Correct.

This. A million times over.

I disagree with "Mile for mile, cyclists get killed at a 1.5x greater rate than drivers". Partly because I've never heard this before but it sounds silly, frankly, but mostly because I don't think they have any way of figuring that out - how would they know how many miles someone biked in a year? How would they randomly collect and sample the statistics? It's *very* difficult for me to believe you're more likely to be killed on a bike than in a car given the vast number of people who refuse to bike regularly on the roads and only bike on trails - how the heck would they get killed?

It just doesn't seem to pass my "common sense" filter. :-(

The eternal problem with this is that not all cars, nor all bikes, are created equal.

Both can be picked up off Craigslist dirt cheap, especially if you're willing to wrench on them yourself.
Cars cost insurance, but unless you only have a car for commuting and can give it up for the bike, you have to pay it anyway.
Cars have hugely variable maintenance costs, insurance costs, and depreciation.
Someone who only rides to commute is going to attribute the price of the bike to the cost of bike commuting, while someone who would have one anyway will not.
Someone who only drives to commute is going to attribute the price of the car to the cost of car commuting, while someone who would have one anyway will not.
Someone who commutes through traffic may be slower than on a bike, while someone who avoids rush hour will not be.
Someone who would work out anyway may regard it as time back, since it means less other time spent on cardio.
Someone who doesn't care about working out may regard it as time wasted if it's even 5 minutes slower.

I believe there are more I thought of while reading this thread that I forgot while writing this. And regarding the comic with the guy saving $12/week, I call shenanigans. Maybe in the '90s, but that's an AWFULLY short commute for someone to be dressed like he is for biking it.

Nor are all commuting situations. The whole "doesn't save you money" claim implies a comparison to something, but what? Not everybody has the same set of alternatives and commuting choices. If I drove into work, parking alone would cost me a minimum of $250 a month -- and that's at a garage about eight blocks away.

Commuting to work daily by bicycle is in no conceivable way more expensive than commuting to work by car. Not even close.
(Period).

Check your math.

I dont care what you guys decide. But if you decide it does not save money, dont tell my wife.

What he said :lol:

A few here don't have cars, including myself - though my wife does. I'm assuming we're the very small minority though.


One thing I've mentioned before... selling one of two cars doesn't automatically cut your insurance bill in half. We had two fairly new cars with full coverage. On paper both cars cost about the same to insure. When I removed my car from our policy I lost our multi-car discount and our total bill dropped less than 10% - something like $160/yr I believe. That's an insignificant amount. One day I quoted putting an old beater on my account with minimum insurance. Our total rate actually went down by a couple of dollars. It's like they've decided they're getting X dollars from us regardless. We have no tickets anymore so I guess this is as cheap as car insurance gets for us.

The whole thing pisses me off to an extent because her car gets driven no more than it did before. They effectively doubled the cost of her insurance. My only option might be to remove myself from the policy altogether - and just not drive.

Everyone's situation is different,hence the term "Your mileage may vary"

Well, yeah.. But my tank would be at least 45lbs if not for the cycling. And I eat more than when i wasn't.

The biggest saving for me is the vastly reduced temptation to "impulse shop"

It costs an average of US$12,000 a year to drive in Singapore (includes the loan, road tax, insurance, congestion tolls, gas, maintenance and parking). We pay about 4x more than Americans to BUY a car due to heavy car taxes that our govt imposes on car ownership to reduce the number of cars on our congested roads (we do have a very affordable and well-run public transportation system).

I have six bikes of varying cost, all acquired within the last 3 years of bike commuting and I have spent no more than 4 months worth of driving on them (even when I include the bike upgrades).

I have even calculated that riding my most expensive bicycle daily to work, even if I include maintenance, is cheaper than public transport over a period of about 5 years (and the bike is likely to last beyond that).

When I think of how much I used to spend on just overhauling the radiator of my Opel Astra, I shudder. I could have bought myself a really nice carbon fibre road bike for the money. Haha!

Years ago, I calculated that I was spending $1500 a year on motor vehicle expenses, so that's what I have based my yearly bicycle expenditures on since then, and needless to say, over time I've have accumulated a rather nice bicycle fleet/tool/gear/accessory collection.

Somehow I find having a working collection of bikes and gear at hand is far better than a folder of gasoline and insurance receipts. Plus, I have plateaued out some time ago on bikes and gear that I need for commuting, and I'm now using only a small portion of the aforementioned amount and the remainder going to other personal non cycling expenses.

Another thing, I now travel less miles since it's a little harder to press bike pedals than car/truck pedals, making me put more thought into whether I should make the trip or can it be consolidated with another some other day, and that thought process has carried over to my driving habits as well.

For me personally, commuting by bicycle, versus driving, saves me a considerable amount of money.

i put a $50 dollar pair of slicks on an old mountain bike and have so far avoided buying a second car. Savings? 5-10K

I had a car, and this is exactly why I had to get rid of it. After moving from the suburbs to the city, I rarely used the thing. Even if it just sat in the garage all month (which wasn't unusual), it still cost...

Parking: $150/month (no cheaper options, and it was a 10 minute bike ride from my apartment)
Insurance: ~$130 or more/month (don't remember)
Road tax: $400/year
Vehicle inspection: $1500 every 2 years

Of course, it's much cheaper to own a vehicle in America, but if you didn't drive at all, you'd still have insurance and maybe car payments to deal with.

My costs for cycling are a $4 tube maybe once a month (at worst) and a pair of crappy $15 Vittoria tires every few months. After riding it for 4 years, I replaced the chain, rear cassette, and cables on my commuter bike (less than $100). My commute is only 8 miles, so it doesn't require any extra "fuel" (maybe a banana when I get home).

Taking trains and buses to work would cost me $15 round trip every day.

Any way you look at it, in my situation, cycling to work is by far the cheapest way to go.

Well, let's see....

$30 for a new fork spring (needed, as the weaker old one pitched me off the bike, breaking my c-bone in 5 places); $70 for a new rear shock to replace the failed OEM.

$40 for new cables after 2 years; 12 tires (some went on other bikes in the family cuz I didn't like 'em, but I used up 8, including the two still on the bike), total cost there about $260.

$400 after two years, which doesn't count upgrades (saddle, crank) or chain lube; I do need to add $50 for a new cassette/chain.

I spent more than $450 on gas & PLPD in six months! And that was before the spike in gas prices!

I think I'm money ahead....

The key word in my statement is rate (although the "mile for mile" part should clue you off too). Vehicle related fatalities are usually reported in deaths per 100 million miles traveled.

Either way, you can read THE ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF BICYCLING AND WALKING FHWA CASE STUDY #15. From the US DOT. It is kindof old (1993), but it is the most recent study that I am aware of that was conducted by the US Government.

If you take their optimistic estimate of 21 Billion bicycle miles traveled and 1,000 cyclists died. That is 4.76 deaths per 100 million bicycle miles traveled. Compare that with 1.36 deaths per 100 million car miles traveled in 2007 (NHTSA).

That is actually 3.5x more likely to die per mile on a bicycle in 1993 compared to in a car in 2007. I don't like the numbers any more than you do, but there they are. I wish we had more up to date numbers (deaths are up to date, but no estimate on mileage for bicycles). The rate is probably lower now, if you believe that annual mileage hasn't decreased since 1993, which is probably a reasonable thing to think.

Now, as for your disbelief in statistics and random sampling, what else don't you believe? Do you not believe the official unemployment rate because they only randomly sample 60,000 homes in the US? What about Oregon's unemployment rate, they only randomly sample 1,000 homes!

I live in Los Angeles. It would be virtually impossible to live around here without a car. Of course you can take taxis and some minimal public transportation + bike but this is basically car culture.

If I lived in NYC, Seoul, London, Paris, Tokyo, etc...there's no way I would own a car.

Lies, Damn lies, and statistics.

From:

Activity # Fatalities per 1,000,000
exposure hours
------------------------------------------------
Skydiving 128.71
General Aviation 15.58
On-road Motorcycling 8.80
Scuba Diving 1.98
Living (all causes of death) 1.53
Swimming 1.07
Snowmobiling .88
Passenger cars .47
Water skiing .28
Bicycling .26
Flying (scheduled domestic airlines) .15
Hunting .08
Cosmic Radiation from
transcontinental flights .035
Home Living (active) .027
Traveling in a School Bus .022
Passenger Car Post-collision fire .017
Home Living, active & passive (sleeping) .014
Residential Fire .003

I've always liked the above chart and based on average speeds it seems to support the previous mile for mile stat. From the same site I find it statistically significant that in a typical year over 90% of cycling deaths involve collisions with motor vehicles. From the previous posts I will assume that 100% of driving deaths involve at least one motor vehicle and at least some if not virtually all deaths of pedestrians also involve motor vehicles. Since cars have at least a 3 to 1 kill ratio. It seems to me that the solution is less cars not more.

As for cost, anecdotally, for the average cost of a auto mechanic's invoice I could buy at least a new single speed / Fixie. On a bad day a 105 to Ultegra race bike. The bike I commute on cost me $1,400. I think it is far safer and vastly more reliable than all cars in a similar price range.

The average American spends $6,000 on auto expenses. The median household income in 2007 is $50,740. If everyone rode we could afford to take an extra six weeks of holiday a year. The idea almost sells itself but unfortunately mostly everyone employed in an auto sector would get 52 weeks of holidays per year (unemployed) to spend camping (homeless).

I'm sure approximately 150 million North Americans agree with the original post. How could they be wrong?

There are lies, damn lies and statistics.

-Mark Twain

I suspect many of those bicycle miles are ridden in places like china where you are likely to have a large number of bikes riding in a sea of bikes.

This situation will result in quite a few scrapes and broken bones, but, it is extremely unlikely to result in death.

Compare this to a typical US commute where many of us have to do battle with the big fast metal things that like to kill us.

What I am getting at is that throwing around stats with something that varies extremely with the environment is kinda dumb.

Urban bike commuting is certainly more risky than car commuting in a similar area, because, if you are in a car in a congested area, by definition, you are likely going slow. But even at those speeds, a bike comuter can get dead with frightful ease.

Compare this to a 17 year old high school kid driving a car on rural roads to school or riding his bike to school. 17 year old boys + high speed vehicles sometimes = death. In this case, the bike is safer, IMO.

It all comes down to just weighing each situation, trying to use good judgement and crossing our fingers. If we all started living to try to maximize our statistical odds of not getting dead, we'd live pretty miserable lives.

All of the statistics I posted were for the US.

On another interesting note, some people have calculated that 30,000 people per year die from exposure to automobile exhaust every year in the US. That would raise the death rate from the ~45,000/year that die in collisions to a total of 75,000/year.

well, the thing about deaths per mile is that it takes a car more miles to get to a destination than it takes a bike.

Your math is flawed!

Flats may be annoying but unless you break the valve stem they are super cheap to fix. 25 cents for a patch and less than 10 minutes of time. A dozen flats is a lot in two years - are you riding in the gutter/ where there is a lot of debris, and keeping tires at proper pressure? Cars cost a helluva lot more to maintain, in terms of shop time as its much less likely you can do the repair yourself and parts are very expensive on cars!

There may be periods when lots of things go wrong on an old well-used bike at once, at which case maybe it is better financially (though not environmentally) to scrap the thing and buy a new commuter for about $350 or $400 with a few years of warranty on it.

I bought tires for about half that price that lasted me at least twice that long.

I'm not sure how you are ensured you will be okay being hit in a car. To me the bicycle has much greater mobility, I can get to work usually faster than a car, and almost always in the same amount of time. I don't have lost productivity due to sitting in gridlock. Maybe you meant to say greater range. (which obviously comes at a lot higher operating costs)

But while mentioning other costs not accounted for there's the gym membership I don't need because I bike commute and get in shape that way, the sick days I don't need to take because I'm healthier, the societal costs of the car I don't add to my city, the more productive I am due to getting to work in a better mood, and less stress not having to hunt for parking.

I don't know why anyone would find this that shocking. A great deal of money, research, and public education has gone into increasing the likelihood that people involved in a car crash will survive with minimal injuries.

What do cyclists get? A piece of styrofoam to wear on their heads.

I'm not complaining. We just need to understand we are riding on the streets using a vehicle that offers us no protection from collisions at all and we should act accordingly.

i smoke, and while it is easier to smoke while driving... it's much more fun on a bike. although i'm not advocating that people smoke.

also... the amount of environmental impact of the automobile cult in our country should be enough to motivate all of us to dismantle it.

Except that there are 2 major considerations you didn't mention:
1. Cars are often travelling at 60-75mph, where as bikes and cars using the same streets are typically on streets where the speed limit is 25-40mph.
2. Cars always have to be on the streets, whereas bikes can be on separate bike-only bike trails. A biker going down at 20mph or hitting another bike head-on at that speed is bad, but 200lbs of biker + bike hitting something (perhaps another 200lbs of biker + bike) is very different than a 3,500 pound car hitting another 3,500 pound car.

If everyone is biking on streets with cars I could understand. I cannot believe that cars on streets have a worse fatality rate than bikes on bike paths. I would agree with what you're saying, theoretically, in car vs bike collisions.

That's the funniest thing I've read all day.

How many people can commute to work entirely on bike paths? Mine is about 1/2 to 2/3rds and I think I'm fortunate that I can do that much.

Even though cars are often traveling at 60+ mph, my guess is that most collisions (car or bike) occur at intersections which are more frequent in areas where the speed limit is 25-45 mph.

we all have our reasons for commuting, why try to rain on someone else's parade. Some people around here can't afford to make a distinction between saving money by commuting by bike and commuting by bike out of necessity. Just because you can't save money by biking doesn't mean that someone else who is more frugal or more carefull with their equipment can't.

Same idea applies to those people you see driving a 20 year old beat up peice of junk car because thats all they can afford and they make it work.

You should just be glad that you have a choice to make.

Don't have any facts to dispute whether auto or bicycle commuting is more expensive. But, I totally agree w/t rest of this post. Spent alot of money over the last year on cycling gear and upgrades and drove my vehicle sparingly. The gear and upgrades I will have for years. The truck, too. Probably because I drive it less than 5000 milles per year. Its 19 years old and runs perfectly.

Set goals the last 2 years of over 7500 cycling miles and under 5000 truck miles. Though we're not car-lite it's gratifying to reach those goals.

This contributes to a sense of well being and optimism in a time of great social consternation. My medical needs are minmal as when one is healthy overall there're less maladies than can attack one's immune system.

All that aside it's just FUN to ride a bike. :thumb: