5 ms·

If both of those were correct, it would cost more to cycle 10 miles every day than it would cost to drive 10 miles every day. It doesn't, therefore your points

by phaemon 13y ago

If both of those were correct, it would cost more to cycle 10 miles every day than it would cost to drive 10 miles every day. It doesn't, therefore your points are wrong.

ars 13y ago
Except it does actually cost more to cycle. You just don't notice because when you buy food it doesn't have a label saying where you used those calories. It does depend on what you choose to eat though. If you eat beans vs burgers. The cheap food comes close enough to driving to not matter, but most people eat nicer food and then it's more expensive to bicycle.
- walshemj 13y ago
  No it doesn't I used to cycle over 16 miles day and I did not eat any more food - I just lost weight which made me healthier.
- rzt 13y ago
  I'm sorry, but this is crazy science. Looking at kilojoules and efficiency of energy, a bicycle is much more efficient on the order of hundreds, just looking at mechanical resistance and the energy needed to get the vehicle moving. Also, while competitive/fast cycling requires large amounts of food to sustain, the extra fuel needed to commute by bike doesn't require much more than an extra handful of almonds or in my case, an extra beer in the evening. The human body gets more efficient at a given exercise over time –– that's why calories-in/calories-out is never an equal proposition in a trained athlete (and regular bike commuting is in some ways "training.") If you break it down into prices, bike commuting might cost an extra $1-$2 in food per day. OK, fine. However, that mitigates the $3-4 in fuel cost for mileage over a 20 mile commute. Maintenance costs on a bike are negligible compared to a car: $100 in chains, cassettes and brake pads annually vs. the $1,000-2,000 in usual car maintenance costs per year (PLUS, repairs). As for environmental costs: yes a bike requires carbon to build and transport across the Pacific. But the heavy huffing-and-puffing C02 contributions of a cyclist is negligible to that of a car.
- phaemon 13y ago
  > Except it does actually cost more to cycle. No, this is plainly wrong. Don't take my word for it, work out the cost per mile for yourself. You'll quickly see that you have to choose ridiculously low car costs vs expensive, low calorie foods to get it remotely close. With average car prices vs cheap food...it isn't even a contest.

by phaemon 13y ago

If both of those were correct, it would cost more to cycle 10 miles every day than it would cost to drive 10 miles every day. It doesn't, therefore your points are wrong.

ars 13y ago

Except it does actually cost more to cycle. You just don't notice because when you buy food it doesn't have a label saying where you used those calories. It does depend on what you choose to eat though. If you eat beans vs burgers. The cheap food comes close enough to driving to not matter, but most people eat nicer food and then it's more expensive to bicycle.

walshemj 13y ago
No it doesn't I used to cycle over 16 miles day and I did not eat any more food - I just lost weight which made me healthier.
rzt 13y ago
I'm sorry, but this is crazy science. Looking at kilojoules and efficiency of energy, a bicycle is much more efficient on the order of hundreds, just looking at mechanical resistance and the energy needed to get the vehicle moving. Also, while competitive/fast cycling requires large amounts of food to sustain, the extra fuel needed to commute by bike doesn't require much more than an extra handful of almonds or in my case, an extra beer in the evening. The human body gets more efficient at a given exercise over time –– that's why calories-in/calories-out is never an equal proposition in a trained athlete (and regular bike commuting is in some ways "training.") If you break it down into prices, bike commuting might cost an extra $1-$2 in food per day. OK, fine. However, that mitigates the $3-4 in fuel cost for mileage over a 20 mile commute. Maintenance costs on a bike are negligible compared to a car: $100 in chains, cassettes and brake pads annually vs. the $1,000-2,000 in usual car maintenance costs per year (PLUS, repairs). As for environmental costs: yes a bike requires carbon to build and transport across the Pacific. But the heavy huffing-and-puffing C02 contributions of a cyclist is negligible to that of a car.
phaemon 13y ago
> Except it does actually cost more to cycle. No, this is plainly wrong. Don't take my word for it, work out the cost per mile for yourself. You'll quickly see that you have to choose ridiculously low car costs vs expensive, low calorie foods to get it remotely close. With average car prices vs cheap food...it isn't even a contest.