The Economics of Bicycling
#101
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,959
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,528 Times
in
1,041 Posts
#102
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 22
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
But if you think that halving the total amount I drive the vehicle per year does not factor into the decision as to how much insurance I need, you are sadly mistaken. In fact, it's the sole determining factor behind it. I have the financial risk for half (or less) of the total number of miles, making it a more acceptable risk. Sure, others could switch to state minimum while still using their car all the time, while others could switch to biking as a primary means of transport and still lug around full coverage (I personally think that's insanely wasteful, but to each their own). But it's frankly disingenuous to say the use of a bicycle is irrelevant. Your insurance company keeps in mind the miles driven when determining the cost of your insurance, why would you not do the same?
#103
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,959
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,528 Times
in
1,041 Posts
Not true at all- by not driving the vehicle, it means that dropping the insurance to the minimum during that period, or even going uninsured during that period, is only logical. I choose to drop to minimum, so if something were to come up driving it would still be an option, so I don't have lapses in insurance bumping up my rates when I do drive the car in Winter, and so I don't have to deal with switching it, because I like things easy
But if you think that halving the total amount I drive the vehicle per year does not factor into the decision as to how much insurance I need, you are sadly mistaken. In fact, it's the sole determining factor behind it. I have the financial risk for half (or less) of the total number of miles, making it a more acceptable risk. Sure, others could switch to state minimum while still using their car all the time, while others could switch to biking as a primary means of transport and still lug around full coverage (I personally think that's insanely wasteful, but to each their own). But it's frankly disingenuous to say the use of a bicycle is irrelevant. Your insurance company keeps in mind the miles driven when determining the cost of your insurance, why would you not do the same?
But if you think that halving the total amount I drive the vehicle per year does not factor into the decision as to how much insurance I need, you are sadly mistaken. In fact, it's the sole determining factor behind it. I have the financial risk for half (or less) of the total number of miles, making it a more acceptable risk. Sure, others could switch to state minimum while still using their car all the time, while others could switch to biking as a primary means of transport and still lug around full coverage (I personally think that's insanely wasteful, but to each their own). But it's frankly disingenuous to say the use of a bicycle is irrelevant. Your insurance company keeps in mind the miles driven when determining the cost of your insurance, why would you not do the same?
#104
Prefers Cicero
It is part of the economic cost, it's just an externalized cost. So there is a savings to society as a whole even if the individual doesn't see it. Nothing wrong with saving other people money as well as yourself.
#105
Sophomoric Member
All your verbiage doesn't change a thing, the poster saved on insurance by reducing his own coverage. His bicycling mileage is irrelevant. AFAIK, insurance companies ask about two mileage metrics, miles driven to work per week, and expected yearly mileage (over under a specific number like 7500 miles/yr) The poster still does not drive to work and still drives a total low mileage as before. Risk of having an insurance claim may be less, but the insurance premium savings did not result from riding a single mile by bicycle.
My apology if I was mistaken.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
#106
Senior Member
I think what he is saying is that he has eliminated collision and comprehensive insurance on his car because he has decided that his risk of loss has decreased because he is driving so much less. I think that makes perfect sense if someone is financially able to take the risk. Insurance is expensive -- insurance companies are in business to make money, and they do.
#107
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 22
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I think what he is saying is that he has eliminated collision and comprehensive insurance on his car because he has decided that his risk of loss has decreased because he is driving so much less. I think that makes perfect sense if someone is financially able to take the risk. Insurance is expensive -- insurance companies are in business to make money, and they do.
#108
Sophomoric Member
Exactly this. If you eliminated car driving entirely, you would certainly include the eliminated cost of insurance in the economic impact that it had. So it makes little sense to me if, due to reduced driving, you reduce the cost of your insurance, that you would not include it in the economic impact that it has. People are free to believe whatever they like, no matter how much I disagree with it, but what I'm saying is that *for me*, I found that if I didn't have to rely on my car for transport except due to inclement weather (I am just a beginner after all, not up for winter riding yet), through the act of doing so I was able to save myself money on gas and insurance. And I will absolutely consider that part of the economic savings of biking, regardless of the opinions of others.
Stay tuned to this forum in the autumn for information and encouragement to help you stay on the bike when the snow starts to fly.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
#109
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,959
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,528 Times
in
1,041 Posts
The poster reduced the cost of his insurance by reducing his coverage, period. Whether he rides a bicycle for 10,000 miles or not at all is irrelevant and immaterial to saving a dime in insurance costs in this case, no matter what makes "sense" to you.
#110
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 22
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Every single cost saving for riding a bicycle is indirect. Not driving 100 miles does not mean a bicycle saved you those costs, you could have walked or just not gone those places, you saved money by not paying for gas, whether you ride a bicycle or not is irrelevant and immaterial to saving a dime in gas costs. Except, you would otherwise have gone to those places with a car, and would have thus spent that money. Sure, I could have no insurance and drive around uninsured, or make any of a number of other options. Yet that does not change the fact that if not riding a bike, I *would* spend that money, and while riding the bike, I do not. Externalities are part of any proper cost benefit analysis, and you claimed they were being ignored as a point against the economic benefits on the first page (pointing out the possible opportunity costs), but are now doing exactly that when it suits your opinion.
If you spend money on something in scenario A, but do not in scenario B, it is an economic benefit of scenario B, no matter how indirectly related or what other factors are in play. Repeating "no it's not" over and over does not make the statement any more true.
#111
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
I see that we're not going to get anywhere with this, and my only intent in this thread was to put forth my personal results anyway, so I'll leave it with this-
Every single cost saving for riding a bicycle is indirect. Not driving 100 miles does not mean a bicycle saved you those costs, you could have walked or just not gone those places, you saved money by not paying for gas, whether you ride a bicycle or not is irrelevant and immaterial to saving a dime in gas costs. Except, you would otherwise have gone to those places with a car, and would have thus spent that money. Sure, I could have no insurance and drive around uninsured, or make any of a number of other options. Yet that does not change the fact that if not riding a bike, I *would* spend that money, and while riding the bike, I do not. Externalities are part of any proper cost benefit analysis, and you claimed they were being ignored as a point against the economic benefits on the first page (pointing out the possible opportunity costs), but are now doing exactly that when it suits your opinion.
If you spend money on something in scenario A, but do not in scenario B, it is an economic benefit of scenario B, no matter how indirectly related or what other factors are in play. Repeating "no it's not" over and over does not make the statement any more true.
Every single cost saving for riding a bicycle is indirect. Not driving 100 miles does not mean a bicycle saved you those costs, you could have walked or just not gone those places, you saved money by not paying for gas, whether you ride a bicycle or not is irrelevant and immaterial to saving a dime in gas costs. Except, you would otherwise have gone to those places with a car, and would have thus spent that money. Sure, I could have no insurance and drive around uninsured, or make any of a number of other options. Yet that does not change the fact that if not riding a bike, I *would* spend that money, and while riding the bike, I do not. Externalities are part of any proper cost benefit analysis, and you claimed they were being ignored as a point against the economic benefits on the first page (pointing out the possible opportunity costs), but are now doing exactly that when it suits your opinion.
If you spend money on something in scenario A, but do not in scenario B, it is an economic benefit of scenario B, no matter how indirectly related or what other factors are in play. Repeating "no it's not" over and over does not make the statement any more true.
#112
Prefers Cicero
#113
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,959
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,528 Times
in
1,041 Posts
You mentioned earlier that a bike was an "enabler" in you saving money on car ownership. If the bike is also an enabler on saving money on insurance, then that is an economic benefit of cycling. The poster indicated that switching to more biking did play a role in that insurance change.I'd find it helpful to have more clarification. You said driving less "means I can switch from full coverage on my vehicle to state minimum insurance, saving me $150 per month". How does that work, exactly? Are there some rules or laws that specify this? Thanks
It appears he decided to cut his insurance coverage for what ever reason he feels like claiming; he could have claimed because he felt lucky, or to make a point for his agenda he could claim the bicycle "enabled" his willingness to increase his financial risk. The fewer miles he now drives hardly appears related to the cargo bike purchase, its use or any change in his commuting routine.
The reasons most people probably change from full coverage to minimal coverage is based on the reduced value of the car, or the value of protecting personal wealth from the effects of a catastrophic financial burden resulting from an accident.
Last edited by I-Like-To-Bike; 04-09-15 at 05:51 PM.
#114
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,547
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18349 Post(s)
Liked 4,501 Times
in
3,346 Posts
Not true at all- by not driving the vehicle, it means that dropping the insurance to the minimum during that period, or even going uninsured during that period, is only logical. I choose to drop to minimum, so if something were to come up driving it would still be an option, so I don't have lapses in insurance bumping up my rates when I do drive the car in Winter, and so I don't have to deal with switching it, because I like things easy
In my case, I dropped the insurance. Hopefully I won't be in for a big surprise when I reinstate it. It is not parked on a public road. It forces me to ride my bike as the car isn't an "easy-out". It does mean that I could easy spend a lot of money if I choose to drive 3 or 4 times in a month sometime.
As far as dropping to minimum insurance. I've never owned a car that I wanted to pay full coverage on, and don't have any auto payments, so I'm not required to have full coverage.
In a sense, it just shifts liability to myself. I think the state minimum is $100K, so if I went over $100K in an accident, I would be in trouble. But, if I drive 1000 miles a year vs 20,000 miles a year, I'm about 1/20th as likely to get into a major accident with my car. Likewise, I'm 1/20th as likely to total my car and have to replace it.
Unfortunately, the auto insurance industry may not do a good job at capturing a true "risk".
I suppose that is one of the things about the new Health insurance laws. I end up paying $2,000 a year or so, for essentially zero benefits. To really even reach the break even point, I'll have to have about $10,000 worth of expenses that repeats itself for several years in a row. And, all of my bicycling and exercising doesn't count for squat.
#115
Prefers Cicero
The OP indicate that he was driving 650 miles less a month and he already drove zero mile for commuting purposes. He hinted that the cargo bike was part of the reduced driving mileage but was vague about how much. I would be very surprised if he and his wife replaced 650 miles a month of car driving for any length of time by instead using the cargo bike.
It appears he decided to cut his insurance coverage for what ever reason he feels like claiming; he could have claimed because he felt lucky, or to make a point for his agenda he could claim the bicycle "enabled" his willingness to increase his financial risk. The fewer miles he now drives hardly appears related to the cargo bike purchase, its use or any change in his commuting routine.
The reasons most people probably change from full coverage to minimal coverage is based on the reduced value of the car, or the value of protecting personal wealth from the effects of a catastrophic financial burden resulting from an accident.
It appears he decided to cut his insurance coverage for what ever reason he feels like claiming; he could have claimed because he felt lucky, or to make a point for his agenda he could claim the bicycle "enabled" his willingness to increase his financial risk. The fewer miles he now drives hardly appears related to the cargo bike purchase, its use or any change in his commuting routine.
The reasons most people probably change from full coverage to minimal coverage is based on the reduced value of the car, or the value of protecting personal wealth from the effects of a catastrophic financial burden resulting from an accident.
However I thought the current exchange is about the later thread contributor, GiantOctopodes who reportedly switched to "state minimum insurance" thanks to biking more and driving less. If he reduced his coverage without reducing risk, his savings are not attributable to biking. However if he qualified for cheaper coverage due to driving less, and managed to drive less because he accomplished tasks by bike that he previously did by car, then that is a savings attributable to biking. So I was asking him to clarify the link between his reduced driving and reduced insurance.
Last edited by cooker; 04-09-15 at 08:43 PM.
#116
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,959
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,528 Times
in
1,041 Posts
We might be talking at cross purposes. The blogger cited in in the OP has a terrible grasp of economics as you pointed out, thinking he (or she) is saving thousands of dollars a year by assuming their costs go down in proportion to their mileage reduction, forgetting that fixed costs don't drop that way, and failing to factor in the $4000 (?!) cost of the cargo bike.
However I thought the current exchange is about the later thread contributor, GiantOctopodes who reportedly switched to "state minimum insurance" thanks to biking more and driving less. If he reduced his coverage without reducing risk, his savings are not attributable to biking. However if he qualified for cheaper coverage due to driving less, and managed to drive less because he accomplished tasks by bike that he previously did by car, then that is a savings attributable to biking. So I was asking him to clarify the link between his reduced driving and reduced insurance.
However I thought the current exchange is about the later thread contributor, GiantOctopodes who reportedly switched to "state minimum insurance" thanks to biking more and driving less. If he reduced his coverage without reducing risk, his savings are not attributable to biking. However if he qualified for cheaper coverage due to driving less, and managed to drive less because he accomplished tasks by bike that he previously did by car, then that is a savings attributable to biking. So I was asking him to clarify the link between his reduced driving and reduced insurance.
"Switching to a bike as my primary means of transport means I can switch from full coverage on my vehicle to state minimum insurance, saving me $150 per month."
Though both the OP and GiantOctopodes claimed they saved money on insurance payments because of increased bicycling mileage the savings on insurance payments were a result of reducing their insurance coverage. if there was any discount for reduced mileage they didn't mention it; reduced coverage/protection is not a discount.
#117
Prefers Cicero
We both already agree about the reason for OP's insurance savings, and GiantOctopodes provided the exact same reason for his own savings on insurance payments:
"Switching to a bike as my primary means of transport means I can switch from full coverage on my vehicle to state minimum insurance, saving me $150 per month."
Though both the OP and GiantOctopodes claimed they saved money on insurance payments because of increased bicycling mileage .
"Switching to a bike as my primary means of transport means I can switch from full coverage on my vehicle to state minimum insurance, saving me $150 per month."
Though both the OP and GiantOctopodes claimed they saved money on insurance payments because of increased bicycling mileage .
#119
Sophomoric Member
#120
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,959
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,528 Times
in
1,041 Posts
Perhaps B.Carfree can provide the source for all the claims on his post on average speed, carcinogen concentrations, human lifespan extension per bicycle mile ridden, et al. https://www.bikeforums.net/living-car...l#post17676480
"While cars are slightly faster, averaging just over 24 mph over their lifetimes vs the 15-18 mph that a reasonably fit human on a bike will average, they dramatically shorten lifetimes in two ways. First of all, the concentration of carcinogens is 4-7 times higher inside a car than along the roadside. Also, while the estimates vary, for each hour of exercise the human lifespan increases by from thirty to ninety minutes. Therefore, time spent getting around by bike is approximately free time, while time spent driving costs time over the long run."
Then we can all be just as sure as he is of the validity of those statements.
"While cars are slightly faster, averaging just over 24 mph over their lifetimes vs the 15-18 mph that a reasonably fit human on a bike will average, they dramatically shorten lifetimes in two ways. First of all, the concentration of carcinogens is 4-7 times higher inside a car than along the roadside. Also, while the estimates vary, for each hour of exercise the human lifespan increases by from thirty to ninety minutes. Therefore, time spent getting around by bike is approximately free time, while time spent driving costs time over the long run."
Then we can all be just as sure as he is of the validity of those statements.
#121
Sophomoric Member
Perhaps B.Carfree can provide the source for all the claims on his post on average speed, carcinogen concentrations, human lifespan extension per bicycle mile ridden, et al. https://www.bikeforums.net/living-car...l#post17676480
"While cars are slightly faster, averaging just over 24 mph over their lifetimes vs the 15-18 mph that a reasonably fit human on a bike will average, they dramatically shorten lifetimes in two ways. First of all, the concentration of carcinogens is 4-7 times higher inside a car than along the roadside. Also, while the estimates vary, for each hour of exercise the human lifespan increases by from thirty to ninety minutes. Therefore, time spent getting around by bike is approximately free time, while time spent driving costs time over the long run."
Then we can all be just as sure as he is of the validity of those statements.
"While cars are slightly faster, averaging just over 24 mph over their lifetimes vs the 15-18 mph that a reasonably fit human on a bike will average, they dramatically shorten lifetimes in two ways. First of all, the concentration of carcinogens is 4-7 times higher inside a car than along the roadside. Also, while the estimates vary, for each hour of exercise the human lifespan increases by from thirty to ninety minutes. Therefore, time spent getting around by bike is approximately free time, while time spent driving costs time over the long run."
Then we can all be just as sure as he is of the validity of those statements.
Anyhow, here's something that'll really piss you off--a tree-hugging blogger says that the average speed of an American car is only 13 mph:
*CelloMom on Cars: The Average Speed of the Average Car
[HR][/HR]
As for bikes, compulsive journalling enabled me to compute that my average speed over 10 years was 11.1 mph. That was mostly stop-and-go riding and leisurely rides. Back then, when I was closer to 50, I could average 15-18 mph on an open road any time I wanted to.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
Last edited by Roody; 04-10-15 at 09:23 AM.
#122
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,959
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,528 Times
in
1,041 Posts
As you have posted, your aim appears to be to provoke and piss off LCF posters if/when they don't choose to believe without question every WAG, fabrication or novel and imaginative claim made on the Internet; hence the constant of "troll" or "insult".
#123
Sophomoric Member
No need for me to provide evidence, positive or negative to confirm or disprove somebody else's unsubstantiated claims. But of course you know that, as would anyone with a trace of logical deduction prowess.
As you have posted, your aim appears to be to provoke and piss off LCF posters if/when they don't choose to believe without question every WAG, fabrication or novel and imaginative claim made on the Internet; hence the constant of "troll" or "insult".
As you have posted, your aim appears to be to provoke and piss off LCF posters if/when they don't choose to believe without question every WAG, fabrication or novel and imaginative claim made on the Internet; hence the constant of "troll" or "insult".
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
#124
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,959
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,528 Times
in
1,041 Posts
The laughable article doesn't contain enough intelligent thought to piss me off, it is nothing but a political rant based on an over-the-top "imaginative and novel" methodology to arrive at the conclusion that the average speed of a car to be 3.7 miles per hour:
"Illich arrived at this shocking number by dividing the average annual miles per car driven in the US in 1974, approximately 6000 miles, by 1600 hours, which represents the total of time required to make the car go that far. Those hours include the actual time spent actually driving it, the time spent pumping the oil and refining it into gasoline, the time spent by health care professionals on the consequences of traffic accidents, and so on."
Maybe B. Carfree or his source used similar "and so on" stats to arrive at his calculations for automotive and bicycling average speeds.
"Illich arrived at this shocking number by dividing the average annual miles per car driven in the US in 1974, approximately 6000 miles, by 1600 hours, which represents the total of time required to make the car go that far. Those hours include the actual time spent actually driving it, the time spent pumping the oil and refining it into gasoline, the time spent by health care professionals on the consequences of traffic accidents, and so on."
Maybe B. Carfree or his source used similar "and so on" stats to arrive at his calculations for automotive and bicycling average speeds.
#125
Sophomoric Member
The laughable article doesn't contain enough intelligent thought to piss me off, it is nothing but a political rant based on an over-the-top "imaginative and novel" methodology to arrive at the conclusion that the average speed of a car to be 3.7 miles per hour:
"Illich arrived at this shocking number by dividing the average annual miles per car driven in the US in 1974, approximately 6000 miles, by 1600 hours, which represents the total of time required to make the car go that far. Those hours include the actual time spent actually driving it, the time spent pumping the oil and refining it into gasoline, the time spent by health care professionals on the consequences of traffic accidents, and so on."
Maybe B. Carfree or his source used similar "and so on" stats to arrive at his calculations for automotive and bicycling average speeds.
"Illich arrived at this shocking number by dividing the average annual miles per car driven in the US in 1974, approximately 6000 miles, by 1600 hours, which represents the total of time required to make the car go that far. Those hours include the actual time spent actually driving it, the time spent pumping the oil and refining it into gasoline, the time spent by health care professionals on the consequences of traffic accidents, and so on."
Maybe B. Carfree or his source used similar "and so on" stats to arrive at his calculations for automotive and bicycling average speeds.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"