high_tea wrote:I believe the point is that it depends what people do instead of cycling. If they drink corn syrup and smoke black-market rolling tobacco while driving around in old, unregistered cars it's a bad thing. If they walk instead, no harm done. Take CityCycle. I was a user for a while. When I gave it away, I walked instead. The net effect on my activity level: zero.
Yes that is all understood. And it would be foolish think that a general increase in cycling participation does not increase the total exercise time.
high_tea wrote:So the issue, if you are worried about public health, is effects on active transport uptake, which is not the same thing as cycling uptake.
No, the issue here is MHLs. That is what I am worried about. That is the topic at hand. The negative health consequences of MHLs are just one of the many reasons why MHLs should not be in place.
simonn wrote:I have never seen any evidence that a high level of utility cycling has an impact on public health other than what essentially amounts to "well, it should do."
Open your eyes mate. You wont need a measuring tape to observe the waste line differences. And there is plenty of evidence linking waistlines and health.
I am positively shocked how much time you guys spend effectively arguing that cycling is not a healthy activity.