bike parts, enough bike clothing, commuting accessories (panniers, rack, lights, etc), more fuel for your body instead of your car, more showers and that associated cost.
Self power - priceless.

everything in universe is equal.lets say you saved 100 dollars a mouth but what about time?You spend much more time on bicycle.Why do we invent cars at first place?To go anywhere with less time.İf we get time to the equation everything will be equal.besides if you try to maintain your current weight and muscle tissue you need eat and food is not cheap either.So cars and bikes are all same.The x factor determines which you choose.For example you get happy buy riding bike you choose bike.just like this simple.You can ask any physics professor they will tell you that everything is one and equal.

This is a good point, but it depends a lot, like you said. It normally takes about 15 minutes to drive to work versus about 25 to bike in for me, and anywhere from 15 to 90 minutes to drive home, but about 20 minutes to bike home. This week there was a fire in a warehouse near the freeway, causing a 10 mile backup, which had almost no effect on the bike commute.

The only one that stays the same is insurance, and even that can get discounted when you can show that you're driving significantly less than the original estimate. Oil changes are based on mileage, so drive half as much and you go twice as long between changes. The Blazer is paid off, so no loan. When it leaves, it will be on the back of a wrecker because I've used it up so depreciation is pretty much irrelevant too.

and for public transport like trains and other things this rules applies all of them.for example if we transport with 100 passengers on an underground metro we exactly use the same energy riding bike or driving car.At first you can not understand it but if you think like this;we spend lots of energy during building of underground,the train the coins we buy they all transformed from other recourses there is lots of maintenance wages other stuff and transform it to energy the sum will be exactly the same energy you drive home or ride home

Oil changes should be by mileage or time, whichever is sooner, so if you only drive 1000 miles every 6 months, you should still change the oil at 3 or 6 months, not at 18 months. Oil breaks down from sitting in the engine (or so conventional wisdom goes). Of course, if you were like me, and driving 1000 miles every two weeks, oil changes were more often than three months. Your point is a good one -- most costs decline if you aren't using the car.

My bro-in-law cycles 18-20 miles each way daily. It takes him about an hour. If he drives, it takes him about an hour. Traffic is a nefarious thing.

Lost OT pay. I've been commuting for 5 years and I think my total outlay for bike stuff including all the failed lights and such that I've bought is maybe $1400. In the last couple of years all I've bought is a flashlight, a magicshine head and taillight, a 2nd battery for same, and just recently an airzound, a cargo net and I finally caved in and bought a nice pair of rain pants after years of just getting wet legs in 35 degree rain. The magicshine headlight and 2nd battery were more than a year ago.

I average about $100/year on bike stuff, but it's spotty - I'll spend $120 on studded tires, then buy pretty much nothing for the next year.

Really the only thing I've bought now for years is safety related stuff. The cargo net was kind of a bonus because I had to get my Amazon order for the Airzound up over $25 to get free shipping.

Zero traffic here. When I drive, I get out the driveway, get up to 50 MPH, slow down for corners and a couple of stoplights, pull into work 11 miles later. 20 minutes usually. Cycling takes a minimum of 35 minutes with a tailwind, typical is 40 minutes, winter commutes can take 55 minutes.

This is very very true. When I was in school there were a couple of years when I lived about a mile away from school. It took me 5-6 minutes to bike there and 8-10 minutes to bike back (it was down-hill in the mornings). There was no parking at school (downtown campus), so it would have been impossible to drive and very silly as I could easily walk there in 20 minutes...

There were other times when I lived 20+ miles away, but had to be there for morning classes and the traffic was brutal, so it was an 80 minute drive or a 90 minute ride. Though the ride back in the afternoon was against the wind all the way...

I don't know why people often leave out the cost of food when figuring savings. 25 calories per km adds up if you're not trying to lose weight and don't like to eat junk food. In my case, I think the amount I spend on extra food is more than what I would pay for gas, so I'm not saving money there. However, I'm healthier and happier commuting by bike, and to me, that makes all the difference.

Hmmm... Well 25 calories per km is a little high, but it depends on your speed. For me it's probably something closer to 15 calories, but anyways let's assume 25. A piece of toast is like 100 calories. So 1/4 slice of toast per km or about 2 cents. So a 60 km commute costs 15 slices of bread or 3/4 of one loaf ($1.20). You add some oil/butter/margarine and you can cut that down even further.

When I commute by car it will often take me an hour (more on a bad day) to get to work as the traffic is slow& I'm doing more of a north-south commute, it's all surface roads; by bike I can get there in about 40 to 45 minutes.

In terms of real, incremental costs I reckon I'm saving about $25/wk just in gas and as I lease my car and will very close to my km limit when I return it every km I put on my bike saves me the excess km charge. Based on those 2 items alone I'm looking at about $950 per year (based on a 26 week season) which extends the payback time. Factor in some parts/swag etc for the bike it's probably about 2 years to break even.

As others have so aptly pointed out the real benefit is the enjoyment of riding my bike.

Parking at my work place is free. Gas is $ because I usually drive my RX-8 which begs to be driven hard. Insurance yeah. Maintenance wise, so far very minimal except for DIY oil changes. Car has been trouble free.

I'm sure I am saving some cost.... but hanging out on bike forums like these decreases the savings. When I first started, I told my wife that I'll just use my current hardtail mtb. Well that was last year. Since then, I have acquired a brand new road bike which I told my wife that it would make my commute faster. The hardtail mtb has transformed into a rigid fork hybrid thing with racks, clipless pedals, slick tires/tubes, bars, lights etc. I don't even want to talk about the road bike's upgrades since then. Not forgetting some specialized tools to work on the bicycles too!

Therefore my wife is not buying the "cost saving" song 'n dance at all. She does accept that fitness part though.

Consider the money spent as money invested, then, as regular exercise can provide a pretty significant cushion against medical costs down the road.

Seriously? You are really going to argue that the fuel required to move you and a bike (lets say together they weigh 300 pounds, a huge overestimate, I'm sure) is the same as moving you plus a 2,000 pound car? Interesting physics.

That is a dangerous road to go down...

The crappier the bike the more "exercise" you get

My daily commute is 70km (43mi) round trip with over 900m (3000 ft) of climbing. It's 85km with even more climbing on days that I take the long way home. I ride to work every day. I'm not going to eat gobs of buttered bread every day to make up for my calorie deficit. I'll simply eat the same foods I already eat, just more of it. Instead of eating 2000 calories/day, I have to eat close to 4000 to maintain my weight. Commuting effectively doubles my grocery bill, so it's not an insignificant cost. Sure I could cut that down by eating low-cost food, but by the same argument, people could cut down their gas expenses by driving more fuel efficient cars too.

Well the car definitely requires more energy, but as a cyclist can't drink gasoline you have to consider the cost of gas vs food.

Though I agree that the cyclist's fuel is cheaper than the automobile's.

In any case taking a Toyota Prius as the extreme of car efficiency, that's about 5 cents per km at the least.

Then taking a 300 lb rider going fast 20+ mph, that's about 40 calories per km (according to an online calculator). Which is a little less than 4 cents worth of bread per km. Though if you're 300 lbs you could probably stand to lose some weight... And for a 200 lb rider it would only be 25 calories per km or down to 2 cents per km.

So in the limit the bicycle is cheaper to fuel, but not by much. Though admittedly this is a really an extreme case. Most cars are going to be closer to 10 cents per km, and most riders will be 2 cents or less per km. But the point is that the difference in cost is not as big as the difference in energy expenditure.

I'm not following your reasoning. You can't simply compare the weight of a car with the weight of a rider because cars don't run on food. Gasoline is actually a VERY cheap source of energy compared to food. $1 of gas provides about 25000 calories of energy. $1 of food provides much less than that, even for very cheap calorie-dense food.

In my case, I have a very fuel efficient car. The fact is, I would spend less on gas than I do on food to ride my bike (and I live in Europe where gas is outrageously expensive, but food is outrageously expensive here too).

I followed your argument until this part. So far, your cost for "food" is eating bread alone. What about meats, dairy, fruits, and vegetables? You know, the stuff that makes up a balanced diet? It's going to cost a lot more than 2 cents per km when you include other nutritious foods.

Ah, ok! I've always been a slower cyclist (<=16 mph), especially on longer distances, so that kind of affected my outlook on caloric expenditure. Also I live in a relatively flat area (though there is some wind). So for me a 70 km commute would be closer to 1000 calories.

I'm also sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you (or anyone) should just eat plain bread.

Bread was a simple example, because it is cheap and ready to eat as purchased (and I don't consider it to be junk food). Rice, pasta, corn, potatoes, etc. would all cost the same (or less) but would require time+energy to prepare, if one is already cooking meals and would just eat bigger meals then the cost would be the same.

Obviously many food products cost more, especially meat and fresh fruit and vegetables.

I don't eat meat or dairy. Beans & legumes are super healthy and also super cheap.

Really, there is just no way your argument can hold up. No matter how efficient your car is, it does require much more energy than you and a bike.

Yes that is very true, but the nutrient needs don't go up as much as the energy needs. And most people are not teetering on the edge of malnutrition or vitamin deficiency (in the industrialized world).

Again it requires more energy, but the real issue is that we have to compare gasoline vs food.

Jeff is commuting 70 km. So that is about $7 worth of gas (10 cents per km). He is probably cycling fast 20+ mph, and there are climbs, so that he ends up using an extra 2000 calories.

The question then is can he get 2000 calories from $7 worth of food?

I think it is possible, but it depends on one's like and dislikes with respect to food. It can be done, but it depends on the individual.

I mean if you went to McDonalds and you got a big mac (540 calories), large fries (500 calories) and large soda (300 calories) you would still be short, and out for most of that money. So it's not a silly question, especially in his case.

Again I'm not trying to suggest McDonalds as a fuel source...