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.

[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

[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:Me]

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.