All Rights Reserved © "Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
- Mark Twain I check the comments on this blog regularly. The idea is that we're going to have a conversation about the ideas I've presented. You should be aware of the fact that when someone emails me an interesting comment, the odds are good that I'll post that in the comments anonymously and reply to that comment on the blog rather than in email.
May 24, 2012
Motorcycles in Traffic
Unfortunately for US motorcyclists, the US EPA would not be able to confirm either the increased inefficiencies or the lowered pollution contribution of motorcycle use in any state other than California; and pollution numbers don't look better by much, even in CA. Part of the problem is the EPA is hobbled by rules that force the agency to look at pollution-per-gallon of fuel used, rather than emissions-per-mile driven. This idiot rule limits the efficiency of any US-sold vehicle, motorcycles included, since manufacturers are forced to work at eliminating fuel exhaust output in unrealistic conditions (on a dyno with no regard for miles traveled). The oil companies have to love this (and, undoubtedly bought the necessary politicians to keep this stupid rule in force), but the rest of us suffer 1960's efficiency vehicles to keep oil use and profits high. As always, we have the finest government money can buy.
8 comments:
Disagree? Bring it on. Have more to add? Feel free to set me straight. Unfortunately, Blogger doesn't do a great job of figuring out which Anonymous commenters are actually real people, not Russians or Chinese bots. Because of that, I don't accept anonymous posts. If you have something worth saying, you shouldn't be afraid of using your ID.
"pollution-per-gallon of fuel used, rather than emissions-per-mile driven."
ReplyDeleteReally, thank you for that insight. That really is dumb, I didn't know that...
Geezer:
ReplyDeleteyou are right ! We are using stupid rules over here.
bob
Riding the Wet Coast
My Flickr // My YouTube
I can remember reading about this in Car&Driver back in the late 70's. They were lamenting how this method basically encouraged Detroit to not develop small efficient engines, since it was easier to control certain emissions with existing technologies. We ended up with horrible running, fuel guzzling cars for many years.
ReplyDeleteYou don't really expect politics to keep up with advances in science and technology do you?
The problem is that the one thing U.S. motorists can't stand more than being stuck in traffic is seeing someone else move faster than themselves. When I used to commute into Boston many cars would swerve to block your progress if they thought your lane was moving faster than their's. The other thing about filtering is I wonder if Europe has as many huge SUVs and trucks on the road with mirrors sticking way out on either side? I suppose they manage in California, but it seems like it could be a recipe for accidents.
ReplyDeleteActually, I do expect my government to be technologically current. However, since we have the cheapest government money has bought my expectations are tempered by the knowledge that this is not my government. In fact, since 2000 there is barely a pretense made that the citizens even matter anymore.
ReplyDeleteThere is a delusion that Californians are somehow different than other "Americans." Clearly from people who have never been to or lived in California. Most of the Californians escaped the place in the late 80's after that recession finally moved to CA. What's left is people from all over the world. I have seen no evidence that lane-splitting or filtering is "a recipe for accidents" or crashes. One of the freedoms we still have is that you don't have to do it if you don't think it's safe.
I don't think I'll have the choice of filtering anytime soon. The trend is toward more restrictive laws directed at motorcycles, not less. When we keep reading about local squids getting arrested for going 150-170 mph on local highways it doesn't help matters.
ReplyDeleteEmission standards for motorcycles are in units of mass per distance:
ReplyDelete§ 86.410-2006 Emission standards for 2006 and later model year motorcycles.
(a)(1) Exhaust emissions from Class I and Class II motorcycles shall not exceed the standards listed in the following table:
Table E2006–1—Class I and II Motorcycle Emission Standards
Model year Emission standards
(g/km)
HC CO
2006 and later 1.0 12.0
(2) Exhaust emissions from Class III motorcycles shall not exceed the standards listed in the following table:
Table E2006–2—Class III Motorcycle Emission Standards
Tier Model year Emission standards
(g/km)
HC + NOX CO
Tier 1 2006–2009 1.4 12.0
Tier 2 2010 and later 0.8 12.0
Emission standards for motorcycles are in units of mass per distance:
ReplyDelete§ 86.410-2006 Emission standards for 2006 and later model year motorcycles.
(a)(1) Exhaust emissions from Class I and Class II motorcycles shall not exceed the standards listed in the following table:
Table E2006–1—Class I and II Motorcycle Emission Standards
Model year Emission standards
(g/km)
HC CO
2006 and later 1.0 12.0
(2) Exhaust emissions from Class III motorcycles shall not exceed the standards listed in the following table:
Table E2006–2—Class III Motorcycle Emission Standards
Tier Model year Emission standards
(g/km)
HC + NOX CO
Tier 1 2006–2009 1.4 12.0
Tier 2 2010 and later 0.8 12.0