Commuting by bike not cost effective?



In article <[email protected]>,
"Leo Lichtman" <[email protected]> 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
 
[email protected] 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.
 
On 2007-07-24, Luigi de Guzman <[email protected]> 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.
 
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.
 
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
 
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:26:20 -0700, [email protected] 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
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] 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.

--
[email protected] is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Updated Infrared Photography Gallery:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] 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
 
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
 
On Jul 24, 3:06 am, [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] 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.
 
On Jul 23, 3:20 pm, "Leo Lichtman" <[email protected]>
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
 
"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
 
Luigi de Guzman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:26:20 -0700, [email protected] 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 - [email protected]
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"
 
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 *******) 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
 
On 2007-07-24, Luigi de Guzman <[email protected]> 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 ([email protected])
 
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 20:45:17 -0500, John Thompson wrote:

> On 2007-07-24, Luigi de Guzman <[email protected]> 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
 
On Jul 24, 5:04 pm, Luigi de Guzman <[email protected]> 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 *******) 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
 
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