Quotes from two posts combined:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmossyone  Not true. We have been building very fuel efficeint motorcycles for a long time. It's just in this land of the free most people don't want to use them for personal transportation.
Well even though Harley isn't the only domestic producer of motorcycles I wasn't just referring to domestic motorcycles even though 40-50 mpg is pretty darn economical. You might also find that some of those you excluded do use them across the pond and they do use them all of the time, rain or snow.
However my point was that the American consumer such as yourself doesn't want them for primary transportation just like they don't want mass transit and just like a majority also don't want a little wind up car. You might also find that mass transit only really works in urban areas not in the rural areas. Not to mention the cost of completely rebuilding our infrastructure to make nationwide mass transit a reality.
If the government wants to build mass transit systems all over this country I'm fine with it as long as they leave me the freedom to choose an alternative if I so desire. I do however believe that mass transit is a better answer than all these little "green" death traps. |
RKM, & mrmossyone,
First I must apologize for leaving out Polaris Victory in my
first post on the subject. Harley and Polaris are, I believe the only two current domestic motorcycle companies. Since this is a discussion about the domestic markets and domestic economy, I thought it appropriate to only discuss our domestic motorcycle manufacturers.
40-50 mpg is 40-50 mpg whether it's consumed on a motorcycle or in a small car. In the U.S. the car wins hands down every time for safety and convenience for the average consumer. Although popular transportation in Europe, as I explained in my first post, I know the shortcomings and limitations of daily motorcycle travel very well first hand. The average consumer isn't willing to use a motorcycle as primary transportation as they're just not as practical as four-seater sedan for daily use. The U.S. has never, to my knowledge, produced a 40-50 mpg sedans, but Honda and Suzuki certainly have, and there's no reason that the U.S. automakers couldn't and shouldn't have built them. There's also no reason that U.S. consumers shouldn't have embraced them. But they didn't and we didn't.
The bigger issue is that since the Eisenhower era, we (as a country) have spent all of our public transportation dollars on highways and individual modes of transportation to make use of those highways rather than take the more responsible (if less popular) approach toward mass transportation. We've actually systematically dismantled the train system in favor of highway transport for moving goods, services, and people long distance. My point was that in retrospect from today's view, we (again as a country) have been very short-sighted in how we've used our resources.
Econoboxes aren't necessarily the answer, merely part of a solution to transport in this country that involves multi-mode transportation. Europe has, by necessity and subsequently by design, taken a much different course to multi-mode transportation. In our defense there are other parts of the world that are in worse condition for mass transit, but that still doesn't give us a bye on what we need to do into the future.
Again, this economic melt-down, the auto industry financial crisis, and the world economic crisis involve multi-faceted problems. The solution lies not only with the auto industry, but with us (our government speaking for and with us) making some hard decisions about fundamental change in how we transit this amazing piece of ground we call the U.S.
Now we have a situation where our fuel supplies are in jeopardy long-term, our domestic suppliers of vehicles are in jeopardy in the short-term, our highway fuels tax funding is dropping with decreased fuel sales (and subsequently our ability to maintain our highway systems), airlines have dropped hundreds of routes, and air travel has become the most arduous way to get from point a to point b, long-distance busses are disgusting and with limited routes, AMTRAK trains are packed on even their limited routing, and yet most of the country has few alternative transportation alternatives available. Just try to cross the country from your house to your destination without using a car. It can be done, but it sure isn't easy. I've done it several times, but it takes substantial planning, a hundred-mile drive to the nearest AMTRAK station, and always having a "plan B" (like taking a cab to the local airport to rent a car) when you miss a connection between a train station and a bus station. Then you need to have a plan to get from the end bus station to where-ever you're really headed. There's no easy way to do it. There should be.
Hmmm... anyone else see a problem here?
Roger