Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Another Study shows that commuting by motorcycle eases congestion and saves time: Belgium

Discussion in 'Research, Studies, and Data' started by robsalvv, Oct 27, 2011.

  1. http://news.motorbiker.org/blogs.nsf/dx/using-motorcycles-eases-congestion---scientific-study.htm

    I haven't dived into the specifics of the study - I think a key criticism could be that it looked at limited number of roads... but at the same time that could be one of it's key advantages - these are the savings found on one stretch of a motorway. Imagine the savings if the savings were replicated throughout the road system!

    There's also a section on pollution and their figures show that pollution is reduced using PTW's (and they specifically thumb their nose at Myth Busters who said the opposite).

    We already know this stuff, but the more that studies show carcentric cities benefiting from a modal shift, the better it will be.

    If you're on a car forum or other forums, spread the word!

    • Like Like x 3
  2. Sure.

    There are a couple of references in the VMC submission which spefically target the PCU of motorcycles. Grab those to if you haven't already.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Butbutbutbutbut Rob, don't you know that all those riders between lanes are jumping the queue? Not to mention indulging in a practice that is "clearly dangerous" (told to me by a senior road safety Public Servant, so it must be true). Anyway, this is Australia, for goodness sake, where the laws of physics are, apparently, different from those in Europe.

    No, we don't want any of that sort of thing here, dear me no.

    Seriously though, good find. I find it very interesting that it doesn't take a huge modal shift to achieve a major improvement in congestion and a not completely inconceivable (though I'll admit unlikely in reality) one to eliminate it altogether.

    TBH the magnitude of the potential improvement surprises me, although I daresay if someone explained the logic to me in words of half a syllable I'd be able to follow the logic.
  4. Anything that can be used to try and convince the thickheads at TAC, RTA and VicRoads is good. Thanks Rob!

    Good luck with your cause, Vertical!
  5. At the recent Vic road safety committee motorcycle safety inquiry, the committee did a double take when I told them that riding in between the lanes of (heavy) traffic actually reduced the incidence of sideswipe or merging collision. I had to repeat it twice for them to get the meaning of my words.

    A bike that's part of heavy traffic looks like a gap and a driver merging into that gap is directly merging into a bike as a result. Possibly nasty consequences. A bike that is in between traffic is buffered from that kind of move because cars infrequently change lanes in heavy traffic and rarely do rapidly if they do. If you're not a rider, this is hard to grasp until it's told you.

    I'm not surprised the pencil pusher had the view they had - there was probably a healthy dose of prejudice in their comment to you too.

    Good stuff what!

    Edit: VerticalC's sheer bloody mindedness is exactly what's needed in his pursuit. GOODLUCK!!
  6. Nice study.

    So legalising filtering and getting 10% of commuters onto 2 wheels about halves the duration of traffic jams. and getting 25% of them onto bikes pretty much eliminates traffic jams.

    Sounds like car drivers should be the leading the campaign for legalising filtering, not opposing it.
  7. That's why I said if you're on a car forum, PUSH THE STUDY! :)
  8. Schadenfreude rules. "If I have to suffer, so must they".

    Edit: Thinking about it, that's not right. It should be "It's more important that they suffer than I don't."

    I think the figures are entirely plausible, considering how a tiny incident can create monumental upstream consequences on a freeway.
  9. Maybe I should have added smileys :D. It was back when I was a PS myself, assisting in drafting WA's response to the NTC's filter ban proposal a few years ago. I knew he was talking bollocks then and I still know it now.
  10. It would be interesting to see if it also altered the traffic accident rate, not to mention public (mental) health.
  11. The RTA is the one that is going to need luck.
  12. yes, I think I'd agree with that.
  13. is this one of those moments when the entire space time continuum is ruptured and we're all spit out into a parallel dimension?
  14. The RTA has opinions that aren't backed up by facts as well. The ABS thread discussion has trained me well to deal with these type of people.

    There, attacking each other again. Rip in space time repaired. Phew.
  15. ... :-k there's a good chance you will come across as a crack pot... with some very well researched references pilfered from a highly capable acquaintence.

    <continuum repaired>

  16. phew... crisis averted. Thought for a minute we might need to recruit a highly skilled drilling team and send them into space with a nuke. Not sure how they'd repair the rift, but, could hurt trying.
  17. Can someone define lost vehicle time for me? Is that time spent in congestion as opposed to typical peak hour? Time spent in congestion as opposed to free flow? Ie. It takes me at most 25 minutes to get home from uni at 1am but 40 during peak hour, 45-50 including parking. Would that be lost vehicle time of 20 minutes?
  18. I know this is off topic, but honestly, you were all over the place in that thread, I couldn't follow your arguments at all they seemed to change from post to post. Anyway...
  19. I would say that they mean the extra time driving. So 15 minutes in your example.

    Yeah some people aren't good enough to keep up.