My understanding is that motorcycles (especially modern motorcycles) produce significantly less CO2 equiv than modern cars - in no small part due to their ability to not get caught in traffic.
Motorcycles do not have to meet the same stringent requirements as cars because they aren’t classified as cars.
This holds true in most “western” nations.
They’re allowed higher emissions and put out more emissions per person than cars do.
You guys can downvote me all you want but 1 person in 1 car emits less emissions than 1 person on 1 motorcycle.
This is NOT an argument for cars but an argument AGAINST a single user motorized transport.
This doesn’t negate the argument against cars but it’s strange to see people arguing FOR another form of motorized transport rather than walkable cities OR mass public transportation.
You do know that almost all modern on-road motorcycles are CARB-compliant, right? Oh, but what about those small motorcycles? https://www.transportpolicy.net/standard/us-motorcycles-emissions/ As of 2006, all Class I and II motorcycles must be compliant with few exceptions.
I don’t know where you are getting your numbers for your claims. These are some significant assertions that, even prima facie, don’t make sense.
1 person in 1 car emits less emissions than 1 person on 1 motorcycle
Even from just a thermodynamics standpoint, this assertion not only feels wrong, but is wrong. Maybe a two-stroke motorcycle could out-emit a modern SOV.
Can you link those findings? I find this hard to believe since cars are so much heavier than motorcycles. Maybe a full van, is better emissions per capita? But with a single user for a car I am skeptical but open to being shown to be wrong
I’m trying to figure out what their assumptions are for occupancy. I think I saw that a vehicle was assumed to just be driver +25 kg for cars, but I’m not 100% sure I’m reading that correctly
One, they are much better on gas use. So less energy in general to move them.
Two, they are much lighter, which as we are discovering with electric vehicles, matters a great deal in how horrible the tire wear is (and remember that 28% of microplastics in the environment come from car tire degradation alone!).
Three, for traffic purposes, they are much, much better. They are smaller, so recall that picture that floats around of how much space 100 passengers takes up. They aren’t near the train/bus level, but are closer to the bicycle portion of the picture than the cars. It becomes even better if they are scooters compared to motorcycles (scooters are generally even lighter and have smaller engines with better gas usage). I always hear the stat thrown around that if 25% of individuals switched to motorcycles, modern traffic jams in cities (in America, I guess, where I hear it uttered) would nearly disappear.
How exactly does a motorcycle that gets 60 mpg (3.92 l/100 km) take more energy to move a single person that a car that gets 25 mpg (9.4 l/100 km)? Notice that almost nobody carpools in America, which is the subject of this post.
Also note that almost all motorcycles sold worldwide comply with Euro 5 emissions standards.
Motorcycles use 50% less fuel than cars. And at least for the daily commute, both carry the same amount of people (one). Additionally, they need about 1/4 of parking space.
Why is “motorcycle” in a different category than “Drive Alone”?
Climate impact is significantly less for motorcycle riders, that’s the only mitigation I can think of.
That’s hardly self evident.
The map has no information to specify its intent or methodology. Without that, you can assign whatever meaning to it you like.
Motorcycles are one of the worst forms of transportation.
1 rider, 1 engine often regulated well below what automotive emissions standards require.
My understanding is that motorcycles (especially modern motorcycles) produce significantly less CO2 equiv than modern cars - in no small part due to their ability to not get caught in traffic.
Most commuters are 1 person per vehicle.
That’s just not true though.
Motorcycles do not have to meet the same stringent requirements as cars because they aren’t classified as cars.
This holds true in most “western” nations.
They’re allowed higher emissions and put out more emissions per person than cars do.
You guys can downvote me all you want but 1 person in 1 car emits less emissions than 1 person on 1 motorcycle.
This is NOT an argument for cars but an argument AGAINST a single user motorized transport.
This doesn’t negate the argument against cars but it’s strange to see people arguing FOR another form of motorized transport rather than walkable cities OR mass public transportation.
[citation needed]
Outlandish claims are fine, but you need to either substantiate them or stop complaining that people don’t believe your obviously-false bullshit.
You do know that almost all modern on-road motorcycles are CARB-compliant, right? Oh, but what about those small motorcycles? https://www.transportpolicy.net/standard/us-motorcycles-emissions/ As of 2006, all Class I and II motorcycles must be compliant with few exceptions.
I don’t know where you are getting your numbers for your claims. These are some significant assertions that, even prima facie, don’t make sense.
Even from just a thermodynamics standpoint, this assertion not only feels wrong, but is wrong. Maybe a two-stroke motorcycle could out-emit a modern SOV.
Can you link those findings? I find this hard to believe since cars are so much heavier than motorcycles. Maybe a full van, is better emissions per capita? But with a single user for a car I am skeptical but open to being shown to be wrong
2022 numbers show motorcycles at 2/3rds the GHG emissions as cars.
So 2 people in 1 car is better than 2 motorbikes but 1 motorbike is easily better than 1 car.
Which numbers? Have a link?
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/13171223
Thanks
I’m trying to figure out what their assumptions are for occupancy. I think I saw that a vehicle was assumed to just be driver +25 kg for cars, but I’m not 100% sure I’m reading that correctly
One, they are much better on gas use. So less energy in general to move them.
Two, they are much lighter, which as we are discovering with electric vehicles, matters a great deal in how horrible the tire wear is (and remember that 28% of microplastics in the environment come from car tire degradation alone!).
Three, for traffic purposes, they are much, much better. They are smaller, so recall that picture that floats around of how much space 100 passengers takes up. They aren’t near the train/bus level, but are closer to the bicycle portion of the picture than the cars. It becomes even better if they are scooters compared to motorcycles (scooters are generally even lighter and have smaller engines with better gas usage). I always hear the stat thrown around that if 25% of individuals switched to motorcycles, modern traffic jams in cities (in America, I guess, where I hear it uttered) would nearly disappear.
They pollute more and use more energy to move a single person.
Motorcycles are worse than cars…
How exactly does a motorcycle that gets 60 mpg (3.92 l/100 km) take more energy to move a single person that a car that gets 25 mpg (9.4 l/100 km)? Notice that almost nobody carpools in America, which is the subject of this post.
Also note that almost all motorcycles sold worldwide comply with Euro 5 emissions standards.
Motorcycles use 50% less fuel than cars. And at least for the daily commute, both carry the same amount of people (one). Additionally, they need about 1/4 of parking space.
Because motorcycles take up way less space than a car