

State lawmaker says bicycling is not good for the environment - mtgx
http://seattlebikeblog.com/2013/03/02/state-lawmaker-says-bicycling-is-not-good-for-the-environment-should-be-taxed/

======
frankus
There is actually a bit more to this line of argument than the idiotic one the
lawmaker takes.

The primary thing that makes a bicycle more efficient than a car is that it
weighs around an order of magnitude less than the passenger, rather than the
other way around. The second most important factor is that it travels at (and
is optimized to travel at) relatively low speeds.

The fact that it's powered, essentially, by food calories is actually one of
its least efficient aspects (raw food vegan locavores potentially excepted).

The cool thing is that means you can power a small electric vehicle
essentially for free (both financially and environmentally). So people who are
unwilling or unable to work up a sweat on the way to work can still take part
in most of the benefits of cycling.

~~~
ars
In terms of environmental cost (not just CO2) a bicycle is actually 3 times as
expensive as a really good car: [http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/09/is-
a-bicycle-really...](http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/09/is-a-bicycle-
really-more-efficient-than-a-car/)

And if you put 4 people in that car, it wins easily, even with a somewhat more
average car.

People like bikes mainly because people eat and exercise anyway, so they might
as well do some useful work for it. But purely from the environment, and
assuming people only bicycle for need, not exercise, it's not an automatic
win.

~~~
Symbol
This article's argument is, in a word, crap. The author wants to compare
efficiency of cars vs. bikes on the basis of fuel costs (after a scattershot
discussion of CO2 emissions from those aerobically respirating vs a bus
spitting out fumes), then cites fast food as a baseline fuel source. We can
game this anyway we want: why not eat 7 bananas, which are $0.20 at my local
market, and claim differently? And let's conveniently forget that EVERYONE
needs food, regardless of how they expend or conserve their caloric "fuel".
I'd like to see a more scientific analysis of carbo emissions of bicyclists vs
cars vs public busses. I strongly suspect bikes come up with high marks in the
average case.

~~~
ars
Go ahead - use bananas, the math is easy.

It's obvious that a cyclist will use more calories than someone not moving.
The calculations are done using only the extra calories, not the baseline.

------
snogglethorpe
There's also the matter of the effect on the _urban_ (and suburban)
environment, something which more directly effects most people.

Widespread car usage is _enormously_ destructive in this sense, because of
_insane_ amounts of space it requires (and the degree of danger it
introduces). The bicycle, well, not so much (and pedestrians even less, of
course).

The negative environmental effects of cars is well-publicized (and apparently
politically effective) but it's hardly the only, or even the most significant,
problem with widespread car use.

------
LeeHunter
See also Toronto mayor Rob Ford for further brilliance on bicycles as an
obstacle to transportation [http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/10/03/mayor-
ford-defends-s...](http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/10/03/mayor-ford-defends-
spending-300k-on-bike-lane-removal-it-never-should-have-been-built-in-the-
first-place/)

------
gte910h
This argument is specious. Most people _need to expend more calories than they
do_ in the first world, hence the growing obesity epidemic.

You are saving gym time/portion control willpower by biking more and driving
less.

------
ars
He's not completely wrong. Human power is by far one of the least efficient
ways of powering transportation.

But most people ignore it because people need to eat anyway. And people
exercise anyway.

