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.
There may also be an argument for how much engergy the human is expending, if they will need to eat more to compensate for it. What is the impact of a human eating 20% more food, or whatever it may be. But this is really splitting hairs.
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
Not all shoes are so limited, you can buy shoes that have plenty of lifespan such as Brooks running shoes. I’ve put hundreds of miles on mine and they’re still in good shape. That being said with planned obsolescence and cheap manufacturing for fast turnover being prioritized, we end up with less reliable shoes.
Hundreds of miles? I’ve walked/run hundreds of miles on my ~$10usd shoes and they’re still holding together. I would expect a expensive pair to manage thousands or ten-thousands of miles.
And hundreds of miles, before you throw away a pair of shoes, my… Look, that might mean much to a Northern American who drives everywhere.
“Hundreds of miles” is what I actually run each year, and then I get lots of hiking and just walking around on top of that. I guess I can measure my Redwings and Hanwag in tens of thousands kilometers each, and my Lundhags I could pass down if I had kids.
I’m not sure I was disagreeing with you in the previous statement. I haven’t thrown my shoes I’ve only put hundreds of miles on yet.
My point is that it isn’t exactly easy to find good shoes unless you invest a lot of money into them, especially in North America since we’re specifying locales. Most stores, even specialty stores, don’t carry custom-made or handmade shoes that are re-soleable. You could blame that on car-dependency, but it’s more likely due to an overall lack of understanding why one would need shoes that last much longer. People spend their money on cheaper, shorter-life shoes because they don’t have that much money to begin with.
I’m not sure I was disagreeing with you in the previous statement
Then don’t repeat things I explicitly mentioned, as if I said something else?
Also get better examples. Brooks break down as easy as Asics, Saucony, whatever. They are exactly the “single use” product I spoke about, making the shoe and clothing industry in general highly non carbon neutral, which was my point.
it isn’t exactly easy to find good shoes unless you invest a lot of money into them
Yes, it’s called the Sam Vimes “Boots” theory of socioeconomic unfairness.
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.
Is walking better than biking? As I understand biking’s more efficient.
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.
More people are happy to walk than bike, and getting hit by a bike is worse than getting walked into by another person
I guess it is because of the tires
I feel like the amount of wear I put on my shoes by walking a certain distance is higher than the wear on my tires when I bike that same distance
Is it though? Time for science, it’s the only way to tell for sure!
I put about 2000 miles on my boots before they need replacing. They cost around 200usd.
I’m pretty sure my tires last twice as long at least
Time to walk using tires instead of shoes.
Well, you can buy sandals made from repurposed, used tires.
There may also be an argument for how much engergy the human is expending, if they will need to eat more to compensate for it. What is the impact of a human eating 20% more food, or whatever it may be. But this is really splitting hairs.
Save mother Gaia, go barefoot as goddess intended.
Walking is better because if you can walk it means stuff is close to you.
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
I’m surprised by how fast I wear holes in my shoes from walking.
Not all shoes are so limited, you can buy shoes that have plenty of lifespan such as Brooks running shoes. I’ve put hundreds of miles on mine and they’re still in good shape. That being said with planned obsolescence and cheap manufacturing for fast turnover being prioritized, we end up with less reliable shoes.
Hundreds of miles? I’ve walked/run hundreds of miles on my ~$10usd shoes and they’re still holding together. I would expect a expensive pair to manage thousands or ten-thousands of miles.
You have also probably done irreparable damage to your feet, ankles and knees with those $10 shoes that will become apparent as you age.
Dont.Buy.Cheap.Shoes.
Idk man, some people wear high heels. $10 shoes can’t be worse than that.
That’s why I wrote “the vast majority”??
And hundreds of miles, before you throw away a pair of shoes, my… Look, that might mean much to a Northern American who drives everywhere.
“Hundreds of miles” is what I actually run each year, and then I get lots of hiking and just walking around on top of that. I guess I can measure my Redwings and Hanwag in tens of thousands kilometers each, and my Lundhags I could pass down if I had kids.
I’m not sure I was disagreeing with you in the previous statement. I haven’t thrown my shoes I’ve only put hundreds of miles on yet.
My point is that it isn’t exactly easy to find good shoes unless you invest a lot of money into them, especially in North America since we’re specifying locales. Most stores, even specialty stores, don’t carry custom-made or handmade shoes that are re-soleable. You could blame that on car-dependency, but it’s more likely due to an overall lack of understanding why one would need shoes that last much longer. People spend their money on cheaper, shorter-life shoes because they don’t have that much money to begin with.
Then don’t repeat things I explicitly mentioned, as if I said something else?
Also get better examples. Brooks break down as easy as Asics, Saucony, whatever. They are exactly the “single use” product I spoke about, making the shoe and clothing industry in general highly non carbon neutral, which was my point.
Yes, it’s called the Sam Vimes “Boots” theory of socioeconomic unfairness.
I don’t blame that on anything but capitalism.
Considering the energy efficiency of cycling being much higher than walking, it more than makes up for it.
this is true, although they all round down to 0 when compared to car travel so past a certain point we don’t have to worry about it
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.