Hi all

Carlos is quite right to say that motorcycles are more dangerous than
cars, and not only to their own users. An analysis I did for London,
based on traffic and crash data for the two years 1999 and 2000, showed
that per mile driven/ridden TWMVs killed or seriously injured more than
five times as many pedestrians, and nearly twice as many cyclists, as
were killed or seriously injured by cars. For environmental reasons too,
TWMVs are out of place in city centres, perhaps in cities generally.

However, if some people want powered two-wheeled transport, they should
be allowed to have it, provided that the costs imposed on others is
limited. There are now a considerable number of makes of
electrically-assisted bicycles with a top speed of 15mph. The cyclist
organisations in Britain would be happy to allow such vehicles to share
cycle lanes and all other privileges that bicycles enjoy. In fact, this
would be to the advantage of cyclists, since the numbers would increase
and therefore the case for better cycling facilities would be strengthened.

Never having been to Bangkok, I am not in a position to say whether this
solution would be appropriate there, but on the face of it, it should be
applicable to most cities.

Stephen Plowden



Carlos F. Pardo wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I was just asked a question that I think is worth asking to more
> people before answering it. I have been in the (rather difficult)
> process of helping Bangkok officials try to organize a car-free day in
> their city. They have posed may questions, and most of them are
> basically "textbook", so there's no problem. But after a while of
> discussing they asked me if motorcycles should or should not be
> allowed to move during a car free day. My immediate answer would be
> no, since a motorcycle is also dangerous (more than a car, I would
> say), polluting (mostly if it's two-stroke, but polluting nonetheless)
> and motorised! However, and to a great extent in Asia, a lot of low
> income people use motorcycles as their main mode of transport,
> sometimes even taking their wife and kinds (2 or three of them!) in
> the same vehicle (obviously because they don't have the means to pay
> for a very low transport fare).
>
> Also, though officials didn't ask about it, I was thinking if it would
> also be necessary to prohibit circulation of tuk tuks (three-wheeled
> motorised taxis), since they would also be a highly informal service
> that would pose the same threats of motorcyles (same engine, similar
> lack of safety, etc). As I said before, an inmediate reaction to these
> questions would be a strict "no", but since current transport
> conditions and affordability of a transport fare is an issue, I don't
> think the answer could come out so lightly.
>
> Another option would be to think that simply Bangkok is not ready for
> a car-free day, which I sometimes also feel is the answer. but then
> again it would be backing up too soon. I have also thought that maybe
> Bangkok could start simply by developing car-free Sundays or car-free
> areas (if not at the same time), since the complete closing of roads
> to all cars seems to give heart attacks to all the people whom I have
> talked to (and most of them work in the "nonmotorised" section of the
> traffic and transportation division). Also, giving free rides in
> public buses is almost completely out of the question, unless we
> looked for funding from an international organisation. difficult to
> get before September 22^nd .
>
> So, what would you do? I greatly appreciate your comments and/or
> suggestions, since I thikn these issues should be discussed with all
> you experts before I give my opinion to the Bangkok administrative staff.
>
> Best regards,
>
> *Carlos F. Pardo*
>
> *Project Coordinator*
>
> GTZ Sustainable Urban Transport Project (SUTP)
>
> Room 0942, Transport Division, UN-ESCAP
>
> ESCAP UN Building
>
> Rajadamnern Nok Rd.
>
> Bangkok 10200, Thailand
>