Jan and Klodi's Party Bus - part II off topic discussion

Chuchote · 19-04-2017 11:15PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

we assumed 11am on a wednesday would be OK.
i got the hulk rage trying to buy light bulbs. what they have on the shelves vs. what the signs on the shelves indicate appears to be completely random. actually, worse, because the signs can be misleading.

though back to the bikes, my main concern would be customer support. what happens if you've a hub issue, for example? do they have staff who know how to deal with it?

I suspect the answer may be "feck, no" - I asked a couple of people how the trailer attached, and they told me to look for a yellow fellow from the department where it was selling.

But for goodness sake - it comes with its own spanner!

magicbastarder · 19-04-2017 11:18PM

Chuchote wrote: »

it comes with its own spanner!

are you referring to the fellow in yellow? (yellow fellow sounds unfortunate!)

magicbastarder · 19-04-2017 11:18PM

anyway, half the products in ikea come with a spanner.

Chuchote · 19-04-2017 11:27PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

are you referring to the fellow in yellow? (yellow fellow sounds unfortunate!)

An BuachallÃ¡n BuÃ

Oh, damn you, boardsie coders! An Buachallan Bui!

Chuchote · 20-04-2017 07:32AM

Weepsie wrote: »

And they are sh!th spanners too

The Spanner of the Sith: Revenge of the Yellow Fellow

bp_me · 20-04-2017 09:09AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

though back to the bikes, my main concern would be customer support. what happens if you've a hub issue, for example? do they have staff who know how to deal with it?

They have staff that know how to give you a new one....

tomasrojo · 20-04-2017 10:47AM

https://twitter.com/ianwalker/status/854986518905180160

Striking graph.

Commuting by bike strongly associated with lower mortality rates for heart disease and cancer. Does substantially better than walking, which is substantially better (in places anyway) than the low-activity forms of travel.

seamus · 20-04-2017 10:54AM

Looking at some of the other values; there is a suggestion there (though with low confidence) that walking may actually be *more* risky than driving or taking the bus?

Am I reading that right?

tomasrojo · 20-04-2017 10:54AM

True. Even as things stand, I think cyclists have a lower exposure to most pollutants than car occupants, despite deeper breathing, because they're not permanently located right beside a large pollutant-emitting device for every second of their journey.

tomasrojo · 20-04-2017 10:56AM

seamus wrote: »

Looking at some of the other values; there is a suggestion there (though with low confidence) that walking may actually be *more* risky than driving or taking the bus?

Am I reading that right?

The confidence interval around walking encompasses the value for non-active modes in places, which means you don't have grounds to reject the null hypothesis that the differences between the two groups are due to chance. Which is a roundabout way of saying that the rate is pretty similar.

tomasrojo · 20-04-2017 10:57AM

As Ian Walker also tweeted, he's looking forward to the Daily Mail front page about Not Cycling Gives You Cancer

tomasrojo · 20-04-2017 11:06AM

Incidentally, the non-active modes don't have confidence intervals and are all aligned on 1.0, because the hazard ratios are using the non-active modes as a reference. So it goes without saying that the non-active modes have exactly the same distributions of values as ... the non-active modes.

Chuchote · 20-04-2017 11:42AM

tomasrojo wrote: »

True. Even as things stand, I think cyclists have a lower exposure to most pollutants than car occupants, despite deeper breathing, because they're not permanently located right beside a large pollutant-emitting device for every second of their journey.

And many cyclists take quiet, more car-free roads even though these routes take them a bit out of the way.

Here's the paper referenced, if no one else has already posted it

http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/138376/7/138376.pdf

Association between active commuting and incident
cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mortality: prospective
cohort study

CramCycle · 20-04-2017 01:12PM

I presume non active are motor vehicles only? Would love to see where the raw data was taken from.
I thought the interesting correlation with walking as a main mode of commuting being that you are less likely to get cancer but if you get it, you are more likely to die.
Another point being the cancer mortality stat, surely having the no of deaths over the number of incidences would also be relevant.
That is, if you are (fill in from mode below), and you have a cancer diagnosis, the likely hood of death due to the cancer is (percentage beside)
Non Active: 26.03%
Walking: 30.07%
Cycling: 28.08%
(this is a far higher mortality rate than I would have associated with cancers as a whole)
which is the headlines the Mail will go with, what they will fail to put in is the chances of getting cancer are identical for walkers to non active (1.84%) but 25% less if you are cyclist (1.4%).

My math maybe wrong.

Interesting also to see is it correlation or causation, as in are people who cycle of a certain physical and mental state that they are simply less likely to get cancer (so a correlation, it is nothing to do with cycling, just the group who were analysed), or are the benefits of exercise reasonable but people who walk are exposed to as much pollutants as non actives or is there a clearance benefit of more intense exercise.

Chuchote · 20-04-2017 01:15PM

By definition, people who are commuting are employed, so in general (forgetting about unhappy workplaces, etc) are likely to be under less stress than people who don't have work.

CramCycle · 20-04-2017 01:50PM

Chuchote wrote: »

By definition, people who are commuting are employed, so in general (forgetting about unhappy workplaces, etc) are likely to be under less stress than people who don't have work.

That is quite a characterisation, I know plenty of people who are employed who are consistently at their wits end, and I know people who have been unemployed for awhile and seem quite relaxed. I have other friends who would be the polar opposite.

tomasrojo · 20-04-2017 02:26PM

CramCycle wrote: »

I thought the interesting correlation with walking as a main mode of commuting being that you are less likely to get cancer but if you get it, you are more likely to die.

Judging by the confidence interval, I think the data is too noisy to confirm that. The lower bound is less than 1.0

CramCycle wrote: »

Another point being the cancer mortality stat, surely having the no of deaths over the number of incidences would also be relevant.

I think hazard ratios are the rate over the rate. As in, the percentage of walkers that die of cancer divided by the percentage of inactive commuters.

CramCycle wrote: »

Interesting also to see is it correlation or causation, as in are people who cycle of a certain physical and mental state that they are simply less likely to get cancer (so a correlation, it is nothing to do with cycling, just the group who were analysed), or are the benefits of exercise reasonable but people who walk are exposed to as much pollutants as non actives or is there a clearance benefit of more intense exercise.

These types of studies can't answer that, but as Ian Walker says, this is pretty much the same type of evidence that smoking is harmful. But the researchers
did control for confounding factors, such as underlying illnesses.

I haven't read it, so take anything I say with a pinch of salt.

tomasrojo · 20-04-2017 02:31PM

Weepsie wrote: »

Does the study take into account diet, environment, smoking, drinking etc.

I believe it does. Will try to read it later.

Weepsie wrote: »

If stating that just being active reduces risk well then the study in isolation is a bit pointless other than to maybe help some people cop on to what was obvious anyway.

The effect is nothing new, but it seems to be a very good study, and the apparent beneficial effect is huge.

tomasrojo · 20-04-2017 02:35PM

Sample size over 250,000, by the way!

Chuchote · 20-04-2017 03:46PM

CramCycle wrote: »

That is quite a characterisation, I know plenty of people who are employed who are consistently at their wits end, and I know people who have been unemployed for awhile and seem quite relaxed. I have other friends who would be the polar opposite.

I probably put it badly; what I mean is that working people - whatever other stresses they have - don't have the constant acidic burn of terror about money that is life on the dole.

Jimoslimos · 20-04-2017 03:49PM

Weepsie wrote: »

Does the study take into account diet, environment, smoking, drinking etc.

Yes, it would be a poor study (and unlikely to be published anywhere, let alone the BMJ) if confounding factors weren't accounted for.

It was a prospective cohort study aswell, which is typically less susceptible to bias and confounding than a retrospective study.

Chuchote · 20-04-2017 04:24PM

Question about cameras. I got a Mobius camera (this one https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00SQUCRWA/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 ) in late 2015, and only got around to using it now. The battery appears to be shot - I can't get it to juice up. Is there any way to replace the battery in these?

Found it, yeah there is, you buy the battery from the Mobius site and it's $26 including postage.

brianomc · 20-04-2017 08:02PM

Has anyone got experience of bringing CO2 cartridges on a plane either as hand luggage or in the hold? I can't find anything on the DAA site. I could bring a micro pump but would prefer the CO2 for speed if needed.

My side-mounted pump is rattling like mad and driving me crazy so it's getting taken off the bike tonight.

brianomc · 20-04-2017 08:22PM

Weepsie wrote: »

We had a thread on this only last week. They're not allowed. They'd definitely be taken off you in hand luggage and you put them in the hold at your own risk. If they're detected i imagine the luggage can be stopped.

Thanks, I must have missed the thread.

Chuchote · 20-04-2017 09:54PM

Actually, I'd say on a study of that kind, which is of such a huge group over such a long time, it's better to keep it to the pure subjects you're studying: what effect does your transport have on your chances of getting and surviving the main killer diseases.

Later and smaller studies will factor in diet, sleep, smoking, etc.

Chuchote · 21-04-2017 06:58AM

According to the BBC report:

The way the study, published in the British Medical Journal, was carried out means it is not possible to determine a clear cause and effect.
However, the effect was still there even after adjusting the statistics to remove the effects of other potential explanations like smoking, diet or how heavy people are.

This report is clearer:

https://www.treehugger.com/bikes/british-study-finds-commuting-bike-can-cut-heart-disease-and-cancer.html

The graph shows the association between commuting mode and outcomes; the non-active base reference at the top represents commuters in cars. Those who cycled all the way to work had the best outcomes generally, although people who walked to work had significantly reduced heart disease.

The cancer reductions are calculated after adjusting for diet, smoking and body mass index, but the study notes that â€œthe risk reductions associated with active commuting are likely to be related to their contribution to overall daily physical activity, and potentially to cardiorespiratory fitness, for which the associations with lower mortality, CVD incidence, and cancer incidence are well establishedÃ¢â‚¬ The studyâ€™s key findings and recommendations:

Commuting by cycling was associated with a lower risk of all cause mortality and adverse CVD and cancer outcomes, and walking commuting was associated with lower risk of CVD incidence and mortality, in a dose dependent manner and independent of a range of confounding factors
Mixed mode commuting including a cycle component was associated with a lower risk of all cause mortality and cancer outcomes

Policies designed to affect a population level modal shift to more active modes of commuting, particularly by cycle (eg, cycle lanes, city bike hire, subsidised cycle purchase schemes, and increasing provision for cycles on public transport) may present major opportunities for the improvement of public health.

[and Treehugger comments] This is precisely why we go on the need for safe bike infrastructure, and why we need to stop scaring people off bikes. Because â€œthe findings suggest population health may be improved by policies that increase active commuting, particularly cycling, such as the creation of cycle lanes, cycle hire or purchase schemes, and better provision for cycles on public transport.Ã¢â‚¬

Chuchote · 21-04-2017 12:31PM

In other news, DNA researchers have discovered new types of white blood cells

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-04-blood-cells.html

The cells are new classes of types of white blood cells called dendritic cells and monocytes. Researchers have identified two new dendritic cell subtypes and two monocyte subtypes. They have also discovered a new dendritic cell progenitor.
Wellcome-funded researchers used a technique called single-cell genomics to analyse gene expression patterns in individual human blood cells. Previously, different types of immune cells were investigated and defined by the set of marker proteins that they express on their surface. This new technique is much more powerful and can reveal previously unrecognised and rare cell types that would be otherwise difficult to find.
Dendritic cells display molecules called antigens on their surfaces. These molecules are recognised by T cells which then mount an immune response. Monocytes are the largest type of white blood cell and can develop into macrophages that digest debris in our cells.

Read more at: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-04-blood-cells.html#jCp

Lusk_Doyle · 22-04-2017 08:14PM

Went for a spin today. While struggling up some small hills I could not get "Under the sea" by Sebastian from The Little Mermaid out of my head!

magicbastarder · 22-04-2017 09:28PM

recently, my earworms have mainly been kate bush. mainly 'cloudbusting'. i think i am better off than you.

Chuchote · 22-04-2017 09:39PM

Paris is testing out getting rid of some traffic lights:

http://www.lejdd.fr/jdd-paris/des-feux-rouges-vont-etre-supprimes-a-paris-3296324

A Paris, certaines associations accueillent plutôt bien l'initiative des écologistes. "Elle est d'autant plus légitime qu'elle prend place dans une zone 30, là où il y a une forte présence piétonne", estime Anne Faure, présidente de Rue de l'Avenir. "Je suis favorable à une telle expérimentation", déclare Jean-Paul Lechevalier (Les Droits du piéton). Côté cyclistes, Charles Maguin (Paris en selle) "salue la démarche" et considère que "la suppression des feux est favorable aux usagers du vélo".

Jan and Klodi's Party Bus - part II **off topic discussion**

Comments

Jan and Klodi's Party Bus - part II off topic discussion