Living Car Free - Bikes are Oil Hungry Beasts

You got to be kidding me, lets all just move and hide under a rock:(
http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-05-09/peak-cycling-bikes-are-oil-hungry-beasts

Clueless? We can melt down Hummer wheels and build bicycles, the article is myopic and doesn't really explore the alternatives. FWIW I ride old bicycles, most of mine are 30 plus years old and will still be rolling for a long time to come.

Aaron :)

You got to be kidding me, lets all just move and hide under a rock:(
http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-05-09/peak-cycling-bikes-are-oil-hungry-beasts

Asinine article, but the comments are well worth reading. The author tries to support his claims, but he's no match for the readers.

Thats what I seen the comments are great, I just wanted to share it with all here.

Thats what I seen the comments are great, I just wanted to share it with all here.

Thanks for sharing.

Worth clicking on the link to see what proper cycling attire looked like in 1886.

Worth clicking on the link to see what proper cycling attire looked like in 1886.

Hey I ride dressed like that:roflmao2:

Hey I ride dressed like that:roflmao2:

Which saddle do you find best accommodates your bustle?

Peak Cycling? Oil Hungry Beast?

I just read the article and it still sounds like an oxymoron to me.

I have 2 steel bikes right now. Judging by the old 10-speed I used to have, my current two bikes should last me about 30 years if they are well-cared for. Maybe they might outlive me, since people from my dad's side of the family die early from hereditary hypertension and heart disease.

Oh yeah, +1 on the comments. Love the way they refute the author's points.

None of the comments refute the author's points; they merely demonstrate that the posters here didn't understand them (and/or refuse to accept the underlying premises).

The author of the cited article is talking about long-term issues relating to the production of bicycles (and all other manufactures that depend upon non-renewable resources and large energy inputs). In the time frames he is contemplating, his view of the future of bikes is a very reasonable and well-informed one.

I'm a little surprised that posters who live carfree (or are interested in doing so) would have such a short-sighted (and, apparently, overly-optimistic) view of the world's energy and resource predicament. I strongly advise you to investigate more thoroughly. Although not without flaws, the positions represented by Heinberg and the others at the Post Carbon Institute are generally well-founded in solid science and should be taken very seriously.

Although not without flaws, the positions represented by Heinberg and the others at the Post Carbon Institute are generally well-founded in solid science and should be taken very seriously.

Although I also believe that the Energy Bulletin is a good resource for Peak Oil articles, many of them thought provoking, I think that this article was like a "slow news day" article." The author even admitted the article was given the title it was for shock value ("It was a catchy title more than anything else", the author said) to get people to read it.

Ho hum. Let's worry about how very high oil prices will impact those reliant on cars before we spend our sleepless nights worrying how our bicycles will be impacted by peak oil.

I think cars will be dead on the road long before we run out of resources for bicycles...

Aaron :)

I think cars will be dead on the road long before we run out of resources for bicycles...

Aaron :)

I wouldn't bet against you. :)

All of you who are now under 50 will almost certainly see the beginning of the end of the (very short) auto age. Unless you see much more than the beginning. . .

Steel components break down much faster with oxidation but can also leach toxins into the environment.


I've got a 40 year old bike sitting in my living room right now that disproves this argument. I fixed it up a bit and I'm pretty sure it's ready for another 40.

I've got a 40 year old bike sitting in my living room right now that disproves this argument. I fixed it up a bit and I'm pretty sure it's ready for another 40.

No, the bike in your living room doesn't disprove the argument. First, if you're going to quote, do so in context, please:


Rubber tires eventually wear out and are impossible to recycle without huge energy inputs. More than likely they end up in landfills where there is risk of slowly leaching heavy metals and other pollutants into the groundwater. There are no natural organisms that can decompose vulcanized rubber and so it takes centuries for tires to break down due to physical processes. Steel components break down much faster with oxidation but can also leach toxins into the environment.

That's what the author actually wrote. And it's absolutely true: Steel breaks down much faster in the natural environment than vulcanized rubber.

The age of the bicycle in your living room is totally irrelevant here.

I think the author makes one really good point: bicycles are a product of the same industrial infrastructure that produces cars, and virtually everything else in our culture. To have bikes, you need factories and machines to make them, and even smooth paved surfaces (mostly made from oil) upon which to ride them. One of the earliest proponents of paving in the US was actually a bicycling club. I totally agree that without an industrial way of life, bicycles would not be possible.

However, the author then makes two assumptions that are not quite supportable:
1. Industrialism is, in and of itself, a bad thing.
2. Industrialism is ultimately doomed.

I would argue that industrialism in its current form is certainly unsustainable, and obviously not good for either humans or the environment, but it's a problem of application, not the idea itself. The author forgets that, before the industrial revolution, things pretty much sucked for everyone except the nobility and rich merchants, and even for them, life is much better now. Industrialism, on balance, is a very good thing for the vast majority of humanity, and, if conducted on a smaller, more human scale, can pretty much last forever, if we can figure out what do about energy before the oil runs out....

Bottom line: yes, cars and bikes are siblings, but cars are the big, fat sibling that dies of a heart attack at 30, while bikes will thrive well into old age.

No, the bike in your living room doesn't disprove the argument. First, if you're going to quote, do so in context, please:


Your sense of context and his sense of terms like "sustainability" appear to me to be highly subjective.



From a long term sustainability viewpoint an area of interest is the development of wooden and especially bamboo-framed bicycles. The great thing about bamboo is that it grows well almost anywhere with no required inputs and it grows quickly. Professionally manufactured bicycles can set you back thousands of dollars but there is also real potential to build one yourself at a relatively low monetary and energy cost. Initiatives such as the Bamboo Bike Project already exist in bringing low cost bamboo bicycles to the masses in Africa.


I'll grant you that bamboo bicycle frames are wonderful things. But I have never heard of one of them that did not reply mightily on rather nasty glues binding the bamboo to steel joints. The parts that made the machine go were pretty much all made from same aluminum alloys of one sort or another that power my 40 year old bike.

Your sense of context and his sense of terms like "sustainability" appear to me to be highly subjective.

Everyone's senses are subjective. They couldn't be anything else. Look up the word "sense."

I think you're just arguing because you were challenged for misquoting and posting a factual error. I'm finished with this thread.

My only real issue with the article is a small one.


So we may be able to build bicycles for a long time yet but where will we ride them? Not many people stop to think how reliant modern cyclists are on automobile infrastructure. Richard Heinberg writes in The End of Growth that where he lives in Sonoma County, California, 90 percent of roads are being left to deteriorate and gradually return to gravel as there is no money for continuing upkeep. It is likely that this will also be a trend elsewhere as the ‘business as usual’ approach comes up against hard resource limits.

This makes it sound like the author doesn't believe bikes are ride-able on anything but smooth asphalt. For several years part of my daily commute included a stretch of abandoned road which for years had been "retaken" by nature. Sure, it wasn't perfectly smooth, but it was absolutely not a problem. And all of the trails in my town are unpaved, either gravel or a sort of packed cinder material. My only issue with riding on this surface is that it wears tires out a little more quickly. A bicycle can be ridden on a wide variety of surfaces; asphalt is only one, and an unnecessarily expensive one (for bicycles at least).

Everyone's senses are subjective. They couldn't be anything else. Look up the word "sense."

I think you're just arguing because you were challenged for misquoting and posting a factual error. I'm finished with this thread.

First I quoted out of context. Then I misquoted and posted a factual error. Also I don't apparently know the meaning of the word "sense".

Fortunately you are quitting this thread or I will next be accused of terrorism or something. Whew!

If were talking long term......

We get a few more people on the planet,nothing will be sustainable.......not even plants.Keep pumping out kids......There's always Soylent Green.......

If everybody had 1 kid for a couple generations,the problem would take care of itself,but that isn't going to happen anytime soon,so kiss your human hiney BYE BYE......

The only thing sustainable is if we learn to run everything on dead humans,there's going to be lots of those.......

Don't stop making land fills,they are going to be the methane producers of the future.....after all the cows are dead.

None of the comments refute the author's points; they merely demonstrate that the posters here didn't understand them (and/or refuse to accept the underlying premises).

The author of the cited article is talking about long-term issues relating to the production of bicycles (and all other manufactures that depend upon non-renewable resources and large energy inputs). In the time frames he is contemplating, his view of the future of bikes is a very reasonable and well-informed one.

I'm a little surprised that posters who live carfree (or are interested in doing so) would have such a short-sighted (and, apparently, overly-optimistic) view of the world's energy and resource predicament. I strongly advise you to investigate more thoroughly. Although not without flaws, the positions represented by Heinberg and the others at the Post Carbon Institute are generally well-founded in solid science and should be taken very seriously.

People have been spouting this doom & gloom for years, and it has come to naught. The earth can support reasonable human activity for now and into the future. Silly articles like this do more harm to the environmental movement than anything the Koch brothers can come up with. (I am speaking as a life-long environmentalist.)

There are trade-offs to be made with any form of transportation. This is true of transit, private cars, bikes, walking shoes, skateboards or anything else. Some of the trade-offs are price, speed, convenience, durability and environmental impact. I know bikes aren't perfect, but all things considered, they compare quite favourably to the other forms. And, as oil resources dwindle, we are going to see some changes and innovations in transportation technology and in manufacturing technology.

People have been spouting this doom & gloom for years, and it has come to naught. The earth can support reasonable human activity for now and into the future. Silly articles like this do more harm to the environmental movement than anything the Koch brothers can come up with. (I am speaking as a life-long environmentalist.)

Humans cannot escape ecological (and physical) reality. We are in overshoot right now and there will be a massive correction (read die off) of humans in the near future. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't. You are like the guy driving towards the edge of a cliff "Thelma and Louise" style, yelling "you keep saying we're gonna die, but it hasn't happened yet". Well, my friend, get ready. The cliff is getting ever closer.

If you'd like to try to understand where we are headed, I highly recommend reading "The Limits to Growth" and it's sequels.

Humans cannot escape ecological (and physical) reality. We are in overshoot right now and there will be a massive correction (read die off) of humans in the near future. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't. You are like the guy driving towards the edge of a cliff "Thelma and Louise" style, yelling "you keep saying we're gonna die, but it hasn't happened yet". Well, my friend, get ready. The cliff is getting ever closer.

If you'd like to try to understand where we are headed, I highly recommend reading "The Limits to Growth" and it's sequels.

Not sure if this scenario will actually play out. I suspect something else, although hard to say exactly what. I'm reading a book called "The coming Population Crash" by Fred Pearce, which tries to frame all this doom-and-gloom by introducing a small fact. Rather than continuing to expand, many societies in the West and also many "educated" segments of other societies have birth rates that will not sustain the population. Such a scenario sounds interesting to people who have read Malthus, but it's not the rosy picture you might think.