Can we legalize lane filtering yet?

Forum Sponsor
macro said:
One thing I would really like to see is bikes allowed in the HOV lanes. Legal in BC, haven't seen it here yet though.
Click to expand...

What's the justification for allowing bikes in the HOV lane?

That's a rhetorical question. There is NO reasonable justification for it other than the convenience of motorcycle riders. None.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
caboose56 said:
What's the justification for allowing bikes in the HOV lane?

That's a rhetorical question. There is NO reasonable justification for it other than the convenience of motorcycle riders. None.
Click to expand...

There are some safety and fuel economy arguments but they are, as I said, arguments.
 
caboose56 said:
What's the justification for allowing bikes in the HOV lane?

That's a rhetorical question. There is NO reasonable justification for it other than the convenience of motorcycle riders. None.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

--It would be an incentive for people to use more fuel efficient vehicles, like motorcycles
--It would reduce congestion.
--As an incentive to ride motorcycles it would also lower greenhouse gas emissions.
--If everyone rode motorcycles in summer there would be far fewer traffic jams.
--It would increase traffic on hopelessly underused HOV lanes.
--It would lower risk of rear-end collisions for motorcyclists, thus reducing the societal burden of their injuries.

I can think of more.
 
Roadghost said:
--It would be an incentive for people to use more fuel efficient vehicles, like motorcycles
--It would reduce congestion.
--As an incentive to ride motorcycles it would also lower greenhouse gas emissions.
--If everyone rode motorcycles in summer there would be far fewer traffic jams.
--It would increase traffic on hopelessly underused HOV lanes.
--It would lower risk of rear-end collisions for motorcyclists, thus reducing the societal burden of their injuries.

I can think of more.
Click to expand...

Most of your reasons listed are flawed and become even more flawed when the comparison is measured on a per occupant basis between a single rider motorcycle and a car with as little as just two or three occupants in it.
 
caboose56 said:
What's the justification for allowing bikes in the HOV lane?

That's a rhetorical question. There is NO reasonable justification for it other than the convenience of motorcycle riders. None.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Maybe the fact that I choose NOT to haul 2 tons of metal with me during my commute is reason enough.
 
iegod said:
A lot of bikes are, a lot of bikes aren't. I hate to say it but my '04 Civic was more economical on fuel than my Ninja 650R.
Click to expand...

Wow...something is wrong with that Ninja. My Daytona gets 6.5L/100km in city traffic. I have yet to see a gas compact car get even close...
 
caboose56 said:
What's the justification for allowing bikes in the HOV lane?

That's a rhetorical question. There is NO reasonable justification for it other than the convenience of motorcycle riders. None.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

There's no reasonable justification NOT to either. Safer for riders, and uses the underused HOV lanes which would have the same effect of cars using them (reduce congestion) since space-wise there isn't a huge difference between what a rider takes for lane space and what a small car does. Accounting for safe distances etc.
 
Anyone who thinks motorcycles pollute less than a car is an ignorant fool. Comparing motorcycles to "green" cars is silly. The bike may consume the same amount of fuel as a small car but the actual emissions are much higher. If we are concerned with emissions the use of motorcycles should be discouraged.

The safety aspect is also silly. If safety was a concern you wouldn't ride a motorcycle on the highway in the first place.

I stand by what I wrote.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
After this morning I never really cared about filtering. However today I was on Mississauga rd. going north bound. Traffic was a a stop at a set of lights just before the 401.

Everything was going fine until the lady in the car next to me in the other lane just decides to hit the gas and drive into the rear end on the car stopped in front of her. Just out of nowhere! She only had about 2 or 3 feet to move, but the I thought to myself "what if I didn't switch lanes way back behind?" That would have been me in front of her!

Sometimes you don't think about things until it happens.
 
Roadghost said:
--It would be an incentive for people to use more fuel efficient vehicles, like motorcycles
--It would reduce congestion.
--As an incentive to ride motorcycles it would also lower greenhouse gas emissions.
--If everyone rode motorcycles in summer there would be far fewer traffic jams.
--It would increase traffic on hopelessly underused HOV lanes.
--It would lower risk of rear-end collisions for motorcyclists, thus reducing the societal burden of their injuries.

I can think of more.
Click to expand...

Some of the responses that I've received to the same arguments.

-- Most people have no desire to ride single track vehicles and mileage between cars and bikes is variable. Compare a Litre bike to a hybrid, for example.
-- Given that traffic moves at a given speed and following distances are significantly bigger than the vehicles involved, savings are minimal.
-- Cars have much more stringent emissions controls than do motorcycles. Motorcycles, at best, have an open loop EFI system, which can only be so efficient.
-- As stated above, not everyone wants to ride a motorcycle. They will remain a tiny fraction of all vehicles.
-- Increasing the number of single occupant vehicles in the HOV lanes doesn't actually address the problem of congestion as well as getting two or more people in a given vehicle does.
-- Reductions in rear end collisions with motorcyclists are statistically negligible, in the greater scheme of things, and benefits are not demonstrable.
 
caboose56 said:
What's the justification for allowing bikes in the HOV lane?

That's a rhetorical question. There is NO reasonable justification for it other than the convenience of motorcycle riders. None.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

uh aside from the obvious you mean?

motorcycles take up less room on the road than cars, they wear out the road less than cars...and aside from some air-cooled behemoths ridden by people with more money than brains...they pollute less than cars too.

these are the reasons why CA allows motorcycles to use the HOV...and also the reasons why they should allow it in ONT
 
I have seen motorcycles rear end cars. So for safety sake should we allow cars to lane split?

What about when I was rear ended on my bike by another bike? I shudder to think of him lane splitting, (It was stop and go 401 traffic, we had just started forward motion I was going about 25 km/h when he hit me, AFTER locking up both wheels the estimate was he was traveling at about 110)

Also as I have stated, earlier in the thread, and Rob has reiterated rear end collisions involving bikes are negligible.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Some of the responses that I've received to the same arguments.
-- Cars have much more stringent emissions controls than do motorcycles. Motorcycles, at best, have an open loop EFI system, which can only be so efficient.
Click to expand...

Nope, newer bikes have catalytic converters and closed-loop ECUs that can't be modified easily...unless you're one of the 50+ fatasses that ride an HD you're polluting less than a car.

-- Increasing the number of single occupant vehicles in the HOV lanes doesn't actually address the problem of congestion as well as getting two or more people in a given vehicle does.
Click to expand...

Actually it does address it - motorcycles are physically smaller and inarguably take up less room than cars; any measure that encourages people to ride will also decrease congestion.

-- Reductions in rear end collisions with motorcyclists are statistically negligible, in the greater scheme of things, and benefits are not demonstrable.
Click to expand...

Prove this or stop using it as an argument.

you old ****ers are too pansy to split lanes anyway and if you were honest with yourself you would understand that is why you aren't in favor of it...it wouldn't benefit you.
 
nm1 said:
Nope, newer bikes have catalytic converters and closed-loop ECUs that can't be modified easily...unless you're one of the 50+ fatasses that ride an HD you're polluting less than a car.
Click to expand...

Some. They still aren't required to meet the same emissions standards, in North america.

Actually it does address it - motorcycles are physically smaller and inarguably take up less room than cars; any measure that encourages people to ride will also decrease congestion.
Click to expand...

When parked. When moving and using reasonable following distances, the length of the motorcycle itself becomes insignificant. Leave maybe 5 car lengths in front of you, which still isn't the recommended distance at 100 Kmh, and what does it matter if the bike is 1/3 the length of a car?

Prove this or stop using it as an argument.
Click to expand...

Sure. In 2013 there were 11,263,085 vehicles registered in Ontario. Of those 211,294 were motorcycles and mopeds. That's less than 2%. Those vehicles are most often second vehicles and are used something less than 6 months of the year. Many of them see less than 6,000 Km per year.

Statistically insignificant.

you old ****ers are too pansy to split lanes anyway and if you were honest with yourself you would understand that is why you aren't in favor of it...it wouldn't benefit you.
Click to expand...

I'm not against it. By all means, get splitting legalized. I'll wait about 5 years, until the major carnage is over, and then start to do it when it's safer for me to do so.

And, for the record, lane splitting is legal in California because it was never explicitly made illegal, not for any of the reasons outlined above. It was grandfathered.
 
Last edited:
I guess one reason why motorcycles shouldn't be in the HOV lane is that it contradicts the meaning of High Occupancy Vehicle lane - Not exactly a high occupancy vehicle....

FWIW, I'm all for filtering at low speeds.
 
Oh but somewhere else allows bikes in hov lanes so we, the entitled should too. Not this **** again. It wasn't like they made it from illegal to legal like all the bros and entitled in a hurry folks want here.

Nm calling people old and too pansy? I'd bet my life he could ride circles around you. This isn't a pissing contest so stop turning it into one. Splitting would take years to make work here. I'll wait with Rob while half the bros go down then consider it. Too many uneducated drivers here for my comfort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom