Pandering to the two wheeled motorist?

While looking for information about the Congestion Charge I found this on the 'Green' Libdems website...

http://www.greenlibdems.org.uk/articles/30.html

Now I do understand that some old motorcycles and 2 strokes kick out allot of rubbish just like older cars but is this really justified? I though with all the new emissions controls coming in most motorcycles are greener than ever, as you can tell by the huge weight of some can's. And as most bike are built to the most stringent countries emissions rules and then just sold everywhere is this view even correct? Or is the problem caused by those little 2 wheels mopeds, could anyone enlighten me?

If so could we enlighten them? Politely please as I vote Libdem myself and I don't want ranting just discussion.

It sounds as if he's part of the pro-cycling but anti-motorbike lobby. Most worrying is this:

Richard Thomas is Executive Member for Environment and Transport Lib Dem LibDem run Southwark Borough Council; he is also Political Vice-Chair of Lib Dems Green LibDems

When talking about emissions he's also (conveniently?) forgetting that around London, journeys take about half the time on a bike than they do in a car. We're not sitting for hours in traffic with our engines running.

Originally Posted by wyrdness

It sounds as if he's part of the pro-cycling but anti-motorbike lobby. Most worrying is this:

When talking about emissions he's also (conveniently?) forgetting that around London, journeys take about half the time on a bike than they do in a car. We're not sitting for hours in traffic with our engines running.

Point 1 for the reply letter....
Any more..

[BillyC]

It's a tricky situation, and a very difficult argument.

The 106 I was driving a few months back, has a larger engine than the SV, carries more passengers and luggage, but does the same, if not better mileage.

I would easily get 50+mpg out of the little 1 litre engine. Queueing in traffic was negated because I still got this figure. The SV does in the region of 45mpg... less with luggage and passengers, for which it cannot compete with a car!

Bikes are quick though, take up less space, and journey times are obviously shorter. Plus they're fun

is that minus 1 point...?
Anymore...

Originally Posted by Grinch

Point 1 for the reply letter....
Any more..

The article says that it's per kilometre travelled............ therefore the waiting in queues of traffic has been accounted for.

I should make a note that, in terms of airquality in the UK, the problem pollutant is nitrogen dioxide. It is harmful to the health of those with pre-existing lung diseases and is measured in many towns and cities and found to be present at harmful concentrations. Many local authorities have had to develop action plans to improve the situation. Motorcyles emit far less NO2 than cars and modern bikes are cat-equiped.

You could also make the point that many motorcycle accidents in town are the fault of other motorists and that there's a strong safety case for separating them from other road users by allowing the use of bus lanes, etc.

Then there's the economic costs of congestion....

Originally Posted by Jabba-the-Hutt

The article says that it's per kilometre travelled............ therefore the waiting in queues of traffic has been accounted for.

It depends upon the conditions in which the testing took place. If they tested it on the M1 at 3am, then they'd get very different results from testing in London at 8am.

Regretably any use of logic against eco-nazis is pointless. Try explaining to retarded tree huggers that recycling paper is more damaging to the environment that making new paper, especialy if the wood comes from sustained forests.

But when we have known since 1984 that "two wheeled motor vehicles, per mile driven, were five times more likely than cars to cause the death or serious injury of a pedestrian",

I would like to know if there is any evidence for this. Having seen the aftermath of a car hitting a queue of people outside a club I find it hard to believe a bike would have done as much damage.

Originally Posted by creamerybutter

I would like to know if there is any evidence for this. Having seen the aftermath of a car hitting a queue of people outside a club I find it hard to believe a bike would have done as much damage.

If i had any influence over the matter, I'd insist that scooters/learner bikers and "proper" motorcycles were treated separately in the statistics.