Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Green vehicle guide - two wheelers omitted

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by mjt57, Oct 4, 2005.

  1. Received this today via email.

    The federal government's Australian Greenhouse Office recently launched a 'Green Vehicle Guide' website, with comparative information about vehicle emissions and fuel consumption. The guide claims to provide "information about the environmental performance of new light vehicles (up to 3.5 tonnes) sold in Australia" and aims to help people choose less environmentally harmful vehicles.

    Information includes:
    * Greenhouse Rating (based on CO2 emissions)
    * Air Pollution Rating (based primarily on emission standards)
    * An Overall 'Star' Rating
    * Fuel Consumption (in L/100km)

    As it says it covers vehicles up to 3.5 tonnes, it should include motorcycles and scooters. Disappointingly, it does not.

    Given the considerable benefits of powered two wheelers, especially with global warming, traffic congestion and, now, higher petrol prices, it would seem wise for governments to encourage people to consider two wheelers as a possible vehicle.

    Go to www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au to check the site out.

    Help us remind the government of the importance and demand for two wheelers. Write to the following people, explain the benefits of two wheelers and ask that they publish data for motorcycles and scooters as well:

    1. John Howard, Prime Minister: http://www.pm.gov.au > Email your PM

    2. Senator Ian Campbell, Federal Minister for the Environment and Heritage, senator.ian.campbell@aph.gov.au

    3. Greg Hunt, MP - Parliamentary Secretary to Senator Campbell, greg.hunt.mp@aph.gov.au

    4. Australian Greenhouse Office, http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/ago/contact.html or phone 1800 026 222

    4. Your local federal member. If you know their name, their email will be in the form of firstname.secondname.MP@aph.gov.au OR initial.secondname.MP@aph.gov.au. If you don't know their name, determine your electorate then go to http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/memlist.pdf, and find their details.

    Ps. It might pay to email this to your Greens senator(s), if applicable. See what they have to say about the encouraging of enviro-friendly vehicles - see if they're truly honest about it, or whether it's limited to 4 wheelers only and public transport.
  2. The RACV does have motorcycle emissions listed on their website - bikes are actually more polluting in suburban use than modern passenger cars :shock: (of course that's probably got a lot to do with how people ride them). They've also got a nifty little program that'll determine the emissions for ALL vehicles, including motorcycles and scooters.
  3. It just says "motorcycles" and they're lumped in with vehicles from various periods, in particular for one group, pre-86 cars.

    Given the RACV's lack of enthusiasm for motorcycles, I'm not surprised that it doesn't look favorably on them in this survey.

    Thing is, what's more important is what the governments think of bikes. After all, they are the ones that make policy, not the RACV. And that bikes are missing from this Greenhouse thing isn't being fair, or genuine about reducing emissions.

    An old Harley running rough is sure to be worse than say, one of these new scooters that seem to be the rage at the moment. While most bikes don't have cats, newer ones increasingly do, so they have to count for something, particularly when they're capable of 50 mpg or 5 l/100km.
  4. Yes newer bikes are an improvement, however new models being released now are only just meeting Euro 3 emission standards. Passenger cars on the other hand are already required by law to meet Euro 4 standards (in Europe) and some already meet Euro 5 standards. The simple fact remains that although 1 person on a bike uses less fuel than 1 person in a car, modern car engines do run cleaner and produce less pollution per litre of fuel used. Four people in a car is still far better for the environment than 4 motorcycles.
  6. Details on euro emission standards can be found here
    If you kook at this article you will see that bikes will only be required to meet Euro 3 standards as of next year, which is roughly twice the emissions of the Euro 4 standard currently required of all new European cars.

    Very few, that's the problem. Probably going to be more succesful in trying to encourage drivers to carpool or use public transport than convince them to take up riding.

    Yes, as I pointed out modern car engines produce less pollution per litre of fuel than bike engines since they have the luxury of being able to run far more complex exhaust and fuel injection systems. And yes a 250 may be more economical than a 1000cc bike but this does not necessarily mean that it's going to run cleaner. Engine configuration may play some part in emissions but the biggest factors are still the efficiency of the engine and the exhaust system.

    Was still a good point, bikes should have been included for the sake of comparison. I only thought it important to comment so people did not go sending off emails and letters claiming that bikes are less polluting than cars when that's not entirely true. The best approach I believe that the government should adopt is to implement the same sort of emission regs on new cars as those used in Europe, encourage carpooling, and to make a greater effort in encouraging the use of public transport (that actually works). Motorcycles are a good option for solo travel but they are not going to be suitable for everyone.
  7. Cars are cleaner per litre of fuel used...ok, so you are maintaining that cars are cleaner on a fuel consumption basis (litre for litre) AND in an overall sense even though they use say 3-5 times the amount of fuel of something on two wheels?
  8. Yes, but only if that car is carrying passengers. Good fuel economy for a bike would be around 5L/100kms carrying one person. Very few cars on the market would get worse than 20L/100 even with 4 people on board and will run cleaner, therefore it is more environmentally friendly than 4 bikes. Quite a few cars can even manage less than 10L/100 so with 4 people on board that's a cleaner option than 2 bikes, even with pillion passengers. So, like I said, for solo travel a bike is the cleaner option - but only if the fuel consumption is less.
  9. Okay, I don't have any special knowledge of the research methodolgy behind this RACV presentation, so I suppose I can't condemn it out of hand.
    BUT. Don't the figures look just a little fishy to anyone else here?
    I mean, Hydro carbon and CO emissions 10 times higher than a late model car?? And yet half that of cars during short trips? Is that really credible?
    And how exactly can driving "smoothly" halve a vehicles emissions (we're not comparing this to racing, either that's merely compared to average driving).
    I have read studies previously (admittedly about 4 years ago) that show some large bikes may have rather high CO readings when idling (not HCs, though), but those same studies showed generally lower emissions across the board once travelling at normal speeds (although perhaps not very high speeds). To believe this study, some things must have changed rather dramatically.
    Even the rather depressing results published from a recent Paris study were nowhere remotely as bad as those here, and they included a much high percentage of (very dirty) older two-stroke scooters than the Australian fleet.

    Like I said, I can't refute the figures, but I've got to express some doubts as to how they could actually be so horrendously bad for bikes. :?
  10. Umm, look more closely at the data. The first table sets the benchmark for the various vehicle types, following tables list adjustment factors for different conditions. So the data does not state that bike emissions are half that of cars during short trips, simply that they do not increase by as much as for cars.