The Luxembourg Project

[soulstyledevon]

Might add.
The cost. Very cheap way to travel.
I think one way cost me about £12. Which included two trains and a cable car

 

[bassbikemike]

Vehicle Excise Duty is emissions based.
Bicycles don't emit any poisonous emissions, therefore no tax is required.
Also, bicycles don't damage the road surface.

... and require a small fraction of the infrastructure space. Plus, the indirect benefits to personal health, wellbeing, reduced workplace absenteeism and reduction in burden to the NHS from a healthier, more active population all need to be recognised and factored in, when evaluating whether it is indeed fair or not to tax cyclists

 

[bassbikemike]

Ii doubt it. CO2 limits are calculated in gms/km. If the cyclist travelled at the same speed as a pedestrian there would be a possible marginal difference due to the work to overcome the resistance of the gears but a cyclist travels at a higher speed than a pedestrian so over the same distance more energy would be expended because of the higher speed although the journey would be completed more quickly.

It would depend massively on terrain and wind conditions. When averaged out though a cyclist may spend 20% or so of the time (finger in the air) free-wheeling... that's distance travelled with zero effort.

 

[WelshGas]

It would depend massively on terrain and wind conditions. When averaged out though a cyclist may spend 20% or so of the time (finger in the air) free-wheeling... that's distance travelled with zero effort.

Still leaves 80% of the journey.

 

[Amarillo]

Still leaves 80% of the journey.

I’d still be extremely surprised if mile for mile a cyclist exhales more CO2 than a pedestrian. Cycling is such an energy efficient form of travel. For example I could cycle 50km along a canal tow path almost effortlessly in just a few hours. I’d struggle to walk the same distance in a day.

 

[WelshGas]

I’d still be extremely surprised if mile for mile a cyclist exhales more CO2 than a pedestrian. Cycling is such an energy efficient form of travel. For example I could cycle 50km along a canal tow path almost effortlessly in just a few hours. I’d struggle to walk the same distance in a day.

If you were travelling at the same speed as a pedestrian True. But you would be travelling faster so you would be expending more energy/hour compared with the pedestrian and hence expiring more CO2.
Speed requires expenditure of energy. If you complete the given distance faster than the pedestrian then you are expending more energy/hr than the pedestrian.

 

[Amarillo]

If you were travelling at the same speed as a pedestrian True. But you would be travelling faster so you would be expending more energy/hour compared with the pedestrian and hence expiring more CO2.
Speed requires expenditure of energy. If you complete the given distance faster than the pedestrian then you are expending more energy/hr than the pedestrian.

I was explicit in my first post on this matter that my guess was per mile.

As a layman, I would guess that a cyclist emits less CO2 per mile than a pedestrian.

 

[Ocean Spirit]

Pedestrians will be free.

Why? aren't pavements similar to cycle routes?
Actually WG I'm just being facetious but I don't agree that people making the an effort not to drive should get hit in the pocket.

 

[bassbikemike]

Still leaves 80% of the journey.

erm... my implied point was that you can't freewheel when you're walking ... so that'll be muscular effort for 100% of the journey... Plus when you're on you're feet you have to expend energy weight-bearing which you don't largely on a bike. Cycling is super-efficient for these reasons and can offer a very real solution as part of a sustainable transport mix.

Something tells me that you love arguing... and TBH I'm not really that bothered whether cycling or walking results in more CO2 emissions - the difference will be negligible when compared to internal combustion (or even so called Zero Emission Vehicles, unless they are powered with 100% renewable energy!)

The point here surely is that bikes can offer a far more sustainable alternative to motorised transport, where walking might be impractical due to distance and time factors.

 

[WelshGas]

I was explicit in my first post on this matter that my guess was per mile.

Well I’m afraid you are incorrect in this instance. I suggest you brush up on your Physics.

How to Calculate Kinetic Energy: 9 Steps (with Pictures) - wikiHow

There are two basic forms of energy: potential and kinetic energy. Potential energy is the energy an object has relative to the position of another object. For example, if you are at the top of a hill, you have more potential energy than...

www.wikihow.com

Pedestrian verses Cyclist + Bicycle, over the same distance will expend differing amounts of energy, even if travelling at the same speed. As Human metabolism has CO2 as one of its by-products the Cyclist will always expend more energy as he would have the grater mass and hence more CO2.

eg.
Kinetic Energy = 0.5 x (Mass M x Velocity V^2)

Pedestrian = Mass M

Cyclist + bicycle = Mass M + B

And the faster the cyclist goes then V gets larger As Velocity is a function of Distance over Time.

So unless you are going to use some alternative Universe physics Cyclists are more polluting than Pedestrians.

 

[Louis II]

I used to cycle 20km each way to work. As a result over a 5 day week I had 9 additional showers per week (18kg CO2), at least 1 additional load of washing per week (2kg CO2), and consumed around an extra 1000 calories per day to maintain stable weight (20kg CO2) = 40 kg of CO2 per week. vs 200km * 0.2kg CO2 per mile in the cali = 40kg so about the same. All figures pulled randomly from the internet but seem about right to me.

 

[Amarillo]

Well I’m afraid you are incorrect in this instance. I suggest you brush up on your Physics.

How to Calculate Kinetic Energy: 9 Steps (with Pictures) - wikiHow

There are two basic forms of energy: potential and kinetic energy. Potential energy is the energy an object has relative to the position of another object. For example, if you are at the top of a hill, you have more potential energy than...

www.wikihow.com

Pedestrian verses Cyclist + Bicycle, over the same distance will expend differing amounts of energy, even if travelling at the same speed. As Human metabolism has CO2 as one of its by-products the Cyclist will always expend more energy as he would have the grater mass and hence more CO2.

eg.
Kinetic Energy = 0.5 x (Mass M x Velocity V^2)

Pedestrian = Mass M

Cyclist + bicycle = Mass M + B

And the faster the cyclist goes then V gets larger As Velocity is a function of Distance over Time.

So unless you are going to use some alternative Universe physics Cyclists are more polluting than Pedestrians.

I may be wrong, but your argument fails to convince me that I am. Kinetic energy will surely be a minor component of energy expended when walking.

For example, you will need to consider the CO2 exhaled for maintaining the body (4 times as much for 10h walking 50km than 2.5 hrs cycling 50km), and the CO2 exhaled lost to friction (far greater walking than cycling).

Using simple online walking and cycling calculators supports my guess. A 75Kg male on a 50km cycle ride over 2 1/2 hours (20km/h) will burn under 1500 calories; the same weight male walking the same distance over 10h (5km/h) will burn over 2500 calories. A big assumption I'm making using the calculator is that CO2 exhaled will be more or less proportional to calories used. But I don't see that as an unreasonable assumption.

 

[Bellcrew]

I used to cycle 20km each way to work. As a result over a 5 day week I had 9 additional showers per week (18kg CO2), at least 1 additional load of washing per week (2kg CO2), and consumed around an extra 1000 calories per day to maintain stable weight (20kg CO2) = 40 kg of CO2 per week. vs 200km * 0.2kg CO2 per mile in the cali = 40kg so about the same. All figures pulled randomly from the internet but seem about right to me.

Angels dancing on the head of a pin sort of argument, one decent volcano will pour enough CO2 into the atmosphere to cancel out the emissions saved by mass use of bicycles
Now all those Lignite power stations in Germany being built to charge the new all electric golfs are really going to save the planet, all beyond parody.

 

[ThomasHJ]

If I had time for this discussion I'd be spending it in my cali ;-)

 

[WelshGas]

If I had time for this discussion I'd be spending it in my cali ;-)

I am, but its pouring outside and I'm having my morning coffee.

 

[WelshGas]

I may be wrong, but your argument fails to convince me that I am. Kinetic energy will surely be a minor component of energy expended when walking.

For example, you will need to consider the CO2 exhaled for maintaining the body (4 times as much for 10h walking 50km than 2.5 hrs cycling 50km), and the CO2 exhaled lost to friction (far greater walking than cycling).

Using simple online walking and cycling calculators supports my guess. A 75Kg male on a 50km cycle ride over 2 1/2 hours (20km/h) will burn under 1500 calories; the same weight male walking the same distance over 10h (5km/h) will burn over 2500 calories. A big assumption I'm making using the calculator is that CO2 exhaled will be more or less proportional to calories used. But I don't see that as an unreasonable assumption.

You definitely are living in an Alternative Universe.

 

[flying banana]

Jesus christ..isn't it camping season yet. So I did a quick Google and most sites say bikes are twice as energy efficient as walking. They put a velo mobile at number 1. But cant be arsed to Google that. End of argument. Ha

 

[ArunAlec]

If I had time for this discussion I'd be spending it in my cali ;-)

They might be in their Cali’s!

 

[Amarillo]

You definitely are living in an Alternative Universe.

Not the most convincing argument to persuade me that my guess is wrong.

The bicycle is a tremendously efficient means of transportation. In fact cycling is more efficient than any other method of travel--including walking! ​

Science of Cycling: Human Power | Exploratorium

www.exploratorium.edu

 

[WelshGas]

Not the most convincing argument to persuade me that my guess is wrong.

The bicycle is a tremendously efficient means of transportation. In fact cycling is more efficient than any other method of travel--including walking! ​

Science of Cycling: Human Power | Exploratorium

www.exploratorium.edu

View attachment 56133

But still not Pollution Free as you maintained.

 

[Amarillo]

But still not Pollution Free as you maintained.

The bicycle, once built, is zero emissions. The rider exhales a greater % CO2 than they inhale, but almost certainly less mile per mile than if they were a pedestrian.

 

[WelshGas]

The bicycle, once built, is zero emissions. The rider exhales a greater % CO2 than they inhale, but almost certainly less mile per mile than if they were a pedestrian.

But not less per hour.

 

[Amarillo]

But not less per hour.

That claim was never made. However, the chart posted above,suggests that a cyclist at 4 mph uses significantly less calories than a walker at 4 mph, so that would be per hour too.

I'm not going to engage further with you on this matter.

 

[Elly Swanson]

In the city where I live and work everyone used to be able to apply for a bus pass at the age of 60. Now that’s changed to 66. I work for the council (adult education) and drive to and from work and sometimes in between sites. Congestion is bad and I have to leave early in the morning to get parked. At some sites they’re thinking of charging us for parking. It would make sense if they were to provide us with bus passes (to bus at the moment would be far more costly than driving, and that’s taking all costs into consideration). The benefits would be less pollution, less congestion and a fitter and healthier work force (walking to and from bus stops).

So I think council workers, doctors, nurses, emergency services, etc, at least should have free travel.

I grew up on a new town in the UK. The public transport links were fabulous and there were footpaths and cycle tracks all over (still are). The designers never envisaged people needing/wanting cars (hence not a lot of garages were built on the housing estates or driveways). It‘s even really easy to commute in to London to work. Alas, these days you can’t move there for cars, exaserpated by young people having to stay at home and live with their parents parking their cars near the narrow fronted ex-council houses. The place is full to bursting and congestion and pollution really bad, constantly, not just peak times.

So in all, I think free public transport is the only way forward - for everyone.

 

[KernowCali]

But still not Pollution Free as you maintained.

I find some of the attitudes on here to cycling absolutely incredible.

Cycling is a carbon-friendly thing to do. No matter how a cyclist is fuelled, the bicycle is nearly 10 times more carbon-efficient than the most efficient of petrol cars.

And don’t forget that typically each commuting cyclist is taking another car off the road. By taking my car off the road in rush hour, I cut everyone else's queuing time, and consequently reduce the emissions they belch out while they wait. A car on a congested road can produce as much as three times the amount of CO2 as the same car travelling at a steady speed.

I think you should be a bit more grateful that cyclists make this choice.