I know that I am always on about bicycles and also as to how efficient are as a means of mobility, but...
Recently the WorldWatch Institute published some intriguing figures on cycling. The compared the energy used per passenger-mile (calories) and found that a bicycle needed only 35 calories, whereas a car expended a whopping 1,860 with bus- and train travels falling about midway between, and walking, surprisingly, still took three times as many calories as riding a bike the same distance.
They also looked at a measurement called: ‘Persons per hour that one meter-width-equivalent right-of-way can carry’. In this case Rail scored tops with 4,000 persons, but ‘autos in mixed traffic’ still managed the worse rating with only 170 people. Bikes did pretty well, relative to cars, achieving 1,500 persons per hour.
This is the sort of impact that Critical Mass rides around the planet try to demonstrate on a regular basis.
The stats also inferred that cycling contributes to a nation’s health.
For example, they found – of which I am not surprised – that only 1% of urban travel in the US is by bicycle, a country with 30.6% of adults considered obese. This contrasted with the Netherlands where 28% of urban travel was via a bike, and only 10% were obese. I assume that the Dutch are either on a very lean diet (and no they are not) or that cycling must have a lot to do with this. In fact I am sure that it has.
I am surprised, in fact, that is it ONLY 28% of urban travel in the Netherlands that is done by bicycle. The amount of bikes you see in Amsterdam and elsewhere I would have guessed the figure to be much higher. In Amsterdam it is rather easier to get run over by a bike than by a car. This is also due to the fact that they call their cycle paths “vietspads” (sp) and to the dumb English like me with no idea of Dutch this means foot path, does it not? Well, walk on those at your peril.
Michael Smith (Veshengro), December 2007
Recently the WorldWatch Institute published some intriguing figures on cycling. The compared the energy used per passenger-mile (calories) and found that a bicycle needed only 35 calories, whereas a car expended a whopping 1,860 with bus- and train travels falling about midway between, and walking, surprisingly, still took three times as many calories as riding a bike the same distance.
They also looked at a measurement called: ‘Persons per hour that one meter-width-equivalent right-of-way can carry’. In this case Rail scored tops with 4,000 persons, but ‘autos in mixed traffic’ still managed the worse rating with only 170 people. Bikes did pretty well, relative to cars, achieving 1,500 persons per hour.
This is the sort of impact that Critical Mass rides around the planet try to demonstrate on a regular basis.
The stats also inferred that cycling contributes to a nation’s health.
For example, they found – of which I am not surprised – that only 1% of urban travel in the US is by bicycle, a country with 30.6% of adults considered obese. This contrasted with the Netherlands where 28% of urban travel was via a bike, and only 10% were obese. I assume that the Dutch are either on a very lean diet (and no they are not) or that cycling must have a lot to do with this. In fact I am sure that it has.
I am surprised, in fact, that is it ONLY 28% of urban travel in the Netherlands that is done by bicycle. The amount of bikes you see in Amsterdam and elsewhere I would have guessed the figure to be much higher. In Amsterdam it is rather easier to get run over by a bike than by a car. This is also due to the fact that they call their cycle paths “vietspads” (sp) and to the dumb English like me with no idea of Dutch this means foot path, does it not? Well, walk on those at your peril.
Michael Smith (Veshengro), December 2007
Post Title
→The Bicycle – The World's Most Energy Efficient Vehicle, probably!
Post URL
→https://national-grid-news.blogspot.com/2007/12/bicycle-world-most-energy-efficient.html
Visit National-grid-news for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection
