Why is riding on the footpath an offence?

[SpokeyDokey]

[QUOTE 3146795, member: 45"]Don't be daft. You can't compare the hugely greater environmental impact that a car has with that of a bike, so you compare a bike with walking. It makes no sense. It's not about being selective at all. It's about the best compromise.

69% of car journeys are less than 5 miles. 19% are less than 2 miles, which at a stretch is a walkable distance. That leaves 50% of car journeys that are too far to walk but less than 5 miles and so easily cyclable. Those are the kind of stats you need to think about. We could eradicate an enormous number of car journeys if people were to cycle instead, having a significant impact on the environment.

http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/w...ost-peoples-transportation-or-commuting-needs[/QUOTE]

Don't be rude - I'm not daft.

Again: the point I am making is that people bash cars for their environmental impact but choose to ignore the environmental impact of their bike. I am not talking about comparative size of impact. I mentioned feet as the logical conclusion as to where you stop re minimising said impact. I said this as I think that some people are selectively righteous - they can have slightly hypocritical opinions when it suits.

I agree with your last para' to an extent. However, where I live I can tell you that a 5 mile journey by bike would not be an easy journey for a large number of people. There are a lot of old people in the village where I live - how would they be able to cycle up steep hills and get their shopping home? We have no bus service btw. Same with the young families who need to get their children to school. If they cannot cycle and shouldn't use a car what are they supposed to do - walk? I wouldn't want my wife to walk the 4 miles to town down a lonely country lane on a pitch black morning with rain pouring down (many mornings in winter are like this up here). A car is a god-send for us and most of the people that live here.

 

[theclaud]

Public space: not sure what you mean?

Individual imagination: you've lost me!

My work here is done.

The habitual passenger cannot grasp the folly of traffic based overwhelmingly on transport. His inherited perceptions of space and time and of personal pace have been industrially deformed. He has lost the power to conceive of himself outside the passenger role. Addicted to being carried along, he has lost control over the physical, social, and psychic powers that reside in man’s feet. The passenger has come to identify territory with the untouchable landscape through which he is rushed. He has become impotent to establish his domain, mark it with his imprint, and assert his sovereignty over it. He has lost confidence in his power to admit others into his presence and to share space consciously with them. He can no longer face the remote by himself. Left on his own, he feels immobile.

 

[ufkacbln]

Hows about some proportionality

The "truly Sainted person" would be naked and starve to death within a few weeks.

This about the "scale" of one's contribution, and taking appropriate measures to reduce one's impact.

There will always be a choice, and it is indisputable that buying a bike and using it will have a massively less environmental impact than buying a car and using it for the same journeys.

Lets take another example... does anyone buy "Fair Trade" produce???

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Some of this debate seems to miss the fact that bike sales have recently been outstripping car sales. And where are they? They're making shed loads of bikes already and they're there filling up sheds because of bad provision for cycling safely and enforcement of responsible civic driving. Or because of helmet hair. And so it goes....

Point being that a shift to more cycle use does not even lead to a waste of resources, it leads to a better use of resources. The real waste is when someone gets on the bike that's already been made and bought, gets harassed into the gutter - equally estranged from pavement and road - decides it's too dangerous to cycle and henceforth goes for the car keys as a reflex.

 

[SpokeyDokey]

[QUOTE 3146882, member: 45"]Sorry, but your argument is ridiculous. Ridiculous unless you can pull out all of the journeys which we could cycle (and to do that you can exclude the exceptions you're picking, there will still be loads left), and then compare the environmental impact of that with driving the same journey. It's incomparable.

To answer your initial question, you can stop there and you've made a huge difference.

Picking out selective examples rather than looking at statistics and the wider issues is going to get you nowhere. You're well aware that there is a massive number of journeys which could be cycled rather than driven, so I really don't understand why you're trying to play it down.

50%. That's 50%. Can you not appreciate that?[/QUOTE]

Yes - I get your maths.

My point still remains that there are a number of cyclists who berate car owners for their choice of transport but conveniently choose to ignore their own choice which also has an environmental impact. Albeit smaller!

How about instead of buying a bike for all those <5 mile journeys; walk instead?

 

[summerdays]

Yes - I get your maths.

My point still remains that there are a number of cyclists who berate car owners for their choice of transport but conveniently choose to ignore their own choice which also has an environmental impact. Albeit smaller!

How about instead of buying a bike for all those <5 mile journeys; walk instead?

But if I have a bike already for the 20 + miles I did today then it is good use of a resource I already have?

 

[SpokeyDokey]

[QUOTE 3149142, member: 45"]You choose to see that as hypocrisy. It's not.

We all have to compromise somewhere. The argument you're using is the same old same old that comes out when someone doesn't like what is being said but can't really fault it - that you're better off doing nothing than something because something is not as good as something more.

And walk a 5-mile commute? Really?

As I've posted in another thread, a friend has just been given a bike that is about 30 years old. It will go for another 30 years, and in 30 years time will be relatively as efficient as a new bike. I don't see many 30-year old cars on the road. Do you?[/QUOTE]

Yes we all compromise somewhere - but your compromise merely suits you. The car owner who drives a few miles has made a compromise that suits him.

Re 5 mile walking commute - 1.5 hours. That would be a lot less time than a lot of people commute so why not? Anyone who cycles that distance as a commute has made a choice because it suits them - same as the car owner. It might be a better choice than the car owner but it's a worse choice than walking.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

[QUOTE 3149142, member: 45"]
As I've posted in another thread, a friend has just been given a bike that is about 30 years old. It will go for another 30 years, and in 30 years time will be relatively as efficient as a new bike. I don't see many 30-year old cars on the road. Do you?[/QUOTE]

@SpokeyDokey It has been said it takes more energy to create something than it is ever likely to be used in its life time, and as even the smallest car costs in terms of energy to make is many times more than a bike, the real environment damage is caused during the build, a car is inefficient till it warms up ( a little like the human body) short journeys in cars therefore do even more environmental damage than do longer ones, per mile, where as the bike has virtual none.

 

[Learnincurve]

You know what the worst car in the world for environmental damage and general all round evil is?

Toyota Prius. Parts of the battery are made from rare earth minerals, mined in china, by children, for pennies a day. There are other sources of rare earth minerals but they are mostly in Australia and the location is very deep in the ground, in the arse end of no where, where the sun personally wants you dead. You can't drive a bio-fuel car either because they are clearing forests and killing all the Orangutans to make it.

Most environmentally friendly car is any that has decent mpg that you intend to run until it falls apart, I would go for a ford focus because my mother had the third ever brought into this country, it's still going and has only ever had the clutch fixed and gearbox replaced once (edit: in 145,000 miles).

 

[Learnincurve]

[QUOTE 3149622, member: 45"]The first generation Prius was a waymaker. It wasn't by any means perfect and those frightened of the technology jumped on this to extol its failings.

Without the Prius we wouldn't have progressed to where we are today, with more efficient hybrids and a fairer view of whether the hybrid idea is more efficient than alternatives like smaller engines.[/QUOTE]

The prius is betamax, where we are today is either cars where the engine is electric powered by a petrol generator or a petrol engine with a small secondary electric engine running in tandem to give a HP boost when needed. The future is hydrogen powered cars.

But that's beside the point, when your failings are that you are using a child slave labour force to dig up rare earth minerals during the manufacture of your car then we are into "PETA: we hate people" territory.

 

[Profpointy]

My understanding is that the prius isn't particularly economical - is it? (compared to a.modest diesel say - obviously its better than a bentley or whatever) . Isn't it just to give some spurious tax fiddle benefit rather than being in any sense greenn

 

[Learnincurve]

[QUOTE 3149926, member: 45"]Much of what you're wearing, using, eating, driving is a result of child labour abuse. Why single out the Prius?[/QUOTE]

I don't mean to sound like a smartarse but I'm a seamstress and the material I use is sourced from europe. Technology you have to be careful with granted but I try to not to buy from evil, I only buy food made in the UK, (because my mother's family are farmers) and I can't drive. I'm not some sort of beatnik hippy, it's just that since I had my own kids I've become more horrified with the idea of an 8 year old sat in some sweatshop making my children's shoes and clothes when they should be outside playing with them instead.

edit: I singled out the prius because we were discussing cars that have an environmental impact, and the prius has a terrible one even if the minerals were mined by adults on a fair wage, not discussing primark

 

[Profpointy]

The future is hydrogen powered cars..

...
so how does that help green-ness - given most electricity generation is still fossil fuels? And wouldn't it perhaps be better to use fossil fuels such directly rather than converting to hydrogen first.

Ok perhaps if we fully go nuclear - but not until then surely

 

[Learnincurve]

...
so how does that help green-ness - given most electricity generation is still fossil fuels? And wouldn't it perhaps be better to use fossil fuels such directly rather than converting to hydrogen first.

Ok perhaps if we fully go nuclear - but not until then surely

Because the aim is to ultimately convert from water directly, right now the hydrogen they are using is a byproduct of many processes and the only emissions from the engines are water. It's all fascinating stuff but I have the school run.

 

[Profpointy]

Because the aim is to ultimately convert from water directly, right now the hydrogen they are using is a byproduct of many processes and the only emissions from the engines are water. It's all fascinating stuff but I have the school run.

I was afraid you'd say that - you do realise you have to put energy in to "convert from water directly" ?

And I'm very sceptical about spare hydrogen being a bi-product