Living Car Free - "Reliable" Transportation

I have to admit, I'm biased toward being car-free vs. car-lite. This thought has probably been touched on before, but I was beginning to wonder what is the real difference in reliability between motored vehicles and bicycles?
Society continues to assert that cars are more reliable because of their speed, but at the same time, people get into accidents every day (I don't know the statistic), batteries die, alternators quit working, fan belts break, etc.

I guess most car-dependent people haven't stopped to consider that.

It's an issue of complexity. Cars have more working parts, thus, more things that could potentially break. A flat tire on a car usually requires a towtruck or a visit to a shop to get a new tire, and you usually have to buy two and have someone else install them.

A flat tire on my bike can be fixed with two tools and about thirty minutes by me.

There's also all those electronic systems for heating/cooling, stereo systems in cars, the trunk light and so on.

How reliable is the speed of a car, anyway? Especially when you can't find parking. You have to store that car somewhere after you get there and if there's no where for it to go? Then how reliable is it? You'll still have to walk when you do find parking, maybe eight blocks away.

Another personal anecdote: I've crashed my bike twice in sixteen years of riding. I crashed my car (minor dings really) five times in six years of driving.

I guess most car-dependent people haven't stopped to consider that.

I suspect that there is also a perceived motivation factor. In rain or inclement weather, they assume that a cyclist or bus rider might be more inclined to not show up at work as compared to the automobile driver who can presumably arrive quickly, safely and dry. That's the assumption at least.

Don't forget most people bring their own personal biases into play. If they think riding a bicycle is exhausting for themselves, they may assume that eventually their employee will become too tired to bike to work.

You'll also have to overcome any biases against past employees. Perhaps they hired someone previously that had a DUI, was forced to ride a bicycle, and rode a POS that they didn't oil the chain or maintain.

Also bicycle mishaps are more injurious than car mishaps. Minor car problems don't cause injuries. A broken chain can throw you to the asphalt and skin a hole in the knee of your pants, and have you coming into work seeking the first aid kit.

If you live somewhere where traffic jams are common you'll have an easy time I think winning the reliability argument. Just wait for the co-workers to all come in late (stuck in a big backup) while you are on time :)

I've never asked a prospective employer what they meant by reliable transportation. I just put the words together and they do apply to my bicycles.

It is true that my bicycles break down way more often than any car I've ever owned. I get a flat tire at least once every two weeks. I just replaced my rear brake arms because those damn springs keep breaking on the V brakes. I just replaced the rear derailleur too. The shifter cable for it needs to be replaced right now. Though these problems don't cost anywhere near the amount a single car repair would cost, they do niggle at me on a weekly basis. The bicycles take up time to repair.

I can change a rear flat tire in less than a twenty minutes without a quick release wheel. Bicycle tires cost so much more than car tires though. A cheap car tire can last forty-thousand miles or more. A quality bicycle tire like a Schwalbe might last five thousand miles for a $50.00 price tag.

Cars are cheaper to operate when measured by the mile but they have an enormous up front cost. They're worth it for the people who must travel many thousands of miles per year. I've owned two quality recumbents. I calculated the miles I put on each of them and how much I spent per mile on their usage. It was nearly $2.00 per mile. My Dahon Smooth Hound has cost me about $1.97 per mile so far. That number drops with time but I don't use that one daily. Even if I did it wouldn't be very many miles out and back. It'll take a long time for that dollar per mile figure to come down. Thousand dollar bicycles are probably luxury purchases compared to $350.00 useful bicycles that can do the same thing more or less. Actually I think that bicycles in that range are more durable than the light weight ones. The parts are sturdier.

Another personal anecdote: I've crashed my bike twice in sixteen years of riding. I crashed my car (minor dings really) five times in six years of driving.

I've driven cars for about sixteen years and have never once crashed (or dinged) any of them. So personal anecdotes are not really all that useful.

However, when it comes to the idea of "reliable transportation", all an employer wants or needs to know is are you going to be able to be at work, on time, on a consistent basis. If there is an additional need for you to have a car, whether it's for traveling to and from clients, or hauling any kind of equipment or otherwise, an employer will generally ask that in a much more specific fashion.

I've never asked a prospective employer what they meant by reliable transportation. I just put the words together and they do apply to my bicycles.

It is true that my bicycles break down way more often than any car I've ever owned. I get a flat tire at least once every two weeks. I just replaced my rear brake arms because those damn springs keep breaking on the V brakes. I just replaced the rear derailleur too. The shifter cable for it needs to be replaced right now. Though these problems don't cost anywhere near the amount a single car repair would cost, they do niggle at me on a weekly basis. The bicycles take up time to repair.

I can change a rear flat tire in less than a twenty minutes without a quick release wheel. Bicycle tires cost so much more than car tires though. A cheap car tire can last forty-thousand miles or more. A quality bicycle tire like a Schwalbe might last five thousand miles for a $50.00 price tag.

Cars are cheaper to operate when measured by the mile but they have an enormous up front cost. They're worth it for the people who must travel many thousands of miles per year. I've owned two quality recumbents. I calculated the miles I put on each of them and how much I spent per mile on their usage. It was nearly $2.00 per mile. My Dahon Smooth Hound has cost me about $1.97 per mile so far. That number drops with time but I don't use that one daily. Even if I did it wouldn't be very many miles out and back. It'll take a long time for that dollar per mile figure to come down. Thousand dollar bicycles are probably luxury purchases compared to $350.00 useful bicycles that can do the same thing more or less. Actually I think that bicycles in that range are more durable than the light weight ones. The parts are sturdier.

Bikes can be expensive, but do they have to be? My daily rider for over 5 years was a Raleigh 3 speed that I paid $25 for, that bike is still hanging around, I just increased the value of it about tenfold by adding baskets and lights. :roflmao2:

It has been and still is a very dependable bike and dirt cheap to keep running, I buy inexpensive tires and get 3-5k miles out of set by rotating, that is a years worth of riding. I do try to watch where I am riding to keep out of the trash along the roads that causes flats, but they do occur. I can fix a flat in under 15 minutes if motivated.

Aaron :)

I've never asked a prospective employer what they meant by reliable transportation. I just put the words together and they do apply to my bicycles.

It is true that my bicycles break down way more often than any car I've ever owned. I get a flat tire at least once every two weeks. I just replaced my rear brake arms because those damn springs keep breaking on the V brakes. I just replaced the rear derailleur too. The shifter cable for it needs to be replaced right now. Though these problems don't cost anywhere near the amount a single car repair would cost, they do niggle at me on a weekly basis. The bicycles take up time to repair.

I can change a rear flat tire in less than a twenty minutes without a quick release wheel. Bicycle tires cost so much more than car tires though. A cheap car tire can last forty-thousand miles or more. A quality bicycle tire like a Schwalbe might last five thousand miles for a $50.00 price tag.

Cars are cheaper to operate when measured by the mile but they have an enormous up front cost. They're worth it for the people who must travel many thousands of miles per year. I've owned two quality recumbents. I calculated the miles I put on each of them and how much I spent per mile on their usage. It was nearly $2.00 per mile. My Dahon Smooth Hound has cost me about $1.97 per mile so far. That number drops with time but I don't use that one daily. Even if I did it wouldn't be very many miles out and back. It'll take a long time for that dollar per mile figure to come down. Thousand dollar bicycles are probably luxury purchases compared to $350.00 useful bicycles that can do the same thing more or less. Actually I think that bicycles in that range are more durable than the light weight ones. The parts are sturdier.

Your experiences are not typical. In fact, they're incomprehensible. You shoulldn't be getting flat tires every couple weeks. Every couple years is more like it. I don't calculate bike expenses on a per mile basis, but it can't be anywhere near $2/mile! If they were, I would be spending $20,000 a year on my bike, and that would be a sizable portion of my income. You're the first person I've known to say that a bike costs more to maintain than a car. There is something very wrong with either your math or your wrenching abilities.


EDIT: I ride my bike about 5,000 miles a year, so I should have said $10,000 instead of $20,000. I guess my math skills aren't so hot either!

I've never asked a prospective employer what they meant by reliable transportation. I just put the words together and they do apply to my bicycles.

It is true that my bicycles break down way more often than any car I've ever owned. I get a flat tire at least once every two weeks. I just replaced my rear brake arms because those damn springs keep breaking on the V brakes. I just replaced the rear derailleur too. The shifter cable for it needs to be replaced right now. Though these problems don't cost anywhere near the amount a single car repair would cost, they do niggle at me on a weekly basis. The bicycles take up time to repair.

I can change a rear flat tire in less than a twenty minutes without a quick release wheel. Bicycle tires cost so much more than car tires though. A cheap car tire can last forty-thousand miles or more. A quality bicycle tire like a Schwalbe might last five thousand miles for a $50.00 price tag.

Cars are cheaper to operate when measured by the mile but they have an enormous up front cost. They're worth it for the people who must travel many thousands of miles per year. I've owned two quality recumbents. I calculated the miles I put on each of them and how much I spent per mile on their usage. It was nearly $2.00 per mile. My Dahon Smooth Hound has cost me about $1.97 per mile so far. That number drops with time but I don't use that one daily. Even if I did it wouldn't be very many miles out and back. It'll take a long time for that dollar per mile figure to come down. Thousand dollar bicycles are probably luxury purchases compared to $350.00 useful bicycles that can do the same thing more or less. Actually I think that bicycles in that range are more durable than the light weight ones. The parts are sturdier.

I think bicycles are way more reliable and inexpensive to operate than cars. I ride my bicycle about 3500 miles a year, and I've had one flat tire in the last four years. Tires on bikes actually last longer than the rims. (Maybe it's because you have small wheels?) Except for bottom brackets and wheel rebuilds, I can do all the work on the bike myself (unless I don't really feel like it). Some components, like cassettes, are expensive to replace, but still way less expensive than car parts.

I spend about $300-$500/year to maintain and/or upgrade my bike. Last year I bought a used Volvo, in decent shape, for $1900. Since I bought it, I've spent at least another $3000 on gas, fees, insurance and "routine" maintenance. (I drove it a lot more at first than I do now....) I have to take it to a mechanic to fix it, since I don't know anything about cars, and have to trust that I'm not being robbed while I wait a day or two for the repair to be completed. For in-town trips, the bike is usually about as fast as driving, faster if you factor in time spent looking for a parking space. So, in general, the car is actually kind of a pain in the ass compared to the bike in addition to being more expensive and no more reliable.

In approximately 9 years total riding experience, I have never had my bicycle refuse to start. I have had cars refuse to start more times than I care to remember.

I agree with Roody, you shouldn't be getting flats every couple of weeks. I rode my Ross for about six years replaced the derailleurs exactly 0 times. I had to replace the cables a couple of times, ditto brake pads, tires & chain.

I am currently working on my third winter with my current issue bike, with the OEM crankset, I swapped out the OEM cassette for one with a lower low. I am planning on replacing the complete driveline in the spring for a cost of ~$150.
Just for comparison, to replace the ball joints on my truck would have been about $800, except that I had let the salesman talk me into the extended warranty, so it only wound up costing me $180.

I have never had my bicycle refuse to start.

Darn! You stole my line! :D

I've had an unusual year this year with flats. I've had three, in 159 commutes to date. I attribute this to my new work location deep in the heart a da 'hood. There's a lot more broken glass around on this commute.

After my third winter, I had to replace the middle chainring ($42) along with the cassette (also $42). I have to replace the chain ($21) twice a year, front disc brake pads every spring ($20) and rear ones every other year. I replace shift cables every spring, about $10 each including housing, ferrules, ends and donuts.

This past spring I also replaced my three-season tires ($38 each) after 8,000 miles or so on the old ones. My winter tires ($45 each) are entering their fifth season, and appear to have at least five more to go.

Entering my fifth winter I can say none of my bikes have ever left me in a lurch. The worst thing that's happened on the road was I snapped a chain. I knew it was on its way out. I was trying to get through to the end of March on it, and it let go in the beginning of March. Not the bike's fault. My fault. I just installed my spare master link, and continued on my way.

In the absolute worst-case scenario, (all four bikes refuse to start) I live and work on bus lines.

I think it should also be pointed out that quality bicycle commuter components, such as schwalbe tires, cat eye lights, and SKS fenders are only so expensive because there is very little demand for them. If the current transportation situation were reversed then bicycles parts would be extremely cheap and car parts would be expensive due to low demand. This is especially true when it comes to commuter gear rather than racing gear. I can buy tiny 23c racer tires for less than half the price of a good pair of gator skins! The more bike commuters there are the less the parts will cost.

Bike are a little more fragile than cars. Components are lighter and require more attention than most auto parts.

However, you can achieve great reliability by 1) having a backup bike and 2) learning a few wrenching skills. You can have a backup car, but it's expensive. You can certainly wrench on cars, but parts and tools are exorbitant.

As Aaron pointed point, your ride doesn't need to cost a lot. You can do an awful lot of cycling for $50 a month, which includes the capital cost of the bike.

Try that with a car!

Your experiences are not typical. In fact, they're incomprehensible. You shoulldn't be getting flat tires every couple weeks. Every couple years is more like it. I don't calculate bike expenses on a per mile basis, but it can't be anywhere near $2/mile! If they were, I would be spending $20,000 a year on my bike, and that would be a sizable portion of my income. You're the first person I've known to say that a bike costs more to maintain than a car. There is something very wrong with either your math or your wrenching abilities.

My flat tires are caused by tiny bits of glass, nails, and bits of wire from steel belted tires. My tire has kevlar in it and still those things get through. Talk to mountain bikers who ride where there are thorns. They'll tell you about flats.

If I've got a $1000.00 bicycle that has only 400 miles on it. So far it has cost me $2.50 per mile to use it. In time that cost per mile will drop. Two of my recumbents had low mileage on them when they were sold. I had to buy them without test rides because there were no dealers in my state. When I sold them for what I could get, their cost per mile was very high.

I've got another bicycle with an estimated $1400.00 into it. It has about 1680 miles on it. That means it has cost me 83¢ per mile. If I ever keep a bicycle for a long time those dollars per mile figures will eventually be low. If I ever buy an inexpensive bicycle or even a used one from the Goodwill store the expenses will start very low.

What would it cost to ride a bicycle 200,000 miles? Tires alone would be $4000.00 at $50.00 per tire lasting 5000 miles. Quality tubes would be $400.00. How often would wheels need to be replaced from the rims wearing out from bumps and brake pads? It would be an interesting exercise to find out. A bicycle mechanic who knows how long parts usually last and the prices of things probably could do it.

It might be cheaper to buy a new $400.00 bicycle every ten thousand miles than to pay for many things to be rebuilt and replaced.

I've got another bicycle with an estimated $1400.00 into it. It has about 1680 miles on it. That means it has cost me 83¢ per mile. If I ever keep a bicycle for a long time those dollars per mile figures will eventually be low. If I ever buy an inexpensive bicycle or even a used one from the Goodwill store the expenses will start very low.

I bought a steel bike 6 years ago and have about 15000 miles on it. I've had very little maintenance on it. Figure it cost me about 5 - 7 cents a mile for capital cost and repairs.

Likewise I bought an 27 year old Fuji and have about 3000 miles on it. Costs thus far are about the same.

If you keep those bikes and don't spend needlessly, you'll see a great cost savings.

My first good bike was a Schwinn Traveler I got for $5. I crashed once and got new bar tape for $15. $20, and I used it for 600 miles. 3.3¢ per mile. Then I sold it for $65, so I guess it was actually -7.5¢ per mile.

Riding a bicycle doesn't have to be expensive.

i bought my cheap schwinn semi-road bike (hybrid) at target for $250. A few fenders $25, rack $25, lights $15, cheap wireless computer ($20 i think). A spare tube $8, cheap patch kit with tire levers ($5), Dry Lube $10, Multitool ($25), random odds and ends ($15).

All in all I've put in just about $400 on a bike that's easy to maintain, has decent stock parts, and will save me about $1000 this year in insurance costs. I also am planning to bike year round so I might spend $200 on winter bike gear that will be good for years.

Ive been in a few spills already, had one tube go flat and learned to change a tube on the fly (took a while but I figured it out), and hauled quite a bit of stuff back and forth. I've logged about 850 miles in just about 7 months. When I drove I rarely did more than 4000 miles a year.
Public transport is now $1.55 a token. At $3.10 a day round trip I'd be spending more time commuting (walking, waiting, more walking, repeat) and I would have spent $450.00 commuting this year.

Bikes are easy to do basic maintenance on, they provide exercise while getting you to places faster than a public bus can, they dont require insurance or registration fees, licensing, parking or speeding tickets. Tons of pollutants in cars, tons of germs in public transport,
All in all, its easily the most affordable transportation these days, especially if you get a cheap bike and don't mind doing basic maintenance every few weeks.


I do have a driver's license, and sometimes I do wish I had a car, especially in the cold and wet winter days. Once I'm pedaling all that disappears and I'm glad to be on my bike.

On my bike, I go through at least one set of tires a year, sometimes more. Don't ask how many flats I get because I have my share of them. I wear out a set of brake pads a year and sometimes two sets in a year. I've owned my bike since 2006 and in that time, I've worn out the saddle, the chain a couple of times and the pedals. I also had the frame break for reasons I don't understand. Fortunately, it had a lifetime warranty. But I've also put more than 22,000 kilometres on that bike just over four years. I expect things are going to go wrong from time to time.

The up side is none of the repairs on my bike have been all that pricey. I'll bring it to the bike shop once a year for a good servicing and other than that, I do most of my own work. Most of what's going to happen will be relatively minor. And when things go wrong, the bill will be far less than I'd pay to have the same level of maintenance done to a car.

Here is the old bike I used for years until I upgraded to a new mountain bike set up for city riding. The second bike is my current city bike, however it doesn't see much use at the moment. FWIW the second bike is worth around $1000 with the upgrades, the last repair on my truck cost more than that and it is still less than 2 months of average automobile costs. The black Raleigh was used from 1982-1987 exclusively and was ridden around 6,000 miles a year on average. Costs were minimal a new set of tires every nine months, a new chain every 3rd year and brake blocks and cables when needed. I just replaced the gear cable on it this year, the one that came of was the OEM cable.

Aaron :)

http://inlinethumb39.webshots.com/48038/2927508510066886751S425x425Q85.jpghttp://inlinethumb54.webshots.com/21301/2253513710066886751S425x425Q85.jpg

If I've got a $1000.00 bicycle that has only 400 miles on it. So far it has cost me $2.50 per mile to use it. In time that cost per mile will drop. Two of my recumbents had low mileage on them when they were sold. I had to buy them without test rides because there were no dealers in my state. When I sold them for what I could get, their cost per mile was very high.

I've got another bicycle with an estimated $1400.00 into it. It has about 1680 miles on it. That means it has cost me 83¢ per mile. If I ever keep a bicycle for a long time those dollars per mile figures will eventually be low. If I ever buy an inexpensive bicycle or even a used one from the Goodwill store the expenses will start very low.


This is not a very useful or logical way to calculate depreciation of your bikes. It would be better to divide the net value of the bike by the projected number of years of service. For example, let's say your $1000 bike will last 10 years, and its salvage value at the end of 10 years is about $100. The net cost of the bike is $900. Divide that by 10 years, and you have $90 per year of depreciation.

If you ride 5,000 miles a year, that is less than two cents a mile.

I'm far from being an accountant, but this seems like a much more meaningful way to determine depreciation costs, rather than your ever changing figures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depreciation

This is not a very useful or logical way to calculate depreciation of your bikes. It would be better to divide the net value of the bike by the projected number of years of service. For example, let's say your $1000 bike will last 10 years, and its salvage value at the end of 10 years is about $100. The net cost of the bike is $900. Divide that by 10 years, and you have $90 per year of depreciation.

If you ride 5,000 miles a year, that is less than two cents a mile.

I'm far from being an accountant, but this seems like a much more meaningful way to determine depreciation costs, rather than your ever changing figures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depreciation
That's only part of the story.

In addition to depreciation costs, there are the costs of maintenance and service for a bike. Calculate how much you spend on parts and service for the bike. Your tires and brakes will wear out often. Your chain will need replacement. Eventually, your bottom bracket will go. And if you ride the bike long enough, you'll be dealing with all sorts of other repairs and replacements.

Even if you do most of the work yourself, you'll probably end up taking the bike to the shop for some of the more involved repair work. That also comes at a price.

My flat tires are caused by tiny bits of glass, nails, and bits of wire from steel belted tires. My tire has kevlar in it and still those things get through. Talk to mountain bikers who ride where there are thorns. They'll tell you about flats.

Usually debris that causes flats is swept (by passing traffic) to the edges of the road - ride further out from the edges and you'll get less flats. If you are riding far out and still getting that many flats - wow your roads are really crappy!

If you live somewhere where traffic jams are common you'll have an easy time I think winning the reliability argument. Just wait for the co-workers to all come in late (stuck in a big backup) while you are on time :)

I live just outside DC, but work in the city. My ride takes me about 25 minutes (depends how hard I'm trying that day). Driving takes me about 20 minutes (without much traffic, with traffic can take as much as 45), plus another 5 to find parking and walk in. Add to that, I don't live in the same zone as my office, and D.C. restricts most out-of-zone parkers to only 2 hours of parking. So, every 2 hours I spend about 15 minutes moving my car (technically I am not allowed to just move my car, I am supposed to leave the zone after 2 hours or pay for a garage, but as long as you go to another block they won't ticket you).

Obviously, biking saves me time.

Cars are cheaper to operate when measured by the mile but they have an enormous up front cost. They're worth it for the people who must travel many thousands of miles per year. I've owned two quality recumbents. I calculated the miles I put on each of them and how much I spent per mile on their usage. It was nearly $2.00 per mile. My Dahon Smooth Hound has cost me about $1.97 per mile so far. That number drops with time but I don't use that one daily. Even if I did it wouldn't be very many miles out and back. It'll take a long time for that dollar per mile figure to come down. Thousand dollar bicycles are probably luxury purchases compared to $350.00 useful bicycles that can do the same thing more or less. Actually I think that bicycles in that range are more durable than the light weight ones. The parts are sturdier.

I, too, think there is something very off here. I bought a bike five years ago off of craigslist for $40. I just had my first flat ever two weeks ago. The only money I put into it was adding panniers, basket, etc. Rubber cement cost me $4, and a repair kit cost me $3. So a $1.97 a mile? Are you riding on many toll rolls or something. I really can't figure this out. It costs me nothing to operate my bike, and I was homeless for a while with no income whatsoever for about 8 months and I could still ride miles and miles.

My primary reason for being car-light is not financial, but just looking at things briefly:

I own two bikes which I consider transportation bikes, total cost between them was about $7000, between them I put an additional $500 a year in misc parts, maintenance etc. Between those two bikes I put on about 5000 miles per year.

My wife owns one car - the new cost was ~$30,000, she puts about 8,000 miles per year on it, and it currently has about 90,000 miles on it. Her maintenance costs are currently running about $3000 per year.

From a financial standpoint, I think that it would be hard to argue that the car is less expensive, even though I ride what many people consider to be crazy-expensive bikes.

This is before we even begin to look at fuel, insurance, registration fees etc.

In terms of reliability - my wifes car has been in the shop about a half dozen times in the past year (oil changes, brakes, tie-rod end replacement, battery, motor mount replacement etc). She uses her bike for transportation when the car is in the shop. I have not had a single day when both of my bikes have been out of commission, so I would say that from a reliability standpoint, the bike option wins hands down.

I'm not even sure why there is a debate here - a bicycle beats a car as a transportation choice in pretty much every way except for speed on long commutes - and I choose to live close enough to work that there is no speed penalty paid for cycling rather than driving.

For me however, one of the most comforting things about the bicycle is that I understand it. I can do almost any repair on the bike myself, and can diagnose any mechanical problem on the bike myself. With the car - it begins to make a strange sound, you bring it in to a mechanic who tells you that it needs X, Y and Z, and that it will cost $800 - the work is done, and I can't see what was changed. With my bicycles, I have never brought the bike to a mechanic not knowing what the problem was, and when I pick up the bike, it is easy to see if what needed to be done has indeed been done. Who has paid $1000 to have a timing belt replaced - could you have told the difference before and after the repair?

How can cars be cheaper to operate than bikes considering gas, manitenance, insurance, parking cost, etc? I could have a nice new bike every year for what I pay in car insurance in NYC. Maybe in rural areas it is different but in a city a car costs a lot to operate. And yeah, that is without accounting for the original price of the car.

I guess most car-dependent people haven't stopped to consider that.

I bet most people relying on cheaper or older cars are well aware of this problem...

How can cars be cheaper to operate than bikes considering gas, manitenance, insurance, parking cost, etc? I could have a nice new bike every year for what I pay in car insurance in NYC. Maybe in rural areas it is different but in a city a car costs a lot to operate. And yeah, that is without accounting for the original price of the car.
To be fully accurate, compare the costs of driving a car — all the costs — with the costs of cycling, taking taxis and taking transit. Why do I include those costs? Simply because there will eventually be times when it is not possible or when it is not feasible to use the bike, for any number of reasons. There are transportation costs we all must consider, whether in a car or on a bike.

To be fully accurate, compare the costs of driving a car — all the costs — with the costs of cycling, taking taxis and taking transit. Why do I include those costs? Simply because there will eventually be times when it is not possible or when it is not feasible to use the bike, for any number of reasons. There are transportation costs we all must consider, whether in a car or on a bike.

I'm sure it won't add up to the same numbers as car maintenance/ownership. Without a car you stay home more anyway. Having a car encourages unneccesary shopping trips when you end up buying uneccessary things. Bike trips are more calculated and purposeful. I could easily move around by bike and mass transit only, no need for taxis and cabs.

I remember calculating the costs for going around by car or by transit in Vancouver. For one person, transit is a lot cheaper than a car. For two people with one car, the cost advantage of transit goes away.

However, I fully agree that bike trips are much more calculated and purposeful. That alone is a huge point in favour of going by bike.

To be fully accurate, compare the costs of driving a car — all the costs — with the costs of cycling, taking taxis and taking transit. Why do I include those costs? Simply because there will eventually be times when it is not possible or when it is not feasible to use the bike, for any number of reasons. There are transportation costs we all must consider, whether in a car or on a bike.

My son did and lives car free in Boston, MA. His sister did too and lives car free in Seattle, WA. Dear old dad did something right, if nothing else than to teach them to think for themselves! FWIW my son doesn't own a bike (yet) my daughter has a Staiger bike that I bough a while back that she uses for getting to and from work and shopping. It is a typical Euro Trekking bike with generator hub, lights, racks, fenders, etc.

Aaron :)

When I was a younger woman, prospective employers would cite cars as an "protection" against the high crime of the Los Angeles area at night if I were to work later than sundown. I now view this as a "cop out" as I would be the one to foot the bill to support this supposed "protection"-on lower-than-living wages I would be paid at those workplaces. I always felt that a car was no guarantee against crime as many rapes/robberies/murders were done in them, or around them, then the body is placed in said vehicle and taken away to be dumped somewhere. I never heard of this done on a bike.

I have never had my bicycle refuse to start.

I have.

With the flu. Yet I still tried to go to work. The street I lived on was a very gentle down hill slope. That was agonizingly difficult. When I got to the corner and onto a level street, the effort was too much and I had to turn around. :eek:

When I was a younger woman, prospective employers would cite cars as an "protection" against the high crime of the Los Angeles area at night if I were to work later than sundown.

Unless of course the crime is a car jacking.

If I bought a $400 bicycle every 5000 miles instead of starting to replace things, and assuming I got lucky and didn't get any flat tires, it would cost me $16,000 to ride 200,000 miles. That would be forty bicycles at 8¢ per mile.

If you like $1000.00 bicycles and bought a new one every 5000 miles your price per mile would be 20¢.

The market for used conventional bicycles wouldn't pay much for a used $400.00 bicycle but perhaps the sale of a used $1000.00 bicycle would be able to recoup some of the initial cash outlay.

I'm sure that the extra calories of food needed to travel via bicycle would cost something too. Personally I don't need to lose any weight. Even people who do would eventually need to eat more food to provide the extra energy for propulsion.

I know that many people pay two-hundred to five-hundred dollars per year for bicycle maintenance. The thing is that their mileage usually differs quite a bit. So do the parts.

I've found that the parts on my cheap bicycle are outlasting the parts on the expensive one. The steel sprockets that are welded together on the cranks just don't wear as fast as the FSA chainrings or the Shimano XT cassette. On the other hand the cheap wheels have needed spoke maintenance often and the bearings get loose regularly.

Replacing light weight parts on medium to expensive bicycles could cost as much per mile as owning an inexpensive car.

Would a new $100 bicycle last 5000 miles without needing a major repair? Somewhere on a message board I remember a cyclist who bought a cruiser from a big box store and rode it for over 5000 miles before switching to a recumbent. He said it was just to see if he would stick with riding. Indeed he did. I wonder what his cost per mile was after tires, tubes, and any other problems that arose in that distance.

Your experience is really incomprehensible. I just bought an old Raleigh for $75. It needs cleaning and a $3 part to be road-worthy. I'm going to put a few other new things on it for a grand total investment of $125 in the bike. It's over 30 years old and has all the original parts and cables and rides very well.

Your experience is really incomprehensible. I just bought an old Raleigh for $75. It needs cleaning and a $3 part to be road-worthy. I'm going to put a few other new things on it for a grand total investment of $125 in the bike. It's over 30 years old and has all the original parts and cables and rides very well.

See post #19 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?685331-quot-Reliable-quot-Transportation&p=11572276&viewfull=1#post11572276), in my years of experience the more expensive the bicycle, the more expensive the repair parts. I chose my bikes with utility and durability as primary requirements. The last thing I worry about is weight of parts or the total weight of the bicycle. Unfortunately our society looks on bikes as toys or sporting goods and builds them accordingly. There are only a very few bikes on the current market that match the simplicity and durability of the old all steel Raleighs. They were by no means a cheap bicycle in their day, they were well up into the expensive range, but durability was more of selling point then, now it is all about how light or how many gears it has. FWIW my Raleigh Sports sold for around $80 new in 1972 that would be over $400 in 2009 dollars and probably closer to $500. That buys you a middle of the road bike, but if you choose carefully you can get one as durable as the old Raleighs.

Aaron :)

There are only a very few bikes on the current market that match the simplicity and durability of the old all steel Raleighs.
Aaron, I kind of disagree. I know that the old Schwinn Varsities and Collegiates of the 1970s are still near indestructable, but there are some pretty nice steel and aluminum bikes manufactured today that are also pretty durable. I've been riding a Bianchi Volpe for many years and I believe it has many more years left in its life. Some components will also last a long while. I was just out in the garage truing the wheels. I guess they will need to be replaced sometime, but I certainly won't complain that it isn't durable enough.

I just bought an old Raleigh for $75. It needs cleaning and a $3 part to be road-worthy. I'm going to put a few other new things on it for a grand total investment of $125 in the bike. It's over 30 years old and has all the original parts and cables and rides very well.

If the Raleigh you bought still has all the original parts, it's probably because it didn't get used all that much, but I agree that you can get very decent, reliable used bikes for not a lot of money. I bought a 1980s-vintage mountain bike for $75 six years ago, put another $200 in road tires and parts into it, and rode it every day for four years with only routine maintenance ( replacing chains, brake pads, rims, etc.).

However, you do get what you pay for, and if you pay more for a bike, you usually get a better riding experience. Two years ago I bought a Surly LHT for $1000; at that time, I thought this was an obscene amount of money to pay for a bike, but it's been worth every penny. It has clean, classic lines, especially for a newer-model bike. (Why are so many new bikes so hideously ugly?!) It has a wonderfully durable steel frame and very nice components: it's comfortable, the gears shift smoothly and silently, and the XT hubs are a dream. Granted, it doesn't actually do anything that my old $75 hybrid couldn't do, but if your bicycle is your primary mode of transport, why not have one that's aesthetically pleasant to ride in addition to being tough and reliable?

Aaron, I kind of disagree. I know that the old Schwinn Varsities and Collegiates of the 1970s are still near indestructable, but there are some pretty nice steel and aluminum bikes manufactured today that are also pretty durable. I've been riding a Bianchi Volpe for many years and I believe it has many more years left in its life. Some components will also last a long while. I was just out in the garage truing the wheels. I guess they will need to be replaced sometime, but I certainly won't complain that it isn't durable enough.

There are bikes being manufactured, but they are hard to find and in some locales unavailable. People don't know what is out there. 40 years ago you would walk into a Schwinn or Raleigh Dealer and they usually had the full line, today you walk into a bike shop and 99% of what is in there isn't particularly suitable for most riders and is not what I would consider a durable bike. The more gears, the more maintenance and the less durable, the chains have gotten thinner and annual replacement isn't out of the ordinary if you ride it much at all, complete drive train replacement every couple of years? Insane.

Two places where the technology has improved that is great for all cyclists has been in tires and lighting.

Aaron :)

If I bought a $400 bicycle every 5000 miles instead of starting to replace things, and assuming I got lucky and didn't get any flat tires, it would cost me $16,000 to ride 200,000 miles. That would be forty bicycles at 8¢ per mile.

I bike 20kms a day for work and back on my bikes; plus riding on the weekend on other, somewhat nicer bikes.
20kms a day X 5 days a week x 52 weeks in a year = 5200kms/3200 miles a year. Not a chance I could ride that long without getting flats, or needing any maintenance. Optimistic, but a little unrealistic on your numbers there.

I bike 20kms a day for work and back on my bikes; plus riding on the weekend on other, somewhat nicer bikes.
20kms a day X 5 days a week x 52 weeks in a year = 5200kms/3200 miles a year. Not a chance I could ride that long without getting flats, or needing any maintenance. Optimistic, but a little unrealistic on your numbers there.

Remember the OP plans to throw the bike away after his 5000 miles so preventative maintenance is out of the question. He also starts from brand new each time, so its realistic to use a drivetrain that far - if he was going to keep the bike he should be changing the chain earlier but the cassette and chain will wear out together. And obviously maintenance costs are greatly increased if say you took your bike to the LBS for every flat tire or adjustment. Flats are a negligible expense, assuming you aren't breaking the valve stem, its what about 25 cents for a patch and maybe that much more in rubber cement cost? I found the biggest need to maintain my bikes are from riding in the winter when the salt-encrusted roads wreak havoc on everything - I expect now that I've moved to a nicer climate that to diminish greatly :)

However, you do get what you pay for, and if you pay more for a bike, you usually get a better riding experience.

Up to a point, yes. At prices higher that $1000 - $1500, the difference in quality will be important only in professional competition--or if you're a poser riding for status.

(IMO)

Two places where the technology has improved that is great for all cyclists has been in tires and lighting.

Aaron :)

What about disc brakes and belt drives? Too soon to tell?

What would it cost to ride a bicycle 200,000 miles? Tires alone would be $4000.00 at $50.00 per tire lasting 5000 miles. Quality tubes would be $400.00. How often would wheels need to be replaced from the rims wearing out from bumps and brake pads? It would be an interesting exercise to find out. A bicycle mechanic who knows how long parts usually last and the prices of things probably could do it.
But at $10/tire the cost would only be $800 for the 200 kmiles. I can't see the point of spending $50/tire unless you're racing where a difference of a few seconds could be significant. The tires on my touring bike are now at almost 6000 miles and cost less than $4.50 each. The back one is getting pretty worn but the front has lots of miles left in it. Each has had one flat so far. I find that tubes last much longer than tires before they get an unpatchable flat - usually I get them for the price of a patch ($0.30) since many of the people I ride with don't bother patching their tubes and are willing to give them away when they get a flat.

Rim wear will depend on conditions and how much braking you do. I get about 60 kmiles per front rim since that's the brake I use the most. I've never worn out a rear rim - should last at least the whole 200 kmiles. But you don't have to replace the whole wheel - just the rim. I recently replaced the front rim on my touring bike and it cost $25 and about an hour of my time to switch the spokes over to the new rim.

The per-mile cost of my touring bike is currently a little over $0.10/mile with just over half of that being for fuel. Not counting the grocery bills it's 5 cents/mile.

I think Schwalbe Marathons give me more miles between flat tires than my Kenda Kevlar tires. I selected a higher price for tires and tubes because of this. They are more likely to last much longer than cheaper tires. Recently I've had two Kenda tires disintegrate from the inside. The cords started showing through the inner part of the tire and abrading my inner tubes which caused flat tires. Anybody who gets a few thousand miles on an inexpensive tire is doing really good.

I remembered that the guy who rode his cruiser bicycle over 5000 miles before switching to a recumbent had his bottom bracket go out on him just after he reached that mileage. It was then that he switched bikes. I don't remember if he replaced it or not.

My eye is on three different bicycles for my next one. Each of them costs way more than necessary for a utility bicycle. I suppose that makes me one of those people who just loves certain qualities in a bicycle that go beyond price. Though I must say some bicycle prices seem outrageous to me (like the Moultons). Sixteen–thousand dollars seems a bit high for a bicycle with a suspension. Will I ever spend $3000.00 on a bicycle? Maybe. Right now the answer is no but who knows what good fortune fate might bring me. The most expensive HPV for me was $1799 back in 2003 so I know I'm capable of spending big money on a bicycle. It is when they cost that much in initial outlay that they make the dollars per mile number high.

This is not a very useful or logical way to calculate depreciation of your bikes. It would be better to divide the net value of the bike by the projected number of years of service. For example, let's say your $1000 bike will last 10 years, and its salvage value at the end of 10 years is about $100. The net cost of the bike is $900. Divide that by 10 years, and you have $90 per year of depreciation.

If you ride 5,000 miles a year, that is less than two cents a mile.

I'm far from being an accountant, but this seems like a much more meaningful way to determine depreciation costs, rather than your ever changing figures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depreciation



That's only part of the story.

In addition to depreciation costs, there are the costs of maintenance and service for a bike. Calculate how much you spend on parts and service for the bike. Your tires and brakes will wear out often. Your chain will need replacement. Eventually, your bottom bracket will go. And if you ride the bike long enough, you'll be dealing with all sorts of other repairs and replacements.

Even if you do most of the work yourself, you'll probably end up taking the bike to the shop for some of the more involved repair work. That also comes at a price.

That's only part of the part of the story ... equation .... thingy. To be fair, you should also calculate what this bike is saving you vs. the "total cost" of whatever alternative means of transportation you switched from. Plug that up into your equation and let's see what happens to your bottom line.

Thanks, Sundance. I think you and I are in agreement on this. There are costs to any form of transportation. Some are much higher than others, but in order to consider the costs, it's important to have a comprehensive comparison.

Thanks, Sundance. I think you and I are in agreement on this. There are costs to any form of transportation. Some are much higher than others, but in order to consider the costs, it's important to have a comprehensive comparison.

Absolutely. I just read all of your posts and saw that this one was just a partial thought on your part. Yes, we are in complete agreement. How can one not do a comprehensive comparison for bottom line cost?

What about disc brakes and belt drives? Too soon to tell?

Possibly disc brakes, but they require heavier hubs and special frame fittings. I can take any bike I have and change the brake system out. I prefer the roller (drum) brakes, they can usually be installed on any type of frame and are fully enclosed from the weather. Belt drives currently are still in the gimmick stage IMHO. They are pricey and if you want to do a quick ratio change by swapping out cogs it requires buying a new belt, on my chain driven bikes I can add or remove links at will.

Aaron :)