I don't completely understand it but California laws seem to permit the sale of new motorcycles with very old designs. It appears that the laws come into force when a new model needs to be certified, or something like that. So you can buy a brand new XR650L from Honda, that still has a 1980s carbureted engine design and no catalytic converter, and that's a CARB-compliant bike for some reason.
California is no different than the rest of the US in this.
Probably because motorcycles account for nearly nothing in terms of actual miles driven/ridden. It’s incredibly common to find 10+ year old bikes with <10k miles on them. This is ignoring that bikes are basically declining in sales overall too since the 90s.
People just notice them because bikes are novel when on the road. No different than seeing an exotic car.
They’re less than 1% of miles accounted for. Trivial amount. I still think we should adopt Euro5 type standards or something but it’s just not worth fighting over for most of the US. Especially since a large portion of the motorcycle audience is boomers on Harley’s - and that would go counter to their whole lifestyle.
Note that the largest source of fugitive hydrocarbons is parked motorcycles, because 1) CARB estimates that about 30% of bikes in the state have had their evap canisters removed, and 2) even the ones that still have their canisters can't work for more than about 7 days, so a motorcycle that doesn't have the engine started for more than a week leaks as much fuel as one that never had California emissions equipment in the first place.
The CARB standards are per-mile. CARB standards for motorcycle total hydrocarbons + NOx are 800mg per km. For light-duty vehicles (cars and trucks and SUVs < 9000 pounds) the standard is 12 mg per mile (no, I do not know why one is in miles and the other is in km). So an SUV that holds maybe as many as 7 people emits much less.
Of all NOx emissions statewide from on-road cars and motorcycles, the motorcycles emit one third of it, despite being only 5% of the fleet and putting on < 1% of the fleet miles.
Of course motorcycles are usually a lot better on CO2.
It's also worth pointing out that motorcycles are surprisingly inefficient for their mass. If you're carpooling with 2 other people, chances are pretty good you're doing better than a motorcycle on CO2 and NOx both.
I would get something like 40? mpg city, maybe like 55 highway. Paradoxically, some of the best efficiency I had was at 90mph cruise, because I tucked behind the fairing, dramatically increasing my aerodynamics.
While I may be knocking on moto for co2/emissions, I feel compelled to note that motorcycles do not contribute substantially to traffic or road wear. If you see someone lanesplit past you in traffic, just be glad they're one less car in your way.
I've got nothing at all against motorcycles except for the idiots making noise.
If they're willing to take on the risk of riding around all these distracted idiots in SUVs, then more power to them.
I'd like to ride a motorbike but I just wouldn't feel safe considering how many close calls that weren't my fault that I've had in the car, despite considering myself a defensive driver.
