• BalooWasWahoo@links.hackliberty.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    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.

      • consumptionone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        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.

      • cron@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.