Motorcycles release more air pollution than SUVs
Articles — By forcechange on June 20, 2008 6:59 am
Having dissected the Prius vs. Hummer myth, we found it interesting to learn that motorcycles release more pollution into the air than even SUVs. While motorcycles are about twice as fuel-efficient as cars and emit less CO2, because they are unable to carry heavy equipment like catalytic converters, they release large amounts of nitrogen oxides, which results in the release of ten times more air pollution per mile than an average car. While two wheelers comprise only 3.6% of registered vehicles in California and only 1% of the miles driven, they account for 10% of the state’s smog emissions from vehicles. So although switching from a passenger car to a motorcycle will save you money at the gas pump, it will actually do more harm to the air than even your gas guzzling SUV.
Facebook Comments
If this is true then why are motorcycles allowed to drive in the carpool lane? I thought it was because they were environmentally friendly…
According to the U.S. Dept. of Transportation, “Motorcycles are permitted by federal law to use HOV lanes, even with only one passenger. The rationale behind allowing motorcycles to use HOV lanes is that it is safer to keep two-wheeled vehicles moving than to have them travel in start-and-stop traffic conditions. States can choose to override this provision of federal law, if they determine that safety is at risk.”
And while they may be less environmentally friendly as far as air pollution is concerned, they do conserve gasoline. And isn’t that what the carpool lane is all about, conserving gas?
Because of the wide variety of motorcycle and scooter engines currently in use, I am skeptical of some of these claims. Are two-strokes still being used in the creation of this data? Fuel-injected bikes? Is it coincidence that a dirt bike (gently massaged to sneak past emissions rules) is shown in the photo? The reality is that people using small bikes (especially the Chinese-made, worst-polluting models) for transportation are doing it out of extreme financial hardship. Until the government starts issuing free Priuses to low-income folks, that’s not going to change. Take away bikes and scooters, and you shut one more generation out of the chance to commute to a better job, or pursue an education at the community college. Oh, yeah. These options, as usual, remain open to children of white, upper-middle class parents who can afford to buy Junior a car.
Reality check: Gas savings will not come close to covering the cost of buying, maintaining, registering and insuring a motorcycle in CA, unless it’s an ultra-cheap new bike (read: polluting) or an older, used bike.
But there are other factors to consider. Bikes cause less wear to roads. Five or more bikes can fit into the space occupied by one medium-sized car. Building a bike uses less raw material, and when a bike reaches the end of its useful life, there are fewer materials left that need disposal. (Not to pick on Toyota, but what’s involved in disposing of, or recycling it’s battery?)
Interestingly enough, those options aren’t available to white lower, and many working class families either. I’m not sure if ‘white’ is actually a determining criteria as your comment suggests. It may be the economic class that provides the additional options.
Yeah, doug, I couldn’t resist playing the race card. As in just about every issue, this is really about socio-economics…and race shouldn’t be an issue. You can’t “force change” by insisting that everyone drive certain vehicles. I love folks who can afford to buy trendy “status” hybrid cars. Their market sector is driving R & D that will eventually make cleaner technology affordable to all of us. But we’re not there yet. But “force that change” now, and all you’re doing is imposing more economic hardship on the people who can least afford it.