Originally Posted by
myrridin
You are amalgamating several different things. First less address maintenance costs... Two thing cause the vast bulk of maintenance costs; the environment and large heavy vehicles (not cars or pickups, think delivery trucks and tractor trailers). A road that has no traffic will degrade at a fairly rapid pace.
Next, roads are built to serve commercial purposes (economic), to get people to work and to get goods to the people who buy them. That is what justifies the government funding of them. If you don't believe me, go to any community in the nation and compare the budgets for public works and the parks department. If you want to talk a bicycle only facility then you are talking a different world. In this country such facilities come from the fund I just mentioned, and until a bicycle can be used to deliver the goods to fill a grocery store cost effectively, they will never serve the primary reason for funding roads. Now since a bicycle can use the same roads as the vehicles for which those roads were designed, they share the same benefits.
The bottom line is the road costs are the same for bikes or cars... except for the case of bikeways, which will never have a funding level to rival roads in sheer numbers.
Cars do not have zero wear impact on the roadways. A 30 lb bike doesn't have zero impact either but the amount of wear is almost immeasurable, especially when compared to a vehicle of 100 to 150 times the weight.
My point on bicycle facilities is that you could build roadways for bicycles that would be a fraction of the cost of what it costs to build for motor vehicles. That's why they bear the cost of construction and maintenance. You can't say that bicycles and motor vehicles are equivalent in terms of infrastructure costs. The costs are paid in accordance with the amount of damage that the vehicle does. Cars and light trucks pay a smaller amount of those costs than do larger trucks but their impact and damage aren't zero.
Originally Posted by
myrridin
It is possible to find a [c]ar for $1000-$2000 that will easily provide for 10-20 thousand miles, with little beyond oil changes. But your missing my point, most of the folks who drive are not car enthusiasts and therefore don't spend more on their cars then they have to. It seems that most of those who ride are enthusiasts (the bike is not simply transportation) and therefore like spending money on the bike and accessories.
Read what I said. If you want to make a fair comparison, then you have to compare the cost of new-to-new or used-to-used. If I want to be totally unfair, I'd compare the cost of the lowest level new bicycle to that of a new car, $85 to $20,000. But, even as an enthusiast, I don't spend anything approaching the cost of a new car for a new bike. Even for 7 new, high level bikes, I'm only approaching the cost of a new cheap car. That, in itself makes the point that bikes cost far less than automobiles.
Originally Posted by
myrridin
The purpose of required levels of insurance are to insure that the injured party has someone with the financial resources to pay for damages. While a cyclist is less likely to cause the same level of damage as a motor vehicle, the upper limit (caused by a death) are certainly very possible. Indeed we had a cyclist/pedestrian crash which resulted in a death here in Dallas in the last month. Currently since there is no mandate that cyclists have such insurance, there is no market for it, since there are other ways for an individual to obtain such insurance coverage. If it was required. And I also wouldn't discount the damage even a bicycle can do to a car. I had a rental car provided by an employer that somebody keyed. The repair bill was over $4,000.
Liability is not simply for deaths, it is for damages and as I mentioned in my previous paragraph, a cyclist can cause a death. Therefore the liabilities are the same, though the cost of the insurance for a cyclist should be lower since the probabilities are lower.
Liability is for damages up to and including death. The probability is so low that insurance companies wouldn't write a policy to cover a cyclists liability. That's why my homeowner insurance covers that kind of accident. There's no profit in covering something that will never happen. The premium wouldn't be worth collecting. Motorists aren't subsidizing me and my possible liability because this kind of accident is so very unlikely to happen.
Originally Posted by
myrridin
Under current air quality regulations, both CO2 and methane (green house gases) are classified as pollutants. Again though you seem to miss the point. A bicycle is not a no environmental impact machine, it is a lower environmental impact machine, hence there are still impacts that should be included in any cost comparison. You know the OP's question?
CO2 and methane from
certain sources are considered pollutants. CO2 from automobile combustion of fossil fuels
is a pollutant. CO2 from respiration isn't...nor can it be unless you are willing to stop breathing.
Methane from large animal operations and from landfill decomposition
are pollutants but methane from farts isn't. You couldn't stop it if you tried.
Originally Posted by
myrridin
And power gels and sports drinks add up as well. On an equal volume basis they are much more expensive then gasoline. Again it is a question of comparing costs.
Commuting here. I doubt there's a lot of power gels and sports drink being consumed on the daily commute. We are talking transportation cost comparison here, not recreational costs.
Originally Posted by
myrridin
The bottom line at this point is one of differing opinions, since until someone compiles the statistics, there is no evidence either way. Frankly, I would be surprised if the average cost per mile is very different between the two vehicles.
Just the purchase cost and the life time of the vehicles are vastly different even on a per mile basis in a fair comparison. Like I said a new car/new bike comparison isn't even close.