I'm confused. I thought my cycle commute was a good thing. Not only for me but for the environment - like, you know, zero emissions! But I've just been reading a thread on an intranet site where some fella is convinced that cycles slowing his (and other) cars down in the morning and making them overtake, is worse for the environment than if we were all in cars going the same speed. Much of the time that speed will be 0-10mph, obviously, because we'll be queuing a lot of the time... but has he got a point? He's posted multiple times on this and is clearly a far more intelligent person than I am (if somewhat blinkered).
Are you sure he's more intelligent than you ?
He sounds like an weapons grade idiot to me.
Only if he's a bad driver and doesn't leave space thereby having to accelerate and decelerate more heavily.
Sounds like a classic diversion tactic to me.
He doesn't seem to be considering the reverse.
How good would it be if everyone cycled!
So he is travelling in an un-environmentally friendly way and blaming other people??
As trail rat said...
If everyone travelled at cycle speed in their cars,wouldn't there be less fuel used and less pollution when cars are driving at a constant speed?. I would expect less congestion as well because junctions would no longer be choke points and also there would be less problems pulling out of side streets, people wouldn't have to accelerate hard to do this, less accidents, pedestrians feeling less threatened when crossing roads, insert your improvement here, etc......
If everyone cycled, there would be zero car emissions.
Sounds like an entitlement issue, how dare people on bikes hold him up by 2 seconds a journey.
Less bikes, more cars , longer traffic jams where cars are doing precisely no miles to the gallon.
How much energy is needed to produce his car and it's fuel?
Tell him that I told him to **** off. ****.
What tosh.
I could cycle the long way (20 miles) to work quicker than I can drive the direct route of 9 miles. Therefore, cars are effectively holding me up.
Shame I'm no longer commuting and stuck in the car since getting my spine broken by a driver who just couldn't wait to turn off the road, driving straight through me.
The guy hasn't a clue. Cycling to work is way quicker than driving, especially in urban areas.
Oh and next time he complains about being late because....
Tell him he just didn't allow enough time - the calmer you are the more irate they get normally
I'd point out that if he too was on a bike, this wouldn't be an issue and there would be no emissions from him either. Add in the health benefits and everyone's a winner.
Where I commute I would agree with his argument, fast countryside roads with long blind corners and hills. The one regular roadie I see most days often has a que of a few cars waiting to overtake and when you do it has to be a quick one as there aren't many good places. I feel sorry for the poor guy getting a face full of Diesel smoke all the time! The off road route is 10x nicer to ride!
A lot of these things have been pointed out to him already - he only drives 10 minutes and isn't fit enough to cycle quickly, so cycling would impact on his family time, therefore not be worthwhile (I know, I know + how far is a 10 minute drive?!)
The "if everyone was on bikes" argument doesn't wash because it's "not feasible".
I'm certainly not engaging with the twonk. Any points I would've made have been argued down by him anyway.
Where I commute I would agree with his argument
So there we are, maybe he has a similar commute to you (it's possible) - so he's right then..??
Tell him after Brexit we wont be able to afford petrol.
That will finish him off.
Smells dramatically of "I've paid alot for my car and I'm going to use it get out my way"
Yeah, I get his point.
I mean when I drive to work and I'm queuing on the motorway I often think It would be much quicker if all those annoying cyclists got out of the way.
I was thinking about the energy use of cycling vs driving while riding home last night - I probably cycle to work about a third of the time I have to go to the office. 20 ish miles, abour 1:15 cycling, 40 mins average driving.
I've found some info on this - the calculations have cycling needing 11 Mj per 100km, walking 22 Mj/100 km and something like a Polo needing 130 Mj/100 km. The car calculation seems to assume the driver of the car doesn't consume any energy, but it's probably minimal compared to the engine.
So, cycling is 10-25 more efficient than driving in terms of energy use (depending on the car). I would have guessed at more though so I'm mildly surprised.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport
He sounds like the sort of idiot that probably insisted his kids didn't get the MMR jab. Don't waste your time.
Yesterday morning on the way to work I passed a good two miles of almost stationary traffic on a narrow road because the first car couldn't get past a cyclist. The thought about how environmentally friendly cycling is crossed my mind at the time.
Surely it would be better for the environment if the twonk in question kept his pitiful opinions to himself and stopped wasting valuable electricity on your intranet?
He sounds like the sort of idiot
Just checked his profile - he's actually a proper inventor/scientist/boffin type. I'm stunned.
Its currently school holidays, so the roads are quieter, but not massively so, I'm still queuing at roundabouts, still rarely doing the speed limit. My 20-25 minute commute* seems to return 60mpg based on the car computer. its normally around 50mpg.
Small change in input forcing quite a large output, so I can see the same happening where car/cyclist interaction happens.
In 20 years time in our utopian future we will have cyclists complaining that the occasional car causes an increase in calorie consumption.
*full explanation, I require a vehicle for work 1 or 2 days a week. We are currently having a shower put in so me and one other colleague can ride to work when we will be in the office all day. I wouldn't take the route I drive even on a road bike. There's a half off road, half country lane route I'll be taking.
inventor/scientist/boffin type
Freelance? That could just be code for unemployed
being stuck behind a cyclist on a narrow road all by yourself in a 2m wide 5-7 seater child poisoning vehicle gives people a lot of time to contemplate how impractical and inappropriate their transport choice is, although it seems few people actually do contemplate it.
Always like this image to demonstrate how much worse congestion would be if we were all that selfish
Where I commute I would agree with his argument, fast countryside roads with long blind corners and hills.
Same for me. I get to work at about 07:30 so not much other traffic. I must be wasting masses of petrol by having to drive at 15mph rather than the much more efficient 40mph for a mile. Add it all up and you get the huge issue the guy must be referring to.
Add it all up and you get the huge issue the guy must be referring to.
Don't forget to offset the savings made by the cyclists which would increase greatly if you joined them on a bike....
he only drives 10 minutes and isn’t fit enough to cycle quickly, so cycling would impact on his family time,
(Struggles to think how far I can get by car in 10 mins, seems to be the same distance I can do by bike in 15 mins or an 'unfit' fully-loaded 30 min tops including big bloody hill)
Obviously this would be different if extra-urban dual carriageway, ie if A-road or motorway seconds from your door you could do (say) ten miles in ten minutes by car, which would take much longer by bicycle.
Back on point, ask him to deduct/offset all the emissions saved by cyclists who filter alongside existing motor-traffic queues every day.
in fact don't bother. He a foo'
So, cycling is 10-25 more efficient than driving in terms of energy use (depending on the car). I would have guessed at more though so I’m mildly surprised.
I wonder how it compares once you include 'fuel' processing.
i.e I don't eat raw carrots from my garden and petrol doesn't magically appear at the forecourt. I'm guessing that most healthy foods take far more energy to cook than they contain (I couldn't set fire to a pizza to heat an oven to cook a second pizza despite it being quite unhealthy, and there's the energy involved in making and transporting flour, tomatoes, cheese).
I cycled 25 miles into work today (and plan to do the same thurs and fri) so that's 150miles/week that I would otherwise be in the car (train doesn't work for my commute). Approx 4 gallons of petrol saved a week, approximately 42 kg of CO2 saved (real world figures of about 38mpg and 2.3kgCO2 per l of petrol, not manufacturer claimed).
Now Strava tells me I burn ~2000-3000 calories per day of cycling, so about 7500 per week. Or in food terms about 10 kg of potatoes.
10kg of potatoes is about 29kg of CO2 ( https://aligningwithearth.com/ranking-foods-carbon-footprint/)
So cycling 150 miles saves ~13kg of CO2 if your vegeterian
That's not including CO2 from meat production, (which is enormous about 30kg CO2 per kg meat).
Can someone check that? It doesn't seem right that cycling to work could be almost as bad as driving? Even when taking a relatively thirsty petrol car compared to a vegetarian? About the only thing I've not accounted for is ~8 hours of BMR calories, but as the cycling comes out of free time and driving time it's not really fair to count it (if I drove home and waited for my cycling self I'm still alive for that hour).
if he is so close maybe he should get a small motorbike or moped, then he wouldn't have the overtaking issues, would himslef cause less congestion and less emissions.
Takes me about 30 minutes to cycle to the station in the morning, and in a taxi it's about 25 mins.
he only drives 10 minutes and isn’t fit enough to cycle quickly, so cycling would impact on his family time,
Point out that if he wants to spend any family time with his grand kids he should probably get doing some exercise.
he’s actually a proper inventor/scientist/boffin type
Shows the disconnect between intelligence and people's opinions on driving. There really is no reasoning with them.
It's like the tools who sit up my chuff when I'm doing 30 in a 30. Even when I roll up to the next lights behind the person who set off away from me at the last set at 35-40, they can't see it.
People just don't want to wait behind a slower vehicle, even when it makes sod all difference to their overall progress. So they overtake a bike, then seethe when the bike just catches and re-overtakes them at the next queue.
There is the assumption that all commutes are like his, or at least what he thinks his commute is like.
It is of course possible to construct a situation where someone cycling to work creates more pollution due to the slowing of motorised traffic than if the cyclists had driven. The problem with his argument is that this is an edge case and for 99% of cyclists this is not the case.
Only if he’s a bad driver and doesn’t leave space thereby having to accelerate and decelerate more heavily.
Not nessecelery, depends on the road as well. He can leave as much space as he likes but if it aint safe to pass, then it aint safe to pass is it?
My commute is 15 miles each way & there's not a cat in hells chance of me ever cycling to work on that road. It's twisty for a lot of it with double white lines to go with it. (+ no changing facilities at work & sometimes I start at 06.15) I allow 30 mins for the journey in the car even though there's very little congestion.
On certain stretches of the road I can be behind cyclists for some time before It's safe to overtake. So I can see what this bloke means but I don't think it makes as much difference as he's making out.
You think riding a bike on the road is bad. Try driving a camper van.
Even when your doing the speed limit they want past you in the most rediculous places
Shows the disconnect between intelligence and people’s opinions on driving.
Too right - academic intelligence v common bleedin' sense.
If everyone travelled at cycle speed in their cars,wouldn’t there be less fuel used and less pollution when cars are driving at a constant speed?. I would expect less congestion as well because junctions would no longer be choke points and also there would be less problems pulling out of side streets, people wouldn’t have to accelerate hard to do this, less accidents, pedestrians feeling less threatened when crossing roads, insert your improvement here, etc……
Last time this happened (due to snow) the congestion was FAR worse...
If everyone cycled, there would be zero car emissions.
But everyone can't cycle... not by a long way.
I use my car infrequently but when I do its mostly 50 miles per way and more often over 100.
I’m confused. I thought my cycle commute was a good thing. Not only for me but for the environment – like, you know, zero emissions! But I’ve just been reading a thread on an intranet site where some fella is convinced that cycles slowing his (and other) cars down in the morning and making them overtake, is worse for the environment than if we were all in cars going the same speed. Much of the time that speed will be 0-10mph, obviously, because we’ll be queuing a lot of the time… but has he got a point? He’s posted multiple times on this and is clearly a far more intelligent person than I am (if somewhat blinkered).
I don't know who this bloke is or what his commute is but I VERY rarely do 0-10mph.... for any significant time.
and is clearly a far more intelligent person than I am (if somewhat blinkered)
Straight up... who is most blinkered???
There is no simple "good" for the environment...
When I drive I usually make a point of causing the least impact I can.... if nothing else it pass the time.
I avoid any town/city driving, especially with a cold diesel... I try and maintain a constant speed and edge the MPG fractions higher... of course I don't need to drive 100 miles+ to a trail at weekend but when I do I'm conscious of minimising the impact of my choice.
Workwise I don't have options most of the time... public transport could take 6-8 hours of my day compared to 1-2 driving... I'd much rather get home and have time to get on my bike than spend that time on trains and busses.
If I take my most two frequent drives they are 1hr30 vs 5 hours or 2 hours vs 5 hours... (driving vs public transport EACH WAY) ... I'm not going to feel guilty about driving...
I don't have all the numbers but I beleive your view is blinkered... have you factored in the emissions of CO2? Have you looked at how the extra food is delivered to your place of purchase?
Last Sunday I rode fairly locally... and as I keep an eye on consumption etc. I noticed that being behind cyclists does decrease my consumption ... but quite honestly probably my emissions as well. I wasn't in any hurry at all... and I wasn't bothered being behind the cyclists but just looking at the instantaneous consumption it was lower than usual. I'm not complaining .. it was a minor thing... but my MPG dipped considerably and I'd expect my emissions shot up even more.
HOWEVER this isn't about my car and emissions is it? It's about the whole queue of cars added together.
In other words I don't think this is as clear cut as you assume.
Can someone check that? It doesn’t seem right that cycling to work could be almost as bad as driving?
We cross posted but it might no SEEM right but it doesn't mean it's wrong.
It depends on so many things anyway.... as you noted.. but also what type of emissions and WHERE those emissions are. How your food gets to your table... and how much methane you produce etc. (let alone for us meat eaters the CO2 and methane impacts of eating more meat)
Many things are counter intuitive.... because of how we perceive.
An example is caffein in coffee. Intuitively many people think there is more caffein in an expresso than a filter coffee because our perception of strong...
You can cut this many ways... it all depends how you define impact on the environment.
But everyone can’t cycle… not by a long way.
While this is true, the majority of car journeys are short, and eminently suitable for being undertaken by bicycle.
stevextc: consumption decrease = MPG increase. Which are you talking about?
I don’t think this is as clear cut as you assume.
Who assumes? The person who stated the thread asking about it? hmm. yeah, long ramble, much bollocks.
TINAS - you've not accounted for upstream emissions from extraction, processing and distribution for petrol
While this is true, the majority of car journeys are short, and eminently suitable for being undertaken by bicycle.
Possibly but again it's more complex....
My short journeys tend to be to Wickes, Supermarket or LBS or similar... Mostly I'm not carrying a 8' board back or taking in a wheel or frame... Ive actually considered the frame and wheels.... (it's a crap drive and parking is a nightmare) but decided against it. OH could cycle but then frequently has to drive during the day.... (or someone has to)and carry a classes set of books home to mark .. Neighbour opposite can hardly walk to the bus stop... her carer probably has lots of other short trips... maybe they could be made by bike or not? My Mum has a few miles to the nearest small town... and is nearly 80...
I'm not saying lots of journeys couldn't be... but there are a lot of reasons why many are not as well.
I could get delivery from Wickes or supermarket for example but is the Wickes wagon "better" ??? Probably the supermarket van is... as its doing lots of customers.
The point is I guess HOW we define that "majority of car journeys".... its easy to take a number and say 1-2 miles or 5-10 miles... but it depends how that "journey" defined...
I'm sure a lot might have "better alternatives" but not all of the alternatives are bicycles... (e.g. it might be getting shopping delivered)
You might want to read the [b]thread title[/b] again before you go wibbling on about shopping in Wickes [b]etc[/b].
I suspect what your colleague is getting at is that the repeated slowing down and speeding up creates more emissions than just driving along at a constant speed. Very true, it does.
But who is "making" his car overtake cyclists? Does the person on the bike have a gun to his head? He doesn't have to overtake anyone. Nor does anyone else in a car.
Driving smoothly is a great way to reduce emissions. Ultimately if there's cyclists about and vehicle drivers are feeling precious about the environment, they should be driving at the same speed as the cyclist and not overtake anyone. This smooth driving would create less emissions, and if everyone did it, perhaps it might also ease congestion at the usual choke points.
Its all the ****ing cars coming the other way that are the issue not the ****ing bike!!!
"Last Sunday I rode fairly locally… and as I keep an eye on consumption etc. I noticed that being behind cyclists does decrease my consumption"#
you has a MPG ometer on your bicycles .... WANT !
Who assumes? The person who stated the thread asking about it? hmm. yeah, long ramble, much bollocks.
You assume most of this persons journey and the rest of the people who are also commuting is 0-10mph.... how do you know that?
You assume cycling is somehow less environmentally polluting but in what way, under which conditions, locally or globally, NoX vs CO2 and methane?
It seems you start off with an assumption that cycling is environmentally better but don't seem to want to actually define in what ways and how... that assumption may or may not be correct but you only seem open to the factoids that support your assumption.
hmm. yeah, long ramble, much bollocks.
Yeah, long ramble... because I don't simply assume what appears on the face of it.
The real question is really do you give a shit for the environment at all or do you just want to cycle on your terms???
If the facts were all gathered and presented and proved that cycling is actually less environmentally friendly would you stop or choose to ignore them?
To be honest, I'd support you deciding you want to cycle anyway but at least having recognised the impact.
Like I say, I CHOOSE to drive 100 miles each way to trails most weekends... I try and minimise the impact but it would seem on the face of it I could cycle 10 miles each way and that would probably be better for the environment but I'll do it anyway.
TINAS – you’ve not accounted for upstream emissions from extraction, processing and distribution for petrol
I've not cooked the potato either.
But for completeness that's about 0.66kgCO2/l
So swapping 2.3 kgCO2/l for 2.96kgCO2/l gives about 54kgCO2 for150miles of car commuting.
Vs 29kg for the bike (plus an unknown amount in cooking the food)
OTOH if the bike was fueled by chocolate (~4.5gCO2/g) then the CO2 emissions drop to about 7 kgCO2. Mmmmmmmmm chocolate.
Obviously that takes no account of the health benefits of cycling, or the harm to health done by NOx and particulates or the harm to society by taking up towns and cities with cars. But interesting to see that on greenhouse gas emissions alone the bike and a healthy diet isn't that great. But 30kg/week is still almost a ton and a half of CO2 over a year.
"You assume cycling is somehow less environmentally polluting but in what way, under which conditions, locally or globally, NoX vs CO2 and methane?"
strange arguement - bike takes less energy to produce than a car. uses less energy in use than a car , emits nothing compared to a car , takes up less space than a car , doesnt leave behind the eyesore of a parked car taking up space that cannot be used for anything else.
its not simply use a bike or nothing. there is walking , theres communal transport , there are Assisted bikes , hell id even go as far as to include the humble moped in the alternatives as most of the above apply.
but simply put peoples lives have evolved to be complicated largely by choice that they cannot see any other way but the car to get around incase they make the occasional trip to wickes.
while ill never get to power with a policy of banning the car from city centers ala brugge and gent its the way forward 😉 the propultion of the vehicle isn't the problem is the vehicle its self.
You assume cycling is somehow less environmentally polluting but in what way, under which conditions, locally or globally, NoX vs CO2 and methane?
Under absolutely anyway you want to measure it. Moving 100kg of bike and rider is always going to be less polluting then moving 1500kg+ of car and driver. It's blindingly obvious to anyone who even thinks about it a little bit
Under absolutely anyway you want to measure it. Moving 100kg of bike and rider is always going to be less polluting then moving 1500kg+ of car and driver. It’s blindingly obvious to anyone who even thinks about it a little bit
Check my maths up there.
Assuming you eat only potatoes your CO2 emissions are halved.
Eat just 140g of beef a day and you're writing off 150miles a week of cycling benefit of greenhouse gas emissions.
So you calculated the CO2 cost of providing fuel for humans but not of providing fuel for cars?
Hmmm...
Right enough I'll check my maths
because people driving cars dont eat at all ,looking at the growing waist line of the general populous it seems the eat as if they were cycling anyway.
Your maths is skewed because people who ride bikes need about 2000 Cals per day and drivers need that too even though they aren't exercising
You assume most of this persons journey and the rest of the people who are also commuting is 0-10mph…. how do you know that?
It's a really well researched statistic that comes out in all the electric car threads, shortly followed by somebody claiming they drive 400 miles a day every day and that there is no way anybody does short journeys.
Also if your going to wicks that much you should probably get stuff delivered in one lot and finish building the house!
Now Strava tells me I burn ~2000-3000 calories per day of cycling, so about 7500 per week. Or in food terms about 10 kg of potatoes.
Your assumption is based on you only consuming the exact amount of calories needed to survive the rest of the time and the calorie estimate on strava being accurate. That and you buying exactly the right amount of food and wasting nothing.
The intake for a TdF stage is estimated to be between 4-6000, how much extra are you consuming when you cycle? How much comes from your regular food.
strava told me i burnt 3000 calories last night riding 11k and climbing 600m.
Definitely accurate.
ah i see edits borked again.
just to add - your average 24hour racer must fade away to nothing at the end of every race if stravas to be believed !
People who work at home are the real menace. Think how much quicker everyone could drive to work if all the buildings were flattened, and you could drive in a straight line to work. Get everyone to sleep in tents… take the tents down at 7am… anyone having a lie in, and then making me slow down and deviate around their tent, gets fined for my excess fuel used.
strava told me i burnt 3000 calories last night riding 11k and climbing 600m.
Definitely accurate.
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">Your stats may be borked, but 2500 calories in 4 hours/50miles of riding doesn't sound too optimistic.</span>
because people driving cars dont eat at all ,looking at the growing waist line of the general populous it seems the eat as if they were cycling anyway.
I considered it, but as I'm alive for the other 20 non-cycling hours and a BMR is around 150cal/hour it barely figured (I'm either driving for 1 hour and sat on the sofa for an hour, or riding for 2 each way) , say 10% of the cycling figure, 2.9kg CO2/week.
So you calculated the CO2 cost of providing fuel for humans but not of providing fuel for cars?
Hmmm…
I did, petrol converts to 2.3kg of CO2 when burnt. A further 0.66kg is emitted during it's processing, hence the total figure I used of 2.96kgCO2/l of petrol.
Your assumption is based on you only consuming the exact amount of calories needed to survive the rest of the time and the calorie estimate on strava being accurate. That and you buying exactly the right amount of food and wasting nothing.
That assumption applies to both the driver and cyclist.
And 1250 calories for 25 miles on the mountainbike, if anything I think that's probably pessimistic! This morning STRAVA said 1485, which is more usual, but on road bike days it's lower.
how much extra are you consuming when you cycle? How much comes from your regular food.
Not 10kg of extra potatoes as I'm trying to lose weight. Lets assume those 10kg of potatoes were consumed at some earlier point this year, probably absorbed fairly inefficiently and stored efficiently as fat. So it's probably a lot more than 10kg of potatoes.
For the sake of clarity, potatoes were the most calories per kg of CO2 I could find for stuff that would be considered carbs and therefore fuel. So my actual diet is probably much much worse in terms of CO2 emissions.
My conclusions was cycling halves your CO2 emissions if you only eat stuff that's good for you.
just to add – your average 24hour racer must fade away to nothing at the end of every race if stravas to be believed !
Why do you think that?
90g of carbs and hour = 360 calories. Say 50:50 carbs/stored fat burnt makes that 720/hour, total fat burnt ~1.2kg in 24h.
A bit more than I'm allowing for actually but then I'm not racing (dunno how brisk 2h commuting pace compares to 24h pace, probably not far off).
And from the OP
(if somewhat blinkered)
Let's be honest, we want cycling to be good!
inventor/scientist/boffin type
Often means - I have formed a view at an early age and this will never change... I am right and the world needs to bend to me...
Bear in mind though that a lot of people eat just as much as a cyclist would, but don't cycle. That should also be taken into account in the calculations 🙂
“You assume cycling is somehow less environmentally polluting but in what way, under which conditions, locally or globally, NoX vs CO2 and methane?”
strange arguement – bike takes less energy to produce than a car. uses less energy in use than a car , emits nothing compared to a car , takes up less space than a car , doesnt leave behind the eyesore of a parked car taking up space that cannot be used for anything else.
Energy is part of the equation ... however what is the bike made of (where and what types of pollution)? What is the expected lifetime?
A bike does emit in the same way as a car.... the engine emits CO2 and methane...
Richmtb: Under absolutely anyway you want to measure it. Moving 100kg of bike and rider is always going to be less polluting then moving 1500kg+ of car and driver. It’s blindingly obvious to anyone who even thinks about it a little bit
Why ??? It might seem obvious but is a 10 ton tram running on some clean (nuclear) electricity or hydrogen cell more polluting than a car???
its not simply use a bike or nothing. there is walking , theres communal transport , there are Assisted bikes , hell id even go as far as to include the humble moped in the alternatives as most of the above apply.
but simply put peoples lives have evolved to be complicated largely by choice that they cannot see any other way but the car to get around incase they make the occasional trip to wickes.
Agreed .... in part.
I mostly don't use the car for work... but sometimes I do.... and I won't know until last minute.
Bez: You might want to read the <span class="bbcode-strong">thread title</span> again before you go wibbling on about shopping in Wickes <span class="bbcode-strong">etc</span>.
Except I have the car anyway.... either as Mike say's in case I go to Wickes or because I sometimes need to drive to work or for the most part because I can stick bikes in it!
Mikewsmith: Also if your going to wicks that much you should probably get stuff delivered in one lot and finish building the house!
Well, that means not cycling and finishing building 😀 ... (not to mention they always pick the crap to deliver and I prefer selecting myself than getting bent joists or warped ply with the corners chipped). Most of my stops at Wickes now though are because it's right on the route back from trails to my house...
Mikewsmith: It’s a really well researched statistic that comes out in all the electric car threads, shortly followed by somebody claiming they drive 400 miles a day every day and that there is no way anybody does short journeys.
I suspect it's somewhere in-between... and strongly on how you define it.
I know plenty of people are just lazy but I'd never commute at 0-10 mph for most of the time unless work really forced me to. I've lived and worked in lots of places and from experience anywhere that most of your time is spent 0-10 in a car there are simply easier ways to travel... (let alone that usually means parking is going to be a nightmare)
I'm being a pit nit picking perhaps but also that's not the same as saying most car journeys are short distances or someone is "commuting". It's all in definitions... my friend (who Ive been messaging this morning) for example make a car short journey each morning for his commute... his wife drops him at the station, then drops off the kids at school then drives 20-30 miles to her work.
You could count his "commute/car journey" ... ? or not ... it all depends what someone is trying to prove.
Is he lazy ??? (He's a triathlete so I'd say no in terms of exercise but perhaps yes in terms of spending time with his family is more important than running to the station ?)
Anyway regardless... that doesn't mean this to other affected commuters behind Bez are driving 0-10mpf for most of the time nor take into account it's not simply the car immediately behind it's a whole queue of cars.
thisisnotaspoon:
Let’s be honest, we want cycling to be good!
That's my point and for some, regardless of how much you calculate they will ignore it... I don't know any single answer nor any complete way to measure environmental impact..just to illustrate hat is the difference in environmental impact from potato fuelled vs chocolate? How do you measure that?
I drive 200 miles to/from my preferred trails... I'm going to keep doing it. I'm being honest.
I'm not going to sanctimoniously claim its for any other reason than I like going there to cycle... if I didn't I'd have finished the bloody house by now!
molgrips: Bear in mind though that a lot of people eat just as much as a cyclist would, but don’t cycle. That should also be taken into account in the calculations
No it shouldn't (probably*) because they are going to eat that anyway... whereas the cyclist is eating extra.
*outside of commuting but I guess an exception is cycling to get your food rather than driving?
Good analysis TINAS.
As ever, the old saying "it's a bit more complicated than that" keeps popping into mind. Humans aren't particularly effiencent in turning input energy into bike powering energy - 25%? I can't be bothered to look it up, but we generate a lot of heat to create the output force.
What's the overall efficiency of a car, in terms of stored energy in the petrol/diesel being converted to kinetic energy of the car?
(let alone that usually means parking is going to be a nightmare)
The solutions are so simple! Knock down all places of work… offices, shops, factories etc… bingo… enough room for parking for EVERYONE to drive to work.
Anything that gets in the way of me driving to work, at a constant speed, in the most direct fashion, must be removed.
Humans aren’t particularly effiencent in turning input energy into bike powering energy – 25%? I can’t be bothered to look it up, but we generate a lot of heat to create the output force.
Fortunately the exercise also gives benefits to the individual, long term it may prolong life which is bad for the environment
But honestly driving a car with 1 passenger is a crap use of resources
I don’t know who this bloke is or what his commute is but I VERY rarely do 0-10mph…. for any significant time.
Get one of those driving apps that measures average speed, time stationary, time within certain speed ranges etc. I think you'll be very surprised at how bad it actually is!
My commute if I do it by car is 15 miles and involves 6 miles of motorway. Even travelling relatively early in the morning it's rare to do it in under 40 minutes, an average speed of 22.5mph. It can take over an hour.
In the morning, the motorway is always free-flowing at that time - let's call it 60mph to make the maths easy, 6 minutes so it stands to reason that the remaining 11 miles in 34 minutes involves an awful lot of very slow / stationary time even though it's all suburban A and B roads.
If I ride, it's 16 miles and I can do it in an hour. Every time. 16mph average vs 22.5mph in the car. I imagine the difference would be even less if I drove the same route as I ride (which I can't as it involves a couple of segregated / back street cycle lanes).
@mikewsmith Gut feel tells me the same, and I always feel better for bike commuting rather than driving... but I also like a solid numerical argument.
Well a 10mile commute here, 45mins and 450 starve calories each way. Food intake about the same as normal.
40 min drive option 10-15 miles
40 min tram ride
The drive will mostly be spent stop start being held up by bloody cars and traffic lights and the only real hold ups on the bike commute are cars
so do I, but this is just a load of numbers pulled out of someone’s arse to support a totally ludicrous proposition!but I also like a solid numerical argument.
A bike does emit in the same way as a car…. the engine emits CO2 and methane…
Are you talking about driverless cars?
just to illustrate hat is the difference in environmental impact from potato fuelled vs chocolate? How do you measure that?
Potatoes
770cal/kg
2.9kgco2/kg
265 calories per kg co2.
Chocolate
5000 cal/kg
Between 1.1 and 8.5 kgco2/kg depending on brand
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.
so do I, but this is just a load of numbers pulled out of someone’s arse to support a totally ludicrous proposition!
If that's referring to me. Then no, they were all googled except where I stated an assumption.
I asked did anyone want to check my working and numbers because I was as surprised as anyone that cycling was barely 50% better than a car (and a not particularly efficient car at that).
I could have use<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">d different numbers, my commute home today was an estimated 1750 calories, over a third more than I allowed for.</span>
I could have used the manufacturer figure of 100g co2/km (mine works out around 300).
If I had done that then I think cycling wouldn't come out on top? But that would be stretching the assumptions a bit far (we know Strava is probably optimistic as are car emissions in the other direction).
Here's a comparison chart of energy costs for different methods of transport:
https://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/humanpower1.html
Unless your inventor/scientist/skeptic is using an electric car then his 10 minute journeys are the worst of all
(With or without his curiously synchronised cyclist impeding progress)
Latest stats from Emissions Analytics show that the time spent in a car to cover these short distances - especially in urban areas - are not sufficient for a vehicle’s pollution control system to warm up and become fully functional.
After reviewing a number of new models last year, it found that it can take more than five minutes for pollution control systems to reach operating temperatures, thus allowing harmful nitrogen oxides (NOx) to be emitted into the air and the car's cabin.
While diesel cars have a much higher NOx output, proportionally it is petrol cars that perform worse in the first minutes of driving, the study showed.
It means that for a journey of five miles covered at an average speed of 30mph, half of the 10 minute trip would have exposed the car occupants to these higher pollution levels.
Licky for us all that most peopel mKe such short journeys by other means than car? Oh...
so do I, but this is just a load of numbers pulled out of someone’s arse to support a totally ludicrous proposition!
This, in spades!!!
But Malvern rider what if the horse rider being chased by a swimmer needs to go to Wickes to pick up a piece of plasterboard ?
But Malvern rider what if the horse rider being chased by a swimmer needs to go to Wickes to pick up a piece of plasterboard ?
What kind of horse? How frequent are these journeys? Can we call them a journey at all?
😆 @ Trail_rat!
The 1-10mph thing is because I work at the same place as the scientist twonk and so I kind of am able to assume in a blinkered way which roads he uses. Like, it's one of the bloody reasons I cycle. For my own benefit.
@Stevextc - I'd like to suggest you find a more succinct/edited/condensed way to express yourself on the forum, cos I don't know about anyone else, but I really can't be bothered to read a whole one! so I might miss I vital piece of information.
All I know is Steve goes to Wickes alot and he drives 200 miles to ride a bike. Nothing else went in.
