Commuting - Horse sense

It just makes sense to commute by bike.

1) The cost of driving a car can be second only to one's rent (unless you own two cars.)
2) The health benefits of riding a bike to work make spas, fad diets and Jenny Craig outdated.
3) The effects on the environment of cycling are small; in fact, I wonder if cycling actually helps the environment in some way...
4) The mental benefits of cycling have been extolled by Albert Einstein, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and countless millions of equally important people (like us.)
5) Gasoline...what's that?

6) Traffic? What's that?

7) Stress? What's that?

Pete, will you be my Dad?

Originally posted by Pete Clark
[B]It just makes sense to commute by bike.

1) The cost of driving a car can be second only to one's rent (unless you own two cars.)


While I have a mortgage debt anchor thingy, I'd have to agree with you in a common sense deal.

Here's the logic behind it all

Taking out depreciation, and not counting that I own my vehicle out right: (which adds to the cost)

Let's figure out the per mile cost of owning my Jeep:

Gas 15 mpg (average, up and down depending on what top is on, or if I have doors on, etc). (1.26/15 mpg) 8 cents a mile.
Oil change (every 5 k) filters, (35 for Special filters and 15w40 oil)
Makes that 9 cents a mile. Insurance 620 per year based upon 12000 miles is about 5 cents a mile :eek: . Long term cost of tires (970 dollars) for 30k 4 cents a mile. Special fluid changes every 10 k - 100 dollars, 1 cent a mile. I can think of other stuff as well that can add about a penny a mile (plugs, wires, wiper blades, etc) and it leaves out long term things..

So... 28 cents a mile.

Now bike:

Tires, grease....handle bar tape and gloves. I'm thinking about 7 cents a mile, at a strech.

A non biker could argue that there is special clothing etc. But if you drive and don't ride, you constantly have to buy new clothes for the expanding waist line.. So that is tit for tat.

Saftey on a bike vs car? Statistically speaking, you are more at risk in a car than on a bike.

Hands down, bike commuting is a better option.

The only con bike commuting arguement that I can see, is the convience of driving.

Originally posted by William Karsten



Taking out depreciation, and not counting that I own my vehicle out right: (which adds to the cost)

Of course, depreciation is a factor which often is the biggest element in car costs (Unless you own a Jeep as old as ours, when depreciation flattens out)




The only con bike commuting arguement that I can see, is the convience of driving.

What about the environmental effects? For me, that's the biggest downside and is the reason we minimise use of our car. I think that far outweighs any convenience and in any event, when stuck in traffic or unable to find a parking space, convenience disappears.

Originally posted by Pete Clark
The effects on the environment of cycling are small; in fact, I wonder if cycling actually helps the environment in some way...
If enough people cycled instead of driving, there's no doubt that cycling would help the environment in that way.

I can't see that this is ever going to happen, though.

I see no advantage to motor vehicles except the ability to carry great big things and the ability to get somewhere fast in an emergency. I certainly think we need police cars, ambulances, fire trucks, utility vehicles, and delivery trucks. Much freight now carried by trucks should be carried by rail and even by barges. Think how much that one change would benefit the environment! And it is DOABLE.

Unfortunately not enough people genuinely care about the environmental effects for it to really be a convincing argument. I'm sure if you took a poll on bicycle commuters, very few of them would list that as the major reason they commute (although it's a definite side benefit).

The main reason I commute by bike is because I love it. Plain and simple. There were times last year when commuting was the only riding I had any time to do at all.

Originally posted by chewa

What about the environmental effects? For me, that's the biggest downside and is the reason we minimise use of our car.
I'm of mixed opinions on this. I believe that cars are one of the lesser of evils in polutions, when compared in context to other poluters. A lot of this blame is towards industry. Of course, in a round about, building the automobile itself, is a great polution source too.


when stuck in traffic or unable to find a parking space, convenience disappears.

I don't have these things on my list of anti convenience. When I say convenience, I mean to say, that I can travel to another part of town, and back, and still have time to go somewhere else, if need be.

Personnally, I dislike the walmart/starbucks ideal of prepackaged "What you should buy" and some of my driving entails travel to places that respresnt my ideals in shopping. That is to say, I'd rather go to the local fruit stand and to Trader joes for food stuff, than the big box stores. This, I could not do on a bike in a timely manner. In fact, it'd be such a problem, that I'd have to support places that are, ironically, big poluters. Sort of a balance.

I like to stay away from ecolgical discussion, if I can. Pretty easy to have brew ha ha's open up over them.

As far as parking,

As I begin to rethink, it is funny that I've never considered the option of enviromental coservation as one of the benefits of my commute on bike.

The days I do not commute (now that I"m back in action):

2 days in which I need to beat a child care cut off, as my wife goes to school 2 nights per week. Right now, it appears that my schedule can be adjusted such, that I don't have to worry about it.

One day a week at which I tutor students at a local school, and go to work from there. I'm required to tutor in uniform.

Originally posted by William Karsten
As I begin to rethink, it is funny that I've never considered the option of enviromental coservation as one of the benefits of my commute on bike.
I guess my main "turn-on" to bike commuting is that I feel like I've been set free from the "prison" of driving.

Driving is supposed to set you free, right? But I've found it to
corner me into a lifetime of headaches and expenses.

(And, if course, cycling is too much fun...)

Originally posted by William Karsten

I'm of mixed opinions on this. I believe that cars are one of the lesser of evils in polutions, when compared in context to other poluters. A lot of this blame is towards industry. Of course, in a round about, building the automobile itself, is a great polution source too.

According to some statistics from the ABS that I read a while back, the motor vehicle is responsible for 40 times more pollutants than factories in this country. Just imagine, they could shut down every factory in the place, or reduce car use by 2.5%. It's funny that when greenhouse emission targets are mentioned, governments talk about how bad the consequences of the former option would be.


Originally posted by William Karsten

I don't have these things on my list of anti convenience. When I say convenience, I mean to say, that I can travel to another part of town, and back, and still have time to go somewhere else, if need be.

That is, of course, the major advantage cycling has over driving (if enjoyment is not considered). I can take a 1 hour trip on my bike and know that it will take 1 hour. I don't have to stress over how the traffic might affect the time.


Originally posted by William Karsten

That is to say, I'd rather go to the local fruit stand and to Trader joes for food stuff, than the big box stores. This, I could not do on a bike in a timely manner. In fact, it'd be such a problem, that I'd have to support places that are, ironically, big poluters. Sort of a balance.

This I don't understand. A bike is the perfect way to get around the high-traffic areas between shops. You don't have to queue at an intersection through three light changes at all. In such a situation, surely a bike would be much faster.

Originally posted by Pete Clark

Driving is supposed to set you free, right? But I've found it to
corner me into a lifetime of headaches and expenses.
____________________________________________________


Man...you said it!

Originally posted by Chris L

A bike is the perfect way to get around the high-traffic areas between shops. You don't have to queue at an intersection through three light changes at all. In such a situation, surely a bike would be much faster.

And even if a car does get to the 'destination' quicker than a bike, you can easily spend the difference plus more looking for a parking spot and then walking to the actual destination. Even on a trip from 20km away in the 'burbs a bike can be quicker.

Originally posted by Chris L





That is, of course, the major advantage cycling has over driving (if enjoyment is not considered). I can take a 1 hour trip on my bike and know that it will take 1 hour. I don't have to stress over how the traffic might affect the time.





That's a biggie for me. If I commute by train (a 22 min journey from ststion to station) from leaving house to get to office takes about 1 hour if trains on time. If not can be 1.5 or even 2 hours.

If bus, 25 min stop to stop, journey can still take anything between 30 mins door to door to 1.5 hours depending on traffic.

On the bike, door to door no matter what the weather, between 52 and 58 mins. (Unless I get a puncture which is rare)

Much more dependable.

And I get the de stress on the way home, and fresh air and a nice smug feeling that I'm beating the system :)

When I cycle in to work (pretty much every day now) I have to leave 5-10 minutes earlier to get to work for the same time as I would if I caught the train (assuming that Connex South East run according to timetable ;) ). I could always cycle along the dual-carriageway which would allow me to leave at the same time, but I'd rather enjoy my commute.

At the moment I've only cycled home, as well as in, if I've finished early for some reason, but as the evenings are getting lighter I'll soon be doing both ways - I don't mind cycling most of the way in the dark, but I'd like to be able to get out of Canterbury whilst it's still just light. Because at the moment I have my bike with me on the train coming home I get home 10 minutes earlier than if I walked to the station so currently I spend as long at home with the wife as if i catch the train in of a morning (you'll have to ask my wife whether this is a good thing or not ;) )

Why do I cycle in?

I enjoy it.

I don't drive, and don't want to.

I need a bit more exercise as I've reached my 30's :)

I don't particularly enjoy the lousy train service.


Yes I'm pleased I'm helping the environment, but I couldn't honestly say that's why I cycle. I can't truly say cost is a major factor because I seem quite capable of spending as much as I'm saving on bike bits...

Most of all I enjoy it.

Richard

Since I only live 5 miles from work, the time difference between different modes of transportation is minimal: Drive...10 minutes, Bike...18 minutes, Bus...30 minutes. So, why drive or take the bus?

If I were not going to bike on a particular day, I would most likely take the bus. My reason being that the infrastructure for the bus is already there. It runs regardless of whether or not I am standing at the bus stop. So, the fuel is already being used and the driver is already being paid. I recently read in the paper that said the city pays $3.50 for every bus rider. That is on top of the 75 cents paid by the rider.

Now, why would one drive? Most of the people I know who drive, own cars that are worth less the $1000. These cars last approximately 5 years with very little maintence. And with incredibly low gas prices, the end cost is relative to cycling. Although, very bad on the enviroment and the health of the driver, cars are still very much financially attainable, even by the lowest paid worker.

Chris,

It's ironic that I find my self defending the automobile.
On a polution stand point, there are many points of view, and many sources of conflicting data. You can, and often do, find people argueing about how to read the results of such surveys.
It would be impossible to give an "average polution rate" of an automobile. You could take two exact models, and have them with exactly similiar mileage and condition, and they would produce two disctinctly different levels of polution. Many people report a per polution capita of cars with current titles ~ cars that don't run. On the flip side, many others say that cars don't polute as much as people say (i.e. the manufacturers, and those that modify cars for preformance, vice proper operation).

For me, there are distinct disadanvatges of riding a bike to get grocieries. To haul food, for a family of three, for a week, would be one obsticle. Now, it is about a 25 mile round trip, wit. By bike, it would roughly take.. 5 hours. In a car, I can have it done in two, likely faster. Parking is not an issue, like perhaps it is in a big city like LA, SF or NY. We've never had longer than a minute to park.

Bottom line, I guess again it's a matter of perspective. But unfortunately, the car would win out in this instance.

I still can't believe I'm arguing pro car.

You live 25 miles from the shops!! Do you live in a log cabin in the mountains?
I used to live on a farm, and was 5 miles from the nearest town, but it had plenty of supermarkets.
If you live in a town or city, you should be no more than 3 miles from the nearest big shop, so something is seriously wrong with the planning regulations.
A 3 mile journey should take about 15-20 mins.
You could even stop off at the shops on your way back from work, and incur no extra milleage.
Cars are only sensible where the layout of the city is crazy.

I believe that people are not reading the original thread correctly.
As I said, if I use the local shops, I will be patronizing a shop that does not coincide with my beliefs. I would rather utilize a smaller store, locally owned, than a large chain store that under pays it's workers, subsidizes corporate farms, purchases foods that are of average to poor quality, and to me, is a blight on a city.

I don't like the "Starbuck ization" of the world. And I refuse to buy into a place such as those, merely because of covience. I plane refuse.

Buy using a local grower, who doesn't use large transport systems, and local store, who buys locally made products, I, in effect, help support a system where as they use vehicles less anyway.

It's a matter of trading evils. We pick which is lesser.

Get it?:rolleyes:

Cars are only sensible where the layout of the city is crazy.

Couldn't help but smile at this one. I'd say the layout of most American cities is crazy, since it's driven mostly by developers and money.

Originally posted by spininin


Couldn't help but smile at this one. I'd say the layout of most American cities is crazy, since it's driven mostly by developers and money.
EXACTLY.

:beer:

Originally posted by William Karsten

It's ironic that I find my self defending the automobile.
On a polution stand point, there are many points of view, and many sources of conflicting data. You can, and often do, find people argueing about how to read the results of such surveys.
It would be impossible to give an "average polution rate" of an automobile.

I don't really need statistics. I remember a plane flight into Sydney (which is basically a monument to the automobile these days) a couple of years ago. The moon literally changed colour on the approach to Sydney. I notice that Brisbane (which actually has some kind of public transport infrastructure) doesn't seem to have problems approaching that scale.

The fact is, the automobile is a greater cause of environmental problems than all other global factors combined. I just find it amusing that environmental debates are seen in terms of right vs wrong, when a benefits vs costs approach would generate much more workable real world solutions.

One could reduce car use quite a bit without suffering massive economic costs, but the benefits would be enormous.[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by William Karsten

For me, there are distinct disadanvatges of riding a bike to get grocieries. To haul food, for a family of three, for a week, would be one obsticle. Now, it is about a 25 mile round trip, wit. By bike, it would roughly take.. 5 hours.

5 hours to cover 25 miles? I did a ride of that length this morning and it took me about 1.5 hours (including red light delays). It might take a bit longer while carrying groceries and things, but I'm sure 5 hours is just a touch excessive.


Originally posted by Spinin

Couldn't help but smile at this one. I'd say the layout of most American cities is crazy, since it's driven mostly by developers and money.

The layout of cities the world over is driven by what people want. Let's face it, if people stopped buying houses miles from the city centre, developers would stop building them. The sooner cycling advocates get over the idea that people are "forced" to drive, and accept that it's a lifestyle choice, the more successful they are likely to be.

Originally posted by Chris L
[B]

I don't really need statistics. I remember a plane flight into Sydney (which is basically a monument to the automobile these days) a couple of years ago. The moon literally changed colour on the approach to Sydney. I notice that Brisbane (which actually has some kind of public transport infrastructure) doesn't seem to have problems approaching that scale.

How convient that your one experience makes it the same round the world. What size cookie cutter would you like us all to fit in?

Iceland, Reykavik more specifically, has a poor public transit system. I never noticed any smog there what so ever. 9 months out of the year it's down right dangerous to cycle (but still, an amazing, beautifull place).




5 hours to cover 25 miles? I did a ride of that length this morning and it took me about 1.5 hours (including red light delays). It might take a bit longer while carrying groceries and things, but I'm sure 5 hours is just a touch excessive.
Okay,
4 hours? Cookie cutter fit ok? Include 3 stops. (again, if you'd read the post), several lights, round trip, a couple of hills. I'd venture to guess that you could not replicate it in 3 hours, or for that matter, 3.5. But again, it's your paradigm, so tell me how it fits in Chris?


The layout of cities the world over is driven by what people want. Let's face it, if people stopped buying houses miles from the city centre, developers would stop building them. The sooner cycling advocates get over the idea that people are "forced" to drive, and accept that it's a lifestyle choice, the more successful they are likely to be.

You can be critical of city planning all you like. And I'd agree with you up and down all the way. I'd like more bike lanes, and for that matter, bike lanes that don't resemble the surface of current day Afganistan roads. However, let me explain something to you. In order for me, and my family to purchase a house, we had to pick something that was financially feasable. If you take away two catagories of houses (Crime areas, or out of reach money wise), it left us with very few choices. I'd love to be closer to work, and down town San Diego. But with houses around there starting in the 350,000 dollar range, they are out of reach. What would you have me do? Live in the projects? Or, let my money drip away to an apartment owner while I built no equity for the future of my family, simply so I could fit the bill.

Chris, I'm honestly not interested in debating the cause, because I believe we are both on the same wave lenght.
HOWEVER, the solution is not so simple as you say. Again, the square peg, doesn't always go in the round hole. I proved that to my physcologist many a time.

Originally posted by JonR
I see no advantage to motor vehicles except the ability to carry great big things...
I will restrain myself from saying anything judgemental, since I, too, had that problem! ;)

Originally posted by William Karsten
How convient that your one experience makes it the same round the world. What size cookie cutter would you like us all to fit in?

Well so far I've provided both emprical evidence and statistics. To my mind, that leaves no doubt that the automobile is a major cause of environmental problems, and one that could be reduced at no great cost (certainly more feasibly that other 'solutions' I've heard). If you want to believe otherwise, that's your decision (and you probably wouldn't be alone) but it won't change the facts.



Originally posted by William Karsten

Okay,
4 hours? Cookie cutter fit ok? Include 3 stops. (again, if you'd read the post), several lights, round trip, a couple of hills. I'd venture to guess that you could not replicate it in 3 hours, or for that matter, 3.5. But again, it's your paradigm, so tell me how it fits in Chris?

At no point was I criticising your decision to drive, I was merely suggesting that it's nobody else's choice other than your own. Maybe it is, as you put it, a way of trading off evils. As far as reading the post goes, I did this on several occasions, and found no mention of three stops whatsoever (and surely these would have to be made in a car as well). Perhaps if you'd brought this up earlier...


Originally posted by William Karsten
You can be critical of city planning all you like.


Ok, now it's your turn to read the post. All I suggested was that cities are planned a certain way because, like it or not, it's what people want. This must be some unusual definition of being critical that I wasn't aware of.


Originally posted by William Karsten

However, let me explain something to you. In order for me, and my family to purchase a house, we had to pick something that was financially feasable. If you take away two catagories of houses (Crime areas, or out of reach money wise), it left us with very few choices. I'd love to be closer to work, and down town San Diego. But with houses around there starting in the 350,000 dollar range, they are out of reach. What would you have me do? Live in the projects? Or, let my money drip away to an apartment owner while I built no equity for the future of my family, simply so I could fit the bill.

And how about the ongoing costs of running and maintaining a car or two? I could go an live somewhere cheaper as well, but the cost of commuting by car would make it unfeasible. Again, what you choose to do is no business of mine. But in all honesty, I get a little tired of hearing people trying to blame others for their situation. We all face trade-offs in life. I just sacrificed three years and a heap of money (I would have been financially better off on the dole) to go to university. You won't hear me trying to blame someone else for the fact that I couldn't afford that spanky road bike that I had my eye on.

In any case, it appears the time may have come to just agree to disagree on this one. I've stated my opinions and read everyone else's. It is apparent nobody is going to change their mind, so unless somebody has something new to offer, this discussion is finished as far as I'm concerned.

Originally posted by Chris L
Well so far I've provided both emprical evidence and statistics. To my mind, that leaves no doubt that the automobile is a major cause of environmental problems, and one that could be reduced at no great cost (certainly more feasibly that other 'solutions' I've heard). If you want to believe otherwise, that's your decision (and you probably wouldn't be alone) but it won't change the facts.
And I've offered evidence of the contrary as well. However, I went further to say that it depends on who reads what data. That the automobile is a major polutant is not the debate. How much, is. There needs to be an over all change in controls of polutants, and for that matter recycling. The car is not the scapegoat you'd like it to be.



And how about the ongoing costs of running and maintaining a car or two?
I've already explained the cost here, and it is a detriment. A bike wins on a monetary level in just about all angles. I could, if I included the cost of a car, get a new bike just about every 6 months. If I didn't have to have a car, I'd have a few bikes for different reasons.


I could go an live somewhere cheaper as well, but the cost of commuting by car would make it unfeasible. Again, what you choose to do is no business of mine. But in all honesty, I get a little tired of hearing people trying to blame others for their situation.
I could go somewhere cheaper, and make car travel not required. HOWEVER, that would put me in a situation where my family is at risk. Am I blaming the crime rate for where I live? No, I'm making and informed decision, and not taking risk that I deem to great. You can call it blame, or you can call it a choice. I don't blame the crime rate on other people, it's a fact of life. I choose not to participate, and to avoid it, and stop it, where I can.


We all face trade-offs in life. I just sacrificed three years and a heap of money (I would have been financially better off on the dole) to go to university. You won't hear me trying to blame someone else for the fact that I couldn't afford that spanky road bike that I had my eye on.

You know, I was in the exact situation as you. Only I took the California Version of the "dole". I.E. I panhandled (does this translate?). I dropped out of uni, drank, had a good time. Now, with a full time job, I balance that, a family, and going to school at night. You made a wise choice, and really, in the long run, it will serve you better. Right now in the canoe club (loving term for where I work), there are folks who have the degree, who are sloven, lazy, and useless. But, with that paper, they have a better posistion in work, and in life. If I had perserved, and not played around. I'd be there, kicking collective @$$. Trust me, you will fair better by it. Your education alone will help you pursue any enviromental protection cause.

Are we beating a dead horse?

Are you a dead horse?:D

No. Just smell that way.:D

Originally posted by spininin
Are we beating a dead horse?

Very probably, but isn't that the case with most on-line discussion forums?

Sometimes we beat a dead horse until we forget about it. Then a while later, we come back and start beating on it again. Some horses get so beaten, we cannot even tell what they used to look like. :)

Originally posted by Steele-Bike
Sometimes we beat a dead horse until we forget about it. Then a while later, we come back and start beating on it again. Some horses get so beaten, we cannot even tell what they used to look like. :)

Does that mean I've gotta find someone else to back in the Melbourne Cup this year?

My daughter and I discussed the difference between the expenses of driving a car and using public transport to commute.

We figured it like this:

Parking at our private parking deck at work costs $30 per month, while a monthly public transit card costs $28, if I buy it at work.

The cheapest public parking lot near my job costs $3.50 a day ($77 a month,) while the highest cost for public transit is $3.00 per day ($66 a month)

So, if someone gives me a car, pays for it's maintenance, insurance, tax and tag, and gasoline, it's almost as cheap as public transit.

Riding a bike would cost less than public transit, if I didn't use both! (I won't mention the cost of becoming a member at the spa.)

:eek:

My apologies for getting out of hand on this thread, both to Chris, and others. Sometimes, it is agrevating when someone doesn't see the point you are trying to make... until you realize that they are probably agrevated with you for not seeing thier point.... And it becomes even more silly when you can't "step away" because you're bull headed into thinking you have to defend your point.

My apologies.

Originally posted by William Karsten
My apologies for getting out of hand on this thread, both to Chris, and others. Sometimes, it is agrevating when someone doesn't see the point you are trying to make... until you realize that they are probably agrevated with you for not seeing thier point.... And it becomes even more silly when you can't "step away" because you're bull headed into thinking you have to defend your point.

My apologies.

I apologise too. I tend to get a little fired up on these boards (just ask any of the old bicycleforum people) and I was probably just as bad as anyone else. After all, when it really comes down to it, we're all on the same side here.

Originally posted by Chris L

After all, when it really comes down to it, we're all on the same side here.
Hey, I resent that!

:D (only kidding)