you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 55 points 6 months ago (15 children)

A car runs on money and makes you fat.

A bike runs on fat and saves you money.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 6 months ago (8 children)

    The saving money part might be not completely true

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    It's definitely possible to spend a lot on your bicycle but it is almost certainly cheaper than using and maintaining a car

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 6 months ago

    Even the higher-price mid-range bikes are way cheaper than the cheapest cars, and there's a lot on the bike that you can just do yourself instead of relying on a mechanic, most parts are cheaper as well, lots of bikes allow more personalization...

    Bikes are the paragon of freedom Anericans think cars are.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    In cities bikes are often faster than cars. They don't get stuck in traffic and you don't have to worry about parking. On longer distances this goes away, but short urban trips are no brainers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    Depends on the city. And the definition of city.
    My city used to be a "bicycle city" before it was cool, but nowadays cars have taken over the roads and the bike infrastructure that's been created sucks, when I worked just 6km from home, car was faster even in rush hour traffic. Now work is outside the city and the bike is simply too impractical, it takes too much time and it's dangerous.
    I have fond memories of working and living in the country side and going to work on my MTB through tree plantations, but alas, that's in the past.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    How does this have so many upvotes? As long as it's actually possible to ride your bike in your city, the cost of buying and then maintaining a bicycle is WAY, WAY, cheaper than a car

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -22 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    Good thing they are free! Wait...they aren't? And they run on fossil fuel tires?? Oops.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    You actually can get bikes for free pretty often, especially if you've got the ability to turn a wrench.

    And while modern tires probably do incorporate some fossil 'fuels' (technically not fossil fuel if you're not burning it, by the way), they don't have to. Old school tires are made from vulcanized rubber, which can be made by reacting natural rubber from a rubber tree with sulfuric acid and heat. No fossil 'fuels' involved.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago

    Bike tires don't usually weigh more than 300g.

    Car tires usually weigh more than 7kg and you need 4 instead of two.

    The only slightest bit of an argument here could be for trains.

    I also need maybe 5 specialised tools to service my bike (which is veeeery easy to do compared to doing it on a car) and those tools together cost less than 200€. Then I spend around 200€ a year or less on parts to service my bike, and I use it to go to work every day.

    My car is sooooo much more expensive than that, even though I do most stuff myself.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago

    Bicycles have less mass than a car and therefore need less fossil fuel for their tires. Bicycles are objectively cheaper to buy, maintain, and run than a car, even if you go for the average expensive bicycle and the average cheap car. There just is no way to make the car come out on top when it's about costs.

  • source
  • parent