Originally Posted by
pdlamb
You're new here, right? We've had quite a few discussions over the years. FWIW, last time I tried to add everything up (including bikes, accessories, clothes, etc.) I came up with 3-7 cents per mile.
Some people do their best to skew the numbers. They will claim I cheated -- I did not account for all the steaks (though I really eat only one a month or so) -- extra food to fuel all those miles! I also included recreational riding, which some people were adamant should NOT be included, only commuting miles count. And only the shortest distance, don't count the long way home. Etc. These are often the same people who claim you should not count on saving $0.67 per mile driving, even though your current vehicle may save you from trading it in and buying a new one. Chip on their shoulder, maybe?
Commuting cyclists do some of the most consistent cycling. The people who buy a $4,000 bike for a couple hundred miles per summer? They're not riding to and from work every day. (But they move the average cost!) A good bicycle will last a very long time, so the cyclo-commuter will amortize their bike cost down to nearly zero per mile. Then the only recurring costs are brakes, tires, chains, and perhaps bar tape on the bike. Bike shorts and perhaps cleats are recurring costs on the body -- bike jerseys hardly ever wear out.
good points. all life-cycle cost analyses need to be taken with a grain of salt. it is very easy to skew the results by including or bracketing off one thing or another. and it is usually not because of intentional bias--it has more to do with legitimate convictions that a cost is a "legitimate" or "illegitimate" factor to be included.
for instance, if I credited my opportunity cost for the time I save commuting by bike rather than driving, finding parking, then walking to my office from my parking spot...WOW! This is arguably an ok thing to do. But arguably also a "bit" artificial.