New Car runs on Air

[jverne]

They don't.
But I'm still not going to use the technology until the benefits outweigh the problems. Why would I spend a huge amount of money on a crappy machine that can barely scrape 60mph with the wind behind you, can't be refuelled on the move, has no gears, looks like something out of Dexter's Laboratory and makes no noise (that's absolutely deadly as well as plain lame...) when the bike I have cost me just over a thousand and cruises comfortably at 125mph with plenty of acceleration left, can outaccelerate most sports cars, and doesn't come with any of the other disadvantages of the fuel cell powered bike, which range from grossly inconvinient to horrendously dangerous?
I recognise the potential, but I'm not going to embrace it for many years yet.

wow...i actually didn't expected such a backwards view form someone like you.

i'm not saying we should go nuts with such cars just yet.


oh and btw, this is not new technology it's just becoming feasible due to other technological advances.

 

[PvtRyan]

CO2 is a pollutant. I don't know why that's one of your points against me.

Hardly, CO2 is a vital gas in our atmosphere (without any greenhouse gases, the earth would be uninhabitable). Pumping more of it in to the atmosphere like we do might be harmful, but it isn't pollution. It's like pumping more water into a river making it flood. Not pollution, just harmful. Semantics, I know.

OT: I don't see what's so great about this. Energy isn't magically created, all the energy this air releases by expanding was first put into it by us. It's the kind of energy we use to do that that needs changing, according to Wikipedia only 14% of energy produced in the US comes from either nuclear or
other fairly clean sources. Energy carriers like this are not the problem.

 

[<RJMC>]

the point is that even if the stuff is young the people bash it right away

 

[repiV]

:| , are you implying that some of the people who ride crotch rockets at over 100mph and fly off their bikes rounding turns with no protection to their heads are making the wiser decision?

No, they're idiots too. But they're not such an identifiable, laughable group as the Harley brigade. Harley riders seem to have their own uniform, which is totally bizarre (and totally ineffective in an accident). Plus, most of them never return my nods - some kind of Harley snobbery. Pretty much every other biker does.
I ride a crotch rocket at over 100mph, but I do so only when it is safe to do so and I wear protective gear that cost nearly as much as my bike did. I don't look like a power ranger either.

Harley Davidson is actually a more ethical company than most of the Japanese ones, rarely if ever outsourcing workers and providing jobs to many people in Milwaukee (I live in milw. though, so I'm a bit biased)

http://www.bus.wisc.edu/update/winter03/harley.asp <--

Maybe so. I still hate their bikes and the drone-like culture that surrounds them though.
I was in awe reading about life at the Suzuki factory, mind. Such workmanship and jobs for life.

 

[mortiz]

Convert all of the power stations to nuclear, bring in "air cars", problem solved. Let future generations worry about the nuclear waste.

 

[repiV]

wow...i actually didn't expected such a backwards view form someone like you.

i'm not saying we should go nuts with such cars just yet.


oh and btw, this is not new technology it's just becoming feasible due to other technological advances.

Backwards view? All I'm saying is that I won't be using it until the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. There will come a time when fuel cell/hydrogen/whatever-powered bikes will be dream rides that far surpass anything petrol could pump out, and I look forward to that day. It isn't now.

 

[jverne]

Backwards view? All I'm saying is that I won't be using it until the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. There will come a time when fuel cell/hydrogen/whatever-powered bikes will be dream rides that far surpass anything petrol could pump out, and I look forward to that day. It isn't now.

i understood that part.

but you ended up funny explaining how you can outaccelerate sport cars, drive fast, no gearbox and most of all you didn't mention pollution.

i find such types of "values" backwards.

of course it's nothing wrong wanting those things. i just had the impression of you being a more modern man.

 

[repiV]

i understood that part.

but you ended up funny explaining how you can outaccelerate sport cars, drive fast, no gearbox and most of all you didn't mention pollution.

i find such types of "values" backwards.

of course it's nothing wrong wanting those things. i just had the impression of you being a more modern man.

Ah, I see. My point was that I'm getting a lot of value for my money (and for my environmental footprint) that these experimental machines (or current cars, for that matter) cannot even come close to delivering. My bike is rated at 35 miles per gallon, which on the face of it is pretty shit for a bike, but when you consider that it outperforms a Porsche 911 which no doubt guzzles far more fuel and I generally get 45-50mpg out of it anyway, is pretty impressive.
The pollution caused by my riding is minimal compared to the pollution caused by almost anyone's driving - considering also that I don't get stuck in traffic jams like cars do, and I have no intention of owning a car either so I can't say I'm too concerned.

 

[jverne]

Ah, I see. My point was that I'm getting a lot of value for my money that these experimental machines (or current cars, for that matter) cannot even come close to. My bike is rated at 35 miles per gallon, which on the face of it is pretty shit for a bike, but when you consider that it outperforms a Porsche 911 which no doubt guzzles far more fuel and I generally get 45-50mpg out of it anyway, is pretty impressive.
The pollution caused by my riding is minimal compared to the pollution caused by almost anyone's driving - considering also that I don't get stuck in traffic jams like cars do, and I have no intention of owning a car either so I can't say I'm too concerned.

technically speaking you are right for the value/money part. as well as as the part where motorbikes generally use less fuel for certain tasks. but that doesn't mean you make less pollution because of it. you could always get a smaller bike.

 

[repiV]

technically speaking you are right for the value/money part. as well as as the part where motorbikes generally use less fuel for certain tasks. but that doesn't mean you make less pollution because of it. you could always get a smaller bike.

Why should I have my freedom to enjoy my passion to its fullest infringed because of some pitifully insignificant environmental impact of my actions?
If you went on holiday to Australia, you'd do more damage to the environment than I do in an entire year - including everything I do in my life plus the 2,000 or so miles a month I ride just from your flights alone.

 

[jverne]

Why should I have my freedom to enjoy my passion to its fullest infringed because of some pitifully insignificant environmental impact of my actions?
If you went on holiday to Australia, you'd do more damage to the environment than I do in an entire year - including everything I do in my life plus the 2,000 or so miles a month I ride just from your flights alone.

now that logic really doesn't help if everybody thinks like that.

look man i didn't mean to insult your ways.


if i were president there would be massive limitations to the use of motor vehicles. i think nobody needs that much speed and power as an individual.
speed related incidents would diminish. less pollution and less money spent on fuel and cars.
todays standards are really exaggerated.

 

[repiV]

now that logic really doesn't help if everybody thinks like that.

look man i didn't mean to insult your ways.

No offence taken.

if i were president there would be massive limitations to the use of motor vehicles. i think nobody needs that much speed and power as an individual.
speed related incidents would diminish. less pollution and less money spent on fuel and cars.
todays standards are really exaggerated.

Let's nip this "speed related incidents" thing in the bud right now. Less than 4% of accidents are due to excessive speed (and excessive speed is more often under the speed limit than over it, given that lower speed limit zones are much more hazardous), and over 80% of all accidents occur at under 30mph. The vast majority of accidents are in urban areas.
I have never once feared for my safety at any time travelling over 60mph, and I'm not averse to cruising at 130 on the motorway. I have, however, narrowly avoided several serious collisions at much lower speeds. The one accident I did have happened at less than 5mph.
Clueless idiots posing as road safety experts would have you believe that I'm putting myself and everyone around me in mortal danger by doing those kinds of speeds, but it's total bullshit. As long as you are able to stop on your side of the road in the distance you can see to be clear, the actual speed you are doing is irrelevant.
What creates dangerous situations are hazards, not high speeds.

Aside from that, who are you to dictate other people's freedom of movement and choice based on an incorrect understanding of the causes of road traffic accidents and some very spurious global warming "science" with no concrete evidence behind it.

 

[MiccyNarc]

it uses electricity so the energy use may be the same but the emmissions are not

I'll wait for the hybrid that compresses the air as you drive

Energy is a bigger issue as oil production has peaked and is declining.

 

[Qonfused]

The politeness in this debate is too outstanding.

**** YOU. YOU'RE A ****ING COMMIE. THE AIR CARS ARE FROM THE GOVERNMENT WHO IS TRYING TO CONTROL US. WHY CAN'T YOU SEE IT?

 

[jverne]

No offence taken.



Let's nip this "speed related incidents" thing in the bud right now. Less than 4% of accidents are due to excessive speed (and excessive speed is more often under the speed limit than over it, given that lower speed limit zones are much more hazardous), and over 80% of all accidents occur at under 30mph. The vast majority of accidents are in urban areas.
I have never once feared for my safety at any time travelling over 60mph, and I'm not averse to cruising at 130 on the motorway. I have, however, narrowly avoided several serious collisions at much lower speeds. The one accident I did have happened at less than 5mph.
Clueless idiots posing as road safety experts would have you believe that I'm putting myself and everyone around me in mortal danger by doing those kinds of speeds, but it's total bullshit. As long as you are able to stop on your side of the road in the distance you can see to be clear, the actual speed you are doing is irrelevant.
What creates dangerous situations are hazards, not high speeds.

Aside from that, who are you to dictate other people's freedom of movement and choice based on an incorrect understanding of the causes of road traffic accidents and some very spurious global warming "science" with no concrete evidence behind it.

1. post proof for the data mentioned.

2. yes, considering the state of urban traffic, there are a lot of accidents. but that is a point i didn't mention. urban areas are currently far overcrowded with traffic. city roads should be reserved for essential and other important tasks. there should be much more invested into public transport.

3. speeding isn't the only factor in an accident. it's more factors combined, but speed usually makes everything more severe.

4. who am i to dictate personal freedoms. this is more of a public issue that individual. so yes it matters.

5. global warming, ok don't even start on that.

 

[repiV]

1. post proof for the data mentioned.

A starting point for all you need to know.

2. yes, considering the state of urban traffic, there are a lot of accidents. but that is a point i didn't mention. urban areas are currently far overcrowded with traffic. city roads should be reserved for essential and other important tasks. there should be much more invested into public transport.

There are a lot of accidents because a lot of drivers are shit.
Why should they? Because you say so?

3. speeding isn't the only factor in an accident. it's more factors combined, but speed usually makes everything more severe.

It's hardly a significant factor in any accidents at all.
In fact, this obsession with numerical speed causes accidents, because speed limits are seen as targets and the same drivers who will rigidly stick to 70mph because the law says its safe will rigidly stick to 30, and more often than not, doing 30 in a 30 is an incredibly stupid and dangerous thing to do.
Not to mention that while you're focusing on your speedo and/or looking out for speed cameras and talivans, you're not focusing on actual hazards on the road. Very, very dangerous.

4. who am i to dictate personal freedoms. this is more of a public issue that individual. so yes it matters.

So telling individuals what they can and cannot drive and where is not an issue of personal freedom?
Freedom of movement is a fundamental freedom, and you're going to have do a lot better than your patently absurd grounds of "speed kills", "we're destroying the planet" and "we should all use public transport because I say so" in order to make anything you say even remotely valid.

5. global warming, ok don't even start on that.

Nobody knows for sure whether we are causing global warming or not; given the amount of "greenhouse gases" caused by natural events, I would say more likely not. But only one side wants to enforce their point of view on everybody else.

 

[PvtRyan]

Four percent of accidents are caused by speeding? Just the word accidents is a bit meaningless here, what kind of accidents? I'm sure a lot of those low speed accidents in urban areas are cars bumping into each other or a lamppost. How many of the lethal accidents are caused by speed? And what is 'caused'? Speed itself doesn't cause accidents, no vehicle has ever self ignited from air friction from going too fast, but it does reduce your time to react, increases the severity of accidents and increases the time you need to stop your vehicle. How can that not contribute to accidents? Also, you say 80% of accidents occur at <30mph, but the speed limit in urban areas here is 20 (PS: metric system rules) so high speed is very relative. I'd consider 30 (or 48.28032 kph in the proper system) way too fast in an urban area.

 

[Marinmald]

They don't. *snip* looks like something out of Dexter's Laboratory and makes no noise (that's absolutely deadly as well as plain lame...) *snip* mbrace it for many years yet.

that is bull, pure and absolute bull. quite is not deadly, not paying attention to your surroundings is deadly. if there is an accident, it is generally because someone wasn't paying attention. silence is something that has been sought after for many years. cars are becoming more quite inside and outside and becoming more efficient at blocking out noise. I ride a bike to get where I need to go, let me tell you, unless your right there with me, you can not hear it. the only reason I have not been in an accident or caused one, is because I pay attention to my surroundings. because no one else will do it for me. the only time being quite is deadly, is if it is meant to be. sorry if this sounds like a rant.

 

[repiV]

Four percent of accidents are caused by speeding? Just the word accidents is a bit meaningless here, what kind of accidents? I'm sure a lot of those low speed accidents in urban areas are cars bumping into each other or a lamppost. How many of the lethal accidents are caused by speed? And what is 'caused'? Speed itself doesn't cause accidents, no vehicle has ever self ignited from air friction from going too fast, but it does reduce your time to react, increases the severity of accidents and increases the time you need to stop your vehicle. How can that not contribute to accidents? Also, you say 80% of accidents occur at <30mph, but the speed limit in urban areas here is 20 (PS: metric system rules) so high speed is very relative. I'd consider 30 (or 48.28032 kph in the proper system) way too fast in an urban area.

If you can stop on your side of the road in the distance you can see to be clear, your actual speed is irrelevant. If you can't do that, then you are either tailgating or going into a blind bend far too quickly.
Speed in itself is completely irrelevant, and speed limits are even more irrelevant since an arbitrary number cannot possibly account for the prevailing conditions. It's inadequate distance which causes accidents.
The urban speed limit here is 30. Although there are an increasing number of 20mph zones plaguing the roads - and actually increasing accidents wherever they go, most likely because sticking to some arbritary speed limit takes concentration away from important things, like spotting hazards.
Artificially low speed limits also cause accidents because they cause vehicles to bunch up leading to tailgating, also frustrated drivers equals accidents and this also encourages dangerous overtaking maneuvres.
I have not seen a single piece of evidence demonstrating how a reduced speed limit has made roads safer, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest the contrary - higher speed limits or lack of them actually increase road safety.

 

[repiV]

that is bull, pure and absolute bull. quite is not deadly, not paying attention to your surroundings is deadly. if there is an accident, it is generally because someone wasn't paying attention. silence is something that has been sought after for many years. cars are becoming more quite inside and outside and becoming more efficient at blocking out noise. I ride a bike to get where I need to go, let me tell you, unless your right there with me, you can not hear it. the only reason I have not been in an accident or caused one, is because I pay attention to my surroundings. because no one else will do it for me. the only time being quite is deadly, is if it is meant to be. sorry if this sounds like a rant.

Paying attention to your surroundings won't stop cagers pulling out on you.

 

[Parrot of doom]

CO2 is a pollutant. I don't know why that's one of your points against me.

All living organisms on the planet emit Carbon Dioxide as part of their life cycle.

So what does it pollute, exactly?

 

[Marinmald]

Paying attention to your surroundings won't stop cagers pulling out on you.

and what does that have to do with silence being deadly?

 

[Tyguy]

pretty soon air is going to run 3 dollars a balloon fill

 

[Parrot of doom]

If you can stop on your side of the road in the distance you can see to be clear, your actual speed is irrelevant. If you can't do that, then you are either tailgating or going into a blind bend far too quickly.
Speed in itself is completely irrelevant, and speed limits are even more irrelevant since an arbitrary number cannot possibly account for the prevailing conditions. It's inadequate distance which causes accidents.
The urban speed limit here is 30. Although there are an increasing number of 20mph zones plaguing the roads - and actually increasing accidents wherever they go, most likely because sticking to some arbritary speed limit takes concentration away from important things, like spotting hazards.
Artificially low speed limits also cause accidents because they cause vehicles to bunch up leading to tailgating, also frustrated drivers equals accidents and this also encourages dangerous overtaking maneuvres.
I have not seen a single piece of evidence demonstrating how a reduced speed limit has made roads safer, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest the contrary - higher speed limits or lack of them actually increase road safety.

repiV, its a pleasure to read your posts. Rarely does one find anybody on the internet who actually understands the reality of road safety outside Pistonheads and SafeSpeed.

The 'Speed Kills' brigade have done more damage to road safety than any other group I can think of.

 

[repiV]

and what does that have to do with silence being deadly?

Everything. No amount of being alert is going to stop some moron in an SUV pulling right across your path and killing you. To be sure of safely passing a junction, you have to intervene in some way to make sure the driver has seen you - the sound of the engine does that for you to an extent, but it's still not always enough. I've been pulled out on twice in the last week, and I ride a bloody big gold bike assertively and in the centre of my lane.
If you want to survive your riding career, you have to assume that people don't know you're there. Anything that makes you more obvious is a bonus.

 

[repiV]

repiV, its a pleasure to read your posts. Rarely does one find anybody on the internet who actually understands the reality of road safety outside Pistonheads and SafeSpeed.

Thanks. I actually have an account on SafeSpeed. One post, I think.

The 'Speed Kills' brigade have done more damage to road safety than any other group I can think of.

Yep. What gets me the most is how people who have absolutely no clue about road safety are responsible for it. Why is it that council idiots who don't even hold a driving license can set speed limits and choose the dumbest locations for the signs?

 

[PvtRyan]

If you can stop on your side of the road in the distance you can see to be clear, your actual speed is irrelevant. If you can't do that, then you are either tailgating or going into a blind bend far too quickly.
Speed in itself is completely irrelevant, and speed limits are even more irrelevant since an arbitrary number cannot possibly account for the prevailing conditions. It's inadequate distance which causes accidents.
The urban speed limit here is 30. Although there are an increasing number of 20mph zones plaguing the roads - and actually increasing accidents wherever they go, most likely because sticking to some arbritary speed limit takes concentration away from important things, like spotting hazards.
Artificially low speed limits also cause accidents because they cause vehicles to bunch up leading to tailgating, also frustrated drivers equals accidents and this also encourages dangerous overtaking maneuvres.
I have not seen a single piece of evidence demonstrating how a reduced speed limit has made roads safer, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest the contrary - higher speed limits or lack of them actually increase road safety.

"Falling doesn't kill you, the ground does"

Technically true, but it's the falling that smacked you against the ground. If not taking enough distance causes accidents, then what factor demands you to take distance in the first place? Could it be.. speed?

I think even arguing this is silly, as I said, speed does the following things:
- Increase severity of any accidents
- Decrease your reaction time
- Increase the distance you need to break

The only possible result of that can be accidents.

I find the source you posted above not so credible, it uses a figure from 1990 for Christ's sake. To put that in perspective: from when modern Germany didn't even exist!

I got one from a scientific agency here, it's in Dutch though, so you'll have to Babelfish
http://www.swov.nl/nl/research/kennisbank/inhoud/40_gedrag/28_snelheid/snelheid.htm
(can't link a translated Babelfish site apparently, gotta do it yourself)

EDIT: Apparently, there's an "English" button on the site, so here's the article in English, not sure if it's identical though:
http://www.swov.nl/uk/research/kennisbank/inhoud/40_gedrag/28_snelheid/the_effects_of_speed.htm

 

[Marinmald]

Everything. No amount of being alert is going to stop some moron in an SUV pulling right across your path and killing you. To be sure of safely passing a junction, you have to intervene in some way to make sure the driver has seen you - the sound of the engine does that for you to an extent, but it's still not always enough. I've been pulled out on twice in the last week, and I ride a bloody big gold bike assertively and in the centre of my lane.
If you want to survive your riding career, you have to assume that people don't know you're there. Anything that makes you more obvious is a bonus.

no not everything. I ride a bike, or a bicycle if you prefer. I don't assume that they do not know I am there, I know they don't know I am There. assuming would get me killed. and riding a bike is more dangerous on the roads then your motorcycle, or at least in this area it is.

 

[repiV]

"Falling doesn't kill you, the ground does"

Technically true, but it's the falling that smacked you against the ground. If not taking enough distance causes accidents, then what factor demands you to take distance in the first place? Could it be.. speed?

When vehicles are travelling at higher speed, there will be more distance between them. Therefore, slower, congested traffic is inherently far more dangerous. Do you think London is the most dangerous motoring environment in the country because the traffic is really fast or something?
The most dangerous thing I do on my bike is filter between stationary/slow moving traffic, and the safest is cruise at over 100mph on the motorway.
If the complete lack of correlation between speed limits and accidents, and the fact that speed is a factor in only 4% of accidents doesn't mean anything to you, what's the point of even continuing this discussion?
Riding in central London always frays my nerves to some extent, whereas a 100+mph blast on the motorway is usually quite relaxing (except for the ferocious windblast).

I think even arguing this is silly, as I said, speed does the following things:
- Increase severity of any accidents

Irrelevant if you don't have an accident in the first place. If you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear, then you won't have an accident.
If there is heavy traffic volume you are much more likely to have an accident, and heavy traffic volume can be avoided through higher traffic speed.

- Decrease your reaction time

I'm assuming you mean "increase your reaction time". Having a decreased reaction time is a good thing, and actually the faster you are travelling the more alert you will be. Going slowly brings with it a false sense of security - like seatbelts, airbags and other safety features which make accidents more likely due to mental attitude.

- Increase the distance you need to break

Yeah, so? Like I said, it's about distance, not speed. At higher speeds you keep a greater distance from the vehicle in front. Only a fool breaks the two second rule.

The only possible result of that can be accidents.

Nope. There is plenty of evidence suggesting exactly the opposite. The real causes of accidents here are wasting precious thinking and reaction time on obeying speed limits instead of focusing on the road, and the results of congestion caused by these artificially low speed limits.

I find the source you posted above not so credible, it uses a figure from 1990 for Christ's sake. To put that in perspective: from when modern Germany didn't even exist!

I got one from a scientific agency here, it's in Dutch though, so you'll have to Babelfish
http://www.swov.nl/nl/research/kennisbank/inhoud/40_gedrag/28_snelheid/snelheid.htm
(can't link a translated Babelfish site apparently, gotta do it yourself)

Babelfish? No thanks...

 

[lePobz]

Isn't this thread about a car that runs on air? This has what to do with safety?

 

[repiV]

no not everything. I ride a bike, or a bicycle if you prefer. I don't assume that they do not know I am there, I know they don't know I am There. assuming would get me killed. and riding a bike is more dangerous on the roads then your motorcycle, or at least in this area it is.

You don't have to keep up with the flow of the traffic. I have to go through every junction at roughly the speed of the traffic, which means if I get pulled out on and I can't avoid the idiot, I'm in hospital if I'm lucky.
It also means I have a limited time window in which to ensure that I don't get pulled out on.

You probably pass junctions at anything between 5 and 20mph - less deadly and, more importantly, usually ample time to stop if your right of way is violated. Depending obviously on the type of road, for me it will be anything between 25 and 70 assuming no congestion.
Highly deadly speeds to hit a car at.
I rode a bicycle on the road for several months. I never had the same trouble with getting pulled out on that I do now. It was very dangerous however and I had several accidents, but I mostly put that down to having no training. They were all my fault. I literally bought a bike and went on the road. Bad situation.

 

[Top Secret]

fast becoming a trend where if you want innovation you dont go to the house of Ford, GM or Chrysler

That is a pretty idiotic statement. I don't see any other automakers producing 400 horsepower all motor engines that get 28 miles per galon with less emissions than most Honda motors.

 

[NeptuneUK]

CO2 is a pollutant. I don't know why that's one of your points against me.

STOP POLLUTING MY PLANET!

Bitch.

 

[Bob_Marley]

I guess I'm the only one who read "New Car runs on Aiur". Gah. StarCraft on the brain.

Anyway, biofuel, thats the way foreward...

And that included alcohol. And I've long been of the opinion that alcohol is the wayforeward in any problem.

 

[repiV]

I guess I'm the only one who read "New Car runs on Aiur". Gah. StarCraft on the brain.

Anyway, biofuel, thats the way foreward...

Does that work by emptying used condoms into the tank?
Talk about happy fuel!

 

[NeptuneUK]

I still don't see any problem in using petroluem for the time being.
Infact, I don't see any problem in using petroleum until it runs out.

 

[Bob_Marley]

I still don't see any problem in using petroluem for the time being.
Infact, I don't see any problem in using petroleum until it runs out.

The places where it is found are becoming increasingly politically unstable. Now, with biofuel, lets say from oil seed rape, you can grow that anywhere you can grow wheat. Now, wheres a good place to grow wheat? Europe! And what does Europe have? Setaside land. All that land that farmers are paid to grow nothing on (part of the CAP - prevents overproduction and the infamous "mountains and lakes" of the past) which could be used for growing biofuel.

This means that the greater part of the fuel used in road viechles in Europe could be fueled by fuel produced in Europe - one of the worlds most politically stable regions. This allows Europe to decrease its dependence on forgien reserves which reduces the leverage of questionable regiemes that happen to have oil and strengthens the Europien economy.

Also, it allows the use of the current technology rather than replacing our current infrastructure.

And its not the fuel elements of oil that I'm worried about running out. Its the bits that are used to make plastics and such which scare me.

 

[Marinmald]

I may be going slower then your motorcycle, but when the drivers only give you one foot of room, an inch can kill.

 

[repiV]

I may be going slower then your motorcycle, but when the drivers only give you one foot of room, an inch can kill.

Yeah, that's true. But you don't seem to recognise the danger of being pulled out on in quite the same way a motorcyclist does, which I find strange.
Then again, I never had the problem when I rode a pushbike but it's a daily occurence now. I might not actually get pulled out on daily, but I do have to give the "don't you even dare" stare many times a day, beep the horn as they're just about to pull out on me etc.
Perhaps pushbikes are more obvious to drivers from junctions. They ride in a different position to the rest of the traffic, are slower and thus much closer when in the danger zone. Plus, the position you ride in probably keeps you out of their windscreen pillar blindspot.
Drivers just don't expect to see motorcycles when they look through the traffic. I've had someone clearly look me in the eye and then pull right out on me anyway. The only explanation I can think of is that they saw me but the autopilot part of their brain that was driving didn't register that I was there because I wasn't car-shaped.

At the end of the day, on the pushbike, it wasn't nearly as hazardous. The higher speeds involved and the fact that you are riding with the traffic on a motorcycle means you have to have a much higher degree of hazard anticipation and forward planning - that's one of the things I found difficult when I was learning to ride. I was used to plodding along up the road, and initially going along at 30mph I found it hard to keep track of everything that was going on and plan accordingly.
By far the biggest hazard I face is people pulling out on me or thinking about doing it, it happens all the time. It never happened on the bicycle. I can only guess as to why, but there it is.

Not that I'm knocking the danger of what you do at all. I wouldn't ride a pushbike again - not enough control of the situation for my liking. On a large motorcycle, you have presence on the road and drivers do respect you a lot more and don't try and bully you like they do on a small bike or a pushbike. And you can get away from almost any other vehicle at the lights by a huge margin.

 

[Marinmald]

and I see what your saying as well. there are times when drivers have seen me then completly ignored me, and also times when I have had to visually had to tell drivers not to do what they were thinking. I get you, you get me, everything is good, mazel tov, imma gonna go eat some cheese.