• Atemu@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

    • ntzm [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      More people are happy to walk than bike, and getting hit by a bike is worse than getting walked into by another person

    • NateNate60@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

        • astraeus@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

            • astraeus@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                You could blame that on car-dependency

                I don’t blame that on anything but capitalism.

          • biddy@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • panda_paddle@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • biddy@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Idk man, some people wear high heels. $10 shoes can’t be worse than that.

      • MrFunnyMoustache@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Considering the energy efficiency of cycling being much higher than walking, it more than makes up for it.

      • Uranium3006@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

      • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.