Motorbikes '16 times worse than cars for pollution'

Motorbikes '16 times worse than cars for pollution'

Ian Sample, science correspondent
Wednesday December 21, 2005

Motorbikes are churning out more pollution than cars, even though they make up only a small fraction of vehicles on the roads, according to a report.

Tests on a selection of modern motorbikes and private cars revealed that rather than being more environmentally-friendly, motorbikes emit 16 times the amount of hydrocarbons, including greenhouse gases, three times the carbon monoxide and a "disproportionately high" amount of other pollutants, compared to cars. Ana-Marija Vasic at the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research, who led the research, said the need to legislate on emissions from motorbikes has been overlooked because there are so few on the roads. The oversight has lead to a paucity of research into ways of making their engines run more cleanly.

Full story: The Guardian

Interesting study which I would suggest could lead to exemptions for motorcycles from congestion and traffic control measures being reviewed. It's also liekly that any legislation to control emmissions on motorcycles (which isn't in itself a bad idea) could add significant cost to the price of a new bike.

Originally Posted by Cronos

[size=18][b]It's also liekly that any legislation to control emmissions on motorcycles (which isn't in itself a bad idea) could add significant cost to the price of a new bike.

Not to mention sapping performance.

Why is it we get all the disadvantages of being a minority, but none of the benefits?

What isn't mentioned of course is the fact that manufacturing and disposal of catalytic convertors causes more pollution than their actual use, something the government doesn't like to be known. Therefore as all new cars have cats and most bikes don't, it's cars by a long chalk that cause more environmental damage.

But of course it pales into insignificance when compared to cows:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...903311,00.html


.

The part they neglected to take into account is how rarely a bike sits in a traffic jam. All those cars sat for so long with their engines running has to make up a large proportion of the pollution produce by motorvehicles.

[Viney]

Originally Posted by jonboy

What isn't mentioned of course is the fact that manufacturing and disposal of catalytic convertors causes more pollution than their actual use, something the government doesn't like to be known. Therefore as all new cars have cats and most bikes don't, it's cars by a long chalk that cause more environmental damage.

But of course it pales into insignificance when compared to cows:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...903311,00.html


.

Exactly the same for paper recyling

a for the cows, i blame vegetarians...EAT MORE BEEF!

I do hope so. It's about bikes became bad for someting again.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Carsick

The part they neglected to take into account is how rarely a bike sits in a traffic jam. All those cars sat for so long with their engines running has to make up a large proportion of the pollution produce by motorvehicles.

Good point!

[quote="Cronos"]Motorbikes '16 times better than cars and everyone knows it'
[quote]

You know they're just jealous. Bet the researchers have to sit in traffic all day watching bikes go past.

I suspect that the fact that a bike can do the journey in a fraction of the time a car can was not taken into account either. Or the fact that most cars churn out higher pollution when sitting still.

I wonder how many of these were older 2 strokes ???

I thought modern injected 2 strokes are very EF.

.

[Sid Squid]

Good point Steve, I'd imagine there's a greater proprtion of older lower tech cars on the road than there are older bikes .