07-05-2016, 11:44 AM
I haven't taken the time to read the study but before I do, maybe one of you who has read it can clarify. From reading Pterodactyl's post (which I found to be pretty funny), it seems the obvious is being stated. Something like, "Swimming in the ocean greatly increases your chances of being bitten by a shark."
Is the study truly just reporting the increase in risk associated with lane-splitting during commuting days and rush hour or is it comparing that risk to other riders at those same times who don't lane-split. In other words, is it saying, "They were also more likely to be involved in weekday collisions and more likely to be involved in collisions during peak traffic times than motorcyclist who did not lane-split during weekdays and during peak traffic times."
If the latter was stated or, at a minimum, implied from the context of the study, then that's some valuable information. Otherwise, it's about as useful as an inflatable dartboard!
Is the study truly just reporting the increase in risk associated with lane-splitting during commuting days and rush hour or is it comparing that risk to other riders at those same times who don't lane-split. In other words, is it saying, "They were also more likely to be involved in weekday collisions and more likely to be involved in collisions during peak traffic times than motorcyclist who did not lane-split during weekdays and during peak traffic times."
If the latter was stated or, at a minimum, implied from the context of the study, then that's some valuable information. Otherwise, it's about as useful as an inflatable dartboard!