Tim Grahl at Commute by Bike reports on another commuter challenge where—once again—the bike shows itself to be at least as fast as the motorised alternatives over a 4 mile (≅6.5 km) route. Yay for the bike.
But he then goes on to ask a really good question:
I wonder how much this matters to your average commuter? I would say that most bike commuters have a trip over four miles and it takes them longer than it would in a car. At least 19 out of 20 days that I commute I'm slower than if I drove.
Indeed. I do enjoy seeing the bike victorious, but I don't think such stunts are particularly informative or more than the bit of fun that they are. Like many other bike commuters, all I'm really concerned about is that my travel time is roughly equivalent to the next least-worst alternative—which I've proved for my route. But I am mindful that if my commute were much longer than it is, it would almost always take longer for me to get to the salt mine than by some other means.
The thought of all the cars and buses that one will leave behind is not what gets a cycling commuter out of bed and onto his or her bike of a morning. That doesn't stop us enjoying the moment when we go cruising past gridlock, but it's not a prime motivator.
Tim is concerned about promoting a false expectation to new commuters that cycling is faster than driving. While I agree, I'm not sure that's really much of a concern. It would take an awful lot of credulity to believe that bikes are always faster than cars. Of course, travel time is going to be a concern to those considering bike commuting but they've got to weigh that up as part of their overall day, not as a side-by-side comparison with commuting by other means.
Ultimately, these commuter challenge stunts aren't as much about showcasing the supremacy of bike transport, than they are about demonstrating exactly how bad traffic congestion has become in our modern cities (and given those circumstances, the bike is often a viable option). But in the end, a commuter challenge isn't much more than an amusing diversion.
Well for me travelling the 15k by bike, car or public transport is fairly similar on a typical day. However, when I cycle, I take about 40 minutes every time. Public transport is fraught with timetables, late and cancelled trains and overcrowding, meaning it often takes longer. Car travel is restricted by congestion – the push that finally convinced me to commute by bike everyday was when collisions on the Tullamaring and in Flemington backed up (4+ wheeled) traffic for tens of kilometres.
So cycling has much less variability, and for me, I am much more in control of when I arrive at the other end.
At the time I leave the house, car would be faster than bike, train slower. But car is just daft, I'd have to pay a day for parking and 0 a week for fuel. That's nearly a hundred bucks a week! Madness! Train costs 6something a week, and takes 45 minutes door to door if the trains are running properly.
Bike takes 30-35 mins door to door, and I'm saving money and gym fees, getting an hour's good exercise every day of the working week. Brilliant!
So I take it that most people agree: being faster than other transport modes isn't all that important, it's just a side-effect.
jimmay's point is a good one: when cycling your travel time is almost entirely up to you—you're independent. But commute any other way and you're subject to the vagaries.
when cycling your travel time is almost entirely up to you—you're independent
It's certainly one of the selling points for me. Not only can I leave when I want, unlike the bus, but I'm also always guaranteed a seat!
Very well put lelak—I shall use that line, I think.
Also the time spent commuting is not 'dead' time - ie you're geting to work, but you're also getting your daily exercise at the same time. Mutlitasking! You don't need to schedule an EXTRA hour or so a day to go to the gym.... add that hour of gym time on to your average 10-15km commute by anything other than a treadly and suddenly the bike IS faster!!
Well it makes sense to me anyways.... ;)
Well, I reckon it makes sense to plenty of bike commuters too. In fact, that's exactly the sort of thing I was thinking about when I said that you've got to weigh-up time spent commuting as part of your overall day. There's the physical exercise as well as the mental recharge—if not bike commuting you would have to find time in another part of the day or skip those benefits altogether.
Comments
Your last paragraph pretty much sums it all up. These "challenges" come up every so often, but most people just see it as another way to argue for more roads (i.e. "we must have really bad traffic if a bike is faster than my car"). Those of us who regularly ride in traffic get to observe the relative speeds everyday, and know for a fact what they are. I have to admit that being faster than the cars on Bundall road more often than not is something I enjoy.
In the end, however, people who don't want to ride to work can find plenty of other excuses (i.e. "it isn't safe", or "my hair will get messed up"). Most of my coworkers, for example, know that my travel times are less than theirs, but I don't see any of them turning up on a bike, and if they did, I'd probably lose some of my advantage. Consequently, I'm happy to just enjoy the savings in time, money and convenience that cycling provides, and let everyone else keep driving.