contango 

Start on off-road paths or the quietest roads you can find. When I ride with my wife she wants me to be in front so she can just follow me, and I want her to be in front so I know I haven't dropped her. It gets a little tiresome having to keep looking back to see if she's just in a spot where I didn't see her the first time or has fallen back.

skcuf

Being "green" is something that was invented because of overpopulation. If there weren't so many people then we wouldn't have any issues with this. I don't know what "education" you're trying to give me but as far as I can tell it's called going green because green is the color of plant life. Plant life converts carbon dioxide into oxygen which we are able to breathe. The air quality is garbage in cities for a reason. The "green initiative" is because there are too many people that screwed up the atmosphere in the area.

If you're trying to tell me that people in cities are "greener" than the people in the town where I came from you need a swift kick in the pants. Bicycles, carpooling, horses, and horse and buggies are all modes of transportation from where I come from. Fairly sure you can guess where I'm from now with the description of travel options.

lostarchitect 

I'm not going to argue with you, my friend, but you are totally wrong and you should educate yourself.

A quick primer: https://e360.yale.edu/feature/greenes...ou_think/2203/

Brandonub

Air quality in cities is crap because of population density (broadly speaking), not because the individuals there have higher average emissions. This seems so obvious that it shouldn't really need to be stated.

skcuf

So New Yorkers are greener than the Amish/Mennonites? Got it. Average New Yorker consumes 90 gallons of gasoline per year. 90 * 8.245 million = 7.42 Billion gallons of gasoline. The 545 gallons multiplied by the largest city in Vermont, as per the article you sent, would be 545 * 40,000. This makes 21.8 million gallons of gasoline for that city. This also doesn't factor in that the majority of those 40k residents are probably nowhere near the average for the rest of the state of vermont.

A person can read whatever they want into a survey or statistics but the results and facts are this. Air quality, water quality, soil quality, and food quality are all better when you're not in the city. This is because the mass numbers of people living in such tall buildings pollute and don't care about anything. Walking around New York City there is trash everywhere in the streets and even more being thrown there every day. Water usage is more efficient in city areas, but the water is of lower quality. I also doubt that factors into people using things such as wells on their personal property or the irrigation systems that go into farming.

The air quality will never be good in cities because the height of buildings/levels of congestion/and lack of plant life don't allow for the air to be properly circulated and recycled. Yet these are the same people who preach of recycling products...

I'm sorry you're naive enough to believe that city living is healthy in any way shape or form, but I am also done debating with you. Maybe some day you'll see the light, but I highly doubt it. I will agree that you disagree with me, but not that I am wrong.

One more thing, I use less gas than the average New Yorker every year and accomplish much more due to me having a motorcycle.

lostarchitect 

Yeah, you don't know what you're talking about. Most of your points are way off and exhibit poor logic. But it doesn't matter.

delcrossv

+1000. Less experienced rider in front.

See: https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...-with-Children

I do it with 5.

skcuf

This is kind of what I was thinking. Not only can I keep an eye on her in case of any accidents or mistakes, but I will also be the one to get rear ended if someone decides that their phone is worth more than my life.

dpeters11

Also, when you do ride in the road, the more experienced cyclist can take the lane when you need to change to a turn lane etc, which then gives the less experienced a safer buffer to move into the other lane. Of course in this situation, both need a clear understanding of where you are going.

corvuscorvax

https://e360.yale.edu/feature/greenes...ou_think/2203/

The point that is being made, and which you are studiously ignoring, is that New Yorkers (for example) produce much less pollution per capita than suburban or rural populations. And those tall buildings are vastly more energy efficient than single-family homes. If you took the population of New York City and spread everybody out into low-density, single-family housing, they would produce more garbage, use more energy, and create more air pollution than they do living in the city. A lot more. This is not a matter of opinion, or perspective. It's a simple fact.

Oh, and by the way, the water quality in New York City has one of the best water systems in the world. The tap water there is excellent.

Atlanta, on the other hand, is the poster child for how to do everything completely wrong from an environmental perspective.

LesterOfPuppets

I don't think I could ride a bike for transportation in Atlanta, that town is INSANE.

I suppose with very careful consideration of workplace, home and nearest grocery store locations I might be able to pull it off but more than likely once I got to the ATL I'd become a weekend warrior, loading the bike into the car and driving to a parking lot near a good stretch of road for riding.

FBinNY 

Nothing is simple when we talk about being green. (in the sense of minimum environmental impact)

Yes, city living can be pretty green in terms of carbon footprint, but there are offsets such as food transport fuel, etc.

OTOH, if someone lives in a well insulated home in the country, and heats with wood cut sustainably (same rate as regrowth) then there is zero carbon emission for heat since it's a closed cycle. Of course there are other considerations, such as whether food is grown locally or not, and how much transportation is used, for how far.

The issue shouldn't be who's greener, but what you've done personally to lower your own footprint. Otherwise it's becomes an endless apples/oranges debate.

lostarchitect 

Very good points, FB.

contango 

Greener in every way? Like the way city apartment blocks all face one way so you can't get a through draught and end up using air conditioning to keep cool because your windows face the full glare of the sun? Or the way vehicles sit going nowhere but still burning fuel, returning a massive 0mpg while doing 0mph. Of course in cities it's easier to walk where you're going than it is in the countryside.

I'd say the Amish lifestyle is probably about as green as it gets and they don't live in cities.

Brandonub

Short of applying an enormous discount rate to greenhouse gas production, the number one thing an individual can do to be green in the long run is to choose not to have children. Do that and you can basically drive a Hummer a hundred miles a day and your long run GHG contribution will be lower than just about any family man.

delcrossv

I'll keep the kids and ride a bike.

lostarchitect 

The Amish are very atypical. Using them as an example of the average person doesn't make sense.

As to your point about using AC, etc, per capita electric use in cities is lower than in the country--where they use AC too, shockingly. Yes, cars get caught in traffic, but they are used far less overall. I recognize that there are trade offs, but on the whole it is not debatable that it is greener to live in a city (for the average person)--it just is simple fact.

Keith99

Might I suggest finding a local social cycling club. (Not racers or wannabes)?

It offers many huge advantages.

It is much more comfortable and safer riding in a social pack.

Most clubs have routes. It is a pain free way to find a lot of preferred routes.

For anyone it gives the chance to make cycling friends.

And those friends are a real godsend when there is a gap in the abilities of a couple. It gives both a chance to ride separately. The weaker rider gets to ride some of the time without feeling they are holding the other back.

If you are lucky enough to find a club like I did, that was rather large, there may even be routes that are related where the better rider can take the longer variation for the first part and then join their partner at the main rest stop and continue as a couple for the second half of the ride.

contango 

Without looking into every aspect of urban and rural life (things like the ease of getting around compared to the need to ship produce in from further afield etc) it seems pointless to get into an endless "oh yes it is", "oh no it isn't" discussion. Whether the comparison is relevant would depend on how well each individual is represented by this mysterious "average person". I'd suggest it's more useful to look at ways in which an urban lifestyle can be more or less environmentally friendly and ways in which a rural lifestyle can be more or less environmentally friendly. It seems to me living in one town and working in another town 100 miles away is less environmentally friendly than living in a village and working in the same village, for example. Of course if you live in an apartment block and work in the offices underneath the apartments your travel costs (both financial and environmental) are reduced to about as close to zero as you'll ever get.

skcuf

The problem with this is that I don't like socializing. It's difficult for me and I would rather avoid it if at all possible. TBH I don't know how I have a fiancee...

dpeters11

On my group ride, there isn't that much socializing. The ride leader goes over the announcements, everyone checks in. During the ride, the talk is all business: car back, I've got the lane, making sure everyone is ready after everyone is caught up. After the ride, everyone goes home.