MTO response to single rider HOV request | Page 3 | GTAMotorcycle.com

MTO response to single rider HOV request

Well of course there are less collisions in Virginia and othe rlocales involving bikes. As the study says they comprise only 3% of the total vehicle volume. I could then argue, that my ATV, (which can easily attain speeds of 125 km/h), should also be permitted as there are no reported cases of collisions involving ATV's in HOV lanes either..lmao. Now obviously I am not saying that an atv should be permitted just pointing out that stats can be skewed to "fit" what ever argument is trying to be made.

Not sure specifically about Virginia but many states have the HOV lanes seperated from the normal lanes via a jersey barrier. I could see how a bike using that lane is safer in that there are way fewer vehicles and NO chance of someone trying to "que jump" in and out of the lanes. If these new HOT lanes are designed like the current temp HOV lanes I can see it actually being lesssafe for a bike due to being cut off, at speed etc.
 
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?

There have already been a few cases of motorcycles involved in accidents in the HOV lanes in the last few weeks with people merging into them or directly in front of them.

Your safety argument is very weak.

Further, saying there is no cost is also incorrect. The cost of updating all signage and literature would be substantial.

Until you come up with a better reason than "I'm on a motorcycle and I'm special" there is no merit to allowing bikes in the HOV lanes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'm good with the original criteria....makes sense. Car pool, reduce congestion etc.


As for the Pan Am Games, I think 2 people on a motorcycle should have been allowed on the 400 series HOV. I happened to use them with a passenger last week and was fortunately not pulled over.

I find it very dangerous because traffic is at a stand still, folks tempted and itching to jump into the HOV. I'm travelling in the HOV lane afraid of getting side swiped or rear ended. I did keep the pace up so I didn't have open road in front of me. It was raining so I had to keep some room. I eventually joined the rest of the crawling traffic because it just seemed too dangerous and I was riding illegally.
 
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.

It doesn't necessarily have to be the wife. Do you have a sister?
 
It doesn't necessarily have to be the wife. Do you have a sister?

Whoa wait a second....I understand contractors, pregnant women, disabled....by WHY THE HELL are hybrids/electric vehicles allowed in the parking spots closer to the door? And RENTALS? WTF....So because I'm not wealthy enough to buy a hybrid/electric I'm being discriminated against....
 
Question though... obviously handicap parking spots have actual legislation protecting them and can carry big fines if misused -- but has anyone ever even been spoken to for misusing other spots listed above -- like the contractor spots, family spots, etc etc?

Sure, the company in question could call in parking enforcement if they don't like where you parked, but I doubt it would ever happen. Aside from the guys organizing the carts, I have never seen any Home Depot employee outside in the parking lot watching what people park where.
 
Question though... obviously handicap parking spots have actual legislation protecting them and can carry big fines if misused -- but has anyone ever even been spoken to for misusing other spots listed above -- like the contractor spots, family spots, etc etc?

Sure, the company in question could call in parking enforcement if they don't like where you parked, but I doubt it would ever happen. Aside from the guys organizing the carts, I have never seen any Home Depot employee outside in the parking lot watching what people park where.

This was covered a while ago on am1010.

There is no regulations, fines or consequences for using other parking spaces beyond accessible parking spots.

It's purely regulated by public shaming.

So park in the expectant mothers spot or hybrid spots all you want. If you can stand the glare from the do gooders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
This was covered a while ago on am1010.

There is no regulations, fines or consequences for using other parking spaces beyond accessible parking spots.

It's purely regulated by public shaming.

So park in the expectant mothers spot or hybrid spots all you want. If you can stand the glare from the do gooders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Compared to all of the jack-***** who park in the fire lanes, I could still hold my head up without shame parking in one of these spots -- as at least I'd be in a legal spot.
 
Compared to all of the jack-***** who park in the fire lanes, I could still hold my head up without shame parking in one of these spots -- as at least I'd be in a legal spot.

Civics are fuel efficient! I'm parking there from now on.
 
There have already been a few cases of motorcycles involved in accidents in the HOV lanes in the last few weeks with people merging into them or directly in front of them.

Your safety argument is very weak.

Further, saying there is no cost is also incorrect. The cost of updating all signage and literature would be substantial.

Until you come up with a better reason than "I'm on a motorcycle and I'm special" there is no merit to allowing bikes in the HOV lanes.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The safety argument is simple: if motorcycles are in the HOV lane they're less likely to be in a congestion related crash. Virginia DOT study shows there are less incidents while motorcycles travel in the HOV vs. non-HOV lane.

Understandably, some members here have had unpleasant experiences while riding in the temp-HOV lane; they "feel" that it's more dangerous or "feel" that it's not safe. The problem is that your feelings are unfortunately not facts. We have to look beyond stereotypes and myths, because the Virginia DOT initially felt exactly the same way you did.

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) mandated that motorcycles be permitted to travel on federally funded HOV facilities unless they created a safety hazard or adversely affected HOV operations. Motorcycles were prohibited on HOV lanes in Virginia prior to the passage of ISTEA. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) contended that motorcycle travel was at odds with the principal purpose of an HOV facility, which is to improve the movement of people rather than vehicles. The fact that a motorcycle typically has only one occupant but requires almost as much roadway space as a passenger vehicle is one reason VDOT cited for prohibiting motorcycle travel on HOV lanes.

Motorcycles are generally known to present a risk to safety, being associated with much higher crash, injury, and death rates than other types of vehicles. Thus, it has been hypothesized that safety risks will increase if motorcycles are allowed to travel on HOV facilities. In addition, since motorcycles have a higher crash rate than other vehicles, it has been thought that travel delays will be more frequent if motorcycles are permitted on HOV facilities.

Take a look at Appendix B in the Virginia DOT study, which summarizes all the congested vs. HOV crashes.

If we're all just reading the summary and conclusion I posted, and not looking at the 32page paper in its entirety... how can we continue to comment that safety in HOV lanes is a joke?

_______________________________________________________


Were these accidents in City of Toronto HOV lanes? Can you provide links to these few cases? I can't find any mention of motorcycles involved in HOV crashes on police/media twitter feeds.

https://twitter.com/search?q=motorc...m:Media371&src=typd&vertical=default&f=tweets

All the province would have to do is write "11. The vehicle is a motorcycle." under section 2 of REG 620/05 High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes

I've yet to see signage for HOV lanes that discusses these conditions.

Use of high occupancy vehicle lanes

2. No person shall operate a motor vehicle or a commercial motor vehicle in a high occupancy vehicle lane unless one of the following circumstances exists​
:

2. In the case of a commercial motor vehicle,
i. the vehicle has at least two persons occupying seating positions, and
ii. the length of the vehicle or the total length of the vehicle and any vehicle being towed is less than 6.5 metres.​
4. The person is operating an emergency vehicle, as defined in section 144 of the Act, in the performance of his or her duties.
5. The person is operating the vehicle in the lawful performance of his or her duties as a police officer.
6. The person is operating a vehicle owned or leased by the Province of Ontario in the lawful performance of his or her duties as an officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of the Act.
7. The person is operating a vehicle engaged in road construction or maintenance activities in or near the high occupancy vehicle lane.
8. The person is operating a tow truck that has been requested to provide towing or repair services to a disabled vehicle in or near a high occupancy vehicle lane by a police officer, an officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of the Act, or a person driving the disabled vehicle, and operating the tow truck in the high occupancy vehicle lane is necessary to attend at and depart from the location of the disabled vehicle. O. Reg. 620/05, s. 2.​

Most of the HOV lane signs in the U.S. do not mention motorcycles whatsoever. The province would not need to change existing signage, just the HTA regulation would be enough.

Of course if they're making new signs for the new HOV lanes (ie. Hwy 427, Hwy 404 north of 7) wouldn't hurt to throw in some pictures of motorcycles.

Literature = Driver's Handbook? that is updated yearly, changing questions on the G1/M1 written test? They're going to change it anyways with the new laws.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/08/21/motorcycle_deaths_near_sevenyearhigh_opp_says.html
Published on Thu Aug 21 2014

OPP said the newly released data dispels several motorcycling myths, such as younger, inexperienced drivers are most vulnerable. According to the OPP, only 16 of the 175 motorcyclists who died since 2008 were under age 25. Almost half the victims were between 45 and 64.

Collisions occur between noon and 6 p.m. and road conditions in almost all of them have been dry and clear, said Schmidt.

“There is no safety cage. You’re much more vulnerable to injury and death when you’re involved in a collision. Most of them are wearing their helmet, their safety equipment, but that’s not going to save you if you’re involved in a collision,” Schmidt said.

https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/roadsafety/cmvtcs2013_eng.pdf
 
Well of course there are less collisions in Virginia and othe rlocales involving bikes. As the study says they comprise only 3% of the total vehicle volume. I could then argue, that my ATV, (which can easily attain speeds of 125 km/h), should also be permitted as there are no reported cases of collisions involving ATV's in HOV lanes either..lmao. Now obviously I am not saying that an atv should be permitted just pointing out that stats can be skewed to "fit" what ever argument is trying to be made.

Not sure specifically about Virginia but many states have the HOV lanes seperated from the normal lanes via a jersey barrier. I could see how a bike using that lane is safer in that there are way fewer vehicles and NO chance of someone trying to "que jump" in and out of the lanes. If these new HOT lanes are designed like the current temp HOV lanes I can see it actually being lesssafe for a bike due to being cut off, at speed etc.

I've been trying to make my points in short emails so that people MAY be more likely to read them, instead of trying address every possible scenario in my theory.
In Virginia, the motorcycles represented up to 3% of the traffic flow. That's significantly higher than Ontario, in which motorcycles represent 3% of the registered vehicles. The reason that statistic is significant is because they've shown few accidents, and no impact on other traffic. Allowing is in the lanes would have virtually no impact on other vehicles.
Another issue is the structure itself. I'm not advocating for a design like our temporary lanes, and I hope they go away.

Where restricted access lanes already exist, think it's safer to allow us in than to exclude us.
 
I've been trying to make my points in short emails so that people MAY be more likely to read them, instead of trying address every possible scenario in my theory.
In Virginia, the motorcycles represented up to 3% of the traffic flow. That's significantly higher than Ontario, in which motorcycles represent 3% of the registered vehicles. The reason that statistic is significant is because they've shown few accidents, and no impact on other traffic. Allowing is in the lanes would have virtually no impact on other vehicles.
Another issue is the structure itself. I'm not advocating for a design like our temporary lanes, and I hope they go away.

Where restricted access lanes already exist, think it's safer to allow us in than to exclude us.
FWIW your comments are consistent with Transport Canada's 2013 MVC Statistics.

Motorcycles account for ~2.7% of total vehicle volume for all of Canada. Although we all ***** and moan about ONterrible, we're the safest province in the country.

HksShsL.png


w2LjnW6.png


q2wSJdE.png


oGyirWp.png
 
Last edited:
FWIW your comments are consistent with Transport Canada's 2013 MVC Statistics.

Motorcycles account for ~2.7% of total vehicle volume for all of Canada. Although we all ***** and moan about ONterrible, we're the safest province in the country.

HksShsL.png


w2LjnW6.png


q2wSJdE.png


oGyirWp.png

What is your definition of safe? It appears to be the same simple definition as the government of Ontario as they only use mortality rates to indicate that Ontario is the "safest" jurisdiction in Canada. How about you look at the injury rates which you have kindly provided for us? I you look at injury rates regardless of the category, Ontario is not ranked at the top. I have mentioned this discrepancy to the Ministry of Transportation repeatedly and their response is that injury rates are higher in Ontario due to traffic volume. Looking at the number of collisions by location mortality is higher in rural areas, but injuries are lower; why is that? In rural areas, speed limits tend to be higher and traffic volume lower allowing travellers to reach the maximum posted speed limit (or above) more frequently. In urban areas for example the GTA, speed limits tend to be lower and traffic congestion often doesn't allow drivers to even travel at those reduced speed limits; it is this reality that more than likely is contributing to the lower traffic mortality rate in Ontario not government policies or driver/rider abilities.

Higher speed of travel (HOV versus congested lanes) may result in increased motorcyclist injuries and deaths. More research has to be done before we move ahead with the idea of allowing motorcycles (single rider) in HOV lanes; be careful what you ask for, you may not like what you receive.
 
Last edited:
Virginia's largest county has a population of 1,000,000, besides the difference in number of motorcycles in traffic.

Could the two areas be any more different? How can you think that the study would also apply here?
 
I have a jeep that uses 70 liters of gas for 450km, I also have a bike that does the same amount of km with only 30 liters of gas.

I commute from Whites road to Yonge and Eglinton 4 times a week (work from home once)

Here are the two reason why i always take my bike (rain or shine)

1) Parking my bike = free - Parking my Jeep = $220 a month.
2) I take the Eglinton HOV lane for most of the road

If wasn't these two reason, I would be taking my jeep and not have to deal with the hassle of riding to work rain or shine.

So I guess HOV lanes are an incentive for me to be friendlier to the environment even though my reasons are purely economical and the time I save not been stuck in traffic.

My bike is not a luxury to me, it is a necessity since I cancel my parking pass from April to December, that is 8 months x 220 = $1770 I save in parking alone, plus half the gas (whatever that is)

Also my commute goes from 1 1/2 hours each way to 45 min when I take my bike by using the HOV and that time is even more valuable than money.

Would I always care about saving in parking if I felt tired or if it was raining, nope, i would probably take the car, but the incentive if not been stuck in traffic an extra 1.5 hrs a day is what makes me grab my helmet every time.

Not arguing in either side, just presenting my personal facts.
 
Last edited:
What is your definition of safe? It appears to be the same simple definition as the government of Ontario as they only use mortality rates to indicate that Ontario is the "safest" jurisdiction in Canada. How about you look at the injury rates which you have kindly provided for us? I you look at injury rates regardless of the category, Ontario is not ranked at the top. I have mentioned this discrepancy to the Ministry of Transportation repeatedly and their response is that injury rates are higher in Ontario due to traffic volume. Looking at the number of collisions by location mortality is higher in rural areas, but injuries are lower; why is that? In rural areas, speed limits tend to be higher and traffic volume lower allowing travellers to reach the maximum posted speed limit (or above) more frequently. In urban areas for example the GTA, speed limits tend to be lower and traffic congestion often doesn't allow drivers to even travel at those reduced speed limits; it is this reality that more than likely is contributing to the lower traffic mortality rate in Ontario not government policies or driver/rider abilities.

Higher speed of travel (HOV versus congested lanes) may result in increased motorcyclist injuries and deaths. More research has to be done before we move ahead with the idea of allowing motorcycles (single rider) in HOV lanes; be careful what you ask for, you may not like what you receive.
You raise a good point regarding fatalities vs. injuries; even then we're still below the national average for injuries. Two weeks of whiplash = personal injury? My own personal opinion is that fatalities should be the measure, however in the real-world we need to find a balance with both.

Faster HOV travel resulting in increased motorcycle injuries and death was hypothesized by the Virginia DOT. And this turned out to be false. There were less collisions in the HOV lanes vs. non-HOV lanes.

I invite more research and studies on this topic, the problem is that it's illegal for single-rider motorcycles to be in the provincial HOV lanes. In Virginia they had a two year pilot project where they allowed motorcycles into the HOV lane to collect data.

Maybe the City of Toronto could share data related to motorcycles in their DVP/Gardiner HOV lane; but then, we're still going to have people here who're going to complain... well Gardiner/DVP != King Highways (ie. Hwy 404, 403, etc); it's not the same, not representative.

Someone here suggested that we've had several motorcycle collisions in the HOV lanes since the Pan-Am Games began. I haven't been able to find any information suggesting we've had motorcycle HOV collisions during the games (knock on wood).

Virginia's largest county has a population of 1,000,000, besides the difference in number of motorcycles in traffic.

Could the two areas be any more different? How can you think that the study would also apply here?
Even if we look at statistics, why not entertain Virginia's population as a sample size for Ontario?

3% of the total volume of traffic included motorcycles; in Canada we have 2.7% of licensed drivers on motorcycles; lets assume that 2.7% of Ontario drivers are on motorcycles as well, that's still pretty close to Virginia. I wasn't able to find data on how many drivers are licensed in Ontario, and out of those how many have a motorcycle license. It's safe to say the national number is probably representative of Ontario. Were you able to find numbers?

I don't have all the answers, I'm simply sharing what's available. I'm showing you that in all 50 states allow single rider motorcycles into their HOV lanes for safety. One of the states Virginia initially refused to allow motorcycles, and looked at whether safety was compromised (higher HOV speeds = more collisions); their conclusion was that it was more safer for motorcycles to be in the HOV lane.

At the very least, we should all be open minded to the idea that it will also be safer in Ontario; data from another North American state suggests it is. Neighbouring country passed into federal law that single-rider motorcycles shall be allowed into the HOV lanes; exception is if the state can prove it's not safe. Not one U.S. state has been able to do this, Virginia tried and failed.

If you're still skeptical, ask the ministry of transportation to conduct a study. If they don't open the HOV lanes here to conduct the study, they're going to be looking at data from the U.S. anyway.
 
I don't have all the answers, I'm simply sharing what's available. I'm showing you that in all 50 states allow single rider motorcycles into their HOV lanes for safety. One of the states Virginia initially refused to allow motorcycles, and looked at whether safety was compromised (higher HOV speeds = more collisions); their conclusion was that it was more safer for motorcycles to be in the HOV lane.

Was that really their conclusion? What I see are these statements, which are somewhat different - "The study concludes that there is no evidence that allowing motorcycles to travel on HOV lanes in Virginia has an adverse impact on motorcycle safety or congestion on HOV lanes."

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 high occupancy 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.

"May even decrease the number of incidents" is hardly a strong statement supporting the notion that HOV lanes are safer for motorcycles, particularly when you look at the kinds of crashes that motorcycles are engaged in in the non-HOV lanes (speed-related loss of control, single-vehicle crash, rear-ending cars).

In addition, should motorcycle traffic increase significantly, the very ITSEA legislation that opens the HOV lanes to motorcycles will also allow their exclusion from the lanes precisely because they will then be adversely affecting the intent of the HOV lanes.
VDOT should continue to monitor traffic and crash patterns on HOV lanes. Although thereis no evidence that would warrant the banning of motorcycles from HOV facilities at thistime, VDOT should remain aware of changing conditions. There is certainly the issue ofwhether motorcycle traffic may increase in the future. If so, at what point may allowing single-occupant vehicles adversely affect HOV operations? The latter is an issue that should remain a concern of VDOT.

 
Last edited:
@griff2 twenty years later, VDOT still allows motorcycles in their HOV lane: http://www.virginiadot.org/travel/hov-rulesfaq.asp

This suggests that that there is still "no evidence that allowing motorcycles to travel on HOV lanes in Virginia has an adverse impact on motorcycle safety or congestion on HOV lanes".

If you read the study in its entirety, you'll see that they did not want motorcycles in their HOV lanes. They were one of the last states in the union to allow bikes in the HOV lane.
 

Back
Top Bottom