Cycling Is To Transportation As Efficiency Is To Energy

Until the recent spike in gas prices, much of the discussion about solving our transportation problems--namely, emissions from cars and dependence on foreign oil--centered on increasing the efficiency of the vehicles we drive through higher CAFE standards and new designs. Lately, the discussion has expanded to include the importance of public transportation, walkable cities and, to a lesser extent, cycling. However, even as alternatives to driving have become more prominent in public discourse, the fact of the matter is that people get far more excited about the Chevy Volt and the Tesla Roadster than they do about hybrid-electric buses and bicycle lanes.

Shiny Cars and Solar Panels Get More Attention
In much the same way, when it comes to solving our energy crisis there is always more enthusiasm for renewable energy technologies, like wind and solar, than there is for energy efficiency. When it comes down to it, fancy cars and shiny solar panels are just sexier than riding a bicycle and installing triple-glazed windows. At the same time, cycling--which is the most efficient form of transportation--and energy efficiency, are by far the cheapest means of addressing a wide range of issues, from climate change, to congestion to high energy prices.

Read the full story.

Related:
::Read more about bike culture on the Huffington Post.
::Read more on energy from the Huffington Post.

Comments

[leduck]

yep

and it's healthy too
but i live in L.A. county
not exactly foot freindly yet

[sociocanuck]

I have noticed in my home city of Vancouver (Canada), which still has a rather inordinately large vehicle-bound population, there has been a steady and noticeable rise in cyclists over the last few years. And the support systems therein are growing too. Anecdotally, for instance, I went away for the weekend and when I returned there were two new cycle sales/repair shops in a few block radius around my home.

Translink, the Greater vancouver Transportation Authority, has even got in the habit of advocating cycle use rather than buses, which are technically a major source of income from their Coast Mountain Bus Company arm. The only thing, in my mind, really holding back an absolute explosion is that Vancouver's main roadways have virtually no safe cyclist paths: even the ones with them are too narrowly defined.

[BearsLeft]

Support for building new bicycle paths is not helped by the fact that, in my experience, many bicyclists ride in the road when there is a bike path available.

[research]

In Holland, the most cycling western country, the bike paths are on the sidewalks where they belong, not on the side of the road, where cars will kill cyclists.

[vipersdad]

Actually that's not entirely true. In Holland, there is an extensive "system" in place on most city streets that segregates pedestrians from bikes and bikes from cars. There are isolated places where bikes and pedestrians mix it up, but mostly people in Holland just are much more conscious of bikes and bikes are conscious of cars.

[circles]

The road is where cyclists should be.

Share the road buddy.

[vipersdad]

Most roads in this country still have very narrow shoulders and no bike lane available. Often when there is a bike path available, it's a widened shoulder or a separate path that is poorly maintained by county and state road crews. With few exceptions, it's difficult to transition from dedicated "bike paths" to the roads. Frequently, the "bike paths" are interrupted and riders are required to ride on the roadways to transition from one bike path to another.

Until such a time as there is an end-to-end bike route that traverses cities/states and the country at large, bikes will be on the roads.

We ride on the road because we have to. In my home town, to get to the dedicated "bike path" from the road, you have to stop, dismount, and lift your bike over a curb to get in to the bike lane. Once there, the lack of maintenance is appalling. Weeds, glass, gravel, and other debris are everywhere. As if that was not difficult enough, that bike path is usually full of joggers and people walking dogs, which also makes it close to impossible to maintain a steady cadence while riding.

So I ride on the road....

Why in all of this discussion do we continue to villify the cyclists for riding on the road? Shouldn't a better question deal with how we can reduce speeds and traffic volumes on the roads? Wouldn't that save fuel? Precious fuel?

[KPinSEA]

And so long as you can keep up with the speed of traffic on that road, then you're like any other vehicle and I don't care.

The minute you can't, you become the same as a damaged vehicle that is slowing down traffic and won't pull off.

I don't want bike riders to be discriminated against, since I'm often one of them, but neither do I want to see them be able to violate rules of the road that others are asked to follow.

[KPinSEA]

There's no magic bullet ... cycling is a solution for dry, flat cities.

I live in hilly, damp, Seattle ... so although I'm in the heart of my cycling season now, there's no chance I'm cycling to work in November.

[DCX2]

You could always get a motor-assisted bicycle if you live in a hilly area. Turn on the motor when you get tired of going up-hill, or when you want to cover a greater distance in less time. They go up to 25 mph and don't require a driver's license or turn signals.

As for wet...well...can't do much there. Rain might not be so bad but snow is killer.

[KPinSEA]

Mostly not practical in a wet environment, I have looked at electric bikes but I'm looking at basically the same seasonal limitations with an expensive initial investment and unknown ongoing maintenance.

That's why 'My other car is the bus' ... I moved to a place with great mass transit options for my commute, I telecommute at least one day a week, and my annual mileage on the vehicle is about 7,000 miles.

This time of year, I'll ride my bike to the Water Taxi that gets me across the bay, perfect weather for it and a great start to the day ... but again, not in November. Back to the bus.

[vipersdad]

Yet Seattle and Portland are one of the biggest bike-to-work cities in this country - how is it that others are able to do it and you aren't?

[Sumocat]

Pfft. Everyone knows walking is the cheapest and most efficient means of transportation. The energy it takes to produce a bicycle and helmet is much higher than the energy required to produce no equipment. Next up are skating systems (board and blade), push scooters, then bicycles. Not even in the top three. :P

[Pyroclast]

Sorry, Sumocat; biking IS the most efficient way to get there. When you talk about efficiency, you have to include not only what goes in, but also what comes out, in this case, the distance and time involved in travel versus the energy comsumed. if you think that you can travel 15 miles in just under one hour on your bike and comapre that to only three miles walking, then you have to say that even the energy used by making the bike gets "paid off" soon enough. In other words, if you have a 7 mile commute, you wouldn't even consider walking 4 hours a day just to go to and from work, while on a bike it would be a few minutes only and very probable you would be doing it.

[Sumocat]

Geez, buy a sense of humor.

[ABrindell]

Ideally, we should do both - renewable energy, AND energy efficiency - but realistically, getting the spoiled population of America to tone down their resource use is pretty unrealistic. Without specific encouragement to take steps in that direction, they're not going to do it. The ever present spectre of forced lifestyle changes when we run out of resources somewhere down the road isn't going to do it.

[FearlessFreep]

Be realistic: ask for the "impossible."

[barkingcat]

...in addition, cycling is excellent exercise -- something a growing (pun intended) number of Americans could stand to engage in.