Can we legalize lane filtering yet? | Page 16 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Can we legalize lane filtering yet?

Forum Sponsor
Rob MacLennan said:
I could swear I had already mentioned, multiple times, that I'm not talking about the greenhouse effect. I'm talking about things that are immediately poisonous and can result in, among other issues, acid rain.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so that's called air pollution and it includes things like Sulphur dioxides, Nox, and indeed carbon monoxide. But if you aggregate all motorcycles, even as higher air pollutant contributors they add a pathetically small amount of these pollutants to the atmosphere, because they are too small and don't pump enough air to be a threat. That's just common sense. The far greater threat is greenhouse gas emissions, and those come from cars to the largest extent. So motorcycles are a valid alternative especially since their emissions are on the rapid decline thanks to new U.S. CAFE standards.
 
Roadghost said:
But if you aggregate all motorcycles, even as higher air pollutant contributors they add a pathetically small amount of these pollutants to the atmosphere, because they are too small and don't pump enough air to be a threat.
Click to expand...

Cite your source please. I'd like to see the correlation between engine displacement and pollutants.

Further, the motorcycles also reduce the greenhouse gas emissions by a pathetically small amount and thus the actual benefit of allowing them into the HOV lanes is statistically insignificant.

Just admit that this is all about personal convenience. The "green" aspect is just a trick to convince stupid people that you're not simply selfish.

If we were actually concerned with reducing greenhouse gas emissions, in addition to V8 trucks and SUVs I would also propose that vegetarians be allowed to use the HOV lanes regardless of vehicle or occupancy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Roadghost said:
Yeah, so that's called air pollution and it includes things like Sulphur dioxides, Nox, and indeed carbon monoxide. But if you aggregate all motorcycles, even as higher air pollutant contributors they add a pathetically small amount of these pollutants to the atmosphere, because they are too small and don't pump enough air to be a threat. That's just common sense. The far greater threat is greenhouse gas emissions, and those come from cars to the largest extent. So motorcycles are a valid alternative especially since their emissions are on the rapid decline thanks to new U.S. CAFE standards.
Click to expand...

If that is the case, which you are far from substantiating, then it's because of the relatively tiny number of motorcycles when compared to passenger vehicles and not because of their relative efficiency. As I previously stated motorcycle emissions controls are lagging decades behind those of other passenger vehicles precisely because those have been more lax and, therefore, manufacturers haven't been putting development into them. Any significant improvement now is possible because they have traditionally been crap in the past.

Before you can ever think of trying to convince politicians that motorcycles should be allowed to lane split and use HOV lanes, you first have to realize that you are grossly over stating your position:

http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforu...iltering-yet&p=2303289&viewfull=1#post2303289
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Before you can ever think of trying to convince politicians that motorcycles should be allowed to lane split and use HOV lanes,
Click to expand...

No you don't. Politicians are all about image, not actual facts. You should know that. If MCs APPEAR to be economical, environmentally-friendly vehicles, then politicians will gladly use them for political gain. "I've solved the traffic issues by allowing lane splitting and filtering. And it's good for the environment as well". That type of thing. People get soon board with all this green house gas talk.

MCs have a far worse image issue with reckless riders and stunt riding than CO2 or whatever pollution issue there may be.
 
Liamjs said:
No you don't. Politicians are all about image, not actual facts. You should know that. If MCs APPEAR to be economical, environmentally-friendly vehicles, then politicians will gladly use them for political gain. "I've solved the traffic issues by allowing lane splitting and filtering. And it's good for the environment as well". That type of thing. People get soon board with all this green house gas talk.

MCs have a far worse image issue with reckless riders and stunt riding than CO2 or whatever pollution issue there may be.
Click to expand...

Not quite true. We did alright with the parking in downtown Toronto for a long while.
 
If anyone interested about the study in Belgium, here it is:

Part 1:
[video=youtube;lqiRt2weOlE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqiRt2weOlE[/video]
 
Part 2:
[video=youtube;eFsCPK9NEU0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFsCPK9NEU0&feature=iv&src_vid=lqiRt2weOlE&annotation_id=annotation_278943[/video]
 
[h=2]Temporary HOV lanes[/h]New HOV lanes will be a temporary measure used throughout the Games period. They will help athletes and officials get to and from events and make it easier for Ontario families and carpoolers to get around.
Temporary HOV lanes will be open to:

  • Games vehicles
  • vehicles with 3+ occupants (June 29 – July 27)
  • vehicles with 2+ occupants (July 28 – August 18)
  • emergency vehicles
  • electric vehicles with green license plates
  • public transit
  • taxis
 
Baggsy said:
Not quite true. We did alright with the parking in downtown Toronto for a long while.
Click to expand...

Just making the point that reduced emissions aren't a very "sexy" subject for politicians to sell splitting and HOV lane use to the public. They want more concrete benefits to sell the concept. Things like reduced traffic and congestion; something directly affects their constituents. Just sayin'. Reduced emissions are a nice side benefit, but not the main course.
 
caboose56 said:
I'd like to see the correlation between engine displacement and pollutants.
Click to expand...

I shouldn't need to post what is common knowledge, but here it is. Might I point out that larger displacement has little effect on how dirty the emissions are, but does effect the volume of emissions.

www.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/downloads/pubs/co2final.pdf


Further, the motorcycles also reduce the greenhouse gas emissions by a pathetically small amount and thus the actual benefit of allowing them into the HOV lanes is statistically insignificant.
Click to expand...

Well, if we can go by the AECM presentation you will clearly see that you are wrong:



Just admit that this is all about personal convenience. The "green" aspect is just a trick to convince stupid people that you're not simply selfish.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with pursuing your own interests if others can benefit too. Everyone can benefit from a 20% decrease in emissions AND less congestion. You're being too cynical. You might as well argue that riding a motorcycle is selfish.

If we were actually concerned with reducing greenhouse gas emissions, in addition to V8 trucks and SUVs I would also propose that vegetarians be allowed to use the HOV lanes regardless of vehicle or occupancy.
Click to expand...

Your entire argument is self-defeating if you want to look at it this way. You want to keep motorcycles out of the HOV lanes because you claim they pollute more, yet you're in favor of restricting them to a place where they will pollute more. Ridiculous. In fact, I would say it is environmentally selfish to sit there idling my bike in traffic. I should be lane splitting.
 
Just keep digging. You can still save this and not look like a fool.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
[video=youtube;3Tl_gFoPqnw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Tl_gFoPqnw[/video]
 
Baggsy said:
[video=youtube;3Tl_gFoPqnw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Tl_gFoPqnw[/video]
Click to expand...

A conclusion is drawn from this show that "motorcycles are not greener than cars", only based on the tailpipe emissions... It should be obvious to anyone that without taking into consideration the life cycle analysis (the actual norm for determining greenness) or the impact analysis as done by ACEM, tailpipe emissions alone cant derive such a blanket statement as a conclusion.
 
Ugur Dinch said:
A conclusion is drawn from this show that "motorcycles are not greener than cars", only based on the tailpipe emissions... It should be obvious to anyone that without taking into consideration the life cycle analysis (the actual norm for determining greenness) or the impact analysis as done by ACEM, tailpipe emissions alone cant derive such a blanket statement as a conclusion.
Click to expand...

I don't have hard stats to support this but my gut tells me that motorcycles lose out on the miles/Kms until destruction, and ability to be recycled.
 
Alex_San said:
Wow...something is wrong with that Ninja. My Daytona gets 6.5L/100km in city traffic. I have yet to see a gas compact car get even close...
Click to expand...

On average I'm getting about 200km out of a tank (16L) (6.25L/100km). On my Civic I was managing 5.7. And let's be frank, I have more fun on the bike so I'm not looking to get the best fuel economy out of it either.
 
I've read most of the threads on the "greenness" of motorcycles. Let's suffice it to say that environmental concerns may not be an argument that can be won on either side. How about instead we look at other countries in the world that have legal filtering to see how they benefit. There has to be a benefit for all of them to allow it. California has always been a very "green" forward thinking state, more so than the others so they tend do things a little differently. But my opinion is a bike a so small compared to a car why not have us filter through red lights and slow moving highway traffic so that we don't actually take a spot sitting in traffic, other cars move etc etc etc. Also just because this would be a new law allowing us to do so doesn't mean that it cannot be done. When anyone comes out with a new law what do they do? They advertise and blast everyone that the laws are changing. Texting and driving wasn't always illegal but people got the idea pretty quickly when they started getting tickets and every radio station /TV station / Local News announced that it was illegal. For this to actually become a reality someone needs to start doing research as to the benefits and how it was done in other countries and do a study. All this arguing is pretty much pointless if "bikers" aren't gonna do anything about the lack of laws.


Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk
 
Some lane splitting porn from the UK .. it looks like some of the lanes towards the end of the video are actually designed to space cars out and create extra room for bikes. Pretty cool stuff.

[video]https://youtu.be/1aC_fFqNkl4[/video]

If we were allowed to pass through traffic congestion like this here then I feel like a lot more people would get bikes and scooters for the commute.
 
Last edited:
I personally am on the fence about this topic. If it became legal and people want to do it, fine. I just don't think that I would ever lane split. Filter to the front at a light, or in standstill traffic? Maybe. But for me, arguments that it is safe, are coming from areas where people are a)used to motorcycles around all year, or b) much better driver training / drivers than here. Just yesterday, I must have seen over 100 vehicles driving in the rainstorm without their lights on. Visibility was a bit low, and people kept gassing it, then slamming on the brakes because they didn't / couldn't see the car ahead (because of no lights on). I for one do not trust these drivers enough to think they won't hit me if I lane split. Just my $0.02.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom