"green" groups attack motorcycles

[icenian]

Seems the "greens" are now gunning for bikes.

They've managed to get themselves an invite to the House of Commons Transport Committee, and have been saying bikes are far worse than cars, and should be banned from towns and cities.

Stephen Plowden [Slower Speeds Initiative] ... “They are only carrying one person, and I think for other gaseous emissions I am right in saying they are actually worse than cars.”

Don Matthew [Sustrans] ... “They are considerably worse… even modern motorcycles are extremely polluting.”

...

Plowden even called for bikes to be banned from city and town centres.

Full story: http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/Ne.../?&R=EPI-89528

[Lumiya]

Whether or not they pollute more than cars is really irrelavant, simple fact is that most bikes do the same distance journey in half the time of the cars who are stuck in their traffic jams.

When I used to commute from Home to work (Heathrow to Wimbledon) a few years back I could do the 18 mile journey in 30 minutes where as a workmate in his car would take 90 minutes. Now I wonder who was the biggest pollutant?

Kymmy

[willb]

OK, quick question.

How many cars you see in towns and cities, or on motorways etc for that matter, have more than one occupant?

Most cars I see on my commute have only one person.

Therfore as most bikes do more mpg's for transporting the same number of people they should be better for the environment and cars should be banned from everywhere!

[Pussyhorse]

Pressure groups never let common sense or the truth get in the way of statistics.

[Pussyhorse]

Oh, and MCN aren't well known for letting the truth get in the way of their quest for a weekly attention grabbing headline.

[Wee Jack]

Here's me being devil's advocate again !! - These Greenies are not wrong here. The fuel efficiency of modern motorcycles is woefull. Accepting Kymmy's argument that you get through towns quicker and therefor pollute less - no question, I agree, but the basic fuel consumption is grim. My TA averages about 55 MPG in general use, I get more that that out my diesel Focus. !!!.

I am an ex Marine Engineer, where fuel consumption was measured in tonnes per hour, and a lot of my time was spent calculating most efficient running speeds for any particular cargo load and trim state.

Coming from that environment , I just cannot get my head round the fuel consumption metrics on motorcycles given their size, weight and engine capacity in comparrison to cars.

A Blade or a R1 approx 1000cc - 30 - 35 MPG , Toyota Yaris same sized engine - 60 - 65 MPG. Now I know we are talking different performance figures and very different engine tune states - but ?????? compare weight size and aerodymamics ????? the bike industry need to do better.

[Whealie]

I just cannot get my head round the fuel consumption metrics on motorcycles given their size, weight and engine capacity in comparrison to cars.

A Blade or a R1 approx 1000cc - 30 - 35 MPG , Toyota Yaris same sized engine - 60 - 65 MPG. Now I know we are talking different performance figures and very different engine tune states - but ?????? compare weight size and aerodymamics ????? the bike industry need to do better.

With you on that Wee Jack. Can't understand it myself. My Ford Transit gets more MPG than my @.

[Sharribee]

Now I use much less fuel on Twinkletoes than I do in the red devil.

It costs me £15 a week to do 50 miles a day (work days)on the bike, the same journey in the fiesta would set me back at least £30 a week if not more.

[icenian]

Bikes do (relatively) badly compared to cars in standard tests, like consumption at a constant 56mph. That's because of drag, I'm told, which is far worse for bikes. By which I mean poor aerodynamics, not Wee Jack's predilection for wearing a skirt. OTOH bikes do pretty well in the real world, where you have to stop and start, especially in towns - which is what Kymmy and Mabel have been observing, I guess.

It's also not necessarily instructive to think about an R1 versus a 1000cc car. That's a high performance engine versus a (probably) economy engine. I know a man who gets better than 50mpg from a boxer (R1150 summat). Also you can get a Focus or a Mini that's in the maximum (over 250g/km???) tax bracket, which must correspond to burning a whole lot of fuel. You could come up with comparisons that "prove" either side of the case.

If you're willing to choose a diesel car or van that does incredible mpg for it's class, you ought to go and buy a diesel engined Enfield and make a comparison with that



read about it at RealClassic.co.uk

[alpslapper]

Totally Agree with Willb and Wee JAck. I've always been disappointed with the mpg on the alp. It's never been much more than what I used to get out of my 15 year old mondeo (when I had it) and that was fully loaded with 4 people, the dogs, and half the house when we went anywhere. Im sure the manufacturers can do a lot better than they do at the moment.
Course having said that I cant fault the 120 miles per gallon I get out of the 125 or the 90 miles per gallon out of the ttr but the alp is disappointing.

I too rarely see cars with more than one occupant - I think there has been initiatives to get people to car share but I dont think any of them have been a resounding success.

MCN - never knowingly let facts or accuracy get in the way of a good story.