3 ms·

I don't have the time to read this report cover-to-cover but, based on the quick skim I just did, it seems to provide very little support of your claim, These a

I don't have the time to read this report cover-to-cover but, based on the quick skim I just did, it seems to provide very little support of your claim, These are just the percentages of people who don't meet the "2008 federal guidelines for both aerobic and muscle-strengthening activities during leisure-time physical activity." The report seems to say nothing about whether these people could walk or bike to work. It simply confirms the point that I've already acknowledged, which is that Americans are unfit, on average. If there's a particular passage that you have in mind, feel free to point me to it. > do you really think putting a bike lane is going is better motivation than death At the risk of taking this argument too seriously: It doesn't have to be better. It just has to be additive. And making something more convenient can be very powerful. Among other things, unlike marginally decreasing one's risk of death, something that makes your commute easier/cheaper/more enjoyable offers immediate, ascertainable benefits--unlike decreasing the risk of death, which is impossible to perceive in the moment, is highly contingent, and only mitigates a risk that is presumed to exist only far in the future. More broadly, I honestly can't understand what your position is here. Can it really be that adding bike lane has no effect on peoples's willingness to ride a bike? That just seems...obviously wrong. Of course, how big an effect a given measure might have is a different matter. And, in any case, Nobody said that just "putting in a bike lane" would get the job done on its own. Though it seems obvious that even that very modest step would help. There are--quite obviously--a lot of other levers out there. I'm no expert but, just off the top of my head we could also make it less convenient to drive and encourage development that allows people to live near where they work.

dominotw 4y ago
> Americans are so lazy and out of shape that making it easier to walk or bike would have no effect on their likelihood to do so? That just seems...obviously wrong. Of course, how big an effect it might have is a different matter. yes there was small study in Minnesota that said exactly that. https://www.lrrb.org/pdf/200550.pdf https://www.lrrb.org/pdf/200550.pdf 80% are willing to risk a life of suffering ( per cdc) to avoid physical activity. I don't see how its at all 'obvious' that putting bike lanes is going magically get them moving.
- pdabbadabba 4y ago
  > yes there was small study in Minnesota that said exactly that. https://www.lrrb.org/pdf/200550.pdf https://www.lrrb.org/pdf/200550.pdf Again, a citation to a specific passage would be helpful. But the executive summary seems to say exactly the opposite of what you claim: > Generally speaking, the results support the notion that people value bicycle facilities, in that they are willing to incur additional time costs in order to use higher quality facilities. In particular, people value having striped bike lanes. The incremental value of this improvement is much greater than the incremental value of moving the facility off-road entirely. The presence of facilities also appears to be associated with higher amounts of riding, although the precise nature of the impact is still unclear. From this research, it appears that a facility can increase the amount of riding in an area even up to one and a half miles from the ends of the facility, but it is not clear whether the effect is larger for residents that are closer than this.
  - dominotw 4y ago
    > In terms of facilities and their impact on biking frequency, this survey found only a small relationship between proximity to facilities and the likelihood of cycling, within a radius of a mile or so. > Somewhat to the chagrin of many officials excited about the prospects of using community design to induce—or even enable—physical activity, this analysis suggests an uphill battle lies ahead. Anyways, perhaps you can cite your sources behind your claims that you say are obvious. Surely public policy like building bike lanes has to have some solid data behind instead of just wishful thinking.
    - pdabbadabba 4y ago
      Honestly, I don't feel the need to provide a source to support the claim that, if you decrease the costs of doing something, more people will do it. (Though, as I said a few posts ago, that's not to make any claim about the size of the effect, or whether adding bike lanes is enough on its own to make a difference.) If you want a citation, the Minnesota study seems like it supports exactly what I am saying. > The presence of facilities also appears to be associated with higher amounts of riding, although the precise nature of the impact is still unclear. From this research, it appears that a facility can increase the amount of riding in an area even up to one and a half miles from the ends of the facility, but it is not clear whether the effect is larger for residents that are closer than this. Here are some more: * https://www.vox.com/2014/6/5/5782472/study-bike-lanes-really-do-increase-biking https://www.vox.com/2014/6/5/5782472/study-bike-lanes-really... (Haven't found the original study yet--the article's link seems to be broken. But the charts tell the story.) > But when 2,283 of the cyclists in these lanes were surveyed, 10 percent of them said they would have taken another mode of travel (i.e. car, public transit, by foot, etc.) if the lane hadn't been built. Another 1 percent said they wouldn't have taken the trip at all. * https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Bike-Lanes-and-Other-Determinants-of-Capital-Bikeshare-Trips-Buck-et-al-12-3539.pdf https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Bike-Lanes-and-... > This study finds a significant correlation between the presence of bicycle lanes and Capital Bikeshare usage, and also highlights the importance of population density and mixed-uses in encouraging ridership. * https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2024399118 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2024399118 (Studies Europeans, though I don't see any reason why incentives would work on europeans and not at all on Americans--though maybe one would expect the effect size to be somewhat smaller in proportion to Americans' lower level of fitness) > We find robust evidence for substantial short-run increases in cycling in European cities due to new provisional cycling infrastructure. It bears repeating, though, that this isn't just about bike lanes.
bluGill 4y ago
Exercise is boring. I want better bike and walking infrastructure (including places reachable from home that way) because then exercise is an incidental side effect of doing things.

dominotw 4y ago

> Americans are so lazy and out of shape that making it easier to walk or bike would have no effect on their likelihood to do so? That just seems...obviously wrong. Of course, how big an effect it might have is a different matter. yes there was small study in Minnesota that said exactly that. https://www.lrrb.org/pdf/200550.pdf https://www.lrrb.org/pdf/200550.pdf 80% are willing to risk a life of suffering ( per cdc) to avoid physical activity. I don't see how its at all 'obvious' that putting bike lanes is going magically get them moving.

pdabbadabba 4y ago
> yes there was small study in Minnesota that said exactly that. https://www.lrrb.org/pdf/200550.pdf https://www.lrrb.org/pdf/200550.pdf Again, a citation to a specific passage would be helpful. But the executive summary seems to say exactly the opposite of what you claim: > Generally speaking, the results support the notion that people value bicycle facilities, in that they are willing to incur additional time costs in order to use higher quality facilities. In particular, people value having striped bike lanes. The incremental value of this improvement is much greater than the incremental value of moving the facility off-road entirely. The presence of facilities also appears to be associated with higher amounts of riding, although the precise nature of the impact is still unclear. From this research, it appears that a facility can increase the amount of riding in an area even up to one and a half miles from the ends of the facility, but it is not clear whether the effect is larger for residents that are closer than this.
- dominotw 4y ago
  > In terms of facilities and their impact on biking frequency, this survey found only a small relationship between proximity to facilities and the likelihood of cycling, within a radius of a mile or so. > Somewhat to the chagrin of many officials excited about the prospects of using community design to induce—or even enable—physical activity, this analysis suggests an uphill battle lies ahead. Anyways, perhaps you can cite your sources behind your claims that you say are obvious. Surely public policy like building bike lanes has to have some solid data behind instead of just wishful thinking.
  - pdabbadabba 4y ago
    Honestly, I don't feel the need to provide a source to support the claim that, if you decrease the costs of doing something, more people will do it. (Though, as I said a few posts ago, that's not to make any claim about the size of the effect, or whether adding bike lanes is enough on its own to make a difference.) If you want a citation, the Minnesota study seems like it supports exactly what I am saying. > The presence of facilities also appears to be associated with higher amounts of riding, although the precise nature of the impact is still unclear. From this research, it appears that a facility can increase the amount of riding in an area even up to one and a half miles from the ends of the facility, but it is not clear whether the effect is larger for residents that are closer than this. Here are some more: * https://www.vox.com/2014/6/5/5782472/study-bike-lanes-really-do-increase-biking https://www.vox.com/2014/6/5/5782472/study-bike-lanes-really... (Haven't found the original study yet--the article's link seems to be broken. But the charts tell the story.) > But when 2,283 of the cyclists in these lanes were surveyed, 10 percent of them said they would have taken another mode of travel (i.e. car, public transit, by foot, etc.) if the lane hadn't been built. Another 1 percent said they wouldn't have taken the trip at all. * https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Bike-Lanes-and-Other-Determinants-of-Capital-Bikeshare-Trips-Buck-et-al-12-3539.pdf https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Bike-Lanes-and-... > This study finds a significant correlation between the presence of bicycle lanes and Capital Bikeshare usage, and also highlights the importance of population density and mixed-uses in encouraging ridership. * https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2024399118 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2024399118 (Studies Europeans, though I don't see any reason why incentives would work on europeans and not at all on Americans--though maybe one would expect the effect size to be somewhat smaller in proportion to Americans' lower level of fitness) > We find robust evidence for substantial short-run increases in cycling in European cities due to new provisional cycling infrastructure. It bears repeating, though, that this isn't just about bike lanes.

bluGill 4y ago

Exercise is boring. I want better bike and walking infrastructure (including places reachable from home that way) because then exercise is an incidental side effect of doing things.