Motorcycle Parking Fees Recommended without Notice or Public Consultation

[viper84737]

Forum Sponsor

If viper wants equality between motorcycles and bicycles, I wonder how he'd feel about motorcycles not being allowed on 400 series highways?

I thought someone would try this angle. No. I didn't say they were equal in *every* way, only for the purposes of parking.

Motorcycles/scooters/etc are a superset of the set of Bicycles. This means that whatever property a bicycle can have (in this context), a motorcycle can have, plus some other ones, which in the case of your argument includes the ability to keep up with the flow of traffic on 400-series highways.

Subsets do not imply equivalency.

Again, I'm looking for an argument from physics. Everything else is silliness.

 

[MarcosSantiago]

[Edit 1]
The city of Melbourne, Australia allows motorcycles/etc to park on sidewalks. Nobody's dying there as a result.
http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/Par...king/WhereToPark/Pages/Motorcycleparking.aspx
Golly gosh, look at that, some progress is being made somewhere out there. That place isn't Ontario, that's for sure.

[Edit 2]
Denver sorta-kinda allows it, regardless of the size of your vehicle. As long as the vacuum of your engine does not exceed a volume of 50 cc
http://www.downtowndenver.com/getting-around/driving-and-parking

Well, Toronto sorta-kinda used to turn a blind eye to it. For many years, scooters were allowed to park on the sidewalk regardless of size, so even very large machines were taking advantage of this situation – as long as they were scooters.

It was illegal but it was allowed. No pedestrians filed ever a complain with the City, much less died. Nobody was particularly upset about it, an nobody had to sue anybody in a court of law over scooters parking on the sidewalk. But one day it happened, the by-law was enforced for the first time and hundreds of tickets were issued.

The only reason was revenue - or so they told me. Is it messed up? Yes it is. But it is now also political. As such, it goes beyond logic. It goes beyond common sense. It is absurd. It is sad.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

OK, if you like:

Ok, I'll bite this one:

If on the sidewalk I park half a dozen plus one bicycles (which now take up more space than one motorcycle/scooter, or whatever equivalent), I don't get a ticket.
You have, however, accommodated 7 commuters rather than just one or two, and they've likely used the provided posts to secure their vehicles, which keeps them in a single area.
If on the sidewalk I park one large bicycle that takes up more space than one motorcycle/scooter, or whatever equivalent), I don't get a ticket.
Because it's a bicycle, not a motor vehicle, for which parking on the street carries extra hazards. It also isn't likely to leak oil or gas, and there are damned few that are that big. I believe that they're generally referred to as rickshaws or peddle cabs.
If on the sidewalk I park a motorcycle (or scooter, or whatever equivalent) that doesn't have an engine, it's technically not a motor vehicle, and I don't get a ticket.
No, but it's likely classed as an abandoned vehicle and towed on spec. Whether it has a motor or not, it's still a 'motor vehicle.' Playing semantics doesn't work.
If on the sidewalk I park a motorcycle (or scooter, or whatever equivalent) that DOES have a engine, by pushing it there under my own manpower, since its engine was off the whole time, I do get a ticket.
It's a motor vehicle and belongs on the street or in a parking lot. Haven't we already been through that?

I await an excellent counterargument from physics that shows why this makes sense.

 

[viper84737]

OK, if you like:

Come on, these are weak at best.

1) You have, however, accommodated 7 commuters rather than just one or two, and they've likely used the provided posts to secure their vehicles, which keeps them in a single area.

Nobody is forcing bikes to park anywhere, they do so if they need to. And I still fundamentally disagree about how much space a motorcycle takes up versus a bicycle. Do the math if you'd like, and take a look at the area foot-prints. Those posts are there so people don't steal their bikes.

2) Because it's a bicycle, not a motor vehicle, for which parking on the street carries extra hazards. It also isn't likely to leak oil or gas, and there are damned few that are that big. I believe that they're generally referred to as rickshaws or peddle cabs.

Oil leaks are just as likely to happen on the street as they are on a sidewalk. Nothing a little baking soda can't fix. as for the size argument, the law leaves it open for me to build a bicycle that large or bring my tandem bike, or whatever. What extra hazards do you speak of? What hazard is there from me pushing a bike 2 meters off the road versus pushing it 2 meters on the road? Again, an existential counterargument to this is ALL OF EUROPE, Sorta-Denver, and Melbourne. Who is succumbing to these hazards you speak of? This is not an argument from physics.

3) No, but it's likely classed as an abandoned vehicle and towed on spec. Whether it has a motor or not, it's still a 'motor vehicle.' Playing semantics doesn't work.

Semantics is EXACTLY how the law works. This is also not an argument from physics.

4) It's a motor vehicle and belongs on the street or in a parking lot. Haven't we already been through that?

The whole point is to show that this is not true, for a variety of reasons. It just happens to be the status quo, but the status quo does not mean it is the better option. Ontario is excellent at deterring progress and maintaining the status quo.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

The whole point is to show that this is not true, for a variety of reasons. It just happens to be the status quo, but the status quo does not mean it is the better option. Ontario is excellent at deterring progress and maintaining the status quo.

Then I'm afraid that you failed. When bicycle locking posts can be put in the middle of the road, without interfering with traffic, you might then have a point. Then again that would likely mean that NO motor vehicles were allowed in the downtown core.

There's a reason that laws like this exist; because selfish people can't/won't self regulate.

 

[viper84737]

Then I'm afraid that you failed. When bicycle locking posts can be put in the middle of the road, without interfering with traffic, you might then have a point. Then again that would likely mean that NO motor vehicles were allowed in the downtown core.

There's a reason that laws like this exist; because selfish people can't/won't self regulate.

Except I have succeeded directly by showing three ***existential examples*** where it functions perfectly. One example of which contains multiple countries within it, so I have given you more than three ***existential examples*** that what you say is untrue, and what I say is exactly true. You've just ignored them. Ignoring truths doesn't make them disappear.

Bike posts are not required to park a motorcycle (or a bike, for that matter). Proof? The three+ ***existential examples*** I've stated before. Therefore, that point is squashed firmly. I can't possibly be more clear on this. I know you're smart enough to understand the things I say, you have no choice but to see that they are true, unless you are purposely being difficult.

Nevermind all those other great points I made, either. This is the most moot reason to not allow sidewalk parking. Still looking for an argument from physics to suggest why this shouldn't be allowed.

 

[deejizzle]

Just want to put my 2 cents in so that I can get my head chopped off by the GTAM community..

Bicycles are usually parked by trees or something to lock... As well a lot of downtown sidewalks don't have enough space. Also it's called a side-walk... Not a side-park. We already have privileges that other vehicles don't (free parking)

Apparently that isn't enough. You tell any driver that we park for free and they envy that. He'll even pedestrians envy that.

And I don't remember seeing MANY "large" bicycles... They are all skinny and you can certainly fit more than 1 bike in the footprint of a motorcycle (not comfortably of course).





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Face]

wasn't 300 spots what was suggested for the "trial" of the new system?

Yes, this looks like the 300 spots that were intended as a trial. You may remember that they were looking to test them with a parking fee, but we lobbied enough to get the motion changed so now they are just testing them. If anyone sees where they are going in, please post here so we know where they are and can use them. We want to avoid Rob's "winter monitoring" scenario.

As per the sidewalk parking discussion, Barcelona has tons of scooters and motorcycles parked on the un-travelled portion of the sidewalk, i.e. between trees & street furniture. It's not actually legal, but the cops ignore it if you don't block pedestrian movement. The reason is because motorcycles can only park in on-street spots marked for motorcycles (not spots marked for cars) and there aren't nearly enough of them. We are extremely lucky in Toronto that we can park free in any street spot. Fighting the strong cycling lobby groups to park on the sidewalks as well would probably backfire and further jeopardise the good deal that we have. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Except I have succeeded directly by showing three ***existential examples*** where it functions perfectly. One example of which contains multiple countries within it, so I have given you more than three ***existential examples*** that what you say is untrue, and what I say is exactly true. You've just ignored them. Ignoring truths doesn't make them disappear.

Bike posts are not required to park a motorcycle (or a bike, for that matter). Proof? The three+ ***existential examples*** I've stated before. Therefore, that point is squashed firmly. I can't possibly be more clear on this. I know you're smart enough to understand the things I say, you have no choice but to see that they are true, unless you are purposely being difficult.

Nevermind all those other great points I made, either. This is the most moot reason to not allow sidewalk parking. Still looking for an argument from physics to suggest why this shouldn't be allowed.

Then perhaps you're also bright enough to see my points? Physics is immaterial. If you want some science here then we're talking urban planning and Sociology. As I said, laws like this exist because selfish people are incapable of self regulating. The place that's convenient for you to park your motorcycle is inconvenient for hundreds or thousands of pedestrians. it could cause issues in an emergency situation. The spaces where you would like to park are not designed for it, unlike spaces in those other places.

No, bike posts are not required when parking motorcycles. Why is that? Because they're too bloody big. Cite all the examples you want. They aren't Toronto. This city isn't built for it. You want to park on the sidewalk? Lobby the city to create suitable parking areas and THEN use them.

 

[viper84737]

Then perhaps you're also bright enough to see my points? Physics is immaterial. If you want some science here then we're talking urban planning and Sociology. As I said, laws like this exist because selfish people are incapable of self regulating. The place that's convenient for you to park your motorcycle is inconvenient for hundreds or thousands of pedestrians. it could cause issues in an emergency situation. The spaces where you would like to park are not designed for it, unlike spaces in those other places.

No, bike posts are not required when parking motorcycles. Why is that? Because they're too bloody big. Cite all the examples you want. They aren't Toronto. This city isn't built for it. You want to park on the sidewalk? Lobby the city to create suitable parking areas and THEN use them.

All I'm saying is that cities smaller than Toronto with less space somehow manage to pull this off, so the reasons Toronto has for failure in this regard have to do with its populace and resistance to forward progress, nothing more, certainly nothing real/physical (since all the counter arguments about a motorcycle's size, etc, are proven meaningless).

 

[Joe Bass]

"Our research shows that these parking spaces were unused over the first three months of the project, so it's apparent that they are unneeded."

$10 says you nailed it.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

All I'm saying is that cities smaller than Toronto with less space somehow manage to pull this off, so the reasons Toronto has for failure in this regard have to do with its populace and resistance to forward progress, nothing more, certainly nothing real/physical (since all the counter arguments about a motorcycle's size, etc, are proven meaningless).

You stating that the counter arguments is meaningless does not make them meaningless. This sense of entitlement has got to go. All that it does is give those who want to claw back the privileges that we've already gained, that are based on actual differences between motorcycles and other motor vehicles, more ammunition.

$10 says you nailed it.

I hope that I'm wrong but it wouldn't exactly be out of character, for this city's council.

 

[viper84737]

You stating that the counter arguments is meaningless does not make them meaningless. This sense of entitlement has got to go. All that it does is give those who want to claw back the privileges that we've already gained, that are based on actual differences between motorcycles and other motor vehicles, more ammunition.

But me SHOWING that they're meaningless does, which is the case. There's no sense of entitlement, this is just a logical argument. The fact that it works in a place as large and compact as European cities shows that it can work here, too. Would you say that bicycles have a sense of entitlement, since they get their own lane? If that's considered fair, motorcycles should get their own lane, too. By entitlement? No. By symmetry? Yes.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

But me SHOWING that they're meaningless does, which is the case. There's no sense of entitlement, this is just a logical argument. The fact that it works in a place as large and compact as European cities shows that it can work here, too. Would you say that bicycles have a sense of entitlement, since they get their own lane? If that's considered fair, motorcycles should get their own lane, too. By entitlement? No. By symmetry? Yes.

Youre trying to create equivalency, where little to none exists. The only real point of comparison between motorcycles and bicycles is the number of wheels.

 

[viper84737]

Youre trying to create equivalency, where little to none exists. The only real point of comparison between motorcycles and bicycles is the number of wheels.

Their footprints are roughly the same, and I've demonstrated that bicycles can have larger footprints than motorcycles/scooters. So, once again, no, your point is incorrect. Topologically they are the same in almost every way. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topology)

So... what else you got?

 

[clutch]

Toronto Parking to Create Hundreds of Free Motorcycle Stalls:

http://www.640toronto.com/2014/09/15/toronto-parking-to-create-hundreds-of-free-motorcycle-stalls/

Ok with me, so long as this isn't a prelude for removing free street parking for moto/scoots and forcing them to use designated spots instead. It would be an awful waste of street parking space, where cars don't fit but is perfect for moto/scoots.

 

[clutch]

Curious, is there a Toronto Motorcycle/Scooter lobby group? Bicyclists have the Toronto Cyclists Union. It's a powerful lobby that drives changes.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2008/05/21/cyclists_union_strong_voice_for_bike_riders.html

If we had a group to advocate for us I'm sure we'd see results.

 

[Lunatic]

Ok with me, so long as this isn't a prelude for removing free street parking for moto/scoots and forcing them to use designated spots instead. It would be an awful waste of street parking space, where cars don't fit but is perfect for moto/scoots.

This is absolutely 100% a prelude to removing free street parking for motorcycles and scooters. Designated spots + the upcoming pay by plate system together will end the free parking for us. I'm guessing within 2 years.

 

[clutch]

This is absolutely 100% a prelude to removing free street parking for motorcycles and scooters. Designated spots + the upcoming pay by plate system together will end the free parking for us. I'm guessing within 2 years.

I'm not technically against a pay by plate system so long as it's understood that moto's take up 1/4 of parking space of a car. I would not be against paying 1/4 of what a car would pay.

 

[viper84737]

I'm not technically against a pay by plate system so long as it's understood that moto's take up 1/4 of parking space of a car. I would not be against paying 1/4 of what a car would pay.

And exactly what further benefit would you derive from paying to park, which you don't already get now, by not paying to park? Don't fall for this cash grab. Ontario's SO good at suckering in people with this kind of crap.

Forum Sponsor