I still have to question the gasoline equivalents used to make the bike and send it to the user. Especially since even today most bikes are sitting in the garage most of the time.

A 180 lb person walking consumes about 100 (kilo)calories per mile. A gallon of gas has is roughly equivalent to 31,000 kilocalories. So... walking is about 310 MPG, or the energy of 3.3 gallons of gas per 1000 miles walked.

I did a similar sort of analysis for cycling: a 180 pound person riding an average of 10MPH gets about 900 miles per the kilocalories in a gallon of gas.

Lifecycle analysis is notoriously difficult to do fairly. Hybrids would probably be WORSE than a typical new car in such an analysis--given the much higher manufacturing energy costs.

I'm guessing those small walking and biking numbers just make up the replacement requirements for tires and sneakers?

I've seen calculations that on a typical US diet, biking burns more carbon than driving. There's some controversy about that, but it's a close call.

True life cycle costs would count the bunker fuel used to ship the Kobe beef you eat to support your meat-based diet, of course.

Eat beefalo, it's local.

But anyway, the 40 to 70 mpg that real people get in the real world on real scooters ain't chopped liver.

God, you really need to get out more, Fnarf. Maybe take up running or some sport that might help blood flow to your brain.

And cargo ships are lucky to get 1,000 gallons per nautical mile. What is your point?

Oops, x10 to high: I meant about 100 gallons per nautical mile.

Argentinian Grass Fed Beef - brought to you by bunker fuel.

Next (obvious) question?

Moving by rail is actually cheaper, especially if the power plant is fuel cell from hydrolosis derived from wind energy, as any scientist could tell you is the lowest impact. Barge is second. Ships are pretty heavy on pollution, but don't need to be.