Helmet Head

Speaking only in practical terms, and especially putting aside legal terminology, isn't a bicycle essentially a motor cycle with a low power motor?

How is riding a bicycle in traffic different from riding an aging Vespa scooter in dire need of a tuneup in traffic?

Why is there a need for special facilities for bicycles, but not for Vespas? Is there really a significant difference? If so, what is it?

MichaelW

The power output of an average rider is about 200watts.
A 150cc Vespa has a power output of 9BHP/7000watts
Scooters can travel at urban car speeds (30mph) with better acceleration than cars. Cylcists don't.
The issue of "facilities" for cyclists is a moot point. Let's have a heated debate.......

joeprim

Other
I agree with Mike's comments, but there are lots of places where they are the same e.g. high speed roads (both are too slow) and congested urban driving (either is faster than a car).

Joe

noisebeam

I've wondered if riding a motorcycle like one rides a bike: i.e. not taking advantage of speed potential, but taking advantage of acceleration only when needed for safety (i.e. merges) and with greater visiblity due to better lighting systems would be safer than a bicycle.

Of course this would require great self discipline to not travel over 25mph when one could.

Al

LittleBigMan

I wouldn't see it like that, even though this morning, while timing the traffic lights accurately on a long downhill stretch, I beat out several cars and left them stuck behind red lights, and it's not the first time.

Take for example one of the long, steep downhill grades on my route home. I can coast down this one without significantly holding up traffic. But once I hit bottom, I'm prepared to move to the right because I'm about to slow down to less than 10 mph. as I ride up the next hill. If I were on a motorcycle, I could probably maintain an even speed, whereas on my bike, my speeds vary greatly as I go up and down hills.
(I've never ridden a Vespa, so I don't know about those.)

I classify my vehicle as human-powered, which means my speed and lane position varies according to many factors.

genec

Guess you don't see the "vespa" riders using the BL up and down Genesee, where the auto traffic moves at 45MPH and the scooters barely make 20MPH.

Noticed the same thing in France on the higher speed roads...

Again it is all about speed differential... anytime anyone can move at or near the speed of all other traffic, no "special handling" is required.

Any traffic moving slower then the majority of other traffic seems to need some sort of Slow Vehicle Lane... just like big trucks in the mountains which also need a Slow Vehicle Lane in those conditions.

KrisPistofferson

No.

sggoodri

Setting aside the exception of downhill coasting, the peak kinetic energy of a bicycle is generally viewed as being proportional to the maneuvering and cognitive capapabities of the operator. Motorcycles, on the other hand, can reach high kinetic energies regardless of the operator.

The general public does not fear being injured by young children or the elderly on bicycles, since they don't go that fast. But under motor power, these groups might be more likely to exceed their safe capabilities and endanger others, which is why motor vehicles are more strictly regulated.

Physically fit adult bicyclists can indeed reach speeds near that of motor scooters on flat ground, albeit with somewhat less mass. Most of the population that chooses to operate at such speeds does so safely enough that the public isn't worried about them. A small percentage operates recklessly enough that they sometimes inspire new regulations on adult bicyclists. Interestingly, once new regulations for cyclists are proposed, the public debate often turns to ways to prevent safe cyclists from inconveniencing motorists rather than reducing the hazards caused by the reckless cyclists.

-Steve Goodridge

JRA

A bicycle is a motorcycle?

A glider is an airplane?

Good one.

The silly bike lane debate has taken over this forum to the point that I only read this forum when I need a good laugh.

dynaryder

You're kidding right? This has to be your best troll yet.

Motorized vehicles are far different than bicycles. When was the last time you rode a 200lbs bicycle? That's a tiny scooter;my Harley weighs in at 650lbs,and it's not even a full dresser. The extra weight on motorized vehicles means they change direction slower,take longer to stop,and cause way more damage on impact. They also accelerate faster and can reach much higher top speeds(remember,E=1/2MxV2).

Motorized vehicles are also larger,allowing them to be more noticable. And they can keep a steady pace. They don't(generally) slow significantly while going uphill and they don't slow down over time due to operator fatigue.

As for special facilities,bicycles are easier to steal(they can literally be carried away) and powering them is an intense physical activity. You don't need to shower and change clothes after driving a car on a hot day.

Helmet Head

I really wonder about the reading capabilities of some of you.

I asked:

In response, I get:
"A 150cc Vespa has a power output of 9BHP/7000watts"
Fine, how about a 70cc Honda Trail bike?
How about a motor scooter with a small electric motor?
What part of low power do you not understand?


"A glider is an airplane?"
No. Last I checked, a glider was not powered by a low-power human engine.

"No, a bicycle is not a 650 lbs Harley."

JRA

I wonder why you so often assume that people who disagree with you don't understand or have reading comprhension problems.

Yea, everybody who disagrees with the great Helmet Head must be stupid.

I understood your question. I simply thought it was stupid, like many of your questions and 95% of the bike lane debate.

patc

Yup, it can get pretty entertaining if you take it all with a grain of salt. I gave up having meaningful discussions on anything of significance, though, the threads are either twisted in to VC dogma/anti-bike lane threads, or they are just plain started as VC dogma/anti-bike lane threads. Same old, same old, read it 100 times already.

Just read the other sub-forums, and consider "Advocacy and Safety" and "Commuting" a lost cause.

noisebeam

But... I've learned a lot and refined my opinions and one may find that other forums also have tedious topics that similarly affect the A&S forum.

Al

Helmet Head

If you understood, why did you ask, "is a glider an airplane"?
The whole point of the question, if you understood it, was that the cyclist is the motor that essentially makes a bicycle a "motor" cycle. The fact that a glider completely lacks a source of power indicates that you missed that.

A question that would indicate you understood me would be, is an HPA (human powered aircraft) an airplane?


Actually, you thinking the question was stupid is further evidence of lack of understanding on your part in and of itself.

Helmet Head

Oh yeah, this statement indicates even more lack of understanding on your part too.
I don't assume or claim that everyone who simply disagrees with me doesn't understand me.
I'm in discussions all the time here that involve disagreement but not misunderstanding. The ongoing chat with Robert Hurst in Diane's which would you choose? thread is one example of that. Gene and I who used to have weeklong debates that stemmed from misunderstanding now have learned to understand each other, though we still often respectfully disagree with each other.

But when statements like yours are made that indicate lack of understanding, not simply disagreement, what else can be concluded?

hester

i could swear i've seen vespas use the bike lanes, as I have seen skateboarders, and wheelchairs. is it not legal for those who use these modes of transportation to use these lanes?

Helmet Head

In CA, motorized bicycles, mopeds, are legally allowed to use bike lanes, but not motor scooters.

Treespeed

Serge,

I think you are way off base on this one. The issue is the motor and it is the lack of power that separates even the wimpiest of scooters from a cyclist. And to be fair look at your original post, you are the one that brought up scooters (vespas). So let's stick to that subject how are bicycles different from scooters. Scooters have to have lights, licenses, and even a 150cc scooter can keep up with residential traffic. A few cyclists can outsprint a scooter and maintain 30 mph, but not for long and not traffic light after traffic light. Plus you have to be licensed to ride a scooter, sure most cyclists have driver's licenses, but you don't have to be licenesed to ride a bike.

I see where you are coming from, in most cases a puttering scooter and cyclist would occupy the same space in traffic and have the exact same rights. But I don't want to be treated like a scooter because as a cyclist I have, in my opinion, I am safer and have more riding options. I can park where I want, leave the roadway whenever I want, and hop on the sidewalk if need be.

Again I see where you are going with this, but I think this analogy is as dead in the water as the scuba diving one.

-Marcus

Roughstuff

wow..interesting figures on the wattages, thanks. It shows just how valuable and interesting reading these forums can be!

roughstuff

John E

This thread arose from a few emails within the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition. Much vehicular cycling discussion compares how one should operate a bicycle in traffic with how one would drive a car on the same road ("same rights ... same rules ..." etc.). The point of this thread is that it might be more appropriate to compare how one should operate a bicycle with how one would ride a low-powered motor scooter on the same road. This makes a certain amount of sense to me. For example, "pedestrians, bicycles, and motor-driven cycles [low-powered scooters]" are forbidden on most freeways.

Applehead57

No, and this is a frivolous posting.

Helmet Head

Indeed, the discussion was about how to ride through interchanges with freeways, and the following suggestion was made:



To which I replied:
And later added:
It is that discussion that spawned the idea to start this thread, thinking it might be useful or helpful to compare and contrast bicycle riding in traffic with low-power motorcycle riding in traffic. What's the same? What's different? Why? I, for one, think it's an interesting question, at least, and at least some of the contributions so far here have been fruitful. I look forward to seeing many more.

I hope others give it some thought before they write off this thread or entire S&A forum as stupid and/or worthless in the knee-jerk fashion of some of the genius "contributors" we have.

galen_52657

Well...you comparison is somewhat wanting. A Vespa - even an out of tune Vespa can go about 70 MPH. A better comparison would be with a moped.

webist

No.

I opine that the laws were originally written to include vehicles capable of moving forward without human intervention from those which require it, particularly vehicles with substantial mass. One could lose control of a horse, a car, a carriage, etc., and the vehicle might continue to propel itself forward creating a danger. On the other hand, if you discontinue input to walking, riding a bike etc., the vehicle falls over and stops or is of such small mass that damage would be quite limited.