It depends. Expended energy/m is higher but space usage is much lower. For walking you arguably don't even need a paved path while (non-sport) cycling needs a somewhat even surface and places to store and lock the bike. It's not nearly as bad as with cars but even with cycling, space usage can become an issue in very densely populated areas; the Dutch don't build massive bike garages because it's cool (okay, maybe also a little of that) but because it's a necessity.
If it's near enough to walk, it's usually better to just walk.
The bike's production has a non-zero carbon footprint. A very small footprint, but one that is there nonetheless. The carbon footprint of walking is negligible in comparison.
Shoe production has a non-zero carbon footprint, especially with the vast majority of shoes being a "single use" product (i.e. not resoleable) and with a very limited amount of miles
Debatable, and largely depends on a person's diet and some other factors like how much travel is getting done. If someone is fueling their biking (or walking) by flying in beef from the other side of the world, I think it is pretty safe to say that their carbon footprint is worse than a typical gas car, (because air travel and beef are just that bad) or if not that at least an electric car from renewables and ethically sourced materials. For everything else in between, we'd just be speculating and we'd have to factor in source and type of car fuel, and the source and type of additional food consumed by a cyclist where that "additional food" line lies exactly.
Controlling for diet, distance and purpose of travel, I think cycling virtually always wins over walking.
Bikes are actually greener than walking, because if you need to move, they allow you to have a greater daily range for a not much higher footprint (more efficient and 3 times faster).
It's also really green if you die riding one in places where it's completely unsafe to ride one like where I live. You eliminate your carbon footprint completely!
I unironically want to see bicycle infantry back.
Would also be a nice thing to have for the individual soldier, as time in the open is far more dangerous than being hidden or in a fortified position.
Is c level a motorcycle or an e-bike? I've never seen an icon for an e-bike before, and if it is, I am loving the conciseness of the design. If not, there's no way a motorcycle is better than a line bus right?
Just a bonus note from a Dutch guy, the text just below say lekker blijven likken, or: 'just keep on licking'.
Edit: I mean for the environment, I'm sure mopeds are better than trams in other ways - like for doing tricks and making quick runs to the supermarket to get bread and milk
I read that as an electric bike originally but now I wonder if you're right. Mopeds are definitely better than cars but I doubt they're better than trams.
I wouldn't say Mopeds are "definitely better" than cars. Theyre only designed to carry one or two people.Their engines generally aren't as efficient as those in cars. A moped carrying one person is definitely better than a car with only one person in it, but if the car is full, then it might be the better choice.
A sticker attached to a pole with a QR code in the top right corner. Down the left side are the letters A to G on coloured tags with arrow-angled right ends, and under G a black coloured tag with HELL written on it, in the style of the European Union's energy efficiency labels found on appliances. Each tag ranges in colour from dark green to red and increases in size the further down it goes. Each arrow end indicates a different silhouette.
The A tag is dark green and very short, the arrow end points towards the silhouette of a walking stick figure.
The B tag is a slightly lighter green than A and slightly longer, the arrow end points towards the silhouette of a bicycle.
The C tag is light green and slightly longer than B, the arrow end points towards the silhouette of an moped.
The D tag is yellow and slightly longer than C, the arrow end points towards the silhouette of a subway train.
The E tag is orange and slightly longer than D, the arrow end points towards the silhouette of a car.
The F tag is orange-red and slightly longer than E, the arrow end points towards the silhouette of a yacht.
The G tag is red and the length increase from F is almost triple that of previous length increases, the arrow end points towards the silhouette of an airplane.
The HELL tag is black and longer than G, the arrow end points towards the silhouette of a tank.
[I am a human, if I’ve made a mistake please let me know. Please consider providing alt-text for ease of use. Thank you. 💜]
The only subtle detailed you missed, which is not surprise, is that Sweden and Norway (not sure which if the other skandies, maybe this is a EU thing, hm) use those letters, with those colors, and those arrows to indicate energy efficiency rating. So, it could be a nudge at the relationship between reducing emissions or suffer consequences of global warming, which will eventually lead to famine and war.
Actually, serious question: How do most of you feel about car sports? Like if we managed to get a world where cars are not a necessity would vehicular sporting events also be purged? I'm not much of a race fan, but demolition derby and monster truck shows are fun.
The community is, I believe, about eliminating car dependency. Basically, it would be an ideal world if you don't even have to consider owning a car to participate in society. Car racing is like the difference between mountain biking and riding a bike around for your commute. There are worse practices than racing cars.
Nah dude, care can be really cool toys! I fully support Nascar, demolition derbys, monster trush shows, old car collecting, etc.
I just don't want cars to be the main way to go places, let alone the only one as it is in many places! It is bad economically, it is bad for people's health, and it is bad for the environment. Using cars for entertainment though really isn't an issue, nor is using them in situations where the alternatives don't work as well.
In real life, the system is screwed, and vehicles are not measured just by their energy consumption, but by their energy consumption compared to other vehicles of similar weight, so in the end there are heavy SUVs with much better ratings than compact cars.
Weird that the longer bars are worse. It's a cognitive flip, even if what it may represent (carbon footprint, maybe? Fossil fuel expenditure?) is growing with the lower tiers. Oh, and whoever made the poster missed the fantastic opportunity to use Heil! instead of hell.
The design of the bars is borrowed from the European energy efficiency labels for electronics. On those labels, longer bars mean higher energy consumption. So it's probably meant to reptesent either fuel use or general environmental impact here.
Mate you ever rowed a boat? That shit is hard work, it goes below the bike for sure
Of course, the pedalo manages to combine the worst of both worlds and seems to exist solely as a way to work your quads out without looking like you're doing a gym session
If you have good balance, I think paddle boards are more efficient than a kayak, assuming your not carrying a load. You can put your whole body into the stroke. Kayaking destroys my shoulders