Pointless news story

[eddiemee]

Has anyone else seen this article about the potential health risks of cycling on the BBC?

It struck as a pointless article. Starting with the catchy headline suggesting some sinister hidden danger of cycling it goes on to point out all of the weak and inconclusive evidence for and against the risks of respiratory problems due to cycling in areas with dense traffic. I'm a scientist and I fully appreciate that such research is regularly inconclusive and that different studies may give different results due to subtle differences in the way the data are collected, or simply random background noise.

But in that case why bother to post a story where the implicit message (from the headline) is that cycling is bad for your health?

Just my tuppence worth.

 

[BenM]

Oh noes!!1!!1111! Cycling is even moar dangerous!!!11!! Will noeones thinkof the children?!1!!!1!!!!!!

So now we need full respiration systems, motorcycle style helmets, luminous clothing and segregated lanes to protect us from the great god Car. I am surprised not to see an article saying how easy it is to get gravel rash and to suggest that cyclists wear Kevlar armour for the daily commute also.

One day someone will ban bikes to save us from the motons... I guess we should be grateful!

B.

 

[HJ]

Two things stand out in that piece:

1) hard evidence on the impact of air pollution on the health of the general population is inconclusive.

Some studies have reported a decline in lung function with airway inflammation, whilst others highlight a very weak tenuous link between air pollution and any effects on the respiratory system.

2) Monitoring air quality in the UK has not been given enough publicity or funding. As a result, often cyclists do not fully appreciate what risks they are imposing upon themselves by cycling in areas where air quality is sub optimal.

The article refers to no new data, so why is this old story being recirculated? Then the second line of 2) is also informative, why just cyclist? Why not all of us? There is plenty of evidence that show that the fit are the most health, and at least risk. The highest risk groups are the very young, the elderly and the sedentary.

It shouldn't be about giving people "informed choices when it comes to deciding what measures they can adopt to protect themselves against air pollution". It should be about, how do we achieving reductions in pollutant levels. In order to do that not only do we have to monitor air quality, but actual follow that up and take steps to reduce pollutant levels. That is the bit of Government which is seriously missing at the present time.

For the record, I have worked on air pollution as a Scientific Officer at CEH, it was some time ago, but I still know a lot of people working in this field.

 

[Davidc]

It's rubbish.

There are pollutants, and cyclists who are sensitive to them can be affected.

It has been shown by a number of different studies that the exposure to pollutants is very much higher inside a car. The figures are, if I remember correctly, always a factor of 5 or more, reduced to 2 or more for cars with so-called pollen filters.

The masks sold for cyclists (as shown in the picture accompanying the article) may also increase exposure for cyclists. I never did understand why though.

 

[Blackandblue]

I stopped reading after this point:

"It has been postulated that because cyclists breathe more deeply during the physical exertion of cycling, that they can inhale up to five times more particulates than either car users or those travelling on public transport. On the other hand, it has also been suggested that passengers travelling in cars or buses are more at risk of being exposed to higher levels of air pollution than cyclists, as they are sitting in an environment of limited circulating ventilation."

I also agree with HJ - why on earth target cyclists? This is an issue for anybody breathing in this polluted air in our cities. The solution isn't to stop breathing it in, it must surely be to improve the quality of air that we breathe.

 

[Sheffield_Tiger]

What a long winded round-the-houses way of saying something

"in the cycling community, there are many ongoing discussions on different cycling web sites that suggest ways to minimise risk. These include finding alternative routes away from high density commuter traffic and major public transport routes, avoiding congested roads and utilising cycle paths and tracks and finding routes that offer some shielding from air pollution - eg trees."

=

"a cyclist passed me while I was stuck in a queue and it's not fair - GET OFF THE ROAD"

 

[Davidc]

To 'state the bl*****g obvious', if the principle of polluter pays was applied to motor vehicles, and the cost of all ill health, death and damage(RTA, respiratory disease and deaths, increased obesity, damageto the built environment, CO2 etc.) was included, then no-one would be using them and there would be no more pollution from them.

Bring back the horse!

 

[Mad at urage]

Well, others have said it above, but it bears repeating:


"It has been postulated that because cyclists breathe more deeply during the physical exertion of cycling, that they can inhale up to five times more particulates than either car users or those travelling on public transport."

The first four words say it all - someone said it might be true (potentially down the pub whilst wondering what to do with the data collected ).


"On the other hand, it has also been suggested that passengers travelling in cars or buses are more at risk of being exposed to higher levels of air pollution than cyclists, as they are sitting in an environment of limited circulating ventilation."

It has been more than suggested, this has been proved by measuring the air quality inside and outside of cars and buses traveling in congested areas. Carshalton springs to my memory of one such study (people working at the hospital there, a comparative study on the exposure of those walking, cycling and driving, but I forget the detail). "It has been suggested" is a means of putting this on the same level as the previous paragraph, whilst putting it afterward means fewer BBC readers will absorb the message (which contradicts the headline ).


"Despite the contradictions, cyclists need to be informed of the potential risks."

Well, of course we do, but so do the motorists and bus riders who need to be told "You are more at risk from the air pollutants in the area than that cyclist who is overtaking you". Pity the Beeb don't choose to do that though.


"It is not unusual for health promotion messages to face contradictions and ambiguities when promoting one measure to benefit health - daily cycling - while potentially increasing the risk of an adverse effect - increased exposure to air pollution."

Increased as opposed to what? As opposed to not traveling through a polluted area yes; As opposed to driving or taking a bus through the same area? No, cyclists are less exposed than these poor souls (less exposed in fact than walkers, as cyclists pass through the polluted areas more quickly, to ride in the green parkland ).

Pity the BBC can't afford educated journalists (or a spell-checker).

 

[Andy84]

They also seem to gave missed the bigger picture, in that if more people cycled, then there would be less pollution on the first place!

 

[Moodyman]

Let's not dismiss the article because it says something we don't want to hear.

Most people breathe through their noses, which filter out many pollutants.

When cycling or cycling hard, we tend to breathe deeper and through our mouths. This takes far more pollutants into our bodies than the general population. It also takes the pollutants deeper into our bodies due to the harder breathing.

Having said that, the overall health gains of cycling outweight the effects of this additional pollution.

 

[Jezston]

Hooray they accepted my comment, and deleted the inevitable derp derp red lights derp derp road tax comment I reported.

 

[david1701]

Bring back the horse!

clearly never ridden through horse shoot with no mudguards and your mouth open

 

[Browser]

I'm OK, my commute's mostly rural, apart from approx 2 miles along the A47, so all I've got to worry about is inhaling/ingesting the local fauna in the summer months, falling off and breaking a bone or three because of the proliferation of potholes & broken road surface, slipping off on mud dropped from agricultural vehicles, being flattened by a Portugese HGV driver who's gone 40 hours without sleep to get to Spalding in time to deliver his load of frech produce and skin cancer when it's sunny.

 

[BrumJim]

A badly written and pointless non-news story.

Writer:
"I'm worried about pollution and cyclists. I have no data to support this worry. I'm worried about the lack of data."
Sub-ed:
"I need to add a picture. How about a cyclist wearing a mask, who is therefore clearly worried about pollution."

This is school level quality. As in '70s school before pupils were taught to think for themselves.

 

[fossyant]

I am surprised not to see an article saying how easy it is to get gravel rash and to suggest that cyclists wear Kevlar armour for the daily commute also.

Hee hee, there is an article in Cycling Weekly this week about gravel rash.

TBH it's more about looking after it - shows a couple of gory pics of big holes in someone's arm after he didn't clean it up.

Oh, back to topic.............