Why we need more bikes on the road

[shrub]

Our government needs to encourage motorcycle ownership and get cars off the road for the following reasons:

1. They (generally) use less fuel to run than cars which means less greenhouse gases, less oil imported and less strain on shrinking oil reserves.

2. They consume less resources to manufacture than cars - less steel, less plastic, less rubber and less energy to manufacture them. These are all finite resources.

3. They cause less damage to the roads than cars because they're lighter - again less resources consumed.

4. They cause less congestion, and that means we won't need to build more roads, more parking building etc

5. They're safer than cars. Yes, you read right. Motorcycles very rarely cause the damage to pedestrians, cyclists and other road users that cars do, and most motorcycle crash injuries are restricted to the rider. Plus a well ridden motorcycle (and that includes ATGATT) is probably damn near as safe as a car - the problem with our crash rate is first bad riding, then other road users and finally road conditions. If we got our act together (yes, I actually agree with Katman) and if there were less cars on the roads motorcycle crash rates would plummet.

6. They look nicer. Most cars and SUVs are as boring and ugly as blocks of concrete whereas even ugly bikes are cool in their own way.

Yeah, I'm bored. I'm supposed to be writing an article for a magazine but can't be arsed. Deadline is Thursday.

[SMOKEU]

I agree with all of the above, except for #5. While a well ridden bike is much safer than a badly driven car, the fact remains that bikes are less forgiving when it comes down to making silly mistakes in comparison to a car.

[shrub]

I agree with all of the above, except for #5. While a well ridden bike is much safer than a badly driven car, the fact remains that bikes are less forgiving when it comes down to making silly mistakes in comparison to a car.

I agree, bikes are less forgiving of stupidty, but that's the key - silly mistakes are optional and a good rider makes very few of them.

[Kookie]

I agree whole heartedly.. It would be fantastic to see less cars on the road. There are plenty of people out there, who don't have to worry about carting kids around every day.. I'm sure most people would still opt to have a car as a back up, for what ever reasons.. But on the whole, I for one would love to see clearer safer roads..

[Banditbandit]

Yeah Yeah .. we said all that to them in the ACC submissions .. did they fucken listen ???

[Usarka]

and if there were less cars on the roads motorcycle crash rates would plummet.


Hmmmm, in NZ it just would mean more multi-bike accidents. Take this video of Bangkok for example, in NZ this would be a motogp start and six riders would bin before the next corner.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/gf0Ohe-tI-Q" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

[James Deuce]

#1 isn't an option and should never be held up as an example of why bikes are "better".

None of you ride in a way necessary to garner the manufacturers claimed MPG figures. Most bikes get far worse mileage than car engines of similar engine capacity despite weight figures that are a fraction of a car's.

Bikes pump far more toxic pollutants (especially oxides of nitrogen) into the atmosphere than cars because there has so far only been minimal regulatory interference in motorcycle emissions legislation. That is all changing as the European Parliament is about to start demanding maximum Co2 output labelling and fuel comsumption for motorcycles as well as banning any modifications to YOUR engine and exhaust system.

Europe is a huge motorcycle market so it will affect all manufacturers and economies of scale will mean forcing those changes on countries without such legislation.

The two problems with scrubbing motorcycle exhaust emissions clean is that there isn't the space to pack the same sort of exhaust gubbins as go on modern cars and motorcycle engines rev much higher than car engines as the focus for bikes is entertainment, not fuel efficient transport. A lot of motorcycle manufacturers are moving the catalyst as close to the headers as possible to get the catalyst up to temp as fast as possible, but a bike will pump out way more nasties while cold than a car does and cold start emissions are tested scrupulously for cars. That's about to start for bikes.

I've never found bikes fuel and resource efficient to run. They drink petrol at a prodigious rate, especially when cc rating and weight is taken into consideration and I'll go through 4 sets of bike tyres to one set of car tyres and I'm a conservative rider. They also need far more frequent fettling than the average family transport. I'd stay away from that point altogther because there are much cleverer people than me who can blow much bigger holes in that argument.

[simpy1]

He's right folks!

[oneofsix]

interesting focus but the point is most motorbikes aren't the same CC as our cars and therefore use less fuel and produce less pollution. The fuel I use in my daily commute on the bike would only run the car for two days. I still use less parking and less road. If I could get the cages off the road my ride would eb even more efficient.

[Gibbo89]

We need more bikes on the road you say?

Fine... I'll go for a ride then :woohoo:

[James Deuce]

use less fuel and produce less pollution.
No they don't. That's my point. My 2005 750cc Kawasaki used more fuel than my 1.3L Ford Ka, doing the exact same commute. The Ka's engine is running for longer because it's not as easy to lane split with 4 wheels, but it uses less fuell.

Bikes produce more toxic emissions than cars, irrespective of capacity and consumption and that is what is being targeted. They produce less kgs of CO2, but more toxic elements that are both carcinogenic and toxic.

[Scuba_Steve]

#1 isn't an option and should never be held up as an example of why bikes are "better".

None of you ride in a way necessary to garner the manufacturers claimed MPG figures. Most bikes get far worse mileage than car engines of similar engine capacity despite weight figures that are a fraction of a car's.

Bikes pump far more toxic pollutants (especially oxides of nitrogen) into the atmosphere than cars because there has so far only been minimal regulatory interference in motorcycle emissions legislation. That is all changing as the European Parliament is about to start demanding maximum Co2 output labelling and fuel comsumption for motorcycles as well as banning any modifications to YOUR engine and exhaust system.

Europe is a huge motorcycle market so it will affect all manufacturers and economies of scale will mean forcing those changes on countries without such legislation.

The two problems with scrubbing motorcycle exhaust emissions clean is that there isn't the space to pack the same sort of exhaust gubbins as go on modern cars and motorcycle engines rev much higher than car engines as the focus for bikes is entertainment, not fuel efficient transport. A lot of motorcycle manufacturers are moving the catalyst as close to the headers as possible to get the catalyst up to temp as fast as possible, but a bike will pump out way more nasties while cold than a car does and cold start emissions are tested scrupulously for cars. That's about to start for bikes.

I've never found bikes fuel and resource efficient to run. They drink petrol at a prodigious rate, especially when cc rating and weight is taken into consideration and I'll go through 4 sets of bike tyres to one set of car tyres and I'm a conservative rider. They also need far more frequent fettling than the average family transport. I'd stay away from that point altogther because there are much cleverer people than me who can blow much bigger holes in that argument.

But when compared with their cage equivalent the bike is more economical. The Aprilla or ducati will use less than a ferrari or lamborghini, the GSXR or CBR will use less than a godzilla or supra, the fxr or scorpio will use less than a civic or swift & a harley will use less than a bulldozer etc
So it just depends on which angle you view the 'economy' from.

[nodrog]

But when compared with their cage equivalent the bike is more economical. The Aprilla or ducati will use less than a ferrari or lamborghini, the GSXR or CBR will use less than a godzilla or supra, the fxr or scorpio will use less than a civic or swift & a harley will use less than a bulldozer etc
So it just depends on which angle you view the 'economy' from.

But my Hyosung uses more fuel, oil, and tyres than my Kia?

Fanny.

[Scuba_Steve]

But my Hyosung uses more fuel, oil, and tyres than my Kia?

Fanny.

there's always an exception to the rule

[oneofsix]

But my Hyosung uses more fuel, oil, and tyres than my Kia?

Fanny.

Hyosung what compared to which model of Kia? I am comparing my GSXF650 to my family car doing the same trip, Kapiti to Welly and return. Bike cheaper on fuel, haven't repeated the trip enough in the car to compare tyre usage but four to two the bike is less.

[James Deuce]

But when compared with their cage equivalent the bike is more economical. The Aprilla or ducati will use less than a ferrari or lamborghini, the GSXR or CBR will use less than a godzilla or supra, the fxr or scorpio will use less than a civic or swift & a harley will use less than a bulldozer etc
So it just depends on which angle you view the 'economy' from.

There is no cage equivalent and it's fatuous in the extreme to try and make that comparison work. It doesn't. For a start there's more GSXR1000s than Lambos on the road and the Lambo's emissions will probably be cleaner than the GSXR's. The Lambo will pump out waaaay more CO2 but far less properly dangerous toxins.

Bikes consume more fuel than they should because the last 25 years have seen motorcycles change from transport to lifestyle accessories. Manufacturers do not design new bikes with economy in mind or they wouldn't build them with 14,000rpm redlines.

It's not a point you can use. My 2005 Z750 with Fuel Injection used to get between 15 and 17km/l in commuter traffic. My Ford Ka (1.3L) gets between 18 and 21 km/l. It's engine is nearly twice as big as the Zed's, the Ka weighs nearly 6 times more than the Zed and the engine was designed in the '60s. Bikes are not more economical and there is no comparing GSXR's with Lambos.

Mmmmkay?

[bogan]

This has been done before I believe, average fuel consumption of big bikes is around that of sedans, depending on the rider and the route, thing is there's a lot more cages bigger than sedans, bringing their average up, and theres a lot more smaller bikes than the thous and up, bringing our average down.

But if we are trading anecdotal evidence, my RC31 gets around twice as far as my van dollar for dollar.

An I put the whole greenhouse gases thing in the same trash bin as all that man made climate change bollocks, bunch of money grubbing researcher obscuring the results to an incomprehensible mess.

[Scuba_Steve]

1stly I was comparing the Aprillia's to Lambo's
& 2ndly the comparison is based on what their designed to do
Your Ka (god knows why you own 1 of those pieces of shit?) is not designed to do speed like your Z750 was designed for, so your Ka is comparable to a GN250 & your Z750 more to a skyline see how it works?
I'm not talking cc's or toxins, like I said economy can be looked at in many ways

[NighthawkNZ]

Have to agree with James on that they are not more economical... 20 or 30 years ago maybe but today no...

Also per head of population with car pooling...Fill a cage up with 5 people... Take them from Dunedin to Christchurch... now get 3 bikes... (even two bikes and one with a side car??? now take them back to Dunedin. bet you the cage would be cheaper

The down side to that is if the car does have an accident it is 5 people that get hurt not the one or two. The up side they may not be as injuired as badly as if they were on the bikes... ?


As for less congestion... to a certain point maybe, but once you hit a certian point and number then it could become worse as there are are simply more vehicles etc... with example above again car pooling.

[slofox]

Re #6:

Whilst I would agree for the most part, this morning I followed a 1962 Jaguar XKE through town. That is quite a nice car (for a car).

[pzkpfw]

1stly I was comparing the Aprillia's to Lambo's
& 2ndly the comparison is based on what their designed to do
Your Ka (god knows why you own 1 of those pieces of shit?) is not designed to do speed like your Z750 was designed for, so your Ka is comparable to a GN250 & your Z750 more to a skyline see how it works?
I'm not talking cc's or toxins, like I said economy can be looked at in many ways

JamesDeuce was referring to the point made by shrub in post #1:


1. They (generally) use less fuel to run than cars which means less greenhouse gases, less oil imported and less strain on shrinking oil reserves.

Sure, if you are talking about vehicles for fun you could say you use less petrol on your bike (maybe) than you might if you drove a lambo - but that's hardly likely to occur and wouldn't convince anyone in authority. "Please Government, don't ban my motorcycle because then I'll buy a lamborghini and then you'll all be screwed anyway, buwahaha".

The economy point is being made about general transport.

When JD commuted on hia 750 cc bike he used more petrol than he does now when commuting in his ka. That's the kind of real-world thing that needs to be considered.

Non-motorcycling people in Government don't give a rats arse about people who ride motorcycles for fun. They just see us as ACC statistics anyway.

[superman]

Cars are a necessary evil.

I would love to carry my drumset somewhere on the back of my bike...

However, in improving transportation within cities, no. Public transport should be the key to that as seen in most well designed cities. The only cities that use bikes a lot are usually developing countries that haven't yet afforded well placed systems such as in India.

New Zealand however has shocking public transport so bikes are useful for getting to/from work if you require no luggage.

The main benefit from a large number of bikes would be that other traffic would get used to seeing and reacting to the way bikes ride and that in turn would lower fatalities. Then again you still see lots of car-car crashes, so maybe the general population wouldn't learn...

And don't modern 250cc's compare well to cars? Mine seems to get much better than my mums 1.3L car. I think she gets about 20km/l and I get about 25km/l, and if I ride the way she drives, would probably boost up to 30km/l. :p

[nodrog]

Hyosung what compared to which model of Kia?.

A Kia Kaha.

Fanny.

[simpy1]

An I put the whole greenhouse gases thing in the same trash bin as all that man made climate change bollocks, bunch of money grubbing researcher obscuring the results to an incomprehensible mess.

Uh oh! Here we go! The can of worms has been opened.

Here's my contribution:
<img src="http://www.bma.org.uk/images/graph-fig3-climatechange_tcm41-144527.jpg">

But I am a realist - mitigation is pointless as humans are awful & greedy creatures. Adaptation is the way. Better get working on those amphibious motorbikes huh!

[slofox]

A Kia Kaha.

Fanny.

Don't you mean the Kia Kaka?

[bogan]

Here's my contribution:

you did all that to the environment? you bastard!

Worms, back in the can with ye.

[James Deuce]

1stly I was comparing the Aprillia's to Lambo's
& 2ndly the comparison is based on what their designed to do
Your Ka (god knows why you own 1 of those pieces of shit?) is not designed to do speed like your Z750 was designed for, so your Ka is comparable to a GN250 & your Z750 more to a skyline see how it works?
I'm not talking cc's or toxins, like I said economy can be looked at in many ways

It doesn't work, particularly at a legislative level. Eceonomy isn't looked at in many ways. It is quite simply measured by fuel consumed and emmissions volume. That's it. The requlations don't care what the vehicle is and what its design brief is, they are concerned with minimising pollutants and greenhouse gasses.

The Ka is huge fun. Handles better than any Japanese econo-box and is reliable as an axe handle.

[wysper]

a harley will use less than a bulldozer etc



A Kia Kaha.

Fanny.

All seriousness aside, there is gold in this here thread!

[Usarka]

Why we need more kia kaha's on the roads......

[shrub]

No they don't. That's my point. My 2005 750cc Kawasaki used more fuel than my 1.3L Ford Ka, doing the exact same commute. The Ka's engine is running for longer because it's not as easy to lane split with 4 wheels, but it uses less fuell.

Bikes produce more toxic emissions than cars, irrespective of capacity and consumption and that is what is being targeted. They produce less kgs of CO2, but more toxic elements that are both carcinogenic and toxic.

You raise a good point, and you're right, so I take back my comment about greenhouse gases, and will amend the original post. Bikes produce less CO2, but more NO2 and other gases because they aren't able to carry the clean air equipment cars have.

However the comparison with fuel economy I don't agree with. Maybe your Ford Ka uses less fuel than your Kawasaki, but my Thunderbird Sport uses less than half the fuel for commuting than my Nissan Bluebird or my partner's Mitsubishi Galant, and my son's Street Triple uses even less. I'm sure a Prius or your Ka is very economical, but they're not the majority of cars, and with SUVs making up nearly 1/3 of new car registrations, bikes, on average, are more economical than cars.

However I am going to shoot my argument down even further by saying that on a good weekend I will use $100 of gas riding recreationally, whereas on a good year I would burn less petrol than that driving a car recreationally.

BUT WE STILL NEED MORE BIKES ON THE ROAD!!!

[shrub]

The Ka is huge fun. Handles better than any Japanese econo-box and is reliable as an axe handle.

I drove a rental Ka once - kind of like driving a Mini and highly recommended. Good fun for a car.

[Usarka]

However the comparison with fuel economy I don't agree with. Maybe your Ford Ka uses less fuel than your Kawasaki, but my Thunderbird Sport uses less than half the fuel for commuting than my Nissan Bluebird or my partner's Mitsubishi Galant, and my son's Street Triple uses even less. I'm sure a Prius or your Ka is very economical, but they're not the majority of cars, and with SUVs making up nearly 1/3 of new car registrations, bikes, on average, are more economical than cars.


But you are saying use vehicle a) instead of vehicle b) because of fuel economy.

Same principle applies between classes of cars. If I was government man I'd say forget bikes let's incentivise 1.3l cars. Heaps better on tires too..

[Scuba_Steve]

I drove a rental Ka once - kind of like driving a Mini and highly recommended. Good fun for a car.

What is wrong with you people???:blink: The Ka is by far the worst cage I have ever driven (& I've driven a few). The only logical concussion I can come up with is the one I drove is from when they 1st entered the market, maybee they've got through MAJOR changes since then? as in almost a complete rebuild/redesign from ground up.

FYI before anyone gets defensive, while text doesn't convey context too well this is a light hearted jab rather than an attack so no reason for anyone to get all offended or nothing

[shrub]

But you are saying use vehicle a) instead of vehicle b) because of fuel economy.

Same principle applies between classes of cars. If I was government man I'd say forget bikes let's incentivise 1.3l cars. Heaps better on tires too..

But that doesn't deal with the huge congestion problem.

[Swoop]

If you want economical, buy a Corolla.
If you are a retard, buy a prius.
If you want less congestion on the roads, buy a bike (or a scroter).

[SMOKEU]

I've never found bikes fuel and resource efficient to run. They drink petrol at a prodigious rate, especially when cc rating and weight is taken into consideration and I'll go through 4 sets of bike tyres to one set of car tyres and I'm a conservative rider. They also need far more frequent fettling than the average family transport. I'd stay away from that point altogther because there are much cleverer people than me who can blow much bigger holes in that argument.

People in NZ usually ride bikes as a hobby, just like some people play tennis and other people go fishing. This is why they are so expensive to run!

In many poor countries, especially in Asia, small capacity bikes are much more common than cars as they are significantly cheaper to run than a car. A CG125 is all you would really need around a town, and it will be much cheaper to run than an "average" car.

[Swoop]

In many poor countries, especially in Asia, small capacity bikes are much more common than cars as they are significantly cheaper to run than a car.
"Running costs" are low in the scheme of things. The cost of purchasing a car is astronomical.

[JimO]

Hyosung what compared to which model of Kia? I am comparing my GSXF650 to my family car doing the same trip, Kapiti to Welly and return. Bike cheaper on fuel, haven't repeated the trip enough in the car to compare tyre usage but four to two the bike is less.

how many people and how much gear can your family car carry? a bit more than your bike i bet

[SMOKEU]

"Running costs" are low in the scheme of things. The cost of purchasing a car is astronomical.

True; and the general cost of ownership on a small bike such as an FXR150 is still a lot cheaper than driving a Corolla to work everyday.

[James Deuce]

Economy's not the main issue though. The filth content of motorcycle emissions is significantly higher by cc than most other vehicles on the road. That's were we have an issue pointing at bikes and saying "burns less fuel" (does not) and therefore creates "less emissions" (not true). Bikes create more toxic emissions than most other vehicles of the same vintage and that is where the baleful eye of regulation is slowly bringing its gaze to bear.

[bogan]

Economy's not the main issue though. The filth content of motorcycle emissions is significantly higher by cc than most other vehicles on the road. That's were we have an issue pointing at bikes and saying "burns less fuel" (does not) and therefore creates "less emissions" (not true). Bikes create more toxic emissions than most other vehicles of the same vintage and that is where the baleful eye of regulation is slowly bringing its gaze to bear.

The filth content of what sits on the bike may be higher too, doesn't mean it's relevant. Burning less fuel (does too) means less emissions anyway, unless you specify individual types which bikes produce more of.

[oneofsix]

The filth content of what sits on the bike may be higher too...

Hey I had a shower ...last month :gob:

[Smifffy]

But that doesn't deal with the huge congestion problem.

What congestion problem? If I see 6 other vehicles during my entire commute to work tomorrow morning, then the road is busy.

Do you mean the gridlocks in the rat mazes doing the rat race? I seriously doubt any of that will be solved by bikes, what's needed there is better town-planning, better public transport, less reliance on people whose business it is to drive around aimlessly from one point to another in order to drop shit off to people who think they need said shit 'urgently'.

[shrub]

What congestion problem? If I see 6 other vehicles during my entire commute to work tomorrow morning, then the road is busy.

Do you mean the gridlocks in the rat mazes doing the rat race? I seriously doubt any of that will be solved by bikes, what's needed there is better town-planning, better public transport, less reliance on people whose business it is to drive around aimlessly from one point to another in order to drop shit off to people who think they need said shit 'urgently'.

You obviously haven't been to Auckland. Last time I went (just before Xmas) it took longer to get from Auckland airport to my hotel in Takapuna than it did to get from my house in ChCh to Auckland airport. ANd it cost more....

[Smifffy]

You obviously haven't been to Auckland. Last time I went (just before Xmas) it took longer to get from Auckland airport to my hotel in Takapuna than it did to get from my house in ChCh to Auckland airport. ANd it cost more....

As I said, that shit will take more than bikes to sort out. It's a giant looney bin. If the looneys want live with that shit then good on em.

[James Deuce]

The filth content of what sits on the bike may be higher too, doesn't mean it's relevant. Burning less fuel (does too) means less emissions anyway, unless you specify individual types which bikes produce more of.

Oxides of nitrogen. I already said that.

What you're missing is that a smaller bike engine now produces more oxides of nitrogen in the order of multiples of 10 than a Chrysler 300's V8. The regulators in Europe haven't missed that.

[Bald Eagle]

You obviously haven't been to Auckland. Last time I went (just before Xmas) it took longer to get from Auckland airport to my hotel in Takapuna than it did to get from my house in ChCh to Auckland airport. ANd it cost more....

Used to fly home from Auck to the Naki and we would be home finished unpacking before the in laws got from the Airport to the norf shore.

[Scuba_Steve]

Oxides of nitrogen. I already said that.

What you're missing is that a smaller bike engine now produces more oxides of nitrogen in the order of multiples of 10 than a Chrysler 300's V8. The regulators in Europe haven't missed that.

I can't find any conclusive study on this sort of thing. I can find the EPA likes to compare a 2002 R6 which has been used regularly with a brand new straight off the production line 2008 Pirus & then call the R6 "dirty". But I can't find any 2010 bike vs 2010 car or 1988 bike vs 1988 car etc

[skinman]

I use a bike to get to work cause I can split mainly.
You guys have 2 many cylinders on your bikes.
I dont really give a rats about fuel but the wifeys echo does 13km/l & my bike 20km/l.

[MaxCannon]

I don't know how you guys are riding to get such bad economy figures.

At it's absolute best my 1998 Legacy GT Wagon will get 9L per 100Km
Consistent average over 6 years of ownership is 11L /100 - BUT I don't drive it in traffic unless I have to.
In heavy traffic it's 18L / 100
I'd say a vehicle of this size / economy is roughly average for NZ.
I could buy an econobox and sit in traffic for 60 minutes but then what happens when I want to move my band gear, take the dog someplace, pickup stuff from Mitre10 etc.
We have this at work with Smart cars. Good economy but useless at load carrying.
For most people you'd have to own a second car which most can't afford / justify.

The Bike on the other hand takes 1/3 the time to get to work and in the weekly commute averages 5.5L / 100km.
Worth noting - There are three traffic lights on the way to work and two on the way home (different on-ramps). If I stop it's never for long.

I also don't take up any parking spaces (they are like gold around my office) and the thing is Euro3 rated so cleaner that my old car.
At it's worst (trackdays) I get 10L / 100 and the best I've ever seen was 4.2L / 100.

[bogan]

Oxides of nitrogen. I already said that.

What you're missing is that a smaller bike engine now produces more oxides of nitrogen in the order of multiples of 10 than a Chrysler 300's V8. The regulators in Europe haven't missed that.

Straight from wikipedia (as common knowledge is likely good knowledge in this case)


United States Environmental Protection Agency 2007 certification result reports for all vehicles versus on highway motorcycles (which also includes scooters),[75] the average certified emissions level for 12,327 vehicles tested was 0.734. The average "Nox+Co End-Of-Useful-Life-Emissions" for 3,863 motorcycles tested was 0.8531, for a difference of about 16%, not the claimed 10X factor. Likewise, if one looks at how many of the 2007 motorcycles tested were also catalytic equipped, 54% of them, 2,092, were equipped with a catalytic converter.

Real world testing often gets different results to lab tests (do you have a reference for yours?), maybe cos the test took into account that not all cars have cats, and not all bikes don't. And as more bikes get cats, the emissions will be reduced. Far more room for improving the figures on bikes than there is on cars, and if enough people get into bikes, TPTB may ensure they are improved.

[baptist]

Re #6:

Whilst I would agree for the most part, this morning I followed a 1962 Jaguar XKE through town. That is quite a nice car (for a car).

E types are special though:yes: most modern cars are soulless.


Cars are a necessary evil...And don't modern 250cc's compare well to cars? Mine seems to get much better than my mums 1.3L car. I think she gets about 20km/l and I get about 25km/l, and if I ride the way she drives, would probably boost up to 30km/l. :p

Our family car is an MPV, with the kids and dog we need a vehicle like that, if I am going anywhere on my own though I use the Scorpio, it is certainly cheaper to run than our family car, and not just on Gas (just put on two new tyres... nearly fell over at the cost and the other two will need doing soon).

My bike is also a lot of fun, my journey to work or college is enjoyable because I ride, surely this needs to be taken into account as well. Air con and stereo or not I find driving boring and tedious.



The Ka is huge fun. Handles better than any Japanese econo-box and is reliable as an axe handle. urgh :shit:


how many people and how much gear can your family car carry? a bit more than your bike i bet

True but I manage to get every thing I need into my Ventura bag, I think most people would for work at least, builders etc excluded.


Hey I had a shower ...last month :gob: Wow belated Happy Birthday!:woohoo:

[superman]

My bike is also a lot of fun, my journey to work or college is enjoyable because I ride, surely this needs to be taken into account as well. Air con and stereo or not I find driving boring and tedious.

Exactly, motorcycles are reducing the number of suicides due to adding passion into peoples lives. Who knows what the 10/week statistics would be if some hadn't converted to the soothing art of riding with explosions covered in metal inbetween your legs. :innocent:

[swbarnett]

As for less congestion... to a certain point maybe, but once you hit a certian point and number then it could become worse as there are are simply more vehicles etc...
Developing cities don't have congestion problems until the economy is healthy enough that people start buying cars instead of bikes. Then the grid-lock sets it.

[lone_slayer]

This all seems really easy my gsxr250 has just turned 20 and i get about twice the fuel effiecncy from that than my 10 year old car the bike is a lot more fun to ride accelerates quicker and will do less damage to the road. The car has its uses I take the car to work (with the wife) 2 people makes the car more economical than the bike. now how many times on the way to work do you see 1 person in a car? and iam sure what ever you say about pollution my 250cc engine is making alot less than my 2350cc engine. I use the bike whenever i can but the car will always be there.

[monkeymcbean]

I traded mine for a number of reasons, one plus was economy of fuel a 800cc engine 16 litre tank, open road you get approx 430km per tank.

The muffler was changed as the dam engine was so noisey I could hear every clunk and rattle, so I replaced the original with after market pipe to drown those noises out. :weird:

So Ive a economical bike but i enjoy riding it so much that I put massive kilometres on it...for no reason...other than to ride.
The new exhaust system probably emmits alot more toxic substances than the original.

I do have a higher risk of hurting myself when I go out riding than if im driving in my car even though I consider myself careful.