HOV lanes

ashkan

ashkan

Banned
Forum Sponsor
This might have been posted before but why are bikes not allowed to ride on HOV lanes? I understand they are for multiple passenger vehicles but thats for people who have a 5 passenger sedan or a SUV and drive alone. Bikes are generally designed to be a single passenger vehicle so as far as gas consumption and traffic goes, bikes fit the criteria. What do you guys think?
 
ashkan said:
This might have been posted before but why are bikes not allowed to ride on HOV lanes? I understand they are for multiple passenger vehicles but thats for people who have a 5 passenger sedan or a SUV and drive alone. Bikes are generally designed to be a single passenger vehicle so as far as gas consumption and traffic goes, bikes fit the criteria. What do you guys think?
Click to expand...
The idea behind the HOV lanes was to reduce the number of vehicles on the road. If you haven't got a passenger (who would have driven/ridden), then you haven't reduced the number of vehicles on the road.
 
True, but it would act as an incentive to reduce the number of large gas-guzzling-nonsense mobliles on the road - which would also be nice.
 
agreed Buddhaacide because when youre on a bike, youre consuming more or less as much gas as a vehicle would for only one person since thats how theyre designed. But most cars consume enough gas for 4-5 passengers with only one passenger. So as far as emissions and gas consumption goes, riders are helping reduce it. Each SUV burns 3-4 times as much gas as a bike. for every hour that SUV is running, 4 bikes could be running. So really, its a big difference,
 
b/c bikes do not make up a large part of traffic congestion.

HOV lanes are designed to reduce congestion. best way to do that is to get more people into the same vehicle. how do you encourage carpooling? HOV lanes.

HOV lanes are not about emmisions reduction at all. it may be hard to, but don't think of them as a reason for for HOV at all.
 
To play devil's advocate, people driving bikes over cars would most certainly reduce congestion in general. Particularly in the city, but logically on the highway as well.

Edit: Its not so much about how much space bikes take up currently, but rather the incentive for more people to drive bikes rather than minivans, which would in turn reduce congestion.
 
Last edited:
Buddhacide said:
True, but it would act as an incentive to reduce the number of large gas-guzzling-nonsense mobliles on the road - which would also be nice.
Click to expand...

By replacing them with large gas guzzling motorcycles that pollute the atmosphere?
Do you really need a large engine on a bike to carry one person?
Do you really need to disable pollution control equipment to get more power out of the bike?

What real benefits are there?
 
imagine if we all had bikes, or similar. You could have twice as many lanes on the 401 without using any more space. heck, if we all had Smart cars you could get in at least one more lane. All you would need to reduce congestion is some paint.
 
I have been in the HOV lane on my bike with a passenger.
When I ride solo, I don't even consider it.
 
When it comes to the environment I must admit our case is pretty weak:

-Bikes tend to be much dirtier with respect to ground level pollution/smog (up until recently they did not even have cats). So a person on a bike may be releasing MORE ground level/smog pollutants than a person in a car of the same year.
-My bike gets only slightly better mileage than our tired old 2001 Hyundai Accent, basically 1 up on the bike is not much different than driving by myself in the car (maybe 10% better tops). Having said this a 250 is likely much better than my Accent...

But here are some counter argument (for the bikes):

-Although a bike consumes about the same as a compact car it is way less than an SUV, minivan or pickup. Even less per person than two people in a large SUV or pickup.
-Every single occupant SUV, van, pickup that is converted to a bike is a fuel consumption win. What we tend to forget is that differences in schedule, start location and destination exclude many people from car pooling, lets give them a more efficient option.
-Bikes take less space to park and we are not just talking about the highway but the entire transportation ecosystem, the HOV lanes are just part of it.
-HOV lanes allow motorcycles 1 up in pretty much every other jurisdiction in the world (and to me this is the most important one)! Just like many have free parking for bikes, they recognize the efficiency advantages to having people ride.

In the end our best argument is that around the world HOV lanes allow single riders so what makes our current provincial government so much "smarter" than everywhere else! Our biggest problem is we moan about it but do nothing. Group protest rides at slow speeds blocking all highway lanes might be a good start... Trying to make it a campaign issue is also a good idea.
 
Last edited:
The way that people pull out from the left lane from a stand still to the HOV lane in front of a veh doing 80 or 100kph, I wouldn't ride the HOV lane at all. Even 2up.
 
Many jurisdictions outside Ontario allow motorcycles in the HOV lanes. I think its safer to be moving in the HOV lane than being a sitting duck in the other lanes.
 
Comrade Yeti said:
The idea behind the HOV lanes was to reduce the number of vehicles on the road. If you haven't got a passenger (who would have driven/ridden), then you haven't reduced the number of vehicles on the road.
Click to expand...

rukus said:
b/c bikes do not make up a large part of traffic congestion.

HOV lanes are designed to reduce congestion. best way to do that is to get more people into the same vehicle. how do you encourage carpooling? HOV lanes.

HOV lanes are not about emmisions reduction at all. it may be hard to, but don't think of them as a reason for for HOV at all.
Click to expand...

Some HOV lanes allow bikes. Explain how that jives with your rationales.
 
Baggsy said:
By replacing them with large gas guzzling motorcycles that pollute the atmosphere?
Do you really need a large engine on a bike to carry one person?
Do you really need to disable pollution control equipment to get more power out of the bike?

What real benefits are there?
Click to expand...

I'm no expert on fuel economy, but I would venture that motocrcycles, in general, use less fuel than SUVs and Minivans per unit. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong.

Anyway, I'm not really concerned with pollution. The post is about congestion. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to see how larger vehicles add to congestion in the city - particularly in that they hardly ever have more than one or two passengers. The same logic would then apply on the highway.

If you dont understand that a motorcycle takes up less space than an SUV, and that more motorcycles on the road would mean more space for each vehicle, then I have no argument for you.
 
From a safety perspective, the danger in an HOV lane is that your relative speed to traffic is necessarily stupid-fast and a car full of screaming kids is pretty much guaranteed to dive into the lane in front of you without signalling.

That said, I would rather see the stats on HOV lane collisions before coming down on either side. It would be nice though.
 
Buddhacide said:
I'm no expert on fuel economy, but I would venture that motocrcycles, in general, use less fuel than SUVs and Minivans per unit. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong.

Anyway, I'm not really concerned with pollution. The post is about congestion. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to see how larger vehicles add to congestion in the city - particularly in that they hardly ever have more than one or two passengers. The same logic would then apply on the highway.

If you dont understand that a motorcycle takes up less space than an SUV, and that more motorcycles on the road would mean more space for each vehicle, then I have no argument for you.
Click to expand...

The problem is that supersport bikes and larger engine bikes don't get great gas mileage. Mods to make them faster and more powerful, hurt the gas mileage even further.

THe space saved is just the difference in length of the vehicle if everyone is driving/riding correctly. So for 100 cars in a line you would save a couple of hundred feet of room. Is that worth it to the government? Would it even justify the cost of changing the signs?
 
Baggsy said:
The problem is that supersport bikes and larger engine bikes don't get great gas mileage. Mods to make them faster and more powerful, hurt the gas mileage even further.

THe space saved is just the difference in length of the vehicle if everyone is driving/riding correctly. So for 100 cars in a line you would save a couple of hundred feet of room. Is that worth it to the government? Would it even justify the cost of changing the signs?
Click to expand...
In the long run i think it would just because it would encourage people to ride more. Lots will consider buying bigger scooters (the one that are allowed on the 400s). together with the rising price of gas, many will convert to bikes and that will save room, gas and time. more people riding bikes in HOV means less cars in other lanes. Its a win win. I dont know how you would go about changing the law though.
 
ashkan said:
In the long run i think it would just because it would encourage people to ride more. Lots will consider buying bigger scooters (the one that are allowed on the 400s). together with the rising price of gas, many will convert to bikes and that will save room, gas and time. more people riding bikes in HOV means less cars in other lanes. Its a win win. I dont know how you would go about changing the law though.
Click to expand...

I think that's a pipe dream. Very few people want to ride a bike for fun in the first place. The number of people in that group who would want to then commute is smaller again. The idea that allowing bike's on the HOV's would start the mass wave of bike and scooter purchases and people downgrading from cars is a joke.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom