Isn't a bicycle a motor cycle?

[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]

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

The issue of "facilities" for cyclists is a moot point. Let's have a heated debate.......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. :p

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:
isn't a bicycle essentially a motor cycle with a low power motor?


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."
:rolleyes:

[JRA]

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

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.

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]

Yup, it can get pretty entertaining if you take it all with a grain of salt. ...
Just read the other sub-forums, and consider "Advocacy and Safety" and "Commuting" a lost cause.
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]

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


I understood your question. I simply thought it was stupid, like many of your questions and 95% of the bike lane debate.
Actually, you thinking the question was stupid is further evidence of lack of understanding on your part in and of itself.

[Helmet Head]

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

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.......


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:


A sometimes useful "rule of thumb" for me is "where would it be best to be - which lane/where - if I was riding/driving a motorcycle in this situation?"


To which I replied:
In my case it would be... "where would it be best to be - which lane/where - if I was riding a 1961 Vespa scooter in dire need of a tuneup!"

I think the motorcycle analogy works much better to understand "vehicular" cycling than "driving like a car", of course. Especially when you consider that a bicycle is essentially a motorcycle, a motorcycle with a 1 HP motor (HP = Human Power)...

And later added:

Right, my point being that the typical Vespa rider is not nearly as deferential to faster traffic as is the typical cyclist burdened with a comparable speed differential (do I get bonus points for using deferential and differential in the same sentence)?

In other words, most bicyclists are deferential to a fault, which makes traffic cycling more challenging and arguably less safe than it need be. I'm hoping sugesting the thought, "I only need to be as deferential as a Vespa rider would be" might help with that.
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.

[CastIron]

The dynamics of traffic riding between the two are radically different. The two modes of transport only share a wheel count.

[patc]

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.

Tedious isn't the issue. Sure, every forum has its tedious discussions/issues, and the obligatory newbie posts are necessary but tedious to long-time readers. That's not the problem here. This is more akin to photography forums were you inevitably have Canon-vs-Nikon people who twist every discussion into an equipment war (until they get warned, and usually later banner, by a moderator).

Its been this way since the old BBS days. For every 100 lurkers you have 10 regular contributors and one or two people sabotaging discussion. Come to think of it, that applies to peer support/discussion groups too (I facilitated those for years).

[noisebeam]

Tedious isn't the issue.
I see your point, but riding in traffic is perhaps the number one Safety issue for cyclists, so it it bound to be the topic most discussed and debated and one can not discuss riding in traffic without talking about cycling styles and facilities.
Al

[Daily Commute]

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
I agree with al. The debate can be fun. And if you actually read opposing viewpoints, you can learn. Like Al, I've "refined" my position. Before I started researching, I shared the common assumption that bike lanes were universally good for cyclists. After seeing how scientifically hollow that assumption was, I switched to the other extreme.

The truth is in the middle. Places like Portland that put bike lanes on 25 mph roads are just nuts. It is just as extreme to say that cyclists can't share a 25 mph road as it is to say that cyclists can share the interstate. Bike lanes can be very helpful on high speed, low interesection roads and on bridges and the like.

Anyway, no one is forced to read any thread they don't want to. I tire of the debate sometimes. Then I spend more time on the commuting forum or just doing other things. Maybe others who tire of the topic can do the same thing.

As to the thread topic, Serge is mostly right (he's usually mostly right). Bikes are a lot like low-powered scooters--on parts of my commute, I can cruise close to 30. Bikes aren't the same as low powered scooters, but they're close.

[Helmet Head]

The dynamics of traffic riding between the two are radically different. The two modes of transport only share a wheel count.
For crying out loud, I'm not suggesting we compare riding a bicycle with riding a Ducati.

I even inserted a space between "motor" and "cycle" in the title and OP, but apparently the significance of that, and all the words I carefully chose to make clear I wasn't talking about regular motorcycles, was missed.

Let me try this. If we put cycles on a continuum based on power, from the most powerful on one end to a child cyclist on the other, can we divide this continuum up into sections, where the traffic dynamics of operating in traffic any member of a given section are all very similar?

So maybe we have 500cc and up bikes in the section at the upper end, then 250-500, then 150-250, then 100-150, 50-100, and under 50. Would Lance Armstrong and his ilk on a bike fit in any of these groups?

More importantly, how much difference is there from one group to the next? In particular, how much difference is there, and how significant is it, between riding a cycle powered by a human-made motor from the section at the lowest end of our continuum versus riding a bicycle powered by a human motor in the same traffic?

[San Rensho]

From Monty Python's THE ARGUMENT CLINIC



The man enters the room. Mr Vibrating is sitting at a desk.
Man Is this the right room for an argument?
Mr Vibrating I've told you once.
Man No you haven't.
Mr Vibrating Yes I have.
Man When?
Mr Vibrating Just now!
Man No you didn't.
Mr Vibrating Yes I did!
Man Didn't.
Mr Vibrating Did.
Man Didn't.
Mr Vibrating I'm telling you I did!
Man You did not!
Mr Vibrating I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?
Man Oh ... Just a five-minute one.
Mr Vibrating Fine (makes a note of it; the man sists down) thank you. Anyway, I did.
Man You most certainly did not.
Mr Vibrating Now, let's get one thing quite clear. I most definitely told you!
Man You did not.
Mr Vibrating Yes I did.
Man Didn't.
Mr Vibrating Yes I did.
Man Didn't.
Mr Vibrating Yes I did!!
Man Look, this isn't an argument.
Mr Vibrating Yes it is.
Man No it isn't, it's just contradiction.
Mr Vibrating No it isn't.
Man Yes it is.
Mr Vibrating It is not.
Man It is. You just contradicted me.
Mr Vibrating No I didn't.
Man Ooh, you did!
Mr Vibrating No, no, no, no, no.
Man You did, just then.
Mr Vibrating No, nonsense!
Man Oh, look this is futile.
Mr Vibrating No it isn't.
Man I came here for a good argument.
Mr Vibrating No you didn't, you came here for an argument.
Man Well, an argument's not the same as contradiction.
Mr Vibrating It can be.
Man No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition.
Mr Vibrating No it isn't.
Man Yes it is. It isn't just contradiction.
Mr Vibrating Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Man But it isn't just saying 'No it isn't'.
Mr Vibrating Yes it is.
Man No it isn't, Argument is an intellectual process ... contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
Mr Vibrating No it isn't.
Man Yes it is.
Mr Vibrating Not at all.
Man Now look!
Mr Vibrating (pressing the bell on his desk) That's it. Good morning.
Man But I was just getting interested.
Mr Vibrating Sorry the five minutes is up.
Man That was never five minutes just now!
Mr Vibrating I'm afraid it was.
Man No it wasn't.
Mr Vibrating I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue any more.
Man What!?
Mr Vibrating If you want me to go on arguing you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
Man But that was never five minutes just now ... oh Come on! (Vibrating looks round as though man was not there) This is ridiculous.
Mr Vibrating I'm very sorry, but I told you I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
Man Oh. all right. (pays) There you are.
Mr Vibrating Thank you.
Man Well?.
Mr Vibrating Well what?
Man That was never five minutes just now.
Mr Vibrating I told you I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
Man I've just paid.
Mr Vibrating No you didn't.
Man I did! I did! I did!
Mr Vibrating No you didn't.
Man Look I don't want to argue about that.
Mr Vibrating Well I'm very sorry but you didn't pay.
Man Aha! Well if I didn't pay, why are you arguing ... got you!
Mr Vibrating No you haven't.
Man Yes I have ... if you're arguing I must have paid.
Mr Vibrating Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
Man I've had enough of this.
Mr Vibrating No you haven't.

[Helmet Head]

As to the thread topic, Serge is mostly right (he's usually mostly right). Bikes are a lot like low-powered scooters--on parts of my commute, I can cruise close to 30. Bikes aren't the same as low powered scooters, but they're close.
Since I never wrote or implied that bikes are the same as low powered scooters, I guess I'm more than mostly right this time... ;-)

First of all, my comparison, despite the thread title, is really not in the vehicles/devices themselves, of course, but in riding them in traffic. In particular, I'm interested in comparing and contrasting when one would wheel which wheeled wonder where and why (try repeating that quickly 5 times!).

[Helmet Head]

Man: I've had enough of this.
Mr Vibrating: No you haven't.
Thanks for posting this. One of my all time favorites! (of course)

[genec]

Actually in some respects you are close... I for instance believe road engineers should ride "a 1961 Vespa scooter in dire need of a tuneup" to get a feel for how some of their road designs work for cyclists.

I think the motorcycle analogy works much better to understand "vehicular" cycling than "driving like a car", of course.

I think you have a good point here... I rented a low powered scooter in France and could not get over the feeling of how much being in traffic on that thing was similar to being on a bike. The only difference was that I wasn't sweating. The other difference was in the way it handled... as one sits upon the seat rather then putting the thing between your legs... I couldn't shift my weight about as one does on a bike or a true motorcycle.

[Daily Commute]

Since I never wrote or implied that bikes are the same as low powered scooters, I guess I'm more than mostly right this time... ;-)
I didn't mean to say that you said that . . . . OK the syntax is getting to weird. I basically agree with you. They are not the same, but they are close.

[Helmet Head]

Gene, see you tomorrow morning!
(we're taking a Road 2 class)

[San Rensho]

Thanks for posting this. One of my all time favorites! (of course)

No it isn't!

[Helmet Head]

How would you know whether something is one of my all time favorites or not?

;)

[genec]

Gene, see you tomorrow morning!
(we're taking a Road 2 class)

Gee, you'll get to see my other bike...

[sbhikes]

A 150cc scooter is freeway legal in California. My Vespa can go 70. It's faster than my old VW bus.

No, they are not the same.

Is a bicycle an old VW bus?

[Helmet Head]

I didn't realize Vespas were 150cc.
Are they all that big?
Anyway, I was picturing something less powerful, street legal, but not freeway legal.

And the question isn't are they the same, but how is riding in traffic different, and why?

[Helmet Head]

I looked it up, when I said Vespa, I was thinking of their lower end stuff, like the 50cc ET2.

[chipcom]

A 150cc scooter is freeway legal in California. My Vespa can go 70. It's faster than my old VW bus.

No, they are not the same.

Is a bicycle an old VW bus?

Loaded up, it's really hard to tell the difference between my bike and a VW bus, cept the VW engine eats nuts and my 'engine' eats pie. ;)

[Helmet Head]

The Vespa ET2 Limited 49.5 cc delivers 1.99 bhp and has a top speed of 24 mph.

Now, that's what I'm talking about.

Enough with all the "that's a stupid question" and "bicycles are not Harleys" (or 150 cc Vespas) DIVERSIONs.

How does riding one of those low-power 2 BHP motor cycles in traffic compare to riding a bicycle in traffic?

Do owers of Vespa ET2 LTDs need their own advocacy group to lobby for special segregated facilities for them?
If not, why do cyclists need them, but these guys don't?

[Dchiefransom]

Where did you find that the ET2 only has a top speed of 24 mph? I went to several sites, and it's listed as 39 mph. They also listed it at 5.9 BHP.
No, a motor scooter is not like a bicycle. The difference in speed between them and traffic is the deciding factor.

[JRA]

My Vespa can go 70. It's faster than my old VW bus.Just about anything is faster than an old VW bus in need of a tune-up.

My old VW bug could go 70, too. The big problem was that the wind could literally blow it off the road.

Is a VW bus like a horse and buggy?

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Enough with all the "that's a stupid question"
Why?

[Brian Ratliff]

If the scooter is low powered enough to be power limited, then they are similar to bicycles. By "power limited" I mean essentially that they slow down when climbing and can only accelerate up to a certain speed on the flat. Speed is dependent on the terrain. You would ride your Vespa ET2 similarly to a bicycle. I had a classmate one time who had something like this and on certain hills (in Seattle, mind you), he had to jump off and run beside it.

If the scooter has enough power to move at essentially constant speed over any terrain, then it is speed limited (by the operator) and is very different from riding a bicycle and more like a car.

That said, a low powered scooter has less of a need for exclusive facilities because the power output is more constant over the population of scooters and is not reliant on the conditioning of the rider. I should also point out that the lowest power scooter still has a top speed of 25 mph, while relatively few cyclists can boast of holding 25 mph for significant periods of time on level ground.

[sbhikes]

The Vespa ET2 is not slow enough to make a good comparison to a bicycle. I cannot go 24 on my bicycle unless I'm going downhill.

Nevertheless, people who have small motor scooters (and I used to have a small scooter like this one) self-segregate to the most appropriate roads they can find. They typically avoid roads where the speed differential is too high. Every road I ride a bike on has a high speed differential.

[Helmet Head]

The Vespa ET2 Limited 49.5 cc delivers 1.99 bhp and has a top speed of 24 mph.

Where did you find that the ET2 only has a top speed of 24 mph?

I didn't find that the ET2 only has a top speed of 24 mph.
I found that the ET2 Limited has a top speed of 24 mph.


http://www.vespausa.com/products/etflashspecs.cfm?movie=specs

Move your pointer over the word ENGINE POWER. You will see the following data show up in the box:

5.1 bhp, 40 mph max speed

Vespa ET2 Limited
1.99 bhp, 24 mph max speed