FrenchFit 

These reactions are far more interesting than the article.

Jeez, the guy is simply saying he's had a viseral reaction to his life being placed in unwarranted danger daily. If you find that irrational, take a look in the mirror.

wolfchild

What I meant was that it is totally impossible for us modern humans to live and exist in this world without generating pollution. Sorry tough luck. That's the price we pay for progress.
Do you enjoy your computer, do you enjoy your iphone ?? Do you enjoy having electricity in your home ??

No I never said that EVERYBODY should drive a big SUV.. I used to drive one for a long time. Not anymore, since I've gone car-free.. Whatever other people drive it's their choice. It's not my job to tell other people what type of transportation they should be using.

alicestrong

​It would be just sad and too ironic if this guy was killed in a collision while driving his SUV....

Roody

Is it your job to tell other people what kind of air you want to breathe? Do you have any say when other people do things that could cause you to get sick or even die? Certainly, heavily polluting vehicles affect everybody, since everybody must breathe.

I would never harangue or harass individuals for driving a certain vehicle. But I will encourage the government to impose strict regulations on pollution. I will also encourage people to drive less and enjoy the benefits of non-polluting transportation modes.

https://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/content/145/3/600.short
https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/health.htm

zeppinger

Progress is an illusion. The average person in a foraging society only spends 15-20 hours a week feeding, clothing, and housing themselves. Foraging is highly efficient. With all our wiz-bang technology, that is supposed to make our lives "easier" and result in "progress" we still find the vast majority of the humna population working 40-60 hours a week and many of them still living month to month or deeply in debt. So much for "progress."

zeppinger

A crash that occurs between two small cars will be less deadly than a crash between two large cars or SUVs. This is well documented and attributed to the smaller amount of total mass that is involved. So, people buying larger and larger vehicles, in order to be safe from other poeples large vehicles, will only result in decreases in safety. Big rig transportation of goods should be done either on separate roads or moved entirely to rail and passenger vehicles should be limited to a very low weight limit.

Roody

You don't have to look too deeply to see that there's a lot more to it. The question of how much danger he's actually in, how much he contributes to his own danger, etc, etc, etc. An article like this brings up many issues about transportation cycling and transportation in general. My thanks to the OP (zeppinger) for realizing the complexity behind one person's decision.

Ekdog

So, should we throw up our hands and pollute as much as we like or should we make an effort to reduce the damage we're doing? Are you really saying that using a computer is comparable to driving around in an SUV? Be serious.

koolerb

I can relate. I commuted by bike in and out of the city of Albany for a while; and while it was mostly a good experience, I started to have that same "am I pushing my luck" feeling. Lots of close calls, one accident that totaled my bike. I stopped commuting on the bike, and actually hung up road biking all together. I just started to feel it was too dangerous, I was on the short end of the stick in every encounter. I bought a mountain bike and didn't get back into road biking for many years.

Ekdog

Back in the 1960's, my father, like many other people in Southern California, used to burn the rubbish our family generated. This was common back then, but then a law was passed that prohibited the practice because of the pollution it was causing. I'm glad that we as a society took this step because, combined with other measures, it helped to clean up the air and improve public health. I'm glad we as a society didn't just sit back and do nothing. We could have said, "Well, it's none of our business what Mr X does with his garbage. That's progress."

Now we live in communities that are plagued by big, wasteful, polluting vehicles that in many cases are absolutely unnecessary. They're wreaking havoc on the environment and killing and maiming a lot of innocent people. They're making people sick. So I strongly disagree with you when you say it's not up to us to speak up about this. It's crucial that we do. We need to restrict how much they pollute, where they go and at what speed and how many of them are sold.

CbadRider

True. I wonder if they author considered that more people die in car accidents than cycling accidents.

Mobile 155

If we look at it from a positive point of view the guy gave it a 5 year trial. It didn't work for him like I am sure it hasn't worked for others. (and yes many in this thread are different.) Still I know people that enter committed relationships that fall apart in less than 5 years. Secondly we are talking about closing the barn door after the horse escaped. I wouldn't be surprised if this was a common method of decision making for this person. I can almost picture five years ago his car heavy friends talking about all of the other solutions he could have used rather than giving up cars. But he did what he did back then and he is doing what he wants now. Looking at it from the big picture nothing much has changed one way or another by this individual. At least his occupation might be greened than most people.

bragi

I totally disagree with your assessment. The author, if his account can be believed, went out into the roads with a bit of a naive if not entitled attitude, got his a$$ kicked for it, and responded by buying an SUV instead of changing his riding tactics. It's not like he was trying to ride in rural Kentucky; he lives in the Bay Area, a very bike-friendly area overall. Let's be honest: He wasn't riding into the Maw of Hell; he's either a pu$$y or a liar.

zeppinger

A very bike friendly area RELATIVE to the rest of the USA, but maybe not "overall."

cycleobsidian

By your logic, pollution = progress. To a point you are right, but when progress causes acid rain, climate change, fish from lakes that are so polluted that they are inedible, car use to the extreme causing massive congestion on the road, etc.(to name only a few of the problems) then progress via polluting activities consists of short term gain for long term pain.

The government has a right and an obligation to protect the environment and therefore future prosperity by imposing strict car emissions standards for example. It also needs to stop subsidizing oil companies, free parking, etc. These changes will make people think twice about buying an SUV and other cars. And if a person decides to buy an SUV, the vehicle would probably spend a lot of time in the driveway as a trophy piece rather than on the road menacing smaller cars and other vulnerable road users.

Newspaperguy

A few thoughts after reading the article:

1. I've been to his area and it has a great cycling culture. When I was cycling there, motorists were good to me and I had no accidents or close calls. If the writer has had so many close encounters or near misses, then I wonder if he is riding on some of the main arterial roads or riding unsafely. If he had one or two uneasy encounters with traffic each year, that would make sense to me, but the number he mentions seems incredibly high.

2. Being in a car or even an SUV is not a guarantee of protection. I have had to get far too many pictures of serious motor vehicle accidents over the years. I hate taking those pictures, especially when I know there are fatalities. When I am called out to a highway accident, the vehicles have included small and light cars, SUVs, pickup trucks and even motorhomes.

3. The author's motivation was reducing his carbon footprint. It seemed as if he was trying to do the right thing, even if he didn't necessarily like it. If he had gone to cycling because of a love of the bike instead, he would not have made the same choice in the end. Those who love cycling will find ways to cycle safely, wherever they live.

gerv 

I still respect people who are trying to do something reasonable even if they aren't completely in love with the technology. In the long run, an enormous number of people will need to make serious decisions about the resources they use in their daily lives.

Newspaperguy

I agree, gerv. However, one is more likely to stick with a behaviour if it is also enjoyable and not just the right thing to do.

FrenchFit 

I think you made my point brilliantly.

zeppinger

I dont think thats very funny.

99Klein 

So one of those drunks or texters t-bones him in his suv and kills him. He'll be just as dead, and probably over weight, out of shape, and grouchy. Accidents happen, if you are having that many close calls, look first at yourself before blaming everyone else. That said, it only takes one to end it all.

kmv2

Well.. it could be, depending on where your power comes from.

CO2 generated from coal power is about 980g/kWhr (including 5-7% transmission losses). A Cadillac Escalade emits about 383 grams of CO2 per km.
Leaving your computer on for 8hrs a day (about 3kWhrs and almost 3000 grams of CO2) would equate to driving about 5-10km in a Cadillac Escalade (3000 grams of CO2). For some people, that's bringing the kids to school or getting some milk and eggs at the WalMart.

Natural gas electrical generation emits about half that of CO2 (500g/kWhr), so you'd want to keep your Escalade under 5km a day.

That mileage might seem small, but take your entire household kWhr's for a day and your equivalent Escalade emissions go up quite a bit.

You have a point I suppose. They should measure our electrical consumption not in kilowatt hours, but in SUV-miles.

So your computer indirectly emits CO2 euivalent to roughly 5-10 SUV kilometers a day.

Roody

Good post. I don't know how accurate your figures are, but even those of us who don't drive at all need to remember that our other activities also take a toll on the environment.

kmv2

very rough calcs, but most people have no clue how much their carbon footprint is.

I should do a writeup on how efficiency actually increases consumption too, but I'm logging off atm.

Ekdog

Quote:

Originally Posted by kmv2

So your computer indirectly emits CO2 euivalent to roughly 5-10 SUV kilometers a day.

That's quite a statement considering you don't know how the energy is generated in my area (energy mix in Spain: sustainable energy (wind, solar, cogeneration: 52.6%; nuclear: 22%; gas 13.4%; coal: only 12%). Nor do you know what kind of computer I use (laptop), how much I use it (nowhere near eight hours a day--it automatically goes into sleep mode after fifteen minutes of inactivity and I've installed Granola.

Another point, of course, is that most SUV drivers also own computers.

https://www.energias-renovables.com/a...idad-renovable

As long as your computer goes into sleep/standby when you're not using it, your computer doesn't use squat for electricity, compared to the rest of your household. You'll save a lot more energy by addressing your heating, cooling, and lighting use rather than obsessing over your computer. For most people, their computers' energy use is not a significant portion of their total use, even if they use their computers a lot. Of course, you should absolutely make sure your computer is set to sleep automatically when you're not using it, because it's silly to waste energy, but your computer likely isn't even close to being the biggest energy-waster in your home. (See more about sleep/standby.) If you take one thing from this page, it's that you should set your computer to auto-sleep after 15 minutes or so of inactivity.

https://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/computers.html