Those damn cyclists again!

100200 shih

Jawgap wrote: »

Bothermore for a start......lots of of street parking there and easy to pull over into an unoccupied bay if you want to.

The bus bays on the NW corner of Eyre Square......

Mill street.....

They're just from memory......

Yes Bothermore does but it is not the city center & ever square has been completely revamp so no you can not pull in anyway , & mill street is not the city center

Jawgap

100200 shih wrote: »

Yes that goes to show how much considerations we drivers give cyclist on that road

Not just that road.......I find most drivers, most of the time are very considerate.

There's only a few self-entitled ones out there who think their time is more important than everyone else's.

BTW, I suppose the traffic the week after next will be cyclists' fault;)

cython

UCDVet wrote: »

That only matters for the short term.

If you have excess energy stored as fat, and are in a state of equilibrium (eating as many calories as you burn), introducing cycling will NECESSARILY cause you to burn more calories.

Initially, yes, you could burn fat you had already stored.

That doesn't mean it's magically 'free energy'. It's energy you already stored. Once stored energy sources are gone, you need new energy. The only source of energy people have is food. Doing more exercise *requires* more energy.

It doesn't matter how you slice it - if you move, it takes energy. Cycling takes energy. People get energy from food. Food has an environmental impact. It's not free.

That's like me saying, 'Well, I ALREADY had a full tank of petrol, so my trip to the mountains didn't use up any fuel'.

So would you in fact advocate people driving short journeys (e.g. 5 mins to the shop) rather than walking as well, on the basis that they will need less energy from food? Cycling is (in most cases, and certainly on flat terrain) a more energy efficient form of transport than travelling by foot, so if cycling such journeys is less environmentally friendly than driving, then walking them must be murder on the ecosystem.

Of course it may just be that you're overstating things here to try to suit a point....

100200 shih

Jawgap wrote: »

Not just that road.......I find most drivers, most of the time are very considerate.

There's only a few self-entitled ones out there who think their time is more important than everyone else's.

BTW, I suppose the traffic the week after next will be cyclists' fault;)

So your now comparing cyclist to horse , :rolleyes:

looking_around

100200 shih wrote: »

Yes we all know that here that cyclist have every right to cycle on the road,
I am not disputing this but your going on about exercising !!! How does that relate back to my post

I am talking about a dangers road , by all means chat about what you wish but make scenes when your doing so if your going to attack what I am saying

because you mentioned about your commute and how they should take their leisurely cycle at a different time.

UCDVet

looking_around wrote: »

Doubt that as pointed out, I'm not eating anymore by doing so. so not using any more fuel than I normally do.
Being thinner means I'm less prone to certain illnesses. It also means that's one less car on the road.

As someone else pointed out, there's a few thousand cyclists around dublin, if they all got i their car instead, the traffic would be even slower.

As much as you want to say cars use less . They're manufacturing/servicing and lifetime ..outweighs any cons of the bicycle.

All you're doing playing devil's advocate here, and anyone with sense can see how ridiculous it is.

That's almost certainly not true. It can only be true in the short term.

Cycling uses energy. If you already have energy stores (fat) you can increase your activity, keep your eating the same, and yes, you will lose fat. Then you'll be thinner. But then you won't have any energy stores. You'll either eat more or wither away.

You might think you eat the same amount, because most regular people don't cycle 'too far' and they don't track their calories too carefully. Look at professional cyclists....

http://www.livestrong.com/article/537113-how-to-eat-like-a-professional-cyclist/

Thor Hushovd, winner of the green jersey for sprint points in the 2005 and 2009 Tour de France, regularly ate 9,000 calories per day during his races

Cycling isn't magic. Energy comes from food.

Jawgap

100200 shih wrote: »

Yes Bothermore does but it is not the city center & ever square has been completely revamp so no you can not pull in anyway , & mill street is not the city center

Really? Because my recollection of Galway is that Prospect Hill becomes Bohermore within kicking distance of Eyre Square and Mill Street is off the end of Shop Street?

Tenzor07

UCDVet wrote: »

That only matters for the short term.
If you have excess energy stored as fat, and are in a state of equilibrium (eating as many calories as you burn), introducing cycling will NECESSARILY cause you to burn more calories.
Initially, yes, you could burn fat you had already stored.
That doesn't mean it's magically 'free energy'. It's energy you already stored. Once stored energy sources are gone, you need new energy. The only source of energy people have is food. Doing more exercise *requires* more energy.
It doesn't matter how you slice it - if you move, it takes energy. Cycling takes energy. People get energy from food. Food has an environmental impact. It's not free.
That's like me saying, 'Well, I ALREADY had a full tank of petrol, so my trip to the mountains didn't use up any fuel'.

Hilarious! Some people have far too much time on there hands!

Do you even know what you original motivation is for posting this tosh? :eek:

looking_around

UCDVet wrote: »

But then you won't have any energy stores. You'll either eat more or wither away.

Or, as in my case, your weight will stabilise and you'll eat the same amounts.
I've been cycling for years now, I'm not getting any thinner, I'm also not eating any more than before.

also there's a big difference from a marathon and a 10km commute.

Jawgap

100200 shih wrote: »

So your now comparing cyclist to horse , :rolleyes:

No, I'm saying Galway is plagued by traffic.......and if you eliminated cyclists from the vicinity of the city tomorrow it would still be plagued by traffic.....only worse because in addition to all those people who currently drive, you'd have a proportion of the former cyclists taking their cars into the city......and whatever minor problems cyclists might cause, Race Week and the Arts Festival cause immeasurably greater ones, so why not campaign against events like that?

It's a great city.......but ill suited to the car, not because people have the temerity to cycle there, but because it's a popular place, with a medieval street layout that was intended to keep people out, not let them in.

UCDVet

cython wrote: »

So would you in fact advocate people driving short journeys (e.g. 5 mins to the shop) rather than walking as well, on the basis that they will need less energy from food? Cycling is (in most cases, and certainly on flat terrain) a more energy efficient form of transport than travelling by foot, so if cycling such journeys is less environmentally friendly than driving, then walking them must be murder on the ecosystem.

Of course it may just be that you're overstating things here to try to suit a point....

I don't believe I'm overstating anything.

http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/energy.html

In fact, meat production is so wasteful that walking actually uses more fossil energy than driving a 35 mpg car, if you get your calories for the standard American diet.3 (On vegetarian or vegan diets, walking uses less energy than driving.)

Cycling is more efficient than walking, *BUT* you also need to consider the manufacturing costs. Building a car has a HUGE negative impact on the environment. Building a bicycle ALSO has a huge negative impact on the environment (but much less than a car).

So, in practice, if you aren't a vegetarian you'd probably be better off buying a fuel efficient car and driving everywhere and NOT having a bicycle. If you buy a car AND a bicycle, swapping out a few miles of car driving with bicycle riding will probably never offset the cost of having the bicycle built.

If you DON'T buy a car - things are different.
If you DON'T eat meat - things are different too.

UCDVet

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Hilarious! Some people have far too much time on there hands!

Do you even know what you original motivation is for posting this tosh? :eek:

When I see people saying things that I wrong, I have a motivation to correct them.

No matter how many times people say it, cycling isn't energy free. It's not CO2 neutral.

Me? Personally....I don't care. I don't own a car, I cycle everywhere. But I do it because I'm too cheap to buy a car. I don't care which is better or worse for the environment.

But the REALITY of the situation is that cycling takes energy. It comes from food. It CAN be less efficient to cycle than to drive. Not sure why people are so desperate to refute this. It's quite obvious and well documented.

Jawgap

UCDVet wrote: »

When I see people saying things that I wrong, I have a motivation to correct them.

No matter how many times people say it, cycling isn't energy free. It's not CO2 neutral.

Me? Personally....I don't care. I don't own a car, I cycle everywhere. But I do it because I'm too cheap to buy a car. I don't care which is better or worse for the environment.

But the REALITY of the situation is that cycling takes energy. It comes from food. It CAN be less efficient to cycle than to drive. Not sure why people are so desperate to refute this. It's quite obvious and well documented.

So does living........at least with food you have the option of buying / eating locally produced food. How much fuel does it take to get the fuel cars need to the cars themselves?

Tenzor07

UCDVet wrote: »

When I see people saying things that I wrong, I have a motivation to correct them.
No matter how many times people say it, cycling isn't energy free. It's not CO2 neutral.
Me? Personally....I don't care. I don't own a car, I cycle everywhere. But I do it because I'm too cheap to buy a car. I don't care which is better or worse for the environment.
But the REALITY of the situation is that cycling takes energy. It comes from food. It CAN be less efficient to cycle than to drive. Not sure why people are so desperate to refute this. It's quite obvious and well documented.

Well Professor, looking around the place I would say the Irish population "at large" have billions of kilojoules stored as fat around their middles which could be converted into forward momentum!

We could argue all day and bring up various studies and papers..but.. at the end of the day, cycling is more environmentally friendly than if everyone drove motorised vehicles!

But that's a topic for another thread! :pac:

UCDVet

Jawgap wrote: »

So does living........at least with food you have the option of buying / eating locally produced food. How much fuel does it take to get the fuel cars need to the cars themselves?

Sure - and if someone said, 'Eating locally grown food is usually better for the environment' - I totally agree with them. I'm not arguing with that.

As for your fuel question - I don't know. But the estimates involving the environmental impact of using fuel considers the entire life-cycle of the fuel. I don't know how many miles the fuel is transported on average, but it is factored in.

MajesticDonkey

Jawgap wrote: »

How much fuel does it take to get the fuel cars need to the cars themselves?

I had to read that twice

100200 shih

Jawgap wrote: »

No, I'm saying Galway is plagued by traffic.......and if you eliminated cyclists from the vicinity of the city tomorrow it would still be plagued by traffic.....only worse because in addition to all those people who currently drive, you'd have a proportion of the former cyclists taking their cars into the city......and whatever minor problems cyclists might cause, Race Week and the Arts Festival cause immeasurably greater ones, so why not campaign against events like that?

It's a great city.......but ill suited to the car, not because people have the temerity to cycle there, but because it's a popular place, with a medieval street layout that was intended to keep people out, not let them in.

@JAWGAP, I Completely agree with you & Yes it is ill suited to car, I welcome people to Galway for film fest, Arts, races , unlike some parts of Ireland we understand that this is the bread & butter for so many people jobs during the summer months . My grip is little , I am moaning that I my commute during the summer going home is frustrating.

papu

UCDVet wrote: »

That only matters for the short term.

If you have excess energy stored as fat, and are in a state of equilibrium (eating as many calories as you burn), introducing cycling will NECESSARILY cause you to burn more calories.

Initially, yes, you could burn fat you had already stored.

That doesn't mean it's magically 'free energy'. It's energy you already stored. Once stored energy sources are gone, you need new energy. The only source of energy people have is food. Doing more exercise *requires* more energy.

It doesn't matter how you slice it - if you move, it takes energy. Cycling takes energy. People get energy from food. Food has an environmental impact. It's not free.

That's like me saying, 'Well, I ALREADY had a full tank of petrol, so my trip to the mountains didn't use up any fuel'.

1lb of fat is 3600kcals , about 25km by your word .
1litre of petrol is about 7800 kcals , suppose you get good milage 12.5km/litre ..
You can clearly see that the energy consumption of the mechanical engine is much higher than a man on a bike ..

UCDVet

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Well Professor, looking around the place I would say the Irish population "at large" have billions of kilojoules stored as fat around their middles which could be converted into forward momentum!

We could argue all day and bring up various studies and papers..but.. at the end of the day, cycling is more environmentally friendly than if everyone drove motorised vehicles!

But that's a topic for another thread! :pac:

Declaring something and putting it in bold does NOT make it a fact. Sadly.

Jawgap

UCDVet wrote: »

Sure - and if someone said, 'Eating locally grown food is usually better for the environment' - I totally agree with them. I'm not arguing with that.

As for your fuel question - I don't know. But the estimates involving the environmental impact of using fuel considers the entire life-cycle of the fuel. I don't know how many miles the fuel is transported on average, but it is factored in.

Out of interest, looking at the motorways we've constructed recently, and bearing in mind cement production is one of the most CO2-generative processes known, do you still reckon the environmental impact of the motor vehicle has been properly assessed in comparison to cycling?

Tenzor07

UCDVet wrote: »

Declaring something and putting it in bold does NOT make it a fact. Sadly.

So sue me! This ain't the thread for it Doctor....

It's all about those pesky cyclists, so back on topic!

Jawgap

100200 shih wrote: »

@JAWGAP, I Completely agree with you & Yes it is ill suited to car, I welcome people to Galway for film fest, Arts, races , unlike some parts of Ireland we understand that this is the bread & butter for so many people jobs during the summer months . My grip is little , I am moaning that I my commute during the summer going home is frustrating.

.....but you don't welcome cyclists? Market research consistently demonstrates that cyclists and bicycle tourists are some of the more affluent tourists you can attract - they spend locally, stay locally and are more likely to report positive experiences.

Tenzor07

Jawgap wrote: »

Out of interest, looking at the motorways we've constructed recently, and bearing in mind cement production is one of the most CO2-generative processes known, do you still reckon the environmental impact of the motor vehicle has been properly assessed in comparison to cycling?

Don't waste your carbon footprint on this debate, I'm sure you and I like all regular cyclists have paid back the Co2 emissions it took to make and deliver your bike...!

UCDVet

papu wrote: »

1lb of fat is 3600kcals , about 25km by your word .
1litre of petrol is about 7800 kcals , suppose you get good milage 12.5km/litre ..
You can clearly see that the energy consumption of the mechanical engine is much higher than a man on a bike ..

It's cool that you ran the numbers but you need to go a little further...

Yes - you are right. It DOES take more energy to move a car than it takes to move a bicycle. And that makes sense, people intuitively accept this. A bicycle is small and light.

But where does the fuel for each come from? And what is the environmental impact (CO2) of the fuel.

The person eats food.
The car takes petrol.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24163/CO2-Emissions-of-Foods-and-Diets
Depending on the diet , the CO2 per calorie varies a lot. It's never zero.

And you can use sites like this to see the CO2 impact of the fuel the car uses.
https://www.eta.co.uk/2010/02/22/calculating-a-cars-co2-emissions-from-its-mpg/

Do the math. For a fuel efficient car, it comes down to what the person's diet consists of. Vegetarians - they are very green. Meat eaters....not so much. A 'typical western diet' means the cyclist is worse than the driver. But that assumes a fairly efficient car.

looking_around

UCDVet wrote: »

It's cool that you ran the numbers but you need to go a little further...

Yes - you are right. It DOES take more energy to move a car than it takes to move a bicycle. And that makes sense, people intuitively accept this. A bicycle is small and light.

But where does the fuel for each come from? And what is the environmental impact (CO2) of the fuel.

The person eats food.
The car takes petrol.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24163/CO2-Emissions-of-Foods-and-Diets
Depending on the diet , the CO2 per calorie varies a lot. It's never zero.

And you can use sites like this to see the CO2 impact of the fuel the car uses.
https://www.eta.co.uk/2010/02/22/calculating-a-cars-co2-emissions-from-its-mpg/

Do the math. For a fuel efficient car, it comes down to what the person's diet consists of. Vegetarians - they are very green. Meat eaters....not so much. A 'typical western diet' means the cyclist is worse than the driver. But that assumes a fairly efficient car.

And assumes the driver isn't eating,

UCDVet

Jawgap wrote: »

Out of interest, looking at the motorways we've constructed recently, and bearing in mind cement production is one of the most CO2-generative processes known, do you still reckon the environmental impact of the motor vehicle has been properly assessed in comparison to cycling?

I'm not sure how it would factor in - but it's a fair point. People generally focus on km driven verse those same km on a bicycle. Transport seems to be pretty horrible for the environment, but also very beneficial for society.

I couldn't imagine what shopping would be like if we didn't have giant trucks driving on motorways (and freight ships - I have no idea what impact they have, but I assume it's bad).

Grandpa Hassan

Missed a few pages of this thread, to come back and find people genuinely trying to argue that cycling is no more environmentally friendly than driving. Are these people serious!!?? ��

Seem to be using the most fuel efficient car going (forgetting that it's in slow moving traffic so incredibly inefficient) and forgetting that the driver has to eat as well.

So their argument is that a perfectly efficient car driven by a driver who never eats any food ever is more efficient than a cyclist who has to fuel the seemingly thousands of calories that it takes to cycle the 4 or 5 miles to work.

Joke of an argument

UCDVet

looking_around wrote: »

And assumes the driver isn't eating,

I think you've lost me. It shouldn't matter if the driver is eating, or if the cyclist is eating.

All that matters is the (reasonable minimum) amount of energy required to make the trip, and where that energy comes from.

Tenzor07

UCDVet wrote: »

I think you've lost me. It shouldn't matter if the driver is eating, or if the cyclist is eating.

All that matters is the (reasonable minimum) amount of energy required to make the trip, and where that energy comes from.

/Newthread

:rolleyes:

looking_around

UCDVet wrote: »

I think you've lost me. It shouldn't matter if the driver is eating, or if the cyclist is eating.

All that matters is the (reasonable minimum) amount of energy required to make the trip, and where that energy comes from.

You're comparing

cyclist: food consumption burn
vs
Driver: fuel consumption burn

should be

cyclist food consumption
vs
driver: fuel +food consumption.

, good luck making the numbers match for your argument now.