Bikes in the HOV lanes

[fastar1]

Forum Sponsor

I highly doubt that MOST bikes can get 5L/100km or better. No sport bike or big bore cruiser can. If you're going to set a more realistic goal of 7L/100km then just about any new 4-cylinder compact or sub-compact can do that as well.

It doesn't matter what the threshold is, 5L/100 highway km per passenger was just a number I pulled out of a hat. Make it 5.5 then. Or 7. The simple point is that there is some threshold at which single occupant bikes are acceptable while single occupant cars are not.

Of course it would be impractical to try and enforce a threshold vehicle by vehicle, such that a Prius could use the HOV with only one occupant but an H1 would need 3 for example. So some generalisation by vehicle type would have to take place but as long as motorcycles overall get better mileage than cars do (overall) then there is a window within which their use of the HOV lanes with only one occupant can be justified for the sake of fuel consumption reduction.

Again, it depends on the threshold. Even 2L/100 highway km per person is doable, but then there would have to be 4 people per car in general to achive that, and maybe 3 people per bike! Same rationale applies if the purpose of HOVs is to encourage a reduction in traffic.

We just need to know what the goal of HOVs is and what standard is being applied to meet that goal. If the standard was such that single rider bikes were justified in using the HOVs then wouldn't that be a good reason to allow them?

 

[CruisnGrrl]

I'm still waiting for someone to give one good reason as to why a motorcycle with only one rider should be allowed in the HOV lane....

it is a safety issue, with the bike you are vulnerable from incoming traffic on all sides, the hov lane removes one of those sides.

as for mileage at worst my bike gets 42mpg(US) aka 5.6L/100km (it's a 750, 20 years old, in need of a tune up and i probably take off from stops faster than i need to). I've gotten as good as 55mpg aka 4.2 L/100km when i drive it nicer. most sedan type cars i've driven in the past year (i had to rent a few cars when my gas guzzling truck broke down) get about 9-10L/100km or more (more is worse, I rented a pt cruiser that used almost 14L/100km - the same as my old 5.2L 8 cylinder jeep grand cherokee).

yaris and smart cars etc aren't always practical (ever try to fit 4 full sized adults into a yaris? a smart car only holds 2 and there's not a lot of leg room in the one I sat in) and still don't get the kind of mileage a 125, 250 or even a 500cc bike will get. A quick google search on some car forums show the yaris gets 36-40mpg(US), the smart 36mpg(US), i suspect you put 4 adults in that car and the engine will really struggle. It's not all about engine size where smaller = more efficient, the 2.2L 4 cylinder engine in the toyota previa I had used just as much gas (if not more) to go from toronto to ottawa as my 2.8L 6 cylinder 4x4 blazer (the blazers hubs were permanently locked for 4x4 on the fly vs better mileage received by auto or manual locking hubs that give better mileage). look at the ford ranger, i've seen many an owner complain that they get good milage (compared to other pickup trucks) until they haul something. power to weight ratio will affect mileage.

and how many of these "green" cars in the hov lanes are used to car pool? you have 1 vehicle taking up the area that two bikes use that gets the same mileage as a larger motorcycle. how many of the cars in HOV lanes are minivans and suv's with just 2 people in them?

 

[caboose56]

It doesn't matter what the threshold is, 5L/100 highway km per passenger was just a number I pulled out of a hat. Make it 5.5 then. Or 7. The simple point is that there is some threshold at which single occupant bikes are acceptable while single occupant cars are not.

Of course it would be impractical to try and enforce a threshold vehicle by vehicle, such that a Prius could use the HOV with only one occupant but an H1 would need 3 for example. So some generalisation by vehicle type would have to take place but as long as motorcycles overall get better mileage than cars do (overall) then there is a window within which their use of the HOV lanes with only one occupant can be justified for the sake of fuel consumption reduction.

Again, it depends on the threshold. Even 2L/100 highway km per person is doable, but then there would have to be 4 people per car in general to achive that, and maybe 3 people per bike! Same rationale applies if the purpose of HOVs is to encourage a reduction in traffic.

We just need to know what the goal of HOVs is and what standard is being applied to meet that goal. If the standard was such that single rider bikes were justified in using the HOVs then wouldn't that be a good reason to allow them?

Fuel consumption is not factored in at all when determining what vehicles are or are not permitted in the HOV lanes. As such I am forced to believe that fuel consumption is a secondary concern, if it is a concern at all. The primary concern has to be traffic congestion.

 

[NP6000]

Fuel consumption is not factored in at all when determining what vehicles are or are not permitted in the HOV lanes. As such I am forced to believe that fuel consumption is a secondary concern, if it is a concern at all. The primary concern has to be traffic congestion.

Which is precisely why lane filtering should be permitted - and the book thrown at those that abuse the HOV lane - single occupant motorcyclists included.

 

[caboose56]

it is a safety issue, with the bike you are vulnerable from incoming traffic on all sides, the hov lane removes one of those sides.

as for mileage at worst my bike gets 42mpg(US) aka 5.6L/100km (it's a 750, 20 years old, in need of a tune up and i probably take off from stops faster than i need to). I've gotten as good as 55mpg aka 4.2 L/100km when i drive it nicer. most sedan type cars i've driven in the past year (i had to rent a few cars when my gas guzzling truck broke down) get about 9-10L/100km or more (more is worse, I rented a pt cruiser that used almost 14L/100km - the same as my old 5.2L 8 cylinder jeep grand cherokee).

yaris and smart cars etc aren't always practical (ever try to fit 4 full sized adults into a yaris? a smart car only holds 2 and there's not a lot of leg room in the one I sat in) and still don't get the kind of mileage a 125, 250 or even a 500cc bike will get. A quick google search on some car forums show the yaris gets 36-40mpg(US), the smart 36mpg(US), i suspect you put 4 adults in that car and the engine will really struggle. It's not all about engine size where smaller = more efficient, the 2.2L 4 cylinder engine in the toyota previa I had used just as much gas (if not more) to go from toronto to ottawa as my 2.8L 6 cylinder 4x4 blazer (the blazers hubs were permanently locked for 4x4 on the fly vs better mileage received by auto or manual locking hubs that give better mileage). look at the ford ranger, i've seen many an owner complain that they get good milage (compared to other pickup trucks) until they haul something. power to weight ratio will affect mileage.

and how many of these "green" cars in the hov lanes are used to car pool? you have 1 vehicle taking up the area that two bikes use that gets the same mileage as a larger motorcycle. how many of the cars in HOV lanes are minivans and suv's with just 2 people in them?

The safety aspect is weapons grade bullcrap. If you were concerned about safety you wouldn't ride a motorcycle on the highway at all. I've already responded to that point in this thread.

My Edge with 2 people in it uses less fuel per person than your 55mpg bike. 2 people in a Yaris would use much less fuel per person than your 55mpg bike.... but i really don't think fuel consumption matters. A Lamborghini or a Viper with two people in it would be allowed to use the HOV lane but would likely use MORE fuel per person than a lot of single occupant cars out there.

 

[NP6000]

The safety aspect is weapons grade bullcrap. If you were concerned about safety you wouldn't ride a motorcycle on the highway at all. I've already responded to that point in this thread.

I still don't understand why safety is bull crap. You don't think mitigation of risk is a worthwhile consideration? Countering the safety argument with "well you wouldn't a motorcycle if you were concerned about safety" is a crock of ****

 

[Jayv]

it is a safety issue, with the bike you are vulnerable from incoming traffic on all sides, the hov lane removes one of those sides.

I disagree, travelling in HOV lanes if anything is more dangerous. Trouble is most riders riding in the HOV lane get a false sense of security. All it takes is driver in the middle lane to make lane change without using mirrors/checking blind spots and bam he/she is going to drive right into the path of the rider going 60km/h.

 

[fastar1]

Fuel consumption is not factored in at all when determining what vehicles are or are not permitted in the HOV lanes. As such I am forced to believe that fuel consumption is a secondary concern, if it is a concern at all. The primary concern has to be traffic congestion.

I would think so too, but who knows? They never exactly announced the purpose and goal of the HOV lanes. In any case, the rationale still holds if you think of the HOVs as a traffic reduction measure.

 

[fastar1]

The safety aspect is weapons grade bullcrap. If you were concerned about safety you wouldn't ride a motorcycle on the highway at all. I've already responded to that point in this thread.

Following that line of reasoning, then mandatory helmet laws are weapons grade bullcrap too?

 

[Jayv]

Fuel consumption is not factored in at all when determining what vehicles are or are not permitted in the HOV lanes. As such I am forced to believe that fuel consumption is a secondary concern, if it is a concern at all. The primary concern has to be traffic congestion.

I understand your point, but in reality all these HOV lanes connect to the Downtown Core. This is where the advantage between two wheels and four wheels can actually be proved. It is so easy to ride around Downtown on a bike, a simple 5km trip is completed in no time, try and do the same driving a car(hybrid's included). Five motorcycle's take up one parking spot, less congestion on the streets. Motorcycles, scooters and bicycles can all share the same lanes while commuting, once again you can't do that with four wheels.

 

[emortal1333]

Which is precisely why lane filtering should be permitted - and the book thrown at those that abuse the HOV lane - single occupant motorcyclists included.

Agreed!!!

I disagree, travelling in HOV lanes if anything is more dangerous. Trouble is most riders riding in the HOV lane get a false sense of security. All it takes is driver in the middle lane to make lane change without using mirrors/checking blind spots and bam he/she is going to drive right into the path of the rider going 60km/h.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think CruisnGrrl was referring to the fact that, if riders were allowed in HOV lanes, we wouldn't need to be concerned about interference from our left side nearly as much, like being in the fast lane of the 401. That said, I'm hard pressed to say I find any security in a simple 2 foot line drawn on the highway and would remain just as alert as usual!

My argument, much like I think CruisnGrrl's was, is that by being in the HOV lane, you now essentially eliminate the worry of traffic merging from your left.

 

[CruisnGrrl]

The safety aspect is weapons grade bullcrap. If you were concerned about safety you wouldn't ride a motorcycle on the highway at all. I've already responded to that point in this thread.

My Edge with 2 people in it uses less fuel per person than your 55mpg bike. 2 people in a Yaris would use much less fuel per person than your 55mpg bike.... but i really don't think fuel consumption matters. A Lamborghini or a Viper with two people in it would be allowed to use the HOV lane but would likely use MORE fuel per person than a lot of single occupant cars out there.

my bike with two people (my self and another) uses less gas than the yaris or your edge and still takes up only a fraction of the space. just because your edge can carry two people doesn't mean it is and how much does your real world mileage go down when you add extra people into it.

as for safety, there is risk in everything we do, if you were really concerned about safety you would lock yourself in a padded room. yes there is risk in riding, I do what i can to mitigate that risk, i wear a full face helmet and protective gear head to toe, plus extra armor on top of the armor provided in my jacket for my back.

 

[caboose56]

I still don't understand why safety is bull crap. You don't think mitigation of risk is a worthwhile consideration? Countering the safety argument with "well you wouldn't a motorcycle if you were concerned about safety" is a crock of ****

Following that line of reasoning, then mandatory helmet laws are weapons grade bullcrap too?

my bike with two people (my self and another) uses less gas than the yaris or your edge and still takes up only a fraction of the space. just because your edge can carry two people doesn't mean it is and how much does your real world mileage go down when you add extra people into it.

as for safety, there is risk in everything we do, if you were really concerned about safety you would lock yourself in a padded room. yes there is risk in riding, I do what i can to mitigate that risk, i wear a full face helmet and protective gear head to toe, plus extra armor on top of the armor provided in my jacket for my back.

Safety Shmafety.

A huge majority of riders own a bike and a cage of some sort. Encouraging them to take their bike is encouraging someone to take the significantly more dangerous transportation option. Allowing someone the option of their choice of transportation and letting them assume the risks themselves is one thing, going out of your way to encourage someone to take the more dangerous of two alternatives is another.

 

[Riceburner]

I thought the idea behind HOV lanes was space. 2 ppl in 2 cages takes up more space than 2 ppl in one cage. It's about road congestion isn't it? IT'a about averages anyways, not absolutes. Bikes should be allowed on 400 series HOV like in town and most of the rest of NA.

 

[turbodish]

I thought the idea behind HOV lanes was space. 2 ppl in 2 cages takes up more space than 2 ppl in one cage. It's about road congestion isn't it? IT'a about averages anyways, not absolutes. Bikes should be allowed on 400 series HOV like in town and most of the rest of NA.

And two people on two bikes, even if they are riding together in staggered formation, takes up more running lane space than two people on one bike. If the two bikes are not running together in tight staggered formation, then the running lane space EACH bike takes up is about the same as any other standard passenger vehicle or light truck out on the road. In other words, no running lane space savings at all, which defeats the purpose of reducing the number of vehicles on the road and relieving congestion.

As for debate about the principle purposes of HOV lanes, the MTO web site states the following:

What is an HOV Lane?

The sign above is used to identify HOV lanes on provincial highways.

​

HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) lanes are designed to help move more people through congested areas. HOV lanes offer users a faster, more reliable commute, while also easing congestion in regular lanes - by moving more people in fewer vehicles.

HOV lanes on Highway 403 and 404 are the inside (leftmost) lane and are identified by signs and diamond symbols on the pavement. The HOV lane is separated from the other general traffic lanes by a striped buffer zone. Vehicles carrying at least two people may enter and exit the HOV lane only at designated points, clearly identifiable by wide and closely spaced white broken lines and diamond symbol pavement markings.

If the goal is to reduce highway congestion, then you need to put more people in or on each vehicle.

 

[DemonPig]

... I would disagree that half the vehicles on the road are new 1/2 ton pickups. ...

Actually they may be. According to sales from 2010, the F-150 moved almost as many units in Canada as Civic and Mazda3 combined.

 

[fastar1]

And two people on two bikes, even if they are riding together in staggered formation, takes up more running lane space than two people on one bike. If the two bikes are not running together, then the running lane space EACH bike takes up is about the same as any other standard passenger vehicle or light truck out on the road. In other words, no running lane space savings at all, which defeats the purpose of reducing the number of vehicles on the road and relieving congestion.

First of all, any bike saves some road space over cars simply by being shorter. Secondly, if a bike in a row of cars saves very little space, it's because of the cars, not the bike. This is evidenced by the fact that if you put 10 bikes in a staggered formation in a lane, they will occupy less than 1/2 the space of 10 cars in the same lane. If you doubled up the car occupants they would still take up more space in 5 cars than the bikers would on 10 bikes. That's the only way to compare the two on an even keel.

So in that analysis it is clear that a single occupant motorcycle takes up LESS road space per person than a double occupant car, and it should clearly be allowed in the HOV lanes.

From the sounds of it, the planners simply neglected to consider the benefit of motorcycles over cars in alleviating congestion when they defined their methods. No surprise there.

 

[turbodish]

First of all, any bike saves some road space over cars simply by being shorter.

The length of the vehicle itself is the least significant factor in running lanes space required on the highway. The most significant factor is the headway or safe following distance between vehicles, and that distance is the same for light vehicle classes.

Running lane space required by traffic at 100 kmph, assuming the recommended 2 second following distance headway between vehicles, and assuming only two occupants for cars/trucks and either one or two on the motorcycle, shows how space-inefficient a single occupant motorcycle is in an HOV lane:
55.6 m headway + 2 m vehicle length for double-occupant bike = 57.6 m = 28.8 m per occupant
55.6 m headway + 4 m vehicle length for average mid-size car = 59.6 m = 29.8 m per occupant
55.6 m headway + 6 m vehicle length for average pickup truck = 61.6 m = 30.8 m per occupant
55.6 m headway + 2 m vehicle length for single-occupant bike = 57.6 m = 57.6 m per occupant

The sole-occupant bike consumes far more running lanes pace than the other scenarios. Even the double occupant bike is scarcely more efficient space-wise than a car or truck with two occupants in it. Now, place a third or fourth occupant in each of the cars or trucks and recompute.

This is evidenced by the fact that if you put 10 bikes in a staggered formation in a lane, they will occupy less than 1/2 the space of 10 cars in the same lane. If you doubled up the car occupants they would still take up more space in 5 cars than the bikers would on 10 bikes. That's the only way to compare the two on an even keel.

The problem with that theory is that you will seldom ever see 10 bikes commuting together on the 400 series highways. Even on weekend group rides where you have a better chance of seeing larger groups of bikes running together, they simple do not maintain that tight formation you speak of.

Now put that in a rush hour context on the highway. Seldom do you see two bikes running together even for short times, let alone for any sustained stretch. Let's say it happens though. You can't run side by side, as cautioned by the OPP to Port Dover riders the other week, so you must run staggered. Even running a tight staggered formation, you're still go to occupy about 1-1/2 times the running lane space as a single bike. Go back up a few lines and do the math. Even there, the space required by a pair of bikes running staggered falls well behind a two-occupant bike when it comes to running lanes space per person.

Let's take that argument a bit further. If your argument is that running staggered formation shortens running lane space requirements (even if not as much as a two occupant vehicle), shall we then amend the HOV lane law to allow single-occupant bikes in the HOV lanes ONLY if at least two bikes are running together in tight staggered formation?

So in that analysis it is clear that a single occupant motorcycle takes up LESS road space per person than a double occupant car, and it should clearly be allowed in the HOV lanes.

No. See math above.

From the sounds of it, the planners simply neglected to consider the benefit of motorcycles over cars in alleviating congestion when they defined their methods. No surprise there.

They probably did do the math. There are no congestion-relieving effects of allowing single-occupant motorcycles in the highway HOV lanes. See math above.

 

[fastar1]

The length of the vehicle itself is the least significant factor in running lanes space required on the highway. The most significant factor is the headway or safe following distance between vehicles, and that distance is the same for light vehicle classes.

Running lane space required by traffic at 100 kmph, assuming the recommended 2 second following distance headway between vehicles, and assuming only two occupants for cars/trucks and either one or two on the motorcycle, shows how space-inefficient a single occupant motorcycle is in an HOV lane:
55.6 m headway + 2 m vehicle length for double-occupant bike = 57.6 m = 28.8 m per occupant
55.6 m headway + 4 m vehicle length for average mid-size car = 59.6 m = 29.8 m per occupant
55.6 m headway + 6 m vehicle length for average pickup truck = 61.6 m = 30.8 m per occupant
55.6 m headway + 2 m vehicle length for single-occupant bike = 57.6 m = 57.6 m per occupant

Now, place a third or fourth occupant in each of the cars or trucks and recompute.

So all that just to admit that bikes will always save space compared to a car, as opposed to what you said a minute ago:"In other words, no running lane space savings at all".

The problem with that theory is that you will seldom ever see 10 bikes commuting together on the 400 series highways. Even on weekend group rides where you have a better chance of seeing larger groups of bikes running together, they simple do not maintain that tight formation you speak of.

Now put that in a rush hour context. Seldom do you see two bikes running together even for short times, let alone for any sustained stretch. Let's say it happens though. You can't run side by side, as cautioned by the OPP to Port Dover riders the other week, so you must run staggered. Even running staggered, you're still go to occupy 1-1/2 times the running lane space as a single bike. Go back up a few lines and do the math. Even there, the space required by a pair of bikes running staggered falls well behind a two-occupant bike when it comes to running lanes space per person.

Let's take that argument a bit further. If your argument is that running staggered formation shortens running lane space requirements (even if not as much as a two occupant vehicle), shall we then amend the HOV lane law to allow single occupants in the HOV lanes ONLY if at least two bikes are running together in tight staggered formation?

No. See math above.

None of that is relevant. The fact that there are so many cars on the road compromising the space-saving benefit of motorcycles is no reason to penalize motorcyclists.

They probably did do the math. There are no congestion-relieving effects of allowing single-occupant motorcycles in the highway HOV lanes. See math above.

See your own maths! Holy **** man 57.6 < 59.6.

 

[turbodish]

So all that just to admit that bikes will always save space compared to a car, as opposed to what you said a minute ago:"In other words, no running lane space savings at all".

Show me where I "admit" that a single-occupant bikes saves space compared to a car or truck with two occupants in it. If anything, the single-occupant bike will take up virtually twice the highway lane space per occupant, adding to congestion and not relieving it.

Forum Sponsor