3 ms·

Yes because it is appropriate to have to pay more to have a safe mode of 'green' transit. Loud motorcycles are annoying; when they have a fatality rate per mil

Yes because it is appropriate to have to pay more to have a safe mode of 'green' transit. Loud motorcycles are annoying; when they have a fatality rate per mile closer to cars you be can complain on that basis.

nullc 7y ago
The riders intentionally choose a less safe form of transit and gain many benefits from doing so, including lower fuel and maintenance cost. Good for them, but their noise is an externality: I shouldn't get less enjoyment from my home because someone decided to use a less safe but more cost efficient mode of transportation. The loud noise also presumably causes something of an arms race with more acoustically insulated, less fuel efficient, cars. The eventual alternative is outright banning the noise. I think paying for some of that externality would be better.
- thereisnospork 7y ago
  I hate excessively loud bikes as much as anyone; there is a line between 'hearable' and 'earsplitting' that is often missed. Is not some noise, though, a de minimis appropriate compense for the danger associated with choosing a lighter weight, more environmental, and federal HOV-compliant vehicle? If the per person transportation ecologics and economics are favorable for bikes vs. cars shouldn't we look to improve the externalities (safety) around such transportation methods? Even if it comes with some externtalacious discomfort? (fwiw my current vehicle is approximately the loudest allowable per federal regulations, because I enjoy the sound it makes, not safety per say.)
  - inflatableDodo 7y ago
    >fwiw my current vehicle is approximately the loudest allowable per federal regulations I believe Dennis Leary wrote a song about this kind of thing.
  - kuzehanka 7y ago
    > because I enjoy the sound it makes I don't. The worst way to start my day is to be woken up by some moron revving their Harley on the road near my home at 6.20am. GP's point is that everyone is paying the price for the choices that operators of motorbikes make. No one wants to listen to 'loudest allowable per federal regulations' riding past their family home after-hours. That price needs to be factored into the cost of operating a motorbike/truck/other loud transport near population centres.
    - thereisnospork 7y ago
      >I don't. The worst way to start my day is to be woken up by some moron revving their Harley on the road near my home at 6.20am. That might be relevant if those Harley's were anywhere near the legal dB limit. P.S. the hate I'm getting here for stating that I follow the law, to the letter, on noise regulations is insane. If you/anyone think a straight pipe Harley is close to legal check your facts.
  - ohyeshedid 7y ago
    "I hate excessively loud bikes as much as anyone..." "(fwiw my current vehicle is approximately the loudest allowable per federal regulations, because I enjoy the sound it makes, not safety per say.)" These two statements don't balance.
    - thereisnospork 7y ago
      The loudest allowable is far less loud than what you or anyone else would call a 'loud' bike - that balances fine.
- bartread 7y ago
  I assume the noise complaints are primarily directed at Harley Davidsons with aftermarket pipes (or possibly any bike with aftermarket pipes), but... > The riders intentionally choose a less safe form of transit and gain many benefits from doing so, including lower fuel and maintenance cost. You've never actually owned or regularly ridden a motorcycle, have you? They're as expensive, and often more expensive, to maintain than a car if they're your primary form of transport[1]. Service intervals tend to be much shorter (3750 - 10000 miles, depending on model), and tyres don't last anywhere near as long (2500 - 5000 miles, again, depending on the bike and the tyres). A new pair of good tyres (and you really want good tyres) is going to set you back about £300. When I was commuting 70 - 80 miles per day I was having to get my bike serviced and tyres replaced every 7 weeks. The main reason I choose my bike over my car nine times out of ten is agency: I want to be able to decide how long a journey will take, not have it decided for me by the volume of traffic. [1] Obviously this depends on the bike and car being compared, which can vary wildly - cheap(er) to run commuter bikes do exist, as per cars, but any kind of sports bike, mid-high end tourer, cruiser, roadster, etc., will probably have significant costs associated with maintenance.
  - ericd 7y ago
    I used to ride a bike as my main transport. It really depends on your model. A Ninja 250 will be a lot cheaper than a car (especially when you count insurance), a CBR 600 that gets put through its paces, not so much. But then, I wasn't keeping my bike in great tires/etc, and I wasn't commuting nearly as far as you.
wl 7y ago
Loud motorcycles inflict sensorineural hearing loss on anyone unfortunate to get too close to them. I think that's an adequate basis on which to complain and demand something be done about it.
Faaak 7y ago
I don't care about the ride; I care about me. When they go past and they pierce my ears, that bugs me... a lot !

nullc 7y ago

The riders intentionally choose a less safe form of transit and gain many benefits from doing so, including lower fuel and maintenance cost. Good for them, but their noise is an externality: I shouldn't get less enjoyment from my home because someone decided to use a less safe but more cost efficient mode of transportation. The loud noise also presumably causes something of an arms race with more acoustically insulated, less fuel efficient, cars. The eventual alternative is outright banning the noise. I think paying for some of that externality would be better.

thereisnospork 7y ago
I hate excessively loud bikes as much as anyone; there is a line between 'hearable' and 'earsplitting' that is often missed. Is not some noise, though, a de minimis appropriate compense for the danger associated with choosing a lighter weight, more environmental, and federal HOV-compliant vehicle? If the per person transportation ecologics and economics are favorable for bikes vs. cars shouldn't we look to improve the externalities (safety) around such transportation methods? Even if it comes with some externtalacious discomfort? (fwiw my current vehicle is approximately the loudest allowable per federal regulations, because I enjoy the sound it makes, not safety per say.)
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  >fwiw my current vehicle is approximately the loudest allowable per federal regulations I believe Dennis Leary wrote a song about this kind of thing.
- kuzehanka 7y ago
  > because I enjoy the sound it makes I don't. The worst way to start my day is to be woken up by some moron revving their Harley on the road near my home at 6.20am. GP's point is that everyone is paying the price for the choices that operators of motorbikes make. No one wants to listen to 'loudest allowable per federal regulations' riding past their family home after-hours. That price needs to be factored into the cost of operating a motorbike/truck/other loud transport near population centres.
  - thereisnospork 7y ago
    >I don't. The worst way to start my day is to be woken up by some moron revving their Harley on the road near my home at 6.20am. That might be relevant if those Harley's were anywhere near the legal dB limit. P.S. the hate I'm getting here for stating that I follow the law, to the letter, on noise regulations is insane. If you/anyone think a straight pipe Harley is close to legal check your facts.
- ohyeshedid 7y ago
  "I hate excessively loud bikes as much as anyone..." "(fwiw my current vehicle is approximately the loudest allowable per federal regulations, because I enjoy the sound it makes, not safety per say.)" These two statements don't balance.
  - thereisnospork 7y ago
    The loudest allowable is far less loud than what you or anyone else would call a 'loud' bike - that balances fine.
bartread 7y ago
I assume the noise complaints are primarily directed at Harley Davidsons with aftermarket pipes (or possibly any bike with aftermarket pipes), but... > The riders intentionally choose a less safe form of transit and gain many benefits from doing so, including lower fuel and maintenance cost. You've never actually owned or regularly ridden a motorcycle, have you? They're as expensive, and often more expensive, to maintain than a car if they're your primary form of transport[1]. Service intervals tend to be much shorter (3750 - 10000 miles, depending on model), and tyres don't last anywhere near as long (2500 - 5000 miles, again, depending on the bike and the tyres). A new pair of good tyres (and you really want good tyres) is going to set you back about £300. When I was commuting 70 - 80 miles per day I was having to get my bike serviced and tyres replaced every 7 weeks. The main reason I choose my bike over my car nine times out of ten is agency: I want to be able to decide how long a journey will take, not have it decided for me by the volume of traffic. [1] Obviously this depends on the bike and car being compared, which can vary wildly - cheap(er) to run commuter bikes do exist, as per cars, but any kind of sports bike, mid-high end tourer, cruiser, roadster, etc., will probably have significant costs associated with maintenance.
- ericd 7y ago
  I used to ride a bike as my main transport. It really depends on your model. A Ninja 250 will be a lot cheaper than a car (especially when you count insurance), a CBR 600 that gets put through its paces, not so much. But then, I wasn't keeping my bike in great tires/etc, and I wasn't commuting nearly as far as you.

wl 7y ago

Loud motorcycles inflict sensorineural hearing loss on anyone unfortunate to get too close to them. I think that's an adequate basis on which to complain and demand something be done about it.

Faaak 7y ago

I don't care about the ride; I care about me. When they go past and they pierce my ears, that bugs me... a lot !