MTO response to single rider HOV request

[Emefef]

Forum Sponsor

On the 400 series HOV lanes, by the time you factor in safe following distances, a motorcycle is almost the same as a single-occupant car in terms of the space it consumes on the highway.

Of course this makes sense, but whether everyone agrees or not, there is also a valid argument that the lanes could be safer for motorcyclists.
Many of us feel safer in the left lane because there's no traffic on one side. Technically, we're not supposed to drive/ride in the left lane because it's the passing lane - so someone who wants to ride right around the speed limit can't safely do that in the left lane. A rider is limited to a central lane with traffic on either side, or the right lane where there is the most entry/exit turbulence, and increased risk.
On a limited access highway with a lane designated as a limited access lane, at least the RULES EXIST to provide additional protection. The argument isn't about whether every motorist will follow the rules, or what kind of other morons are out there to put as at risk, the argument is about the design and the rules that are created to have a controlled/limited access lane running parallel to traffic, and used only by designated vehicles. Even if the safety proposition turns out not to be supported by statistics, the argument remains untested in Ontario, and the government unwilling to consider it. The argument that it will slow down other vehicles that are currently entitled is a poor one. Motorcycles represent less than 3% of registered vehicles in all of Ontario. Imagine the percentage that are used for riding in rush hour. Even if it doubles because of the opportunity to ride in the designated lane, it's going to be statistically insignificant. Besides, we hear so often that the HOV lanes are nearly empty and the surrounding lanes are packed. If someone does believe the number will be sufficient to have an effect on traffic flow, let's take another class of vehicle out of the congested side and make more space.
The Pan-Am games were a perfect opportunity for the province to test it, by allowing it on a temporary basis in the middle of the riding season. The greater issue, shared by some on this board, is that people won't look past the idea that it's an argument for privilege, not safety.
Where permanent HOV lanes already exist, allowing motorcyclists to use them should have a negligible impact on other HOV users, if at all. There is an unproven, but potential safety benefit to be recognized for motorcyclists. With a stated mandate to review all options to improve road safety for ALL users, it's irresponsible not to consider it, at least on a trial basis.

 

[plutoz]

Another good question...does the Zero get green plated?

No, the Zero does not get green plates and therefore does not have single-rider access to HOV, and it is not eligible for the EV rebate given to cars either. I was recently in touch with the MTO regarding this, and got basically the same response.

 

[Joe Bass]

No, the Zero does not get green plates and therefore does not have single-rider access to HOV, and it is not eligible for the EV rebate given to cars either. I was recently in touch with the MTO regarding this, and got basically the same response.

That doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[caboose56]

Lol @ motorcycles being eco friendly. They are not.

Lol @ HOV lanes being safer. If safety was a genuine concern you wouldn't ride at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LePhillou]

If consistency is key, they are locked out.

 

[Baggsy]

Lol @ motorcycles being eco friendly. They are not.

Lol @ HOV lanes being safer. If safety was a genuine concern you wouldn't ride at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was was just going to say that it would be safest to ban bikes on the highways,
if that's the main concern of advocates.

 

[Emefef]

I was was just going to say that it would be safest to ban bikes on the highways,
if that's the main concern of advocates.

But those of kind of responses are just argumentative for the sake of being so. When we ride, we recognize risk and take reasonable precautions to eliminate or at least reduce the risks. If there is an opportunity for MTO to reduce the risk to any class or group of motorists without increasing risk to others, it should be reviewed. Furthermore, if that opportunity comes at no cost, expense, or inconvenience to the government or the public, it should be seriously considered.
If you read my argument for using the lanes, it's very specific. Where the lanes are already in place, it is probably safer for us to be in them than not, so we should be allowed to use them. There is a POSSIBILITY, even if you disagree, that it could be safer. If that possibility exists, it should be explored rather than ignored simply because people view that lane as a privilege.

 

[OnAnySunday]

On the 400 series HOV lanes, by the time you factor in safe following distances, a motorcycle is almost the same as a single-occupant car in terms of the space it consumes on the highway. Should we let single-occupant cars, say two-seater cars, use the HOV lanes too?

What really grinds my gears is that d*** that sits in the HOV lane going 99 with 5 km of empty space in front of him, usually a TDI trying to get 1000 on one tank of gas

 

[caboose56]

But those of kind of responses are just argumentative for the sake of being so. When we ride, we recognize risk and take reasonable precautions to eliminate or at least reduce the risks. If there is an opportunity for MTO to reduce the risk to any class or group of motorists without increasing risk to others, it should be reviewed. Furthermore, if that opportunity comes at no cost, expense, or inconvenience to the government or the public, it should be seriously considered.
If you read my argument for using the lanes, it's very specific. Where the lanes are already in place, it is probably safer for us to be in them than not, so we should be allowed to use them. There is a POSSIBILITY, even if you disagree, that it could be safer. If that possibility exists, it should be explored rather than ignored simply because people view that lane as a privilege.

Ridiculous. We don't live in a climate where a motorcycle could be a sole means of transportation.

IE, motorcycles are luxury items. If you commute on a motorcycle that most likely means that you left a car at home. A car that would be much safer on the highway. You made the choice to ride your funmobile instead of driving your car. How can you acknowledge the risks and take reasonable precautions but leave your car at home and take your funmobile out on the 401?

Safety shmafety.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Baggsy]

But those of kind of responses are just argumentative for the sake of being so. When we ride, we recognize risk and take reasonable precautions to eliminate or at least reduce the risks. If there is an opportunity for MTO to reduce the risk to any class or group of motorists without increasing risk to others, it should be reviewed. Furthermore, if that opportunity comes at no cost, expense, or inconvenience to the government or the public, it should be seriously considered.
If you read my argument for using the lanes, it's very specific. Where the lanes are already in place, it is probably safer for us to be in them than not, so we should be allowed to use them. There is a POSSIBILITY, even if you disagree, that it could be safer. If that possibility exists, it should be explored rather than ignored simply because people view that lane as a privilege.

Motorcycles are toys, no one needs to ride one. Any vehicle is safer in the lanes. What makes motorcycles so special? Riders are more vulnerable? Then why choose to ride? I'd like to see the U.S. Government's reasoning for their law. Maybe there is a good argument for it.

To me, if riding was actually a necessity here, we'd see a lot more scooters,
and a lot less motorcycles, the same way it is overseas.

 

[iFly55]

Jernigan, J.D. & Lynn, C.W. (1995). The Effect of Motorcycle Travel on the Safety and Operations of HOV Facilities in Virginia, Virginia Transportation Research Council

Abstract

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 mandated that motorcycles be permitted to travel on federally funded high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) facilities unless they created a safety hazard or adversely affected HOV operations. Although motorcycles had previously been banned from traveling on Virginia's HOV lanes, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) authorized motorcycle travel on HOV facilities in Virginia as of September 21, 1992, for a 2-year trial period. However, out of concern over whether this policy should continue, the CTB resolved that the Virginia Department of Transportation conduct a study to determine whether motorcycles presented a safety risk on HOV lanes.

This study found that motorcycles account for as much as 3% of the annual traffic on some HOV lanes. However, in the 2 years after the CTB authorized their travel, there were only five motorcycle crashes on HOV lanes. The study recommends that the CTB allow motorcycles to continue to travel on HOV lanes and that VDOT continue to monitor their travel and crashes.​

Conclusions

There is no evidence at this time that allowing motorcycle traffic on HOV lanes has an adverse impact on safety or operations. The current level of motorcycle traffic - a high of 3.0% of the annual traffic on HOV lanes - is not substantial, and the number of crashes involving motorcycles is low. In fact, there is some evidence to indicate that allowing motorcycles to travel on the HOV lanes may even decrease the number of incidents, particularly rear-end and congestion-related crashes, involving motorcycles in the peak direction.

If, in accordance with the provisions of ISTEA, a state may ban motorcycles from HOV lanes only if there is a documented safety or operations problem created by such traffic, then VDOT has no basis on which to institute such a ban at this time. However, VDOT's original point concerning the banning of motorcycle traffic is still valid" motorcycles are not highoccupancy vehicles. If the HOV lanes move toward capacity, if motorcycle traffic becomes a substantial proportion of the HOV traffic, or if crashes involving motorcycles increase, then an operations problem could follow. ​

 

[LePhillou]

I have a motorcycle and i have a car.

The wifey uses the car,
I use the bike.

Works great as a family.

It's not a toy for everyone. My motorcycle lets me have a shorter commute (much shorter now with the HOV lanes). During winter time, i will be taking public transit + go train. Which will cost me about $16/day that i commute to work.

When comparing the cost of the overall usage of the motorcycle vs transit, the motorcycle wins easily by being cost effective, time efficient and just plainly more pleasant for my mood as it acts as catharsis.

Why don't we see more of them on the road? Well there's the canadian climate and the little detail of HAVE YOU SEEN THE PRICE OF FAKKIN INSURANCE?

The premium i pay on the bike is less than my car...but not by a lot (obviously im getting my M this year and it's my 1st year). People are not encouraged to use a motorcycle and no, it doesn't make sense for a lot of people to get one. BUt if you had the right incentives in place, you could help ridership, which will raise awareness, which will increase involvement in pushing through suggestions like the ones made in the OP.

How soon are we going to see this? Maybe in my lifetime if im lucky...but i doubt it.

 

[Emefef]

Ridiculous. We don't live in a climate where a motorcycle could be a sole means of transportation.

IE, motorcycles are luxury items. If you commute on a motorcycle that most likely means that you left a car at home. A car that would be much safer on the highway. You made the choice to ride your funmobile instead of driving your car. How can you acknowledge the risks and take reasonable precautions but leave your car at home and take your funmobile out on the 401?

Safety shmafety.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Proving my point about arguing for the sake of arguing. How about we consider riding behaviour? I can choose to ride a bike and ride it like a jackass with no regard for safety, or I can choose a more cautious approach and reduce the risk. I'm not suggesting that I'm taking every conceivable safety precaution to ensure the safest trip possible. In that case I'd take a bus or train or not go. I'm talking about using all of the tools available to us to manage the risks of riding. We accept reasonable risk, and if there is an opportunity to participate in the same activity with less risk, why wouldn't we take it?

 

[Emefef]

Motorcycles are toys, no one needs to ride one. Any vehicle is safer in the lanes. What makes motorcycles so special? Riders are more vulnerable? Then why choose to ride?

I think we all agree we're more vulnerable. We accept the risk. I wear gear because it's safer. I choose certain riding habits and lane positions because they're safer. If any vehicle is safer in the lanes, as you say, then let's start by putting the most vulnerable in there - the class of vehicle that will have the least impact on traffic flow. If safety can be improved by travelling in a restricted-access lane it should be done. Look at the stats for Virginia - 3% of the traffic flow and only 5 incidents in 2 years.

 

[cbcanada]

"If i was educated, I'd be a damn fool"

 

[caboose56]

Proving my point about arguing for the sake of arguing. How about we consider riding behaviour? I can choose to ride a bike and ride it like a jackass with no regard for safety, or I can choose a more cautious approach and reduce the risk. I'm not suggesting that I'm taking every conceivable safety precaution to ensure the safest trip possible. In that case I'd take a bus or train or not go. I'm talking about using all of the tools available to us to manage the risks of riding. We accept reasonable risk, and if there is an opportunity to participate in the same activity with less risk, why wouldn't we take it?

It all comes down to your desire to ride a bike and ultimately that's a selfish reason to want to use the HOV lanes.

Why should the government make special accommodations for you based on safety after you made a choice in the morning to commute on your significantly more risky mode of transportation? Why would anyone believe that you're genuinely concerned about safety when you left your car at home? Why would you ride on the highway if you felt it was too risky? The simple fact that you're still doing it proves that you deem the risks acceptable.

HOV lanes are intended to reduce congestion and to a lesser extent pollution. Riding a motorcycle instead of driving a car has a negligible impact on congestion and motorcycles pollute more than cars.

 

[nobbie48]

When comparing the cost of the overall usage of the motorcycle vs transit, the motorcycle wins easily by being cost effective, time efficient and just plainly more pleasant for my mood as it acts as catharsis.

Some people will never get that. Those that do are afraid that, while breaking the bonds of corporate penny pinching thought, individuals might somehow challenge they system.

P.S. Parking at Home Depot has become scarce. All spots are allocated to handicap, green vehicle, contractors, pregnant women, rental vehicles. If you want a parking spot either break a leg or keep the wife pregnant.

 

[mimico_polak]

Why should the government make special accommodations for you based on safety after you made a choice in the morning to commute on your significantly more risky mode of transportation?

Because we ride motorcycles and are special!

Some people will never get that.

Why should all people get that? We ride because we want to. If the gov't catered to every whim of each special interest group we would be in a massive cluster ****...

No one cares (rightfully!) that riding make YOU and ME happy. They care about minimal commute time in this case. We need to work within the system we have and that's it.

Want to change it, go run on a political platform, but make sure you have the right one. Then get corrupted by the system and become the object you resent now.

 

[Emefef]

It all comes down to your desire to ride a bike and ultimately that's a selfish reason to want to use the HOV lanes.

Why should the government make special accommodations for you based on safety after you made a choice in the morning to commute on your significantly more risky mode of transportation? Why would anyone believe that you're genuinely concerned about safety when you left your car at home? Why would you ride on the highway if you felt it was too risky? The simple fact that you're still doing it proves that you deem the risks acceptable.

HOV lanes are intended to reduce congestion and to a lesser extent pollution. Riding a motorcycle instead of driving a car has a negligible impact on congestion and motorcycles pollute more than cars.

The arguments about toys, luxury and decisions to ride a bike should have no impact on this discussion. It's legal, and regulated form of transportation and the MTO has a stated mandate to promote safety for all road users. If you choose to ride a bicycle or walk across an intersection during rush hour, there are laws and provisions for you to do so as safely as possible. You accept the risks within those boundaries.
My argument has nothing to do with being selfish. I'm hopeful the lanes won't exist where I commute after the games. But on the occasion that I'm on a provincial hwy where they exist, I think having access to all lanes is safer.
The disagreement still seems to stem from two things: you don't believe it will be any safer, I'm asking for special treatment (or a combination of the too).
Since there is no evidence to the contrary, and no evidence to draw any conclusions, we don't know for certain if the safety argument is valid. I think there are valid points that make it worth testing. Virginia evidence seems to support it.
With respect to "special treatment", I'm suggesting that where they exist, it's safer to allow their use rather than prohibit it.

I can understand why everyone doesn't agree, but I can't understand why in the absence of any evidence, people are so certain that the safety argument is "ridiculous". It's not about eliminating risk. It's not about whether I'm "afraid" to ride a bike. It's about using all the tools available to reduce the risk. If it's there at no cost, why not?

 

[Blackfin]

If the province was really interested in making better use of its highway infrastructure bandwidth it would allow low-speed lane-splitting and filtering like in, say, California.

Forum Sponsor