I wrote earlier about an extraordinarily biased survey conducted by Spiked where they asked scientists what they would teach the world about science if they could pick just one thing. I just noticed
this gem of an answer by Stanley Feldman:
I would also teach the world that energy used is proportional to mass times distance. Over a mile, a heavy train coach will use more energy than a light coach. A bus is not necessarily more efficient than a car, unless there is only one passenger in the car and the bus is full. A bicycle is less efficient than walking, as it increases the mass to be transported over any given distance.
Yes, the most important scientific truth he wants to teach the world is that "A bicycle is less efficient than walking". A bicycle is less efficient than walking. I suppose it is possible to believe this supremely important scientific truth if you never bothered to look up an actual comparison between cycling and walking and had never ridden a bicycle or seen someone riding a bicycle or seen a picture of someone riding a bicycle or felt that the invention of the wheel was somehow useful. It seems that it doesn't matter how stupid a claim is -- as long as it is anti-Green, Spiked will publish it.
(For those interested in actual figures: cycling is about four times as energy efficient as walking.)
Update: Harry Brighouse writes about the history of Spiked --- it seems they started as the Revolutionary Communist Party!
Of course, in a full analysis you have to count the energy cost of buiding roads unless you have a mountain bike.....:)
So all those guys in the Tour de France could have beaten Lance Armstrong if they'd just had the sense to get off and walk.
Even if you've got a mountain bike, what about the energy it took to create the bike? I'm not sure /my/ mountain bike has recouped its energy investment... :-)
Then again, I'm sure my rollerblades have, and they have positive mass.
True, although road damage goes as the fourth power of the weight of the vehicle: ie Lorries do pretty much all the road damage, with cars doing some of it by dint of weight of numbers.
If you only had to build roads for bycycles they would be far less energy intensive to build than current roads are.
OK, so they haven't figured out the concept of the wheel yet. That doesn't mean they're not good people, way deep down inside. It just means they shouldn't be running things.
Just FYI, Spiked! is the successor of the late and unlamented LM, formerly "Living Marxism", the publication of the nutty UK group the "Revolutionary Marxist Party". LM got shut down after accusing the UK Broadcaster ITN of fabricating footage of Serbian concentration camps during the Bosnian war; they lost the resulting libel suit. They're pretty repulsive, all told; their ideology was a weird mix of the worst aspects of libertarianism and trotskyism; their great guru was a guy called Frank Furedi (a sociologist who did some profoundly derivative work on - one could easily provoke an RCPer/LMer to a frothing rage by ). I think they thought that they could recruit libertarians by trying to convince them that true liberty would only be possible after the Wurkerz revolution.
LM/RCP were the best looking of the UK trot sects in the 1980s/1990s, as they wanted to use, umm, "horizontal recruitment" to grow their numbers - rumor was they gave new recruits an allowance for a decent haircut and clothes to spiffy themselves up.
LM, as well as being a propaganda rag, also helped launch the media careers of several former Trots. The Economist Intelligence Unit was packed with them at one time.
The editor of LM, Mick Hume, now editor of Spiked, stated flat out in the early 1990s that he thought of himself as a propagandist. Not much has changed.
There are some thoughtful comments above (cost of fabricating the bicycle, cost of paving) but they have to do with a different (if related and interesting) argument.
Sounds like Feldman could use a refresher course on the simple machines.
How come nobody has mentioned yet that the initial statement is untrue? Energy used is not proportional to mass times distance. There may be some circumstances where that's a good approximation, but in general it's not true or even particularly close to being true.
You might also be interested in this profile of Spiked:
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=124
Compare with their mission statement (and laugh):
http://www.spiked-online.com/Sections/central/About/Index.htm
Anyway, Spiked is bad, bad, bad science. They have a massive pro-business bias basically, which leads to some real crap about GM, climate change etc. etc. I, too, would not be surprised by them backing ID soon.
As for this bike v. walking thing. Well, yes, roads and making bikes do take energy. But that's a) not the reason the "scientist" gives, and b) do you really want to live a would where the fastest way to travel is to walk?
Does anyone know any figures for efficiency at speed: i.e. I would guess that a bike is WAY more efficient than running, say.
pps: I see that Stanley Feldman is actually a massive moron. Quote from a review on Amazon:
"You will be relieved but possibly surprised to learn that, for instance, 'passive smoking' can do you no harm at all. The food you eat does not affect the amount of cholestorel in your blood, and the cholestorel level in your blood does not affect your health in any case. Organic food is no better for you than the regular kind. Salt does not raise your blood pressure. There is no such thing as junk food, if it's food then it's not junk, and if it's junk then it's not food, it's as simple as that. A BigMac is just as nourishing as a pre-packed salad, and contains no more fat. Sunbathing is not dangerous, in fact it can be beneficial, you need the vitamin D in sunshine."
Well, if you're walking your bike it's less efficient than walking without a bike, on account of of all that extra mass. (Unless, maybe, you cheat by leaning on the bike.)
I'll admit that doesn't sound very practical, but I have a suggestion that is not only practical but entertaining for all, and what's more, applicable in all transportation media from walking to flying the Space Shuttle: when traveling, lessen the mass to be transported by taking all your clothes off.
Well, energy is proportional to mass times distance, assuming you are walking straight up the side of a building. I figure that must be what he was talking about, given everything else about the logic involved.
How come nobody has mentioned yet that the initial statement is untrue? Energy used is not proportional to mass times distance.
Well, it depends upon whether she has small mass and is clad in bike shorts - I'll use more energy to divide the distance. :o)
Tim,
Who is stupider:
Emeritus professor Philip Stott from the University of London or Emeritus professor Stanley Feldman from Imperial College in London?
To bad Irwin Corry is dead.