Can we legalize lane filtering yet?

[Rob MacLennan]

Forum Sponsor

But it still illustrates how it can be deadly, something that wasn't being acknowleged. CO isn't deadly in natural concentrations either, but it is still deadly.

Sure, but as I said so can water. So can a pillow. There's a difference between smothering and poisoning. We're talking about a difference of tenths of a percent, or tens of percent.

I believe I already answered this. Again, carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide that are in higher concentrations from motorcycles break down quickly in sunlight and become harmless. During that journey they create ground level ozone that irritates asthma sufferers. A sniffer test will easily show this and make motorcycles look bad. Higher PPMs mean's more pollution right? That's what the motorcycle haters would have you believe but... there's that little issue of CFM to factor in. Bear in mind that an engine is basically an air pump. A Honda 250cc running at 3000rpm vs a 2.2L passenger car at 1900rpm at around 50-60mph. Idling in traffic both are turning 700-900rpm. Which one do you think is pumping the most gas into the atmosphere? I think you can do the math. If for one cubic foot the bike makes 100% more ppm than a car, it still has to work mighty hard to catch up to what the car is pumping out, and that doesn't factor in all the 7L pickup trucks, 5L SUVs and 4L minivans, and DIESELS, don't forget about them. Sure, one cubic foot of air from the bike is dirtier, but it's a drop in the bucket in comparison.

No, the other byproducts don't "break down in sunlight and become harmless." They can react with other compounds and produce dangerous chemicals, like nitric acid. Particulate matter is an issue, in and of itself. Carbon dioxide is the least of the issues.

And I've already covered the mileage thing. The advantage isn't that great and is even less so, when multiple occupancy of vehicles is considered. A Honda 250 isn't the average motorcycle on the road and a pickup, or large SUV isn't the average passenger vehicle. Comparing worst to best is an invalid argument and comparing average to average isn't as huge a gulf as you would have us believe.

 

[caboose56]

Sure, but as I said so can water. So can a pillow. There's a difference between smothering and poisoning. We're talking about a difference of tenths of a percent, or tens of percent.



No, the other byproducts don't "break down in sunlight and become harmless." They can react with other compounds and produce dangerous chemicals, like nitric acid. Particulate matter is an issue, in and of itself. Carbon dioxide is the least of the issues.

And I've already covered the mileage thing. The advantage isn't that great and is even less so, when multiple occupancy of vehicles is considered. A Honda 250 isn't the average motorcycle on the road and a pickup, or large SUV isn't the average passenger vehicle. Comparing worst to best is an invalid argument and comparing average to average isn't as huge a gulf as you would have us believe.

I'm not sure this is going anywhere.... a valiant effort but when your opponent is making stuff up and won't concede defeat when presented with simple fact I'm not sure what else you could do.

Hydrocarbons and CO broken down by sunlight.......... I've heard some whoppers in my day but that's a new one.

 

[Paul E]

how about we do baby steps and let single riders on HOV lanes, like almost everyone else who has HOV lanes. a bike with one rider is 50%of the capacity. unless u got a sidecar. or a solo seat.

 

[caboose56]

how about we do baby steps and let single riders on HOV lanes, like almost everyone else who has HOV lanes. a bike with one rider is 50%of the capacity. unless u got a sidecar. or a solo seat.

So is a Lambo with a single occupant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Paul E]

So is a miata. Point is nearly all n bikes are two seaters. And bikes reduce congestion. Isn't that the point of hov lanes?

 

[caboose56]

So is a miata. Point is nearly all n bikes are two seaters. And bikes reduce congestion. Isn't that the point of hov lanes?

Negligible decrease at best.

A 7 foot long motorcycle plus an acceptable following distance is only a tiny overall decrease from an average car plus an acceptable following distance.

Legitimate carpooling, the complete removal of one or more vehicles from the road, is what reduces congestion.

None of these arguments hold water when challenged. Mototcyclists who advocate filtering or HOV lane use want personal convenience and nothing more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rob MacLennan]

I'm not sure this is going anywhere.... a valiant effort but when your opponent is making stuff up and won't concede defeat when presented with simple fact I'm not sure what else you could do.

Hydrocarbons and CO broken down by sunlight.......... I've heard some whoppers in my day but that's a new one.

No, it isn't. When someone is so demonstrably wrong and simply puts his fingers in his ears saying, "Lalalalalalalalala... I can't hear you!" it's rather pointless to continue.

Well he's right about the second thing at least if you're talking about during the day and by "breaking down" he actually means "combine chemically into some potentially very dangerous compounds." It's all in the spin

 

[Rob MacLennan]

how about we do baby steps and let single riders on HOV lanes, like almost everyone else who has HOV lanes. a bike with one rider is 50%of the capacity. unless u got a sidecar. or a solo seat.

Oddly enough when I originally raised the question of allowing motorcycles in the HOV lanes with the Minister of Transport, several years back, the message I received in return included an offer to set me up with their ride sharing programme. For my motorcycle.

 

[Skyway6]

No, it isn't. When someone is so demonstrably wrong and simply puts his fingers in his ears saying, "Lalalalalalalalala... I can't hear you!" it's rather pointless to continue.

Well he's right about the second thing at least if you're talking about during the day and by "breaking down" he actually means "combine chemically into some potentially very dangerous compounds." It's all in the spin

starting to remind me of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y monty python the argument

 

[Baggsy]

starting to remind me of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y monty python the argument

Is this where the Policeman comes in and nicks us all?

 

[Ugur Dinch]

Negligible decrease at best.

A 7 foot long motorcycle plus an acceptable following distance is only a tiny overall decrease from an average car plus an acceptable following distance.

Legitimate carpooling, the complete removal of one or more vehicles from the road, is what reduces congestion.

None of these arguments hold water when challenged. Mototcyclists who advocate filtering or HOV lane use want personal convenience and nothing more.

I'm not sure about HOV use on highways, in fact, I don't like the idea of limiting my movements in a single lane, where I can't escape for my safety as I please, but filtering and HOV should not to be confused or discussed in the same thread, IMO.

However, filtering/splitting does reduce congestion by decreasing overall travel times, AND reduces overall carbon footprint, as shown in Belgian study, regardless of the current primitive state of emissions of motorcycles.

http://www.gizmag.com/motorcycles-reduce-congestion/21420/

 

[jc100]

I'm not sure about HOV use on highways, in fact, I don't like the idea of limiting my movements in a single lane, where I can't escape for my safety as I please, but filtering and HOV should not to be confused or discussed in the same thread, IMO.

However, filtering/splitting does reduce congestion by decreasing overall travel times, AND reduces overall carbon footprint, as shown in Belgian study, regardless of the current primitive state of emissions of motorcycles.

http://www.gizmag.com/motorcycles-reduce-congestion/21420/

All year round riding conditions, smaller cars, smaller more congested roads, and higher gas prices = more riders, graduated licensing = more smaller cc bikes + mopeds/scooters.

Hard to extrapolate to here.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

I'm not sure about HOV use on highways, in fact, I don't like the idea of limiting my movements in a single lane, where I can't escape for my safety as I please, but filtering and HOV should not to be confused or discussed in the same thread, IMO.

However, filtering/splitting does reduce congestion by decreasing overall travel times, AND reduces overall carbon footprint, as shown in Belgian study, regardless of the current primitive state of emissions of motorcycles.

http://www.gizmag.com/motorcycles-reduce-congestion/21420/

"The study, which was presented at the Association des Constructeurs Européens de Motocycles (ACEM) 2012 Conference in Brussels, found that if 10 percent of all private cars were replaced by motorcycles in the traffic flow of the test area, total time losses for all vehicles decreased by 40 percent and total emissions reduced by 6 percent (1 percent from the different traffic composition of more emission-reduced motorcycles and 5 percent from avoided traffic congestion). A 25 percent modal shift from cars to motorcycles was found to eliminate congestion entirely."

In Canada it's pretty unlikely that we would replace 10% of cars with motorcycles just during the summer, let alone year 'round. There simply aren't the numbers and the weather isn't conducive to it. Breaking gridlock in pretty much any way would result in the sort of emissions reductions that they speculate upon, as cars that are moving don't waste gas.

 

[caboose56]

One could easily make the argument that the fuel consumption of heavier and more powerful vehicles are more sensitive to stop and go traffic. One could then easily make the next logical step that if pickup trucks and SUVs with V8 engines were allowed to use the HOV lanes there would be a noticeable decrease in emissions and overall fuel consumption of commuter traffic.

One could also easily make the argument that the larger and heavier vehicles pose a safety risk to small vehicles (laws of physics being what they are, conservation of momentum and all that). Therefor, removing the heavier pickups and SUVs from commuter traffic would increase the overall safety of those commuters.

Therefor i propose that V8 pickups and SUVs should be permitted to use HOV lanes regardless of occupancy.

 

[LePhillou]

As someone mentioned it earlier, lane filtering is the equivalent of the 12 items or less lane in the grocery store. If you have more than that, you're in the regular lane, if you're smaller and you fit, you are in the smaller lane making you go faster and out of the way of the 13+ items lane. Does it save time, yes. Is it HUGE, maybe not, but its enough to warrant to have it as an option.

Now in terms of emissions, having a bike be in traffic for 1 hour idling 1/4 of that time. Or having a bike in traffic for 30m idling 1/4 of that time, i think it would help reduce the footprint in a small percentage (im exaggerating the time spent at the lights to make my point). But that would also be baby steps. Some people might even think of it as a more efficient way to get around during the warmer seasons.

Im all for filtering. Splitting in Ontario, lets just say its another ball game.

 

[Ugur Dinch]

All year round riding conditions, smaller cars, smaller more congested roads, and higher gas prices = more riders, graduated licensing = more smaller cc bikes + mopeds/scooters.

Hard to extrapolate to here.

I agree with all of the above, and I also agree that we may even never see a change here (don't fix if ain't broken mentality). I was only arguing against the idea of "the only way to reduce congestion and pollution is the reduce total # of vehicles", which is not the case.

Found another one:
"A 2010 Oregon Department of Transportation report found that lane-splitting, also known as lane-sharing, could reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as congestion."

http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2015/04/oregon_motorcycle_lane-splitti.html

Now in terms of emissions, having a bike be in traffic for 1 hour idling 1/4 of that time. Or having a bike in traffic for 30m idling 1/4 of that time, i think it would help reduce the footprint in a small percentage (im exaggerating the time spent at the lights to make my point). But that would also be baby steps. Some people might even think of it as a more efficient way to get around during the warmer seasons.

This is the whole point I think. When recycling first came around, only a handful of people practiced / believed in it, and even those people thought it may not really have any overall benefit in the long run as facilities were also inefficient. Today we have multi-bin recycling nationally, having evolved over a short period of time.

All it takes is the little step into right direction.

After considering the fact that population and congestion is bound to be increasing around here and never decreasing, filtering only makes sense to me, even if it's done by a few of us, during the summers only.

 

[Roadghost]

Sure, but as I said so can water. So can a pillow. There's a difference between smothering and poisoning. We're talking about a difference of tenths of a percent, or tens of percent.



No, the other byproducts don't "break down in sunlight and become harmless." They can react with other compounds and produce dangerous chemicals, like nitric acid. Particulate matter is an issue, in and of itself. Carbon dioxide is the least of the issues.

And I've already covered the mileage thing. The advantage isn't that great and is even less so, when multiple occupancy of vehicles is considered. A Honda 250 isn't the average motorcycle on the road and a pickup, or large SUV isn't the average passenger vehicle. Comparing worst to best is an invalid argument and comparing average to average isn't as huge a gulf as you would have us believe.

Sorry, but I missed the part here where they talk about CO as a greenhouse gas:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas


Oh, wait. Here it is:

Although molecules containing two atoms of different elements such as carbon monoxide (CO) or hydrogen chloride (HCl) absorb IR, these molecules are short-lived in the atmosphere owing to their reactivity and solubility. Because they do not contribute significantly to the greenhouse effect, they are usually omitted when discussing greenhouse gases.

Funny, I could have sworn I already posted this. Must have flown over a few heads, or it was intentionally ignored. I suspect the latter.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

I could swear I had already mentioned, multiple times, that I'm not talking about the greenhouse effect. I'm talking about things that are immediately poisonous and can result in, among other issues, acid rain.

 

[caboose56]

Sorry, but I missed the part here where they talk about CO as a greenhouse gas:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas


Oh, wait. Here it is:



Funny, I could have sworn I already posted this. Must have flown over a few heads, or it was intentionally ignored. I suspect the latter.

Go start your car in the garage with the door closed... let us know if you die from garage warming or from ​carbon monoxide poisoning.

 

[griff2]

Sorry, but I missed the part here where they talk about CO as a greenhouse gas:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas


Oh, wait. Here it is:



Funny, I could have sworn I already posted this. Must have flown over a few heads, or it was intentionally ignored. I suspect the latter.

Gotcha.

CO in comparatively small concentrations in our global atmosphere will poison and make extinct all humanity on our earth within hours, while CO[SUP]2[/SUP] will contribute to greenhouse gases and thus make extinct all humanity on our earth in thousands of years from now, assuming of course that the human body is not able to evolve and adapt to changing atmospheric conditions over that period of time.

Forum Sponsor