Lane splitting (sharing) interview

[Dave Swanson]

Hopefully things will change in the rest of the 49 states. It's frustrating not being able to split lanes in Illinois.

[emptysea]

I think it might well be worth considering elsewhere in the US. However, I'm a little concerned with what seems to be the key requirement for lane-splitting to work--education and acceptance by drivers. We cannot get drivers to pass on the left, to move back to the right after passing, to signal when they change lanes, or to refrain from using their phone (especially for texting). I am not sure that we will have a lot of success getting them to be even more cognizant of their surroundings. That doesn't mean if should be legal or that we should abandon efforts to make it as safe as possible, but it does mean that those efforts need to be substantial.

[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.

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.

That is correct.
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.

[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.

That is correct.
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.

That is correct.
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. Well-said. I can add that, with a very strong and long background in civil service as well as urban planning, what you have stated is exactly correct with respect to the urban design strategies of most cities.

The reasons that motorists on four or more wheels may not respond positively to lane-sharing are manifold, and without any doubt some of them may be rightly attributed to ill will. But the majority of them could most likely be chalked up to surprise and then fear, which is followed by a response of indignation, and then followed up with the classic "They ought to do something about those crazy bikers!"

California already allows lane-sharing and the vast majority of our motorists are acculturated to accept it (as they do many things that are considered outre in other parts of the nation); the current legislative efforts underway (of which Randy B is a part now) are simply to further educate our motoring public.

Other localities may find California's efforts instructive; as I never ride outside California these days -- due to a surplus of good weather and roads here -- this is of little consequence to me most of the time.

That said, we do get the occasional tourist and I've had some issues there.

[emptysea]

One of my points was that not everyone who is opposed to lane-splitting is petty or stupid.

I am fully aware of how highways are designed. I am not stupid, either.

My other point is that educating the public is imperative, but be aware that teaching drivers to drive (at least in the US) has always had mixed results. Many drivers don't know the rules and many who do, choose to ignore them.

[Elipten_imp]

One other thing I want to mention is that much of the world rides smaller motorcycles than most that are ridden in USA. I would think lane-splitting is easier with smaller motorcycles.

[EarsOnWheels_imp]

All this concern about educating drivers is misplaced. When traffic is stopped or nearly stopped, it doesn't matter what their political affiliation or driving test score is, a motorcycle going 15mph will pass most vehicles without disturbing anything.

I live about as far away from California as you can get and in a major metropolitan area (DC) with a huge portion of some of the nation's worst drivers (looking at you, Maryland). Filtering is still no problem. Just the occasional honk from a grump.

[mattmcuomo@yahoo.com]

This might sound crazy to some but I actually enjoy the lane splitting part of my commute. I can actually "ride" my bike instead of just cruising at high speed. I only go where I can fit and don't expect cars to move for me, if they don't, I wait or find another way around. I even listen to music while riding. I used to find it stressful but now I just enjoy the ride!

Sent from me......

[rotor]

This might sound crazy to some but I actually enjoy the lane splitting part of my commute. I can actually "ride" my bike instead of just cruising at high speed. I only go where I can fit and don't expect cars to move for me, if they don't, I wait or find another way around. I even listen to music while riding. I used to find it stressful but now I just enjoy the ride!

Sent from me......

Not crazy at all.
I also ride in a large European metropolis. There is nothing nicer than a synchronized dance of two vehicles, three cars up from me, that move, the right one to the right, the left one to the left, when they see me in their rear-view mirrors, way behind them, between the lanes of crawling traffic. When in a cab, I tip the driver a princely sum if I catch him in such a manoeuvre. With, of course, an appropriate explanation how he deserved it.

[Rebel73_imp]

LaRider,

You just pretty much confirmed my personal lane-splitting strategy - no lane splitting if traffic is moving 30+mph. Below that speed, I will split but with no more than 15mph differential while covering my brakes. It just seems like common sense to me.