There should be more motorcycle lanes in the US.

I would also like to point out that he has conceded, that all of my points are valid, and Thank him for that. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- " However, the losses suffered on other aspects would quickly outweigh this benefit in terms of values. As well, it could be safer for motorcyclists to ride in their own separate lane. " I would like to say I disagree that the losses would not be greater than the benefits, naturally. I do agree that it would be safer for the motorcyclists to have their own lanes. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ However, there are a number of harmful effects that could be caused by adding such a lane: First of all, in order to add a motorcycle lane, streets would have to either (a) be expanded, (b) minimize space for other cars, (c) reduce parked car space, or (d) reduce sidewalk space. I agree that their may be harmful results, I however believe, as I have stated earlier, that the benefits outweigh the harms. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "If Option A were to occur, it would in essence cause a disaster, making entire city blocks change morphology, and would no doubt cost far too much money compared to what is gained. If Option B were to occur, the space for other driving lanes would be reduced, causing smaller room for driving error and potentially hazardous driving conditions (e. g. driving too close to the median). If Option C were to occur, there would either be minimized space to park one's car or other vehicle. It could also be unsafe, having motorcycles zoom by within such a close zone when people are entering and exiting their other vehicles. If Option D were to occur, it would effectively limit pedestrian walking-space area. Pedestrians are much more sustainable than motorcycles, and therefore should be preserved at higher costs, meaning that pedestrian walking space to promote pedestrians is more important than a motorcycle lane to promote motorcycles and other small vehicles. " 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? I concede that "B" would be more harmful than good, for reasons pointed out by my opponent. 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? 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. I apologize for not putting that in my round 1, of this debate. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "And even if there were to be a beneficial place to put a motorcycle lane, I am sure the tax money would be enormous. " 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? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "I would consider it to be more beneficial to use tax dollars to help improve the nation's infrastructure/bridges to make them more safe, and to improve education, rather than aid in the convenience of the few. Of course, motorcycles do indeed use less gasoline, for the most part, compared to cars. " 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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "However, they still invariably use gasoline. As well, a motorcycle lane might make some motorcyclists less prone to use helmets. Even though they would have a lane reserved for small vehicles, it could promote unsafe habits, such as not wearing a helmet. Even though it might be less likely to get into an accident with such a reserved lane, it is, however, still possible, inevitably. " 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, thus most people who have lost loved ones on a motorcycle, would like to see a lane for motorcycles and small vehicles. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Perhaps it would be more beneficial to simply add more bicycle lanes, to aid is sustainability efforts. Of course, my opponent claims that small vehicles, including bicycles, would be a part of this motorcycle lane. However, I question the safety of the slower vehicles, such as bicycles, in a motorcycle lane. It seems to me to be quite dangerous to them. Yes bicycle lanes would be beneficial (see comments for my comment on them), And bicycles are ultimately the best way to get somewhere, as far as pollution control goes other than walking. What about people with asthma though? If they want to get somewhere, fuel efficianly then motorcycles would be the best choice. With no place for them to safely ride, they are forced to use gas guzzlers, ie. cars/trucks, large vehicles. 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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "A mere bicycle lane would also cause less pollution (i. e. none that I can come up with, anyway) than motorcycles. " I have already conceded that this is a valid point, ignoring those travlers with problems, such as asthma. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "As an additional point, a separate motorcycle lane would quite likely attract more motorcycles. More motorcycles likely means more noise pollution, which has the potential of negatively affecting nearby neighborhoods. Residents would therefore likely be weary of such a lane. " 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. Again, like cars don't make noise, with their speakers way up, strolling by wherever they happen to be going? As is, there are 3 houses in this neighborhood, with 2+ motorcycles at each house, it is a little noisy, but nobody really cares, not even the elderly lady across the street from me, and 1 of the motorcycle hoses, and 2 houses down from another. Some motoercycles are noisy such as the "crotch-rocket", but Hondas typically aren't. So if Honda has a motorcycle sale, with the lanes people would be influeinced to buy that brand. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Stupid character limits, arguement continued in comments.