by frog
The Freakonomics blog not is just a quirky read but also quite often says things that if a Green frog were to say them might be dismissed as the ravings of a watermelon commie hippie, but are actually the observations of trained economists. So this week we have:
My Dutch co-author and I biked to his office this morning, with very nice new bikes he owns. I remarked on them, and he said his university gives him the right to buy a bike out of pre-tax income every three years.
Every Dutch employer can offer this triennial subsidy of $750. I thought that was quite interesting, and asked why.
The answer is that earlier the government gave employees a subsidy on commuting costs, but only if they lived at least 10 kilometers from work. He says the government realized that this was unfair to short-distance commuters and, worse still, increased incentives to live far from work and to use gasoline that generated air pollution.
Photo Credit: LeeLeFever
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare | Environment & Resource Management by frog on Fri, June 6th, 2008
Tags: BIking, cycling, economics, holland, netherlands
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Simple, effective, achievable. Inexpensive. Demonstrable benefit. Easy to gain broad political agreement. What a good idea.
Why do we never see policies like this being pursued by the greens in parliament? Why do they always burn their political capital on things that are complicated, expensive, with arguable overall demonstrable benefit, and difficult or impossible to gain political agreement to?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Great photo, and a great bike.
Shame they’re not available in NZ – the average bike shop says there is no demand. It’s chicken and egg tho: there’s no demand because there’s no product or promotion so consumers who are sick of paying $2 for petrol are not given a choice. Then there’s the nonsense about adults having to wear a helmet, giving the perception that cycling is dangerous.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I take it this is an electric assisted bike, I’d buy one if they were available for a reasonable price in NZ.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>there’s no demand because there’s no product or promotion
So import a container load and go for it.
Agreed on the helmet nonsense….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Off topic (but cycling is a sport too, so maybe BB or StephenR can answer this):
Has Jimmy Anderson (test batting average 12.15) suddenly earned such respect as a batsman from his capatain Michael Vaughan that he has been genuinely elevated to No. 9, or is Ryan Sidebottom (test batting average 15.60) now considered such a good batsman that Anderson was sent in as nightwatchman to protect him?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Anyone who has sat at the bedside of a brain injured family member, who was knocked off their bike, knows why helmets are a very good idea.
I too want a bike like that one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Absolutely agreed, the Greens need to be investing energy into things like this. There are so many initiatives that need considering – giving people money to do things which are common sense (but need a bit of encouragement), like buying a nice bike (that they’ll actually use), or insulation, energy efficiency etc., is what the Greens need to emphasise. I talk to Labour Party activists, and it doesn’t even occur to them that the Government could be doing things like this – the message needs to be out there. Get ministers to sit down, and consider the merits of a proposal like this – I’m sure they’re equally ignorant!
See Copehagenize.com for an example of the type of advocacy we need – not the ghettoised lycra wearing “cyclist” advocacy that currently predominates, but instead advocacy on people who “people” who happen to ride. It features exclusively normal people Which brings me to my second point.
Cyclehelmets.org provides an impartial look at the safety of cycle helmets – they provide a small measure of protection to the head, but on balance I’d say they are more harmful than good.
It’s a bold claim, but I think the small benefits in reduced risk of serious head injury are more than offset by the reduced number of cyclists and potential-cyclists. The countries with the highest rates of cycling have no helmet laws, and as a result it’s not a culturally different thing to do – I think it’s extremely important to consider the cultural status of wearing a helmet; they’re goofy and uncomfortable when compared to the alternative, and segregate the rider from the pedestrian. They seriously impact on the number of riders. And less riders means more risk for those who do choose to ride (as drivers are less cycle aware, there are more cars on the road). There is some very good statistical evidence that there’s safety in numbers, and the countries with the greatest numbers, and perhaps not coincidentally no helmet laws, have the fewest cycle deaths.
It also harms the health of those who don’t ride (cycling is good for your health). And finally, but certainly not unimportantly, less bikes mean more toxic fumes which injure and kill cyclists and pedestrians and everybody. We could all be a little healthier, if we had more people on bikes.
I hope the law changes, and soon. We need as many people on bikes as possible, as soon as possible, and helmets are standing in the way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
@Alexking – doesn’t look electric to me – chainguards are sadly rare these days Copenhagen Cycle Chic explains what comes standard in that part of the world, and really, what should be standard in every bike. Bikes like that are making a comeback down here (as against the tyranny of the racing bike and the mountain bike), but it will take a while!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh, and in my safety arguments, I didn’t even mention climate change – less riders means more harm to people from that source too of course. But it’s a bit abstract to link that to helmets
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
hmm, i rememeber reading some source awhile back that said when the compulsary helmets were introduced the numbers of children biking to that particular school more than halved within the week and continued to fall.
I say – as i do with most health things – let them bike without helmets if they want to, just dont expect the taxpayer to pay for the health care costs if something goes wrong. same thing goes for children at school tugshops who may later get type 2 diabetes – the government should inform, but if they choose not to head the advice, on their own neck be it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“And less riders means more risk for those who do choose to ride…”
This may well be true but it was not a sufficiently big effect to increase the number of deaths or reported injuries at any time during the 1990s whereas the popularity of sport cycling has increased reported injuries by one-third since 2000. This also supports the assertion that mountainbikers are responsible for the 200% increase in cycling ACC claims since 2000.
georgedarroch, while looking at these stats I noticed this uncanny pattern for average reported injuries:
1972-73 1025
1977-78 600
1984-85 1000
1990-91 1025
1999-00 590
2005-06 790
Trend for 2010 is 1000
I can think of absolutely nothing sensible that would explain the 1970′s reduction although the subsequent increase does coincide with the arrival of ten-speed bikes. Of course the 70′s reduction does coincide with the reduction of the open road speed limit and the compulsory seatbelt wearing law. Maybe that changed the way people drove, or the similarities between economy driving and defensive driving might explain it.
It’s more surprising that the repeat of the cycle has a longer time frame and exact opposite economic circumstances. Perhaps worthy of note these two cycles are the only time that cyclist fatalies have dipped below 20 since the end of the Great Depression and this millenium has accounted for four of the least dealiest years on record (since 1929).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ur sad
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)