Bicycle road wear vs car wear (help)



Maq Dreqan

New Member
Dec 30, 2003
22
0
0
42
I'm having a long term heated discussion with an anti-biker group here in Iowa, and I'm trying to fine facts and figures showing that bikes cause less damage to roads than cars. I know it's common sense, but does anyone have a way I can prove this to these people? They're very stubborn.
 

stevek

New Member
Sep 27, 2003
369
0
0
Originally posted by Maq Dreqan
I'm having a long term heated discussion with an anti-biker group here in Iowa, and I'm trying to fine facts and figures showing that bikes cause less damage to roads than cars. I know it's common sense, but does anyone have a way I can prove this to these people? They're very stubborn.
you can't prove it to them. they don't want it proven so no matter what you say it won't take. any idiot can see a car will damage it more then any bicycle. they are just acting stupid.
if someone doesn to want to have their mind changed seldom can you change it.
 

Lab_Rat

New Member
May 3, 2002
211
0
0
Don't forget to refer to the motorists' divine right bestowed upon them by the licence payment. Actually, I've always wondered. . .

Is the right to use the road dependant on weight/size of vehicle, or speed?

If by weight, (cyclists are light weight and therefore motor vehicles have the right of way) does this mean that horse and trailer vehicles therefore have the ultimate right of way?

Or if by speed? Does that then imply that motorcycles and supercars have the ultimate right of way?

Either way, I don't understand where motorists believe that they own the roads? Anyway you look at it, car drivers are placed squarely between somewhere and no-where in the greater scheme of things. Someone else will always have more right to the road than a car driver, no matter which way you look at it. But of course, their basis is always. . . me, me, me.
 

rek

New Member
Aug 31, 2002
1,190
0
0
41
When was the last time you saw a paved bike path that degenerated due to bicycle use, rather than tree roots pushing the ashphalt off the ground?

There's your answer..
 

Maq Dreqan

New Member
Dec 30, 2003
22
0
0
42
As far as legal road use, here in Iowa roads are paid for mostly by property taxes. Bikes and cars have equal legal standing on the roads.
 

Kona_Blue

New Member
Jan 19, 2004
85
0
0
54
You could ask them whether they feel that a truck causes more damage to the road surface than a car. The roads are full of examples where the tar has been squashed into a rut because of the weight of a truck. A fully laden semi weighing some 30,000kgs is 22X heavier than my car. In turn I'm 14X lighter than my car or 285X lighter than the truck. Using this rationale alone, bikes cause considerably less damage than cars. You could also state that most cyclists would be tax payers and car drivers and therefore pay for the roads already in income tax, state tax and petrol excise, so you have exactly the sames rights to use the road as anyone else.
 

jhuskey

Moderator
Oct 6, 2003
10,606
676
113
If they mean that a cyclist causes more damage as a result of negligently hitting the pavement after being hit by a car ,with all that blood and debris that they selfishly leave behind, I would agree that bikes cause more damage. And to settle another question I don't own or control all roads,just the one I happen to be on at a given moment.
 

lumpy

New Member
Oct 22, 2003
513
2
0
Originally posted by Maq Dreqan
I'm having a long term heated discussion with an anti-biker group here in Iowa, and I'm trying to fine facts and figures showing that bikes cause less damage to roads than cars. I know it's common sense, but does anyone have a way I can prove this to these people? They're very stubborn.

You can't have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

Tim
 

ManitouSHX

New Member
Mar 1, 2004
31
0
0
37
I just don't even see how it is possible to think that I bike does more damage than a car does. Those people must be pretty dang thick. I mean, we're talking like 120-300lbs. at most of rider and bike compared to anywhere from 3,000lbs to a ton with vehicles that exert several times the stress on the street than I bike does. Bikes tread lightly compared to motorized vehicles w/ all their torqe and weight they possess.
 

serenaslu

New Member
Feb 3, 2004
564
2
0
Originally posted by Maq Dreqan
I'm having a long term heated discussion with an anti-biker group here in Iowa, and I'm trying to fine facts and figures showing that bikes cause less damage to roads than cars. I know it's common sense, but does anyone have a way I can prove this to these people? They're very stubborn.

The Federal Highway Adminstration has a research facility at

http://www.tfhrc.gov

that has tons of information on road wear, vehicle weight etc.
As several people have pointed out, however, this sounds like a situation where if the opposition are incapable of being honest with themselves, no amount of data is going to matter.
 

JohnO

New Member
Jul 5, 2003
1,495
0
0
Probably so, but still....

vehicles tend to leak liquids on the pavement. OK, a cyclist can leak liquids on the pavement, but the stuff evaporates quickly, and usually isn't black and slick. If it is, they need to get to a doctor quickly.
 

Maq Dreqan

New Member
Dec 30, 2003
22
0
0
42
Their main argument is that a bike's load distribution (tire size) creates more psi than than a cars.
 

stevek

New Member
Sep 27, 2003
369
0
0
Originally posted by Maq Dreqan
Their main argument is that a bike's load distribution (tire size) creates more psi than than a cars.
yes Ibet thats true but since bikes don't cover the roads do we really think it matters? it's a pretty stupid argument and one you best just avoid or tell them they are idiots. are they fat lazy slobs or becoming that way?
 

serenaslu

New Member
Feb 3, 2004
564
2
0
Originally posted by Maq Dreqan
Their main argument is that a bike's load distribution (tire size) creates more psi than than a cars.

Hmm..... An M1A1 Abrams main battle tank only produces 13.8 psi, but I am fairly confident that I would rather be run over by even the extremely narrow and nasty 700x18c tire! I'm also fairly sure that I would not have to think hard about which one I would rather have run across my driveway!!:rolleyes:
 

Kona_Blue

New Member
Jan 19, 2004
85
0
0
54
Originally posted by serenaslu
Hmm..... An M1A1 Abrams main battle tank only produces 13.8 psi, but I am fairly confident that I would rather be run over by even the extremely narrow and nasty 700x18c tire! I'm also fairly sure that I would not have to think hard about which one I would rather have run across my driveway!!:rolleyes:
That's a beauty. I'll need to remember that one.
Are these the type Australia recently bought used from the US ?
 

Swoop

New Member
Feb 13, 2004
52
0
0
What about the fact that far fewer bikers use a road as compared to cars? I am sure you are trying to make it safer and better so that more bikers can use the roads, which would be sort of against your points...but still just a thought.
 

less'go

New Member
Sep 11, 2003
749
4
0
53
Well, now, I'd say why on earth, Lumpy, my friend, are you wasting your precious time arguing with a bunch of cretins? Is it too cold to ride where you are, because otherwise i can't see you getting sucked into such an innane (sp?) debate.

What causes more wear and tear on your foot? On a wad of play-doh or silly putty? On a newspaper? On a porcelain plate? Which distorts (obliterates) these items more? A car or a bike? These people are knotheads.

As my Dad would ask before formulating his official opinion on any situation, is there alcohol involved? Meaning durin this on-going debate (ie does it tend to take place after consumption of tasty beverage?).

Experience shows the answer to this question will tell you most of what you need to know.

They're idiots, spring is almost here, you'll forget this very soon, you'll be back in the saddle again...

Sara
 

Susan Repp

New Member
Oct 16, 2003
468
2
0
63
How about doing a "dummy" test on this plonker???????? You could test body destruction based on what my teeny, weeny tyre would do vs .. say .. a semi?!!!!!!!!!! Mmmmmmmmmmmm cannot fathom what the conclusion would be!
 

EoinC

New Member
Feb 9, 2004
1,615
2
0
Originally posted by Susan Repp
How about doing a "dummy" test on this plonker???????? You could test body destruction based on what my teeny, weeny tyre would do vs .. say .. a semi?!!!!!!!!!! Mmmmmmmmmmmm cannot fathom what the conclusion would be!
In terms of road surface damage, it is a result partially dependent upon a combination of the psi loading (in which case a bicycle is high, having a very small footprint) and the impacting force (in which case a bicycle is low, having a small moving mass).
There are many other forces in play - a loaded truck tyre induces relatively high shearing forces with the deformation it goes through between its onset and release of contact.
What is far more important than the difference between the various forms of vehicles is the constuction and design of the road itself. If the base materials are not poperly supported and compacted, or have void spaces in their matrix, they can undergo liquification and will no longer support the sealing surface. This is particularly likely if the sealing surface itself does not perform its function of sealing (who would have thought of that) and distrubuting the loads through either compressive strength (as with concrete) or a degree of elasticity (as with ashphalt). The scientific term for this damage is pothole (from the Latin - "Holus Potus" - meaning the pot delivered by the Gods - see if they'll believe that one).
If this esteemed bunch are concerned about the state of the roads, they should focus on the designs and their implimentation, rather than the vehicles that travel along them, as even the humble rain drop can destroy a poorly designed or executed roadway.
I guess they're right though, bikes are a curse.
Is it Beer-O'Clock yet?

Eoin
 

Similar threads