Saying that there is no adverse effect on safety is not the same as saying that it is safer. If there is no significant difference in safety, then what again is the driving factor in trying to get single-occupant motorcycles in HOV lanes?
|
|
|
MTO response to single rider HOV request
- Thread starter iFly55
- Start date
Saying that there is no adverse effect on safety is not the same as saying that it is safer. If there is no significant difference in safety, then what again is the driving factor in trying to get single-occupant motorcycles in HOV lanes?
The study concludes that because of the way that the U.S. Federal law was written.
what we need here instead is the studies from before the law existed, to get their reasoning for writing the law.
Agreed. There is evidence to show there is no adverse impact on traffic operations, and even though "may even decrease..." is not a strong statement, there is NO evidence at all to show that it's more dangerous. Given those two statements, the only reason NOT to allow motorcycles in permanent HOV lanes is because of the perception of privilege.
If we stop considering them high OCCUPANCY lanes, which is already a misnomer, and consider them simply as "designated vehicle lanes", then perhaps that perception would be a little different. Much of the analysis about allowing them compares them by occupancy rate or fuel consumption or pollution. Those don't matter. What matters is whether or not the lanes could be used to achieve ANY of the MTO stated objectives with minimal or no impact to other road users.
...and yes, if it makes sense at some point to another class of vehicle to use the lanes in the future, it should be subject to review and a possible trial period. I don't see many other possibilities that haven't been addressed already, unless we start looking at subcategory of driver, which I think may be a mistake but if data supports it, perhaps it would make sense to explore it.
We also need to be mindful of the capacity, because although VDOT study was about operations, this argument is about safety and it probably follows that as traffic increases in the designated lanes, more congestion-caused collisions like rear-ending are likely to follow. It could be argued however, if the percentage of motorcycles in the designated lanes increases but there still isn't a significant increase in overall traffic in the lanes, the impact (pardon the pun) may not be as significant (bike-to-bike collisions probably being less likely than car-to-bike or bike-to-car).
2wheelwasp
Well-known member
If they implemented lane splitting up to a certain speed. That way they would help congestion with both the HOV lanes and motorcyclists being able to filter through stop and go hwy traffic. It would encourage both carpooling and getting a smaller commuter vehicle.
Perhaps I am missing your point but how does allowing lane splitting translate into non riders suddenly wanting to carpool and buy smaller commuting vehicles? I fail to see the correlation. Is a commuter going to suddenly say "hey look at that motorcycle flying past me. I NEED to start carpooling tomorrow"..
...have to get past the "single-occupant" argument. Green vehicles are allowed because it's a policy decision. If we can have a policy decision to encourage green vehicles, we can have a policy decision to accept motorcycles. The discussion is about whether there is a valid policy reason, and I've argued that it's worth experimenting, to obtain data, to see if it's safer.
I don't understand why the MTO cares with so few bikes and a short riding season, but I suspect it has to do with the "safest roads" mantra.
They want to discourage bikes in general.
In terms of policy, they could get data, but the data will show environmental benefit for only small bikes with catalytic units, and thus it will be too hard to enforce.
They want to discourage bikes in general.
In terms of policy, they could get data, but the data will show environmental benefit for only small bikes with catalytic units, and thus it will be too hard to enforce.
I got a response from the PC Transport Critic - Michael Harris MPP (Kitchener-Conestoga). I believe it's worth sending the Transport Critics in the other parties an e-mail as well.
http://michaelharrismpp.ca/MichaelHarrisConnect
http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/members/members_detail.do?locale=en&ID=7181
http://michaelharrismpp.ca/MichaelHarrisConnect
http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/members/members_detail.do?locale=en&ID=7181
For sure in the Downtown core, elsewhere negligible.
As for good operators I don't know about that, I've seen a fair share of donkey riders on the roads this year.
The weird thing is that the entire study was done on a model of traffic, and then used an approximation of what they thought the impact of motorcycles would be to make changes to the model. It seems like reducing the number of cars by 5% would gain the exact same benefit.
Or were we not supposed to actually read it?
Or were we not supposed to actually read it?
Rush hour on 401. If you have 10 minivans vs 10 motorcycles in the same space. Which one is more cluttered?
Jimsun
Well-known member
4 minivans will carry the same amount of people as 10 motorcycles with passenger. It will have less emission too. Less vehicle less risk as well
conundrum
Well-known member
And how many times in Ontario, do you see vehicles in rush hour with every seat occupied? It's rare to see more than one person in a vehicle, and if there is, then typically it is 2-3 (with 3 being typically 2 parents and a child).
If the HOV/HOT lanes are here to stay, then I think they should let us (motorcycles) in it, and leave it up to us to choose if we want to use them or not. Honestly I feel safer in one of the outside lanes, so if traffic is flowing I'd prefer the HOV, but if there is a big disparity between HOV and normal lanes, then I'd probably stay out of the HOV lanes vs risk someone making an abrupt lane change into me.
Also, if we do only account for 3% of registered vehicles, and most of us don't ride daily (as we have a car or transit to work), and the fact that we really only ride 1/2 to 3/4 of the year, any negative impact to the HOV lanes in terms of added vehicles would be negligible. It would also make things less confusing when we have differing rules between the DVP and Gardiner and the 400 series, although in doing that, they'd probably lower tickets and therefore lower their revenue stream.
With proper following distances, there is virtually no difference. Even with traffic stopped but with a proper gap between stopped vehicles, there is still very little difference.
That is with 1 person in/on each. Start putting passengers in the minivan and the bike loses out big time when using an occupants per lane area criteria.
kwtoxman
Well-known member
Since bikes use stagger formation as per the motorcycle safety guidebook, essentially you can double the number of bikes per space as opposed to vehicles, even with proper following distances. So you end up with half the space for 10 motorcycles vs 10 minivans.
Theres a big difference most cagers give bikes way more space when following from behind.
|
|
|
|
|