« Cyclists are special and do have their own rules | Main | Tuesday Morning Commute - We're #6 »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Can we get that as a poster or something to print out for BTWW

Looks like a cyclist was hit on the Penn Ave bike lanes this pm around 5pm. It looked that way; I didn't actually see the accident, if any. All the EMTs and cops were there already.

Just after I passed that, some guy nearly turned left into me and then I watched a minivan driver make a u-turn across the bike lanes.

Hmm, a connection? Can they not enforce any damn laws there?

RDHD: of course, its the cyclists who disobey the laws

The link for the Stingray goes to the AARP blog. You really know how to hurt a guy.

SJE, contact Stephanie Averkamp at stephanieaverkampgmailcom

I saw the police ride coming up GWP last night. At first I thought it was a motorcade, but then I realized the motorcycles were going way too slow. Looked like 150-200 folks or so. I did feel bad for those behind them.

I think the operating expense comparision is misleading--it is almost certainly averages. It would be more accurate if the cyclist did not own a car, but we know many do. And if a person really did not own a car, the figure for cyclists would be too low. Not including a sinking fund for bike replacement, I estimate my annual operating expenses at probably triple that figure.

@Crickey, The operating expense info appears to be useful an accurate information. It tells you how much car ownership costs compared to bike ownership. What you do with that info is up to you. It also says biking to work saves money. Neither of the messages are misleading.

My point is that they are averaging for one form of transportation that is used heavily and primarily for that purpose against another that, on average, is neither used heavily nor primarily used for transportation. One might therefore be misled into thinking that even a modest amount of riding translates into large savings. That would not be accurate.

And in general, I think this bias gets repeated in many modal comparisons. Bicycling does save money, but I think the savings are often overstated--in this instances, wildly so.

I still don't get your point, unless you think readers are morons. The cost comparison is clearly labelled cost of ownership, not cost of operation.

The small carrot that is being dangled is the cost savings of driving less. Yes, I agree that cost savings is small. The big carrot is the cost reduction from selling a car or not buying a replacement car when one wears out. That savings is arguably most easily available to multi-car families. I keep meeting people from such families who have taken advantage of it.

Re: savings, I save at least $100 month that I used to spend on metro fare when I bike to work. I don't own a car, so that cost doesn't mean anything to me one way or the other. It's definitely accurate that biking saves you money, regardless of it means you are just using less gas, putting less miles on your car, or in my instance, not paying for public transportation. And, this year my only operating costs are a bottle of chain lube, a $20 tune up at the store, and a new headlight.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader