[sustran] Motorcycles summarised

[K. Tsourlakis]

Perhaps motorcycles is another case where the problem of inappropriate technology transfer from north to south emerge (because traffic engineering is certainly a form of technology). The fact that motorcycle use is limited (if not marginal) compared to car traffic in most of the technologically influential countries (e.g. in 1990 only 0.2% of commuting trips in US were done by motorcycle - http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/journey/usmode90.txt - since then m/c use has been declining further) results to a limited interest for relevant research. For people living in these countries it is often difficult to realise the complexities of extended motorcycle use, and it is very easy to miss the point and e.g. to confuse the market view with the sustainability prospect. For instance is low price an advantage from a sustainability viewpoint? Then why congestion charge, toll roads and other ways to internalise the external cost are considered sustainable? If cars were free, wou!
 ld this considered as an advantage?

It seems that the issue of motorcycle-car comparison can be reduced into two questions:
1. Are motorcycles a more preferable encumbrance on the streets than cars?
2. Do motorcycles really substitute cars on the street? 
My personal answer to both questions is a clear NO - my arguments follow.

1. The dominant (and unfounded) opinion, that it is better to use motorcycles than cars, is based in a series of myths, which I will try to debunk:

* motorcycles pollute less than cars do

This is one of the most often as well as the most big myths about motorcycles. It is mostly caused from m/cs having usually smaller engines than cars do, hence they consume less fuel. Although engine size isn't exactly proportional to fuel consumption (rotations rate is also involved and m/c motors work usually on higher rpm) less fuel consumption does not necessarily results to less pollution. The reason this doesn't happen is that m/c engines are less developed than car engines. Many m/cs have 2-stroke engines, which burn lubricants together with fuel. But even on the larger ones (sometimes having engines equal in power to a small or medium sized car - so the smaller engine argument doesn't apply at all) it is difficult to incorporate anti-pollution technology (hybrids, catalyst etc). This will always be so, because it is part of the low-price "advantage" - m/cs will be a step back from cars in "green" technology incorporation. Generally as the size of the vehicle increase!
 s it is easier to apply pollution prevention technology (e.g. hybrid engines)- this is why it is much easier to implement it to buses and trains (in addition they are run by professionals and are much easier monitored, which facilitates further pollution control) The usual opinion that m/cs pollute less than cars do, is not substantiated by evidence. In Greece, where motorcycles rule, their pollution is not monitored like cars (it is part of their "promotion package"). But take a look for instance on the table at http://www.fuss-ev.de/themen/motorrad.html [http://www.fuss-ev.de/themen/motorrad.gif] where limits of allowed pollutants in Germany are presented, and proves that m/cs are allowed to pollute more than cars. A study trying to estimate the total pollution from every possible source, has shown that in Greece in some pollutants (like unburned hydrocarburates) the total air pollution from m/cs is already heavier than that of cars, although they are half the number of c!
 ars [http://www.aeat.co.uk/netcen/corinair/94/summgre.html - the situa
tion is worse 10 years later because of the proliferation of m/cs]. Also noise, which is another form of pollution (affecting mental rather than physical health) usually is not taken into account in car-m/c comparisons. The most that could be said about motorcycles is that they pollute somehow differently but certainly not less than cars.

* motorcycles take up less space on the street

This is true of course, if you compare one m/c and one car, but things are more complicated than this. Because what this argument implies is that we can substitute e.g. 1 car with 1 m/c. However in densely populated cities, like those considered as ideal, street space disposed for traffic is normally saturated and every traffic flow improvement activates the well known induced traffic effect (look e.g. at http://www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf). So the choice is not between 1 car and 1 m/c, but rather between 1 car and 2 m/cs or 3 m/cs, taking up the same space, but polluting more than 1 car does. Even worse is the case when m/cs do not reduce at all car use, but simply fill the gaps of car flow and pedestrian and free spaces, as the living example of Athens suggests. So, less space taken up from each individual m/c does not necessarily mean less total motorised traffic. What m/cs are good in, is in fact to fill up better than cars the totality of urban space leaving less voids tha!
 n cars do. Can this feature be considered as "sustainable" or "environmental friendly"?

* Motorcycle accidents are caused by the presence of cars

Motorcycles are inherently unsafe - more accurately: inherently more unsafe than cars. This is not only because of their smaller mass in the case of a collision, but because of their instability and less protection offered to their riders. In a study done in Germany almost 40% of m/c fatalities are caused from collisions with pedestrians, other m/cs or fixed objects (http://www.swov.nl/rapport/D-2001-05.pdf p.115 table6.2) although the number of m/cs in Germany is less than 10% of the number of cars. In countries where the number of m/cs is higher compared to the number of cars (like Vietnam), this proportion must be much larger. The numbers of m/c accidents are order of magnitudes higher than that of cars not only in countries like Cambodja, where law enforcement is almost non existent, but in every country of the world - look for instance in UK (http://www.begin-motorcycling.co.uk/rospa3.htm) or in the clockwork ordered Switzerland (http://www.bfu.ch/english/statistics/200!
 1/usv_t_06.htm).

* Motorcycle mix well with pedestrian flows and environments

Because of their smaller size, m/cs can run in parallel rows on the same lane. The difficulty of a pedestrian to cross a street grows exponentially with the number of lanes (mathematically equals to p^n where n the number of lanes and p the probability to find a traffic gap in a single lane at a certain time interval). So they virtually double (or triple) the number of lanes and make crossing of the street (exponentially) more difficult for the pedestrians. Also, because of their small size it is difficult to block motorcycle intrusion in pedestrian spaces. While cars can be easily blocked using bollards, pipe frames and other hurdles, every engineering measure inhibiting motorcycle entrance will also inhibit pedestrians, wheelchair users, baby strollers etc. (e.g. http://www.pezh.gr/hmerida/moto1.jpg )

* Motorcycle improves social equity and is an economic medium to improve mobility for everyone

Motorcycle is a mode of transport excluding a large part of the population and more particularly the most vulnerable one, not only as drivers (like cars do), but even as simple passengers: disabled and elderly persons, babies, small children etc. 
Motorcycle is not a low cost but a cheap [in the sense of paltry] transport medium. They are more expensive not only compared to cars (taking into consideration what they really offer), but also compared to public transit and bicycles offering the same mobility. Do the 2 million m/cs of Ho Chi Minh city cost really less than 2 million bicycles or 40.000 buses? (especially if we take into consideration functional costs and other externalities - "accidents", pollution related hospitalisation etc) Does anybody doubt that, in addition, the city would function better, the environment would be healthier and total cost would be less in the latter case? 

There is no perfect free-market intermodal competition in urban space, because of the externalities of the necessary arrangements. These arrangements (road building, urban planning, facilities placing and pricing etc) affect transport modes and people will choose whatever happens to be cheaper in terms of time and money in each particular place, whether this is car, motorcycle, train, bicycle, donkey or sky rocket. M/c (instead of car) promotion to overcome income shortage is equal to condemn lower classes in an intrinsically unsafe mode of transport. Correctly working administrations take over the responsibility to create a proper public transit network able to serve better and in an egalitarian way the society, and favour mild transport modes (walking - biking). This way they can achieve efficiency (less congestion - better mobility), more equity and better environment for their citizens and the whole planet. 

2. Many people in N. America (and other sprawl plagued places) tend to see in motorcycles (or other motorised devices) an alternative to cars, which are connected with this problem. However this seems to be rather wishful thinking than a grounded strategy. Is there any example around the world where motorcycles have ever improved sprawl? On the contrary there are plenty of examples where motorcycles were the first step towards motorization (e.g. currently in China, some years ago in southern Europe). The next step, when income grows further, is the shift to private car. Also, the phenomenon of sprawl seems to be more complicated than the simplistic equation sprawl=cars, and it certainly involves the desire to live alone in a building surrounded by a one acre land plot. Of course when urban densities decline, and quality public transit is not anymore feasible, then cars become a necessity, but a motorcycle can equally well serve this purpose.

M/cs will always be the transport medium of a minority. There are plenty of situations where m/c is unsuitable - I don't think anyone would ever reasonably wish to carry his 3-years-old child or his 90-years-old granny with a m/c (at least if there is an alternative like a proper public transit) and I doubt if your wife would ever accept to risk her 100$ coiffure riding a m/c. According to recent studies their modal split share in Athens is still less than 10% despite the favourable conditions and the unconditional promotion by the greek administration (they have now announced new tax breaks [http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/news/content.asp?aid=43184]- the second in one year period - and they are preparing special motorcycle lanes!). In Greece, when cities were saturated with cars, the administration instead promoting biking, walking and public transit, they promoted motorcycle use, in order to squeeze even more motorised traffic on the congested streets. The results of th!
 is strategy can be seen at http://www.pezh.gr/english/photo4.htm

                  ----------------------

A more interesting question is why m/cs are so much favoured, though these shortcomings are almost evident to anybody willing to scrutinise the issue? The usual answer concerning cars is the powerful car lobby (car and oil corporations). But in the case of motorcycles it is something more: _fanaticism_. A large part of motorcycle users are really fanatics. In Athens, whenever some tax raise or other measure affecting m/cs is impending, motorcycles manifestations are organised - so they gain continuously more privileges. In mid 90's the European Commission decided to promote a directive to abolish m/cs with more than 100HP power (I think this still holds in France), because so much power has obviously no other purpose than breaking speed limits. Some fanatics manifested and managed to block it. There is a strategy to present m/cs (which are even more lethal and noxious than cars) as harmless and sympathetic. I strongly recommend, for anybody able to understand german, the afo!
 rementioned link [http://www.fuss-ev.de/themen/motorrad.html] - I have similar experiences from Greece. 

So, the proposition that total abolition of motorcycles is a good idea, maybe sounds ridiculous but is not at all (actually nothing IS really ridiculous but always SEEMS ridiculous). What we are talking on this list (and many other places) about limiting motorised traffic would probably also seem ridiculous 50 years ago (and perhaps reactionary thoughts against progress) but now it is mainstream. And perhaps after 50 years all this irrational, wasteful and self-catastrophic way transports are currently oraganised, would seem even more ridiculous.




_____________________________________________________________________________________
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!