07-10-2016, 08:31 AM
(07-10-2016, 05:08 AM)EmptySea_imp Wrote:That is correct.(07-10-2016, 01:27 AM)rotor_imp Wrote:(07-09-2016, 11:18 PM)Randy B_imp Wrote:(07-09-2016, 02:41 PM)rotor_imp Wrote: What I find interesting when talking to fellow motorcyclists in North America is that when the subject comes up they invariably mention something like "its not done anywhere with the exception of California".
On the contrary, its done everywhere, world-wide, with the exception of US and Canada.
This is the truth. It is ingrained in riders all across North America that it's dangerous, except for in California, and they think we are nuts for doing it. If drivers know that it's coming and rider do it responsibly then the risk is minimal.
It's a win-win for everyone, but too many drivers here think "they are just cutting in front of me" and all that is is selfish thinking.
The opposition from car drivers is just petty envy that some will be at their destination a bit sooner than they; even when that makes absolutely no difference to their time of arrival. But why are many motorcyclists also opposed? I have a theory: in North America, motorcycle is for the most part a toy, and thus riders choose to ride on the roads with little or no traffic, and even if they care how fast they ride, they do not care when they arrive.
It is very instructive to watch motorcycle traffic in Seoul, Bangkok or Sanaa: 99% of that traffic is for business, not pleasure. In a typical North American city the ratio is an inverse. You can see a rear carrier on a very few motorcycles here, while in the rest of the world, you can hardly see a motorcycle without one.
The opposition from car drivers is just petty envy that some will be at their destination a bit sooner than they; even when that makes absolutely no difference to their time of arrival. But why are many motorcyclists also opposed? I have a theory: in North America, motorcycle is for the most part a toy, and thus riders choose to ride on the roads with little or no traffic, and even if they care how fast they ride, they do not care when they arrive.
It is very instructive to watch motorcycle traffic in Seoul, Bangkok or Sanaa: 99% of that traffic is for business, not pleasure. In a typical North American city the ratio is an inverse. You can see a rear carrier on a very few motorcycles here, while in the rest of the world, you can hardly see a motorcycle without one.
I'll accept Randy's "too many drivers here think..." proposition, but rotor's "petty envy" comment is insulting, judgmental, and incorrect. There is no question that lane-splitting is more dangerous than if all vehicles were flowing at the same speed in their own lanes. Drivers recognize this and it influences their opinion on the topic. Some, perhaps most, drivers are not aware of the theory (and it is only a theory) that lane-splitting is safer for the rider than being part of stop and go traffic. That does not make them petty. I am a driver...I do not want any other vehicle in my lane because it decreases the size of MY safety zone as well as the size of the other vehicle's safety zone. I may be willing to yield this space to motorcycles, but only if I can be convinced that the overall safety of the highway system is enhanced. Unless you can begin to convince the 4 and 18 wheeled public that this is the safer alternative as opposed to the most expedient alternative to motorcyclists, you will continue to run into what I believe is rational opposition to lane splitting. And that's where Cali's new iniative and Randy's interview have to be focused.
Quote:...I may be willing to yield this space to motorcycles, but only if I can be convinced that the overall safety of the highway system is enhanced. Overall safety is not enhanced. But "safety", desirable as it unquestionably is, is not an absolute. The best highway traffic system is not the one with least number of accidents, the best one is one with the highest throughput with a given acceptable number of accidents. We could find any number of ways to decrease number of accidents to near zero if we accept severe decrease in throughput, but this is not the objective of traffic planners; their objective is to find a reasonable balance between the safety and throughput.
Another element of "safety" needs also to be taken into consideration here: the safety consequences of lane sharing are infinitely less serious for car drivers than for motorcyclists; this is why I took the liberty to characterise the opposition of the former as I did.