Cleaner and greener by 2015 say European manufacturers

ACEM (the European motorcycle manufacturers association) announced several strategic measures concerning safety and the environment at its 5th Annual Conference, held on December 1st, 2008.

Firstly, ACEMs is confident that it will meet its target to fit 50% of all new PTWs (Powered Two Wheelers, i.e. motorcycles and scooters) with advanced braking systems by 2010, and in addition has pledged that by 2015, three quarters of PTWs sold will be offered with advanced braking systems as an option.

On the environmental front, ACEM has proposed a 'road map' with a the aim of parity with car emissions by 2015. Initially PTW's would achieve a Euro 4 stage in 2012, (entailing a 25% reduction over tailpipe emissions compared to the current Euro 3 standard), attaining the Euro 5 stage three years later by realising a further 25% reduction in tailpipe emissions, thus reaching the goal of parity with Euro 5 petrol passenger cars.

This would be a significant achievement as Euro standards for PTWs were not introduced until 1999, a full seven years after their implementation for passenger cars. Furthermore, as a recent study by the French environment agency proved that in an urban environment Euro 3 PTW's are 'greener' that Euro 4 cars (because they reach their destination twice as quickly and thus spend less real time with the engine running), Euro 5 motorcycles and scooters will be substantially more environmentally friendly than cars.

Fuel for thought!

How green is my machine?

It would seem to be a self evident truth that motorcycles are a more environmentally friendly form of transport than the car. After all PTWs, (Powered Two Wheelers, as they are called in official circles, which includes all motorcycles, scooters and mopeds), require fewer raw materials to manufacture, use less fuel, don’t get stuck in traffic jams pumping out fumes and require less parking space. So the following statement from the CTC (Cyclists' Touring Club), the country’s largest pro-cycling group, may come as a surprise.

“Small PTWs with oil and petrol burning 2-stroke engines and larger ones with un-catalysed 4-stroke engines are the dirtiest form of transport on the road.” CTC CPAG POSITION PAPER February 2003

It’s not only the cycling lobby who question our green credentials. According to the Transport Select Committee (8th Special Report, June 2007);

“Government statistics show that for many of the classes of pollutant, motorcycles are often worse than cars.”So, are motorcycles the dirty pretty things of 21st century transport or are they lean, mean and green machines?

Euro trash - Ironically this negative view of motorcycle pollution is due to the European Union being kind to motorcycle manufacturers. Strict European emission standards were introduced for passenger cars in 1992 but not for motorcycles until 1999. This gives the impression that PTWs are trailing behind cars in the pollution stakes. However, PTWs are playing catch-up with cars. By the beginning of 2007 motorcycles had to comply with Euro 3, while cars needed to meet Euro 4.What this means, in real terms, is that motorcycle manufacturers have made enormous progress between 1999-2006, reducing carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions by 94 % and halving nitrogen emissions for the period. In order to comply with Euro 3 almost all new motorcycles are fitted electronic engine management, fuel injection and a catalyst in the exhaust system. According to an independent expert chosen by the European Commission, PTW exhaust emissions show a good, and frequently better, trend compared to the overall emissions of road transport, not only for the three main pollutants covered by Euro 3, but also with regard to CO2 and particles emissions.Apples & pears - On paper the difference between Euro 4 regulations for cars and Euro 3 for motorcycles made PTWs look unclean. Then, in May 2007, the French Environment Agency (ADEME) did something amazing. They concluded a real test comparing motorcycles (respecting the current Euro 3 pollution norm) with cars (respecting the Euro 4 norm). Not only did they consider the pollution generated by the minute, they also looked at the time a motorcycle runs, compared with a car.For the test, they used a 125cc scooter and a 600cc motorcycle. Both scooter and motorcycle took 44 minutes to arrive at their destination. Both machines were able to park immediately. The car took 88 minutes to cover the same route and then spent 15 minutes looking for a parking space. Or, to put it another way, even though the Euro 3 specified motorcycle/scooter emits more CO2 than the average Euro 4 car, since they spend less time on the road, they emit less pollution.

Space Travel - Powered two wheelers occupy far less space on the road than passenger cars or buses and because they can easily double-up in a lane or filter through congested areas do not contribute to traffic congestion. If car drivers switch to motorcycles and scooters they will automatically increase vehicle capacity on congested urban roads. Gridlocked traffic has a serious effect on air quality – according to a 2007 report nine sites in London, including Baker Street and the North Circular at Brent, exceeded the European Union's legal limit for air pollution. Space is at a premium in the UK’s crowded towns and cities. Four or more motorcycles can park in the same space usually used by one car, so increased PTW usage not only alleviates congestion but also relieves pressure on limited parking facilities.

Limited resources - Constant traffic flows place increasingly severe demands on urban infrastructure and the budgets of most local authorities cannot keep pace with the level of repairs generated. However, since PTWs cause a fraction of the damage to roads compared to other motorized transport modes and are thus responsible for only a tiny percentage of the maintenance costs, an increase in use of PTWs will have the opposite effect.

There is also the issue of finite natural resources. Data from the European Commission Motor Vehicles Emissions Group shows that even high performance sports bikes have improved fuel consumption compared to cars on congested roads, consuming between 55% and 81% less fuel than a car on the same journey. If more people switch from four wheels to two then oil reserves will last longer.

Whichever way you look at it, for the millions of Britons who rely upon motorized private transport, motorcycles and scooters are the green alternative. They pump out fewer fumes, guzzle less gas and create less congestion as well as reducing the frequency for road repairs.

Lucky 13

ACEM, the Motorcycle Industry in Europe, has chosen a cartoon to help motorcycle and scooter riders avoiding the potential risks related to the infrastructure. The cartoon was launched at the European Road Safety Day organised by the European Commission in Paris on Monday, October 13th.

The objective of this safety campaign is to raise riders’ awareness of the potential risks coming from the roadway itself. Developed together with motorcycle instructors, the campaign features 13 episodes released on a monthly basis. Each issue will focus on a particular risk factor giving tips and recommendations to riders on how to best tackle these different situations.

Sounds good, doesn't it? It's simple, engaging and free ... so, of course, nobody in the UK is taking a blind bit of notice.

You can find out more at http://www.acem.eu/cartoon/

We'll keep you posted on this one.

It's always a joy when one sees the powerful forces of County Hall swing into action.  Soon, a quiet, peaceful, minor road into a town turns fluorescent as the men in nylon trousers and clipboards begin their strutting.  "Hush...", the whisper goes around, "We're getting calming."

Calling the nasty little tank traps, conflict zones and ugly road furniture that proliferates around village entrances "calming" is a little like calling King Herod "not very fond of children".  I have yet to see anyone - resident or road user - calmed by the fruits of the Men With Clipboards.  That's because it doesn't work.  Artificially creating conflict between road users is not really very conducive to road safety.  And if it's bad for cars, it's lethal for riders.

Take the situation above...  The Council has installed a set of chicanes on an almost blind bend.  This is not good news for drivers who are crashing here with regularity.  Strangely, there were no crashes here before, the village had no record of speed related crashes and there had been, er, 12 injury accidents in the previous five years, none of them on the road that was now calmed.  Such is local authority logic.  For motorcyclists, this calming is very dangerous indeed.  That's because, as the opposing traffic rounds the corner into the chicane, they see a motorcyclist traversing it and believe they have room to squeeze through.  Add in those steel posts and the raised edge and you have a very effective piece of rider-killing calming.

The other great Council favourite is the speed "cushion".  Again, resembling a cushion in the same way that the Ghengis Khan's Mongol hordes resembled a knitting circle, these trank traps could have been deliberately designed to unseat riders.

Imagine - you're riding to work in the rain.  Because of this, the road is shiny and you can't see the faded, scraped paint on the speed hump ahead.  You don't know it's there, and you hit it as you turn out to pass a parked car.  You're straight off - the angled front of the hump twisting your front wheel away from you.  Imagine too that, as usual, the car behind has not been "calmed" by the presence of obstructions in the road but enraged.  So he's following too close.  Nasty.

Low sun, dark, bit of salt from the road on your visor - any of these can mean a rider misses a spiteful "cushion" and comes off.  And these are deliberately created hazards.  How the hell do they make a road safer?

If local authorities want to make the streets safer and more conducive there are far better ways to do it.  Bumps, humps and chicanes are neanderthal traffic management.  Shared Space schemes are infinitely more effective.  That's because shared spaces schemes don't introduce a potentially lethal (although wonderfully state-sanctioned) hazard into the road, they introduces something FAR more powerful.  Ambiguity.  

The concept of “shared space” is now well-established everywhere in Europe. The German town town of Bohmte turned a village shopping street that had become a traffic corridor back into a community space again.  It stopped the Dutch area of Haren becoming a sink for speeding cars and trucks, and recreated the village centre.  Just drop a few of those place names into Google (along with a search for Hans Monderman and Ben Hamilton Baillie) and you’ll quickly see what it’s all about.

Shared space means no more balkanisation of villages with tank traps, paint and rows of roadsigns. Instead it means fewer signs, no white paint – and it gives roads back to the communities that live in them.  At the same time, it means no more artificially-introduced conflicts and hazards.

So is it all pie in the sky? Bit of a dream? The New York Herald Tribune said; “Monderman made his first nervous foray into shared space in a small village whose residents were upset at its being used as a daily thoroughfare for 6,000 speeding cars. When he took away the signs, lights and sidewalks, people drove more carefully. Within two weeks, speeds on the road had dropped by more than half.”

Wouldn’t it be great to reclaim our streets and see that sort of result here? Wouldn’t it be wonderful to see village centres turned into a real village squares again? Wouldn't it be great if riders could ride without nervously watching for every supposed "road safety" device the Council had strewn in their way like caltraps?

Shared space - safety over spite.

A very thin end to the wedge

It seems that the City of Westminster, never the most bike-friendly of places, has decided to start charging bikes to park.  It's been big news.  MAG's magazine, The Road, even carried an interview with the man behind the scheme.  

Apparently, according to the CoW's website, 'permits' cost £150 a year, or you can stump up £1.50 a day to park your machine where you parked it for free, er, yesterday.  Perhaps rather tellingly, the main link from the Council's motorcycle charging webpage is headed "I want to pay a fine", because this is what parking is all about - money and driving commuters off two wheels onto that most sacred of multiwheeled Councilland icons, the Sacred Holybus of London. 

 

Westminster's Pay to Park scheme is about as bike-friendly as a neck-height wire strung across the A40 into London.  Reading the site makes it clear that the CoW is, once again, on an ideological crusade against anything with an engine (unless it's a bus, of course).  If you have an electric bike, you don't pay.  Simple.

So despite PTWs being integrated into the mainstream in local transport plans and despite PTWs being one of the best congestion solvents there is, we have a very long way to go.  Why?  Because, and spin it whatever way you want,  there's still a hardcore, ideological dislike of PTWs in County Halls because they're motorised personal transport - and just not sufficiently collectivist.

It must be a pretty strongly held view, too.  The Government's Motorcycle Strategy makes it clear that local authorities should "facilitate motorcycling as a choice of travel within a safe and sustainable transport framework".  I somehow don't think charging them to park without offering any benefit fits that brief - even using Council-la-la-land logic.

Of course, now that Westminster have whittled a nice sharp edge to the wedge, we can be sure that other local authorities will be queueing up for a go with the mallet.  Motorcycle parking charges - coming to a bay near you.

Boris Stops Council Taking the Myth

Back in 2006 we wrote a framework study about the attitude of local authorities to motorcycle casualties. You can read a copy at http://www.twowheelsbetter.org/resources/FWS10034-CouncilPolicy.pdf. We bemoaned the fact that councils used motorcycle casualty figures as an excuse to exclude promoting motorcycling as part of the solution to congestion.

To be fair some local authorities, like Bath, Bristol and Birmingham, allowed motorcycles and scooters to share bus lanes, recognising the self-evident safety benefits for all concerned, while others steadfastly refused to even consider such an idea.

Who would have thought that an old Etonian bicycle-riding Tory would take a lead in the country's capital? "One of the ways we can ease congestion is by encouraging more people to get on their bike, whether pedal or powered, and I believe they should be able to share our bus lanes successfully and safely," stated Boris Johnson.

So, will the rest of the country follow this lead? Probably not. Bikes in bus lanes has been part of the Government's National Motorcycle Strategy for several years, but local authorities have a habit of conveniently ignoring stated policy when it doesn't suit their own agenda.

Read all about it on the BMF website - http://www.bmf.co.uk/pages/news.php?fullstory=872