|
|
Home > |
|
and not environmentally friendly > |
| This page has grown a lot and reading everything
takes a lot of time. If you are a cyclist and you already think that all
this is nonsense, please read sections on health,
dangers
related to road cycling and highway
code. And perhaps on road
incompatibility of bicycles new!!!.
Reading them may change the way you cycle and save some problems in the
future. If you are brave enough please read everything.
The correspondence - I don't update it - sorry. Up to now I have received 100+ letters and I would like to include some of the comments, make a few (minor) corrections and add some other views of various problems. Thank you for all the letters on cycling in US and Australia. FAQ new!!!- please read it before e-mailing me The history of this page Automated (i.e. you may not recognize your language) German and French translations of this page by Google. Are you sure that you want lower fuel prices in Britain ??? |
"Cycling is safer than walking", yes ... but who said that walking is safe ...
Road
Cycling is Dangerous, Unhealthy
and
not Environmentally Friendly (v.0.6.1)
by
Arek Zawada
| Do you remember 50's, 60's streets full of poisonous gases
generated by big, heavy and noisy cars. A few miles further there were
factories making these cars, steel for them or petrol. Many people in London
suffered a large variety of dangerous illnesses. Do you remember? I don't
but I saw it on TV. Not surprisingly nobody liked that and many fought
against that. Fortunately, very successfully!
So now forgot about it! This is the past. Today, if you buy a car its emissions are many orders of magnitude
smaller, than the one from 50s. The most likely it will emit much less
than the current allowed levels, which go down every year. If you look
into the near future still there is a lot which can be done and is going
to be done. Also there are works in the area of city vehicles, which are
optimized for city cycle, that is, for example, frequent accelerations
or long waiting in traffic jams.
But ... still the average British car is 7.7 year old. A bus probably more than that. Many can hardly stay within the emission limits ... How about bikes. A bit this, a bit that. Perhaps look a bit fancier but nothing really changed. 50 years ago cars needed attention every hundred km or less and bikes roughly the same. Today, an average car is likely to work fine for 60 000km or so without any trouble, just with recommended servicing. Today's bike needs attention every 500-1000km, that is only about 5 times more than its older brother from 50's. There are some kinds of bike "mutants" such as recumbents. They are much more expensive (usually 5+ times) but can give much greater protection to the cyclist in case of an accident. However ... not popular at all. The high cost and much lower "portability" (more difficult to transport by car or bus) can be blamed for their low popularity. As you can see bicycles are being developed at much lower pace than cars. Obviously, there will be one day when cars "overtake" bikes in all the fields. Why ? It is impossible! Bikes are green! No, as long as they do not grow on trees. At the moment during the production of one bike about 130kg of CO2 from non-renewable sources is being released. Not a lot but that bike is also used not a lot or at least much less than a bus or a car. Obviously many other gases are emitted too. But when this may happen? In my opinion we will not have to wait
too long. Already in a few areas bicycles are well behind cars and buses.
OK, now please click on the following links to see the full details: |
A.
Road
cycling and the Highway Code
B. Data sources and Related links
|
1. Conventional bicycles are simple, cheap, dangerous and inefficiently used man powered vehicles - cyclists tend to compare bicycles with cars or buses on one to one basis, what gives a very false image. Also fabrication emissions are usually ignored. 2. Road cycling is very dangerous, significantly more than using public transport or driving a car. On pavements cyclists are more dangerous to the others than the other to cyclists. 3. Bicycles offer only 2-3 times lower the overall emissions than cars or buses. Cyclists usually ignore the fact that somewhere in Asia there are acid rains caused by plants (steel, power,...), which have produced their bikes. However, after adjusting the emission values due to road incompatibility of bicycles, overall emissions of cars are lower than bicycles. 4. Cycle lanes are over 5 times less efficient, in terms of passenger flow, than bus lanes. 5. Cyclists are the road users the most exposed to exhaust
gases, therefore cycling is 6. Converting parts of heavily used city roads into cycle lanes is simply promoting a very unhealthy and dangerous way of travelling. 7. Cycling is not for everybody - only a small portion of population potentially can cycle on a road safely. and some eco-nonsenses: 8. In the UK, during the rush hours, taxis, polluting 2 times more than average cars and much more than buses, are privileged to use the bus lanes. 9. In the UK the government is going to impose a carbon tax on the new cars only, that is the cars which are MUCH, MUCH more environmentally friendly that the one already on the roads. I suppose this is to encourage people to use more the old and smoky ones. |
Acknowledgements
I would like to say thank you to the the people who spent their time analysing my calculations and also for many constructive criticisms. However, due to the very controversial nature of that page I will mention their names only after their agreements.
E.B. (cyclist commuter) - many useful information on cycling, driving
and public transport in US, or cycling in general (Arizona, US)
G.W. (cyclist commuter) - also some bike exploitation data in heely
Sheffield
Istvan Bogdan (cyclist commuter) - some bike exploitation data in heely
Sheffield
Y.I.Z (ex-cyclist-commuter)- for some exploitation data from Beijing,
China (I was really surprised to hear how road cycling is organized there)
.... (I should add more!)
|
My page will always be anti road cycling. This is the main aim of it. But it does not mean that I want road cycling to be banned or anything like that. No! Many people DO LIKE cycling, many people rely of road cycling as the the way of commuting or everyday source of physical exercise. This makes them fitter, healthier and also feel better. Many simply, just for pleasure, make a cycling break from everyday life. I see no reason why all these people should be forbidden doing what they like! But ... I see not reason why people should be forced to do that ! Also if you want to promote road cycling - no problem but don't claim
that it is safe, healthy and environmentally friendly because IT OFTEN
IS NOT and in the next few years it will get even worse. Even in the Netherlands,
the cycling perfection, cycling is not safe.
I claim that cycling can be made safer but the only efficient way is by making the cyclists EQUAL ROAD USERS to cars or buses. At the moment they are equal only to cows and sheep, which do not have to know the highway code and they also use both roads and pavements (and no lights) but ARE environmentally friendly. A person, who taught himself how to drive a car off-road and now drives very well (off-road) but do not know the road driving code, starts using public roads. Do you think this is a good idea ? Will he be a safe driver ? But this is what happens in case of many cyclists. I think that the fact that cyclists do not kill so many people as cars is not sufficient explanation why they should use public roads without any prior preparations. You are allowed to disagree. --- Unfortunately, nowadays in England many HEAVILY used roads are now being
"upgraded" with cycle lanes, what I believe is the cheapest solution to
make the cycling activists happy(*). In many cases cycle lanes can be build
in parallel to major road, on minor roads but this is much more expensive.
At the same time the cycling fans are praising how healthy and safe it
is to cycle to work.
(*)A few quotations from John Forester's page:
|