Why we need more bikes on the road

[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:Me]

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.

[nodrog:Me]

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:


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!!!