Today for the first time in 2 weeks i took the car out, only because i was going shoping at target and didn't think i'd be able to bring it all back on the bike. After 2 weeks sticking strickly to the ninja for my 45 minute commute to work, i felt very awkward in the car. It accelerates slower, its bulkier, softer suspension, sluggish handling response compared to the ninja, and I didnt even want to look at the gas gauge to be reminded of $50 tank fills. I'm talking about my mid-80's porsche 911 which is supposed to be a rough tight ride with tight handling. Which brings me to my question.

Why does the government not offer incentives for people to ride motorcycles? Newer bikes are safer on the environment, you don't feel like your hauling excess bagage, and if more people did, then there would be less traffic during the nicer weather. Like for example, drop the toll amount significantly at the manhattan bridges/tunnels if you ride in on 2 wheels. Charge cheaper parking rates at the garages, saves tons of space. I know there are places outside the us where motorcycles/scooters are the norm, why not here?

good question

nb

cash for clunkers totally should have applied to us - um hello, can you show me a car that can get 70 mpg that can perform the way our bikes do?

I know non-riders don't wanna ride because "it's danngerous" but the more people use motorcycles and not their SUV when they're not hauling kids or buiding materials around, the safer the roads will be.

Very true, I think the gov should encourage more people to take up commuting on 2 wheels, people would have more fun, use less gas, and the streets would be safer with less cagers on the road.:D

For the same reason that my 2001 Kia didn't qualify since it gets around 30 highway... I was too responsible when I bought it and our country can only reward the irresponsible!

Would have gladly traded it towards something new instead of spending the money that I had to spend on repairs to pass the state inspection, got out lucky by replacing the brakes myself, but still at $500 for a couple different repairs that I could do myself and the parts required for all 4 brakes.

And just how safe do these people think it is with SUV's barreling down the road at 90mph swerving in and out of traffic w/o signaling at all. Even in a cage you're not safe from that. They should think of this. Which is more deadly to all? A 7000lb SUV at 90mph or a 400lb bike at 90mph? Sure the biker will most likely die, but that's his/her stupidity. But anything he hits is more likely to survive then if hit by the SUV, while the SUV driver would most likely come out alive in the end.

Anyway, I agree that the government should encourage people to learn more about bikes and try them out. Instead they seem to almost be trying to discourage people away from bikes. Like how a car is considered a 'necessity' item and easier to qualify for a loan. While a bike is considered a 'luxury' item and requires you to jump through hoops to get financing for. I learned this the hard way when I was trying to get a bike. Had no choice but to buy an older cheaper one cash up front because no one would give me financing. I couldn't get financing on a $3500 bike but a couple years earlier with worse credit I was able to get financing on a $12000 car? :wtfsign:

That's when I was told about the car = necessity and bike = luxury in the financing world. :mad:

I think it's because half of the country has a winter season and would not be able to ride it half of the year.

-Nick-
Posted via Mobile Device

Newer bikes are safer on the environment,

Not so much.

Because small engines are less practical to run "clean," and there's fewer of them (i.e. not the core of air poluters) the clean-air restrictions on motorcycles are not nearly as strict as those for cars and trucks.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/highway1/la-hy-throttle11-2008jun11,0,1076364.story

In fact, the average motorbike is about 10 times more polluting per mile than a passenger car, light truck or SUV, according to a California Air Resources Board comparison of emissions-compliant vehicles.

i didnt say the newer bikes are greener than cars. i meant they're WAY greener than older bikes without emissions equipment, so now a bike would be a good option for a compact city like manhattan without worrying about smog or noise for pedestrians. Also please keep in mind, a city like manhattan full of commuters wont be riding sportbikes around, most would likely ride "honda civic" endorsed economy scooters.

mmmm...cause no one in the US really makes "economical" bikes, and HD and Victory couldn't keep up w/ demand?

oh, and bikes are scary, and helmets mess up my hair...

Maybe the motorcycle crowd is less likely to have their vote bought by a tax crdeit?

mmmm...cause no one in the US really makes "economical" bikes, and HD and Victory couldn't keep up w/ demand?

oh, and bikes are scary, and helmets mess up my hair...

screw the US bikes, the idea wasnt to stimulate the economy through US motorcycle sales, but to lessen congestion in busy cities, and offer breaks in tolls and parking for people who help do this by traveling via bike. they do it everywhere else they should do it around here.

Bridge tolls here in northern California at least are free for motorcycles during commute hours, basically we count as carpools. Motorcycle parking on the street in downtown SF is 50 cents per day instead of a couple bucks per hour. I'm not sure those incentives do much to increase the amount of folks that choose to commute in via bike; but it's still a nice benefit for those who have made that choice.

Bill,

Its not necessarily a govement incentive as a state/city incentive. As Alex pointed out it can be done without involving the big wigs in D.C.

You can also look to some of the parking companies to see if they do offer lower rates for motorcycles/scooters.

In Baltimore there is no real 'priviliage' to ride a motorcycle except more danger because people don't know how to drive.

Sunny, although the phrase "government inscentives" typically refers to Obama's programs and instictively relates to federal government, I didn't necessarily mean to refer to "federal" government. The term "government" here at work usually refers to state/city government unless we specify "federal", as i work for a state funded transportation agency; I am sorry i did not clarify. But as Alex pointed out, although the free tolls and reduced parking fairs don't neccessarily encourage more riders, it seems northern cali is certainly on the right track.

I suppose the federal govnt could help the cause in ways as well, but other than NY, Chicago, and Parts of Cali, and smaller cities like Phili, im not sure there would be much of an impact on the US. But yes, i agree with you, that local state govs should pilot a program to see what kind of impact it brings.

Next time i head into manhattan, which could be later today, next week, or 3 years from now, im going to look into renting a scooter near Penn Station while i'm there. Not sure if it can or can't be done, would be nice though to coast on 2 wheels and not worry about some cabbie wrecking the ninja.

not quite the same as has been discussed, but along these same lines...
i spoke with a counter clerk at the local suzuki dealership several weeks ago, and we got to talking about rider safety programs, and the lack thereof. she mentioned that several suzuki dealerships on 3 hawaiian islands were trying to team up with county and state level government to set up a rider learning program of some kind, and she said they offered and offered and nothing...nada...not even a stinking reply to their offers. i couldn't believe that this state, with its climbing cycle accident rate didnt jump on the chance to do so!
the ONLY government mandated (in hawaii anyway) program i've participated in is the msf riders course that is manditory for military members who own/operate cycles, and civillian riders wanting to ride and gain access to do so on base.

the lack of any motorcycle incentive programs are due to just that...

lacking incentive to do anything about it :rant:

thanx for the rant-space

Every single person I know that rides also drives a car, using the motorcycle primarily for recreation and throwing in a commute to work in every now and then. I'd be willing to bet that if everyone on the road were given a motorcycle in addition to their cars, more gas would be used overall.

Every single person I know that rides also drives a car, using the motorcycle primarily for recreation and throwing in a commute to work in every now and then.

I've known a few people who are truly "two-wheels-only", but they are few and far between. I knew one person who never owned a car in his entire 42 years, but owned dozens of motorcycles over the years as his primary, and exclusive, transportation. So those people do exist, but your view that they are rare is valid.

I'd be willing to bet that if everyone on the road were given a motorcycle in addition to their cars, more gas would be used overall.

Hard to say. You're right on the recreation side, as in there will be pleasure trips on the bike that may not have happened if they didn't own the bike; but then again any time they choose to take the bike instead of the car for a single commute, there are gas savings involved. May be a wash; really depends on that particular individual's situation.

I think that, if we were to 'give' motorcycles to people driving unsafely in their gas-guzzlers, they'd likely still drive unsafely, but on 2 wheels.

Logic would state that there should be great incentives for using motorcycles, but these are political decisions not logical ones. There are very good incentives for electric motorcycles.

I went up Maryland today and looked at a Zero S. With a 10% Fed tax credit, sales tax exemption and as much as 20% tax credit in some states you can get the costs down considerably. This would be a great alternative for someone like myself who lives in downtown DC and almost exclusively rides. Since July 1, 1500 miles on Ninja and 42 miles on GTI.

The problem comes when you start really crunching the numbers. I figure that after all of the credits and allowing for cost difference in fuel vs. electricity I'd have to drive 48K before I broke even. That is really hard to due when your range is only 65 miles.

The Zero bikes do look fun rides - but you're right on the economy of it. Gas prices need to shoot back up to $4 a gallon for electrics to be good money savers.

This time last year, gas was in the upper $3 to $4 a gallon range. Campaigning officials talked about expanding drilling in US oil fields and the big three automakers announced electric vehicles. Less than a month went buy until oil/gas prices came right back down making those things less economically feasible vs. staying with gas powered vehicles and foreign oil. Coincidence? I think not.

The price would have to go $7-8 and then I'd still have to move to the "tree-hugger" side and eat some cash for Mother Earth. I'm still not sure the carbon foot print equals out when you take into account the batteries, CF and plastic.

All that being said it is quick. Except at 60MPH you hit a wall. Not a Ninja 250 takes some time to get going faster. You actually hit a wall. No more speed. Then there is the noise. None. While this is kind of cool and sexy, I can't help but like being able to make my presence known. Then there is the color. White. It looks good, but no other colors.

mmmm...cause no one in the US really makes "economical" bikes, and HD and Victory couldn't keep up w/ demand?

I've often wondered why there is not a manufacturer of bikes other than cruisers/bikes with v-twins, in the US. I noticed a while back that the only bikes you can get in this country are v twins.

not quite the same as has been discussed, but along these same lines...
i spoke with a counter clerk at the local suzuki dealership several weeks ago, and we got to talking about rider safety programs, and the lack thereof. she mentioned that several suzuki dealerships on 3 hawaiian islands were trying to team up with county and state level government to set up a rider learning program of some kind, and she said they offered and offered and nothing...nada...not even a stinking reply to their offers. i couldn't believe that this state, with its climbing cycle accident rate didnt jump on the chance to do so!
the ONLY government mandated (in hawaii anyway) program i've participated in is the msf riders course that is manditory for military members who own/operate cycles, and civillian riders wanting to ride and gain access to do so on base.

the lack of any motorcycle incentive programs are due to just that...


That is surprising. Motorcycle dealerships should get together and sponsor a MSF course to new buyers. Buy a bike, learn to ride and get your license. It is hard to believe that the state would throw away an opportunity like that

I've known a few people who are truly "two-wheels-only", but they are few and far between.

:attention:

Right now, that applies to me, I haven't been behind the wheel of a car, or even in a car since I got my bike here, in late May/early Jun

Chris, when i completed MSF we got a packet of flyers and discounts and stuff. Now i know that dealer otd prices are negotiable, but they said if you take MSF they give you $300 off your purchase no questions asked. Unfortunately i already bought my bike before msf, but if i hadn't i would have definately visited these guys to see what they had to say because i would like to support a dealership that promotes safetey to the point where they're willing to pay for your training.

screw the US bikes, the idea wasnt to stimulate the economy through US motorcycle sales, but to lessen congestion in busy cities, and offer breaks in tolls and parking for people who help do this by traveling via bike. they do it everywhere else they should do it around here.

Yeah, sorry I didn't catch that, I live in the sticks, and couldn't care less about congestion in the cities, take a bus. Our problem in central california is air pollution, and motorcycles are generally gross polluters. Why encourage that?

and sorry, this is kinda dumb really, but since you brought it up, I gotta say:


Sunny, although the phrase "government inscentives" typically refers to Obama's programs and instictively relates to federal government,


I've gotten two pre-election "stimulus" checks from the previous administration, just plain ol' free (well timed?) money. And hell yeah, I cashed those checks and spent them.

The current administration hasn't sent me a dime...not to be overly political, but I'd have to disagree with your assesment of a "typical" incentive. Seems to me the incentives of late have been to oil companies, banks, and general consumerism...motorcycles don't really have a place in all that.

Oh, yeah, and helmets mess up my hair.

Jerry, the focus of my post was that my job is the reason i didn't clarify state/local government, and that the term "stimulus" is a keyword typically associated with federal government, especially recently, and that is where the miscommunication between Sunny and I came about. It wasn't a statement about which administration or political party deserves the recognition of the term... "stimulus."

I think the reason motorcycles were left out of the program is simply that very few members of Congress ride motorcycles, and couldn't be bothered to give a damn about them one way or the other. The idea of rebates for motorcycles simply wasn't considered, I suspect; it never even made it on to their 'radar'.

The point I made wasn't about boosting sales of US bikes to help the economy, it was about lessening traffic congestion and creating more room for parking. I wasn't trying to imply that bikes should have been part of the recent stimulus plan.

Very true, I think the gov should encourage more people to take up commuting on 2 wheels, people would have more fun, use less gas, and the streets would be safer with less cagers on the road.:D

yeah but more bikers on the road also mean more squids as well... those riding over their heads... I dont wanna be around that
but then the gov can add a law to wear full gear too maybe? :confused:

screw the US bikes, the idea wasnt to stimulate the economy through US motorcycle sales, but to lessen congestion in busy cities, and offer breaks in tolls and parking for people who help do this by traveling via bike. they do it everywhere else they should do it around here.


There is a motorcycle specific EZ-Pass which in many places gives you a discount as much as 50%. Throggs Neck Bridge is 2.50 for bikes and 5.50 for cars. You usually have to ask or they will not tell you. Also, motorcycles are allowed in the HOV lane.

yeah but more bikers on the road also mean more squids as well... those riding over their heads... I don't wanna be around that
but then the gov can add a law to wear full gear too maybe? :confused:

Why do you want more laws restricting what you are "allowed" to do??? You've obv have got the sense to wear gear but what difference does it make to you if Joe Shmo down the block likes to ride around showing of his sick triceps and kills himself? Or better yet, nails Sally Slut down the block and gets himself Herpes? How quickly you give up your freedom!

I prefer if they don't wear gear, that way when they take me out they will get hurt worse. Then it won't take as much force to beat them to near death on the side of the road.:D:):thumbup:

Why do you want more laws restricting what you are "allowed" to do??? You've obv have got the sense to wear gear but what difference does it make to you if Joe Shmo down the block likes to ride around showing of his sick triceps and kills himself? Or better yet, nails Sally Slut down the block and gets himself Herpes? How quickly you give up your freedom!

I like laws that protect me from others.

I don't like laws that "protect" me from myself.

There is a motorcycle specific EZ-Pass which in many places gives you a discount as much as 50%. Throggs Neck Bridge is 2.50 for bikes and 5.50 for cars. You usually have to ask or they will not tell you. Also, motorcycles are allowed in the HOV lane.

My ezpass account is with NY, is this a physical motorcycle ezpass "tag" i should request from them?

On the EZPass website it says you have to send them your registration and they'll send you a special motorbike tag. I haven't done so yet since it's kind of nice to get a break and stand up for a min at the toll while i grab money out of my pocket.


Jerry - I completely agree. Speed limit, good (sorta =P). Helmet laws are a restriction of freedom. Not to say that I would ever ride without one cause I think it's effin nuts.

Zach, I respectfully disagree with your statement about helmet laws being a restriction of freedom. You are using public roadways, and most likely parking on public property. If you go down on the bike in a private restaurant parking lot and severely hit your head on the concrete and sliped into a coma, i would think someone would sue the restaurant on your behalf (i dont mean YOU, its for sake of argument). Besides no one complains about seatbelts being a restriction of freedom yet the same principals apply.

Nearly all laws can be construed as restriction of freedom.

Some are for the general welfare, some are to protect certain interests.

The thin line is when the interests overlap with the general welfare.

A helmet law is to protect the interests of Insurance Companies, but perhaps Insurance Co. protect the general welfare.....

...I've heard Urban Legends that some insurance companies are learning that helmets can keep people alive, but that often it would be cheaper to just bury the poor guy.

...And think how many lives could be saved by requiring helmets in cars
....or outlawing motorcycles altogether
...hmmm

I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it.

Zach, I respectfully disagree with your statement about helmet laws being a restriction of freedom. You are using public roadways, and most likely parking on public property. If you go down on the bike in a private restaurant parking lot and severely hit your head on the concrete and sliped into a coma, i would think someone would sue the restaurant on your behalf (i dont mean YOU, its for sake of argument). Besides no one complains about seatbelts being a restriction of freedom yet the same principals apply.

The same can be said about wearing gloves or knee pads. LIFE is inherently dangerous. Your implying that there is threshold for what is a calculated risk worth taking.

You also say "i dont mean YOU, its for sake of argument". You indicate that your not accusing me of such a thing because you yourself recognize that it is kind of trashy to go around suing everyone because of your own mistakes. Doesn't that then reveal that it is not an issue of the personal choices people make about their own safety, but one of our justice system along rampant frivolous lawsuits?

If I slip and fall on your wet driveway, you are at fault because you didn't put up a sign? People need to look where they are going. 100,000 thousand years ago if you slipped and bumped your head dropping into a coma.... there was a simple solution. You were screwed! Watch where you're going stupid!

\End Rant :D

To be honest i'm surprised that other gear isnt mandatory. But public roadways are shared with everyone, the idea is to keep everyone as safe as possible. If we could all just be accountable for our own actions then they should do away with dwi laws and whoever makes it home at night, great, they didn't kill themselves. Some people like you said are just plain stupid, but that doesn't disqualify them at the dealer from buying a bike, so laws are put in place to protect them from themselves, just like dwi laws. I undersatand that dwi laws protect other drivers from an offender as well, but the point is to keep stupid people safe.

I completely agree that people should watch where theyre going. Its because of these stupid people that my department at work had to record the annoying "watch the gap" message played at the end of every station arrival announcement on a train.

And i agree that laws like this are put in place to protect us from frivolous lawsuits. But if a kid smacked his head on your sidewalk when he fell on his bicycle i bet you'd be greatful that your protected by the law cause he didnt wear his helmet. If everyone were as smart and responsible as you and i, the law wouldnt be needed, and everyone would be wearing helmets, and there wouldnt even be a point to debate about freedoms.

That IS the point though. Who has the right to tell me that I should wear gear to protect myself? Where does it stop? If you keep giving away your rights, sooner or later you won't be able to **** your girlfriend without government approval signed in triplicate and notarized because you might get her pregnant and she could die in child labor or the baby might grow up to be a cereal killer. The purpose of DWI laws is to protect OTHER people from drunk drivers. Most of the time, the drunk driver LIVES anyway.

EDIT: Please don't interpret my impassioned responses as an attack on you. I simply value my freedom.

To answer your initial question.

Why no government motorcycle incentives?

This is opinion-
There is not enough support for it. Demand is what America is based off of. Supply - demand.

You want to be part of the demand? Propose your ideas/suggestion/opinion/facts etc. to the AMA and see what they can do with it.

i agree with everything you said zach. but if you would wear a helmet anyway then it isnt taking away anything from you, only from the dumb people. actually they are gaining the advantages of other smart people's smartness, by forcing them to comply with their smart way of life. sunny your spot on.

I respectfully disagree... I'm going to let it go because I've already threadjacked this thing enough. :cool:

Freedom - exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.


btw, I like your sig. Is that in response to the Highway thread? :D

yes sir it is hehe :)

__________________________________________________
please specify fact or opinion when posting. thank you.

All of my opinions are fact. If anyone disagrees with them, their opinions clearly can't be fact. :D