Lane splitting (sharing) interview

[Ulvetanna_imp]

Yes, joe, I think that's a view that informs many opponents of lane splitting and filtering. But, what then of overtaking?

Overtaking (legal) is allowed for all motorized vehicles. I think laws that only benefit a subset of motorized vehicles is unfair.

Overtaking (legal) is allowed for all motorized vehicles. I think laws that only benefit a subset of motorized vehicles is unfair. The particular vulnerabilities of each class of vehicle are considered. 18-wheelers have an enormous body of regulations, not to mention fees, which apply to the vehicles as well as their drivers. As you move further down the food chain, the regulations become less and less, and the privileges increase. Pedestrians always have the right of way, as do bicycles. They can do the least damage and pose the least threat, and have the least advantages and protections. Motorcycles are only a step above bicycles; any practice that allows motorcycles to use their maneuverabilty to flow more effectively through traffic, and to park in a smaller space not usable by an automobile, is advantageous and safer for all motorists. Such practices reduce the exposure to risk and the elements that the motorcyclist has has to incur while in traffic.

As with flying, the biggest, heaviest craft or vehicle (think A380) is the most regulated. The lightest, least maneuverable craft (the balloon) has the most privileges and the least regulation. Helicopters have some additional privileges and strictures based on their maneuverability.

I would normally be inclined to agree with you, but it seems to me there are some complex issues for regulators in the question of whether to allow lane splitting which have to be weighed against fairness.

The first is whether you want to do whatever you can to reduce congestion. Allowing motorcycles to do what they can to get out of the way helps with at, albeit to a limited extent, particularly if you use the speed rules that apply in Australia.

The second is whether you want to reduce the number of motor vehicles on the road, particularly those carrying only one person. If it becomes a great deal quicker and more efficient for people to use scooters and motorcycles to commute, it may turn people from cars to bikes. Allowing motorcycles to filter will also reduce the amount of time they are sitting in traffic burning fuel when it isn't necessary.

I don't know about the USA; but elsewhere in the world, having come to the realisation that building more and better roads simply encourages the appearance of cars, governments are doing what they can to reduce the number of them. They are building dedicated bikeways for cycles, legalising filtering for motorcycles under prescribed conditions, imposing stiff tolls on cars in some city areas, and building lanes that can be used only by cars with more than one or two occupants. Such transit lanes can usually also be used by motorcycles. I read yesterday that that the City of London is thinking of imposing an additional toll on vehicles entering the city which do not meet a very high standards of emission control (Euro 4, I think).

So, consideration of filtering is not so much about advantaging motorcycles as taking steps to decrease the attractiveness of commuting by car.

Paris recently enacted regulations similar to this, banning all cars not made after 1997 (over 20 years old).

California is building high-speed rail now, and Los Angeles is hard at work on creating bicycle routes and lanes. Anything that will reduce the number of cars is a good thing, but these efforts also improve the quality of life in these locations.