I loves a chart, me… bike v car?

[simonineaston]

As you’ll probably know there’s a constant trickle of slurs, counter-slurs, angry assertions and plain bonkers stuff on Twitter/X these days on the subject of whether bicycles - or more pertinently, bike riders - are justified in pointing out that they’re better than cars.
One of the popular quasi-arguments is to do with parity ie that car & bike users should be treated equally - whatever that means.
Do you, dear reader, know of the existence of any data that demonstrates the relative costs to society of the two different forms of transport? And what factors should be taken into account? For example a bike must have a much lower carbon footprint. A bike must offer much better fuel economy. Motorised vehicles almost certainly result in higher costs to health services. Infrastructure costs might be hard to judge, given that bicycles use, but don't necessarily need, the same roads as the bigger, heavier motorised vehicles. Etc etc.
I should imagine that this sort of calculation was probably tackled with gusto by early cycle-friendly ‘green’ activists, but was wondering if there was anything useful been done recently. I’m sure there has.

[gaz]

.

[Chris Jeggo]

...
One of the popular quasi-arguments is to do with parity ie that car & bike users should be treated equally - whatever that means.
...

Should all car & bike users pay the same amount of income tax?

[simonineaston]

Given that bike use has a net positive effect on society, I can see the attraction in paying folks to use them.

[Jdsk]

I'd suggest that it's up to you to decide what factors you want to take into account. There isn't a correct answer out there.

I'd hope that would include health, both mental and physical. And there's a lot more to that than "costs to health services".

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

A little light reading:

"Handbook on the external costs of transport":
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-det ... anguage-en

"Internalising the External Costs of Transport":
https://fsr.eui.eu/event/5th-florence-i ... transport/

Jonathan

[cycle tramp]

One of the popular quasi-arguments is to do with parity ie that car & bike users should be treated equally - whatever that means.

Why should they? And by suggesting that the 'two modes if transport should be treated equallly', is this statement a recognition of that fact that por-motorists marginalise the hazard they cause to vulnerable road users?

[plancashire]

Don't forget parking.

[simonineaston]

I'd suggest that it's up to you to decide what factors you want to take into account. There isn't a correct answer out there.

I'd hope that would include health, both mental and physical. And there's a lot more to that than "costs to health services".

Jonathan

I’ve started to make a list…

[Mike Sales]

I'd suggest that it's up to you to decide what factors you want to take into account. There isn't a correct answer out there.

I'd hope that would include health, both mental and physical. And there's a lot more to that than "costs to health services".

Jonathan

I’ve started to make a list…

Here is a paper from the Journal of Public Health which may help.

Are cars the new tobacco?

Background

Public health must continually respond to new threats reflecting wider societal changes. Ecological public health recognizes the links between human health and global sustainability. We argue that these links are typified by the harms caused by dependence on private cars.
Methods

We present routine data and literature on the health impacts of private car use; the activities of the ‘car lobby' and factors underpinning car dependence. We compare these with experience of tobacco.
Results

Private cars cause significant health harm. The impacts include physical inactivity, obesity, death and injury from crashes, cardio-respiratory disease from air pollution, noise, community severance and climate change. The car lobby resists measures that would restrict car use, using tactics similar to the tobacco industry. Decisions about location and design of neighbourhoods have created environments that reinforce and reflect car dependence. Car ownership and use has greatly increased in recent decades and there is little public support for measures that would reduce this.
Conclusions

Car dependence is a potent example of an issue that ecological public health should address. The public health community should advocate strongly for effective policies that reduce car use and increase active travel.
environment, public health, transport

https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/art ... ogin=false

[Carlton green]

I'd suggest that it's up to you to decide what factors you want to take into account. There isn't a correct answer out there.

I'd hope that would include health, both mental and physical. And there's a lot more to that than "costs to health services".

Jonathan

The health one seems clear cut but it isn’t. Today the Mrs and I did a 120 mile round trip, in my little car (at 50+ mpg), to visit friends. We wouldn’t have done that trip on a bike or by public transport. Our mental health is better for that visit and so is that of the visited people. As a young man I was restricted to public transport, my wellbeing (mostly mental health) certainly improved when I was able to drive or motorcycle. imho the availability of personal transport has a massive impact on wellbeing.

For local journeys I much prefer cycling to driving, but for each of us there comes some point where the better personal benefit shifts to car use.

[SporranMcDonald]

Trouble is that we have had a couple of centuries to learn how to live far beyond our safe ecological footprints - powered by fossil fuels.

Ignorant of the perils of dumping massive amounts of greenhouse gasses into the air. . . . colourless, odourless CO2 . . . no harm there then !

Superhumanity normalised. superhuman speeds & superhuman distances.

But now we are all aware of the grave peril that awaits, perhaps we can revert to safe ecological behaviour ?

Nevertheless, burning fossil fuels for leisure purposes remains the norm.
Those ancestors over tens of thousands of years must have had terrible mental health ( or maybe not ).

[Carlton green]

Nevertheless, burning fossil fuels for leisure purposes remains the norm.
Those ancestors over tens of thousands of years must have had terrible mental health ( or maybe not ).

Those ancestors had generally pretty poor health, life expectancy was limited. Mental health in those times, to be honest it’s anyone’s guess but I doubt that it was good, keeping alive must have been tough and seeing loved ones die somewhat hard.

Trouble is that we have had a couple of centuries to learn how to live far beyond our safe ecological footprints - powered by fossil fuels.

Ignorant of the perils of dumping massive amounts of greenhouse gasses into the air. . . . colourless, odourless CO2 . . . no harm there then !

Superhumanity normalised. superhuman speeds & superhuman distances.

But now we are all aware of the grave peril that awaits, perhaps we can revert to safe ecological behaviour?

The Genie is out of the bottle and ain’t going back anytime soon. There’s going to need to be a massive shift in expectations … and then we have what’s happening in the ‘developing world’. Human nature being what it is there’s going to be a lot of bother.

[SporranMcDonald]

My apology to Carlton Green. My post was rather too personal.

[simonhill]

You asked "the relative cost to society".

If I heard it right, there was a woman on R4 Today today campaigning for young people to have restricted licences due to high death rate when friends in car. She said death rate was higher than knife crime.

Society is rightly wetting itself over knife crime, but ignoring these deaths. As far as I know groups of friends rarely die when out cycling.

Tenuous?