Commuting on bike Versus Commuting by car
Comments
-
chuckcork wrote:Actually there is another difference in the calcs. For the car option the biggest expense is buying the car. If you don't have the spare £££££ in the bank thats an expensive loan, but either way you have to take a big hit first.
Whereas with a bike you can spend a lot less on the initial outlay, even a crappy bike for less than £100, and then go on from there.
Hmmm. The initial cost is only one factor in the cost of a bike, but you probably know that.
Not to accuse anyone on this thread, but it bothers me that some people can't calculate the yearly cost of ownership of an item. At its simplest, most of the cost of an item is in depreciation: the initial cost of the purchase, less the resale value when it is eventually sold or disposed of, spread across the number of years of use. But because you knew that already, you can skip the next two paragraphs.
So, a £1000 bike that is used for ten years before being binned, costs £100 per year.
And if the same bike is sold for £500 after ten years, it costs £50 per year.
Everyone feels the initial cost and the running costs. So they know that these costs hurt, but because it is abstract, fewer folk seem to think in terms of depreciation, or of an even subtler cost - the cost of tying your money up in a car rather than an in an investment. But, with cars, depreciation is the big cost. This is the rational argument (let's say, the Jon Snow of this battle), but most of us are so infantilised by advertising and our primal social insecurities that we follow the emotional argument (you guessed it, the Clarkson), and buy the flash motor anyway. Clarkson wins by a knockout.
Back to bikes. With bikes this makes choice of frame materials important for the thrifty cyclist. Actually, forget thrifty, make that the non-competitive cyclist (we only pretend to race, don't we? And isn't the FCN all about merit and not absolute speed anyway?). It makes me wonder whether the truly cheapest bikes on the market have either steel frames (mendable and durable, if well cared-for) or titanium frames (if its durability is as good as is claimed). If you can get a lifetime's use out of a Ti frame, it could end up almost as cheap as David Dickenson' s chips.
Anyway, in the car v bike costs argument, very few cyclists are going to incur the average £2,000 minimum annual cost that the AA calculation suggests a car will cost you before you fill the thing with petrol and drive. So the biggest cost savings in cycling come from not owning a car, or in owning a car that was so cheap to begin with that the depreciation is negligible.0 -
I have recently started an experiment, being carless for 6 months. I sold my car and now bike to work, to the grocery store and just about everywhere else. This experiment is called "CarLessBrit" (I am British, living in VA, USA)
Check out my site that documents the experience: http://carlessbrit.tumblr.com/
It's been a blast so far and I am being sponsored by local environmental orgs and the city library!
Comments welcome.http://carlessbrit.tumblr.com/
carless for 6 months as an experiment - started a year ago - now carlessness seems the norm0 -
laughingboy wrote:
Hmmm. The initial cost is only one factor in the cost of a bike, but you probably know that.
Yep, I know that.
Maybe to be clearer, the point is that bikes start relatively inexpensive and only become more expensive the more they are used over a period of time, but that cost is low, mainly for bits that wear out, chains etc, but it could of course mean that the expenses over a year outweigh the initial cost of the bike. That is spread out over time though so could be directly compared to a running cost for some other mode of transport.
Cars on the other hand are expensive from day one, then lose value fast through depreciation, even before running costs are factored in. But that initial expense happens at once and as noted prevents the money from being used for something useful, like paying the mortgage (as in my case) or better still buying a bike! But it does mean that the first mile driving is massively expensive, whereas even a bus ticket to work will cost only a few ££.
But the costs applied can be weird when viewed through the policies of governments and how they are applied, expecially when considered the intended outcome. I've read the comment that in Ireland, the government makes cars expensive through penal rates of tax being applied, but through cheaper costs of fuel, it becomes cheaper to drive per km the more it is driven!
Surely you would think the policies would be aimed at making it the other way around?'Twas Mulga Bill, from Eaglehawk, that caught the cycling craze....0 -
Even if I was to have a job paying £35k PA i would still refrain from having a car. For the majoirtyof the week I would commute 1.5miles each way to work so having car pointless. My gym is a 5 minute bike ride away and so is the town centre. Basically I live no more than 15 minutes away by bike for every place I may need to get too in my town.
If I ever needed to get anyway by motorvechile I could either:
rent vechile
taxi
bus
even with the outlay of these it would only be pocket change in comaparsion too owning a fully private car outright.
I love bikes . The government screws car owners and milks them for what they are worth 8) 0 -
AndyManc wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:
Don't be a prat about this, Andy. He needs a car. It's not aspirational, it's necessary to transport 7 people, most of whom are children.
OI , do you want to keep a civil tongue or I'll start getting abusive, or are you just trying to justify your use of a car because of guilt.
He chooses the lifestyle he lives, he chooses to use a vehicle to make life easier .... NOT BECAUSE IT'S NEEDED.
Many families near me have no car, they organise their life around it.
They use local facilities, they get a coach/train when they go on holiday, they organise shopping trips ..... the same organisation as generation before them committed themselves to WITHOUT THE USE OF A CAR.
I've heard all these excuses before .. it's all bollocks .
The vast majority of those that claim not to be able to live without a car are in fact saying .... they don't want to make the effort .... it's as simple as that.
You'll start getting abusive? Dear me.
My two cents is this, for decades the UK has been geared heavily towards making normal life car centric - it was, and is, seen as a great liberator for people, being able to live and work within a far broader range than what was previously possible; indeed the car usurped the bicycle as the main driving force of this [perceived] liberation. It is, therefore, assumed in the town & city planning that people will use cars as a matter of course. You are right - having a car is not a physical need, but it is not aspirational behaviour, it is normal behaviour.
You've tried to break it down into white and black, needs and aspirations, but the way in which this country has developed over the last few decades has left us all in a lot of shades of grey. It is, I think, more aspirational to not have a car with all that entails - for children to be able to walk to a nearby school, for the road transport not to blighted by congestion, for food to be local etc. But those are, unfortunately, still very much aspirations.
Personally I live out in the countryside. I do cycle to the nearest city to work, but I wouldn't expect my elderly father or mother or grandmother to do so. There are no buses and taxis, I'm afraid, don't work out cheaper than a personal car. You could, I suppose, enforce resettlement from the family home to an urban area, or argue that the council should provide better bus services (from thin air, perhaps), but unfortunately the reality is that the UK is very car centric with limited alternatives currently and that won't change in the short term. Even if you do threaten abuse to us all.0 -
Beeblebrox wrote:AndyManc wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:
Don't be a prat about this, Andy. He needs a car. It's not aspirational, it's necessary to transport 7 people, most of whom are children.
OI , do you want to keep a civil tongue or I'll start getting abusive, or are you just trying to justify your use of a car because of guilt.
He chooses the lifestyle he lives, he chooses to use a vehicle to make life easier .... NOT BECAUSE IT'S NEEDED.
Many families near me have no car, they organise their life around it.
They use local facilities, they get a coach/train when they go on holiday, they organise shopping trips ..... the same organisation as generation before them committed themselves to WITHOUT THE USE OF A CAR.
I've heard all these excuses before .. it's all bollocks .
The vast majority of those that claim not to be able to live without a car are in fact saying .... they don't want to make the effort .... it's as simple as that.
Personally I live out in the countryside. I do cycle to the nearest city to work, but I wouldn't expect my elderly father or mother or grandmother to do so. There are no buses and taxis, I'm afraid, don't work out cheaper than a personal car. You could, I suppose, enforce resettlement from the family home to an urban area, or argue that the council should provide better bus services (from thin air, perhaps), but unfortunately the reality is that the UK is very car centric with limited alternatives currently and that won't change in the short term. Even if you do threaten abuse to us all.
excuses, excuses, excuses0 -
cars certinaly can and do become aspirational, and buy fairly expensive cars which will loose a fair amount of value year on year. but that is some ones choice modern cars will clock up massive milages and are remarkably tough, you can run a car pritty darn cheap, and for plenty of people it makes sense having a car around, possibly a 2 ton plus monster to drive timmy to the school is over kill. but cars have their uses. this said you'd struggle to find a commute that was cheaper by car than bike, impossible in time needed maybe but unlikely to be cheaper.0
-
Spitchips wrote:Beeblebrox wrote:AndyManc wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:
Don't be a prat about this, Andy. He needs a car. It's not aspirational, it's necessary to transport 7 people, most of whom are children.
OI , do you want to keep a civil tongue or I'll start getting abusive, or are you just trying to justify your use of a car because of guilt.
He chooses the lifestyle he lives, he chooses to use a vehicle to make life easier .... NOT BECAUSE IT'S NEEDED.
Many families near me have no car, they organise their life around it.
They use local facilities, they get a coach/train when they go on holiday, they organise shopping trips ..... the same organisation as generation before them committed themselves to WITHOUT THE USE OF A CAR.
I've heard all these excuses before .. it's all bollocks .
The vast majority of those that claim not to be able to live without a car are in fact saying .... they don't want to make the effort .... it's as simple as that.
Personally I live out in the countryside. I do cycle to the nearest city to work, but I wouldn't expect my elderly father or mother or grandmother to do so. There are no buses and taxis, I'm afraid, don't work out cheaper than a personal car. You could, I suppose, enforce resettlement from the family home to an urban area, or argue that the council should provide better bus services (from thin air, perhaps), but unfortunately the reality is that the UK is very car centric with limited alternatives currently and that won't change in the short term. Even if you do threaten abuse to us all.
excuses, excuses, excuses
Very well formed counter argument, bravo.0 -
I do it because I enjoy it, and it helps with my training for the sportives I like doing.
I dont save any money, because any money saved by not running a car or putting petrol into my motorbike, I spend on cycling kit instead. so I at best break even, at worst I'm running at a loss.
I like driving, I like riding my motorbike, I like cycling. They're all different things and whilst I could manage with no car just about, somethings are just to much hassle or tmie consuming.
The main gain I get from cycling to work is fitness and the time it saves not being stuck in traffic. Thats my main reasons for doing it, not trying to save money....0 -
fizz wrote:I do it because I enjoy it, and it helps with my training for the sportives I like doing.
I dont save any money, because any money saved by not running a car or putting petrol into my motorbike, I spend on cycling kit instead. so I at best break even, at worst I'm running at a loss.
I like driving, I like riding my motorbike, I like cycling. They're all different things and whilst I could manage with no car just about, somethings are just to much hassle or tmie consuming.
The main gain I get from cycling to work is fitness and the time it saves not being stuck in traffic. Thats my main reasons for doing it, not trying to save money....
Keep up the cycling and it will do you good - dodge the car as much as possible, they are a menace to society. In fact, just sell the damn car. Keep the bike. Dont give all your hard earned moolah to the goverment through owning a armchair on wheels.
The initail adjustment maybe tough but after that you can spend the money elsewhere.
If its £2000 a year to run a car then over a lifetime (age 20-70 = 50yrs owning car) the minimum cost would be £100,000 and a majoority of that would go the the tax man. owning a car is tax man dream. Dont forget you will also pay tax on your wages and everywhere else in life. If you are not careful you will end up doing voulantry work for the tax man judging by the amount of cash he snatches of you.
A business man has nearlly 50p out of every £1 taken by the tax man and I think that is before owning a car. Even if its including the car then 50p still takes the urine.0 -
The tax pays for services which even the business man wants, just he may not want to pay for them!0
-
Beeblebrox wrote:AndyManc wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:
Don't be a prat about this, Andy. He needs a car. It's not aspirational, it's necessary to transport 7 people, most of whom are children.
OI , do you want to keep a civil tongue or I'll start getting abusive, or are you just trying to justify your use of a car because of guilt.
He chooses the lifestyle he lives, he chooses to use a vehicle to make life easier .... NOT BECAUSE IT'S NEEDED.
Many families near me have no car, they organise their life around it.
They use local facilities, they get a coach/train when they go on holiday, they organise shopping trips ..... the same organisation as generation before them committed themselves to WITHOUT THE USE OF A CAR.
I've heard all these excuses before .. it's all bollocks .
The vast majority of those that claim not to be able to live without a car are in fact saying .... they don't want to make the effort .... it's as simple as that.
You'll start getting abusive? Dear me.
My two cents is this, for decades the UK has been geared heavily towards making normal life car centric - it was, and is, seen as a great liberator for people, being able to live and work within a far broader range than what was previously possible; indeed the car usurped the bicycle as the main driving force of this [perceived] liberation. It is, therefore, assumed in the town & city planning that people will use cars as a matter of course. You are right - having a car is not a physical need, but it is not aspirational behaviour, it is normal behaviour.
You've tried to break it down into white and black, needs and aspirations, but the way in which this country has developed over the last few decades has left us all in a lot of shades of grey. It is, I think, more aspirational to not have a car with all that entails - for children to be able to walk to a nearby school, for the road transport not to blighted by congestion, for food to be local etc. But those are, unfortunately, still very much aspirations.
Personally I live out in the countryside. I do cycle to the nearest city to work, but I wouldn't expect my elderly father or mother or grandmother to do so. There are no buses and taxis, I'm afraid, don't work out cheaper than a personal car. You could, I suppose, enforce resettlement from the family home to an urban area, or argue that the council should provide better bus services (from thin air, perhaps), but unfortunately the reality is that the UK is very car centric with limited alternatives currently and that won't change in the short term. Even if you do threaten abuse to us all.
Why have the facilities in the countryside been run down ?
............ because of car ownership, and the locals driving to the nearest Tesco’s instead of supporting local shops.
There should be a social (state run) mini bus service (aka door to door) for the elderly, as there is where I live.
I agree, our society is designed for car owners and the private motor vehicle , and it's been to the detriment local communities and the environment up and down the land.
I also agree some will find it almost impossible to function without a car , but not being able to go to Centre Parks is not my idea of being unable to function.
The majority of car owners will make excuses when it comes down to being car-less, the fact is, they are not willing to stand at a bus stop on a rainy day or walk half a mile to their local shops, it's one of the reasons why we are well into an obesity epidemic.
It's human nature (not inc most bikers) to take the easy route in life, most car owners are exhibiting that mentality with their denial in accepting they can do without.
.Specialized Hardrock Pro/Trek FX 7.3 Hybrid/Specialized Enduro/Specialized Tri-Cross Sport
0 -
AndyManc wrote:Why have the facilities in the countryside been run down ?
............ because of car ownership, and the locals driving to the nearest Tesco’s instead of supporting local shops.
There should be a social (state run) mini bus service (aka door to door) for the elderly, as there is where I live.
I agree, our society is designed for car owners and the private motor vehicle , and it's been to the detriment local communities and the environment up and down the land.
I also agree some will find it almost impossible to function without a car , but not being able to go to Centre Parks is not my idea of being unable to function.
The majority of car owners will make excuses when it comes down to being car-less, the fact is, they are not willing to stand at a bus stop on a rainy day or walk half a mile to their local shops, it's one of the reasons why we are well into an obesity epidemic.
It's human nature (not inc most bikers) to take the easy route in life, most car owners are exhibiting that mentality with their denial in accepting they can do without.
[I've actually turned this more into a mini essay than an actual reply to you, but I've written it now, so here it is:]
I appreciate the more measured response, I was trying to stress that it is also the structures in this country that do not help people break out of the car centred approach, not only their personal reluctance.
Unfortunately, I think, it will come down to costs to bring about the structural change - we saw with the pre-recession oil price bubble that people are willing to switch to cycling and public transport if they have to, and that government local and national were willing to help that change - helping to set up community car sharing schemes that were also supposed to help community cohesion and cut costs. Although I am wary that you shouldn't demonise the car too much, yes it has caused great damage to many aspects of modern life, but I believe it is more a case of 'too much of a good thing' causing laziness than cars are bad through and through. It's interesting to note that a 5 person car carrying 5 people is less polluting than a diesel train that is half full, as is more usual off peak.
Of course a recession makes new facilities harder to pay for and the drop in oil prices puts people back in cars, but long term oil prices will rise and someday low and no fuel options will become the norm. In addition to that the national government has three co-incident aims - health, environment and congestion which I believe will give a bigger impetus to cycling as time goes on.
But in the mean time, purely blaming the individual masks the responsibility of those who are supposed to help the public make the 'right' choice overall, not just the easiest one. And I hope we agree on that.0
