tigster
Well-known member
Signed
|
|
|
Bikes in the HOV lanes
- Thread starter jolomatic
- Start date
insert
Well-known member
for once i completely agree with turbo. as much as i would like to "legally" have access to these lanes, i just cant find a compelling argument for it. one could argue safety, but the fact is that motorcycles are dangerous, and by riding a bike one accepts the risks involved, although HOV lanes would limit the time you're exposed to those risks, it still undermines the whole point of the HOV lane.
however, if you wanted to argue something to your mp, try petitioning about how in bumper to bumper traffic, motorcycles are forced to sit int eh blind spots of drivers. putting them at higher risk to get in an accident, which, if it happens, would create much more traffic on the road. additionally you could argue that the small number of motorcycles on the streets would not congest the HOV lanes.
Motorcycles are allowed to use HOV lanes in the US, well except for New York, unless you appeal a ticket - i dunno
http://www.webbikeworld.com/motorcycle-news/new-york-hov-lane.htm
http://www.webbikeworld.com/motorcycle-news/new-york-hov-lane.htm
yee_boys69
Well-known member
The HOV lane is there to try and reduce pollution and congestion on the highway. Average car seats 5 people, you only need 2 people in your car to use the HOV lane. 40% of the vehicles capacity. 1 person on a bike, 50% of its capacity......I see no reason not to allow bikes in these lanes
Because as motorcyclists we are an elite group that shouldn't be stuck sitting in traffic with cagers, we should be in the lane that's moving, that includes shoulders.
What starts out as a great theory doesn't neccessarily apply in practical terms. Well, they did it in California and everyone knows they know what they are doing. Then other communities follow. They put their own little spin on it to make it their own. And I really do appreciate the need to reduce traffic congestion. But, HOVs aren't solving it. More lanes should be used by all travellers.
If the city and more employers offerred free TTC/Subway passes (the expense would be obsorbed as part of their compensation) to their employees, you'd see some improvements. (yes I know we get a taxible benefit but, it's only a portion and doesn't help each month it needs to be bought). Maybe this half wit idea would be just as dumb as HOV lanes but, I bet the experiment would cost less than expanding highway lanes. Have to admit, this isn't an original idea on my part. Just another fella surfing the net. I would also gladly pay for a train or subway from Pearson to downtown. Shuttles suck. (Let me clarify, I would expense this cost to the company I work for)
Next, they will start charging tolls to use the HOV lanes. When every tax payer pays for the construction of the lanes, we should have the use of the lane. JMO of course. At the end of the day, I don't see this as a motorcycle issue as much as an overall traffic concern. Again, just my penny thought.
If the city and more employers offerred free TTC/Subway passes (the expense would be obsorbed as part of their compensation) to their employees, you'd see some improvements. (yes I know we get a taxible benefit but, it's only a portion and doesn't help each month it needs to be bought). Maybe this half wit idea would be just as dumb as HOV lanes but, I bet the experiment would cost less than expanding highway lanes. Have to admit, this isn't an original idea on my part. Just another fella surfing the net. I would also gladly pay for a train or subway from Pearson to downtown. Shuttles suck. (Let me clarify, I would expense this cost to the company I work for)
Next, they will start charging tolls to use the HOV lanes. When every tax payer pays for the construction of the lanes, we should have the use of the lane. JMO of course. At the end of the day, I don't see this as a motorcycle issue as much as an overall traffic concern. Again, just my penny thought.
i said rational!
Well the reasons they provide for letting motorcycles ride in the HOV lanes in California are safety.
When in stop and go traffic, you are an easy target for someone to rear-end you as they don't see you in the blockade of vehicles in front of you. Also when you stay in the regular lanes in stop and go traffic, people are less likely to check their blind spots and just notice a space next to them, and change lanes, right into your motorcycle.
The saving gas/environmental reasons are secondary. The OC Register (a tea-party newspaper in Orange County) did a feature on motorcycles and lane splitting, HOV lanes etc. about 10 days ago. The CHP gave the above safety reasons as to why they allow it in California.
DownUnder
Well-known member
We call them Transit lanes (T2 and T3) in Aus and bikes as well as taxis and buses can use them too no matter what the occupancy is. T2 is 2+ passengers and T3 is 3+. Not sure why bikes are allowed to use them or how the argument was won but its nice to get around traffic jams. A bike wont slow down the HOV lanes so it wont inconvenience anyone car pooling i guess.
rider1106
Well-known member
Check out # 15 - http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freewaymgmt/faq.htm#faq15
My rebuttal to that would be:
1) If safety was a legitimate concern, one would not ride a motorcycle at all.
2) If environmental impact was a legitimate concern, one would not ride a motorcycle at all. Small motors with very little pollution controls (even the Cali modesl) pollute more per km driven than a lot of small cars.
If motorcycle owners can use that logic to gain access to HOV lanes, why not owners of subcompacts? One could make the case that a subcompact owner is vulnerable to a serious accident if rear ended by a much larger vehicle. Not to mention a subcompact is as good if not better on fuel (and would pollute less) than most motorcycles. If anything, owners of Fiestas, Yari, Smar Cars, etc, have a more legitimate case for being in the HOV lanes than motorcycles.
Neither of those reasons have any merit IMO
My bad, I thought I'd call out the real reason for this discussion. Rational implies that there is logic or sanity involved, you're not going to find it here.
Touché
Why do we have helmet laws? I mean if we were legitimately concerned about safety we wouldn't ride a motorcycle at all right?
Im not sure I agree with single occupant motorcycle in the HOV lane, but enough data exists to support the concept that it reduces rear end collisions.
CFunk
Well-known member
Keep an eye out for it in 2015. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tra...ws-rapid-rail-link-to-pearson-by-2015-pan-ams
That's exactly my point. Saying its about safety is stupid. I am being facetious in the hopes of illustrating how baseless this idea is. Motorcycle riders want to ride in the HOV lanes simply because they're motorcycle riders. We are not legitimately concerned about safety, it's just being used as an excuse in the hopes of receiving preferential treatment.
If a motorcycle is permitted in that lane, why not a Lamborghini? Think of the potential cost to the insurance company if a dump truck rear ends a Murcielago. What about Mercedes and BMWs? Just think about how much lower our rates would be if any car woth over $70,000 was permitted to drive in the HOV lanes.
|
|
|
|
|