6 ms·

Driving a "Green car" vs cycling

• empath75 9y ago
  > Most journeys made by motor vehicle are short enough that they could instead be made by human power. That’s heavily dependent on where you live, I think. I have a 40 minute commute to work.
  • taeric 9y ago
    The time is a misleading metric. My commute is easily in the twenty minute timeframe by car, but also only twenty minutes by bike. Not that I think this is an answer for everyone. I certainly recommend it, but as in so many things, it is no panacea.
• SirPulse 9y ago
  One big problem with cycling is riding in rain or cold weather. If only there was a canopy that I could put on my bike in a few minutes and then go out for ride, that'd be so awesome! Even something permanent would be good but then you start turning it into a car and now human power is not enough to drive this vehicle. A covered single seat vehicle that is mostly human powered with some electric assist when needed and gyro stabilization would be my dream commute vehicle
• fallingfrog 9y ago
  Ow. This article is kind of a gut punch.
• Karrot_Kream 9y ago
  Wow I'm an avid cyclist (though not by the definition of this article, since I take the subway to work and back (there's no alternative)) and I had never heard of a velomobile. That is really cool.
  • jacquesm 9y ago
    Velomobiles are pretty common on bike paths between cities but you rarely if ever see them in inner city traffic. They don't do well in dense traffic but they are super nice for longer distances.
• IgorPartola 9y ago
  No car is ever going to be as green as a bicycle. Forget cars. A motorcycle is probably the smallest powered vehicle that is street legal. Smallest one still will weigh at least 250lb. Moving just that mass alone, you’ve blown your energy budget vs a bicycle. Oh I suppose you could argue about the environmental cost of producing the extra calories consumed by the cyclist. Growing and transporting that grass fed steak after all is going to require a whole lot of energy too. And not the clean kind. But you are still already operating at such a handicap, that there is no way a motorcycle, let alone a car, could compete. On the other hand, unless the entire place is for bicycles only, what is the cost in human life for accidents caused by cycle-car interactions? Or the productivity cost for not showing up to work on rainy snowy days? I guess all you valley dwellers should probably cycle to work to save the planet for us all. We will applaud you from our AWD monstrosities here in the North East.
  • xyzzyz 9y ago
    Forget cars. A motorcycle is probably the smallest powered vehicle that is street legal. Smallest one still will weigh at least 250lb. Moving just that mass alone, you’ve blown your energy budget vs a bicycle. Electric bicycles are much lighter than 250 lb, and are definitely street legal.
    • IgorPartola 9y ago
      But that’s a bicycle.
      • xyzzyz 9y ago
        Let's call it a human assisted electric motorcycle then.
        • IgorPartola 9y ago
          I am trying to make a distinction between fully powered vehicles and not. You could also make a distinction between fully protected vehicles (two tons of steel around you in the form of a car) and not.
• sxates 9y ago
  Though I would argue with some of the author's assumptions about carbon footprints and power grid challenges, he's right that fewer cars ultimately means a better environment and less carbon. No argument with that. However... As much as I'd love to just tell everyone to ride a bike to work, or the grocery store, or to drop off their kids, or whatever, the reality is that in most cities (especially US cities) a car is a requirement. City planners assumed everyone would have one, engineers overbuilt roads for them to the detriment of walking or biking, and businesses and residential areas are often far apart from each other. In order to achieve a more efficient transportation system, we'll have to redesign and rebuild our cities, and that simply isn't a realistic short term goal. We should work on that, reset our standards, change our zoning laws, and encourage denser living spaces that are built for people instead of cars, but we have to recognize this will take decades. So in the mean time, solar panels and an electric car DO have a material impact on carbon emissions, and I'd encourage everyone to begin that migration until such time as we live in cities that don't require cars.
  • vvanders 9y ago
    +1. It's not even inside our cities, getting between our cities is a complete mess. I'm ~15mi from the nearest big(2k pop+) city. There's zero buses that run these routes. Getting to the large metro area? I'd burn 7 hours on the train for the same drive that takes me ~2.5 hours to go 150mi. When I have to travel into the office I literally can't make a day trip of it(train arrives at 12:30pm, leaves at 1pm) if I didn't use a car. Steps in the right direction is the key.
    • Karrot_Kream 9y ago
      You're already taking a huge step by not coming into the office everyday.
  • nicoburns 9y ago
    I think the emphasis on US cities is key here. I've yet to live in a european city where a car is a requirment. Agree with you on the short term however.
  • 9y ago
• csours 9y ago
  Up front: I believe that Global Climate Change is a result of human created greenhouse gasses. That being said, this article conflates two different kinds of pollution from transport. One category of pollution is immediately harmful to humans: lead, nitrous oxides (NOx), particulate, sulfur compounds, unburned and partially burned fuels, dust, carbon monoxide, and others like this. Lead causes developmental issues. Particulates, NOx, dust, and partially burned fuels cause asthma and lung irritation. Sulfur compounds (in the automotive realm, primarily from diesel fuel) cause acid rain. Partially burned fuels and NOx lead to smog. The other kind of pollution is not immediately harmful to humans: CO2. We should definitely control CO2, but we should also be very clear that these are very different things. The first category has been greatly reduced, to the point where some cars leave behind "cleaner" air than they take in (excluding CO2). Claiming that cars are just as harmful as they ever were is incredibly disingenuous.
• EngineerBetter 9y ago
  A typical article decrying EVs on the assumption that nothing will change. If every house ends up with a solar array and an equivalent of a Tesla Powerwall (other brands are available) then there won't be massive demand on the grid. You don't have to fast-charge a Leaf. You can charge it overnight. I pay for a "100% renewable" electricity tariff. Of course not all of the energy I draw is from renewables, but it is all reinvested in renewables. If people continue to adopt EVs, adopt renewable tariffs, and adopt self-generation and self-storage, everything will be fine. No, an EV is not as green as a bike. But have you ever tried getting furniture from IKEA 60 miles across country on a bike, with a baby and toddler in tow? Disclaimer: avid cyclist (6 miles a day to commute) and EV driver since 2013.
  • EngineerBetter 9y ago
    Also, countries like Norway manage to generate most of their electricity from renewables. Just because most countries don't doesn't mean it's impossible.
    • xyzzyz 9y ago
      It is, in fact, extremely hard, even in theory and more so in practice, for most countries to replace most energy use with energy from renewable sources, unless we go with nuclear energy. See e.g. [1]. With world wide effort, electrical connections spanning the globe, tropical countries selling solar power to colder regions, huge and cheap energy storage facilities, we could maybe achieve that, though I'm really rather rooting for fusion, which should be economically available in only a few decades. [1] - http://www.withouthotair.com/ http://www.withouthotair.com/
      • ZeroGravitas 9y ago
        That reference is pretty out of date now. Some people have considered updating it with more recent figures: https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2017/3/30/l6qcqgoedse1wmjjz87t09usoq6jva https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2017/3/30/l6qcqgoedse1...
• clarkbw 9y ago
  The linked article about the problems with battery storage is from 2011 and battery technology continues to change at a rapid pace that couldn’t have been predicted then. The article uses lead acid as the example of cheapest batteries that still can’t scale but science wasn’t looking to solve that st the time. I’ve see several new battery options built from simpler and more available materials. Assuming storage is viable the arguments against solar and wind don’t hold as much weight.
• partycoder 9y ago
  Even a car that produces no emissions would still pollute. How? by lifting dust on the floor, aka airborne dust or particulate matter. In cities with no street cleaning, this amounts to a large amount of pollution.
  • Franciscouzo 9y ago
    Isn't most of the dangerous dust particles a by-product of car emissions? I don't think dirt would that dangerous anyway (obviating asthma).
    • partycoder 9y ago
      Most comes from emissions, yes. But most emissions may not come from cars, that distribution depends on the city. Some cities allow wood fueled appliances, some cities allow burning trash, some cities have a strong industrial presence, some cities have coal thermal power plants, etc.
• RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
  One issue is that in the United States, bicycle fatality for mile traveled is around 3-10x worse than for cars. https://bicycleuniverse.info/bicycle-safety-almanac/ https://bicycleuniverse.info/bicycle-safety-almanac/ Given the prevalence of cars in the United States and the lack of protected bicycle lanes in many places, it is probably safer to go to where you want by car than by bike.
  • dmm 9y ago
    Cycling is dangerous because of cars striking and killing cyclists. Choosing to drive the mile to the grocery store is probably statistically safer but increasing the number of bikes on the road will make drivers more conscious of vulnerable road users.
  • Rebelgecko 9y ago
    I'm having trouble finding a source right now, but I think I read somewhere that on average the small increase in the chance of dying on your commute is offset by the health benefits of cycling
    • RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
      Maybe, but when and how you die make a big difference. The health benefits are likely to make a difference after decades of life. The risk of dying on your commute makes a more immediate impact.
    • lkbm 9y ago
      http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d4521 http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d4521 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/485349 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar... https://archive.org/details/pubmed-PMC3831097 https://archive.org/details/pubmed-PMC3831097 This is Spain, Denmark, and England, which might be safer than the US, but still some significant results. I'm also not sure if there are other studies that found the opposite--a systematic review would be nice.
  • upofadown 9y ago
• d1zzy 9y ago
  I don't know about others but the reasons why I bike to work have nothing to do with reducing carbon or being green or being healthy, it's simply that I find it a lot more fun to get to work by bike than drive. It actually takes 20 more minutes by bike (and that's without including the immediate shower and changing clothes afterwards) but I can get a nice workout, feel refreshed and full of energy and it feels nice to be fit (ex. taking stairs at work I don't gasp for air like my coworkers). I don't think people will start biking unless they like the activity but lots of people simply like to drive. The problem is that even those that like to ride (or would like) aren't being encouraged to do so. I'd rather focus on improving the biking infrastructure (make separated lanes, over and/or underpass bridges for big intersections, better public transit that allows to carry bikes on board) and improve the tax situation so I don't have to pay for car-only infrastructure even if I don't use it (car-only infrastructure costs such as building and maintaining freeways is mostly payed out of property taxes, not gas taxes). That way more people will feel safer to ride, feel like they are saving money while doing it and maybe even discover that they like it.
  • ianai 9y ago
    I wish I worked where I could shower and change there.
    • ZeroGravitas 9y ago
      Worth looking into nearby gyms that may have shower & locker-only memberships for cyclists.
    • bryanlarsen 9y ago
      Shower immediately before you leave to knock the sweat eating stink causing bacteria load down, change and wipe your pits when you get to work, and wear natural fabrics like cotton. If you do this, you should be good for 6-8 hours, which is longer than some of your car driving co-workers who aren't as careful.
  • rorykoehler 9y ago
    Same. I'm working from home atm but when I worked from an office I would use the commute for pleasure and exercise. Instead of walk & train for an hour each way I biked for 40 mins each way. Actually saves me time irregardless of commute time as if I didn't do that I would have to fit in exercise another way.
• Steltek 9y ago
  The environmental angle is only one part of the story for bikes vs cars. 1. Cars make you fat. Or at least, they certainly don't help. A bicycle (or transit) commute serves double duty as a commute and as exercise. 2. Cars are damned deadly. Drivers kill an absurd number of people for absurd reasons. You'd have to be exceptionally unlucky to be killed by a bicyclist. 3. Cars are expensive. For everyone. Even electric cars. Roads don't maintain themselves and asphalt's durability doesn't have a difference between a 1 ton Tesla and a 1 ton Ford. Also, you need a lot more asphalt to handle the same capacity. And that's just the public cost. 4. Cars are still expensive. Amortize out the up front cost, the interest, excise taxes, registration fees, repairs, fluids/filters/brakes. Even electric cars have a significant annual cost.
• vinceguidry 9y ago
  I pay a lot of money for the privilege of being able to conveniently take public transit to work. I'd blame it on Atlanta, but honestly, there is nothing any city could do to make it convenient enough for me to take transit vs. just driving a car if I didn't really want to do it. I drive my car or take an Uber for literally everything that's not going to work or walking. America is just so big and so spread out that cars are the default option. You can't compare America to Europe in this regard because European countries are each the size of one US state and have been around for centuries. Their roads and buildings and stuff just scream "bike transport". Just try to convince a significant fraction of Americans to use bikes to get around. Never going to happen. Bikes are legit dangerous in the vast majority of US urban areas. Sure the smaller European nations have great transit networks. So do the smaller and older US states.
  • tonyedgecombe 9y ago
    More than 60% of the US population lives in cities[1], 80% lives in urban areas[2]. [1] https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-33.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-33.... [2] https://www.citylab.com/equity/2012/03/us-urban-population-what-does-urban-really-mean/1589/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2012/03/us-urban-population-w... The real reason the US doesn't do public transport or cycling well is the huge car industry. The countries that are most successful at this in Europe have almost no car manufacturing.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• garyrichardson 9y ago
  Articles like this are the cyclist equivalent of pro vegan propoganda. It's all doom and gloom and tilted towards a very extremist view with no room for other views or ways of life. Cycle only or you're killing the planet. Eat only plants or you're killing the planet. How much coal is burned to make your bicycle frame? What about your tires? Were they shipped from somewhere else like China? It's not the same scale as building a car, but it's still not 0 impact. These extreme cycling articles seem to be written mostly by single men who have nothing better to do than to commute to work. I'd hate to bicycle a weeks worth of groceries home for my 3 kids and wife.
  • JoeAltmaier 9y ago
    Worse yet by far - I'd have to double my grocery bill because I'm cycling like a maniac. And groceries have the largest carbon footprint of anything you can do. Its arguably more carbon efficient to drive to work, even a few blocks, than walk or cycle and eat more. Its foolish to argue. Just use less, recycle more, and we'll have to figure out macroscopic society-level solutions to energy to get out of this alive. Recycling aluminum cans will matter zero in the long run.
    • fjsolwmv 9y ago
      A reminder of the existence of obseity, diabetes, and bicycle motors exposed the force of this argument.
• ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  So, I'm very pro-bike, and definately agree that cycling is much, much better, on many, many dimensions than driving an electric car. However, I feel this is a misleading and therefore counter-productive polemic that seeks to maximise the problems with other options, rather than rank them accurately. I can imagine the reaction of many is to throw their hands up and think "well, why even bother". The perfect is the enemy of the good and all that. As a result, they seem to have thoughtlessly repeated a bunch of propaganda put about by people who oppose even the marginal gains of switching to EVs and renewable energy. It reminds me (to get needlessly political) of people who didn't vote for Clinton because "both sides are the same". Possibly they thought saying that was an effective way to use their political sway to push things in the direction they wanted, but it appears they overestimated their leverage, and so shot themselves in the foot.