Hacker News Reader

Comment by mschuster91 | Hacker News Reader

That's just further entrenching car dominance. Every mode of transport should be allowed to safely use the roads, and for what it's worth motorcycles are way better for the climate as a mode of individual transport because they weigh maybe 10% of your average modern car.

View on HN

Motorcycles aren’t viable in many places due to weather, and they aren’t practical for most people (people with kids, pets, large items, etc to transport).

I don’t think “everyone should be allowed to use the road safely” is a statement anyone disagrees with, but the laws of physics make this very difficult to implement in any practical way. Pretty sure that even in Europe, cycling and motorcycling are far more dangerous than driving.

Electric cars are the only viable, general purpose solve for climate change as it pertains to personal transit. We aren’t going to get everyone to start (motor)cycling or taking public transit over the coming decades, but EVs are a drop-in replacement for most personal transit use cases.

> I don’t think “everyone should be allowed to use the road safely” is a statement anyone disagrees with, but the laws of physics make this very difficult to implement in any practical way. Pretty sure that even in Europe, cycling and motorcycling are far more dangerous than driving.

Oh, of course we can practically implement road safety for everyone:

- limit inner-city speeds outside of major influx roads to 30 km/h

- build dedicated bicycle and bus lanes in cities

- build dedicated pedestrian lanes (not an issue in urban Europe, a bit of an issue in rural areas though)

- enforce speeding and distance-keeping regulations

- make sure the quality of the roads and pedestrian ways is acceptable (i.e. no potholes, even surface) to minimize accident risk

- keep heavy haul traffic on highways wherever possible, prevent toll evasion

- build out public transport to reduce the amount of individual traffic

- provide elderly citizens with taxi vouchers or other forms that ensure their mobility without having them drive themselves

- get old vehicles outside of historical preservation interests off the road to increase the amount of cars with up-to-date safety features

- enforce regular technical check-ups (Germany, for example, requires one every two years) so that vehicles in dangerous condition get taken off the road and owners of vehicles in barely-roadworthy condition also get the hint

Countries that prioritise safe infrastructure for bicyclists like the Netherlands fare significantly better in road accident statistics [1] over countries that just say "fuck it, cars first" like the US.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...

Those things improve safety, and we should certainly do them, but that’s likely not enough to bring all modes of transit into parity with regard to safety.

We can get near parity though - in the end it's probably a classic pareto distribution problem. The last 20% of traffic fatalities will be really hard, I agree, but we can reduce the utter majority of traffic accidents very very easily.

Agreed, although I think by and large we’ve already progressed a good ways into the 80%; however, the variance is huge because some jurisdictions take safety very seriously and others ignore it to the extent allowed by national law.

Have you ever ridden a motorcycle? They’re not as efficient as weight would imply, because aerodynamics dominate when you’re not speeding up/slowing down.

Motorcycles typically get 40-50mpg. A little better than cars, but not a lot. And they transport at most two people.

You're outright wrong, I've detailed that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34351151

And yes, motorcycles transport two people at the most - but for real, look outside a window and count how many car drives are made by single-occupants. In the UK, for example, it's 60% [1].

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/314733/single-occupant-c...

You'd be surprised. They're woefully unaerodynamic, and emissions standards are pretty lax for them.

Something like a CBR300F is about half the emissions of a hybrid and a grom can get lower, but plenty of motorbikes are actually worse than a compact car and getting close to SUV territory.

> They're woefully unaerodynamic, and emissions standards are pretty lax for them.

Still more aerodynamic and fuel efficient than someone riding a full-blown SUV to work solo.

> but plenty of motorbikes are actually worse than a compact car and getting close to SUV territory.

Not everyone drives a Kawasaki Ninja H2 R with 310 hp or whatever the top record is these days. Per German ADAC, the average motorcycle consumes 2-3 liters/100km [1], whereas the average car is at 7-8 liters/100km [2].

[1] https://www.adac.de/verkehr/tanken-kraftstoff-antrieb/tipps-...

[2] https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/verkehr/kraftstoffe

They might be worse for emissions that aren't CO2, but this whole discussion is moot. Ebikes could be the actual future.

When measuring the health hazards of motorbikes/mopeds, emissions are a small part.

Part of the reason is that it's so fun to go fast with them.

You can buy electric scooters nowadays that can drive a lot farther than any car with the same battery. If one was big on emission reduction, one would ban all cars and only allow scooters.

With streets crowded with scooters during rush hour I think we'd have a lot more minor accidents/injuries, but far, far fewer deaths, right? What could be done to avoid the minor accidents?

> What could be done to avoid the minor accidents?

For one, more strictly enforce technical fitness and some form of age requirements. An awful lot of people don't care much about the roadworthiness of their vehicle, and many don't care about technological advances like anti brake-lock systems in newer models as well.

The other major contributor to motorcycle (or bicycle) accidents is road conditions like potholes, dirt and especially oil contamination, bumpiness in roads... a car doesn't care much (unless it's one of those super-flat sports vehicles), but a cyclist can easily lose control.

You can drive 350+ miles on a single scooter charge? Also, I have a hard time imagining anyone taking 400+ mile road trips on a scooter.

> Also, I have a hard time imagining anyone taking 400+ mile road trips on a scooter.

On a scooter not, but on a Harley or Honda Gold Wing? People make trips across Europe on these beasts.

The parent is talking about electric scooters having more range than electric cars; I’m not sure how gas motorcycles fit in here.

e-scooters, ebikes, trains and LEVs are very much the sane answer.

Aerodynamic drag is cD multiplied by cross section. By virtue of about a quarter the cross section of an average passenger vehicle, motorcycles are far more efficient. Don't even get me started on road wear being a function of weight to the fourth power, thus motorcycles effectively cause negligible road wear.

For what it's worth, I've never driven a motorcycle and probably never will, for danger.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com