QEW H.O.T lane

[unfaZed]

Once a bike gets moving at highway speeds, it's lane space requirement (including safe following distance behind the vehicle ahead) is essentially the same as that of an SUV. Even your afore-mentioned supposed retards are able to recognize this. Why don't you?

Because it simply isn't true...once you're moving at highway speed space concerns are irrelevant...it's during times of congestion where vehicles are bumper to bumper (and bikes can move somewhat beside each other) where the advantages exist.

Doing your little "thought experiments" in your head does not negate research that states like California have done before deciding to allow motorcycles to use the HOV.

HOV and HOT lanes are about moving more vehicles in the same space...that is the reason they exist, and moving motorcycles into these lanes helps make it happen...it isn't about us it's about everyone.

I'm happy to help educate people while I have some patience to respond in these threads, but that patience has limits and that is why the tone of my posts can be sardonic and insulting at times...if you're too dumb to understand why bikes should go in the HOT chances are I probably can't help you understand anyway.

In consolation I would say don't worry, if we encounter each other in person during a ride or something I would say the same thing in the same tone and spirit as any post I make on this board.

 

[Baggsy]

Just so you are aware...the energy and materials (and environmental impact) of an electric car vastly offset any emission savings versus something with a small manufacturing footprint like a motorcycle.

It isn't possible to argue that motorcycles have the same environmental impact as cars...there was an episode of myth busters that attempted to equate motorcycle and car emissions by "busting" some myth about motorcycle emissions but they used air-cooled large displacement bikes...it's important to remember that show is for entertainment only and isn't really about science.


Even if bikes produced worse emissions than cars (they don't) the cars would never be able to offset the extra energy and materials used in manufacturing.



I don't mind if you think bikes shouldn't be in the HOT lane...but you can't defend a position that electric cars are more environmentally friendly than motorcycles...they aren't.


An example of an article that touches on this subject, to get you started on correcting yourself if you disagree with my comments:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car

How can you post a small slice of an argument, and then expect it to be taken as the final word on the matter?

 

[griff2]

HOV and HOT lanes are about moving more vehicles in the same space...that is the reason they exist, and moving motorcycles into these lanes helps make it happen...it isn't about us it's about everyone.

No, they are not. The provincial HOV/HOT lanes are about moving more PEOPLE in the same lane space. By definition that mean encouraging increased occupancy rates in the vehicles permitted in those lanes. A single-occupant motorcycle does nothing to increase passenger load in that lane space. It takes away lane space that could be occupied by a minivan with 7 people.

 

[Neil_V]

No, they are not. The provincial HOV/HOT lanes are about moving more PEOPLE in the same lane space. By definition that mean encouraging increased occupancy rates in the vehicles permitted in those lanes. A single-occupant motorcycle does nothing to increase passenger load in that lane space. It takes away lane space that could be occupied by a minivan with 7 people.

You can make that argument with HOV (though wrong)... But in no way does that apply to HOT. If they get enough people willing to pay the cash (which they will) you'll see almost no one car-pooling. This is now about moving cash; out of your pocket and into theirs.

If HOT shows any sign of success you'll see a second lane; then a third; then a toll for the entire highway. Test the waters and see what people will accept.. Also has the convenient side effect of getting the lower classes out of personal transportation and back to buses and trains

 

[unfaZed]

How can you post a small slice of an argument, and then expect it to be taken as the final word on the matter?

Because I've provided enough information for a reasonable person to understand my point.

For everyone else, here are the main reasons why motorcycles should be allowed in high occupancy lanes:

- Lower environmental impact than cars, yes, even giant fat people bikes have a significantly lower footprint than a car over its lifetime.
- Less wear and tear on the road, this is a big one - we should be doing everything we can as tax payers to incentivize using lighter vehicles like scooters, motorcycles, bicycles...cars have gotten massive as a result of protectionism disguised as safety regulations and repairing the damage they (and transport trucks) cause to roads costs us millions per year.
- Motorcycles take up considerably less space (no, your stupid thought experiments about needing "the same" amount of space while moving are not legitimate). Even less if most of them are using the same lane(s).


I realize I am biased since I have ridden all over the western world...but that experience has also demonstrated these points to me clearly, and you can benefit by taking my word for it.


Does any of this matter? Probably not, because we are a minority group here and car drivers are emotionally invested in making sure we don't "get ahead" of them...people who only drive cars generally hate the idea that the road isn't exclusively for them to begin with, let alone making accommodations for other types of vehicles.

 

[Neil_V]

Because I've provided enough information for a reasonable person to understand my point.

Few and far between in these parts..

...ftr; I'm joking... well, mostly

 

[Baggsy]

Because I've provided enough information for a reasonable person to understand my point.

For everyone else, here are the main reasons why motorcycles should be allowed in high occupancy lanes:

- Lower environmental impact than cars, yes, even giant fat people bikes have a significantly lower footprint than a car over its lifetime.
- Less wear and tear on the road, this is a big one - we should be doing everything we can as tax payers to incentivize using lighter vehicles like scooters, motorcycles, bicycles...cars have gotten massive as a result of protectionism disguised as safety regulations and repairing the damage they (and transport trucks) cause to roads costs us millions per year.
- Motorcycles take up considerably less space (no, your stupid thought experiments about needing "the same" amount of space while moving are not legitimate). Even less if most of them are using the same lane(s).


I realize I am biased since I have ridden all over the western world...but that experience has also demonstrated these points to me clearly, and you can benefit by taking my word for it.


Does any of this matter? Probably not, because we are a minority group here and car drivers are emotionally invested in making sure we don't "get ahead" of them...people who only drive cars generally hate the idea that the road isn't exclusively for them to begin with, let alone making accommodations for other types of vehicles.

Yes, of course, how silly of me. I can't be you, or what you've said.

Everyone else in the world is just being unreasonable.

 

[Jayv]

City of Toronto seems to understand, free parking and HOV usage to encourage two wheels over four.

The space a bike takes up at it's final destination is what makes the difference, plus we are more friendly to be around to pedestrians and cyclists.

Took this pic downtown a few days ago.

 

[Baggsy]

City of Toronto seems to understand, free parking and HOV usage to encourage two wheels over four.

The space a bike takes up at it's final destination is what makes the difference, plus we are more friendly to be around to pedestrians and cyclists.

Took this pic downtown a few days ago.

ok, and the cars get out without hitting the illegally parked bikes how? Just push it out into the street and leave it there?

 

[superseven]

ok, and the cars get out without hitting the illegally parked bikes how? Just push it out into the street and leave it there?

Be careful...who was there first?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jayv]

ok, and the cars get out without hitting the illegally parked bikes how? Just push it out into the street and leave it there?

The front car is not blocked, the behind vehicle just needs to back up an inch to get out.

Every lunchtime i'm usually sharing a street parking spot with another car in the downtown core, its not an issue. Me doing this means there is one extra parking spot available for someone else in their cage.

Short sighted thinking of some of you nay sayers regarding HOV lanes , but you have no idea of what the end result is.

 

[conundrum]

The front car is not blocked, the behind vehicle just needs to back up an inch to get out.

Wow...that car/SUV must have an insane turning radius then...must use the same system as the Warthogs in the Halo series.

 

[Jayv]

Car is not blocked from behind

 

[griff2]

Car is not blocked from behind

Until another self-centered motorcycle rider arrives.

 

[Baggsy]

Car is not blocked from behind, yet!

FIFY. Still doesn't excuse the illegal parking job.

Seen someone park a bike like this dozens of times. A couple of times, they've come back to the bike on the ground, and once it was moved across the street. Pretty good for handicapped people in cars to do, eh.

 

[Jayv]

Until another self-centered motorcycle rider arrives.

FIFY. Still doesn't excuse the illegal parking job.

Seen someone park a bike like this dozens of times. A couple of times, they've come back to the bike on the ground, and once it was moved across the street. Pretty good for handicapped people in cars to do, eh.

Maybe the 2 of you should take another read of post#30.

You've already made you mind up that the bike is at fault.....

 

[griff2]

Maybe the 2 of you should take another read of post#30.

You've already made you mind up that the bike is at fault.....

Individually-metered parking spaces, and the bike arrives first only to park right between the two individual spaces? Sure, possible, but not all that likely.

 

[hedo2002]

Yes because only FAT people ride big bikes..lmao I ride a 1700 CC Cruiser I am 5'11" tall and weigh 165 a LONG way from being FAT.. But your the "expert" If you have all the answers then quit your job, apply to MTO become "their expert" then you can effect changes as you see fit.

Nah, and the link you posted has no study proving they do - just more speculation based on outdated data on outdated motorcycles.


I don't have all the information on what people are riding, but there is no way my little FZ8S with a catalytic converter and a proper modern fuel injection system is putting out anywhere close to the pollutants that a 2, 3, 4L car engine is.


Besides, we can easily just add a qualifier that only liquid-cooled motorcycles with modern emissions controls can use the HOT on a green basis.


----


Aside from this, the reason to have motorcycles use the HOT/HOV lanes is because they take up considerably less space than cars and removing them from the normal traffic and having them all use the HOT/HOV lanes makes traffic flow more smoothly for everyone.


Even fat old people on big touring bikes still take up less room than a car.


This is all hashed out already in many populous states.


The ONLY legitimate argument anyone has against having bikes go in the HOT lane is "Ontario is full of retards that won't agree to this anyway, so quit bitching about it" (and I concede this is true).

 

[Baggsy]

Individually-metered parking spaces, and the bike arrives first only to park right between the two individual spaces? Sure, possible, but not all that likely.

At an angle of 80 degrees from the curb. But of course none of that matters, because post #30, supersedes any laws or logic.

 

[unfaZed]

Yes because only FAT people ride big bikes..lmao I ride a 1700 CC Cruiser I am 5'11" tall and weigh 165 a LONG way from being FAT.. But your the "expert" If you have all the answers then quit your job, apply to MTO become "their expert" then you can effect changes as you see fit.

You're fat at heart if you ride a 1700 cc cruiser, your body just hasn't caught up yet.

I would consider working for the MTO but I suspect it would pay considerably less than what I do now, so...probably not going to happen.

I don't have all the answers, I just have considerably more answers than most people.