Volt, Schmolt; Get a Bike Instead

Ten miles for a fit cyclist is really not an issue.

And who's being bitter?

 

10 miles was just an example. It's actually a good distance. I used to bike a lot for fun, did many 25, 50 milers.

My point is why would you discourage people from looking into buying electric vehicles? People need a daily driver. At least EVs are better than SUVs. Bikes don't work for a majority of commuters. Saying "Volt Schmolt, buy a bike instead" is just a petty argument and a bored OP hoping to flip over some tables.

 

Nobody answered my question! Granted in was half in jest but equally it did get me thinking of all that extra unburned fuel. Did that cyclist cause more fuel to have been burnt than if he had walked, gone by bus or gone by car? His fuel costs were nil but would the extra amount burnt by everyone else have contributed to more than if he had gone by Prius?

We all know that the instant trip consumption drops to about 8 mpg when you floor it and probably much less in bigger cars, trucks and buses.

There must be some scientific brain on here who can work it out?

 

It's called trolling, guys.

 

I rode my bike 13 miles to work ~75% of the time...I was fine, and the women at work apparently liked the resulting physique as well. These days, I walk and the Prius sits around undriven most days of the week. So yeah - to hell with the Prius. I have my bike and I can walk.

 

You walk 13 miles to work?

 

In the Chicago Winter?

 

oh, well now you're getting picky.

 

Up hill. Both ways.

 

exactly.

 

I ride it with trepidation. It also has the original tires and brake pads! Hardly ever ridden, apparently, and right now I'm keeping it all original and displaying in local bike shows. On nice Summer days I'll ride it a mile or two to the local coffee shop and profile it somewhere, always draws positive comments.

It was in pieces when I got it and the cables actually look perfect to me, no corrosion of any sort. The tires do have a bit of cracking on the sidewalls, and the pads have definitely hardened over the last 45 years.

______________

My commute is about 10 miles each way, I agree it's a good distance. Long enough to get myself going a bit, but not too far if it starts to rain or I'm returning home in the night.

_______________

Grumpy, I think you may be splitting hairs. It's going to be quite a stretch to prove that a bicycle is damaging the environment more than the operation of an automobile. But give it a shot if you think it's worth the effort.

One bad apple don't ruin the whole bunch of cyclists.

I don't think this thread is lame at all.

The thing about some people having to drive long distances is, that's sometimes a life choice; it's not necessarily an obligation. We're not all required to live in far-flung suburbs and commute to San Francisco every day over the Bay Bridge, it's a choice.

There are living accommodations in the City, for example, and it's been proven that multi-resident buildings are far more efficient than even the most "green" single family residence. So driving a Prius and living in a McMansion are kind of contradictory.

When I moved, I chose my current residence for its proximity of my current job, how bikeable the vicinity is, and the location of other places of employment which I might have to commute to, should I change positions (which I did). Because of this, it enabled bicycle riding, and still does.

I don't have a ton of sympathy for folks who commute long distances so they can live in the middle of nowhere and enjoy "nature." Yeh, sure, driving a Prius in that case is better than driving a Hummer, but it's still only partially offsetting some bigger life choices that could change the nature of one's daily habits.

It's funny how we can think that driving a Prius is all that's necessary. It's only one of many decisions which have an impact on the Earth, should we choose to see it in that way.

 

OMG, that's hard core!

I think it's all about increments. The Prius gets better mileage than other cars, but still burns gasoline. Every one on the road helps a little.

Bicycles don't burn fuel at all. And every one on the road helps a little.

So, sure, the vast majority of us can't ride all the time. But the same decisions about where we live and work—the ones which make bike commuting possible—also enable a shorter commute, which saves gasoline.

 

You can't expect people to change where they live or where they work, just so they can save some gallons of gas to bike or walk to work. Yeah I'd love to work at Google. It's practically in my backyard. Do you expect me to get a job there despite the fact that I have no experience in computer science? Or, maybe I can move to San Mateo closer to my work despite the fact it makes no economic sense to move right now.

Ridiculous!

 

I don't think it's ridiculous at all. If people want to live in one part of town and work on the other side, or even in another city, that's their choice. I made a conscious decision to live close to public transit, which I felt was a better (cheaper, less stressful) choice for getting to work than driving. Since first moving here about twenty years ago, I've changed work locations several times. I commuted by bike for awhile to one place, and then on foot to another, and now I work mostly at home. There's plenty of shopping within walking distance, and I could comfortably live without a car at all. These things have not happened by chance - I've changed, by choice, and have a much better lifestyle because of it.

 

You're missing the point. Not everyone is fortunate enough to have multiple, if any, job options in one local area, or the funds to afford housing in any city where one works. It's incredibly utopian and snobbish to assume such things.

Now, if you're talking about Prius owners that may be a different story, but still, you're just stereotyping. It'd be great if everyone could bike all the time. I went to UC Davis, it's a biking Mecca. I biked everywhere. But to say you have no sympathy for those who don't? Come on...

 

I read your post again, are you serious?!? That's their choice?!? Haha, mannnn. Have you ever considered the millions of Americans who can't afford to live where they work? Wow.

 

This got me thinking (yeah yeah doesn't happen often). Most people on this forum have some degree of environmental consideration whether they believe in Global Warming or not. There are many who are business owners or high up in a business, so why not try turning your business 'greener' like Google.

Times are hard so it would be difficult to go green to the same extent as they have, but maybe it's the little things that could help? What about bike racks/lockers near the entrance to your building? The nearest row of parking bays could be changed to Disabled/Handicapped and hybrid/ev only. Install charging points at these bays. If you have a fleet of vehicles, ensure the smaller cars are replaced by hybrids or even EV's etc etc.

All of these cost next to nothing in the scheme of things, some may even save money and can offer your company a green 'edge' over competitors. Every little helps and maybe you could encourage your employees to be greener, but in a way they won't resent.

 

I agree. Most companies, including my own, have “green” clubs that work to reduce waste and improve environmental awareness.

But that takes Hyo, Pinto, and Silver’s arguments out-of-scope. They’re imploring citizens to choose jobs close to where they live; choose places to live close to where they work. A majority of people these days don’t have the luxury to pick and choose.