State lawmaker says bicycling is not good for the environment

http://seattlebikeblog.com/2013/03/02/state-lawmaker-says-bicycling-is-not-good-for-the-environment-should-be-taxed/

by mtgx • 13 years ago

10 8 13 years ago

LeeHunter• 13 years ago

See also Toronto mayor Rob Ford for further brilliance on bicycles as an obstacle to transportation http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/10/03/mayor-ford-defends-s...

frankus• 13 years ago

There is actually a bit more to this line of argument than the idiotic one the lawmaker takes.

The primary thing that makes a bicycle more efficient than a car is that it weighs around an order of magnitude less than the passenger, rather than the other way around. The second most important factor is that it travels at (and is optimized to travel at) relatively low speeds.

The fact that it's powered, essentially, by food calories is actually one of its least efficient aspects (raw food vegan locavores potentially excepted).

The cool thing is that means you can power a small electric vehicle essentially for free (both financially and environmentally). So people who are unwilling or unable to work up a sweat on the way to work can still take part in most of the benefits of cycling.

ars3• 13 years ago

In terms of environmental cost (not just CO2) a bicycle is actually 3 times as expensive as a really good car: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/09/is-a-bicycle-really...

And if you put 4 people in that car, it wins easily, even with a somewhat more average car.

People like bikes mainly because people eat and exercise anyway, so they might as well do some useful work for it. But purely from the environment, and assuming people only bicycle for need, not exercise, it's not an automatic win.

Symbol• 13 years ago

This article's argument is, in a word, crap. The author wants to compare efficiency of cars vs. bikes on the basis of fuel costs (after a scattershot discussion of CO2 emissions from those aerobically respirating vs a bus spitting out fumes), then cites fast food as a baseline fuel source. We can game this anyway we want: why not eat 7 bananas, which are $0.20 at my local market, and claim differently? And let's conveniently forget that EVERYONE needs food, regardless of how they expend or conserve their caloric "fuel". I'd like to see a more scientific analysis of carbo emissions of bicyclists vs cars vs public busses. I strongly suspect bikes come up with high marks in the average case.

ars3• 13 years ago

He's not completely wrong. Human power is by far one of the least efficient ways of powering transportation.

But most people ignore it because people need to eat anyway. And people exercise anyway.

snogglethorpe• 13 years ago

There's also the matter of the effect on the urban (and suburban) environment, something which more directly effects most people.

Widespread car usage is enormously destructive in this sense, because of insane amounts of space it requires (and the degree of danger it introduces). The bicycle, well, not so much (and pedestrians even less, of course).

The negative environmental effects of cars is well-publicized (and apparently politically effective) but it's hardly the only, or even the most significant, problem with widespread car use.

gte910h• 13 years ago

This argument is specious. Most people need to expend more calories than they do in the first world, hence the growing obesity epidemic.

You are saving gym time/portion control willpower by biking more and driving less.

State lawmaker says bicycling is not good for the environment

Related Stories