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 a

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.