PSY
Banned
I don't think that will be a winning strategy to the people that make the decision.
Sure his ego will inflate but in the end he is likely to get a solid NO.
|
|
|
Motorcycles in HOV lanes - Petition and Protest!
- Thread starter MarkR
- Start date
I don't think that will be a winning strategy to the people that make the decision.
Sure his ego will inflate but in the end he is likely to get a solid NO.
Don't know the full background on what happened, but they claim they successfully lobbied for motorcycle's in HOV lanes.
http://www.bccom-bc.com/Accomplishments.asp
And I would not be surprised if he actually made this happen.
Clearly not everyone agrees, that's why it's a petition. Sign it or don't. Some riders opposing seem to believe the proponents are supporting it based on some sense of entitlement, or incorrect data about fuel consumption and pollution (although many of those arguments may be stronger if newer bikes continue to meet the stringent standards that Honda's new NC700 meets).
It's true, the lanes are designated as "High Occupancy", ostensibly to create an incentive for car pooling. A minivan or SUV with a capacity to carry 7 or more passengers is eligible for the lane with a driver and a passenger. Is that high occupancy? A motorcycle is always at 50% or 100% capacity with only the rider.
The rules have already been amended to allow "green" vehicles regardless of the number of occupants in the vehicle. Empty buses are permitted to use them because it helps in maintaining their schedules. It is not, therefore, unreasonable to grant another class of vehicle access, especially if it would be beneficial to all road users.
Motorcyclists are safer when there is less traffic around them. That doesn't mean they should be restricted to riding only in light traffic. Comments like "if you're afraid to ride on the highway in traffic, stay home or get a car" may have (very little) merit when discussing risk, but that's not the point. If there is a reasonable, affordable and available way to promote safety, it should be taken. A reduction in injuries is a benefit to everyone in Ontario, and taking reasonable steps to promote that safety - especially when it is at NO COST to anyone else, makes sense. A shoulder on one side of the lane and a buffer zone with limited access on the other is a reasonable step to promote safety. It's not the only reason I support it, but it's one of the most important to me.
It's not about entitlement or privilege. It's about safety and common sense.
It's true, the lanes are designated as "High Occupancy", ostensibly to create an incentive for car pooling. A minivan or SUV with a capacity to carry 7 or more passengers is eligible for the lane with a driver and a passenger. Is that high occupancy? A motorcycle is always at 50% or 100% capacity with only the rider.
The rules have already been amended to allow "green" vehicles regardless of the number of occupants in the vehicle. Empty buses are permitted to use them because it helps in maintaining their schedules. It is not, therefore, unreasonable to grant another class of vehicle access, especially if it would be beneficial to all road users.
Motorcyclists are safer when there is less traffic around them. That doesn't mean they should be restricted to riding only in light traffic. Comments like "if you're afraid to ride on the highway in traffic, stay home or get a car" may have (very little) merit when discussing risk, but that's not the point. If there is a reasonable, affordable and available way to promote safety, it should be taken. A reduction in injuries is a benefit to everyone in Ontario, and taking reasonable steps to promote that safety - especially when it is at NO COST to anyone else, makes sense. A shoulder on one side of the lane and a buffer zone with limited access on the other is a reasonable step to promote safety. It's not the only reason I support it, but it's one of the most important to me.
It's not about entitlement or privilege. It's about safety and common sense.
Allowing a false sense of security by "riding in a safer lane". Kinda like the loud pipe save lives crowd with false beliefs.
I can tell you first hand, that the City HOV lanes are by far the most dangerous stretch of roads in the GTA to travel in, sure the 404 and 403 *might* be safer.
If there is "such" as problem for endangering riders on the highway(which there's not) perhaps we should be addressing the problem at the root cause. HOV lane for safer reasons is just a band aid solution.
Don't get me wrong i would love to commute legally in the provicially HOV lanes, but if you are going to get Government to change the provision it has to be for solid reasons.
FWIW i believe green cars are getting the boot in 2012.
I can tell you first hand, that the City HOV lanes are by far the most dangerous stretch of roads in the GTA to travel in, sure the 404 and 403 *might* be safer.
If there is "such" as problem for endangering riders on the highway(which there's not) perhaps we should be addressing the problem at the root cause. HOV lane for safer reasons is just a band aid solution.
Don't get me wrong i would love to commute legally in the provicially HOV lanes, but if you are going to get Government to change the provision it has to be for solid reasons.
FWIW i believe green cars are getting the boot in 2012.
Tovarish
Well-known member
That's the problem with opinions - everyone got one and some seem to feel stronger for theirs.
- Louder (mind the "er") pipes Are Safer (years of city commuting taught me and many other fellow riders that).
- Riding 400 series (especially in a formation Is Safer on border lanes - who cares about speed if you are moving 20 km/hr in the middle of a traffic jam having cars merge on you from all directions at once.
Lastly, you always have a choice to use it or not, we Should have this right to choose.
Cheers, sign me up and best of luck.
Any step that increases safety is simply an incremental increase in managing risk. I didn't suggest at all that riders could rely on it like a security blanket. City HOV lanes permit unlimited access (in and out, not for travelling) and are still used for turning. This is not the case on the highway HOV lanes, and it's why I didn't even comment on the city lanes in my argument.
I'm glad you're supporting the petition, but I'll have to disagree with the "louder" pipes argument. Years of commuting have led me to the conclusion that nothing related to colour of my bike or gear or the noise my bike makes have appeared to have any affect whatsoever on motorists' behaviour. Except of course for my horn. About 12% of the time that will stop someone from doing whatever it was they were about to do.
So far the only valid argument I have seen in this thread is for parking.
You might be able to make a case that motos will help relieve congestion on surface streets before and after the highway segment of your commute but that will be a bit of a stretch.
The safety argument is ridiculous.
You might be able to make a case that motos will help relieve congestion on surface streets before and after the highway segment of your commute but that will be a bit of a stretch.
The safety argument is ridiculous.
Don't sign it.
Or you could take that as constructive criticism? Tailor the petition to explain why EVERYONE benefits from allowing motos in the HOV lanes. Any argument that shows that it only benefits the riders will not be well received.
I could take that way, but "ridiculous" really wasn't that constructive. The focus of my post, the safety argument, was not a significant factor in the petition. I didn't write the petition, I just added my opinion about safety. Everyone does benefit from increases in safety for any class of vehicle/operator...more so than the parking argument. Cagers could end up with less parking, even after carpooling!
If you can travel in a lane that can only be accessed from one side, risk is more easily managed.
Since the left lane on the 400 series highways is for passing, that's technically not an option for travelling.
The right lane doesn't really provide that limited access because of the turbulence at entry and exit points.
The HOV lanes, however, do provide it and they're already there. I didn't suggest they would solve all of our problems, or prevent every injury or fatality. They simply help manage the risk, and there is no cost to permitting use by motorcyclists, other than changing the law. Given that other vehicles that are NOT high occupancy vehicles can use them (to stay on schedule? What did they do before HOV lanes?), there's no reason it shouldn't be considered. Whether you think it's a strong argument or not, safety is still a stronger argument than convenience.
Last edited:
OpenGambit
Banned
Good luck. It was always a bit silly to be able to use the city ones but not the provincial ones.
I didn't really read the thread otherwise but i wonder how it got to so many pages.
I didn't really read the thread otherwise but i wonder how it got to so many pages.
Wow THAT is ridiculous.
Safety is about accepting and managing risk. Do you only wear a helmet because it's the law? Do you only wear gear because it looks cool?
I found an article about a press release from UC Berkely. When single passenger hybrids got the boot in 2011, it slowed everyone down, and now they're increasing the number vehicles allowed:
"Kicking hybrids out of carpool lanes backfires, slowing traffic for all
The end of a California program granting free access to carpool lanes by solo drivers of hybrid cars has unintentionally slowed traffic in all lanes, according to transportation engineers at the University of California, Berkeley"
more here: http://green.autoblog.com/2011/10/19/banning-hybrids-from-hov-lanes-slows-down-everyone/
It reduces the volume of traffic for EVERYONE. Bikes take up less space than cars, this can be demonstrated or calculated. Will you sign now?
Sorry, posted 2012 should be 2015.
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/vehicle/electric/ev-green-plates.shtml
So motorcyclists deserve special treatment because they choose a significantly more dangerous mode of transportation?? Lolz. Good luck with that.
Care to show me those calculations?? Don't bother, I'll do it to show that the difference is incremental.
My Edge is 4.7m long. Probably a bit longer than the average car. Most sport bikes are around 2.2m or 2.5m shorter than my Edge.
Drivers ed suggests that you leave a two second gap in front of you.. But no one does that. Lets use one second. One second at 100kph means a gap of 27.8m.
My Edge plus a one second gap is 32.5m. A bike would be 30.0m. That's only a 7% reduction and 12 cages have to switch to moto to effectively equal one less cage on the road. Hardly a difference even worth mentioning.
|
|
|
|
|