Hacker News Reader

Comment by chung8123 | Hacker News Reader

It is a bit weird. Why do cars have to meet a certain safety standard and motorcycles do not? I try to wrap the logic in my brain and intuitively it makes sense but logically it does not (which is why we see developers making "motorcycle" class cars).

I wonder if we are headed towards of path of two different road systems with ebikes, golf cars, bikes, etc on a separate roadway.

View on HN

I've always considered it an open secret that the motorcycle industry in the US doesn't get the same kind of scrutiny that the automobile industry does. If they had to comply with even a shred of the same emissions & safety regulations it would instantly destroy the market.

Are motorcycle emissions worse than cars? I assumed they were better as their mpg is so much better. Perhaps particulates are worse?

They have better mpg, but they generally don't have as much of the emission lowering 'tech' that cars have. This is especially true of older and/or cheaper motorcycles. So they'll burn less fuel, but each gallon of fuel they do burn will release more pollution, although motorcycles have gotten a lot better on this front over the past several years.

To add to the sibling comment, the fuel consumption of most motorcycles isn't even that impressive. Larger touring bikes can easily rival more fuel-efficient cars. For example, the average fuel consumption of the nice all-round BMW R 1250 is the same as that of my fits-four-people-and-their-stuff-comfortably Škoda. Even the iconic Honda PCX125 scooter (considered very efficient) still burns around 60% as much gas as my car, and that's just with the rider and little highway use.

I drive an EV, so I guess I'm now more sensible to certain gas smells. I've found that I smell much more "unpleasant" gasoline when driving behind motorcycles than cars?

I always thought that the only reason motorcycles have survived in the US was to artifically preserve the Harley Davidson brand.

In my country you see a lot of motorcycles as soon as the spring summer shows up. They all go back to the garage when the autumn rain starts.

They're not really practical.

People feel pretty safe in a golf cart, it’s stable and goes slowly, let’s toss in the kids and grandpa.

Then they get rear ended by a one ton SUV or even just hit a pole at 25 mph and it’s fatalities all around.

Agreed a separate golf cart/e-bike line may make sense, but you need wide adoption to justify that much dedicated lanes. People won’t necessarily buy a several thousand dollar vehicle just to run local errands, especially in Boston when it’s a 2 season vehicle

Not to deny this happens, but you realise a significant number of people die every day in high speed accidents? There is likely a statistical sweet spot of speed and survivability. These 25mph carts may actually reduce overall mortality, while being innately more dangerous than an SUV simply because of the net drop in driving speed.

Or, we could apply a 30mph max speed limit everywhere.

Your line of reasoning appears to be "if one person can die in a hypothetical situation we must ban it" when I think the reality is "if the net savings in lives and energy and costs overall are right, we can tolerate some risk"

The NHTSA might have a view. P.J. O'Rourke wrote about them quite nicely: a federal agency staffed by people who love cars, dealing with lardass drivers who keep stepping on the wrong pedal and want to blame it on Toyota.

My point is that the golf cart is likely as deadly to its occupants at 25mph as a full size car is at a much much higher speed, and is mixing in traffic with enormous vehicles.

Creating “the Villages” nationwide where every neighborhood is only trafficked by small low speed vehicles would be great, but people don’t want to invest storage and money into a secondary vehicle of such limited use. Maybe a neighborhood ringed by garages where people store their long distance vehicles, and integrally self driving golf carts putter people around to schools, stores, and cafes? If they need to leave, grab a cart and head to the garage ring?

I love urbanism and spent about half a decade car free (then kids really made that way more difficult), and getting cars off the roads in neighborhoods or even towns would be astounding

Now you would have to worry about delivery trucks, trash collection etc?

Another way to look at it is, what about when you get rear-ended, wouldn't you prefer it was by a golf cart rather than something far taller and heavier?

It sounds like the SUV is the one that is too dangerous in your scenario.

If being in a golf cart is too dangerous, why do we allow pedestrians to walk around without full body armour?

We don’t allow pedestrians to run around in traffic, which is what the golf cart would be doing.

It wouldn't be "running around in traffic", it would be travelling on the public highway, which we in fact do allow pedestrians to do.

> Then they get rear ended by a one ton SUV or even just hit a pole at 25 mph and it’s fatalities all around.

Isn't that also making the case that one ton SUV aren't safe either? At least in a golf cart you're putting your own life at risk, not others. Presumably there are less pedestrians/cyclists/motorcyclists killed by golf carts.

To me personally it appears that difference in speed is a key to safety it the lack of it. Hence I feel comfortable traveling on motorcycle next to car (relatively of course), but I would not dare do the same on bicycle or golf cart on highway. May be the logic here is the same?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com