No, Mr Maggs, motorcycles should NOT be allowed to use bicycle lanes. The whole point of a bicycle lane is to separate motorised vehicles from slower human-powered vehicles.
In a media release yesterday, the MRAA called for the government to repeal the "pointless policing" of motorcycles in bike lanes. Apparently "there are no real safety issues here for cyclists and even fewer for motorcycles". Too right there are fewer safety issues for motorcycles – they've got two things that bicycle don't have: weight and speed. I'd say that makes for plenty of safety issues for cyclists!
Safety argument?
The statement goes on to say:
The actual footprints of bicycles and most motorcycles are similar and motorcycle riders are both more visible and better protected than cyclists.
[emphasis added]
I agree – motorcyclists are more visible and better protected than cyclists, not to mention that of all road vehicles motorcycles have the fastest acceleration. So where is the safety argument for allowing motorbikes into the bike lane?
Hypothetical speed
Certainly the MRAA does not support motorcycles travelling at excessive speed in these lanes, but in virtually all cases the motorcycle has been travelling past congested traffic at no more than a bicycle speed of up to 30kph. We again urge government to explicitly legalise the sharing of these lanes with a maximum speed limit of 30k being placed on motorcycles and scooters.
It depends what you mean by "excessive speed", doesn't it? Cyclists may be capable of riding at 30kph, but I doubt that many could sustain that speed – and certainly not riding on their own in a bike lane.
Feeling neglected
Towards the end of their statement, the true motivation for this proposal is revealed – the MRAA think (probably with some justification) that they are being left out: "Since their omission from any mention in the recent transport plan, motorcycle and scooter riders have been well aware that they are neglected."
Priority lanes by stealth?
But the final paragraph of their release drags their argument down even further:
The MRAA would like to point out that motorcycle and scooter usage is increasing at over twice the rate of bicycle usage and that a recent survey conducted by the MRAA showed that the ratio of motorcycles to bicycles street parked in the CBD during the day was nearly 2:1. Percentage growth in the use of powered two wheeled vehicles (especially scooters) has far outstripped the growth of usage of any other transport type and can only continue to increase given increasing congestion and fuel prices.
Motorcycles are smaller than cars, so if motorcycle usage is booming there should be fewer cars and more motorcycles on the road – thus congestion should be improved as a result. So the need to take to the bike lanes to "travel past congested traffic" must surely be reduced.
And if motorbikes outnumber bicycles by 2-to-1, then motorbikes will also outnumber bicycles in the bike lanes. Is the MRAA really trying to turn the bicycle lane into a priority lane for motorbikes? Maybe priority lanes for motorbikes are required, but to acquire this status by stealth at the expense of cyclists is somewhat disengenous.
Possible confusion
I'd also be concerned about possible confusion that could arise. At present I don't think all motorists are quite clear about what they are and aren't allowed to do in a bike lane (Victorian road users can refer to rule 153 and rule 158 of the Road Rules). So to allow some forms of motorised traffic but not others into the bike lane just muddies the waters even further.
Solidarity, two-wheelers
I think motorcyclists and cyclists have much in common, and I certainly feel empathy for the common hazards that we face on the road. However, I can't come at this idea because motorbikes are much better equipped to travel safely within the traffic flow and I can see no strong argument that it would make things safer for motorcyclists. On the contrary, it only has the potential to make things considerably less safe for cyclists.
So, solidarity to all two-wheelers but let's not tangle in the bike lanes.
Update
Ah, and I see Phil doesn't like the idea much either…
Comments
You can leave a message on Mr Magg's voicemail if you want.. http://mraa.org.au/forum/modules/liaise/
I rode a motorbike for years and now I commute on my bicycle. I can't think of anything worse than letting motorbikes into the bike lanes. My old BMW weighed 350kg and had panniers which made it too wide to pass a cyclist safely. I would have thought the motocyclists would have been more sympathetic.
Your comment that motorcyclists are better equipped than cyclists to travel within the traffic flow is inaccurate.
Per 100,000 kms and per 100,000 hours of exposure motorcyclists are four times more likely to suffer a fatality than cyclists.
Motorcyclists largely face the same haszards that cyclists do except that they do so at a much greater speed. The critical factor in braking distance is more reaction time than braking ability; a hazardous situation for a cyclist at 20km/h is doubly hazardous for a motorcyclist.
I think Euan is arguing from the specific to the general here. The MRAA wants to be able to ride in bike lanes in heavily congested traffic. I have no figures to hand, but I reason that on the road much danger arises from high speed and differential speeds between vehicles. In heavily congested traffic, both high speed and the speed differential between motorcycles and other motorised vehicles are reduced, so much of the danger is removed: everyone is shuffling along at the same low speed.
Furthermore Mr Maggs' own position, as quoted above, is that "motorcycle riders are both more visible and better protected than cyclists". They are also heavier and faster, which gives them something of an advantage over bicycles in the general traffic flow.
I'm prepared to accept the relative risk factor that Euan quoted (and I'd like to know its source), however I'm not talking about the general case here, I'm referring to the specific case of motorcycles in bike lanes. Where does the greater risk lie: to motorcyclists if they stay in the general traffic flow or to cyclists if motorbikes are allowed into bike lanes? I argue that the greater risk lies with the latter, so I stand by my position.
I really don't understand Euan's final remark about facing the same dangers but "at a much greater speed". Surely that supports my point that motorcycles don't belong in the bike lane? However I heartily endorse the view that motorcyclists and cyclists share many of the same hazards on the road.
I agree that bike lanes are meant for bicycles and not motorbikes. Motorbikes can share the road with the regular cars. Too dangerous to have motorbikes in bike lanes.
I moved from Sydney to Amsterdam about three months ago. In Amsterdam, cycling lanes are shared with scooters. From my experience, scooters and cyclists do not mix for two simple reasons. Scooters are faster and heavier than cyclists and therefore scooters pose a safety risk to cyclists. In Amsterdam, scooters always weave in and out of cyclist traffic at high speed and they are often driving at speeds quicker than cars on the roads! Scooter drivers naturally take on an air of superiority over cyclists because they are faster than cyclists. This is normal human behaviour. Cyclists do the same to pedestrians. Sometimes scooter drivers cheat by using the road to get past a queue of cyclists at an intersection then drive back onto the cycle lane to bypass a car traffic jam. I strongly urge you to protest any effort to allow scooters to use cycle lanes because if they are given approval to use cycle lanes it will be virtually impossible to overturn that decision in the future.
The links under the heading "Possible Confusion" aren't working.
Can you re-instate them or link to somewhere that gives the details of the law that says motorcycles are not allowed in cycle lanes?
It is a daily occurrence for me to have motorcycles bearing down on me on cycle lanes. Several times I have been shoved and had my wheel kicked (and buckled) by motorcyclists who considered me (on my bicycle) to be "in the way".
Last week a motorcyclist told me that on his tax disc his vehicle is described as a "bicycle" and therefore he is allowed on a cycle lane. This (probably fake) ignorance needs to be argued against with facts.
@Murray: More than happy to oblige. I've revised and expanded that section.
I reckon the claim that a motorcycle is a bicycle can be rejected based simply on the common usage of either term. But for good measure, in the Dictionary section of the Victorian Road Safety Road Rules a bicycle is defined as "a vehicle with 2 or more wheels that is built to be propelled by human power". The definition goes on to specifically exclude "a scooter, wheelchair, wheeled recreational device, wheeled toy, or any vehicle with an auxiliary motor capable of generating a power output over 200 watts (whether or not the motor is operating)". So in my state at least, that clearly leaves motorcycles outside the bike lane.
i have wanted to say this to you forever
SHARE THE ROAD
I know this topic was posted a long time ago but it is still a problem for me and my morning commute in Perth, Australia. Today a scooter overtook me without even leaving the bike lane and nearly bumped me off into a guard rail. I was furious! I tried to get his licence without any success. I think it is ridiculous to allow motorised vehicles to share cycle lanes on roads. I believe some of the danger comes from having people who have no specific motorbike training allowed to ride scooters without a full understanding of how other motorists see them and what is dangerous interaction with other road users. Surely we should be encouraging non motorised transport?