|
|
|
Motorcycles in HOV lanes - Petition and Protest!
- Thread starter MarkR
- Start date
.JPG)
You still don't get it.
I mean ignorant as in unaware.
Imagine for a moment that you need to justify this to someone who knows very little about riding motorcycles (ie most people). Their response to someone suggesting that allowing bikes into HOV lanes because it's safer....
"Why do you ride a motorcycle if its really not that safe? Why do you commute on your bike instead of in your car if it's that unsafe? Further, why should riders be given preferential treatment when they freely choose a more dangerous mode of transportation?"
That is the hurdle you're going to face and I really don't see how you would be able to justify it. The exact same argument can be made for older vehicles that aren't nearly as safe as modern vehicles. The fact is we live in a climate where it's unrealistic to ride year round and anyone who is commuting in on the 400 series highways is also going to have a cage. Road safety certainly is important. With that in mind, it is counter productive from a road safety point of view to encourage people to ride instead of drive... And there is no way you can explain the safety aspect otherwise.
Ask them why they drive their car instead of an SUV, and if they drive an SUV why do they not drive a truck. After all, a truck crashing into a truck is safer than a car or SUV crashing into a truck. I've had people ask me that question before and I response with ^. You reply stupidity with something more stupid until they realize it's stupid.
Is the juice worth the squeeze? The benefit is so small that there is no way the province would spend a dime to pursue it.
Like i said.. The only valid argument that i can't easily defeat or dismiss is the parking benefit. Presenting 3 or 4 arguments when only 1 one of them has merit is a bad idea. Focus on the argument that actually has some merit and i think that would help the chances of getting bikes into the HOV lanes.
I do get it. We disagree.
I ride a bike because the many of the risks are manageable, and what I'm suggesting is a reasonable, no-cost way for the province to help manage those risks. Your position is still based on the premise that we're asking for preferential treatment, and that's what we have to overcome. There were motorcyclists before there were HOV lanes. Since Ontario didn't consider motorcycles as being eligible, I doubt anyone considered whether the addition of HOV lanes would have any impact at all on motorcyclists.
Transport Canada has some great guidelines on how to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of HOV lanes, including studying the flow and accident rates in and around the lanes, and especially at the access points. Now that the lanes have been added, the traffic dynamics have changed, especially with the left lane. I didn't suggest any changes to the lanes, or the addition of any type of structure or safety barrier. I'm arguing that where HOV lanes exist, it's safer to allow bikes than to exclude them. It's a small number of vehicles and I expect it will have no measurable impact on congestion. The government, however, does not have to pursue anything other than a change in a definition. There are many references they could use. There is no downside to allowing it.
That's a very good point. Perhaps if the HOV lane is considered a safer place for motorcyclists, though, then it's not quite the same switch from car to bike. The extreme example would be dedicated m/c lanes. If you had that option instead of driving in regular lanes, (presumably) many of the traffic related risks would be reduced or eliminated. Using the HOV lanes is a compromise that makes the best use of existing resources. An incremental increase in safety, at no cost or inconvenience to any other road user, is a benefit to everyone.
As for focusing on one argument, that can work well. You would support it for parking, I would support it for safety. If people don't buy into a single argument (like the safety one), you lose them and their support.
I'm trying to get something that will relate to an MTO priority, even if it is a minor benefit.
Last edited:
Took me some time to find it, in hindsight i should have just PM'd Rob.
http://www.morallyambiguous.net/members/rmaclennan/M2005-7059-Response.pdf
http://www.morallyambiguous.net/members/rmaclennan/M2005-7059-Response.pdf
You still haven't responded to the safety question that I think you would have to answer.
Why do you ride at all if there is a legitimate safety concern? When you leave home in the morning you could take your car or your bike.. Why did you choose the bike?
I know why you ride.. It's fun. I like riding too. I doubt that will be a satisfactory answer to the person asking though. For some there is a cost savings with riding but it could easily be argued that a small car is cheaper to operate than a bike. Ultimately we ride because we like riding.
Why do you ride at all if there is a legitimate safety concern? When you leave home in the morning you could take your car or your bike.. Why did you choose the bike?
I know why you ride.. It's fun. I like riding too. I doubt that will be a satisfactory answer to the person asking though. For some there is a cost savings with riding but it could easily be argued that a small car is cheaper to operate than a bike. Ultimately we ride because we like riding.
I'm surprised Rob hasn't chimed in yet.
Anyway, that was 2006 and that's why it's time to revisit it and why we may need a new approach. I'll point out however, that the response to the the space argument actually works in our favour. As Mr. Perotta states: "With respect to motorcycles saving space on highways, at highway speeds, there is little practical difference in the space that motorcycles occupy on the road, as all vehicles should travel at two-second headways." We shouldn't be arguing that the bikes take up less space, but that moving one from the regular lanes into the HOV lanes has the same net effect on the regular lanes as moving any other vehicle.
D/T it's a no brainer, free parking.
I ride a FZ1, cost me $3 g's and can deliver 4l per 100kms fuel consumption.
Hard to find a car that would do the same job.
I guess the only other plus for two wheels is we cause no wear or tear maintenance on the highways, we are urban safe/r for pedestrians and cyclists.
You mean I didn't answer it satisfactorily? There is a legitimate safety concern with any mode of transportation. As I said earlier, it's about risk management and acceptance.
You're absolutely right, that fact that it's fun won't make a difference, and it won't be my answer. This is back to a justification argument, and I don't intend to include it as I promote my position. Motorcycles are a class of vehicle licensed, without restriction, for use on the roads in Ontario. I don't have to justify why I choose to ride one any more than I expect someone to justify why they drive any other licensed vehicle. Everybody will have similar general reasons, but more varied specific reasons based on their own circumstances.
How much extra per year do you pay for insurance and maintenance on your FZ that is over and above the ownership costs of a little econobox car?
Risk management and acceptance?? Don't ride. I fear that is the response you'll get if you bring up the safety issue.
If you're going to bring up the safety issue I think you will have to justify why you ride instead of drive. What would your response be if that question is brought up?
Okay, that could happen.
"I ride because I already own and insure three vehicles for my family so the basic costs are fixed. My primary budgetary considerations on a weekly basis are fuel and parking [no need to introduce the cost of tires here!]. It makes sense, therefore, to ride more often than drive one of the cars. I do what I can, within reason, to manage the risks, as I do when I drive my van.
I've been riding nearly 30 years. I am confident, as a licensed operator of a licensed motor vehicle, that the roads have been designed and appropriate laws are in place to assist in the management of those risks, at least by not creating unnecessary or unreasonable risk. HOV lanes are a relatively new development on Ontario's highways, and I see an opportunity to improve safety by including motorcycles as eligible vehicles. There is evidence, some only anecdotal or speculative, to support the notion that the lanes are safer for motorcyclists. There is no indication, even anecdotal, that including motorcyclists would reduce road safety.
With the lanes already in place and in use for vehcicles other than occupied high occupancy vehicles such as hybrids, and empty buses, taxis and limousines, including motorcycles on a permanent or trial basis could be done at no cost, except the cost of communicating the change to the public."
Better?
Edit: I do intend to find whatever statistics I can to support it - this was just the summary response to why I ride instead of drive.
Safety Reasons from the U.S. Department of Transportation
Well this will add very little to my argument
From the Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Freeway Management Program:
"Motorcycles are permitted by federal law to use HOV lanes, even with only one passenger. The rationale behind allowing motorcycles to use HOV lanes is that it is safer to keep two-wheeled vehicles moving than to have them travel in start-and-stop traffic conditions. States can choose to override this provision of federal law, if they determine that safety is at risk."
On the plus side, it looks like the law was originally introduced because of lobbying, based on the simple arguments like this. Of course it's possible this was one of those "the bikes will overheat and put us in danger" and "we'll get sunstroke sitting still" types of arguments.
Well this will add very little to my argument
From the Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Freeway Management Program:
"Motorcycles are permitted by federal law to use HOV lanes, even with only one passenger. The rationale behind allowing motorcycles to use HOV lanes is that it is safer to keep two-wheeled vehicles moving than to have them travel in start-and-stop traffic conditions. States can choose to override this provision of federal law, if they determine that safety is at risk."
On the plus side, it looks like the law was originally introduced because of lobbying, based on the simple arguments like this. Of course it's possible this was one of those "the bikes will overheat and put us in danger" and "we'll get sunstroke sitting still" types of arguments.
Hmmm not bad.
You still might get some stubborn resistance on the safety issue. Some people just don't like bikes. We moved to a new building for work and when they painted the lines for moto parking they put it at the back of the lot. It turns out that the facilities lady that covers my building doesn't like bikes so she parked them all as far away as possible.
You still might get some stubborn resistance on the safety issue. Some people just don't like bikes. We moved to a new building for work and when they painted the lines for moto parking they put it at the back of the lot. It turns out that the facilities lady that covers my building doesn't like bikes so she parked them all as far away as possible.
Yes, I do expect some resistance, so thanks for the practice
. I'm not alone in the campaign, obviously, and I think there will be a lot of supporters trying to make the same old incorrect arguments about polluting less. I mentioned earlier that I think it's important how we portray ourselves, and at least I have control over that. When I present my position, I want my audience to recognize that my opinion is based on my riding experience as well as my professional (training, testing, and examiner training) experience. My involvement in those things, and my advocacy of this concept is based on a genuine desire to maintain or increase road safety. [in fact, a JP actually recognized that once at a trial, but it was unfortunately after he convicted me. My reward was a suspended sentence.]
Now if we really want to stir up some trouble, we'll tell Helena Jaczek to support our petition or we'll all start strapping 8 year old children to the back seat so we can use the HOV lanes. I kid, I kid. I wrote a very detailed argument against her private member's bill 117.
PSY
Banned
So try to have answers and stats for those that will try to argue against your point.
I think you can still use the safety angle but you have to get them to frame some kinda safety response or look for things they cited safety as their rationale for doing it.
You have to try to leave them no logical way out.
Reference the amount of deaths on motorcycles and the increase in accidents (just leave out the where part...lol).
They like to avoid liability so perhaps reference by not allowing the bikers to get to a safer spot on the road then they can be held liable given that other studies have found the HOV lane to be safER than the non HOV lanes
I think you can still use the safety angle but you have to get them to frame some kinda safety response or look for things they cited safety as their rationale for doing it.
You have to try to leave them no logical way out.
Reference the amount of deaths on motorcycles and the increase in accidents (just leave out the where part...lol).
They like to avoid liability so perhaps reference by not allowing the bikers to get to a safer spot on the road then they can be held liable given that other studies have found the HOV lane to be safER than the non HOV lanes
insert
Well-known member
but what you are blinding yourself to is the fact that there will have to be more motorcycles on the road to move the same amount of people, each travelling with 2s headway.
ie. lets move 10 people... 2cars + 2s headway.
BUT with motorcycles... 5 motorcycles + 2s headway.
The bikes will take up a lot more space. The larger the number of people being moved, the amount of bikes required increases at a greater rate than cars.
10 people = 2 cars = 5 bikes
20 people = 4 cars = 10 bikes
30 people = 6 cars = 15 bikes
40 people = 8 cars = 20 bikes
But, lets remember now, a bike with a passenger is ALREADY ALLOWED in the lane, we want bikes WITHOUT passengers allowed in. so bikes with only 1 person riding. To win the space argument you need to show that where 8 cars can transport 40 people, the 40 bikes each with 2s headway will take up less space.
8 cars > 40 bikes is what you need to argue.
also, when you start looking at those numbers it would seem that you would also start losing the parking argument.
5 bikes need to take up less room than 1 car
1 car = 4m
so then, 1 bike would have to take up less than 0.8m curbside
If you are parking at the legal maximum angle of MAXIMUM angle of 45 degrees from curb, there is no way you are doing it in under 0.8 meters.
if bike is 2m parked at 45 degrees, it will be taking up 1.41m curb space. mathematically impossible to save parking space. 1.41 per bike x 5 bikes = 7.05m.
So for 5 people 1 car takes up 4m curb space, 5 bikes take up 7.05m parking.
Bikes also tend to produce more pollutants, despite burning slightly less fuel than small cars.
5 bikes will also take up more space in HOV lane than 1 car.
safety... well bikes are dangerous, so is skydiving, both are fun, but they come with risks accept it or dont, nobody is forcing you to ride.
HOV lane is safer? ok, you're right. Bikes deserve to be in the HOV lane, so do expecting women, elderly people, new drivers, hell, why should we subject regular commuting folks who are alone in their vehicles to the dangers of the regular lane? let them in too.
HOV lane is no longer an HOV lane if everyone is allowed in. The people that are carpooling may no longer want to do it, they will say "**** this, i would rather have the convenience of my own car with me at all times." If you take away the only incentive to carpool, faster moving lane, then why would people want to work around their schedules, and drive out of their way to pick up people, and then have to wait for them after work, and twist their schedules around if there is no benefit?
Then more cars back on the road again, congestion back to what it was before (not that its amazing right now, although i do like the HOV lane when driving out to hamilton during rush hour, it does move faster).
as for the "every other jurisdiction has it" argument. Yea, they do, and their laws were like that before ontario. Ontario had hte benefit of reading their laws, and we drafted one that was different, what we did, was done on purpose.
California is supposedly adding green cars? Ontario is phasing them out of HOV lanes, as of 2015 green cars and taxis with only 1 person are not allowed in the HOV lane anymore. Looks like ontario is going a completely different direction than california.
I realize the primary goal of the HOV lanes is to move more people more efficiently. My argument is not that the bikes would take up less space in the HOV lanes or result in fewer vehicles on the road, but that every vehicle moved out of the regular lanes has a positive effect there. A single driver in the regular lanes could be a single rider in the HOV lane. It's the relatively low number of vehicles that would be moving into the HOV lanes that means there will be a negligible effect on congestion there. Either way, it's a very small difference, and the HOV lanes can likely handle the extra traffic. The impact on either may not even be measurable, but the congestion is in the regular lanes, so any vehicle removed from there (up to a limit, which I don't expect the motorcycle population to affect), is a positive.
Agreed - and you could park two bikes along the curb with a gap and all of that space is wasted.
I think it's 60 degrees. I asked a parking enforcement officer (with whom I had several interactions, including one in court during which a charge was dropped) once about which way it was actually measured (I think it's 60 deg FROM the curb), and he said they don't really care about it. [/quote]
That's not the argument - the safety argument is about the class of vehicle, not the person driving.
The lanes are already used for other reasons, and have been since they were opened. Hybrid cars, empty buses taxis and limousines all use them. For the hybrids, it's an incentive for early adopters. For the empty commercial passenger vehicles, it's to help them maintain schedules. Other jurisdictions have started referring to them as "priority" lanes to avoid the simplistic HOV or Carpool designation.
Yes, Ontario is doing exactly what California did - ending a trial period. California phased them out, and then found that traffic slowed in both lane types (I posted a link to the p/r about the UC Berkley study). Removing a class of vehicles from the HOV lanes dumped a lot of traffic back into the regular lanes, and when the speed differential is too great between the two lanes, the HOV lanes slow down. For controlled access lanes like we have, it's important to strike a balance between the lanes so that people aren't moving into the HOV lanes at very low speeds, or trying to exit from speed into stopped traffic. Therefore, to ensure that ALL the traffic moves efficiently, we have to ensure that we get enough vehicles out of the regular lanes to keep them moving.
I think we're going to find the same problem as California did when the trial periods end.
|
|
|
|
|