> Well, what's stopping you from e.g. lugging the groceries back on a bike instead and going twice a week to carry less each time
Taking trips to get groceries isn't a benefit but a cost.
I get that you like to go to grocery and other stores often, that you like spending time going to/from stores. Lots of people don't.
> How many times have you hopped into the car to go to the store and grab one thing? Probably a lot in your life.
As a fraction of my total trips, almost never, but when I did, it was urgent to me. What's your basis for asserting otherwise?
And you'd have me do without or get on a bike late at night or in bad weather to handle those situations.
BTW - the share of trips by length graph shows that <1 mile trips are a small fraction of total car miles/use a very small fraction of the total gas use.
I suppose that it's poor form to mention that, since you wanted to use resource savings to justify imposing your dislike of cars on others.
I'll elaborate.
One 100 mile trip uses the same gas as two 50 mile trips, so unless you make >2x as many 50 mile trips as 100 mile trips, you use more gas on 100 mile trips than 50 mile trips even if you make more 50 mile trips than 100 mile trips.
Even without doing arithmetic, it's obvious that there's more gas used in 10-25 mile trips (14% of trips) than 5-10 (15% of trips) and more in 5-10 than 3-5 (12% of trips). (It's not clear whether there's more gas used in 25-50 than in 10-25, but it's almost a lock that there's more gas used in >50 mile trips than 25-50.)
That exercise using your data shows that the <1 mile trips are a small fraction of total car miles and gas use.
But, like I said, usage arithmetic doesn't help your argument.
I don't think that workout is so obvious when you consider other factors such as city versus highway driving. For example, I'd expect with a given short trip to the store, a higher ratio of your nominal time in the vehicle will be spent idling at a red light or otherwise low speed maneuvering the car, versus actually traveling at speed. I wonder what mpg people actually are clocking when they are going to a store across the block? I expect its nowhere near even the epa city rating.
Plus there is just the physics of it all. What costs more energy, moving 4000lbs and 150lbs of human 1 mile, or moving 25lbs and 150lbs of human 1 mile? The latter, obviously. Can't arithmetic around that. Even with EVs, its going to require less electricity to power an ebike to move you and your cargo than to do the same with a 5000lb car.
As long as you're in town, the density of stop signs/lights is relatively constant, whether you're going 0.3 miles or 3 miles, so your hoped for "less efficient driving" is a fantasy you cooked up to try to save your argument.
The difference between city and highway mileage isn't enough to save your argument either.
You tried to argue that someone can save a significant amount of their gas usage by using bikes for short trips. That's wrong because those trips are a small fraction of their gas use.
It's wrong no matter even if their car uses 1Bgallons per mile. (Ratios and percentages are like that.)
Taking trips to get groceries isn't a benefit but a cost.
I get that you like to go to grocery and other stores often, that you like spending time going to/from stores. Lots of people don't.
> How many times have you hopped into the car to go to the store and grab one thing? Probably a lot in your life.
As a fraction of my total trips, almost never, but when I did, it was urgent to me. What's your basis for asserting otherwise?
And you'd have me do without or get on a bike late at night or in bad weather to handle those situations.
BTW - the share of trips by length graph shows that <1 mile trips are a small fraction of total car miles/use a very small fraction of the total gas use.
I suppose that it's poor form to mention that, since you wanted to use resource savings to justify imposing your dislike of cars on others.
I'll elaborate.
One 100 mile trip uses the same gas as two 50 mile trips, so unless you make >2x as many 50 mile trips as 100 mile trips, you use more gas on 100 mile trips than 50 mile trips even if you make more 50 mile trips than 100 mile trips.
Even without doing arithmetic, it's obvious that there's more gas used in 10-25 mile trips (14% of trips) than 5-10 (15% of trips) and more in 5-10 than 3-5 (12% of trips). (It's not clear whether there's more gas used in 25-50 than in 10-25, but it's almost a lock that there's more gas used in >50 mile trips than 25-50.)
That exercise using your data shows that the <1 mile trips are a small fraction of total car miles and gas use.
But, like I said, usage arithmetic doesn't help your argument.