beatlejuice
Gently does it...
- Location
- Mid Hampshire
In this weeks Hampshire Chronicle the following letter appeared:
SIR—Whilst crawling in another eight-car queue behind a cyclist a few days ago on the notorious Hursley Road stretch leading off the Romsey Road, I was reminded of my contribution a few years ago to an office blog on cycling.
Assuming every car had to slow down from 40mph to a generous 20mph— and at the end speed up again—they all use extra fuel, the volume of which can be estimated based on average vehicle weight and, the energy contained in a litre of fuel
However, just calculating the volume does not immediately give a feel for the environmental impact of the lone cyclist. Another way of looking at this issue is to consider a cyclist undertaking a one-mile commute to work and during this trip holds up, say, about 10 cars. In this case, the equivalent mpg caused by the cyclist is around 40mpg.
The big difference is that the cost falls on the hapless motorists, while the cyclist feeling self-satisfied about his green credentials, but blithely unaware of his reflected greenhouse gas emissions.
You can argue the figure sup or down, but the impact is certainly not zero, and, if a couple of 44 tonne, 60mph trucks are similarly delayed, this notional bicycle fuel consumption falls right down to less than 3mpg!
This is not just an opinion, theory, or anti-cyclist rant that routinely graces the Chronicle letters page, but simply a calculation. It shows that even the most apparently green mode of transport has an environmental impact
I'm fully in favour of responsible , cyclists and even more of an
expansion of off-road cycle/footpaths. A good start would be to get some permitted paths along the Romsey Road, above the notorious section of the Hursley Road.
Dr Robin Davey,
Beechwood Crescent, Chandler's Ford.
So global warming is our fault all a long!
SIR—Whilst crawling in another eight-car queue behind a cyclist a few days ago on the notorious Hursley Road stretch leading off the Romsey Road, I was reminded of my contribution a few years ago to an office blog on cycling.
Assuming every car had to slow down from 40mph to a generous 20mph— and at the end speed up again—they all use extra fuel, the volume of which can be estimated based on average vehicle weight and, the energy contained in a litre of fuel
However, just calculating the volume does not immediately give a feel for the environmental impact of the lone cyclist. Another way of looking at this issue is to consider a cyclist undertaking a one-mile commute to work and during this trip holds up, say, about 10 cars. In this case, the equivalent mpg caused by the cyclist is around 40mpg.
The big difference is that the cost falls on the hapless motorists, while the cyclist feeling self-satisfied about his green credentials, but blithely unaware of his reflected greenhouse gas emissions.
You can argue the figure sup or down, but the impact is certainly not zero, and, if a couple of 44 tonne, 60mph trucks are similarly delayed, this notional bicycle fuel consumption falls right down to less than 3mpg!
This is not just an opinion, theory, or anti-cyclist rant that routinely graces the Chronicle letters page, but simply a calculation. It shows that even the most apparently green mode of transport has an environmental impact
I'm fully in favour of responsible , cyclists and even more of an
expansion of off-road cycle/footpaths. A good start would be to get some permitted paths along the Romsey Road, above the notorious section of the Hursley Road.
Dr Robin Davey,
Beechwood Crescent, Chandler's Ford.
So global warming is our fault all a long!
