MTO Response to questions about HOV lanes, lane filtering and lane splitting | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

MTO Response to questions about HOV lanes, lane filtering and lane splitting

Forum Sponsor
Husqy said:
Yeah I am actually going to quote the Berkeley study in my response. Putting it together now.
Click to expand...

I've had this conversation with Del Duca, even providing some really great information and media from Australian states and municipalities. I may have well been engaged in conversation with a hammer.

It also included use of HOV, filtering and splitting.

Basically "not looking at it, not interested, not happening" was the response.
 
catzo said:
You come up with a better response then. Lets hear it
Click to expand...
What? you want me to draft a response as if I was the MTO? I don't know how to respond to your post as it makes no sense so I am just going to move on.
 
172Driver said:
I've had this conversation with Del Duca, even providing some really great information and media from Australian states and municipalities. I may have well been engaged in conversation with a hammer.

It also included use of HOV, filtering and splitting.

Basically "not looking at it, not interested, not happening" was the response.
Click to expand...

I'm going to respond reminding her that Ontario is the only place where motorcycles can't use the HOV lanes in North America. They really don't seem to care about info outside of North America, so we need to lean heavily on California for lane-splitting and BC for HOV lane usage.

I think I can actually getting her thinking about HOV lane usage... lane-splitting is a long shot but maybe it will get the idea in someone's head especially because of the UC Berkeley study that got published.
 
Might have more success if you didn't refer to Minister Del Duca as "her", last press conference I seen he is a him. Unless your referring to the Premier, in which case yes she is a she, but it would be the Minister of Transportation that would deal with this.

Also not sure if it is a typo but in the quoted reply your ask has suddenly changed form lane FILTERING to lane SPLITTING. You might find some traction on lane filtering but I doubt they will even give you the time of day. Given their response about side impact and door collisions, I doubt any study you can find will demonstrate that these type of collisions were reduced as a result of permitting lane SPLITTING.

Also keep in mind that lane splitting is not legal in California, nor is it illegal they simply have chosen not to address the issue, and as such there is no enforcement. So California may not be an "ideal" example.

Husqy said:
I'm going to respond reminding her that Ontario is the only place where motorcycles can't use the HOV lanes in North America. They really don't seem to care about info outside of North America, so we need to lean heavily on California for lane-splitting and BC for HOV lane usage.

I think I can actually getting her thinking about HOV lane usage... lane-splitting is a long shot but maybe it will get the idea in someone's head especially because of the UC Berkeley study that got published.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
JoeyB said:
I swear there's one of these thread every three months and the result is always the same. Stop trying to make it happen...it's not going to happen.
Click to expand...

Women shouldn't be able to vote, stop trying to make it happen... It's not going to happen... Oh wait, they can vote now?

Point is, don't know until you try and be persistent at it, you may or may not have a positive outcome, but giving up and putting something aside because it was denied a couple times won't help anything.
 
Last edited:
I suggest this:
1. use their logic, the MTO claims they used California model for HOV and traffic management
2. ask why they excluded bikes...tell them you want an answer, Cali did NOT so what is Ontario's reason
3. safety- since they brought up safety for side collision, then they have to go with the point it is UNSAFE for a bike to be trapped in a lane where the left and right can change leaving them no way out. It is safer for a bike to be in the far left lane....maybe ask them which lane on a 3 lane highway is the safest lane for a bike to travel in...let's see what they think

I suggest BEFORE you respond with studies and these logic responses that you first get them to qualify some facts and their reasons for doing what they do/did. THEN pick apart their reply with the facts and logical position.

good luck, stay on them.

Maybe create a draft document in your Google Drive and share the link here so everyone can contribute to the document.
 
ZX600 said:
What? you want me to draft a response as if I was the MTO? I don't know how to respond to your post as it makes no sense so I am just going to move on.
Click to expand...

Quitter
 
hedo2002 said:
Might have more success if you didn't refer to Minister Del Duca as "her", last press conference I seen he is a him. Unless your referring to the Premier, in which case yes she is a she, but it would be the Minister of Transportation that would deal with this.

Also not sure if it is a typo but in the quoted reply your ask has suddenly changed form lane FILTERING to lane SPLITTING. You might find some traction on lane filtering but I doubt they will even give you the time of day. Given their response about side impact and door collisions, I doubt any study you can find will demonstrate that these type of collisions were reduced as a result of permitting lane SPLITTING.

Also keep in mind that lane splitting is not legal in California, nor is it illegal they simply have chosen not to address the issue, and as such there is no enforcement. So California may not be an "ideal" example.
Click to expand...

I didn't call Minister Del Duca a her. I was referring to the woman who I am currently corresponding with, a Director in the MTO who actually does happen to be female.

Yes, I will emphasize that she has changed my vocabulary because there is a defined difference between the two. However, the current studies we have, especially the UC Berkeley one is in reference to all lane splitting, which includes lane filtering so my hands are tied.

You are correct in saying it is not illegal, but it is in fact legal when done in a safe and prudent manner. The California Highway Patrol released this document (http://lanesplittingislegal.com/assets/docs/CHP-lane-splitting-guidelines-California.pdf) which outlines how to legally and safely lane split.
 
Last edited:
Keep us updated.

If they allow filtering legally, I might actually commute again...with a crow bar on my gas tank in case some dick purposely opens their door again.
 
Neil_V said:
So why are our insurance rates among the highest? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Did anyone notice the excuse for higher rates was fraud . With the new insurence changes you will be getting less and paying the same rate . To keep your benefits the same you will probably pay 20% more . The fraud was smoke and mirrors . You say something enough times people start to believe .

Bottom line is the insurence industry is there to make money . They have a great lobby group keeping the lieberals fed with donations at election time .
 
Lobby? That's a bit old-fashioned for the financial sector. Mid-level staffers leave and re-hire across the Private/Public border to inform industry and craft regulation, depending. It's not corruption per se--no Freemason plot--but the cooperation is so profitable that letters of recommendation are readily available for employees looking over the fence. I'd be surprised if the finance minister didn't communicate with the all the major banking/insurance CEOs on a weekly basis. All very cozy and stricly legal.
 
Great discussion and we'd get somewhere if our Government had a clue or even cared about us. As far as HOV they constantly speak out of both sides of their mouth. On one hand it's for vehicles with 2 or more occupants, but they allow "green cars" because they are better for the environment. They also allow "taxis" http://www.ontariocanada.com/registry/view.do?postingId=21202&language=en to help provide certainty to the industry and now they are looking to make HOV lanes available to anyone willing to pay a toll http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/reevely-tolls-are-coming-to-ontarios-hov-lanes. Ultimately unless they dream up the idea or can somehow profit (or get votes) we won't be seeing motorcycles in the HOV lanes in the near future.

As far as lane splitting/filtering, I am for that but am not sure how often I'd do it given the insane drivers in Ontario.

Good luck everyone.

Maybe we should all chip in and buy Kathleen Wynne a Harley and some Chaps (ooooh, VERY BAD VISUAL) so she'd become a rider and suddenly take interest in our concerns (including insurance).
 
I actually am against lane filtering. Cage drivers in California and many European and Asian countries are accustomed to it; it would take years for drivers here to adjust .
As to the HOV lanes, didn't they allow green cars with single occupants during the Pan Am games? I would argue more to the fact that a motorcycle is more environmentally friendly than most vehicles
 
Blooton said:
As to the HOV lanes, didn't they allow green cars with single occupants during the Pan Am games?
Click to expand...

Argument of necessity given the current limited range of most battery-powered cars, and the quick depletion of batteries when in stop and go traffic?

A motorcycle may burn less fuel than a pick-up truck, but many large motorcycles are no better fuel-wise and are often even worse than many small cars. Even with equivalent fuel economy, a motorcycle is maximum two occupants whereas a car or small crossover can typically do four to six occupants. THen there is the fact that motorcycles typically emit far more pollutants than do cars per litre of fuel burned.

With that, how can you still objectively and realistically support your "more environmentally friendly" argument?
 
I believe Prius, hybrid Lexus's, BMW etc were all considered 'green' cars. ( I could be wrong) but if that's the case my last 30+ bikes got better mileage than any of those when ridden normally

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 
I grew up in New South Wales Australia ride bike in Sydney. The rule of lane splitting could easily be circumvented before the the law change by using an indicator when ever crossing the lane lines.
Section 154(1) of Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act (HTA) requires a vehicle to be driven entirely within a single lane and to move from the lane when this can be done safely.
This section of the code would be the same, make sure the lane change is performed safely. Use your indicator when changing lanes to avoid a vehicle. Your vehicle is still entirely within a single lane. There was nothing noted about how close you could be to another vehicle or that there was 2 vehicles in the lane.
It seems to me that the same conundrum applies here in Ontario as was in NSW. No law excluding it, but don't be an idiot when doing it, eg not to fast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom