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......
100200 shih wrote: » Yes that goes to show how much considerations we drivers give cyclist on that road
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'.
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;)
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
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.
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
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
UCDVet wrote: » But then you won't have any energy stores. You'll either eat more or wither away.
100200 shih wrote: » So your now comparing cyclist to horse , :rolleyes:
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....
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.)
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:
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.
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.
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?
Jawgap wrote: » How much fuel does it take to get the fuel cars need to the cars themselves?
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.
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:
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.
UCDVet wrote: » Declaring something and putting it in bold does NOT make it a fact. Sadly.
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.
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?
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 ..
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.
looking_around wrote: » And assumes the driver isn't eating,
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.
