Motorized bike in bike lane

To the guy going south on Wells this morning on a giant motorized chopper-style bicycle -- get out of the bike lane!  I'm sorry it takes you like 10 minutes to get up to speed (causing all of the bikes to get stuck behind you in your exhaust), but once you get going, you are flying along at like 30 mph.  So, you're either going way too slow for the bike lane or too fast.  Not cool - either start pedaling or get stuck in traffic with the rest of the motorized people.

Views: 211

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on April 29, 2010 at 9:01am
heather stratton said:
Doing something that is marginally better for the environment doesn't excuse assholery, IMO.

Oh man, this is horrible!

Now I have no reason to ride a bike...
Permalink Reply by Robert Beck on April 29, 2010 at 9:03am
This thread has already been posted and discussed, scooters and mini bikes should stay out of the bike lanes, BIKE LANES are intended for bicycles only! Enough of this crap about motorized vehicles being allowed on the bike lanes, BIKE LANES are meant for BICYCLES. PEDAL POWER SNITCHES!!!!!!
Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on April 29, 2010 at 10:57am
And speaking of bombs away...

One of the realities of modern human existence is that not everything that's fun is good for you (or anyone else). While the manufacturers of two stroke engines have made great strides over the past 5-10 years in cleaning up their emissions (really), the real treat of two strokes is and has always been a great power to weight ratio. It's what makes a 600 cc H.O snowmobile go from 0-60 mph in under 4 seconds. If you like that sort of thing... I'm just saying...

H3N3 said:
I don't know if it's considered cheating to cite external sources rather than declaring yourself an expert, but bombs-away . . .

Here's an article:
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/may/21-two-strokes-and-youre-out

Which states:

A single two-stroke engine produces pollution equivalent to that of 30 to 50 four-stroke automobiles.

And has a bit more supporting information than most other sources I can find.

It kind of boggles my mind that anyone can suggest that a 2-stroke engine could be more efficient or cleaner than a 4-stroke, considering how this has, as my dear friend Robert pointed out, been discussed into the ground.
Permalink Reply by wig [ isaac ] on April 29, 2010 at 1:24pm
ha.... love it..
Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on April 29, 2010 at 1:32pm
Exactly. Cars and SUVs have full emission control systems. 2-cycle engines do not. Cars and SUVs may burn more gas, but they burn it more cleanly and effectively than any 2-cycle engine (scooters, lawn mowers, outboard motors, etc.) 2-cycle engines spew a lot more hydrocarbons into the air, so any environmental advantage in lower gas consumption is pretty much neutralized by their smelly hydrocarbon-laden exhaust.

Regardless, they don't belong in the bike lanes.

notoriousDUG said:
Two cycle mopeds and all of those stupid conversion kits for bikes have zero in the way of emission controls and are some of the WORST polluters on the road. They may be efficient fuel consumption wise but they are a nightmare emissions wise; exhaust wise a full sized SUV probably has less damaging emissions than a moped.
Permalink Reply by Patrick O'Connor on April 29, 2010 at 2:50pm
Anyone that insists that Taipei is the most polluted place is wrong. It's in second place just on the island of Taiwan. Venture down to Kaohsiung and we'll talk polluted. It's the home of heavy chemical industry for Taiwan.

arohr said:
My parents lived in Taipei for three years and it is easily the most polluted place I have ever visited. I have no doubt at all that 2-cycle engine mopeds play a HUGE role in that fact.

notoriousDUG said:
Two cycle mopeds and all of those stupid conversion kits for bikes have zero in the way of emission controls and are some of the WORST polluters on the road. They may be efficient fuel consumption wise but they are a nightmare emissions wise; exhaust wise a full sized SUV probably has less damaging emissions than a moped.
Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on April 29, 2010 at 2:56pm
H3N3, that article is basically a layman's guide to two-cycle engines. The technology it describes has been around for quite some time. Most, if not all, two-cycle engines produced over the past decade incorporate reed ports, fuel injection, tighter tolerances from improved alloys and a host of other technological advances which significantly lower overall emissions in comparison to the carburated piston port configuration of yesteryear. The conversions discussed in the article seem to be aimed at the Asian market, which I would reasonably guess is dominated by antiquated piston port engines. I can't think of even one vehicle or any motorized implement larger than, say, a chainsaw that uses this configuration being sold in the United States.
Permalink Reply by wig [ isaac ] on April 30, 2010 at 5:40am
photos of this guy would been a lot of fun.
Permalink Reply by Carl on April 30, 2010 at 4:50pm
Ummmm...they AIN'T helping the environment. Mopeds and scooters often make more pollution than cars. Even if they're not 2-strokes, they still have no pollution control. There's a reason why Europe, India, and cities like Paris banned the worst of the polluter-scooters.
But don't take my word for it, look up the EPA's report on them.

Tony Adams said:
There is, or should be, an understanding that mopeds and scooters can pass motor-vehicles on the right and bunch up at intersections and then fly off in front of the cars and trucks because they CAN - like in Italy. That helps keep traffic moving and less congested for everyone. Those who are helping the planet by riding a scooter or moped or whatever should be rewarded by being allowed in front at red lights. But NOT if they impede bicycle movement or safety.

If that giant motorized chopper bicycle thing can't jack-rabbit it should not be on the street with traffic at all.
Permalink Reply by Michael J Blane on May 1, 2010 at 3:35am
Umm, isn't CO odorless?

notoriousDUG said:
I am an expert on combustion engines.

First off CO2 is not the only thing that comes out of a tail pipe, you also have hydro-carbons (both unburned and combusted), CO (carbon monoxide) and many oxides of nitrogen. These items are actually the more damaging things that come out of a tail pipe and are what have the tightest standard when it comes to smog regulation although CO2 is checked. It is also worth noting that CO, not CO2, is the one to worry about.

More smell does mean more CO because you are not getting a full clean burn and end up with high CO numbers.


Duppie said:
I am not an expert on combustion engine, but I did take Chemistry in High School. 1 gallon of gas produces a specific output of CO2. That has nothing to do with the MPG your transportation achieves. So a moped that gets 40 mpg emits half the CO2 per mile compared an SUV that gets 20 MPG.

Of course they smell bad, a lot worse than most cars. But more smell does not equate to more CO2 emissions.

On the other hand, a moped likely has a higher output of particulate matter, because of the oil that is burned

notoriousDUG said:
Two cycle mopeds and all of those stupid conversion kits for bikes have zero in the way of emission controls and are some of the WORST polluters on the road. They may be efficient fuel consumption wise but they are a nightmare emissions wise; exhaust wise a full sized SUV probably has less damaging emissions than a moped.
Permalink Reply by Michael J Blane on May 1, 2010 at 3:36am
Umm, isn't CO odorless?

notoriousDUG said:
I am an expert on combustion engines.

First off CO2 is not the only thing that comes out of a tail pipe, you also have hydro-carbons (both unburned and combusted), CO (carbon monoxide) and many oxides of nitrogen. These items are actually the more damaging things that come out of a tail pipe and are what have the tightest standard when it comes to smog regulation although CO2 is checked. It is also worth noting that CO, not CO2, is the one to worry about.

More smell does mean more CO because you are not getting a full clean burn and end up with high CO numbers.

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on May 1, 2010 at 4:36am
It is but it is a greenhouse gas. What would it being odorless have to do with the level of pollution?

Michael J Blane said:
Umm, isn't CO odorless?

notoriousDUG said:
I am an expert on combustion engines.

First off CO2 is not the only thing that comes out of a tail pipe, you also have hydro-carbons (both unburned and combusted), CO (carbon monoxide) and many oxides of nitrogen. These items are actually the more damaging things that come out of a tail pipe and are what have the tightest standard when it comes to smog regulation although CO2 is checked. It is also worth noting that CO, not CO2, is the one to worry about.

More smell does mean more CO because you are not getting a full clean burn and end up with high CO numbers.

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service