5 ms·

Nice article, although I wonder why walking is considered greener than cycling. Is it because producing bicycles and bicycle infrastruce has an environmental im

Nice article, although I wonder why walking is considered greener than cycling. Is it because producing bicycles and bicycle infrastruce has an environmental impact? Regardless, once you own a bike and once bike lanes are built, there's no environmental reason not to bike instead of walk whenever you want to, right?

loloquwowndueo 3y ago
The pyramid also takes into account how “vulnerable” each mode of transportation is, in other words, who yields to whom. If you’ve ever been run over by a cyclist - it hurts. So it stands to reason that pedestrians should be prioritized and protected by users of modes towards the tip of the pyramid.
- jychang 3y ago
  Disagree, it only applies to your walking/cyclist example. I suspect getting hit by a bus will hurt a lot more than getting hit by a car.
  - loloquwowndueo 3y ago
    It’s also far less likely - fewer buses on the road and bus drivers are better trained than the millions of reckless private car owners.
throwaway22032 3y ago
Bicycles still take physical space with racks and stuff. Also, e-bikes directly use energy though they're not listed (neither are motorbikes). I agree that this is pretty trivial in terms of environmental impact, it's probably just about the friction involved, we already have legs.
- mwint 3y ago
  Friction as in mechanical friction? It’s certainly less total energy expended per mile to cover the same distance on a bike vs. legs, right?
  - throwaway22032 3y ago
    I mean the friction of getting the bike out of the door, locking it up, finding somewhere to put it, etc. It is more efficient than walking in terms of calories per mile yes.
- geraldwhen 3y ago
  E-bikes should be listed alongside cars. Such a stupid device. I see e-bikes on streets all the time now, and none have helmets.
  - analog31 3y ago
    I ride a conventional bike, and felt the same way at first. However, I've come to grips with the fact that physical effort is the primary obstacle to adopting cycling as a form of transportation. With physical effort comes sweating, which is a taboo in US office culture. No amount of moral superiority on my part is going to change that. I've noticed that as they gain experience, the e-cyclists tend to behave themselves pretty well.
  - kdmccormick 3y ago
    No way! Yes e-bikes should be below bikes, but they surely belong in their own tier above taxis. They use up so much less space and energy than a car does, not to mention that they open up cycling as an option to a whole class of people who can't easily cycle due to disability, age, whatever. Don't get me wrong, I don't want a moped weaving around me in the bike lane, but that actually has never happened to me, whereas as taxis and ride-share cars definiely HAVE taken up the ENTIRE bike lane. Plenty of cyclists don't have helmets, either. Is that affecting you?
    - 6D794163636F756 3y ago
      They also make hilly terrain trivial and some have more storage than a normal bike. I use mine as a commuting vehicle and my normal one as more of a sports vehicle now. I take my normal bike if I'm going only one place and don't need to carry more than a small bag. I can get nearly a week's worth of groceries on my ebike and the motor means I don't have to worry about the weight and the hill I have to go up to get home. I think class one and maybe class two e-bikes could be in the same tier as normal bikes but class three and maybe class two should be in their own space
rogerdb 3y ago
The hierarchy isn't so much about how green each individual option is, but rather about how trips should be distributed to reach an overall optimum. For short trips or connections, walking should be more convenient because you don't need any gear or space to store your bike. This also gives a multiplicative effect with other transport options, because (e.g.) people are much more likely to take a bus or train if they can walk directly to the station instead of needing a bike or car to get there in the first place. As an aside, mature bicycle infrastructure goes beyond bike lanes, especially as the number of cyclists grows. For instance, here's a video showing off a huge bicycle parking facility in Amsterdam: https://youtu.be/EqwasBTzZS8?t=530 https://youtu.be/EqwasBTzZS8?t=530. Obviously this is great compared to car parking, but it's still a lot compared to the infrastructure needed to support short walking trips.
- kdmccormick 3y ago
  Good points, thank you.

loloquwowndueo 3y ago

The pyramid also takes into account how “vulnerable” each mode of transportation is, in other words, who yields to whom. If you’ve ever been run over by a cyclist - it hurts. So it stands to reason that pedestrians should be prioritized and protected by users of modes towards the tip of the pyramid.

jychang 3y ago
Disagree, it only applies to your walking/cyclist example. I suspect getting hit by a bus will hurt a lot more than getting hit by a car.
- loloquwowndueo 3y ago
  It’s also far less likely - fewer buses on the road and bus drivers are better trained than the millions of reckless private car owners.

throwaway22032 3y ago

Bicycles still take physical space with racks and stuff. Also, e-bikes directly use energy though they're not listed (neither are motorbikes). I agree that this is pretty trivial in terms of environmental impact, it's probably just about the friction involved, we already have legs.

mwint 3y ago
Friction as in mechanical friction? It’s certainly less total energy expended per mile to cover the same distance on a bike vs. legs, right?
- throwaway22032 3y ago
  I mean the friction of getting the bike out of the door, locking it up, finding somewhere to put it, etc. It is more efficient than walking in terms of calories per mile yes.
geraldwhen 3y ago
E-bikes should be listed alongside cars. Such a stupid device. I see e-bikes on streets all the time now, and none have helmets.
- analog31 3y ago
  I ride a conventional bike, and felt the same way at first. However, I've come to grips with the fact that physical effort is the primary obstacle to adopting cycling as a form of transportation. With physical effort comes sweating, which is a taboo in US office culture. No amount of moral superiority on my part is going to change that. I've noticed that as they gain experience, the e-cyclists tend to behave themselves pretty well.
- kdmccormick 3y ago
  No way! Yes e-bikes should be below bikes, but they surely belong in their own tier above taxis. They use up so much less space and energy than a car does, not to mention that they open up cycling as an option to a whole class of people who can't easily cycle due to disability, age, whatever. Don't get me wrong, I don't want a moped weaving around me in the bike lane, but that actually has never happened to me, whereas as taxis and ride-share cars definiely HAVE taken up the ENTIRE bike lane. Plenty of cyclists don't have helmets, either. Is that affecting you?
  - 6D794163636F756 3y ago
    They also make hilly terrain trivial and some have more storage than a normal bike. I use mine as a commuting vehicle and my normal one as more of a sports vehicle now. I take my normal bike if I'm going only one place and don't need to carry more than a small bag. I can get nearly a week's worth of groceries on my ebike and the motor means I don't have to worry about the weight and the hill I have to go up to get home. I think class one and maybe class two e-bikes could be in the same tier as normal bikes but class three and maybe class two should be in their own space

rogerdb 3y ago

The hierarchy isn't so much about how green each individual option is, but rather about how trips should be distributed to reach an overall optimum. For short trips or connections, walking should be more convenient because you don't need any gear or space to store your bike. This also gives a multiplicative effect with other transport options, because (e.g.) people are much more likely to take a bus or train if they can walk directly to the station instead of needing a bike or car to get there in the first place. As an aside, mature bicycle infrastructure goes beyond bike lanes, especially as the number of cyclists grows. For instance, here's a video showing off a huge bicycle parking facility in Amsterdam: https://youtu.be/EqwasBTzZS8?t=530 https://youtu.be/EqwasBTzZS8?t=530. Obviously this is great compared to car parking, but it's still a lot compared to the infrastructure needed to support short walking trips.

kdmccormick 3y ago
Good points, thank you.