Why are Ontario's HOV lane rules different?

Forum Sponsor
I'll contact anyone and everyone. The only way to effect change is to ask for it. You have to speak first and worry about speaking well (i.e. having all the data) second. If everyone on this forum left a similar message with every MP in the province we'd get this changed.

I have been using the HOV lanes without knowledge of this restriction and only realized it when they sent my new license yesterday and inserted an information sheet.

Anyone who has ever sat in a traffic jam on a motorcycle in 40+ degree heat with all the carbon monoxide will know that, no matter what the law, you simply can't follow the rules. You will die.

I beleive we will be able to get this changed. I have several avenues I'm going to follow and will keep you all posted.
 
I'm hoping to revive this issue.

1. The true purpose of HOV lanes is being muddied by claims that pollution reduction is the goal. It is not. That's a beneficial by-product, but the true goal is and always has been congestion relief. It's just politically expedient to tell the masses that it's an environmental issue. Allowing electric and hybrid cars in HOV lanes is being used as an incentive to reduce the environmental impact of cars. This was an afterthought. It does not add to the original goal of relieving congestion.

2. Some of the largest cities in the world have long realized that motorcycles, by their very nature, are beneficial towards the goal of relieving traffic congestion. The alternative to a single rider on a motorcycle is most often a single driver in a car. (In the "1st world" anyway)

3. Along with allowing motorcycles in HOV lanes, cities with major traffic congestion issues also realize that allowing motorcycles to "lane split" or "filter" also relieves traffic congestion. Doing so also happens to have the beneficial by-product of reducing pollution and the negative health impact of idling vehicles for everyone. This includes those in cars and pedestrians. The prime examples are cities like London and Los Angeles. The extreme examples are cities like Tokyo Japan and Delhi India. The free movement of motorcycles is CRUCIAL in these examples.

We will not get anywhere by sending emails to MPPs. Contacting opposition critics may have some impact, but it's unlikely. Surrounding Queens Park (or Parliament hill for those in Ottawa) with idling and/or very slow moving motorcycles? Perhaps. I'd be there. I just have no idea how to get the traction to make it happen.
 
the by products mentioned above

along with the lower consumption of gas from the average bike (17L gives me roughly 300km vs my car getting 450-500km from 55L) leads me to believe that it has a general positive environmental impact. If emissions are equal to cars, gas consumption isnt. Wear on the road isn't. Awareness of surroundings isn't (one less person texting in their cars).

And even with all the arguments against motorcycles in HOV lanes stacked up together, what makes Ontario SO SPECIAL that we can't implement it when the rest of the whole wide world is doing it?!
Is it a case of being so superior that we have a deeper understanding of efficient traffic :rolleyes: meaning everyone else is doing it wrong or is it a case of being too dumb and stuck in our ways to look at changing it?

Personally, i'm not affected by it as my commute doesn't include HOV lanes but to me, it only makes sense. Hell even some city of Toronto HOV's allow it (municipal jurisdiction)... what are we not getting here?
 
HOV lanes don't work. Nobody on Planet Earth makes the mistake of altering their lives just so they can take advantage of two car trips. They make that mistake once, only, and then realize that the convenience of having your own personal transportation outweigh the benefits of being stuck behind some idiot in a Corolla doing 90 in the leftmost lane, in what is effectively a tunnel you aren't allowed to legally escape from. And we take up 25% of the highway for this "advantage"? HOV lanes work great ***on paper***, but in practise, they use up valuable and limited two-dimensional space for only a small number of people to actually "benefit" from.

Only idiots like HOV lanes. They don't work.
 
viper84737 said:
HOV lanes don't work. Nobody on Planet Earth makes the mistake of altering their lives just so they can take advantage of two car trips. They make that mistake once, only, and then realize that the convenience of having your own personal transportation outweigh the benefits of being stuck behind some idiot in a Corolla doing 90 in the leftmost lane, in what is effectively a tunnel you aren't allowed to legally escape from. And we take up 25% of the highway for this "advantage"? HOV lanes work great ***on paper***, but in practise, they use up valuable and limited two-dimensional space for only a small number of people to actually "benefit" from.

Only idiots like HOV lanes. They don't work.
Click to expand...
That's your way of seeing it, we had a smartcommute program at my previous work building and i picked up someone that lived 2 minutes in the opposite direction to work, to then drive 30m to work together. had nothing in common with the lady, but the 2minutes detour in the morning meant my weekly gas was paid for.

Now if you apply the same kind of thinking with the HOV lane where you are not sitting ducks for a longer period of time in traffic and burning more gas going nowhere fast, you might want to get that "detour" that pays off whether in carpooling money and/or in time saved on your daily commute.

The problem is North America is a very individualistic society and our gas prices aren't exceptionally high, so people prefer paying marginally more (in time and gas money) for their own convenience. As you said on paper, it works great and it looks like a great initiative. But people are too lazy to get out of their comfort zone of mindless traffic zombie driving in their own bubble picking their noses.

When they instated the temporary HOV lanes for PanAM for 3+ cars and for motos in city of toronto Jurisdiction, i was in heaven. 20-25 minute commutes (instead of 30-50 minutes)...twas great!

@viper, would you support HOT lanes, high occupancy + toll? Helps revenues and helps people save time. I'm sure a lot of people working downtown with their high salaries would be more than willing to pay to shave minutes off their commute.
 
Yes, and only YOU were in heaven during that PanAm Games fiasco. The rest of the city was dying. Existential proof that HOV lanes aren't a viable global solution.

No, I would not support HOT lanes, nor do I like the 407, for the very same reason that it is preferential treatment for those who happen to have money, while everyone else who doesn't can continue to suffer.
 
viper84737 said:
Yes, and only YOU were in heaven during that PanAm Games fiasco. The rest of the city was dying. Existential proof that HOV lanes aren't a viable global solution.

No, I would not support HOT lanes, nor do I like the 407, for the very same reason that it is preferential treatment for those who happen to have money, while everyone else who doesn't can continue to suffer.
Click to expand...
Agreed for the 3+ period but when it became 2+ HOV it was back to similar times (30m commute) and there was a lot of usage from cars. I guess it'll depend on which highway we're looking at.

So you don't think that certain methods of transportation should have advantages over others and everything should be equal? Or are there instances where some should have specific lanes or advantages? (ie autobahn makes it mandatory for Trucks to only be in certain lanes for certain stretches and certain speeds have to be observed in certain lanes depending on traffic situation)
 
I prefer my intelligent method for discrimination:

More competent drivers are permitted to use lefter lanes, and incomptent idiots in Corollas shall stay to the right. You get specific licenses for usage of the lefter lanes, and the default usage is for the righter ones. Middle lane usage is acceptable, too, since incompetent drivers sometimes need to pass other incompetenter drivers. If we allocate lane usage based on SPEED and not mere fact of their EXISTENCE, then we make things more efficient. The Germans have the right idea.
 
lordbane said:
2. Some of the largest cities in the world have long realized that motorcycles, by their very nature, are beneficial towards the goal of relieving traffic congestion. The alternative to a single rider on a motorcycle is most often a single driver in a car. (In the "1st world" anyway)

3. Along with allowing motorcycles in HOV lanes, cities with major traffic congestion issues also realize that allowing motorcycles to "lane split" or "filter" also relieves traffic congestion. Doing so also happens to have the beneficial by-product of reducing pollution and the negative health impact of idling vehicles for everyone. This includes those in cars and pedestrians. The prime examples are cities like London and Los Angeles. The extreme examples are cities like Tokyo Japan and Delhi India. The free movement of motorcycles is CRUCIAL in these examples.
Click to expand...

Point 2 above is irrelevant as far as relieving congestion on HIGHWAYS goes. The provincial highway system is geared to moving interurban traffic across longer distances, and highway HOV lanes around dense urban areas are cheaper and faster to implement than a bypass route around those congested urban area highway sections. A single occupant motorcycle uses the same lane length as a Smart car or any another subcompact car when you factor in safe following distances, and does NOTHING to relieve HIGHWAY congestion.

Point 3 is likewise irrelevant on HIGHWAYs. Ontario law does not allow filtering let alone high speed highway lane splitting and is unlikely to ever do so. Pollution relief claims are more wishful thinking than fact given the comparative effectiveness between typical motorcycle and automobile emissions per litre of fuel burned, and many motorcycles on our roads actually use more fuel per km than many cars on our roads without the capability to stuff 4 to 6 people on/in them.
 
Last edited:
The level of anti motorcycle rhetoric from supposed motorcycle enthusiast on this forum .... :rolleyes:
 
Neil_V said:
The level of anti motorcycle rhetoric from supposed motorcycle enthusiast on this forum .... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It's good to see other people's views though as those will be arguments that would be presented from the other side.
 
kwtoxman said:
Never hurts to show research.

Here is a newer study showing motorcycles reduce congestion.

http://www.tmleuven.com/project/motorcyclesandcommuting/20110921_Motorfietsen_eindrapport_Eng.pdf

I haven't searched for more. Some searching may help even more.
Click to expand...

That study is a model that may or may not be accurate. It is not a study based on empirical evidence. Also, that study assumes that motorcycles are lane-splitting or following other vehicles closer than what non-motorcycles are. How again does that apply here?

EDIT - just noticed, the emissions modelling assumes motorcycles are <= 250cc Euro 3 emissions compliant. Is everyone here going to suddenly adopt 250cc and under motorcycles in order to help justify the lane splitting and hov argument?
 
Last edited:
CruisnGrrl said:
If we were allowed to use the HOV lanes the province wouldn't have had to pay for 2 ankle surgeries via ohip. insurance might be a little less too as they wouldn't have had to pay for 2 years (and counting) of rehab and medical devices.
Click to expand...

There won't be collisions in the HOV lanes or at the HOV entry-exit points?
 
It's a fact, there'll be less changes in and from HOV lanes as the cars meeting the criteria is lower, making it safer for its users. Also normally there are only specific entry and exit points making it even safer during the "in between segments" of non-lane change.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom