Lane splitting (sharing) interview

[Randy B]

Ok so I was there for about 2½ hours and did a sit down interview inside and then we went outside and he did some close up stuff of the bike and me getting ready to ride. Then a couple of "fly by" shots on the surface street by the station. Then he mounted a couple of cameras to the bike and we headed out into rush hour on the freeway. I rode for about 12 miles and then waited for him to catch up to me at a gas station and he collected his cameras.
He filled my tank (all .583 gallons), we parted ways and I headed home. He said it will air sometime next month, but there is no definite date as of now. He will let me know. It will be available online to view after it airs.

[Ulvetanna_imp]

Great, very interested to see it. You are doing a good service for us all.

[Cormanus]

I'll also be interested to see it.

Good on you, Randy.

[rotor]

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.

[Randy B]

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.

[rotor]

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.

[dsinned_imp]

I was lane splitting for a few miles yesterday on Saturday morning while stuck in traffic on one of our local freeways in route to the rural highways of the Santa Cruz Mountains. What was intended to be a leisurely ride up to Alice's Restaurant to meet with a fellow CB1100 owner and member here, started out to be intensely stressful. The traffic was nearly at a standstill and bumper to bumper on the freeway. I was making forward progress at a safe and sane speed of around 20 mph, but it was still STRESSFUL as He**!

I took the next available exist and altered my route to be on side streets to get to my intended freeway turn off a few miles away. I had one or two precarious situations while "splitting", but was able to get off the freeway relatively unscathed by taking advantage of a merging traffic lane for about 1/4 of a mile before the next exist. If not for that early exist opportunity, I would of had to stay on the freeway for several more miles literally in a sea of cars, thus raising my stress level even more!

I'd rather ride on city streets, riding from intersection to intersection - in THAT form of stop and go - than frantically lane splitting on the freeway so as save a time en route to my destination! I believe lane splitting is inherently more dangerous even during the best of circumstances. There are just too many motorist around you not paying attention, meandering side to side in a lane of traffic, or changing lanes without checking first or not able to clearly see a motorcycle just to the rear who is splitting the adjacent lane. The biker MUST constantly be prepared to make a panic stop at any moment and the faster he is lane splitting, the less s/he can avoid a collision.

I kind of like the idea of a dedicated (but narrower) lane for motorcycles similar to commuter diamond lanes we have now. Or, better still, I wish I was out in the country where there was no everyday traffic congestion to begin with!

[emptysea]

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.

[Randy B]

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.

I get what you're saying, but the audience that I will be talking to are used to it and expect it to happen. There are some in that audience that don't like it, but they know it happens and also know that there are no laws prohibiting it.
If this were an interview for national consumption then it would be perceived more along your line of thinking I suspect.
If you talk to riders in states that border California you'll find a higher number that want the legal ability to split if the need arises then say in Illinois where most think that it's an insane maneuver and you will most surely DIE if you do it (dems just jokes, but you know what I mean).
It's definitely a contentious subject and strong feelings on both sides of the issue. I can definitely see the benefits of it, and the risks involved, and I still do it when it is safe to do so.

Oh....and NEVER split passed a semi. They are wider than anything else on the road (for the most part) and if you mess up, you're dead.

[Ulvetanna_imp]

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.

I get what you're saying, but the audience that I will be talking to are used to it and expect it to happen. There are some in that audience that don't like it, but they know it happens and also know that there are no laws prohibiting it.
If this were an interview for national consumption then it would be perceived more along your line of thinking I suspect.
If you talk to riders in states that border California you'll find a higher number that want the legal ability to split if the need arises then say in Illinois where most think that it's an insane maneuver and you will most surely DIE if you do it (dems just jokes, but you know what I mean).
It's definitely a contentious subject and strong feelings on both sides of the issue. I can definitely see the benefits of it, and the risks involved, and I still do it when it is safe to do so.

Oh....and NEVER split passed a semi. They are wider than anything else on the road (for the most part) and if you mess up, you're dead.

Some of us live in California, it's legal here, almost everyone understands what it's about, we do it. If other states want to do it, they can handle their problem on their own.

I split along tractor-trailers whenever there's room. Often they move over for me.