So there is no real choice being provided to the electorate on transport by any of those parties. That can be argued either as a failure of politcs, or if you take the 'majority rule' view, it is a success: this is consensus politics. Unfortunately for 'us' that consensus seems to largely ignore any significant investment in active travel. A few warm words and some baubees is all 'we' will get as long as the four mainstream parties hold the balance of power.
* - I am excluding local exceptions such as the policies being pursued by City of Edinburgh Council, where a slightly more progressive consensus on transport priorities has emerged.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Generally when I have to defend using cycling to determine my vote I fall back on some combination of:
- it's my main risk of mortality for several decades to come
- it's my wife's main risk of mortality for several decades to come
- I spend at least 8 but as much as 20 hours a week doing it, more than any other single activity.
- I depend on it for work, in the sense that my commute would be intolerable by car and I'd need to find another job
- and so on...However, your argument that there's actually no way to differentiate between the parties in terms of a cycling vote does cut through that.
Let's suppose that no party offers a different policy at all on cycling, they are literally the same. In order to express my democratic anxieties to the party in power, I'm left with opposing all the incumbent party's policies (and telling them cycling is the reason why), much as opposition parties oppose all policies on principal.
Which does bring us back to 'No', I'm afraid.
Is there a more effective way than this which I'm missing? Voting in support of their policies but telling them I'm really quite miffed?
Posted 11 years ago # -
I can sympathise with frustration with mainstream politics, and agree on the importance of using the democratic process to register dissatisfaction, where possible. I just don't believe that voting no in a referendum to decide whether Scotland should be independent sends any signals about transport policies or cycling. It certainly does not say 'a plague on all your houses' because it takes sides on the constitutional issue. So I struggle to see the logic of using the referendum for a protest vote on the issue of active travel.
Unfortunately the reality appears to be that the interests of cyclists are not well represented by mainstream political parties in Scotland and across the UK, even those that count cyclists among their elected representatives. It's rather chicken and egg: cyclists are a tiny minority so most politicians see no electoral reason to prioritise policies to benefit cycling; Transport policies that are not beneficial to cycling tend to discourage bicycles as transportation, hence cyclists are a tiny minority...
Personally I can see a lot of potential for campaigning locally to improve cycling facilities, but it will take years, probably decades before we get anywhere near to the infrastructure that some of our European neighbours have put in place. In the meantime for those who choose to continue cycling there is no option but to deal with the infrastructure we do have. Either that or brush up on Dutch, Danish or German and emigrate.
Posted 11 years ago # -
There's nothing at all in any national poll to suggest that there's likely to be a conservative majority government at the next election.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Even if there was: who is the politician doing far and away the most for cycling in the UK (however much prodding Stop Killing Cyclists are having to do)? A Tory...
Talking wider politics I find almost everything about the Tories distasteful but in the long term, it seems our best shot might be everyone following a Tory-led London and potentially having a new Tory leader who, though buffoon-like, might be prevailed on to offer more than token scraps to we two-wheelers.
Certainly can't make a worse job of things than Keith "casualties at a ten year high" Brown and the SNP, I suspect?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Well, Boris is clever, a calculating politician. I didn't really understand him until I read Paxman's summary of him in The Political Animal. It also has a fascinating factoid about the high proportion of prime ministers whose fathers died when they were young. but Boris' dad is still alive so his chances of being PM are zero.
Anyway, Boris gets it. Not the cycling, the politics of it. The need to appeal to various constituencies enough to be seen as supportive but really he doesn't give a crap. About anything other than Boris.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Even if there was: who is the politician doing far and away the most for cycling in the UK (however much prodding Stop Killing Cyclists are having to do)? A Tory..
If you believe that, then you'll also believe that the SNP masterminded the Borders railway, the Edinburgh trams and the Forth resilience crossing. The reality is that even the hire bikes that have been colloquially named after Boris were initiated under Red Ken's mayorship. Also arguably one of the drivers of increased cycling in central London was the removal of much of the motor traffic thanks to the Congestion Charge zone, implemented again by Ken Livingstone.
What Boris did do was to get his old school chums at Barclays to sponsor all the cycling initiatives. Then when cyclists are killed using the new so-called 'cycle superhighways' (Barclays blue unsegregated paint) Boris resorted to victim blaming instead of dealing with the real problem, HGVs.
Talking wider politics I find almost everything about the Tories distasteful but in the long term, it seems our best shot might be everyone following a Tory-led London and potentially having a new Tory leader who, though buffoon-like, might be prevailed on to offer more than token scraps to we two-wheelers.
I can't quite tell whether you are serious or if this is just a calculated wind-up. Anyway suffice to say my position is diametrically opposed to the one you have just put forward. Given London's vast transport budget, TfL have done remarkably little foir cyclists. Despite this what they have done has been hyped to the skies, partly because it suits Barclays and Boris, and partly because most of the UK media is based in London and has a myopic, metropolitan view on things. That's not to say that the London Assembly, Boris and TfL shouldn't take credit for what they have done, it's just the recognition they have been given is rather out of proportion to what has actually been achieved.
Indeed in relative terms, Edinburgh is spending more on cycling than London (5% of the transport budget as opposed to 2% in London). I think that given the compact nature of our city that we ought to be looking at similarly sized cities in Europe rather than London, which is on a different scale.
As for the referendum, if you support the Conservatives then I suppose it is natural that you will arguing for a no vote,but please don't try and make out your choice is based on transport policy: the facts don't support that line.
Posted 11 years ago # -
There's nothing at all in any national poll to suggest that there's likely to be a conservative majority government at the next election.
That's what they said in 1992 as well. Neil Kinnock was a very disappointed man when the opinion polls* turned out to be lying.
* - well it was apparently the Tory voters who were lying to the pollsters about how they intended to vote, but you get the drift.
Posted 11 years ago # -
There's nothing at all in any national poll to suggest that there's likely to be a conservative majority government at the next election.
At the minute no, but economic trends seem to be in their favour at the minute, and if they continue to be then they will be able to say "see, told you, it's working, here's some tax give-away bribery to keep you on side".
That's what they said in 1992 as well. Neil Kinnock was a very disappointed man when the opinion polls* turned out to be lying.
Neil Kinnock could never ever have been PM, the Labour party were obviously too slow to recognise that.
On the earlier referendum exchange, i can't understand either why you would use that to 'punish' a political party? For me that question is nothing to do 'party' politics.
I'm quite looking forward to the first Scottish Tory govt in 2030... ;-)
My earlier comments about diet, no I don't actually have a diet issue, no need for professional help. I just went through a 10 year period in life where work and caring was all I did. Wasn't really any time for food, was pretty crap at the time, but hey, some folks are dealt much tougher breaks than I was, you just get on with it. :-)
I eat 'properly' now, mostly, I just need to sort the snacking...
Posted 11 years ago # -
"I'm quite looking forward to the first Scottish Tory govt in 2030"
Don't know about the timescale, but it's probably more likely in an independent Scotland.
If the vote is yes, the SNP will inevitably evolve and be less of the 'single issue coalition' that it is today. Some people expect a "split" but I think it's more likely that would-be politicians (and voters) will look at other parties - inc the Tories, and maybe some new ones -
The Borgen legacy...
Posted 11 years ago # -
"I eat 'properly' now, mostly, I just need to sort the snacking..."
Well you can't cut out CAKE!
Posted 11 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
