Commuting by bike not cost effective?

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 23 Jul 2007 10:00:53
From:
Subject: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

This weekend I biked the 12 miles to work to see if it could be done.
It took around 1 hour and a half, however, I noticed this is really
not going to save me any money. The reason is the cost to replace my
1000 calories burned will be more than the $3 gas it costs me to get
to work.

I can see the benefits if you are over-weight and need to lose
weight. But someone if just fooling himself if they think they are
saving any money by biking, no?

Date: 06 Aug 2007 19:16:33
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

In article <46b7c2fa$0$16403$88260bb3@free.teranews.com >,
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > writes:

>>> Isn't this the only business on Cambie Street worth patronizing:
>>> <http://www.cambiecycles.com/>? ;)
>>
>> It's one of 'em -- besides proffering recumbents in
>> both bike & trike configs (OSS & USS) and full-faired
>> velomobiles, they also sell trailer stuff. Especially
>> Chariot[tm] trailer stuff. They usually set up an
>> interesting exhibit out on their sidewalk/patio area.
>> They tolerate normal bikes, too.
>
> You mean those odd "horse rider position" bikes? ;)

Yeah, the ones that don't make you go "Unngh!" as you
hoist yer middle-aged weight up & out of 'em, as with
too-low patio lounge chairs, and making use of the
armrests :-)

I'll confess that as my years advance, when dismounting
from my normal bike, I have to lean it over more than I
used'ta, in order to clear my leg over the saddle.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 06 Aug 2007 18:21:25
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

In article <46b7b573$0$16347$88260bb3@free.teranews.com >,
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>> ...
>> I don't think pulling-over and stopping on the more
>> commercial stretches of Cambie St ever was that easy.
>> Drivers seem to prefer to access those businesses by
>> parking on the adjacent minor streets & avenues, even
>> long before construction of the Canada (RAV) Line began.
>> They might now have to walk a couple of extra blocks
>> to patronize their favourite business establishments.
>> It'll do 'em good....
>
> Isn't this the only business on Cambie Street worth patronizing:
> <http://www.cambiecycles.com/>? ;)

It's one of 'em -- besides proffering recumbents in
both bike & trike configs (OSS & USS) and full-faired
velomobiles, they also sell trailer stuff. Especially
Chariot[tm] trailer stuff. They usually set up an
interesting exhibit out on their sidewalk/patio area.
They tolerate normal bikes, too.

If you want a $40 pizza (I don't,) there's
Flying Wedge Pizza.

If you want live flamenco, there's Kino's Cafe
(sometimes that place generates more noise than
the tunnel construction.)

Further upstream there's <drool > Omnitsky's Deli.
Paraphrasing from memory their sidewalk sign, it
says: "Montreal smoked meat: buy the sandwich, or
take it home by the pound."

And then there's the Park Cinema, where you can
sleep through boring, mouldering, human-interest
movies like Pride & Prejudice, amid an host of
little old ladies who don't approve of you[*].

cheers,
Tom

[*] "Make tea, not love"
-- Hell's Grannies / Monty Python

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 06 Aug 2007 20:47:02
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <46b7b573$0$16347$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> writes:
>> Tom Keats wrote:
>>> ...
>>> I don't think pulling-over and stopping on the more
>>> commercial stretches of Cambie St ever was that easy.
>>> Drivers seem to prefer to access those businesses by
>>> parking on the adjacent minor streets & avenues, even
>>> long before construction of the Canada (RAV) Line began.
>>> They might now have to walk a couple of extra blocks
>>> to patronize their favourite business establishments.
>>> It'll do 'em good....
>>
>> Isn't this the only business on Cambie Street worth patronizing:
>> <http://www.cambiecycles.com/>? ;)
>
> It's one of 'em -- besides proffering recumbents in
> both bike & trike configs (OSS & USS) and full-faired
> velomobiles, they also sell trailer stuff. Especially
> Chariot[tm] trailer stuff. They usually set up an
> interesting exhibit out on their sidewalk/patio area.
> They tolerate normal bikes, too.

You mean those odd "horse rider position" bikes? ;)

> If you want a $40 pizza (I don't,) there's
> Flying Wedge Pizza.

Only if the pizza feeds 6-8 people with normal appetites.

> If you want live flamenco, there's Kino's Cafe
> (sometimes that place generates more noise than
> the tunnel construction.)

I can not tolerate loud music [1], particularly the distortion produced
by electric guitar amps, PA speakers and whatever the hell is used to
make the sounds in hip-hop.

> Further upstream there's <drool> Omnitsky's Deli.
> Paraphrasing from memory their sidewalk sign, it
> says: "Montreal smoked meat: buy the sandwich, or
> take it home by the pound."

They set Montreal on fire to smoke meat? I know relations between the
English and French Canadians/Canadiens are bad, but this is going a bit
far! ;)

> And then there's the Park Cinema, where you can
> sleep through boring, mouldering, human-interest
> movies like Pride & Prejudice, amid an host of
> little old ladies who don't approve of you[*].

No young hotties? :(

[1] Most honorable exception goes to the CSO - can we bring back Sir
Georg back from the dead so he can conduct Mahler 8 again? Please?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 06 Aug 2007 17:10:38
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

In article <1186411539.739503.75260@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com >,
nash <SMNate@gmail.com > writes:
> "Y'know what? It hasn't
> deleteriously affected traffic at all. All these years, "
>
> What?
>
> I saw Cambie and know people living there. It is the worst thing that
> ever happened.

There are no traffic snarls. The drivers seem to be
coping just fine. The b*tch is finding ways to
cross Cambie St, there are so many moving targets --
one day you can cross at 18th, the next day it's
blocked off. Nevertheless, traffic /on/ Cambie St
is flowing as per usual, albeit not as much as
there was before. It's almost like: remove half the
pavement, and half the car traffic just ... goes away,
disappears. Heck, It leads me to think they should
just tear down the Patullo Bridge, and simply not
replace it.

At any rate, it goes to show just how unnecessarily
and wastefully overly-paved a city can be.

> Look at all the secondary streets.

Those neighbourhoods must be loving it (except for
the construction noise & dust.) No more rat-runners.

> no such thing as non rush hour and nobody can stop anywhere to go to
> the stores. Business must love that.

I don't think pulling-over and stopping on the more
commercial stretches of Cambie St ever was that easy.
Drivers seem to prefer to access those businesses by
parking on the adjacent minor streets & avenues, even
long before construction of the Canada (RAV) Line began.
They might now have to walk a couple of extra blocks
to patronize their favourite business establishments.
It'll do 'em good.

I suspect the only thing missing from Cambie St traffic
is the trans-municipality commuters using the street as
a cross-town corridor with no intention to stop anywhere
along the way. The businesses on Cambie St don't need
'em anyways. And besides, most of those businesses are
neighbourhood-oriented and don't depend on motorized
pilgrims coming from far and wide.

Yeah, The Tomato Restaurant is gone. But business along
Cambie still seems to be for the most part surviving.
Especially at the Signature re-tox centre. If people really
want to patronize a business, they'll find a way.

> your next point about gov't bike lanes I like, gotta love people on
> bikes making their own rules since the powers that be know less than
> shit about it.

I guess that's where City Hall Bicycle Advisory Committees
and other cycling advocates come in. They have to balance
the desires of a diversity of riders, some of whom might be
vehemently anti-bike-lane, some vehemently pro-bike-lane,
and perhaps a majority that falls somewhere in between.

Don't be surprised by compromise solutions that partially
satisfy everybody, but don't completely sastisfy anybody.

cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 06 Aug 2007 19:49:19
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

Tom Keats wrote:
> ...
> I don't think pulling-over and stopping on the more
> commercial stretches of Cambie St ever was that easy.
> Drivers seem to prefer to access those businesses by
> parking on the adjacent minor streets & avenues, even
> long before construction of the Canada (RAV) Line began.
> They might now have to walk a couple of extra blocks
> to patronize their favourite business establishments.
> It'll do 'em good....

Isn't this the only business on Cambie Street worth patronizing:
<http://www.cambiecycles.com/ >? ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 06 Aug 2007 15:12:24
From: nash
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

<<<<The newbies who think they need painted
approval to bike would get their approval, and their feeling of
"special" safety. And I'll bet (unfortunately, without evidence) that
>>>>

and false confidence is what gets everyone in trouble same as bloated
ego, road rage,
I think eveyone would benefit if everyone took extra road tests every
few years. Gov't would love that,
trouble is in Canada we are a society that does not put education as a
high priority like some countries
so we can use the guilt complex and say you should know what your
doing when there is know way of
doing that without bumbling along in the school of hard knocks

this is nash speaking from my pulpit ; )

Date: 06 Aug 2007 14:59:53
From: nash
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

Date: 06 Aug 2007 14:45:39
From: nash
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

"Y'know what? It hasn't
deleteriously affected traffic at all. All these years, "

What?

I saw Cambie and know people living there. It is the worst thing that
ever happened. Look at all the secondary streets.
no such thing as non rush hour and nobody can stop anywhere to go to
the stores. Business must love that.

your next point about gov't bike lanes I like, gotta love people on
bikes making their own rules since the powers that be know less than
shit about it.

Date: 05 Aug 2007 14:55:47
From:
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

On Aug 4, 12:03 am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
>
>
> Anyways, we might get bike lanes along some of the
> "new" Cambie St, and bike lanes on the bridge part
> that goes to Sea Island and the airport. There's a
> cycling advocacy demand for such bike lanes. 'Cuz if
> we didn't get them, the bridge wouldn't be built widely
> enough to share car lanes with. I know, I know -- if
> it's wide enough to put in bike lanes, it's supposedly
> wide enough to share ordinary lanes. But in the real
> world I'm afraid that's not how gov't operates.
> If they're gonna accommodate bicycles, they feel compelled
> to demonstratedly do so by putting in bike lanes so the
> gov't can lay claim to being cycling sympathetic.

I understand how that works.

> Either that, or we get dick-all.

ISTM that putting "sharrows" on the right side of the pavement could
work for everyone. That is, the politicians and the traffic engineers
could point to them and say "See, we evaluated the situation and found
that these work best." The newbies who think they need painted
approval to bike would get their approval, and their feeling of
"special" safety. And I'll bet (unfortunately, without evidence) that
there would be fewer problems with road trash, motorist harassment,
merging left for turns, etc.

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 04 Aug 2007 16:29:57
From: nash
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

On Jul 24, 11:20 am, "Leo Lichtman" <l.licht...@worldnet.att.net >
wrote:
> "nash" wrote: (clip) Longer life too (clip)
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Since we're talking strictly costs here, let's get it right. Longer life
> adds cost. Shorter life saves money. TIC

So you are in favor of people who give themselves heart attacks. Not
everyone is just talking cost otherwise we would all be running off
cliffs like lemmings lol

Date: 06 Aug 2007 22:29:20
From: Leo Lichtman
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

"nash" wrote: So you are in favor of people who give themselves heart
attacks. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
nash--"TIC" stands for "Tongue in cheek."

Date: 03 Aug 2007 21:03:56
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

In article <46b3da47$0$16360$88260bb3@free.teranews.com >,
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>> ...
>> But New Westminster is a lovely city, and it's a
>> shame to see it bear the brunt, to Vancouver's
>> advantage, while we do nothing about it except
>> vociferously oppose Kevin Falcon's inevitable,
>> "done deal" freeway expansion....
>
> "Mr. Falcon... [is] a former volunteer with the Cloverdale RCMP Bike
> Patrol." [1]
>
> Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
>
> [1] <http://www.kevinfalconmla.bc.ca/EN/1432/>.

In the past there have been attempts to push freeways
through Vancouver Proper. Now, we're a port city on
the left coast. We don't need no stinkin' freeways,
'cuz there's nowhere for them to go, except out into
the ocean. But there's still this CarHead idea that
Freeways Must Pervade Everywhere, and Falcon subscribes
to that superstition. Vancouverites have fought-off
infra-urban freeways before, and we shall continue to
do so.

Kevin Falcon also somehow got to be poster-boy for
Bike Month last year. Shit happens.

Tell ya what -- there's been major construction &
cut-&-cover tunnel digging along one of our major,
central north-south arterials (Cambie St.) to build an
underground rapid transit facility. The street is
originally mostly a very wide boulevard. The plan
consists of closing one half of the boulevard while
construction goes on the other half, and then reversing
the process for the other half. Y'know what? It hasn't
deleteriously affected traffic at all. All these years,
we could have gotten by with half the Cambie Street we've
lived with, and had more real estate to put to better use
than making it easier for cars to shoot through Vancouver
while escaping from one suburb to another.

Just goes to show how overly paved, and how overly
car-servile our culture is.

Anyways, we might get bike lanes along some of the
"new" Cambie St, and bike lanes on the bridge part
that goes to Sea Island and the airport. There's a
cycling advocacy demand for such bike lanes. 'Cuz if
we didn't get them, the bridge wouldn't be built widely
enough to share car lanes with. I know, I know -- if
it's wide enough to put in bike lanes, it's supposedly
wide enough to share ordinary lanes. But in the real
world I'm afraid that's not how gov't operates.
If they're gonna accommodate bicycles, they feel compelled
to demonstratedly do so by putting in bike lanes so the
gov't can lay claim to being cycling sympathetic.

Either that, or we get dick-all.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 03 Aug 2007 19:20:48
From:
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

On Aug 3, 9:21 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
> In article <muh7b3pn7tc7nki4eo42vplaqij63vg...@4ax.com>,
> Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 16:38:00 -0700, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats)
> > wrote:
>
> >>On the shorter steep uphills in that city, one might opt to
> >>ride on <gasp!> the sidewalk,

... which is probably fine in such a slow situation, if done with
care, and knowledge of the risk sources in sidewalk cycling. (Just
thought I'd throw that in.) ;-)

> And there really need to be limits set to the corporate
> impetus to Urban Sprawl -- the establishment of businesses
> way out in the boonies where nobody can get to them.

I agree! But I don't know how to implement such a thing. I recently
read about one northern European jurisdiction (Amsterdam, maybe?) that
has such limits; but their laws must be much different than ours.

Many, if not most, American cities seem to be surrounded by suburbs
with separate rules. And it's very hard for the central city to say
to the surrounding suburb "Thou shalt not attract businesses!" It
seems any such regulations would have to be statewide - and then
you've got one political party saying "That other party is driving
business away from our state!"

It's a tough problem, I think.

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 03 Aug 2007 18:21:17
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

In article <muh7b3pn7tc7nki4eo42vplaqij63vg12q@4ax.com >,
Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com > writes:
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 16:38:00 -0700, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats)
> wrote:
>
>>
>>On the shorter steep uphills in that city, one might opt to
>>ride on <gasp!> the sidewalk, like where New Westminster's
>>7th Ave Bikeway sort of hooks up to the BC Parkway (aka The
>>7-Eleven Trail.) That hump is so steep, riders generally
>>don't go much faster than walking pace anyway.
>
> That's not a steep street for New Westminster.

No, I expect the hump up the Adanac/Union route on
the Burnaby side of Boundary road is steeper. I can
grind up there (on the street, no less) with impunity,
no matter how heavily laden my bike is. Well, if I
had a sack of readi-crete in the milk crate, the bike
would tend to wheelie.

> On steep streets the sidewalks are staircases.

Thanks to geological settling, they provide a variety
of angles deviant to the mean, anyways.

Much of the motorized traffic in New Westminster is
non-local. It consists of commuters just passing
through, from one side of the river to the other,
via the Alex Fraser & Queensborough bridges.
In other words -- grand scale rat-runners who don't
give a fat rat's ass about the neighbourhoods &
communities they affect and diminish. I guess it's
good for Vancouver Proper, 'cuz it keeps 'em out of
our hair.

But New Westminster is a lovely city, and it's a
shame to see it bear the brunt, to Vancouver's
advantage, while we do nothing about it except
vociferously oppose Kevin Falcon's inevitable,
"done deal" freeway expansion.

Anyways, walking/pushing/pulling a heavy bike up
6th from Columbia to 7th Ave (Street? I could never
get New West avenues & streets straight) is a task.
Especially on a hot summer day. There needs to be a
DQ along the way.

And there really need to be limits set to the corporate
impetus to Urban Sprawl -- the establishment of businesses
way out in the boonies where nobody can get to them.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 03 Aug 2007 21:37:24
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

Tom Keats wrote:
> ...
> But New Westminster is a lovely city, and it's a
> shame to see it bear the brunt, to Vancouver's
> advantage, while we do nothing about it except
> vociferously oppose Kevin Falcon's inevitable,
> "done deal" freeway expansion....

"Mr. Falcon... [is] a former volunteer with the Cloverdale RCMP Bike
Patrol." [1]

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

[1] <http://www.kevinfalconmla.bc.ca/EN/1432/ >.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 03 Aug 2007 16:38:00
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

In article <s0Mqi.5285$Uz4.3530@newsfe19.lga >,
Luigi de Guzman <luigi12081@cox.net > writes:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 19:46:44 +0200, Artemisia wrote:
>
>> Luigi de Guzman wrote:
>>> Is there any shame
>>> in walking a 3-speed up a hill you can't ride?
>>
>> Why? Walking is exercise too, you know. And if less intense, it also
>> takes longer, so it evens out in the end, surely.
>>
>> EFR
>> Ile de France
>
> I don't know. My nice tourer has nice low gears to get me up this
> particular hill. The "station bike" will be somewhat overgeared for this
> one hill. The shame is having to walk a hill I usually ride.

There's no shame in resorting to the ol' "two-foot" gear.
It's just an option at hand, to be used when decided upon.
I do so many times in nearby-to-me city of New Westminster,
especially when my already heavy bike is even more
heavily laden.

Those are urban streets, and I bear in mind that while
I could granny-gear it, there'll be a lot of car traffic
thinking I should go faster for their convenience (so many
drivers have no idea how hills and headwinds affect cyclists.)
And at those low speeds I find it more difficult to maintain
as straight a line as I'd like.

Walking a heavy, heavily-laden bike up a steep hill can be
harder work than riding it; one finds oneself alternately
pushing it by the saddle and pulling it by the handlebar
up the hill like it's a stubborn ol' mule diggin' its
heels in. It's physical exercise unto itself.

On the shorter steep uphills in that city, one might opt to
ride on <gasp! > the sidewalk, like where New Westminster's
7th Ave Bikeway sort of hooks up to the BC Parkway (aka The
7-Eleven Trail.) That hump is so steep, riders generally
don't go much faster than walking pace anyway. The sidewalk
is very lightly populated, and there's a pedestrian
traffic-light pushbutton waiting for you, to get onto the
BC Parkway.

One way to make it, riding up a steep urban street, is
to set the next streetlight/signpost/tree as your goal.
And then the next. And then the next ... I guess
everybody does that, with their own personal variations.

cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 03 Aug 2007 17:29:44
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 16:38:00 -0700, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats)
wrote:

>
>On the shorter steep uphills in that city, one might opt to
>ride on <gasp!> the sidewalk, like where New Westminster's
>7th Ave Bikeway sort of hooks up to the BC Parkway (aka The
>7-Eleven Trail.) That hump is so steep, riders generally
>don't go much faster than walking pace anyway.

That's not a steep street for New Westminster.

On steep streets the sidewalks are staircases.
--
zk

Date: 29 Jul 2007 16:49:34
From:
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

On Jul 28, 8:17 am, Luigi de Guzman <luigi12...@cox.net > wrote:
>
> The fastest, in the end, might be to ride to the Metro
> station...but that pesky 2% hill is on the way home.

Look at the good side! I'd rather have a pesky hill on the way home,
than on the way in to work. You can take your time getting home, and
you can take the time to rest, mop off the sweat, etc.

> Is there any shame
> in walking a 3-speed up a hill you can't ride?

That's up to you. But you can consider spending a few bucks on a new
rear sprocket and lower your bike's gearing. It's pretty easy. See
http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/sturmey-archer-parts.html
for one source. About halfway down http://sheldonbrown.com/english-3.html
you can find a brief paragraph about this.

Most three speeds seem to be geared excessively high, in my opinion.

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 28 Jul 2007 18:36:08
From: Luigi de Guzman
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 19:46:44 +0200, Artemisia wrote:

> Luigi de Guzman wrote:
>> Is there any shame
>> in walking a 3-speed up a hill you can't ride?
>
> Why? Walking is exercise too, you know. And if less intense, it also
> takes longer, so it evens out in the end, surely.
>
> EFR
> Ile de France

I don't know. My nice tourer has nice low gears to get me up this
particular hill. The "station bike" will be somewhat overgeared for this
one hill. The shame is having to walk a hill I usually ride.

--
Luigi de Guzman
http://ouij.livejournal.com

Date: 28 Jul 2007 16:17:52
From: Luigi de Guzman
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 04:30:37 -0700, Tom Keats wrote:

> All the more quickly if you shun driving or taking
> Public Transit altogether, if you can, within a
> 12 mile radius.

My radius is a bit smaller--about six miles, maybe. But public transit
cuts into that as well. The difficulty is that I don't live in the middle
of the city, but out in suburbia. Interstate junctions are bikie
kryptonite.

>
> That you're currently making decent use of a bicycle is good.
> Especially if you're not cheating by occasionally succumbing
> to the lure of The Car for trips you could reasonably do
> by bike.

My two favorite locations--the library and the bike shop--are rideable,
yay! I'll be hitting the former a lot more in the coming months as school
starts.

>
> Race ya up Vancouver's South Hill from Marine Drive to
> 49th Ave up Argyle St sometime :-) Win or lose, I'll
> buy you a plate of Sing Cho chow mein at the Chu Kiang
> restaurant. Freshest shrimp in town. And you'll come
> away weighing less than before the race, and yet feeling
> quite epicureanly satisfied. 100% guaranteed.

A tempting offer. But as I can barely haul my 243 lbs up a short 2% grade
these days, I won't even come close to keeping up.

> I'm 5'11" and 146 lbs with steel-toe boots on.
> Some would say I'm underweight. But thanks to riding
> I'm just not carrying any extra crap on my frame.

I'm 200 lbs over your weight. Even at my last "good" condition--when I
got back from England--I was pushing 230. It's going to be a long haul.

>
> The main thing is that we put the OP's contention that
> cycle-commuting isn't cost-effective to the lie.
> Which we already demonstratedly do. The rest is just
> cheap talk.

OP's financial calculation on replacement calories was fatuous.
Prevailing North American wage rates make it trivial to buy as many
calories as you need to survive. I'd only start calculating calories per
dollar in very desperate financial straits--but that would mean I'd also
abandon such luxuries as 'net access in order to score myself a bit to eat.

Looking forward to my school commute, my limiting factor is time. I could
try riding the whole way--more than twenty miles one way--but given my
present average speed over the distance and terrain, that would mean some
very early mornings and late evenings. The multi-modal commute
(bikeracked bus to bike) cuts bike mileage, but adds to the total commute
time by rail. The fastest, in the end, might be to ride to the Metro
station...but that pesky 2% hill is on the way home. Is there any shame
in walking a 3-speed up a hill you can't ride?

-L

>
> Oh well.
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>
> [*] Please forgive me. I have the metabolism of an
> hummingbird. I can't help it -- I was born this way.
>

--
Luigi de Guzman
http://ouij.livejournal.com

Date: 28 Jul 2007 19:46:44
From: Artemisia
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

Luigi de Guzman wrote:
> Is there any shame
> in walking a 3-speed up a hill you can't ride?

Why? Walking is exercise too, you know. And if less intense, it also
takes longer, so it evens out in the end, surely.

EFR
Ile de France

Date: 28 Jul 2007 04:30:37
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

In article <E1npi.14133$5y.12236@newsfe18.lga >,
Luigi de Guzman <luigi12081@cox.net > writes:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 03:06:44 -0700, Tom Keats wrote:
>
>> As for overweight -- to really make good use of a bike
>> you want to be healthily lightweight.
>
> Well, that's it. I'm hanging up my bike. I'm grossly overweight, and I
> make decent use of a bicycle.

Aw, Luigi -- note my qualitative adjective: "healthily".

You don't have to kill yourself, and we'd prefer you didn't.

I know you've had some time away from riding, and subsequently
gained some weight. That's to be expected.

But as you return to riding, I think you'll find yourself
adapting to it.

All the more quickly if you shun driving or taking
Public Transit altogether, if you can, within a
12 mile radius.

That you're currently making decent use of a bicycle is good.
Especially if you're not cheating by occasionally succumbing
to the lure of The Car for trips you could reasonably do
by bike.

Race ya up Vancouver's South Hill from Marine Drive to
49th Ave up Argyle St sometime :-) Win or lose, I'll
buy you a plate of Sing Cho chow mein at the Chu Kiang
restaurant. Freshest shrimp in town. And you'll come
away weighing less than before the race, and yet feeling
quite epicureanly satisfied. 100% guaranteed.

The more you regularly /rely/ on riding to get around,
the more your body physically adapts to it. That's
plain & simple. Some challenging terrain helps, too.

I know a number of guys who are almost twice my weight
who regularly ride, and they get around just fine.

I'm 5'11" and 146 lbs with steel-toe boots on.
Some would say I'm underweight. But thanks to riding
I'm just not carrying any extra crap on my frame.

I'm not saying all this just to brag or to put one
over on you -- I want to be an example to give you hope.
Your physiology is probably far different from mine[*],
but I want to reassure you that if you maintain your
efforts, you will definitely continue to experience
positive physiological changes that favour your riding.

So do keep on making decent use of your bicycle. As
you do, you will make increasingly decent use of it.

Everybody already knows all that, but I thought a
positive reaffirmation wouldn't hurt.

Win one for the Gipper, 'n all that pep talk.

The main thing is that we put the OP's contention that
cycle-commuting isn't cost-effective to the lie.
Which we already demonstratedly do. The rest is just
cheap talk.

Oh well.

cheers,
Tom

[*] Please forgive me. I have the metabolism of an
hummingbird. I can't help it -- I was born this way.

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 25 Jul 2007 17:25:02
From: Luigi de Guzman
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 20:22:33 -0700, frkrygow wrote:
>
> Those big decisions - location of home, type of car, quality of
> wife ;-) - make huge differences in your life from then on. If you
> do them right, your life is a lot better than if you try to kludge
> improvements later on.
>

Duly noted, old man. As it is, this thread's nudged me to start
investigating alternative ways of commuting. It occurred to me that WMATA
has installed bike racks on all the buses, and a bit of looking around has
revealed a handy bus stop around the corner from my house. I could bus
partway and ride the rest.

It doesn't cut my mileage at all--the bus route terminates about six miles
from school--but it would mean riding in a more bicycle-friendly
environment. Six miles on suburban roads full of high-speed/high volume
traffic is one thing, but six miles in a dense city is another. I'll take
the city over the suburbs as a cyclist, since the lower speeds in the city
mean I can slot in more comfortably in normal traffic.

If this all works out, I'll be back to my old London tricks, mileage, and
condition--and have the benefit of sagging most of the way to my door on
the suburban bus stretch.

Of course, I lose a bit in the route--I'd lose reading time, and the total
commute would be longer (timewise) than simply taking the train, but I
figure it might be worth waking up a bit earlier in the morning, at least
for my health.

--
Luigi de Guzman
http://ouij.livejournal.com

Date: 24 Jul 2007 20:22:33
From:
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

On Jul 24, 5:04 pm, Luigi de Guzman <luigi12...@cox.net > wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:43:16 -0700, Dane Buson wrote:
>
> > See, that was what started my path to perdition. The daily ride to work
> > is where most of my miles come from and it keeps me cycling year round.
>
> It's a bit of a hill to climb (literally) in my case, though. The trip
> *to* the station isn't so bad, but the hill (ok, it's only 2 percent, but
> I'm also a fat bastard) is.
>
> There's a weird quantum for me--within a certain distance, I assume "OK,
> it's rideable," and I'll ride it routinely. The trip to the station is at
> the edge of that distance, over at least a couple of unfriendly roads.

That's exactly why I weighed bike commuting heavily before we bought
the house we live in. We searched all around the area, but only
within the distance I deemed a rideable radius from work.

Those big decisions - location of home, type of car, quality of
wife ;-) - make huge differences in your life from then on. If you
do them right, your life is a lot better than if you try to kludge
improvements later on.

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 25 Jul 2007 02:23:08
From: Luigi de Guzman
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 20:45:17 -0500, John Thompson wrote:

> On 2007-07-24, Luigi de Guzman <luigi12081@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> What gives with the shock links suddenly? I
>>
>> It's in poor taste, and not at all like your usual contributions to
>> rec.bicycles.*
>
> It's a forgery. Jobst posts from sonic.net using the "tin" newsreader:
>
> Organization: Sonic.Net
> User-Agent: tin/1.7.10-20050929 ("Tahay") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.32-A-STAND (i686))
>
> Here's what the forgery shows:
>
> Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
> User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
>
> The forger's User-Agent "40tude_Dialog" is a Windows only shareware news
> client, which wouldn't even run on Jobst's computer. 40tude_Dialog
> doesn't appear to be among the most widely used news clients, so
> a little grepping around the news spool ought to generate a few likely
> culprits for the forgery.
>

This is what I get for not checking article headers as carefully as I
should. I blame insomnia.

--
Luigi de Guzman
http://ouij.livejournal.com

Date: 25 Jul 2007 00:04:55
From: Luigi de Guzman
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:43:16 -0700, Dane Buson wrote:

>
> See, that was what started my path to perdition. The daily ride to work
> is where most of my miles come from and it keeps me cycling year round.

It's a bit of a hill to climb (literally) in my case, though. The trip
*to* the station isn't so bad, but the hill (ok, it's only 2 percent, but
I'm also a fat bastard) is.

There's a weird quantum for me--within a certain distance, I assume "OK,
it's rideable," and I'll ride it routinely. The trip to the station is at
the edge of that distance, over at least a couple of unfriendly roads.

Of course, if I'd been riding it all these years, I wouldn't be in this
mess. Argh.

--
Luigi de Guzman
http://ouij.livejournal.com

Date: 24 Jul 2007 10:56:30
From: AustinMN
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

On Jul 23, 3:20 pm, "Leo Lichtman" <l.licht...@worldnet.att.net >
wrote:
<snip >
>
> For comparison, here's another silly form of personal economics: going to a
> prostitute once in a while is cheaper than going out on dates, and certainly
> cheaper than having a wife and family.

The payback there depends on where you live. In some places, being
arrested for soliciting a prostitute can really cost you. It may be
expensive enough to justify flying to places where it's legal (or at
least tolerated) to pick one up for the night.

Austin

Date: 24 Jul 2007 17:11:22
From: nash
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

On Jul 24, 3:06 am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
> In article <1185210053.584439.204...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
> oprah_cho...@yahoo.com writes:
>
> > This weekend I biked the 12 miles to work to see if it could be done.
> > It took around 1 hour and a half, however, I noticed this is really
> > not going to save me any money. The reason is the cost to replace my
> > 1000 calories burned will be more than the $3 gas it costs me to get
> > to work.
>
> Okay, I just had to have one last peek.
> Bill Sornson wuz right, gol' durn it!
>
> So here's the deal -- you have to eat anyways,
> right? Not just to power the bike, but to
> power yourself and just get through the day.
> You can't feed yourself while you feed your car
> (unless you can metabolize gasoline.) But you
> can feed yourself while you feed your bike.
>
> Two double cheeseburgers from Rotten Ronnie's
> costs $2.95. There ya go for a bunch of cheap
> calories. Duffin's Donuts down the street from
> me sells a dozen day-olds for $3.oo. I like the
> French crullers.
>
> There've been times of hard physical work on Empty
> all day, when a bottle of Coke after work got me
> 12 or more miles home okay.
>
> Actually I regularly do 12 miles on one of quick-cooking
> oatmeal topped with a few scoops of plain yogurt and
> a small can of crushed pineapple. And it's more like a
> 40-50 minute ride. That includes walking it over the
> Knight Street bridge to gingerly avoid all the broken
> glass and subsequent flat tires, not to mention falling
> over the railing of the bridge into the murky depths of
> the mighty Fraser River.
>
> Lasagna is one of the most perfect cycling foods
> for pre-ride load-ups. So is lamb vindaloo (on a
> bed of basmati rice,) if you've got a good source.
> A turkey clubhouse & a big pickle on the side does
> the trick, too. So does a pastrami on soft light
> rye dunked in hot brine and painted on top with hot
> mustard (but it helps to have some Certs afterwards.)
>
> > I can see the benefits if you are over-weight and need to lose
> > weight. But someone if just fooling himself if they think they are
> > saving any money by biking, no?
>
> ha ha, I laugh.
>
> Calories are cheap, and in continental North America one
> would have to be in an extremely dire situation to
> starve to death. Like, if they're overly concerned with
> feeding their cars.
>
> Your $3.oo of gasoline keeps your car happy for a short
> trip, but where does it get you? The Dairy Queen on
> the way to work?
>
> Too bad cars don't run on donairs. OTOH maybe they
> don't deserve such pleasant satisfaction.
>
> You're gonna get yourself one of those elecric motorized
> bikes, aren't you? I increasingly see those folks around,
> and I've got a gut feeling that's where your post is leading.
>
> As for overweight -- to really make good use of a bike
> you want to be healthily lightweight.
>
> So here's the deal: within urban confines, you can't beat
> bicycles for getting around. Sure, you've gotta eat. But
> you've gotta eat anyways. Even die-hard car drivers have
> to eat. The food vs petrofuel argument is a flat-footed
> canard.
>
> --
> Nothing is safe from me.
> I'm really at:
> tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

I cannot understand why you would not put the cost of insurance and
buying a new/used car into the equation. (new bike then new car BTW)
Plus less missed work because of sick days. Oh yeah, and car
maintenance not just gas you twit.
You really miss it good when you miss it. Longer life too if you like
this one your in unless you one in a million that die in an accident.
Car accidents are far more plentiful BTW. Hassle too with hospital
time, lost work, no money to settle for a year etc. just because it
was not your fault. Good for you gold star driver, they treat you so
well don't they.
Pedal faster by the way Joe. remember Live Earth and ride on

Having said that buddies I have added to my transportation boudoir a
sport motorbike. 64 MPG. Insurance is by far the no.1 concern here
though. I did spend 44 years only riding a bicycle on the green side
of things. Ciau. you can do it.

Date: 24 Jul 2007 18:20:34
From: Leo Lichtman
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

"nash" wrote: (clip) Longer life too (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Since we're talking strictly costs here, let's get it right. Longer life
adds cost. Shorter life saves money. TIC

Date: 24 Jul 2007 13:21:40
From: Luigi de Guzman
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 03:06:44 -0700, Tom Keats wrote:

> As for overweight -- to really make good use of a bike
> you want to be healthily lightweight.

Well, that's it. I'm hanging up my bike. I'm grossly overweight, and I
make decent use of a bicycle.

--
Luigi de Guzman
http://ouij.livejournal.com

Date: 24 Jul 2007 03:06:44
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

In article <1185210053.584439.204400@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com >,
oprah_chopra@yahoo.com writes:
> This weekend I biked the 12 miles to work to see if it could be done.
> It took around 1 hour and a half, however, I noticed this is really
> not going to save me any money. The reason is the cost to replace my
> 1000 calories burned will be more than the $3 gas it costs me to get
> to work.

Okay, I just had to have one last peek.
Bill Sornson wuz right, gol' durn it!

So here's the deal -- you have to eat anyways,
right? Not just to power the bike, but to
power yourself and just get through the day.
You can't feed yourself while you feed your car
(unless you can metabolize gasoline.) But you
can feed yourself while you feed your bike.

Two double cheeseburgers from Rotten Ronnie's
costs $2.95. There ya go for a bunch of cheap
calories. Duffin's Donuts down the street from
me sells a dozen day-olds for $3.oo. I like the
French crullers.

There've been times of hard physical work on Empty
all day, when a bottle of Coke after work got me
12 or more miles home okay.

Actually I regularly do 12 miles on one of quick-cooking
oatmeal topped with a few scoops of plain yogurt and
a small can of crushed pineapple. And it's more like a
40-50 minute ride. That includes walking it over the
Knight Street bridge to gingerly avoid all the broken
glass and subsequent flat tires, not to mention falling
over the railing of the bridge into the murky depths of
the mighty Fraser River.

Lasagna is one of the most perfect cycling foods
for pre-ride load-ups. So is lamb vindaloo (on a
bed of basmati rice,) if you've got a good source.
A turkey clubhouse & a big pickle on the side does
the trick, too. So does a pastrami on soft light
rye dunked in hot brine and painted on top with hot
mustard (but it helps to have some Certs afterwards.)

> I can see the benefits if you are over-weight and need to lose
> weight. But someone if just fooling himself if they think they are
> saving any money by biking, no?

ha ha, I laugh.

Calories are cheap, and in continental North America one
would have to be in an extremely dire situation to
starve to death. Like, if they're overly concerned with
feeding their cars.

Your $3.oo of gasoline keeps your car happy for a short
trip, but where does it get you? The Dairy Queen on
the way to work?

Too bad cars don't run on donairs. OTOH maybe they
don't deserve such pleasant satisfaction.

You're gonna get yourself one of those elecric motorized
bikes, aren't you? I increasingly see those folks around,
and I've got a gut feeling that's where your post is leading.

As for overweight -- to really make good use of a bike
you want to be healthily lightweight.

So here's the deal: within urban confines, you can't beat
bicycles for getting around. Sure, you've gotta eat. But
you've gotta eat anyways. Even die-hard car drivers have
to eat. The food vs petrofuel argument is a flat-footed
canard.

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 24 Jul 2007 05:11:48
From: Luigi de Guzman
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:26:20 -0700, runcyclexcski@yahoo.com wrote:

> I'd imagine the cost of car maintenance also needs to be factored in,
> unless you have a really fancy bike. For my commuter bike, the only
> maintenace it gets is tires, tubes, and breakpads. (For my "fancy"
> bike I used to spend much more maintaining it than maintaning my car).
>
>
> But at any rate I would never, ever do 1.5 hr bike commutes. Sounds
> like a tough habit to develop. What if rains/snows? What if you forget
> smth important at home and need to go back? Etc etc. I live within a
> 20 min bike ride, and that's exactly as much as I can handle daily.

You do what works, I suppose. I'm kicking myself for not commuting
more. My Metro stop is about six miles from home, and I've ridden it a
few times, but not nearly enough. That's going to change soon.

I did know a guy who commuted almost an hour by bicycle each way. His
hour, though, was a lot farther than my hour--he was a retired pro racer.

--
Luigi de Guzman
http://ouij.livejournal.com

Date: 24 Jul 2007 13:43:16
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

Luigi de Guzman <luigi12081@cox.net > wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:26:20 -0700, runcyclexcski@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> But at any rate I would never, ever do 1.5 hr bike commutes. Sounds
>> like a tough habit to develop. What if rains/snows? What if you forget
>> smth important at home and need to go back? Etc etc. I live within a
>> 20 min bike ride, and that's exactly as much as I can handle daily.
>
> You do what works, I suppose. I'm kicking myself for not commuting
> more. My Metro stop is about six miles from home, and I've ridden it a
> few times, but not nearly enough. That's going to change soon.

See, that was what started my path to perdition. The daily ride to work
is where most of my miles come from and it keeps me cycling year round.

> I did know a guy who commuted almost an hour by bicycle each way. His
> hour, though, was a lot farther than my hour--he was a retired pro racer.

My one co-worker commutes 45 miles round trip three days a week.
Though she's looking to up it to four.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
And the crowd was stilled. One elderly man, wondering at the sudden silence,
turned to the Child and asked him to repeat what he had said. Wide-eyed,
the Child raised his voice and said once again, "Why, the Emperor has no
clothes! He is naked!"
-- "The Emperor's New Clothes"

Date: 23 Jul 2007 21:26:20
From: runcyclexcski@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

I'd imagine the cost of car maintenance also needs to be factored in,
unless you have a really fancy bike. For my commuter bike, the only
maintenace it gets is tires, tubes, and breakpads. (For my "fancy"
bike I used to spend much more maintaining it than maintaning my car).

But at any rate I would never, ever do 1.5 hr bike commutes. Sounds
like a tough habit to develop. What if rains/snows? What if you forget
smth important at home and need to go back? Etc etc. I live within a
20 min bike ride, and that's exactly as much as I can handle daily.

Date: 24 Jul 2007 04:15:16
From: Luigi de Guzman
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

What gives with the shock links suddenly? I

It's in poor taste, and not at all like your usual contributions to
rec.bicycles.*

--
Luigi de Guzman
http://ouij.livejournal.com

Date: 24 Jul 2007 20:45:17
From: John Thompson
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

On 2007-07-24, Luigi de Guzman <luigi12081@cox.net > wrote:

> What gives with the shock links suddenly? I
>
> It's in poor taste, and not at all like your usual contributions to
> rec.bicycles.*

It's a forgery. Jobst posts from sonic.net using the "tin" newsreader:

Organization: Sonic.Net
User-Agent: tin/1.7.10-20050929 ("Tahay") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.32-A-STAND (i686))

Here's what the forgery shows:

Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1

The forger's User-Agent "40tude_Dialog" is a Windows only shareware news
client, which wouldn't even run on Jobst's computer. 40tude_Dialog
doesn't appear to be among the most widely used news clients, so
a little grepping around the news spool ought to generate a few likely
culprits for the forgery.

--

John (john@os2.dhs.org)

Date: 24 Jul 2007 04:24:50
From: Steve Gravrock
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

On 2007-07-24, Luigi de Guzman <luigi12081@cox.net > wrote:
> What gives with the shock links suddenly? I
>
> It's in poor taste, and not at all like your usual contributions to
> rec.bicycles.*

Those posts don't appear to be from Jobst. They were posted via a
different ISP, and stanfordalumni is misspelled on some of them.

It's an unfortunate fact of life that usenet posts, like e-mails, are
trivial to forge. That's one reason why the preview feature of tinyurl
is so useful.

Date: 23 Jul 2007 21:22:23
From: Frank Drackman
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

"Luigi de Guzman" <luigi12081@cox.net > wrote in message
news:o1fpi.3465$rH6.3286@newsfe22.lga...
> What gives with the shock links suddenly? I
>
> It's in poor taste, and not at all like your usual contributions to
> rec.bicycles.*
>
>
> --
> Luigi de Guzman
> http://ouij.livejournal.com

Did you think that it might not be him?

Date: 23 Jul 2007 23:00:09
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

oprah_chopra@yahoo.com wrote:
:: This weekend I biked the 12 miles to work to see if it could be done.
:: It took around 1 hour and a half, however, I noticed this is really
:: not going to save me any money. The reason is the cost to replace my
:: 1000 calories burned will be more than the $3 gas it costs me to get
:: to work.
::
:: I can see the benefits if you are over-weight and need to lose
:: weight. But someone if just fooling himself if they think they are
:: saving any money by biking, no?

@ 40kcals/mile that's 480 kcals burned. You can buy a big bag of Cracker
Jacks for $0.99 that has about that many calories. Several other options
exist; buy in bulk at the supermarket or Sam's Club.

So, assuming Cracker Jacks, you're saving $2/day, or $10/week, or $500/year
(w/ 2 weeks vacation) just on not buying gas.

Date: 24 Jul 2007 02:51:28
From: me
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:18:30 -0400, Just A User wrote:

> oprah_chopra@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Just A User wrote:
>>> Third think of it as an investment in your long term physical
>> health.
>> I agree with this, however, even if I burned just 500 calories, that
>> is basically 2 sports drinks which typically cost $1.50 each at my
>> cafetaria..
>>
>> I just found it somewhat surprising that biking to work really would
>> not save me any money and that gas is quite cheap for what it does.
>>
>
> Well what I was trying to say, is I don't think you need to refuel your
> body right away. And to avoid paying $1.50 from your cafeteria keep
> somethings in your locker / desk at work. You can get cheaper fuel for
> your body.

And better fuel.

Date: 24 Jul 2007 00:51:29
From: max
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

In article <1185210053.584439.204400@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com >,
oprah_chopra@yahoo.com wrote:

> This weekend I biked the 12 miles to work to see if it could be done.
> It took around 1 hour and a half, however, I noticed this is really
> not going to save me any money. The reason is the cost to replace my
> 1000 calories burned will be more than the $3 gas it costs me to get
> to work.
>
> I can see the benefits if you are over-weight and need to lose
> weight. But someone if just fooling himself if they think they are
> saving any money by biking, no?

1. post your route (or a close approximation) on a google map so your
time/distance can be evaluated.

2. Calculate your car cost by using the IRS standard mileage rate (i use
this because it's a convenient metric, and we can be fairly assured that the
gov't is not inflating the cost of vehicle usage)

3. What do you drive, how far do you drive and what is your mileage? Do you
actually measure this or are you just guessing.

4. Who says you need to spend $3 to replace the metabolic hit of a 90
minute/3 mile ride? That doesn't seem credible, unless there's something
special about your ride.

Date: 24 Jul 2007 02:27:35
From: Leo Lichtman
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

"max" wrote clip) 4. Who says you need to spend $3 to replace the
metabolic hit of a 90 minute/3 mile ride? (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Good point. If you're comparing two numbers, and they're BOTH wrong,
well....

Date: 23 Jul 2007 21:02:35
From:
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 02:27:35 GMT, Leo Lichtman wrote:

> "max" wrote clip) 4. Who says you need to spend $3 to replace the
> metabolic hit of a 90 minute/3 mile ride? (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Good point. If you're comparing two numbers, and they're BOTH wrong,
> well....

This has already been calculated -

http://tinyurl.com/bby7q

Jobst Brandt

Date: 24 Jul 2007 02:56:33
From: max
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

In article <rsdpi.308$ax1.210@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net >,
"Leo Lichtman" <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net > wrote:

> "max" wrote clip) 4. Who says you need to spend $3 to replace the
> metabolic hit of a 90 minute/3 mile ride? (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Good point. If you're comparing two numbers, and they're BOTH wrong,
> well....

math is hard.

.max

Date: 23 Jul 2007 19:49:34
From: DougC
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

oprah_chopra@yahoo.com wrote:
> This weekend I biked the 12 miles to work to see if it could be done.
> It took around 1 hour and a half, however, I noticed this is really
> not going to save me any money. The reason is the cost to replace my
> 1000 calories burned will be more than the $3 gas it costs me to get
> to work.
>
> I can see the benefits if you are over-weight and need to lose
> weight. But someone if just fooling himself if they think they are
> saving any money by biking, no?
>

P. J. O'Rourke noted this in one of his books, when he was talking about
how inefficient pedicabs in Bangladesh or India or some other country
were. The calories in a gallon of gasoline far outnumber the calories in
any amount of food you can buy for the price of a gallon of gasoline.
And exercise depletes vitamins, so you can't simply buy a pound of
butter and suck that down.

------

If you bought a bicycle motor kit and put that on the bicycle, you could
get to work at ~30 mph and it would only cost around six cents for
gasoline (at roughly 200 mpg). -Assuming such motorized bicycles were
legal where you are of course, which they might not be.

{...I am firmly convinced that locales that only allow ELECTRIC
motorized bicycles are locales that most-certainly want the entire
concept to fail. Why don't they require everyone there to use electric
cars as well? because electric cars aren't nearly as practical to use as
petroleum-fueled cars are, and they all know this. And so it goes, with
bicycles as well... they want to keep bicycles as impractical as
possible, to prevent them from taking up valuable road space}
~

Date: 23 Jul 2007 23:51:51
From:
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

In article <j0cpi.30$l57.0@newsfe02.lga >, dcimper@norcom2000.com says...

> And exercise depletes vitamins, so you can't simply buy a pound of
> butter and suck that down.

This would be important for anyone on the verge of malnutrition. But
the average American urinates away a surplus of vitamins every day.

--
josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/ >
Updated Infrared Photography Gallery:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html >

Date: 23 Jul 2007 21:02:02
From: Jeremy Parker
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

<oprah_chopra@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1185210053.584439.204400@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> This weekend I biked the 12 miles to work to see if it could be
> done.
> It took around 1 hour and a half, however, I noticed this is really
> not going to save me any money. The reason is the cost to replace
> my
> 1000 calories burned will be more than the $3 gas it costs me to
> get
> to work.
>
> I can see the benefits if you are over-weight and need to lose
> weight. But someone if just fooling himself if they think they are
> saving any money by biking, no?

Well protein or carbohydrate gives about 4 calories per gram, fat
about 9. Dry crusts of bread might be the cost effective way to get
calories.

What % fat is your body? What would you like it to be? (Don't ask
me the same question. I don't even want to think about it. Weight
loss to your ideal weight is not guaranteed.)

There are a few extras to think about. Car tires or bike tires, for
example. If you are to be more than just a fair weather cyclist, you
will need rain gear, cold weather gear, and lights.

If you really want to beak your budget, get a Moulton double pylon
bike. The going price is about 6000GBP now - double that to get
dollars

Gasoline here in Britain is more expensive than it is in the USA. My
local supermarket sells gasoline and Evian water at about the same
price, but you do get free bottles with the water.

Jeremy Parker

Jeremy Parker

Date: 23 Jul 2007 18:27:09
From: Mailmover
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

I live 1.5 miles from work! I am looking to add a second bike to be
able to commute to and from as I will not only save money on gas, wear
and tear and helping with the enviornment, but the time spent on the
bike will aid in, reducing stress and keeping me fit.

Date: 23 Jul 2007 11:10:12
From: SlowRider
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

On Jul 23, 11:00 am, oprah_cho...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I can see the benefits if you are over-weight and need to lose
> weight. But someone if just fooling himself if they think they are
> saving any money by biking, no?

The actual cost of driving a vehicle is more than just gasoline. You
need to consider maintenance costs as well. The national average is
roughly 50 cents per mile (see, e.g., http://www.piercetransit.org/rideshare/costs.htm).
So your actual cost for driving 24 miles to work and back is closer to
$12/day.

In addition, a cyclist is usually going to burn less than 400 calories
over 12 miles (see http://www.faqs.org/faqs/bicycles-faq/part5/section-12.html).
So your total for the day should be less than 1000 calories. But if
it costs you $3 to replenish the calories, you're still saving $9/
day. And if you're just a little bit frugal, you can do better than
that.

- JR

Date: 23 Jul 2007 11:05:33
From:
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

sally wrote:
> Very unlikely that you're burning 1000 calories in 1.5 hours at
less > than 10mph.

I checked bikely.com and here are some stats:

Total climb: 417ft
Total descent: 702ft

Date: 24 Jul 2007 00:55:01
From: max
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

In article <1185213933.283677.298140@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com >,
oprah_chopra@yahoo.com wrote:

> sally wrote:
> > Very unlikely that you're burning 1000 calories in 1.5 hours at
> less > than 10mph.
>
> I checked bikely.com and here are some stats:
>
> Total climb: 417ft
> Total descent: 702ft

That's not really very much hills. One could craft such a ride here in the
Fox Valley area, easily, over a 12 mile course, and take a lot less than 90
minutes to travel it.

Also, what kind of bike are you riding? Is it in good shape, tires inflated
properly? MTB with knobbies? Do you do much riding? Are you "in shape"

Date: 23 Jul 2007 10:55:41
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

oprah_chopra@yahoo.com wrote:
> This weekend I biked the 12 miles to work to see if it could be done.
> It took around 1 hour and a half, however, I noticed this is really
> not going to save me any money. The reason is the cost to replace my
> 1000 calories burned will be more than the $3 gas it costs me to get
> to work.

Errr, it costs far more than gas to keep a car on the road. I hope
you're calcuting it at the IRS rate. I think it's $0.45 a mile
currently. Your costs will vary up or down depending on a host of
factors of course.

I save vast amounts of money by biking to work because it means my
family doesn't need a second car. Plus I get exercise that I would not
get otherwise (I have a sedentary job). I would have to get a gym
membership or something similar, and the amount of wasted time would be
large.

> I can see the benefits if you are over-weight and need to lose
> weight. But someone if just fooling himself if they think they are
> saving any money by biking, no?

Not really, but it can of course vary case by case. In my case, and
many other people I know, it can save a lot of money. I save even more
because I can do all my bike maintenance myself. Something that cannot
be said (without great expense) of most modern automobiles.

Though, really I ride because I like cycling and I don't like to drive.
Among other reasons.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
In my experience, if you have to keep the lavatory door shut by extending
your left leg, it's modern architecture.
-- Nancy Banks Smith

Date: 23 Jul 2007 17:48:10
From:
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

On Jul 23, 10:00 am, oprah_cho...@yahoo.com wrote:
> This weekend I biked the 12 miles to work to see if it could be done.
> It took around 1 hour and a half, however, I noticed this is really
> not going to save me any money. The reason is the cost to replace my
> 1000 calories burned will be more than the $3 gas it costs me to get
> to work.
>
> I can see the benefits if you are over-weight and need to lose
> weight. But someone if just fooling himself if they think they are
> saving any money by biking, no?

As others have pointed out, there seem to be some problems with your
numbers. First, biking at 8 mph (from your data) doesn't burn that
many calories. Second, you're omitting all but the gas cost from
running your vehicle. The IRS figures more like 40 cents per mile, or
closer to $5 for your one-way trip. Third, it would be silly to
replace those calories by buying expensive stuff. If it's just
calories you want, eat bread & jelly.

But more important, your rationale is really a rationale for never
exercising at all! By your logic, nobody should ever use their
muscles - they should just lay around in front of a TV (or computer!)
and get some sort of power assist any time they needed to move their
body. Aside from the absurdity, the problem with that strategy is
that you'll likely send your medical bills through the roof. Just one
quadruple bypass will eat up any "savings" from your strategy.

So the point is, your body needs exercise. You can get it by jogging
on a treadmill in your basement, or by lifting heavy weights and
putting them down again, over and over... or you can get your
necessary exercise by doing something practical - getting to work.

Furthermore, if you are smart enough to exercise, you save time by
having your bike commute replace your car commute. Time in a car is
totally wasted, and then basement exercise time is wasted. Get your
exercise on the way to work. Save time overall.

Finally, there's a lot to be said for experiencing the world by being
out in it, instead of seeing it through glass.

See http://www.bicyclinglife.com/NewsAndViews/philosophy.htm

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 28 Jul 2007 19:00:41
From: fred
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 23, 10:00 am, oprah_cho...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> This weekend I biked the 12 miles to work to see if it could be done.
>> It took around 1 hour and a half, however, I noticed this is really
>> not going to save me any money. The reason is the cost to replace my
>> 1000 calories burned will be more than the $3 gas it costs me to get
>> to work.
>>
>> I can see the benefits if you are over-weight and need to lose
>> weight. But someone if just fooling himself if they think they are
>> saving any money by biking, no?
>
> As others have pointed out, there seem to be some problems with your
> numbers. First, biking at 8 mph (from your data) doesn't burn that
> many calories. Second, you're omitting all but the gas cost from
> running your vehicle. The IRS figures more like 40 cents per mile, or
> closer to $5 for your one-way trip. Third, it would be silly to
> replace those calories by buying expensive stuff. If it's just
> calories you want, eat bread & jelly.
>
> But more important, your rationale is really a rationale for never
> exercising at all! By your logic, nobody should ever use their
> muscles - they should just lay around in front of a TV (or computer!)
> and get some sort of power assist any time they needed to move their
> body. Aside from the absurdity, the problem with that strategy is
> that you'll likely send your medical bills through the roof. Just one
> quadruple bypass will eat up any "savings" from your strategy.
>
> So the point is, your body needs exercise. You can get it by jogging
> on a treadmill in your basement, or by lifting heavy weights and
> putting them down again, over and over... or you can get your
> necessary exercise by doing something practical - getting to work.
>
> Furthermore, if you are smart enough to exercise, you save time by
> having your bike commute replace your car commute. Time in a car is
> totally wasted, and then basement exercise time is wasted. Get your
> exercise on the way to work. Save time overall.
>
> Finally, there's a lot to be said for experiencing the world by being
> out in it, instead of seeing it through glass.
>
> See http://www.bicyclinglife.com/NewsAndViews/philosophy.htm
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

Well said.

I'll add a couple of points. Driving in rush hour traffic is not merely
pointless, it's stressful. Cycling, even in rush hour traffic is fun
(especially when you keep up with, or even pass, folks in cars).

The OP didn't mention it, so it may not apply to him, but some of us
have to pay for parking. I live on the outskirts of downtown Winnipeg
and work near the city centre. It costs me $5.25 or more per day to
park if I drive to work. The same parking garage offers bicycle racks
indoors, within eye-shot of the parking attendant for FREE. Forget gas.
Parking is far more expensive.

Date: 23 Jul 2007 10:32:01
From:
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

In article <1185210053.584439.204400@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com >,
oprah_chopra@yahoo.com says...
> This weekend I biked the 12 miles to work to see if it could be done.
> It took around 1 hour and a half, however, I noticed this is really
> not going to save me any money. The reason is the cost to replace my
> 1000 calories burned will be more than the $3 gas it costs me to get
> to work.

Unless there's something unusual about your bike or your geography, it
seems unlikely that you'd burn 1000 calories on a 12 mile ride.
Especially at that slow of a pace.

The slowest pace I have numbers for is 12mph. At that rate, assuming
you weigh 200 lbs, you'd be burning around 41 calories per mile, or 492
for the 12 mile ride. That's under 1000 calories for the 24-mile round
trip, assuming you boost your speed significantly.

It also seems unlikely that adding the equivalent of a stick of butter,
or a cup of rice, to your daily diet would cost $3.00 unless you buy all
your food at expensive restaurants with small servings.

Also, your car's variable operating expenses include more than fuel,
e.g. tire wear, engine maintenance, oil changes, insurance, etc.

And the financial benefits of cycling include more than the fuel you
save. For most people, regular exercise will mean lower health care
expenditures and less work missed due to illness.

--
josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/ >
Updated Infrared Photography Gallery:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html >

Date: 23 Jul 2007 20:20:16
From: Leo Lichtman
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

Drop your membership at the gym. That will bring your cash flow back into
balance. And you'll save money on the food you won't have to eat to replace
the stationary bike calories.

BTW, you can buy a lot of potatoes for $3.00, if that's how you want to look
at it.

For comparison, here's another silly form of personal economics: going to a
prostitute once in a while is cheaper than going out on dates, and certainly
cheaper than having a wife and family.

Date: 23 Jul 2007 17:17:54
From: Michael
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

oprah_chopra@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> This weekend I biked the 12 miles to work to see if it could be done.
> It took around 1 hour and a half, however, I noticed this is really
> not going to save me any money. The reason is the cost to replace my
> 1000 calories burned will be more than the $3 gas it costs me to get
> to work.
>
> I can see the benefits if you are over-weight and need to lose
> weight. But someone if just fooling himself if they think they are
> saving any money by biking, no?

Not driving a motor vehicle saves you more than just gas $$$, a fact that you
would soon realize if you would have a real go at cycling.

Date: 23 Jul 2007 10:12:35
From:
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

Just A User wrote:
> Third think of it as an investment in your long term physical
health.
I agree with this, however, even if I burned just 500 calories, that
is basically 2 sports drinks which typically cost $1.50 each at my
cafetaria..

I just found it somewhat surprising that biking to work really would
not save me any money and that gas is quite cheap for what it does.

Date: 23 Jul 2007 13:18:30
From: Just A User
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

oprah_chopra@yahoo.com wrote:
> Just A User wrote:
>> Third think of it as an investment in your long term physical
> health.
> I agree with this, however, even if I burned just 500 calories, that
> is basically 2 sports drinks which typically cost $1.50 each at my
> cafetaria..
>
> I just found it somewhat surprising that biking to work really would
> not save me any money and that gas is quite cheap for what it does.
>

Well what I was trying to say, is I don't think you need to refuel your
body right away. And to avoid paying $1.50 from your cafeteria keep
somethings in your locker / desk at work. You can get cheaper fuel for
your body.

Date: 23 Jul 2007 10:07:22
From: Ben Pfaff
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

oprah_chopra@yahoo.com writes:

> But someone if just fooling himself if they think they are
> saving any money by biking, no?

I save a lot of money by biking to work: my wife and I don't have
to buy a second car, maintain it, insure it, and put gas in it.
There are many reasons that it is convenient for us to have one
car, but a second car would be an unnecessary expense.
--
A bicycle is one of the world's beautiful machines, beautiful machines
are art, and art is civilisation, good living, and balm to the soul.
--Elisa Francesca Roselli

Date: 23 Jul 2007 13:09:29
From: Just A User
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

Date: 23 Jul 2007 17:04:13
From: sally
Subject: Re: Commuting by bike not cost effective?

oprah_chopra@yahoo.com wrote in news:1185210053.584439.204400@
57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
> This weekend I biked the 12 miles to work to see if it could be done.
> It took around 1 hour and a half, however, I noticed this is really
> not going to save me any money. The reason is the cost to replace my
> 1000 calories burned will be more than the $3 gas it costs me to get
> to work.

Very unlikely that you're burning 1000 calories in 1.5 hours at less than
10mph.