Motorists hate us because they look out of their box and see our fantastic legs,its that simple.
I'm struggling to understand why there is even any debate about this.
Stop start driving is problem caused by drivers of motor vehicles collectively not driving progressively.
My old Volvo did 19 to the gallon driving it how I liked, in town and I did a prolonged experiment of accelerating very steadily, coasting where possible and anticipating when I'd need to brake so I'd coast rather than brake and therfore not accelerate as much to get back up to 30mph and I got the fuel efficiency up to about 25mpg average town driving.
Granted its a big engine but it's a huge percentage saving in fuel efficiency.
The conclusion is clear, cyclists don't cause drivers of motorised vehicles to emit more pollution, drivers of motorised vehicles who don't or won't drive progressively, don't use anticipation or use their gearboxes inefficiently cause more pollution.
Stop start driving is problem caused by drivers of motor vehicles collectively not driving progressively.
& I agree to a large extent. The amount of times I have to actually stop at a roundabout cos the divvy in front doesn't/can't read the road is unbelievable. It's not hard is it? Watch the roundabout & see who's doing what FFS!
It all mounts up.
If he drives for 10mins the car will be running rich as its not warmed up fully , so maybe 20mpg average.
10 min drive is probably 4 - 5 miles given the locality and time of day .
Why does he not buy an E-bike ? His commute would be almost identical in time.
Ah, now, you're assuming he has some desire to change his commuting ways.. I believe the only desire he has is for the pesky cyclists to get out of HIS WAY.
What if we all commuted by skateboarding? Would the extra calories needed from potatoes plus the added strain on the NHS mean it would be worse than driving ten miles in a steam engine?
Would the extra calories needed from potatoes
I thought we were not allowed to eat potatoes these days because they were too complicated, or was it because they were clever can't remember. Do potatoes have feelings?
Ah, now, you’re assuming he has some desire to change his commuting ways.. I believe the only desire he has is for the pesky cyclists to get out of HIS WAY.
Exactly, the environmental thing is just a smokescreen (probably caused by accelerating around cyclists...). Just like when people say they want cyclists off the roads, or to have to wear hi-viz all the time, or not be allowed on main roads, or be forced to ride no more than 3cm from the kerb. They'll say "I've nothing against cyclists, I just want them to be safer" and yet they never petition for new kerb-protected cycle lanes or 5 yearly retests or tougher penalties for bad drivers, in fact they'd probably petition AGAINST all those things that actually would make the roads safer.
Anyone who's so concerned about his or her environmental footprint that they're moaning online about having accelerate around a cyclist shouldn't be driving a car anyway. If he likes driving his car and just doesn't want to slow down for 5 seconds when he meets a cyclist then he should be brave enough to just say that, not pretend that he's an ecowarrior trying to save the planet.
Potatoes have feelings but they are going through counselling, they are unsure whether they are simple or complicated.
Don't ask them, or you may trigger an existential crisis..
Long story short, if you eat enough meat the extra calories burned by biking can lead to similar emissions as driving a car with good fuel economy
https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/blog/climate-impacts-biking-vs-driving
Seems to have a fair bit of similar information to that of TINAS. You could say you're a vegan....
Meanwhike back in normal land
65glkm for average diet cyclist.
300g/km for average car
Yes if you take the outliars it's closer but I also still saw no consideration for assembly and transport of either vehicle to end user and energy to recycle
He mentions land use to make the journey but perhaps we should also consider land use to store our vehicles when not in use
Why does he not buy an E-bike ? His commute would be almost identical in time.
For the same reason a lot of people don't cycle. They don't feel safe on the roads and they don't want to get pissing wet and cold for 6 months of the year.
they don’t want to get pissing wet and cold for 6 months of the year.
but they won't. Maybe wet 10-15 times a year and cold for twice that.
Change scares people, difference scares people.
I often stop for a wee in the same layby - i must have killed lots of the environment!
& May I suggest Dez changes his commute to the same route as the twonk? 🙂
@aP - true. There was a "wet" summer about five years ago. I commuted by bike just about every day (it was at a different job and only 8Km each way) and only got wet twice. Sometimes I was lucky and I'd get to work, walk in the door and by the time I was at my desk it was chucking it down or there'd be a few spots just as I was getting home, but generally it seems that commuting times are fairly dry.
The thing about feeling safe on the roads is ironic really - those using the safety excuse are usually the ones causing the problem in the first place!
All I know is Steve goes to Wickes alot and he drives 200 miles to ride a bike. Nothing else went in.
Wickes is on my way home from 90% of the places i ride ... and it sells amongst other things tubeless tape until 8pm conveniently along side plaster, cement and other things I can't cycle with.
Of course because I stop I just made a 99 mile journey and a 1 mile journey... thus adding to the stats of most journeys being short.
The whole argument seems to be based on combining different factoids of typical journey, average speed etc. without referencing the what.
Based on many of the posts here asking about various places to ride, vans and cycle racks plenty of people on STW are driving to cycle. Based on the car parks at pretty much any cycle event it's pretty much widespread,
The point is the "most journey's are" is whatever someone wants it to be to prove whatever point.
Extensive research carried out by e-car companies will define a journey how it suits them... pro-only cycle how it suits them.
You/they/anyone can extend how we measure journey's and combine with with some "average" speed for "commute" that includes walking or bus.... just to distort statistics even further but that is all it is doing distorting facts against some undefined and not mentioned way to measure the "environmental cost".
This week I'll instigate many short journeys by vehicles (more than usual but so will many here)
That courier van will probably drive 200m from the last pickup... of many they are making. Say a courier makes 100 stops and the average journey between each one is 1km that's a huge distortion to the stats as applied to "they could have cycled" or "it could be electric".
Assuming 5 as a sort of average then 1000 calories per kg. So eating chocolate as fuel is environmentally better, presumably because its energy dense and easy to transport.
Exactly, just the sort of blinkered thinking...
Do we ignore forget the environmental damage done in cutting down forests to plant cocoa... transporting it across continents etc. ? It's not happening on my ride??
maybe, but you’ve cherry-picked parts of the equation that suit & totally left out others. What about the pollution associated with the other infrastructure needed to make it go? The potatoes eaten by service mechanics, MOT testers, recovery guys, highway repair guys, parking wardens? The pollution cost of highway repairs themselves, all the big trucks they use etc? Car washes, how much water is wasted washing cars? Why only class pollution as co2 emissions, they are not what’s killing people living in cities? Do you think all the people commuting by car never cause traffic jams and sit there (cumulatively) for hours and hours with the engine running going nowhere? Do bike riders emit pollution when just sat waiting? Why focus on the extra co2 of cyclists’ diets but not motorists? Does it not generally follow that a keen cyclist probably has a better diet than your average sedentary person & probably actually eats less despite all the exercise?Then no, they were all googled except where I stated an assumption.
Ah, now, you’re assuming he has some desire to change his commuting ways.. I believe the only desire he has is for the pesky cyclists to get out of HIS WAY.
I very much doubt he has such a blinkered vision or desire.
I'd venture that what a very high percentage of commuters of all kinds desire is simply a less unpleasant commute.
Instead of trying to infer everyone should be cycling wider acceptance of alternative ways to commute are much more successful if they are partial... If instead of saying ditch the car they merely say try some different ways to commute as and when it's most pleasant.
In terms of commuting I have a very very wide experience ... and my experience is that changing your method of commuting is one of the best ways to make it less unpleasant for a time. I used to walk/ferry to work for a while, then I cycled Mon-Thur ... (Friday's I'd drive and the bikes were packed for the weekend leaving from work).... I even had a few weeks where I was cycling across a frozen bay...
I've flown on a daily basis for a while and taken trains, trams, busses and a lot of walking when possible... but sometimes my only alternative (excepting 10 hours a day on public transport) has been to drive.
However you will be here to the end of time trying to convince many people that cycling in the rain can be a pleasant activity.
maybe, but you’ve cherry-picked parts of the equation that suit & totally left out others. What about the pollution associated with the other infrastructure needed to make it go? The potatoes eaten by service mechanics, MOT testers, recovery guys, highway repair guys, parking wardens? The pollution cost of highway repairs themselves, all the big trucks they use etc? Car washes, how much water is wasted washing cars? Why only class pollution as co2 emissions, they are not what’s killing people living in cities? Do you think all the people commuting by car never cause traffic jams and sit there (cumulatively) for hours and hours with the engine running going nowhere? Do bike riders emit pollution when just sat waiting? Why focus on the extra co2 of cyclists’ diets but not motorists? Does it not generally follow that a keen cyclist probably has a better diet than your average sedentary person & probably actually eats less despite all the exercise?
I suggest you go back and look at the working out because most of that is covered.
But for the sake of completeness:
If the mechanic wasn't working on cars he'd be working on bikes so 6 vs 1/2 doz. And everyone has a job to go to, should the cyclists CO2 include an allowance for IT consultants running cycling forums? What about Singletracks carbon footprint going on all those planes to write travel features and go to press launches, do we all have to account for a portion of that?
Infrastructure - bikes need roads too, as do lories, removing cars from the road would have little impact on the need for a road past your house that a lorry could get up.
Car washes Vs bike washes, I rarely wash my bike and I wash my car even less.
Other forms of pollution - I said I wasn't counting NOx, SOx, particulates, or social damage of car use (and in my case it's not such an issue as my commute would be on a motorway).
I did mention the calories burnt driving a car, it's minimal (<10% of the total).
Does it not generally follow that a keen cyclist probably has a better diet than your average sedentary person & probably actually eats less despite all the exercise?
Well that's unsustainable, either the motorist would get morbidly obese in a few months if he had a calorie excess of 2500/day and the cyclist would be emaciated in a similar timescale. There is plenty of evidence to suggest commuter cyclists do have a lower BMI, but you have to work on an assumption that both motorist and cyclist are in a steady state (and 2-3 extra stone in weight probably only raises your daily BMR by ~500 calories, so it's only around 20% of the cyclists extra requirement and you're now having to cherry pick a skinny cyclist and a morbidly obese motorist.).
Part of my point was also that the "better diet" of the cyclist was counter intuitively leading to greater CO2 emissions. Eating potatoes (or any other veg) wasn't actually as good in emissions terms as eating chocolate. And eating only a small amount of meat each day was more than enough to offset the difference.
However you will be here to the end of time trying to convince many people that cycling in the rain can be a pleasant activity.
That's the wrong way to look at it.
Sure, it's easier to sit in a car, but that's not really the point. We shouldn't (indeed, in the future we wont' be able to) be always looking for the easy simple soft lazy solution. That is unsustainable. We need to MTFU and do the right thing, even if it means getting wet occasionally. Because let's face it, for most healthy people it's just not that big of a deal. Put a proper bloody coat on, get on with it and stop bloody whining. Being damp occasionally is not a big deal. But climate change and pollution, they ARE big deals.
& as with many of these sort of discussions, we are blaming the bike for travelling at 15mph, rather than the car for being 8’ wide.
maybe, but you’ve cherry-picked parts of the equation that suit & totally left out others. What about the pollution associated with the other infrastructure needed to make it go? The potatoes eaten by service mechanics, MOT testers, recovery guys, highway repair guys, parking wardens? The pollution cost of highway repairs themselves, all the big trucks they use etc? Car washes, how much water is wasted washing cars? Why only class pollution as co2 emissions, they are not what’s killing people living in cities? Do you think all the people commuting by car never cause traffic jams and sit there (cumulatively) for hours and hours with the engine running going nowhere? Do bike riders emit pollution when just sat waiting? Why focus on the extra co2 of cyclists’ diets but not motorists? Does it not generally follow that a keen cyclist probably has a better diet than your average sedentary person & probably actually eats less despite all the exercise?
All of these are completely valid...
The assumption overall however seems to be cycling MUST be better for the environment... but the point is that the hidden costs and what exactly we mean by "better for the environment" should be considered.
I (and presumably you and most of us here) like cycling... but most of the UK's voting population don't.
Arguments are being twisted ... and not reversible
Take the "there is no need for a car to overtake a cyclist" ... because there is no rush, they can leave earlier etc.
The reversible argument is there is no reason the cyclist can't stop and pull over .. because there is no rush, they can leave earlier etc.
There seem to be 2 reasons given (I'm open to more)
1) Cycles are not the problem because they are not a 1 tonne weapon
2) Cycling is "better for the environment" so it's special pleading your honour....
Questioning the 2nd major excuse/reason just seems to go down more blinkered thinking...
The biggest thing being overlooked is to calculate this for the effect on one car when in the specific conditions being touted (0-10mph) this is far far more likely to be multiple, even hundreds of cars braking and accelerating.
A picture is painted that all these drivers choose to drive 1-2 miles at 0-10mph every day, attend work and then drive 1-2 miles at 0-10 mph home. (and pay for parking either directly or through tax)
Quite honestly that picture sounds like BS.
Some choose to do it because their wheelchair goes in the back...
Some choose to do it because they have to carry heavy tools
Some choose to do it because this is only 1 part of their journey ...
Some choose to do it because after the arrive at work they then have to go elsewhere.
etc. etc.
I don't know the numbers and I strongly suspect no-one does... but lets at least acknowledge that that weight of cars is not only made up from people who could cycle and simply choose a miserable drive.
bikes need roads too
I beg to differ.
(see steve, short, to the point.)
OK, let's look at it like this.
I'm riding my bike to work. I'm using no fossil fuel, I'm emitting no particulates of any kind.
Twonk is driving his car. Even if his progress isn't slowed by a cyclist or 2, can he say the same thing? Does he drive at a constant speed all the way here?
That's all I've got and if you post another one of those A4 page sized posts i can only come to the conclusion that you are a bit nuts. Sorry.
That’s the wrong way to look at it.
Sure, it’s easier to sit in a car, but that’s not really the point. We shouldn’t (indeed, in the future we wont’ be able to) be always looking for the easy simple soft lazy solution. That is unsustainable. We need to MTFU and do the right thing, even if it means getting wet occasionally. Because let’s face it, for most healthy people it’s just not that big of a deal. Put a proper bloody coat on, get on with it and stop bloody whining. Being damp occasionally is not a big deal. But climate change and pollution, they ARE big deals.
I don't think there is a right or wrong way as such... but there is a voters way and others and long terms vs election cycle.
Barely bike related ... except it started off from a stolen bike post I was following a FB thread last night... about how a town centre was decimated, the shops closed etc.
Due to some FB algorithm this then served me ads for such and such likes Amazon... such and such likes Tesco (etc.)... and I couldn't help noticing the irony.
(I'll presume you see it so I won't go on)
The point really is what will voters support?
There is a HUGE difference to promising something a future government will need to solve and actually doing something today. Much as I might agree about what we SHOULD do that is not in voter terms what we CAN do.
I cycled in -35C to work... though to be fair that was probably the soft option compared to digging the car out of the snow and ice!
I actually totally agree with that and will almost always pull over as soon as it's safe/practical to do so. I would encourage all other cyclists to do the same. Usually get a cheery wave from the motorist.The reversible argument is there is no reason the cyclist can’t stop and pull over .. because there is no rush, they can leave earlier etc.
It does count though - massively. Hence congestion/pollution charging, banning ICE vehicles from city centres, etc.Other forms of pollution – I said I wasn’t counting
I actually totally agree with that and will almost always pull over as soon as it’s safe/practical to do so. I would encourage all other cyclists to do the same
Depends where it is. Narrow back roads where they don't have anywhere to pass - yes. Main A road where they just have to wait a few seconds until there's no traffic coming the other way - never.
So, pretty pointless to make such a general statement without qualification.
It does count though – massively. Hence congestion/pollution charging, banning ICE vehicles from city centres, etc. This is why I said you were cherry picking your arguments. Can you honestly not see that?
Yep ... I do see it but I'm not claiming either is more "environmentally" friendly than the others.
What I'm saying is it is way more complex and needs to be done properly and specifically, not by mashing together different stat's and factoids.
Most specifically, to use your example of banning ICE vehicles... it needs to have specific measures of what it's trying to achieve. If reducing NoX is the goal or greenhouse gases or local pollution due to lithium mining in another part of the world. (Or is it actually a balance)
OK, let’s look at it like this.
I’m riding my bike to work. I’m using no fossil fuel, I’m emitting no particulates of any kind.
That’s all I’ve got and if you post another one of those A4 page sized posts i can only come to the conclusion that you are a bit nuts. Sorry.
The short answer is that its far more complex.
You are using fossil fuels, even if the seeds are delivered to somewhere for you to grow your own food in the garden.
Particulates are only one part of the environmental impact and a local one.
Twonk is driving his car. Even if his progress isn’t slowed by a cyclist or 2, can he say the same thing? Does he drive at a constant speed all the way here?
That's irrelevant. The delta is what's relevant but not only to twonk but every driver behind twonk.
It's more complex but as you won't read it no point is explaining why.
I actually believe you're the one making it far more complex than it actually is. Which is why I tried to simplify it.
I don't see any campaigns to reduce the number of cyclists... (Well, except on a well known cycling website)
I would love to see a detailed analysis done on this subject, not just based on energy consumption but also the health impact (both physical and mental). It seems to me that the most vocal arguments come from those unwilling to share the road or show a degree of tolerance and empathy to other road users.
Some one mentioned early that all road users need the infrastructure in place which in general is true, however the damage done to that infrastructure by bikes is negligible when compared to that done by cars and particularly lorries.
It does count though – massively. Hence congestion/pollution charging, banning ICE vehicles from city centres, etc. This is why I said you were cherry picking your arguments. Can you honestly not see that?
It's the current environmental zeitgeist.
NOx and particulates are very localised problems in cities, a diesel engine on the motorway does very little damage as the pollutants disappear very quickly and there are few people around to breath it in, but still emits CO2. As I said my commute is in a petrol car, and >90% motorway, which is why I said I was discounting NOx and particulates, can you honestly not see that? I've written it at least three times now?
And...........
My point was cycling is better for the environment in CO2 terms, just not by anywhere near as much as I expected it to be despite a lot of assumptions in my calculation that made cycling good and the car particularly bad.
Lots of discussion here. Some of it quite interesting. Whichever way you look at it, I'm fairly convinced on two things, and I don't believe it is a blinkered view:
The mass of your average motor vehicle requires more energy than a cyclist, no matter how it is is driven.
And we would have a more pleasant environment if there were less cars and more bicycles.
It seems to me that the most vocal arguments come from those unwilling to share the road or show a degree of tolerance and empathy to other road users.
This is what it comes down to. Much of it appears to me, to be people attempting to absolve themselves of all responsibility for the danger they present to vulnerable road users. Some of the alternative viewpoints in this thread make perfect sense, but it works both ways, and there's a balance to be found. Preferably one that doesn't support the dangerous attitudes displayed by many. Tolerance and empathy are key, from all sides.
