desconhecido 

I like audio entertainment when driving. Listen to NPR, Feynman Lectures on tape, Vivaldi, Paganini, J J Cale, Holy Modal Rounders. Sometimes I turn the audio off and listen to John Cage. When biking, it seems to be John Cage all the way. Used to listen to a lot of Lightnin' Hopkins imagining changing the theme of "Automobile Blues" to "Bicycle Seat Blues":

I saw you ridin' round
On your brand new bicycle seat
Dada da dada da dada da da dit dit dit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHDv5enevEA

Lightnin' Hopkins -- king of the untuned guitar.

But anymore, after about 10 minutes, time just flies and I don't need the distraction. Just roll away the miles.

desconhecido 

In your car or on your bike? If on your bike, that's smoking and I'm honored to be in your presence. I'd have to pedal about 30 mph to get to that average speed.

I don't care about your M5 (whatever that is) nor how expensive it is. You made claims that don't make sense to me and I'm commenting on them. That, as far as I know, is what a forum is all about. I'm not obsessing over minutiae and I'm not looking to start some sort of flame war. Now you say that the whole thing is that the bike riding saves you some money (a claim I never disputed) and that you like it. I think that's great. That's more than enough. I'm here in these forums because I share an interest in bike riding with everybody else here. It's great, I love riding my bicycles and I love everybody else who loves bike riding too.

With that, I think I should shut my pie hole.

I was in Vancouver about 18 months ago for the wedding of a nephew. Seems to be a very nice place and there are bicycles everywhere. Sort of congested, though, and getting back and forth from the airport was, as they say, a trip. If I had had a bicycle, I probably could have gotten from the airport to North Vancouver, where the invasion took place, more quickly than we did it in the rental car. It looked to be rather hilly, too. If I were there, my average speed would fall faster than a cannonball in Pisa. 18.6 mph in Vancouver, BC, to me, is astounding. Seems to be no place for a Raleigh three-speed.

cooker

They have a great public transit link from the airport to downtown. I'm not sure how you get across to North Van however.

gregf83 

It is a great city. I live in the suburbs and commute on mostly flat ground with a bridge and a few overpasses, elevation about 150m. I have a 30 min section of highway where I can generally ride non-stop so I can make good time on that section. Going over the bridge and the access paths is slower. This morning with a favorable wind I was 23 Secs over 1 hr for my 33km commute. I would be a little slower if I had to ride through the city although there are some bike favorable routes which don't have too many stops but they're not very direct and better for recreational riding than commuting.

gregf83 

by boat (seabus actually).

desconhecido 

My brother was staying in downtown and there was a ferry not so many miles from our metaphorical Normandy. Apparently, his hotel was within walking distance of the south ferry terminal. So, there you are. From the airport to downtown, walk to the ferry, get picked up by your brother in North Vancouver. Getting your brother and his rental car to North Vancouver is left as an exercise for the reader.

I'm not sure how the Vancouver transportation system works in the middle of the night, but my recollection is that the ferry had dead spots in its service. The plane from Vancouver direct to Houston left at about 5 am or so and everything in Vancouver and the airport appeared to be pretty dark when we got to the airport. Even the rental car place was closed. Besides that, after a week with family members, everybody was a little cranky. Good thing that my supply of nephews is limited.

desconhecido 

That is fast -- about 20-21 mph. In a 20 mile ride, typical dead time for me would be on the order of 20 - 30 minutes. That would mean 20 miles in 40 minutes or 30 mph between stops. I can't even dream that fast.

But, back in the late 80s, I lived in Midland, TX where things are more spread out and impediments to cycling are few. You could ride from Midland, west through Gardendale and Goldsmith all the way to Notrees (true, that) and back without slowing down much. The important thing to know, for me, anyway, was not to let the wind take you too far cause coming back against a 20 to 30 mph head wind is no fun. Winds were usually, but not always, from the west, so work hard going west and coast home.

Walter S

Just because you and some other people have escaped the problems associated with letting a car sit does not mean I'm wrong. It is a well established fact that various kinds of seals have increased likely-hood of developing serious leaks from not being used. Especially on older cars where dry rot is a more prevalent risk. Cables may develop rust and seize. I've suffered apparent effects from this myself and I've been advised by knowledgeable people on that matter including my father in law who owns about 20 antique cars that are mostly kept in running condition. I trust those opinions more than a couple of anecdotal comments on BF.

Contaminated oil (as any oil will get after being used for a while) will also form sludge and will not circulate and lubricate as well as it should and leads to premature engine failure. Batteries run down to the point they may not take a charge, so some kind of trickle charge batter charger is in order.

I don't make this stuff up. I also had a car overheat after not being used for most of a year. The thermostat froze up and would not open as it should when the engine warmed.

Edit: I might add, that the worst thing you can do about this issue is to drive the car for a few minutes every couple weeks or so. Short trips are bad for cars primarily because the engine oil gets contaminated with water vapor and other problems that 'cook' out of the oil once the car has been run for 15-20 minutes. Sludge is very prevalent in cars that are only driven for short distances.

Roody

I've heard that gasoline also degrades if kept in the tank too long. After my dad had to quit driving, his car got water in the engine from condensation and it cost us a coupl hundred dollars to fix it.

The thing is, people tend to believe that their own atypical experiences with driving prove some point beyond their own good fortune. Anybody who has had the experience that a car is cheaper to run than a bike is very atypical.

prathmann

I agree, but that's not the type of use I'd expect for a car that's being kept by someone who mainly cycles but still wants to have a car available. My car doesn't tend to get short trips since I use my bike for those. Instead it gets the 200-mile drives to the Sierras which are less practical by bike (except when I spend a week touring there and back).

TuckertonRR

Alot of these posts are missing some basic economics - capital costs vs operating costs, and how to account for those two factors. Plus, what one considers a "cost".

Cost of operating a car - purchase price (capital expense), insurance, registration, gasoline, oil, maintenance (changing tyres, etc). How do you account for your per - mile cost of operating it? Do you depreciate the cost of the car over 5 years? 10? Not account for it at all? Just those three senarios will wildly change your cost factor for running a car.

Cost of operating a bike - buying the bike (capital), plus tubes, tyres, tools, lubricant, bike - specific gear? ...

Even taking out the capital aspect aside, there is no way riding a bike is not significantly cheaper than driving a car.

cooker

No, I think we get it. The capital cost is included in the estimated per mile cost, or covered to some extent by the variable "depreciation". What the blogger failed to understand (but most of us do understand) is that if you reduce the miles you drive per year, your cost per mile goes up, since those capital costs and other fixed costs are generally not proportionate to mileage, as I-L-T-B pointed out in post 2. So you save money, but not in direct proportion to the percent reduction in driving.

Roody

I think some of the posters here (not the blogger) were referring to something else. I'm not real good on the accounting terms, but I think some posters were referring to something like "marginal operating costs." This would occur if you already own both a car and a bike, and have fixed costs for both. What then are the actual one-time costs for operating the bike and the car?

In other words, setting aside the fixed costs, is it cheaper to drive or ride the bike on a particular trip?

cooker

It boils down to the same issue. You may be paying a lot already, just to own, license, and insure a car, so it doesn't actually cost much more than just gas to actually drive it each time you use it; and conversely you don't save much more than just gas each time you leave it home and use the bike instead. There might be a slight saving in wear and tear on the car, but its a small amount compared to the other costs.

Walter S

My comment is directed to people that may go months between trips in the car. Sounds like that's not you. But it was me before I sold my car. It's much cheaper to rent a car if I have a special need for one. I could go on a vacation like that for example.

(In practice, my vacations since becoming car free have been 100% bicycle or a mix of that and Amtrak)

Walter S

If you're not tuned into the mustacian writings you might be interested in what he has to say about the cost of commuting. This page has his cost per mile calculator. And while less about economics, the one about car clowns is a fun read.

desconhecido 

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this, just an observation: the claim made is that moving thirty miles closer to work for a two income couple with about $100,000/year of total income is worth spending an additional $954,000 on housing. To spend an additional $954,000 on housing, assuming 4% interest and 30 year amortization, requires an additional expenditure of $4554.54/month or $54,654.50/year. I'm not understanding how this works and I'm not going to spend time, considering how valuable it is, to figure out where the error lies.

Also, bikes are free, bike maintenance and upkeep are free, and time spent riding a bicycle doesn't cost anything.

None of this contradicts what I believe to be true, and that is that bicycle commuting is a good thing for a lot of people and they should do it more, if they can. Also, being frugal, whatever one's lifestyle choices, is good financial strategy.

chewybrian 

He figured it based on interest only, which is not unreasonable since it leaves you even Steven. So, his cost is not the same as yours. But he allowed a lot for the time spent commuting, as if you would automatically work all those hours you spent commuting, and never save any time back by doing errands on the way, etc. That part seemed less realistic. Overall, he tried too hard to make the point.

The Car clown article was pretty good, and the hyperbole seemed to help in that case. It's tough to break through with people who have convinced themselves that there is no other choice. Doubt he broke through with anyone, and he's probably preaching to the choir, but it was interesting.

GiantOctopodes

Just chiming in my own experiences:

Switching to a bike as my primary means of transport means I can switch from full coverage on my vehicle to state minimum insurance, saving me $150 per month. In addition, the gas costs being saved I currently have estimated as $20 / month (I didn't use my car that much anyway). Oil changes and other maintenance costs are not significantly impacted, as I was already in a low mileage situation anyway, working from home and all. I expect to be able to use my bike 6 months of the year (Michigan sucks), so my total cost of transportation per year is going from $3180 (insurance) + $240 (Gas) + Maintenance on Car to $1420 (insurance) + $120 (Gas) + Maintenance on Car and Bike, saving me $1920 per year. Once I'm fit enough and have a good bike for winter commuting as well, I'll be going down to $0 + maintenance on bike, saving me an additional $1540 per year, or $3460 + Maintenance on car per year by eliminating the car altogether. Makes good financial sense to me.

Roody

Yes, this shows how much savings can vary, as you save quite a bit by reducing your driving. this is mostly due to cutting back on insurance. Unfortunately, they didn't have the low-mileage discounted insurance when I owned a car, so I wasn't able to save as much.

About your "Michigan sucks" comment... BOO!! But welcome to the forum anyways.

I-Like-To-Bike

Switching from full coverage car insurance to the state minimum saves the same amount of money whether using a bicycle or not.

Use of a bicycle or not is irrelevant for making the switch and the saving of $150/month if you wish to take the financial risk.

plustax

No one ever takes in the environmental costs.

Roody

It's certainly relevant if using a bike is what allows you to drive less and cut back the insurance.

Roody

Too political, according to Internet Brands (corporate owners of this website). If we talk about the environmental benefits of cycling and living carfree, the thread will be moved to a sideshow forum.

I-Like-To-Bike

Which is exactly NOT the case as explained by the poster. He wasn't driving mile one to work, and already was a low mileage driver.