[roadload]

Boy I wonder how clamping down on off road vehicles and motorcycles is going to effect overall air quaility. I cannot imagine that the the total amount of pollutents put out by these machines amount to over .5 percent of the total.



Why do they not focus on diesels or industry, I do believe that out side of certain metropolitian areas industry is the leading cause of pollutents in the air. How about our on military and all of their machines of might, their transports, diesel subs and ships.



This is bogus!

 

[Iman01]

The argument that everybody else is doing it doesn't hold up. It is beneficial to always improve the technology and impact the environment less.



I do agree that it is silly to attack motorcycles and other smaller displacement machines and turn a blind eye on the big polluters. The EPA should focus on the big polluters first but that doesn't mean any polluter should be ignored.



The off road vehicels they are attacking are recreational. The use isn't required. Industry pollutes because everybody pays them to pollute.

 

[Abe_Froman]

Certainly the argument from the purported "reasonable" people is: "why do we need to pollute so much? why not reduce emmisions from motorcycles and ATV's?" Of course, the answer is simple: becuase it will have an immeasurable, imperceptible, inconsequential effect. And for that non-effect, we will pay higher prices for these vehicles. That hurts not only those that buy these products, but the industries that produce them. Not to mention the fact that that's one more area of life that Washington bureaucrats will have control over.



Here in Minnesota, we finally got rid of our worthless, money-pit emmissions-testing program after several years of inconvenience and aggravation. It was shown that pollution levels were already going down at the time that the program was started, and there was no evidence to show that the program resulted in cleaner air. Even if you had a clapped-out rust-bucket 1979 T-Bird with no catilytic converter, you were given an exemption after you spent a couple hundred dollars trying to fix it. The only thing this program resulted in was higher vehicle tab fees and more government workers.

 

[roadload]

You moron i never once suggested reducing our military. All i was suggesting was that they look at how much they pollute before going off on motorcyclist.



And no I am not ignorant to how hard the military works but like any goverment entity I am sure there is some room for improvement, AS there is for everything on this planet,

 

[roadload]

I agree that as technology evolves,as it will, this pollution issue will cease to exist.



I also agree that any polluter should be ignored. It just seem that so much effort goes into this legislation and the potential gain from its passage seems miniscule.



As far as recreational, yes they are not required but if we took that logic and applied it to all aspects of are lives well we would be wearing grey jumpsuits riding in our grey buses/mass transit eating our grey food and so on

 

[273]

The problem is not the overall contribution of off-road vehicles to air pollution. It is the concentration of such vehicles in specific areas such as national parks and wilderness areas. (Obviously, off-road vehicles do not contribute substantially to urban air pollution.) However, according to independent analyses, the vast majority of pollutants in Yellowstone (among other national recreational areas) are associated with off-road vehicles.

And if you don't think the EPA is going after pollution caused by the bigger polluters, try telling it to the diesel trucking industry.

 

[tony]

Well I've been to Yellowstone in the middle of winter. I was hiking and a couple times some snowmoblies went by. I could hear them and smell the smoke for a few seconds but that was it. I did not see any effect on the envirorment. I think back in the 60s the EPA played a big part but they've grown to big and now they are looking for something to justify their jobs. The pickings are getting pretty slim. They need to cut the size of EPA and then focus on the most important issues.

The commets about adapting CARB requirements for the rest of the country on street bikes sounds like someone needs a real job.

Tony

 

[Pacer]

Your right they would get rid of all the diesels, and use nuclear. Don't worry about that, they will just hide the nuclear waste inside Yucca mountain for the future generations to deal with. By the way we all agree that the OHVs are a scape goat.

 

[NickdaBrick]

Much as I distrust government and dislike government regulation, there's nothing wrong with making dirt bikes and other recreational vehicles like ATV's and watercraft cleaner and quieter. Look what happened to street bikes since emissions standards have been enacted. The R1 is certainly not an overweight, emasculated pig.

And, maybe, just maybe, if dirt bikes were clean and quiet, the eco-Stalinists would have less ammo in their fight to have them banned outright, which is their true agenda.

 

[shabeger]

BTW we do not own any diesel subs.

BTW we do not own any diesel subs.

 

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

What a crock of bullsh*t. I agree with another poster about water pollution from 2-stroke outboards, and also from big-block boats using lake water to run through the exhaust. Why not go after them? Oh, I get it. Politicians like to fish, and entertain on their boats. Nothing so crass as simple "dirtbiking" for them, oh no. What about big industries? Oops, forgot again. Where else would money for their election campains come from? How about the trucking industry? Oops, same argument. It's already been shown that "clunkers" produce the same amount of pollution as 200-300 new cars. And don't equate clunkers with "older" cars. It's their state of tune. Why not go after those? Because it's more work, and we all no how much politicians hate the "w" word. I'ts easier to just f*ck a small segment of the population, for a next to zero gain, than it is to go after the big companies, and risk campain dollars. My advice? Scream and holler at your local politician, but buy your dirtbikes now. If they ban them from the land, ride anyway, and if you see a Ranger, lose 'em. But remember, they are armed. Good luck.

 

[Matt]

I've read that if all cars were banned from the LA area, there would still be smog. Industry produces 70% of all air pollution. The emphasis for reducing smog should be on industry, not individuals. Cars and motorcycles of today are already running plenty clean.



Cars and automobiles have had their emissions reduced drastically over the last 30 years. Why can't industry be forced to do the same thing.



To the EPA, leave us alone, you've already extracted your pound of flesh. Go after the real cause of smog.

 

[oldjapbikes]

This water-level-rising stuff is hogwash too. Land falls into the sea on its own, regardless of level of wter. If you live in coastal area, it will flood and will eventually erode into the water. Take a look at land over long-term. Land always heads toward water, and the only high-land generation is from volcanoes. What can humans do on a large scale to reduce that? It's foolish to try. Finally, scientists today are looking at cause-effect on such a nearsighted scale that it is unwise to say that our behavior over the last 20-50 years will immediately produce more global warming. Heck; 3 big volcanoes erupt and we'll have another ice age. Why are higher temperatures so bad anyway? A longer riding season!

 

[Daniel_Gerous]

You're right. Nader rides public transportation. He doesn't even believe in basic personal transportation. I doubt if he has any use at all for recreational vehicles. JMO.

 

[MotorcycleMan]

5%? Yeah, right.

 

[Abe_Froman]

Not true. Just because a law does not exist to regulate a certain behavior DOES NOT mean that there needs to be one. In America (at least in the past) we have regarded lack of restraint on freedom as a virtue.



Here in Minnesota, we have a lot more lakes and a lot more boats that in NY, and we don't seem to have the oil/gasoline pollution problem that you speak of. Even in Twin City metro lakes with the heaviest traffic. Maybe the problem is only in your head?



Please allow me to quote you: "The idea of swimming in unburnt gas bothers me." Well, then, I guess we'll just have to pass a law, right? No matter wether or not unburnt gas is ACTUALLY getting into the water in any significant amount, as long as you're concerned about it, that is reason enough?



This is the problem with this line of thought. It doesn't matter if there is actually a problem. It doesn't matter if there is research to determine if there is a problem. It doesn't even matter if the law will do anything to solve the purported problem (since there may have been no problem to begin with, of course it's academic.) The only thing that matters is that a small group of people are up in arms, say there's a crisis, and that they purport to "care." Anyone that disagrees with them with regard to the nature of the problem or the solution is automatically labeled as "not caring", and a right-wing nut.



Just how much pollution do you say is getting into NY area lakes from boats and PWC's? Has anybody been getting sick or poisoned from this? DO you have anything to back up your position other than the statement "The idea of swimming in unburnt gas bothers me"?

 

[roadload]

Also the geography of Los Angeles has a lot to do with why the smog gets so heavy at times.



There is always going to be some leftover in the combustion process and as are natural resources dwindle I beleive the vehicle manufacturers will adapt, drawinisn all the way around. Because the No 1 goal of most major companies is to make a profit.



cr

 

[Abe_Froman]

So owning a vehicle is a privilege? Who is this privilege granted by? And who voted them into office? We do not live in a dictatorship or under a socialist regime. Courts have held numerous times that driving is not considered a privilege, but a right, subject to revocation only by breaking the law.



Your view on the subject seems to suggest that your perception of our government is flawed. This is a free country. Our freedoms are not granted to us by government brain wizards from their ivory towers. They are granted by God, and merely secured by our constitution.

 

[056]

Golly gee! A real live psychic!

"The issue here is clear, people in government don't like motorcycles and ATVs. They tend to be ridden by people who can think and take care of themselves. So they must be evil and must be regulated out of existence. They know they could never do it all at once, so they will chip away here and there until the job is done. "

Exactly! That's exactly right! That's JUST what those "government people" want! And since you are so empathic and insightful, maybe you know what I'm thinking? What about the Chinese? They're awful mysterious, maybe you can tell us what they want?

I think you should open some kind of 976 number where people call you up and you tell them what they are thinking- you obviously know so much!

Wow! I always though that government officials and regulators existed to provide services to the public, but now you've exposed them for what they really are! How can we ever thank you?

I also like how you put quotes around "air pollution" to highlight that there is really no such thing. All those poor people with athsma, all that thick brown crap over LA, and every other large city in the US- why it's all just a plot by the liberal-communist-jewish film industry to get support for the government to take our rights away!

If it weren't for insightful, clever, and psychic americans like you, we would never have the honest, bright and moral leadership of presidents like Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Calvin Coolidge, Warren Harding, and (last but not least) the Nobel Laureate George W. Bush to protect business's right to make a profit at the expense of everything else. God Bless you, sir!

 

[056]

I think he means it would be an almost totally unchanged, crappy-handling seize-machine. Look at how little motorcycles changed from 1945-1970, and how much they changed from 1970-2000.