|
|
|
|
|
|
by cogman10
149 days ago
|
|
|
Bikes require very little steel and the rubber tires end up lasting longer (typically) than the shoes you do. > Walking does not use fuel so efficiency is not really relevant. Ah, it is. You eat food, that's fuel. It's the major source of CO2 for both activities. Now, it can be insignificant. If the only food you eat is like oatmeal and beans that you grow yourself, then yeah it's going to have a non-existent impact. However, if you have any sort of meat or imported foods, that CO2 budget can go up pretty quickly. The actual energy for making the steel for a bike, which will outlast your children, isn't significant. |
|
|
That implies all exercise is a bad thing. i think you will find very few people are sufficiently keen to reduce CO2 that they will deliberately get less exercise and damage their health. I am certainly not doing that. At the moment I am trying to get more exercise.
> Bikes require very little steel
Compared to a car, certainly. Compared to shoes, an awful lot.
> a bike, which will outlast your children
The typical life span of a bike seems to be about five and ten year years. I really hope my kids last a reasonable multiple of the top end! The level of sales of cycles in the UK (well over 1 million a year) vs the number of people who cycle at least once a week (less seven million) implies a life of about five years. About half of that is leisure cyclists so not really comparable to people using transport to get somewhere.
Leisure cyclists want to get more exercise so by your argument about that being a bad thing they (and therefore half of all UK cyclists) are actively harmful.
https://road.cc/content/news/uk-cycle-sales-plummet-early-19...
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64e71a4f20ae8...