A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/7273195
Not trying to be that guy, but do the bike and walking numbers include the energy from the calories you eat, or the energy needed to produce that food?
I don't think they need to, most people already eat more food than they need to whether they walk or drive. I'd wager the average person wouldn't need to change a thing in their diet and would overall only improve their health by walking more.
I've read that unless the person riding the bike is vegetarian, the ebike actually has a lower carbon footprint than the normal bike. They're still both far better than the car (ice or EV).
I might dispute the idea that there's a 1:1 relationship between marginal calories expended exercising and marginal calories eaten.
A UK study showed ebikes have a smaller carbon footprint due to how much meat British people eat.
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. Do you think you get energy from some source other than food?
If I burn 100 kilocalories pedaling a bike, my body will be using 100 kcal of energy that I got from food. There is a certain amount of carbon dioxide emission associated with the production of 100 kcal of food. That amount varies with what type of food I eat and what farming practices are used. If I choose to simply not eat extra food to replace the energy I used, my body will simply have less stored energy afterwards. My energy absolutely comes 100%, 1:1 from the food I eat, and that food has an environmental impact.
Now, if I ride an ebike, my body will use less energy. I will use energy generated by the power plant. The energy created at the power plant may actually have less environmental impact than the farm creating the food I would have eaten.
Maybe your basal metabolic rate will change because you bike more.
Since you'd have to bike like 30 miles a day for calories from biking to surpass calories from basal metabolism, small changes is basal metabolism will mater a lot
No, I had the same thought.
Are you saying "No, it's not included" or "No, you're not being 'that guy'"?
I meant it as a "Don't worry about being that guy, because if you didn't make that comment, I would have"
yes
I wondered that too. I imagine it would be very inaccurate to include that as the amount of calories needed would vary wildly person to person. For example, I burned around 2000kcal to cycle 100km in hilly terrain at the weekend, while a friend burned roughly twice that on the same ride.
Fuck cars, but was it really necessary to compare at such different speeds? Air resistance is a big factor and a proper electric bike can go 45kmh as well. Or the car can drive 25kmh
a proper electric bike can go 45kmh as well.
There's some debate about that. E-bicycles above class 2 (with assistance/drive at over 20mph) are not allowed on a lot of bike lanes, so they're more like electric mopeds
The fact remains that cars are faster than bikes. Driving a car usually means going faster and hence wasting more energy. Sure, plenty of people deal with distances that necessitate such speeds to be practical in daily life, but that's a different problem to be solved.
I think the speeds are the average speed of each transport type, so it's fair.
The different speeds are to make sure the graph pushes the agenda of the creator. All of them going the same speed would decrease the disparity between walking and driving.
You got lies, damn lies and statistics.
And this is one of those.
I really like this graph because it helps visualizes scale. Sometimes, people knock e-bikes by saying they are less efficient than acoustic bikes. While that may be true, it's another example of, "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good." As shown here, e-bikes are literally the 90% solution. I really don't think it's worth sweating the potential energy efficiency differences between e-bikes and acoustic bikes. What's really important is reducing car usage.
Acoustic bikes? I think analog may be more fitting here but honestly I'm not sure. I've just never heard acoustic referenced outside of sound.
Acoustic is funnier than analog, and I'm not sure if it's any less accurate than analog. In analog clocks, the passage of time is represented in an analogous rotation of clock hands. In analog sound, the change in voltage on a wire is analogous to the pressure waves you hear as sound. I don't know what is analogous to what in biking.
Also, the opposite of analog is digital, and ebikes are not digital bikes.
I'm pretty sure E-bikes are digitally controlled.
Acoustic is definitely funnier, but all definitions I can find about it relate to sound.
Well, if your acoustic bike is not making any sound it's because you're maintaining and oiling it too much
It's a joke. Based on e-guitars / acoustic guitars
You can make anything look bad by removing the next bad comparison though. Like if a pickup truck were there, everything would look good. Remove the car and add a scooter, windsurfing, rollerblading, and rolling downhill, and the e-bike looks bad.
True, but the comparison in this case seems reasonable nonetheless. I just wish they had included fossil fuel cars, too
Not really. The F150 Lightning's efficiency is ~270Wh/km city which means a small EV is only a 50% improvement vs 95% for ebike.
Also, this graph is helpful given our current situation. Maybe once we're mostly at the 95% better than an F150 Lightning solution (e-bikes), it might be worth being concerned with energy efficiency, but we're not there.
This chart ignores one very important detail. Exercise is good for you. Those bars should be negative since it's good energy expenditure.
Oh yay, just what I want; to be able to go 45km in 2.5hrs and be exhausted by the time I get there.
If your lifestyle requires this there is a systemic issue worth fixing.
I always love how the utopia you push for completely ignores the existence of disabled people. Can't ride a bike? Just die!
I don't think you have thought this through enough.
Car infrastructure takes up the most space, so making a city for driving necessarily exludes other forms of transportation: think about what multi lane highways and giant parking lots does to a city.
On the other hand, excluding (or just minimizing) cars allows these other forms of transportation to flourish. Busses, trains, biking, scooting, walking, wheel chairs, those golf cart things disabled people use in the Netherlands.
Certainly you understand that many disabled people can not use cars: blind people, epileptic people, elderly people, young people, broke people (though lack of income is not traditionaly considered a disability, it can be disabilitating in a car dependent hypercapitalistic society like the US).
There is no one solution for transportation of the disabled, so it's important to have lots of options. This is impossible if your neighborhood is car dependent
I was going to write a snarky comment, but instead I'll try to gain insight into your perspective.
What disabilities allow you to drive a car, but prevent you from walking, cycling or taking the bus?
What disabilities allow you to drive a car, but prevent you from walking, cycling or taking the bus?
To clarify/add to this: walking or cycling also includes mobility devices that can use this infrastructure such as walkers, wheelchairs, and scooters. Taking this to the extreme, the Netherlands has microcars which allow people with handicaps to drive at low speed on bike infrastructure. Some even allow wheelchair user to roll right in (also shown in the video at 1m07s).
Taking the bus turns a 15 minute drive into a two hour drive. Because I'm disabled y'all just assume my time is less valuable. Like I said, fuck all y'all that assume cars are the worst option for everyone
Taking the bus turns a 15 minute drive into a two hour drive
If you're talking about your specific situation, sure that might be the case, but it shouldn't be that way in general. I also avoid taking my local public transit because it's so bad, with service that's supposed to be every 15min often 25min late (I've personally waited over 40min). However, that's only with bad service. In a lot of places with good public transit, transit is waaay faster than driving because (rightfully so) they give priority to buses holding 40+ people, instead of cars holding 1.4 people on average
We're not blaming you if you currently take a car. I drove to the grocery store last night because that's the only way to safely get there. It's the system that's the problem.
You also didn't acknowledge the other mobility options available, do none of them apply to you?
I think that's unfair, in a city for example every equipment made for bikes, like a bridge above a road with lots of traffic or smooth road crossings, make the life of disabled easier too. I'm thinking about wheelchairs, but I guess it's true even for people who struggle with walking too. And to me, the "fuck cars" Utopia is certainly way more inclusive for the disabled than the current situation.
Nobody is saying that it never makes any sense to use a car, but about 60% of all car trips in America are less than 6 miles (9.65 km). The scale ends there, hence the less than, but a good chunk is probably only 1-2 miles or less (1.6 - 3.2km), which is inexcusable for healthy adults not transporting heavy stuff like a fridge.
which is inexcusable for healthy adults not transporting heavy stuff like a fridge.
Part of the problem is now just the adults themselves are the heavy stuff, perpetuating the cycle
Oh yay, just what I want; to live in a dying world with a bunch of self-centered people.
It’s definitely a bit of a tilted comparison to not include any other alternative forms of transit like say a bus with 12 people on it (divide the energy), or a train with 80 people on it.
Oh yay, just what I want; to be able to bike 45km in 2.5hrs, getting fresh air and exercise along the way, hardly costing a cent, seeing the sights, feeling refreshed and invigorated, having a sense of accomplishment and being more connected to my neighbourhood while having almost no negative impact on the environment!
Seeing the sights, feeling refreshed and invigorated
Seeing the sights gets boring when you've done it more than a handful of times. And I'm not sure why, but I don't feel refreshed when I've been out on a bike ride due to the winds. They aren't strong, but they don't need to be when going 18/25.
having a sense of accomplishment
This argument is one I strongly despise cause arbitrary difficulty does not/should not give a sense of accomplishment. Take the bus instead and you'll have that same sense of accomplishment but waste only half the time. Or walk and spend twice the time and get it too.