New Study... bicycles offer little benefit to the environment.

trino wrote:
Amen to that Jean

To what?

Research by UPenn professor Karl Ulrich came to the conclusion that
bicycles offer little benefit to the environment

He's probably mad that his cousin Jan was kicked out of the Tour de France.

Here is the kind answer from K. Ulrich

---------------------------------
These are all interesting points.

On the first, I justify the use of mean values by considering the
scenario in which a substantial fraction of the population is engaged in
cycling. Otherwise, it isn't really a significant element of
environmental policy. When referring to very small segments of the
population or to individuals, you certainly are correct that I under- or
overestimate the effect (depending on the deviation of this population
from the mean).

On the other points, I guess all I can say is that they are interesting
conjectures, but I don't think they are yet supported by data or
analysis. Your coffee example is a good start. However, for example, the
cyclists I know are quite avid consumers of coffee. Personally, I drink
5 cups per day along with my 40 km/day of cycling... I'm not saying this
is true of all cyclists, but I think you'd need more compelling evidence
to show that this is a repeatable, systematic effect. Same for the other
points... And, here are a few mo Do cyclists take more hot showers?
Do cyclists have bigger cars to transport bikes? Do cyclists drive with
bike racks on their automobile rooftops, reducing fuel economy? Do
cyclists have larger or smaller families? All very interesting stuff and
I appreciate your contribution to the dialogue.

Best,

Karl

"Bill Sornson" wrote in message
...
trino wrote:
Amen to that Jean

To what?
What she said

trino wrote:
"Bill Sornson" wrote in message
...
trino wrote:
Amen to that Jean

To what?
What she said

Ah.

Bill "that funny blubbery sound cartoon characters make when driven nuts
wave file goes here" S.

Makes me wonder who paid him for the paper. Car companies? oil companies?
I don't see how any twisted logic has driving motor vehicles being less of
an impact on the environment that riding a bicycle has, irrespective of
lifespans.

Just so you know: Karl is a dedicated bike commuter, and has had a
long involvement with alternatives to automobiles. He designed and
marketed the Xootr scooter, and his company has continuted with
electric bikes and other efficient transport options. I'd be
astonished if he took money from anyone to write this.

Mort

Jean H. wrote:
Your post reminds me of some of the old smoking arguments. [...]

:-) I read once a study saying that obese people where helping reducing
the green house gas, because they keep a lot of Carbon in their fat!..
so if all of us where obese, it could be a way to significantly reduce
climate change!
This study was a serious one, but written as a joke, and the author
concluded that it would still be better to consumates less than more

********

For the bike study, there are a few things:

p3: "Physical activity by previously sedentary individuals increases
their longevity, and therefore their overall energy consumption."
=== but it reduces the energy those people use when spending countless
hours buying useless devices or watching TV, or even the rate of
replacing the soffa because there is a hole under their butt

p3: "The energy required to produce, process, and transform food is
approximately 5.75 times greater than the energy content of the food
itself (Coley 1998)"
=== it depends on what you eat... frozen pre-made meal or vegetables
from the farms in your state!

p7: "For the assumed parameters the net savings from bicycling are
1.3-1.5 GJ/yr. This savings is 0.5-0.7 percent of total annual energy
use, so small as to be well within the likely error in the estimate."
=== So it is a reduction of the energy consuption! ... and the likely
errors in his assumptions, "mean values" (rather than using the median
or the mode in all the values distribution, depending on the skewness of
the distribution)


Some thing he forgot:
* More bikes = less car == need for more bikepath and less roads,
which are cheaper (and smaller, by size) to built. Also, need for less
road maintenance.
* More activities = better health = less visit to the doctors/hopital
in your midle age
* more bikes = less cars = less polution = less cost for the society


anyways, this kind of study are total crap... somebody should write one
entitled "Environmental benefit of banning all private cars"

Jean

One extremely suspicious assumption :
"I assume that an individual owns an automobile whether using a bicycle
for transportation or not" pg.3

I think that it is an interesting article but suffers from a overly
simplistic model.

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

Jean H. wrote:
Here is the kind answer from K. Ulrich

---------------------------------
These are all interesting points.

On the first, I justify the use of mean values by considering the
scenario in which a substantial fraction of the population is engaged in
cycling. Otherwise, it isn't really a significant element of
environmental policy. When referring to very small segments of the
population or to individuals, you certainly are correct that I under- or
overestimate the effect (depending on the deviation of this population
from the mean).

On the other points, I guess all I can say is that they are interesting
conjectures, but I don't think they are yet supported by data or
analysis. Your coffee example is a good start. However, for example, the
cyclists I know are quite avid consumers of coffee. Personally, I drink
5 cups per day along with my 40 km/day of cycling... I'm not saying this
is true of all cyclists, but I think you'd need more compelling evidence
to show that this is a repeatable, systematic effect. Same for the other
points... And, here are a few mo Do cyclists take more hot showers?
Do cyclists have bigger cars to transport bikes? Do cyclists drive with
bike racks on their automobile rooftops, reducing fuel economy? Do
cyclists have larger or smaller families? All very interesting stuff and
I appreciate your contribution to the dialogue.

Best,

Karl

Good points by both Jean and Karl. !!

However, I am noticing a very disticnt assumption by Dr. Ulrich that
most cyclists who use bicycle for transportation also will a) own an
automobile-a highly questionable assumption to me, at least for urban
dwellers-and b) that they might transport their bikes by car. Under
normal circumstances I fail to see why one would use a car to transport
a bicycle unless it is being tranferred from one locale to another. I
am probably a bit of an outlier but I have travelled up to 10,000 km
in a year without once putting my bicycle in or on a car. In fact I
think, in the last 15 years my bikes have been in a automobile (not
including city or intercity buses) 5 times. Three times when moving
from city to city and twice for holidays. (Uoops, forgot 3-4 times in
a taxi when I had a flat tire.

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

"John Kane" wrote in message
oups.com...

However, I am noticing a very disticnt assumption by Dr. Ulrich that
most cyclists who use bicycle for transportation also will a) own an
automobile-a highly questionable assumption to me, at least for urban
dwellers-and b) that they might transport their bikes by car. Under
normal circumstances I fail to see why one would use a car to transport
a bicycle unless it is being tranferred from one locale to another. I
am probably a bit of an outlier but I have travelled up to 10,000 km
in a year without once putting my bicycle in or on a car. In fact I
think, in the last 15 years my bikes have been in a automobile (not
including city or intercity buses) 5 times. Three times when moving
from city to city and twice for holidays. (Uoops, forgot 3-4 times in
a taxi when I had a flat tire.

Ulrich might have made that assumption because it's a clear assumption to
make. If you make a muddier assumption -- e.g. that if you use a bicycle for
transportation at least 1500 km you are 10% less likely to own a car --
well, then you have to justify that assumption. Why 10%? Why not 20%? or
5%?

For the same reason, researchers often assume the errors are random. It's a
simple assumption and fairly testable. If you use a more complex assumption
about the errors,then you are more likely to need to justify that
assumption.

I don't know that there are any good studies in this area that could be used
to change the assumption. Do you?