Motorbikes '16 times worse than cars for pollution'

[SpankMe]

Motorbikes are churning out more pollution than cars, even though they make up only a small fraction of vehicles on the roads, according to a report.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatecha...671722,00.html

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=35167

[SPORK]

I thought we'd already established that about a month ago? :S

[bugjuice]

heard that crap before..

I guess it depends on how you look at it. Size-per-polution, may be. IE, if you made the bike engine big enough to be 1:1 comparison against a truck or car, then supposedly the bike engine would be worse.

But in reality, I haven't seen big puffs of black smoke come out of any bikes yet.. But I could count you a dozen cars/trucks/buses just on the 5 minute trek home..

[ZeroIndex]

...and journalists and politicians emit proportionally more crap out of their mouths than ...a bunch of normal people?

[ManDownUnder]

And sheep and cows put out more pollution blah blah blah.

Get rid of the sheep (except for personal err... "entertainment" ) and put more bikes on the road. The environment will be better off!

Aaaa yes - the ol' "find a statistic to back my argument/sell papers/start a punch up approach. Gotta love it

MDU cynically signing off...

[Grumpy]

What a bunch of dirty, polluting bastards we all are with no regard for the environment........ oh well, just off for a ride then.
But seriously, they could very well have a point there but as has already been pointed out, there aint that many of us so I don't really think we make that much an impact.

[sAsLEX]

despite the fact that these vehicles produced more harmful exhaust emissions per mile than cars or even large sports utility vehicles

would love to see how they work this one out. Absoluetly no way a big SUV that gets 2.0 MPG is outputing less shit than a bike doing 40 MPG

(exaggerated for point making assistance)

[The Stranger:Me]

They probably establish it on say a parts per million basis at idle, then overlook the amount of millions being output.

Would be interested to read the study methodology.

You see it a lot (poor methodology) with medical studies. With thing like eifficacy of drug X.
Patients whom didn't show up for follow up were omitted from the result.
Well Duh! maybe they didn't show up cause they bloody well died.

[Ixion]

would love to see how they work this one out. Absoluetly no way a big SUV that gets 2.0 MPG is outputing less shit than a bike doing 40 MPG

(exaggerated for point making assistance)

Bwahhahah - You haven't seen Petal at full chat have you ! :spudbn:

[Motu]

Nah,one Bantam running SAE30 at 16:1 should suffice.

It's just figures,and crap or truth depending on how you look at it.A car has to pass emmission tests,and has a shit load of doo dads and high tech combution chamber design to enable it to do so.A bike generaly doesn't have to....unless in the kommunist state of kalifornia.....so doesn't have the shit to control emmissions,and has a combustion chamber designed for power.Bikes are a dumb basic design,no way can they stop pouring shit into the atmosphere,but some of the motors are smaller,and they don't clog our roads bumper to bumper.

I guess if you don't like Jeremy Clarkson and spin out if nobody waves to you,then this article is of great concern....some of us couldn't care less.

[Bob]

Actually, in Europe bikes are subject to VERY stringent emissions regulations. This is what killed off a number of bikes about three years ago, when EURO 2 came into force (original Fazer, 535 Virago, Thundercat, CB500 being just a few of them).

And EURO 3 comes in very soon. Which will kill of a whole new bunch of bikes I reckon. The new Kawasaki ER (n and f) pass EURO 3.

That report was also biased, comparing cars on EURO 3 with bikes on EURO 1. Have a look at the following, which is the Motorcycle Action Group's response:

http://www.network.mag-uk.org/feb06p2.html

Suddenly, the story looks somewhat different.

[skidMark]

thats because bikers take car of thier bikes car drivers etc couldn't give a crap if thier car smokes to a bike thier bike is like having a ferrari you drive it for pleasure rather than just transportation you want to use it not because you have to...the main advantage of a big is that

if they use as much fuel and pollute as much as a ferrari then so be it i mean bike pullalot more revs = more fuel = more pollution

[Bob]

thats because bikers take car of thier bikes car drivers etc couldn't give a crap if thier car smokes to a bike thier bike is like having a ferrari you drive it for pleasure rather than just transportation you want to use it not because you have to...the main advantage of a big is that

if they use as much fuel and pollute as much as a ferrari then so be it i mean bike pullalot more revs = more fuel = more pollution

I think you are contradicting... yourself! First up you're saying that bikes are better looked after, so they pollute less... and then you say bikes pollute more because they rev higher!

The main gist here is that the tests are invalid.

If you click on that link I provided above, you'll see the key factor is that the comparison was not "like for like". Cars were on EURO 3 (which is seriously strict and matches - if indeed is not more restrictive - than any Californian limits), but bikes were on EURO 1 - or even before the EURO limits came in.

As I said, EURO 2 killed off a wide range of bikes as they could not pass the tight emissions controls... and EURO 3 is set to kill off even more.

Bikes have been forced to act very quickly to come in line with EURO regs - cars had a lot longer to conform. And bikes have done so. The challenge is for bikes to continue to meet these regs - and as I said, the new ER-6n and f models do, so it is possible without making horrid wheezy things that no-one will want to ride.

[Shadows]

Pfft. I couldn't give a rat's arse.

[Bob]

Pfft. I couldn't give a rat's arse.

Bet you'll be upset though when some politician sees the report, decides this is how he can look "caring and defending the world" and proposes those nasty motorbikes are banned, as they cause so much damage.

And without decent lobbying groups (and from the complaints you guys regularly put out, it doesn't sound like you have them), there will be little defence... and suddenly, you cannot ride a bike as they are banned.

I'm not going to get on the soapbox, but we (bikers) are useless when it comes to getting off our backsides and doing something. We either stick our heads in the sand and pretend it isn't happening, or whine when it does... but still don't actually DO anything!

(And before you ask, I write letters, I add my name to petitions and I get the news out to people so that they can hopefully react. I'm on the mailing lists of the major lobbying groups, so if they put a petition together, if I think it is a valid one, then I join in).