[sustran] Re: Motorcycles in WHO report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention

Eric Bruun ericbruun at earthlink.net
Tue Apr 20 09:00:33 JST 2004


I certainly have to agree that there are too many aggressive motorcyclists
in Athens and far too many large, semi-legal street racers without proper
mufflers. I also agree that most current motorcycles pollute too much, as
they don't use the latest technology.

However, a total ban is ridiculous. Some things to consider. First, they
need far less parking space, one of the reasons for their popularity.
Second, they are far more fuel efficient than all but the smallest autos,
unless these autos operate full, which they almost never do. Third, small
motorcycles get run over by cars in the developing countries in large
numbers. And the people riding them are not in the same income class as
those who own the cars.

But here is one of my main points. Yes, there are too many motorcycles on
the road in some places, especially in southeast Asia. But, lets look at
why. They have fast growing economies and work sites that are increasingly
far away. Yet these countries have substandard public transportation, as
governments (and the World Bank) have prioritized auto facilities instead.
What would you do if you could save enough money to buy a motorcycle? Blame
a lot of the problem on pro-auto policies.

The other main point is to consider the alternative. Would you rather have
merchants and couriers shipping their goods around on space-conserving,
low-polluting, well-muffled, and energy-conserving smaller motorcycles, or
in cars and trucks?  Motorcycles can have their place if public policy is
sensible. To the extent they displace pedestrians, bicycles, or buses,
motorcycles will be bad. To the extent they displace autos and trucks, they
will be good.

We have a similar discussion in the US. The Segway company has a slick
propaganda campaign saying how these motorized vehicles will displace cars
on short trips. I am skeptical. What they will probably do is displace
pedestrian and bicycle trips while promoting obesity,  electricity
consumption, and broken toes. Yet, if they can actually be put in role where
they genuinely reduce auto or truck traffic, I will support them.

Eric Bruun





----- Original Message -----
From: "K. Tsourlakis" <ktsourl at mailbox.gr>
To: <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 7:45 AM
Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: WHO report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention


>
> At 05:59 ðì 15/4/2004 +0300, you wrote:
>
> >.....................................
> >At the IFRTD Executive Committee meeting in November 2003 we had
> >a considered discussion on road safety.   It would seem to me that
> >road traffic injuries are correlated with  the increase in high
> >speed road networks and increased motorisation.  The 'vulnerable
> >road users' (pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists - and perhaps
> >other non-motorised transport users ) are the most at risk but
> >perhaps also the least likely to benefit from motorisation and
> >highways. So, from the perspective of reducing vulnerability of
> >poor people, do we not also need a road traffic injury prevention
> >strategy that questions the dominant paradigm of high speed
> >motorisation?
> >.....................................
>
>
> Motorcyclists are NOT non-motorised transport users. Bunching up
motorcyclists next to pedestrians, cyclists and other non-motorised
transport users is a HUGE logical and methodological mistake. And
motorcyclists DO benefit from motorisation and highways. Especially
benefited are the larger ones, bought (at least to some extent) always as
entertainment toys (e.g. the only use of 70HP, 80HP, 100HP - or even more -
motorcycle power is to break speed limits) - but smaller ones have certainly
their share too.
>
> Actually motorcycles pollute like cars do (even electrical ones pollute
indirectly), are noisy (usually more than cars), kill pedestrians and their
users (at a rate 10-40 times more frequently than cars do) and are not
usable (not even as mere passengers like cars are) from a large part of the
population (the most vulnerable one: babies, visually and kinetically
impaired, elderlies etc).
>
> Overuse of cars has certainly destroyed world cities and brought about
many problems - it is trivial and needless to mention them on a list like
this one. However there may exist a place even for them in an ideal and
rationally designed transport system - e.g. in sparsely populated areas, for
the transport of people on special needs, or under some particular forms
like the controversial caresharing scheme. But what advantage would
motorcycle present over bicycle use, combined with proper mass transport
(bike racks, train facilites for bikes etc) for longer distances? Has
anybody ever thought if the total ban of motorcycle were a better solution
to the vulnerability and the rest of the problems they present?
>
> In Greece motorcycle use has contributed (perhaps more than cars) to the
oppression of pedestrians, the miserable situation of the public spaces of
the city and the environmental and healthy problems (you may take a look at
http://www.pezh.gr/english/photo4.htm ). Because of the deliberate
encouragement of motorcycle use through a number of privileges (the last one
is the right to use legally dedicated bus lanes) their number proliferated
(in Athens their number is estimated to 1 mil - compared to 2 mil. of cars)
while they are used only by a small (but mostly fanatical and politically
influential) part of the population and contribute according to studies less
than 8% to the total mobility. I am sure there are similar "horror stories"
about motorcycles from Asia cities. Anybody to speak up?
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
_________
> http://www.mailbox.gr ÁðïêôÞóôå äùñåÜí ôï ìïíáäéêü óáò e-mail.
> http://www.thesuperweb.gr Website ìå ÁóöáëÝò Controlpanel áðü 6 Euro êáé
äþñï ôï domain óáò!



More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list