bombshelter13
Well-known member
Toronto's ahead of the game here, we're removing the ones we already have. Thanks Ford.
|
|
|
Bikes in the HOV lanes
- Thread starter jolomatic
- Start date
Toronto's ahead of the game here, we're removing the ones we already have. Thanks Ford.
Sorry turbo, you're simply confused. Take some time off and then re-read my post.
This point seems to be overlooked, perhaps the nay sayers should actually travel Downtown once in a blue moon and see what a difference two wheels can make.
jolomatic
Well-known member
Then why are green vehicles allowed with only one occupant.
I would begrudgingly concede the argument if not for this point.
Maybe designating a certain set of bikes as 'green' (under 750cc, or somesuch) would level the playing filed.
jolomatic
Well-known member
Agreed. I gladly ride to work rather than take the train, but I will never drive the car to work - purely because of the difference in the ease at which I can get trough the traffic. And I am not a lane splitter or agressive rider by any means.
The whole "MORE people in FEWER vehicles" argument went completely out the window when the province decided it was okay for single occupant green vehicles to use the HOV lanes. http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/vehicle/electric/ev-green-plates.shtml
Holy carp you guys, I'm running out of ways of saying the same thing differently. Let me try once more.
I have no problem acknowledging that double-occupant vehicles make far more efficient use of road space per person than single occupant motorcycles in certain scenarios (such as 100km/h with 2 sec gap as turbo illustrated). We need to get over that to move on to the actual point.
First of all, a two-occupant car is NOT the minimum standard at which road space utilisation starts to become efficient.
Secondly, there are some meaningful real-world scenarios in which a single-occupant motorcycle is more space-efficient than even a THREE occupant car. I'd like to show you how but first you guys have to understand that it is not simply a matter of comparing the worst-case motorcycle use of space to the most common exiting use of a car in HOV lanes.
Waiting for Turbodish to respond - but he can't say a thing now. Not after the huge stink he raised about nuclear power.
If motorcycles were allowed in HOV lanes I would ride in them. But i'm not delusional enough to come up with fairy-tale reasons to justify why they should be allowed.
Bicycles aren't neccesarily a luxury item that most people own in addition to a cage of some sort. Lots of people living and working downtown only have a bicycle as their sole means of transportation. Given that, bicycle lanes that separate cyclists from motorists cant really be compared to motorcycles in HOV lanes. If we lived in a temperate climate where a motorcycle could reasonably be used as an only vehicle then I'd probably view it differently. But we don't so i don't.
I don't know. How many more times can you make the same flawed argument that doesn't make any sense?
When does any occupancy level become efficient? What does that even mean? The only case in which encouraging motorcycle commuting has any merit is in regards to parking. Last time i checked there is already such a program in place for motorcycle parking in Toronto. Has that recently changed? Nothing you've written thus far presents any solid argument for why bikes should be allowed in HOV lanes. Not one thing.
I don't recall ever saying that nuclear industry shouldn't exist. The only "stink" I made about nuclear power was questioning the wisdom of placing in extremely close proximity to high-density population areas a technology which we really have not fully mastered, for which crisis management is still in the learning stages, and for which the results of mishaps involving radiation releases can mean turning large areas of land uninhabitable for years. I have no issue in placing nuclear plants in sparsely-populated areas and maintaining strict land use controls in a reasonable buffer area around such plants.
As for battery plug-in vehicles in HOV lanes, that along with sales tax exemptions and government purchase rebates is a provincial initiative to encourage adoption of those types of vehicles. The rationale from an emissions and fuel usage point of view is understandable, and even on these grounds a motorcycle (other than battery-powered ones) simply does not measure up.
Last edited:
I think you just deflected. The argument was more people in fewer vehicles. An electric / hybrid with one occupant is just as congestive as a non-electric / non-hybrid vehicle with one occupant. A single occupant motorcycle is arguably less congestive than either, and at worst only equally congestive, and in many cases more fuel efficient.
I can't believe it's coming down to this, but it appears I'm actually going to have to draw you a picture. Stay tuned.
Come down to what?
Basically your argument is that motorcycles should be allowed in HOV lanes becuase they're a bit smaller than cars and that they're sorta good on gas. What benefit is allowing single occupant motorcycles to everyone? It is of little or no benefit to everyone else, it only benefits us as riders. The road space occupied by a vehicle is negligibly different than that of a car. I firmly believe that the main reason people are in support of this idea is that becuase they just want special treatment because we're different. Why do motorycles deserve special treatment instead of compacts and subcompacts? What makes us so special? There is NO rational argument that supports allowing bikes in the HOV lane for the purposes of reducing traffic congestion.
Having two or more people per vehicle instead of one benefits everyone on the road becuse it is removing vehicles from the road. Fewer vehicles means less congestion.
How many more times does this need to be repeated before you understand it?
jolomatic
Well-known member
So why do the green cars get a pass?
There is no justification for rewarding inefficient use of energy. Batter plug-in vehicles in highway HOV lanes does just that. Time and time again, there is an emissions output from nuclear energy - because it doesn't come out of the tailpipe at point of use doesn't mean that it is not there.
I see where you coming from - but because the rules were foolishly written to permit single occupant green cars it doesn't mean single occupant motorcycles should get also get a free pass.
One could make the argument that a single occupant motorcycle is at 50% capacity, whereas most other vehicles would only be at 25% capacity.
I believe part of the rationale for allowing green vehicles was:
a) provide an incentive to get people into more efficient vehicles.
b) the number of eligible vehicles is relatively low, so the HOV lanes won't become congested due to this allowance.
Both are true for motorcycles. Plus, where motorcycles are concerned, there is the extra safety factor of being separated from traffic which is a benefit to all (reduced risk of accidents which benefits all highway users). I believe these are the reasons most jurisdictions allow motorcycles in HOV lanes. Ontario obviously doesn't see it that way.
I think it's just because green vehicles are just the "flavour of the month". I don't agree with them being allowed in the HOV lanes, i think it's dumb.
A single occupant Lamborghini is also at 50% capacity.
Capacity level is meaningless, the goal is to have fewer vehicles on the road.
At highway speeds, the majority of running lane space is not taken up by a vehicle's length. It is taken up by the gap needed between vehicles to ensure a safe following distance, otherwise know as the two-second rule. At 100 kmph, that distance works out to be 55.6 meters give or take a few centimeters.
That distance is the same whether for bike or for car or truck. The length of a vehicle, whether is be 2 meters for a bike or 6 meters for a truck, is only a small fraction of that. If you want to save real estate on a highway, the most effective way is to reduce the number of vehicles, which in turn reduces the number of safe following distance gaps that use up most of the space on our highways when they are free-flowing.
|
|
|
|
|