Plus I would add the average cager will give more breathing room if there is a bike in front of them as opposed to a car.
|
|
|
Motorcycles in HOV lanes - Petition and Protest!
- Thread starter MarkR
- Start date
I find these threads amusing.
None of the advocates will admit that their reasons are primarily selfish.
I could easily make an argument that for environmental reasons V8 powered trucks and SUVs should be granted HOV access regardless of occupancy.
PSY
Banned
Yet they feel that we are just out to bash them.
Oh no let's not listen to the people that have seen the failed attempts or understand a bit better the view people hold of bikers.
Politicians understand two things. Negative press and how many votes can this gain/lose for me.
I am still waiting to see their point points as to what is in it for the Government to do this.
That's why I introduced the concept of "reasonable" into my position. The lanes already exist. I'm not suggesting lanes be built or barriers put up to make us safer. The rules have been amended for other reasons less important than safety, so why is it unreasonable to use them? Every other jurisdiction does, whatever the arguments may have been. Every vehicle out of the regular lanes into dedicated lanes has the potential to reduce overall congestion. At worst, there will be no effect on congestion. It doesn't make sense to pick trucks with 53 trailers, or blue cars on tuesdays, but it's easy to pick a class of vehicle that represents a very low percentage of vehicles on the road, and take them out of the traffic by offering use of the dedicated lanes. Safety is one of the additional benefits.
There were been studies (one was from Virginia I think) used as reference in the argument to make Toronto diamond lanes available to m/c, that showed collisions involving bikes were reduced once they were allowed in the lanes.
If the lanes are already there, why not try it? Perhaps it's because anyone that makes an argument to use them is "asking for special treatment"?
On this point I agree with you whole-heartedly. In many countries, all the bikes and scooters ride much closer together, clump together at stops, etc. We're not ready for that here, and following distances on the highway pretty much dictate that I'll have the same space in front and behind as I would in the car. The space beside me is mine. I believe that bikes move through traffic better, but I think that's because riders in general or more alert and aware, with fewer distractions in the vehicle. We move quickly when the lights change, etc. IMO, that argument is no better than the fuel economy or pollution one (at least for now).
PSY
Banned
Another approach since it has been mentioned that the OP likes to "tick them off" or something like that.
Instead of a rolling convoy in the regular lanes just take 50 bikers in each direction to use the HOV lane.
Everyone must be prepared to stop at the same time and accept tickets. The lead bike must stop and everyone act as a group so if one person gets a ticket then they all stay there and demand a ticket, make sure to film this.
Now you just clog up the HOV lanes and the court system with a legal form of protest.
You are welcome!
Instead of a rolling convoy in the regular lanes just take 50 bikers in each direction to use the HOV lane.
Everyone must be prepared to stop at the same time and accept tickets. The lead bike must stop and everyone act as a group so if one person gets a ticket then they all stay there and demand a ticket, make sure to film this.
Now you just clog up the HOV lanes and the court system with a legal form of protest.
You are welcome!
I find your generalization about the advocates amusing. One of the most vocal advocates in this thread is me. You don't know anything about me or my motives, and you don't appear to care about my position because to you, it's ridiculous.
I have never had my bike in an HOV lane, and I have only been in one situation when I wanted to ride in the HOV lane because of traffic. It's just not where or when I ride, and a change will have no effect on my riding. Selfishness has nothing to do with my support for the idea.
You did, however, support the point I tried to make earlier. The proposals get shot down because the opponents assume that the proposal is based on selfishness or a sense of entitlement and completely dismiss the argument.
Sabex
Well-known member
It's hit and miss. Somedays soft, other days not...
Although I can't really move my right shoulder or grip anything with my left hand right now, so it'll have to wait
Shhhh, don't tell him.You guys are going to make Roasted jealous
I pointed out a couple things, but the safety issue was dismissed as "ridiculous".
Failed attempts in the past mean a new approach is necessary, it doesn't mean we give up. Someone tried a few years ago, so it's a lost cause? Okay, you give up. Let the people who think it's worth pursuing try it without criticism.
A new approach includes new arguments and new facts.
Less pollution? Wrong
Better fuel efficiency? No
More convenient for riders? HA! Good luck.
Are there different points to make; is there an advantage to everyone? Maybe.
Eases congestion? Maybe, in certain conditions. If the HOV lanes are not at capacity, taking vehicles out of the regular lanes can reduce the congestion (see earlier post about UC Berkely's study).
Is it safer? Maybe. A lane with traffic on one side and limited access at that has (legally and technically) a good setup for reducing conflict. If that proves to be true, and the studies in other jurisdictions apply here, a reduction in injuries and fatalities is good for every tax payer and insured motorist in Ontario.
Is it expensive? No, it's essentially free.
So while there is no proof in Ontario that it is safer or reduces congestion, every other jurisdiction with HOV lanes allows motorcyclists to use them. There is no evidence to suggest a negative impact on road safety or traffic flow by allowing it. The only available evidence suggests otherwise. Ontario has the lanes in place, and could easily conduct a 3 or 5 year trial period to see if the resulting data is consistent with studies from other jurisdictions.
That doesn't change the fact the only rational argument presented thus far is the parking aspect.
In order to prevent people from making that assumption you need to present arguments that show how allowing motorcycles in the HOV lanes is benefitial to everyone, not just motorcyclists. You also will need to demonstrate why motorcycles should be given special treatment over any other mode or subset of vehicles.
If you were presenting the argument to me, if i held some sort of position that could allow it, your only solid argument is parking.
FWIW i believe that the parking argument alone should be sufficient grounds to allow it. The other points raised so far simply have no merit.
Last edited:
It's your opinion that parking is the only rational argument. While I think it's a good argument, I don't think the Province cares enough about parking in the cities to warrant a change.
As for the class of vehicle getting special treatment, any G class vehicle with a passenger, or Bus with NONE gets special treatment. If Joe Public sitting there in his minivan, alone, wants special treatment he can get a passenger, a green vehicle, or get a bike.
You disagree about the safety aspect, but if it's true then it is a benefit to everyone.
PSY
Banned
@Emefef
How about getting a letter from the MTO stating their EXACT reasons for not allowing bikes in the HVO lane considering they copied the California HOV model and purposely excluded bikes?
Now you can pick apart with facts each of their points therefore forcing them to reconsider since their factual position will have flaws after you are done with it
How about getting a letter from the MTO stating their EXACT reasons for not allowing bikes in the HVO lane considering they copied the California HOV model and purposely excluded bikes?
Now you can pick apart with facts each of their points therefore forcing them to reconsider since their factual position will have flaws after you are done with it
Are you being willfully ignorant or would you actually like me to reply to this?
I think there are some public responses already from the MTO. I will be looking for them. I may be obtuse, but the rest of your post seems like sarcasm despite the smiley face. It's not far off, though. California recently flipped sides on the hybrid vehicle restriction - because they were wrong. They are now trying to increase the number of vehicles eligible for HOV lanes. There may be data available that wasn't previously that supports my view. I don't know yet. It's clearly not a simple argument or widely held position. You and Caboose don't have to even listen, let alone agree. With enough noise, the right support, and the right reasons, the government has to listen.@Emefef
How about getting a letter from the MTO stating their EXACT reasons for not allowing bikes in the HVO lane considering they copied the California HOV model and purposely excluded bikes?Now you can pick apart with facts each of their points therefore forcing them to reconsider since their factual position will have flaws after you are done with it
I don't presume to have all of the answers, but as I said earlier previous attempts have failed. The majority isn't always right, but when you're in the minority and resisting the change, you have to make sure you're right. I think it's really strange that everyone else but Ontario allows this. We aren't that different. Maybe it's just a political reason. With enough public support for a cause, it at least has to be considered.
I don't understand whether you mean ignorant as in rude, or unaware. Maybe it's because of my post. I'll try again.
I agreed with you about the "bikes use up less space" argument, and I agree that the parking argument is valid. To consider a change, however, I don't believe the Province will consider it all. If that was true, it would probably be done already.
My other two points were to address the things that keep getting repeated:
1 - a class of vehicles getting special treatment. That's your position - that we have to justify the special treatment. Obviously we disagree on this point, perhaps in part because of your belief that advocates of the idea are selfish. To me, allowing an empty gas guzzling polluting commercial bus to travel in the HOV lane to assist with maintaining a schedule is no different. If the rules allow a class of vehicles in the lane, then maybe people that own that class of vehicle but currently choose another because it's comfortable in traffic wil reconsider. The ones that sit in the car because it's no fun on the bike may choose to ride, even if only on sunny days or casual dress days. Each one that chooses to ride takes a vehicle out of the regular traffic. It makes sense to choose motorcycles as that class because it's a distinct class.
2 - that it has to be demonstrated it's a benefit to everyone, not just motorcycists. I agree with you. I've tried to do that. If you agree with the point above, and with the safety argument then they represent benefits to everyone. If you don't agree with them, as you don't, then you won't see them as benefits. I hope to be able to support that position with more facts, at least from other jurisdictions. I certainly won't find it from Ontario. Another point I've tried to make with the "benefit to everyone" is the cost. There is no cost or apparent negative impact, other than motorists that believe, as you apparently do, that motorcyclists are entitled to be special. Maybe that will happen, but people would get used to it - as they have everywhere else. Most non-riders I discuss it with already believe we are allowed to use them.
PSY mentioned earlier something about being more aware of how people see bikers. I am. One of the things that I think is often overlooked when we argue for something is how we portray ourselves, as a group and as individuals when we advocate change publicly. Protests that leave the public shaking their heads at "those bikers" do nothing for us. Arguments about fuel economy and pollution are easily defeated and therefore considered self-serving.
Whether we agree on my safety position or not, when I promote that position, it won't because it makes my life easier as a motorcyclist. It's because I believe it can have a positive impact on road safety, an MTO priority. I believe it makes sense to bring Ontario in line with other jurisdictions, and I believe it would have a positive, if negligible impact on traffic flow. These things are important to me as a commuter, a teacher, tester, father, and an Ontario taxpayer and political party supporter that rides a motorcycle. I don't expect everyone to agree, and I can live with that, but I will support a push for change when I believe in it.
Actually the reduction is much less than that if you factor in a reasonable adoption rate. Let's say 2% of drivers switch to bikes. Then the reduction in road space used would be 0.14% by your calculations. Nevertheless, that answers your question about how everyone benefits from allowing motorcycles to use HOV lanes. Maybe you meant to ask a different question?
If I understand the principles that make HOV lanes work then no, you can't make an argument for single occupant trucks and SUVs because there are too many of them (ignoring for now any other reason that might also exclude them).
Last edited:
Difference in California is for all of the U.S.
One of the reasons it's different in the U.S. is that it's federal law. I was looking at the Boston area, and this was cited in an interview as the reason motorcycles were of course included, for safety (it was about why they were not allowing professional limousines to use the lanes on the way to pick-up). It has evolved since the first Act in 1991, and I've found other references to safety as the original reason but nothing to support that. Anyway, I think the statement below is pretty clear, from the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.
SEC. 1206. ACCESS OF MOTORCYCLES.
Section 102 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c) and by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
`(b) Access of Motorcycles.--No State or political subdivision of a State may enact or enforce a law that applies only to motorcycles and the principal purpose of which is to restrict the access of motorcycles to any highway or portion of a highway for which Federal-aid highway funds have been utilized for planning, design, construction, ormaintenance. Nothing in this subsection shall affect the authority of a State or political subdivision of a State to regulate motorcycles for safety.''.
Edit: I've come across other references, including the original in 1991, that exclude bicycles and motorcyles from the definition of single occupancy vehicle, or explicitly state that the State must allow motorcyles use of the HOV lanes UNLESS they can prove it would be dangerous to do so.
The ministers in Ontario, since HOV lanes were introduced, have maintained that the objective was carpooling (and later, hybrids), not simply vehicles that used less gas. Motorcycles don't meet the criteria. Which makes me wonder, is a Zero electric bike considered green? It wouldn't seem right that I could get a green plate for an electric car but not one of them.
One of the reasons it's different in the U.S. is that it's federal law. I was looking at the Boston area, and this was cited in an interview as the reason motorcycles were of course included, for safety (it was about why they were not allowing professional limousines to use the lanes on the way to pick-up). It has evolved since the first Act in 1991, and I've found other references to safety as the original reason but nothing to support that. Anyway, I think the statement below is pretty clear, from the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.
SEC. 1206. ACCESS OF MOTORCYCLES.
Section 102 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c) and by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
`(b) Access of Motorcycles.--No State or political subdivision of a State may enact or enforce a law that applies only to motorcycles and the principal purpose of which is to restrict the access of motorcycles to any highway or portion of a highway for which Federal-aid highway funds have been utilized for planning, design, construction, ormaintenance. Nothing in this subsection shall affect the authority of a State or political subdivision of a State to regulate motorcycles for safety.''.
Edit: I've come across other references, including the original in 1991, that exclude bicycles and motorcyles from the definition of single occupancy vehicle, or explicitly state that the State must allow motorcyles use of the HOV lanes UNLESS they can prove it would be dangerous to do so.
The ministers in Ontario, since HOV lanes were introduced, have maintained that the objective was carpooling (and later, hybrids), not simply vehicles that used less gas. Motorcycles don't meet the criteria. Which makes me wonder, is a Zero electric bike considered green? It wouldn't seem right that I could get a green plate for an electric car but not one of them.
Last edited:
I guess that settles it then.
|
|
|
|
|