Oh yeah.............................

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

BALKAN said:
The reason we want less people to drive is to ease congestion, minimise pollution and minimise fatal accidents/accidents that cause serious injury. In this regard motorbikes and cars are the same difference.
Click to expand...

These ones.

Motorcycles dramatically reduce congestion, pollution and even road maintenance costs.

And they are more dangerous, statistically, than cars. Which is a whole separate issue.

There are no bicycle statistics because they are not registered and are not required to report road accidents.
 
vealesy said:
These ones.

Motorcycles dramatically reduce congestion, pollution and even road maintenance costs.

And they are more dangerous, statistically, than cars. Which is a whole separate issue.

There are no bicycle statistics because they are not registered and are not required to report road accidents.
Click to expand...

You are right on congestion and probably about the road maintenance costs but motorcycles produce more pollution than cars and you've said it yourself they are more dangerous.
 
vealesy said:
Im all for more cyclists. But if i must carry identification on the road, so should they.

Its not an additional license.
Click to expand...

I don't like the idea of charging bikes extra for registration, but certainly some form of identification is necessary now.

After all, to drive a car you need to pass a test that confirms you're capable of using the roads and abiding by the rules, pretty sure there's no such thing for cyclists.

Because of this we have some f***wits out there who seem to think red lights only apply to vehicles with an engine. :rolleyes:
 
vealesy said:
Irs not the bike that is dangerous. Its the low skilled riders/drivers. How can you compare this to bicycles with no statistics?

I crashed my bicycles a lot more than my motorbikes.

More pollution? How?
Click to expand...

The stats are out there somewhere, the average motorbike emits 300 times more greenhouse gases than the average car.

Fyfie_ said:
I don't like the idea of charging bikes extra for registration, but certainly some form of identification is necessary now.

After all, to drive a car you need to pass a test that confirms you're capable of using the roads and abiding by the rules, pretty sure there's no such thing for cyclists.

Because of this we have some f***wits out there who seem to think red lights only apply to vehicles with an engine. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

There does need to be more emphasis on Bike Ed but anyone who's ever driven before knows that holding a valid licence is no guarantee that you're not a f-wit.
 
Fyfie_ said:
I don't like the idea of charging bikes extra for registration, but certainly some form of identification is necessary now.

After all, to drive a car you need to pass a test that confirms you're capable of using the roads and abiding by the rules, pretty sure there's no such thing for cyclists.

Because of this we have some f***wits out there who seem to think red lights only apply to vehicles with an engine. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

nicky i havent heard about you riding through red lights. if so please cease this activity immediately. giving cyclists a bad name here.

anyway, ID wise wouldnt be against it. but if governments want this im sure they just want to gather more information about its citizens and further invade our privacy
 
anyway i saw a mentally disabled chap riding today on the footpath. i see him every day. gentle and pleasant chap. but he rides on the footpath and very slowly. if he were to ride on the road im sure drivers would be gesturing wildly and swearing at him.

or if after realising his disability aggressively wearing a scarf at him
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

BALKAN said:
The stats are out there somewhere, the average motorbike emits 300 times more greenhouse gases than the average car.

There does need to be more emphasis on Bike Ed but anyone who's ever driven before knows that holding a valid licence is no guarantee that you're not a f-wit.
Click to expand...

Id like to see those stats. Id be an advocate of banning all Harleys, which no doubt skew those stats.

Motorcycles have emission laws. I highly doubt they are 300 times more than a car, considering the motors are at least half the size, and about 10% of the weight load.

Prove it.
 
BALKAN said:
There does need to be more emphasis on Bike Ed but anyone who's ever driven before knows that holding a valid licence is no guarantee that you're not a f-wit.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but licenses are a point of accountability, as are plates. If you are a f***wit in a car, it's easier to fine you or strip your license for being one.

I wonder how many less dickhead cyclists we'd have (or whether they'd pull their heads in) if there was a system in place to dob them in, similar to the one we have for hoons.

peternorth said:
anyway i saw a mentally disabled chap riding today on the footpath. i see him every day. gentle and pleasant chap. but he rides on the footpath and very slowly. if he were to ride on the road im sure drivers would be gesturing wildly and swearing at him.
Click to expand...

And people like him are a good reason why the cycling on footpaths rule could probably be different.
 
vealesy said:
Id like to see those stats. Id be an advocate of banning all Harleys, which no doubt skew those stats.

Motorcycles have emission laws. I highly doubt they are 300 times more than a car, considering the motors are at least half the size, and about 10% of the weight load.

Prove it.
Click to expand...

There's this article: http://www.latimes.com/news/la-hy-throttle11-2008jun11,0,6054455.story#axzz2wO02LgKh

And I think Mythbusters might've been where I originally heard it: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/09/mythbusters-motorcycle-emissions.html

The upshot? Motorcycles were indeed more fuel-efficient than cars and emitted less of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, but they emitted far more smog-forming hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen, as well as the toxic air pollutant carbon monoxide. For the most recent model year vehicles tested -- from the '00s -- the motorcycle used 28% less fuel than the comparable decade car and emitted 30% fewer carbon dioxide emissions, but it emitted 416% more hydrocarbons, 3,220% more oxides of nitrogen and 8,065% more carbon monoxide.

The MythBusters' conclusion: "At best, it's a wash. Motorcycles are just as bad for the environment as cars," Savage said on the show. "At worst, they're far worse."
Click to expand...

I don't know where I got my 300 figure from. Probably from watching 300 the other day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RU_
Your ‘oh sh*t’ moments
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
Macca19
Macca19

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top