SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
everybody in London is breathing toxic levels of PM2.5 particles. And the fact that the largest sources of PM2.5 particles are tires and brake dust suggests that electrification is at best only a partial answer.
We also have to drive a whole lot less.
Fortunately, London appears to be pursuing an all-of-the-above strategy when it comes to greener transportation, including electric buses to a massive investment in cycle infrastructure, the goal really does appear to be easing gridlock and rethinking how we get from one place to another.
London's cycle superhighways have already shown they can deliver 70% increases in cycling, and now Mayor Sadiq Kahn has announced an entirely new, fourth superhighway bringing segregated lanes to Southeast London for the first time.
Instead of car tire and brake dust, Londoners will be able to inhale healthier bike tire and brake dust.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @11:12PM (17 children)
As a general rule, bikes cost about 1/10th what a car does.
I am sure that applies to tire and brake dust as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @11:19PM
1/10th? You can get an e-bike for that much [cnn.com] (compare used car to dumped Chinese e-bike).
(Score: 5, Informative) by bob_super on Thursday October 05 2017, @11:30PM (14 children)
> As a general rule, bikes cost about 1/10th what a car does.
That's a terrible "general rule".
While only poor people want to use my heavy $70 bike, you can get a decent one for $200, and a good one for under $500.
That's not anywhere near a tenth of a new car.
> I am sure that applies to tire and brake dust as well.
Yeah, there's that m, and also V2, in the energy that needs dissipated to come to a stop. So for the second time in two sentences, you're way off.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @11:50PM (13 children)
I was being conservative.
I was also including maintenance costs. A Bike may be more likely to break due to small parts (but a car will have more parts to break).
Biking also saves on fuel costs, but raises your food budget.
(Score: 3, Touché) by bob_super on Friday October 06 2017, @12:09AM (5 children)
> I was also including maintenance costs. A Bike may be more likely to break due to small parts
You're talking about a bicycle, right?
The thing with 2 pedals and a chain, and about 4 cables, being more likely to break than a car?
Really?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 06 2017, @12:17AM (3 children)
Because I bike in the winter, I need a new chain every year. How often do you replace the timing chain on your car?
But yes, new chain is like $12.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bob_super on Friday October 06 2017, @12:33AM
That $70 bike I have (cheapest at Target) is 13 years old, spends a few miles on the dirt/gravel/rocks paths more weekends than it doesn't, and still has every single original part on it, despite a few spectacular flights over the handlebars.
How many miles a year do you bike to have maintenance costs that could even be noticeable compared to the insurance/license/oil/breakdowns of a car?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 06 2017, @02:54AM (1 child)
Details?
Are you riding in snow-salt slush?
Do you not keep the thing greased?
How many thousands of miles do you put on the thing a year?
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 06 2017, @04:31AM
Snow-salt slush for probably 4 months of the year. about 2400km/year.
I do try to keep it clean/oiled. Have been thinking of installing a chain guard (I have heard a totally enclosed drive-train helps).
(Score: 1) by toddestan on Saturday October 07 2017, @05:43AM
Actually, my bikes require a fair amount of tinkering to keep them in good working order. On the other hand, the appliance-like car is basically turn the key and go. As such, it does seem that the bicycle requires a disproportionate amount of maintenance for how simple it is. Even more so when you consider miles traveled.
On the other hand, a moderately expensive car repair would buy me a pretty decent new bicycle.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 06 2017, @12:09AM
Eh, bikes are very cheap on maintenance, doubly so if you can do a few simple bits yourself. The calorie requirement is much cheaper than the fuel requirement. Your conservative estimate is ridiculously too high! But all points are well taken.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 06 2017, @12:18AM (2 children)
Just lower your exercise budget (no gym, no jog) and keep your American diet intact.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kazzie on Friday October 06 2017, @10:53AM (1 child)
But my cycling budget is my exercise budget!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 06 2017, @05:40PM
That's what I mean. No exercise other than cycling, and certainly no paying for a gym membership like millions of Americans do.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Friday October 06 2017, @04:26AM (2 children)
Biking also saves on fuel costs, but raises your food budget.
It might increase your food costs a bit, but it'll save you a fortune on your health bills, long term.
(Score: 1, Troll) by bob_super on Friday October 06 2017, @03:27PM (1 child)
Especially if you do it on US roads. You may never had time to get a health bill, before your family goes casket-shopping.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday October 06 2017, @05:31PM
Why is this modded troll? In many parts of the US, it's absolutely true: many US drivers will intentionally run cyclists off the road and try to kill them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 06 2017, @11:27PM
As long as we have our priorities straight! [bbc.co.uk]