Ulvetanna_imp
Road warrior
Makes me want to go for a ride, after I've had some caffeine.:hello:Inhouse Bob_imp said:
Lane splitting (sharing) interview
- Thread starter Randy B
- Start date
dsinned_imp
Been there
My sense is that Officer Rob is a special case. A lane splitting cop is most likely viewed by the general motoring public as a motorcycle rider with "the right" to do so as part of his job. By his own admission he commutes home from Hollywood for 50 miles while lane splitting, so I presume he is off duty. Now, keep in mind that freeways in Southern CA are some of the most God awful, bumper to bumper, intensely CONGESTED highways in the world, especially during rush hours! If they have diamond lanes, commuting may not be as bad, but ordinarily they are flat out the worst possible highways, and practically unbearable on hot Summer days.
To do so anyway on those type of roads as an every day commuter on a motorcycle, lane splitting or not, is just plain nuts! Imho, a rider's life expectancy will not be for very long, lane splitting that often and that long. If you somehow manage to survive lane splitting on a daily basis, which is still bad for your health since the added stress will be absolutely nerve wrecking, I think guys like this need to have way more than nine lives.
Bottom line, in my view, lane splitting is kind of a circumstantial last resort, to be avoided if possible. Constantly trying to squeeze through a sea of cars all around you, without greatly limiting your speed, enough to keep from overheating, is extremely risky. Get another job closer to home!
To do so anyway on those type of roads as an every day commuter on a motorcycle, lane splitting or not, is just plain nuts! Imho, a rider's life expectancy will not be for very long, lane splitting that often and that long. If you somehow manage to survive lane splitting on a daily basis, which is still bad for your health since the added stress will be absolutely nerve wrecking, I think guys like this need to have way more than nine lives.
Bottom line, in my view, lane splitting is kind of a circumstantial last resort, to be avoided if possible. Constantly trying to squeeze through a sea of cars all around you, without greatly limiting your speed, enough to keep from overheating, is extremely risky. Get another job closer to home!
mattmcuomo@yahoo.com
Been there
That video was uneventful as far as lane splitting goes. I do the same exact thing as him. He didn't have any problems at all. When you do it safely you can avoid getting hit and I do it all the time! Usually someone texting and not paying attention but also people simply don't pay attention even if they are just driving! They don't signal lane changes, look to see if it's clear they just go where they want to go! I could go on but I think we all know what it's like dealing with bad drivers.....
Sent from me......
Sent from me......
I recently took a trip on my Trophy that took me through southern CA on a weekend. Even on the weekend, the traffic was terrible. I did not lane split because 1) I'm not used to it and 2) I felt my giant Trophy was wider than I wanted to try to fit between two cars.
That being said, I fully endorse those who can and do so. I am compelled by the arguments that the motorcycle takes up less space in the lane, thus relieving traffic somewhat, as well as it actually being safer for the motorcyclist in that rear-end collisions are reduced, as long as the speed delta between the splitting traffic and ambient traffic is not too high.
That being said, I fully endorse those who can and do so. I am compelled by the arguments that the motorcycle takes up less space in the lane, thus relieving traffic somewhat, as well as it actually being safer for the motorcyclist in that rear-end collisions are reduced, as long as the speed delta between the splitting traffic and ambient traffic is not too high.
the Ferret
Road warrior
read this today
The Safety Transportation Research and Education Center at the University of Berkeley published a report in August that said motorcyclists who split lanes were less likely to be rear-ended but were more likely to have rear-ended another vehicle.
“They were also more likely to be involved in weekday collisions and more likely to be involved in collisions during peak traffic times,” the report found.
Lane splitters are also at risk of sideswipe accidents.
The Safety Transportation Research and Education Center at the University of Berkeley published a report in August that said motorcyclists who split lanes were less likely to be rear-ended but were more likely to have rear-ended another vehicle.
“They were also more likely to be involved in weekday collisions and more likely to be involved in collisions during peak traffic times,” the report found.
Lane splitters are also at risk of sideswipe accidents.
Pterodactyl_imp
Road warrior
the Ferret
Road warrior
Lol well in making a decision it's good to have all of the facts, isn't it, whether redundant or not.
If splitting decreases the chance of rear end collisions, as proponents claim, but increases the chances of rear ending someone which the proponants don't even mention, even though both facts are in the study...... Then all the information is not getting told. I didn't make it up, apparently it was spelled out in the study, but nobody is mentioning the possible downsides, only the upsides.
All factors should be taken into account ...right?
I don't think there is much chance that this isn't going to become law in Cali, but there are 49 more states which will have to consider it at some point in the future, as legislators will be pressured by motorcyclist lobbying groups, and we all may be asked to vote on it someday. I would assume most motorcyclists would say yes, but reading replies on various forums etc, that is definitly not the case. There seems to be as many against, as there are for. It seems to me the younger the rider the more he is for, the older the rider the more he is against. Maybe an age and fear thing? Then there is the general public that has to be sold on the idea. Since Cali is used to it, after 30 years or whatever, it may be more readily accepted there. The rest of the country, who knows?
If splitting decreases the chance of rear end collisions, as proponents claim, but increases the chances of rear ending someone which the proponants don't even mention, even though both facts are in the study...... Then all the information is not getting told. I didn't make it up, apparently it was spelled out in the study, but nobody is mentioning the possible downsides, only the upsides.
All factors should be taken into account ...right?
I don't think there is much chance that this isn't going to become law in Cali, but there are 49 more states which will have to consider it at some point in the future, as legislators will be pressured by motorcyclist lobbying groups, and we all may be asked to vote on it someday. I would assume most motorcyclists would say yes, but reading replies on various forums etc, that is definitly not the case. There seems to be as many against, as there are for. It seems to me the younger the rider the more he is for, the older the rider the more he is against. Maybe an age and fear thing? Then there is the general public that has to be sold on the idea. Since Cali is used to it, after 30 years or whatever, it may be more readily accepted there. The rest of the country, who knows?
metallyguitarded_imp
Road warrior
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!
Pterodactyl_imp
Road warrior
And, good folks that are old, infirm and afraid, I don't believe filtering/splitting will be made compulsory. Or will it ? 
.
Cheers
. Cheers
the Ferret
Road warrior
Good point MG and I don't know.
PTero no one can make me lane split, that's true, but I liken this to a helmet law. Are my responsible for your head? Or your safety at all? Not really. But I am asked to vote on helmet laws, and while the vast majority of motorcyclists, at least in this country, are against a helmet law, and I am personally pro choice with regards to gear, I feel a helmet law is in the best interest of motorcycling. Certainly a safety issue, just as proponents of lane splitting proclaim. See another subject I am torn on.
PTero no one can make me lane split, that's true, but I liken this to a helmet law. Are my responsible for your head? Or your safety at all? Not really. But I am asked to vote on helmet laws, and while the vast majority of motorcyclists, at least in this country, are against a helmet law, and I am personally pro choice with regards to gear, I feel a helmet law is in the best interest of motorcycling. Certainly a safety issue, just as proponents of lane splitting proclaim. See another subject I am torn on.
Randy B
Road warrior
Thread starter
That "study" that was released from Berkeley has been tossed around a lot during the discussions in the CA legislature and a lot of the conclusions have been found to be inaccurate for various reasons. It was also found that the study was not necessarily unbiased in nature and thus the finding skewed.
I'm not saying that there is no good information in it, just that you need to take it with a grain of salt. It is what it is.
I'm not saying that there is no good information in it, just that you need to take it with a grain of salt. It is what it is.
mattmcuomo@yahoo.com
Been there
Ride your own ride....
Sent from me......
Sent from me......
Ulvetanna_imp
Road warrior
Lane-sharing is not against the law now in California; the current efforts underway are to educate the public about it to make it safer for everyone.
The two main factors are:
a) We have many more motor officers than ever before and their motorcycles allow them to be first responders to some of the bad stuff we have happening nowadays. Motor cops are allowed and encouraged to take their motorcycles home so they are available to them at all hours. That's why the officer was going home on his motor. These guys constitute a very important first line of defense and response; if motorists are educated to expect lane-sharing and to look for it in traffic, our officers are safer and able to do their jobs, which might save one or more lives.
b) Motorcycles are considered fuel-efficient and can use carpool lanes in California. They are populous and are not going to go away, and after these many years of being part of the traffic pattern, the notion of banning lane-sharing would be preposterous. We'd just keep doing it anyway. One thing I did not see mentioned is that it is not as much a problem of the bike overheating in traffic as the RIDER overheating. Heat exhaustion and dehydration are big problems in the desert southwest; a biker needs to keep moving to keep himself AND his bike cool.
These efforts are to educate new drivers as to the reality of how motorcycles fit into the traffic flow and what is acceptable, and how to anticipate it.
The two main factors are:
a) We have many more motor officers than ever before and their motorcycles allow them to be first responders to some of the bad stuff we have happening nowadays. Motor cops are allowed and encouraged to take their motorcycles home so they are available to them at all hours. That's why the officer was going home on his motor. These guys constitute a very important first line of defense and response; if motorists are educated to expect lane-sharing and to look for it in traffic, our officers are safer and able to do their jobs, which might save one or more lives.
b) Motorcycles are considered fuel-efficient and can use carpool lanes in California. They are populous and are not going to go away, and after these many years of being part of the traffic pattern, the notion of banning lane-sharing would be preposterous. We'd just keep doing it anyway. One thing I did not see mentioned is that it is not as much a problem of the bike overheating in traffic as the RIDER overheating. Heat exhaustion and dehydration are big problems in the desert southwest; a biker needs to keep moving to keep himself AND his bike cool.
These efforts are to educate new drivers as to the reality of how motorcycles fit into the traffic flow and what is acceptable, and how to anticipate it.
emptysea
Road warrior
It's all well and good to educate the public on lane-sharing. IF it's going to be allowed, then an educated motorist is vitally important. I just can't get past the liability questions. Who's at fault if a car moves to the leftmost portion of his lane and hits a rider whose handlebars and grips are in the motorist's lane? Is that portion of the motorist's lane now the biker's? When is that determined--only when the bike chooses to occupy that lane or is it all the time, thereby narrowing the motorist's lane by a foot or two on each side? My guess, and it is only a guess, is that in Cali, if a motorist moves over, within his own lane, and strikes a biker, the motorist is at-fault. This strikes me a problematic. I'm all for moving along, avoiding collisions, staying cool, and the biker's overall safety. I just think that if they want to have a narrow lane exclusive to bikers, it should be along the shoulders of the road and not in between the car lanes.
Randy B
Road warrior
Thread starter
The problem with making a narrow lane just for bikes along the shoulder is the road debris that accumulates there. I have seen accident debris on the side of a roadway sit there for a month even though it should have been cleaned up by the tow truck that picked up the wreck in the first place.
And as to the idea of a motorist moving to one side or the other within their lane that can be construed as weaving even if they don't actually leave their lane of travel and if observed by an officer they could be pulled over. It shows a lack of concentration on the road or impairment of the driver in that they could either be paying attention to a cell phone and not watching the road, or even be drunk. In either of those cases, a car driver weaving withing their lane like that and hitting someone on a motorcycle while splitting, it would be the drivers fault.
You have to realize that this is not something that just goes on in California, but parts of Australia and most of Europe and Asia do it as well. This is something that law enforcement agencies and insurance companies around the world deal with every day. There are good and bad lane splitters just like there are good and bad drivers in general. It would be something that the public would have to get used to if it were made legal in other states, but I have a feeling that that would be far off at this point.
And as to the idea of a motorist moving to one side or the other within their lane that can be construed as weaving even if they don't actually leave their lane of travel and if observed by an officer they could be pulled over. It shows a lack of concentration on the road or impairment of the driver in that they could either be paying attention to a cell phone and not watching the road, or even be drunk. In either of those cases, a car driver weaving withing their lane like that and hitting someone on a motorcycle while splitting, it would be the drivers fault.
You have to realize that this is not something that just goes on in California, but parts of Australia and most of Europe and Asia do it as well. This is something that law enforcement agencies and insurance companies around the world deal with every day. There are good and bad lane splitters just like there are good and bad drivers in general. It would be something that the public would have to get used to if it were made legal in other states, but I have a feeling that that would be far off at this point.
the Ferret
Road warrior
Really? and a motorcycle weaving back and forth between 2 lanes of cars and popping in and out of lanes without the benefit of using turn signals would NOT be construed as weaving? or illegal lane change?Randy B_imp said:
so if a hole in traffic opens up and a motorcyclist who is splitting pops in from the left without signaling. while a car seeing the hole, signals and pops in from the right, and the two collide in the middle, who would be at fault?
Just trying to understand.
I agree with Sea, wouldn't a motorcycle exclusive lane be the safer way to do it all around?
emptysea
Road warrior
I am aware that other countries do it. Insurance works differently in Europe than in the US as do their court systems. That's fine for them. I also am aware of debris on the shoulder and that would involve some extra work on the part of the people maintaining the roads.
Weaving is not the issue. Moving from one side of the lane to the other to avoid, say, a dead animal, is not weaving. Nor is moving from one side to the other to give the driver a better sight line around another vehicle. It happens all the time. It happens on your motorcycle (or it should).
Look, LOL, I'm not sure why I keep commenting on these threads. I really could not care less if any of you split lanes. It doesn't bother me when I'm riding and only bothers me when I'm driving if the splitter is being an idiot about it. I have split lanes once or twice and I have filtered to the front of the line at a stop light several times. When I do so, I know I am violating the traffic laws in my state and am willing to risk a ticket or being considered at-fault for any accident that may result from my actions. Because I know that I'm violating the traffic laws, I am much more careful about when and where I do it. I think that helps keep me from becoming that idiot I mentioned earlier.
Educate the public. I'm all for it.
Weaving is not the issue. Moving from one side of the lane to the other to avoid, say, a dead animal, is not weaving. Nor is moving from one side to the other to give the driver a better sight line around another vehicle. It happens all the time. It happens on your motorcycle (or it should).
Look, LOL, I'm not sure why I keep commenting on these threads. I really could not care less if any of you split lanes. It doesn't bother me when I'm riding and only bothers me when I'm driving if the splitter is being an idiot about it. I have split lanes once or twice and I have filtered to the front of the line at a stop light several times. When I do so, I know I am violating the traffic laws in my state and am willing to risk a ticket or being considered at-fault for any accident that may result from my actions. Because I know that I'm violating the traffic laws, I am much more careful about when and where I do it. I think that helps keep me from becoming that idiot I mentioned earlier.
Educate the public. I'm all for it.
Randy B
Road warrior
Thread starter
Really? and a motorcycle weaving back and forth between 2 lanes of cars and popping in and out of lanes without the benefit of using turn signals would NOT be construed as weaving? or illegal lane change?The ferret_imp said:
so if a hole in traffic opens up and a motorcyclist who is splitting pops in from the left without signaling. while a car seeing the hole, signals and pops in from the right, and the two collide in the middle, who would be at fault?
Just trying to understand.
I agree with Sea, wouldn't a motorcycle exclusive lane be the safer way to do it all around?
First of all I'm not yelling or berating here, just stating.
If a motorcycle is weaving he's not splitting, he's weaving. That can be, and is ticketed here because it is dangerous.
If a motorcycle moves into a gap and a car comes over from the other lane, weather they signaled or not, the rider will most likely get out of the way so he doesn't get run over. An opening in a lane between two other lanes is a possibility for all types of vehicles and I don't care who you are, you had better be paying attention when you do it or you are risking an collision.
If the rider is in the position of being ahead of the driver when moving into the lane then it would be his lane to occupy. If the driver were ahead, then it would be his. It's the same idea as if the rider were coming from the lane next to the open one....merge with caution and be aware of the other vehicle around you. It's not rocket science.
emptysea
Road warrior
There are designated bicycle only lanes all over Chicago. Some are just a paint strip on the side of the street, but others are segmented off from motorized traffic. They seem to work.
Why not a motorcycle only lane? It would be safest to have them along the shoulder, but heck, you could put it smack in between the center and left lanes, if you wanted to. Maybe it's not a through lane at all. Rather, maybe it's a "motorcycle passing lane" where bikes are only supposed to be in it when passing between vehicles and then return to either of the adjacent lanes. Something like that would help educate the public and would eliminate my "stay out of my lane" concern.
Why not a motorcycle only lane? It would be safest to have them along the shoulder, but heck, you could put it smack in between the center and left lanes, if you wanted to. Maybe it's not a through lane at all. Rather, maybe it's a "motorcycle passing lane" where bikes are only supposed to be in it when passing between vehicles and then return to either of the adjacent lanes. Something like that would help educate the public and would eliminate my "stay out of my lane" concern.
