There should be more motorcycle lanes in the US.

"I would like to say I disagree that the losses would not be greater than the benefits, naturally." Essentially, what this debate has come down to is an analysis of values. One says some things are more valuable, while the other the contrary. I plan to show how the values I am arguing are more important than the value scale of my opponent. I plan to explain why the Options I have supplied are valid, and therefore against a separate motorcycle lane. Option A: "I would like to say, my intent was for "A", but I will go through the benefits of each option. I agree that the cost would be high, but, for safety, wouldn't that money be well spent on adding onto the lane? Are the people really so greedy in this counter, they would rather let people die, when their is a clear alternative, that would cost more, than just letting them die?" In this debate, my opponent claims this separate motorcycle lane to be for safety. There are two ways for me to counteract this argument. First of all, it is unsafe to begin with, for pedestrians, bikers, and parked cars (see my Round 1 argument). Second of all, even if it WERE safe, there are many, many things that the government could do to make things just slightly safer, with the spending of millions and millions of dollars. Simply because enormous quantities of money could make something more safe in this country does not mean at every peak and turn this country comes across that it must make the ultimate, safest conditions, regardless of any other factors, including money. Secondly, people would not have to die due to not implementing a motorcycle lane. Perhaps, with the money not being spent on such a frivolous lane, the money could be invested in programs to help teach motorcycle safety. As well, the money being saved by the local, state, and/or federal governments could be used to promote various motorcycle helmets and safe riding. Such safety features would be more important than potentially putting the lives of pedestrians, other vehicle riders, and bikers at risk. Option B: In this debate, my opponent has conceded Option B. Option C: "If the parking space is really that close to the road, then cars, trucks, motorcycle and all kinds of other vehicles, than how much worse could a motorcycle be?" Logically, there must be a point at which a parking lane has become too narrow to serve a beneficial purpose, causing unsafe and hazardous conditions. This means that, even if the current parking space somewhere is large enough, but just barely, then a motorcycle lane would disrupt that parking lane. A motorcycle lane would not do any good to the parking lane, but instead would only cause unease. This would be especially true when motorcycles zoom by when people are entering and exiting their cars. It would be a safety hazard. A question to my opponent: How wide would it be proposed that this motorcycle lane would be? Option D: "I agree, that pedestrian space is more beneficial than motorcycle lanes, however, in how many places are there sidewalks, by the highway? I don't think because of the choices, more specifically "C", and "D", that he did not relize, my intent was next to highways." Of course, by highways, there would be a minimal amount of sidewalks, if any at all. However, I did not realize my opponent was mostly referring to highways. Either way, though, my opponent is claiming there should be motorcycle lanes on highways. As well, my opponent is suggesting these lanes be added to widen the roads overall. By doing this, the only place to put these motorcycle lanes would be on the outside of the normal lanes. This would cause unsafe conditions for cars/vehicles riding in the normal driving lane needing to suddenly pull over, or even to turn onto an exit. With motorcycles zooming by to their right, and with motorcycles being much smaller than cars, it would be much more unsafe to suddenly pull over when necessary. ---- "Yes, I concede that the tax money may be big, but if they were going to improve, the roads with the tax money anyway, why not add a half a lane, instead?" The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. For tax money that is invariably going to be spent on roads, it is more vital to spend it on the normal lanes, rather than separate miscellaneous leans for motorcycles and such. Simply because a motorcycle lane is not featured does not mean motorcyclists cannot drive on the normal driving lanes. The money would best be spent toward everyone driving, on roads that feature cars and motorcycles alike. "Yes improvement of bridges, is a high priority for the tax dollars, and so would education, I never ment to make it seem as though, I wanted those areas of the tax dollars to be ignored. I posted earlier in this round, that, if they would use the money already spent on improving the quality of the roads, they might as well add on half a lane for motorcycles to." Perhaps, if tax money WERE to be spent on a separate motorcycle lane, like I said, it would be BETTER spent on the normal driving lanes themselves. Even if this country did find enough money to spend the necessary quantity of money on some type of motorcycle lane, this sum of money would be spent better on education itself. "Yes they sadly do use gasoline, ut not as muchas cars do, that we both agree on. On the contrary, I don't know any motorcyclist older than 15 that wears a helmet now, but like in my round 1 argument if there was cops for the motorcycle lane enforcing safety, they would be more encouraged to wear helmets. Yes it is possible to still get in a wreck, but less likely." It is unfortunate that so many motorcyclists do not bother to wear helmets. Money should be appropriated necessarily to social programs to promote helmet usage. As well, it is also less likely to get into a wreck by simply engaging in proper safety techniques, such as wearing a helmet and protective gear. There is no need to allocate money into a separate motorcycle lane. "What about people with asthma though?" For people with asthma, biking is not too difficult. Biking can be vigorous, but it does not have to be, and therefore, people with asthma can still bike if need be. I am not saying they cannot ride motorcycles, but rather that, to preserve sustainability, everyone who has the capability to should consider biking and walking/running. "As is bicycles are forced to ride with the heavy traffic, including motorcycles, but also cars semi-trucks, and other large vehicles. So they would ultimatly be safer in the motorcycle lanes." Bicyclists can ride, in many places, on either sidewalks, designated bike paths, or even separate bike lanes. Ultimately, it would be safer for bikers to ride without other, larger vehicles at all. This is why it would be more important to allocate money into bike paths/lanes instead. Biking should also be encouraged instead of motorcycling, whenever possible. "Yes a seperate lane, more motorcycles, was kind of my point, I believe that for travling long distances (2-5+ miles depending on athletic ability) motorcycles would be better han cars, for the purpose of less pollution." Even better, people should start to buy cars with alternative fuel capabilities. Long distances could still be traveled, and pollution would be either minimized or avoided entirely. "Again, like cars don't make noise, with their speakers way up, strolling by wherever they happen to be going?" Cars do make noise, with their speakers way up. However, perhaps this should be made illegal in particular neighborhoods, rather than arguing that it justifies motorcycles being alright. Noise pollution is a valid concern in neighborhoods, and such loud noises should be avoided. Simply because some people do not care about it so much does not mean others share those feelings toward it. I await my opponent's final round in this debate.