The Instigator
Im_always_right
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
oboeman
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

There should be more motorcycle lanes in the US.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/18/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,633 times Debate No: 4725
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (6)

 

Im_always_right

Pro

I believe there should be more lanes, designed for small vehicles, such as motorcycles, bicycles, motor scooter, etc.

The reason for this is, it would enable a safer area for those that ride such things, because most motorcycle accidents are because a large vehicle such as a car, or truck. If they had their own separate protected lanes.

There are already cops that ride mototrcycles, so move those cops to the motorcycle lanes, and they can enforce motorcycle safety laws more strongly.
Like the helmet laws, most motorcylists don't wear helmets (I have to though), so the motorcycle lanes will create safer transpertation in more than one way.

I understand the cost but tax money is spent on roads, so the tax money would be better spent on creating a lane, half the size as a normal lane providing a safer place for those wishing to ride a motorcycle, without as much risk. The reasoning is, if the money is to improve the road, it would make a really good improvements, allowing a safer way for vehicles that use less gasoline, creating less pollution, to safely travel.
It wouldn't be a bad idea, to have toll roads, on the motorcycle lanes, where they normally have them on normal highways.

I have more points, but I will allow my opponent to make, his/her point before extending my own.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
oboeman

Con

I would like to thank my opponent, Im_always_right, for the challenge.
I look forward to the debate.

I contend.
There should NOT be more motorcycle lanes in the United States, based upon the reasons my opponent has stated.

"The reason for this is, it would enable a safer area for those that ride such things, because most motorcycle accidents are because a large vehicle such as a car, or truck."

The risks outweigh the benefits (see below).

"There are already cops that ride motorcycles, so move those cops to the motorcycle lanes, and they can enforce motorcycle safety laws more strongly."

This, admittedly, could be a benefit for my opponent's proposed motorcycle lane. 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.

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.
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.

There is, as my opponent will hopefully see evident, no spot to beneficially place a motorcycle lane in most places.

And even if there were to be a beneficial place to put a motorcycle lane, I am sure the tax money would be enormous. 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. 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.
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. A mere bicycle lane would also cause less pollution (i.e. none that I can come up with, anyway) than motorcycles.

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.

I look forward to the remainder of the debate,
Oboeman.
Debate Round No. 1
Im_always_right

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent oboeman for taking me up on this debate, and look forward to proving my points to him.

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.
oboeman

Con

"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.
Debate Round No. 2
Im_always_right

Pro

Thank you again ladies and gentlemen for watching, commenting, and voting on this debate.

"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."

My argument is it is more unsafe for pedestrians, bikers and parked cars to be in heavy traffic on the highway than to be in a lane meant for them. Most motorcycle accidents happen because large vehicles cannot see them. Therefore it would be beneficial, for motorcyclists, and pedestrians alike.
What is sounds like my opponent is saying is "Just because something is safer doesn't mean we should get it due to factors such as 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."

I disagree with the statement, because I have said earlier in this round that most motorcycle accidents occur because cars could not see them. http://www.motorcycle-accidents.com.... Motorcycle safety and wearing helmets wont help much when your body is being squished by more than a ton, into a hot paved road. It is safer for pedestrians and bikes to be in a separate lane than in the same lane as heavy traffic.

‘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."

I do not understand what my opponent is talking about. Every parking lot I have seen is separate from the highway. Thus would be an invalid argument. I doubt my opponent meant that, but I don't know what else he might be talking about. Thus I do now know how to argue that.

However, motorcycles are already probably zooming by the cars, along with other cars.

"How wide would it be proposed that this motorcycle lane would be?"

I would suppose about half the width of a normal lane.

"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."

I understand my opponents view, but what if the shoulder of the normal lane is expanded, to ensure fewer accidents because of having to pull over when necessary?

"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."

Florida alone has something like 300,000 registered Motorcycles. Thus there are many motorcyclists in the US. However, it is still dangerous for them to be riding in heavy traffic with the large vehicles. I have ridden on the back of a few, motorcycles in the past, and riding a few myself, I would never be on one in traffic with today's drivers. Skill has nothing to do with playing Russian Roulette, on the highway. You never know when there is a driver behind you that can't see small vehicles, or animals. Yes it would be helpful after the new motorcycle lane is made, that the road is repaved, and improved for both of the types of vehicles.

"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."

I disagree, I believe that some tax dollars need to be spent on motorcycle lane to promote safe driving. My opponents concerns with them learning motorcycle safety would be met because of the cops assigned to the motorcycle lanes, enforcing helmet laws, and the staggered driving laws that motorcycles are supposed to follow. Yes money needs spent on education, but the fact that schools are not that great are not our faults. My reasoning: every school I have been in has spent all the tax dollars on sports equipment. However, this is a separate issue.

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.

Yes it is unfortunate that they do not wear helmets, however, in separate lanes the cops assigned to the motorcycle lane, they can concentrate on motorcyclists, not wearing helmets.
No matter how you promote it, unless they get in trouble for not wearing their helmets, they wont. I will admit on a bike, I do not wear a helmet, even on the highway. Bikers, will do the same. I am forced to wear a helmet on a Motorcycle as well as my friend, whose parents do not, and will not.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen for watching, commenting and voting on this debate.
I eagerly await my opponents response.
oboeman

Con

"My argument is it is more unsafe for pedestrians, bikers and parked cars to be in heavy traffic on the highway than to be in a lane meant for them. Most motorcycle accidents happen because large vehicles cannot see them. Therefore it would be beneficial, for motorcyclists, and pedestrians alike."

First, pedestrians would be on the sidewalk. If my opponent is referring to highways, where there are rarely sidewalks, pedestrians are rare on highways anyway. My argument is that it would be much more safe, universally, to (if the country WERE to invest in additional transportation paths/lanes) invest in mere bicycle lanes, rather than lanes for motorcycles, bikes, and the like. To make motorcycles more visible to larger vehicles, perhaps it would be more efficient to mandate the requirement of lights to be on during driving times, instead of reserving an entire separate lane for them. This would be beneficial to all, hurting none.

"What is sounds like my opponent is saying is ‘Just because something is safer doesn't mean we should get it due to factors such as money.'"

All I am saying is that there are many potentially dangerous things in the country, some of which would be pathetic if banned. For example, a pair of scissors can cause injury to people. It could be "safer" if this item was banned from the United States. However, scissors are essentially a part of this country's way of life. They are needed. This is only an analogy of what I am referring to; other aspects of a problem should be taken into account before deciding what is indeed best.

To combat motorcycle injury, a better approach than adding a separate motorcycle lane would be to wear a helmet, protective gear, and perhaps most importantly, keep motorcycle lights on while driving. This would help to prevent other vehicles from not seeing the motorcycle, and thus help to prevent accidents altogether.

"It is safer for pedestrians and bikes to be in a separate lane than in the same lane as heavy traffic."

Pedestrians are on the sidewalk, and bikes sometimes on the sidewalk. Like I said earlier, there is often either a sidewalk for bikes, sometimes a bike path, or even a bike lane. If none of these are available for more sustainable transportation, then it would be more advisable to construct separate bicycle lanes.

"I do not understand what my opponent is talking about. Every parking lot I have seen is separate from the highway. Thus would be an invalid argument. I doubt my opponent meant that, but I don't know what else he might be talking about. Thus I do now know how to argue that."

I was referring to the fact that motorcycles lane additions would cause less parking space. It would be dangerous for motorcycles to zoom by while people in parked cars are trying to enter and exit their cars. It would, in fact, be even more dangerous, as, instead of having, for example, seven feet between the parking lane and the normal driving lane, there might only be two feet between the parking lane and such an additional motorcycle lane. This, being such a small margin, would be hazardous.

"I understand my opponents view, but what if the shoulder of the normal lane is expanded, to ensure fewer accidents because of having to pull over when necessary?"

Such an expansion would not work at all in city streets, or for that matter, any streets with buildings/parks/and the such on either side. It would also be unfeasible on the highways, due to farming. However, also on highways, some cars still might need to pull over fast. It would be dangerous if a motorcycle lane was, still invariably, in the way of them pulling over.

"I disagree, I believe that some tax dollars need to be spent on motorcycle lane to promote safe driving. My opponents concerns with them learning motorcycle safety would be met because of the cops assigned to the motorcycle lanes, enforcing helmet laws, and the staggered driving laws that motorcycles are supposed to follow. Yes money needs spent on education, but the fact that schools are not that great are not our faults. My reasoning: every school I have been in has spent all the tax dollars on sports equipment. However, this is a separate issue."

Safe driving can still, effectively, be promoted without the addition of motorcycle lanes. If the transportation budgets have enough money to spend it on motorcycle lanes (which would surely not happen any time soon), it is time that such money be allocated to the education budget. Schools across the country could have improved educations systems. This issue is vital to the nation at the current. Most schools do not exclusively spend their money on sports equipment, though. I am not an expert on education funding, but most schools could use more money to improve educational facilities to assist learning.

"Yes it is unfortunate that they do not wear helmets, however, in separate lanes the cops assigned to the motorcycle lane, they can concentrate on motorcyclists, not wearing helmets."

This can also be done, most likely just as effectively, in normal driving lanes.

Thus, I have negated the resolution. There should not be more motorcycle lanes in the United States, for the reasons supplied.
It is seemingly illogical to add more motorcycle lanes in the United States.
It is hoped that both my opponent and I have learned from this debate.
The debate has been quite fun, and I thank my opponent for offering the challenge,
Oboeman
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
hehe, now I found someone that [partly] thinks like me.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"However I don't think they would have competing interests, as the car manufacturers themselves are not lobbying for more car lanes (that I'm aware of)."
http://www.opensecrets.org...

They spend a significant amount more buying Republican politicians (who tend to favor traditional road expansion) than buying Democratic politicians (who tend to favor, at least more than Republicans, mass transit). Granted, this data doesn't get very specific, but... does any data ever tell you EXACTLY which politicians they are buying? They wouldn't even have the gall to admit to the term "buying", preferring "donation" :D.

"Skilled debaters can debate most things afterall, can they not? "
They can, but I don't regard it as a generally good thing to do. As such I don't practice it. I do not, so to speak, hone the "skill" of debating, I simply try to hone the skill of being right, and let a debate flow out of that :D
Posted by oboeman 8 years ago
oboeman
Ha, I just consider the more debate there is, the better.
=P
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
I thank you for allowing this, and of course I will allow the same.
Posted by oboeman 8 years ago
oboeman
Generally, argument are not supposed to be placed in the comments section during the debate.
However, I am fairly liberal on this, so if you want to put something relatively short (like the comment you wrote), it is alright with me, as long as I can do the same if necessary.
Thanks, and I await your Round 3 in this debate.
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
"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."

I am not saying that nobody would buy any other brand, but if someone wasn't sure what kind they wanted thaey would go for the cheaper one.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thank you ladies and gentlemen watching this debate, and I thank my opponent for taking up this debate once again. I look forward to oboeman's round 2 debate.
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
Is anyone going, to take this up, or just talk about how bad my stance is?
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
I see what you mean, though I highly doubt people would stop supporting taxation if their money were to go towards building an additional lane for cyclists/motorcycle owners. Instead, the public would just be really pissed off and demand that even MORE money be used on education and the like the next time around... hah.

Hell's Angels - a gang - would not have any legislative influence, that is indeed true. However I don't think they would have competing interests, as the car manufacturers themselves are not lobbying for more car lanes (that I'm aware of). Therefore this debate really isn't about advancing the interests of a particular group or corporation (i.e. Harley Davidson) but rather it's about safety, and I'm sure those advocating for these additional lanes would be the sympathetic faces of mothers and fathers who have lost children in accidents for which they feel an additional lane would have been beneficial. And that, my friend, has great legislative influence -- public sympathy.

Furthermore, even if one brought up the benefits of profiting off of toll roads in the private sector, there are just as many arguments against that as there would be for it. Skilled debaters can debate most things afterall, can they not?

Anyway. I'd take this up (since I'm surprised it's still here), though I'm already debating 4 debates haha so... good luck everyone.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"If everyone's against it then howcome nobody's taking this debate up...?"

I said "nearly irrelevant." I'm not entirely sure though, that it's fully irrelevant, because it is POSSIBLE that spending tax money on motorcycle lanes would reduce popular support for the tax system in a manner that spending tax money on education wouldn't, and i think I'm warming to that idea, which would mean I'd be essentially in favor of Pro, though I'd have to think about it more.

In essence, I just CAN'T see a group like the Hell's Angels or Harley Davidson successfully exerting a significant lobbying influence that further entrenches the tax system, whereas car manufacturers (the transportation tax competing interest) or the NEA (Since education dollars were brought up) are well known for having significant legislative influence.

Also, the resolution does not specifically dictate that the new motorcycle lanes be government run, even if Pro's arguments imply it, and I don't want to fall into the trap of "Ookay, nevermind the first round argument, now I'm gonna show you how a private entity could make a profit running toll roads," because I am both undecided and unprepared for a debate regarding whether private entities would be wise to build roads with dedicated motorcycle lanes.

"Personally, I'd much rather see Ragnar Rhal's "tax is theft" argument in action."

It's present in at least 35% of my debates lol, shouldn't be too hard if that's really what you want to see.
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
i don't care about taxes either.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by padfo0t 8 years ago
padfo0t
Im_always_rightoboemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by edwardsdebater 8 years ago
edwardsdebater
Im_always_rightoboemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
Im_always_rightoboemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
Im_always_rightoboemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by oboeman 8 years ago
oboeman
Im_always_rightoboemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
Im_always_rightoboemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30