[sustran] Re: Motorcycles summarised

[Eric Bruun]

Dr. Mr. Tsourlakis:

I think that calling motorcylists fanatics is like the pot calling the
kettle black. It seems pretty apparent that you are an anti-motorcycle
fanatic.

I think that you exaggerate the support for motorcycles. I think that almost
all of us recognize that there are drawbacks. Like any mode, we should be
interested in figuring out what the best policy is from a public policy
standpoint. This will vary from one place to the next . I think that it
would be totally outrageous to ban motorcycles in developing countries while
the elite are driving around in their luxury cars. These same elite are also
probably setting public policy to favor their private mobility needs over
better public transportation, as well, making motorcycles all the more
attractive. I don't think it is a coincidence that fast growing Asian cities
that have neglected public transport investments have exceptionally high
motorcycle use. If one doesn't own a car, the alternatives are poor.

I think that your pollution analysis is somewhat off-base. Motorcycles can
and will be a lot cleaner in the future, no matter what the size. In the
developing countries, one can blame Japanese companies for much of the
current situation by selling obsolete models they would never sell in North
America or Europe. But you can also blame dirty fuel, poor maintenance and
other factors which also apply to autos and freight vehicles. You are
correct that cleaner engines will probably have some impact on the price of
smaller motorcycles, and so be it. As you say, it should be more expensive
to drive.

In the richer countries, some motorcycles are selected because they are
cheap transportation, but many are selected for their features and
performance, and in fact, overpowered. The price for the larger higher
performance vehicles would not change much when they are cleaner, and the
performance will still be adequate.

As for road space, keep in mind that motorcycles need less parking space
than autos. This is not unimportant in some situations.

We also have to address the issue of freight and commerce. Motorcycles are
not just for commuting and recreation. There might be a role for them if the
alternative is autos and lorries.

Eric Bruun



----- Original Message -----
From: "K. Tsourlakis" <ktsourl at mailbox.gr>
To: <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 4:27 PM
Subject: [sustran] Motorcycles summarised


>
> 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!