Mickey, In my opinion unfortunately it would be the motorcycle at fault . The motorcycle is on the cars blind spot so I believe in my own experience that its the motorcyclist responsibility to anticipate a cars action at all times and should have seen the cars INDICATORS going into that hole in that lane.
Lane splitting (sharing) interview
- Thread starter Randy B
- Start date
Randy B
Road warrior
Thread starter
And ferret a motorcycle exclusive lane would make people all the madder then they are now. They don't obey the carpool lane restrictions as it is, what in the world would make you believe that they would stay out of a motorcycle lane with their cars?
There is also a ton of motorcycle parking spots out here and car regularly park in them taking up 3-4 spots for bikes. They see an opening and take it.
Besides, making an exclusive lane would be monetarily prohibitive.
There is also a ton of motorcycle parking spots out here and car regularly park in them taking up 3-4 spots for bikes. They see an opening and take it.
Besides, making an exclusive lane would be monetarily prohibitive.
emptysea
Road warrior
Only the last sentence makes any logical sense, Randy. Expense is the issue. That motorists violate the carpool and motorcycle parking restrictions is not a logical argument for not having carpool lanes or parking restrictions, much less a logical argument against motorcycle-only lanes. I would contend that more motorists would look before entering a motorcycle-only lane (and more still a motorcycle-passing lane) than currently look for splitters when they change lanes now.
the Ferret
Road warrior
Sea we comment because this is an open public forum and the subject was brought up, so as thinking individuals we discuss the subject. I wish more than just a few of us would discuss these things. I'd like to know if my thinking is with the majority or not, how do other motorcyclist think about things like splitting, gear, passing on double yellows, etc?
Discussion is part of education. Without discussion it's just pontification. I'd like to know the legal ramifications, the moral obligations, what is expected of us, what we expect of others, what riders think is ok and what is not ok, so I can make (relatively) intelligent decisions on differing subjects, especially those I may be asked to vote on someday. Right now, on this subject, still not sure which way I would vote. Unlike the gear subject, it not only affects me as a motorcyclist, but every so often I drive a 4 wheeled vehicle as well, and it would affect me then as well. I didn't feel comfortable in the rental car in Cali with motorcycles blasting past inches from my window, but maybe because that was the first time it ever happened to me. I didn't feel comfortable doing it on my motorcycle in Cali because I had never done it before. May be old hat for Cali motorcyclists, but for a Buckeye visiting, it was a new and most terrifying experience
Discussion is part of education. Without discussion it's just pontification. I'd like to know the legal ramifications, the moral obligations, what is expected of us, what we expect of others, what riders think is ok and what is not ok, so I can make (relatively) intelligent decisions on differing subjects, especially those I may be asked to vote on someday. Right now, on this subject, still not sure which way I would vote. Unlike the gear subject, it not only affects me as a motorcyclist, but every so often I drive a 4 wheeled vehicle as well, and it would affect me then as well. I didn't feel comfortable in the rental car in Cali with motorcycles blasting past inches from my window, but maybe because that was the first time it ever happened to me. I didn't feel comfortable doing it on my motorcycle in Cali because I had never done it before. May be old hat for Cali motorcyclists, but for a Buckeye visiting, it was a new and most terrifying experience
aschem_imp
Been there
Grew up riding in So Cal and I have no problem lane splitting.
Being from MS, I can't say that we even have enough traffic to discuss lane splitting, but I was riding in the Bay area a couple of years back and noticed several riders doing it. I was not used to seeing it and sometimes found myself in the far right side of the lane and it scared the crap out of me a couple of times when other motorcyclists would do it. While I didn't lane split, I did watch my right mirror closely and it seemed to work well. The riders were courteous and waved each time. I'm sure it will be a long long time before the issue comes up here at home.
the Ferret
Road warrior
Topic is also big in Montana and North Dakota :rofl:
Actually there might be a few places where this would even be of much concern outside of California... Miami, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, New York City (can you imagine New Yorkers moving over to let motorcyclists zoom past? lol) Boston, Seattle, Portland, Washington DC
Actually there might be a few places where this would even be of much concern outside of California... Miami, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, New York City (can you imagine New Yorkers moving over to let motorcyclists zoom past? lol) Boston, Seattle, Portland, Washington DC
"Ahead of the other vehicle" is not a right-of-way law I've ever encountered (assuming by "ahead," you're talking about space [in front of], and not time).Randy B_imp said:
Generally, it is my understanding that the vehicle already in the lane has the right-of-way in that lane. In other words, whoever got there first, regardless of whether they are in front of, or behind the other motorist. Additionally, once in the lane, he need not make accommodation for other motorists, other than to be sure not to follow too closely to the vehicle in front of him (i.e. tailgate). Courtesy, while polite, is not the law. There are caveats for HOW they got there... if they are there first, but performed an illegal lane change (e.g. did not signal their lane change), then they are most likely are at-fault. If they got there first, but passed on the right in a state where that is illegal, again, they are most likely at-fault. If two vehicles are attempting to occupy the same lane at the same time, both legally, some states say the vehicle on the left has the right-of-way and the vehicle on the right must yield, but this isn't universal, unfortunately.
Further, if a vehicle is LEAVING the lane you are in, and you attempt to go around them before they have fully occupied the adjacent lane, you need to keep in mind that THEY still have right-of-way in the lane they are departing until they fully occupied the adjacent lane. So, if they happen to jack the brakes or hurriedly return to the lane for whatever reason, causing the two of you to collide, YOU are at-fault. This makes me think that the lane-splitting motorist is basically ALWAYS at-fault unless the adjacent motorist did something egregious.
Randy B
Road warrior
Thread starter
My statement about being ahead was not from a legal standpoint, more from a practical standpoint. Basically if you are ahead you most likely will be entering the lane first anyway because the vehicle that would be behind would not have the room to make a safe lane change anyway. I could try and draw out what I'm talking about, but if you think about it, you'll understand what I'm saying.
Pterodactyl_imp
Road warrior
Maybe we are overthinking this. In Oz there was similar lane filtering discussion on motorcycle and motorist forums, State parliaments, the press, shock jock radio and "down the pub". Opinions ranged from all sweetness and light to predictions of bloody carnage on the roads. One thing was apparent though. Motorcyclists were already doing it. In large numbers. Some were getting booked. Not many, as road policing here relies heavily on fixed and mobile speed camera revenue raising. Some motorists were enraged by this illegal activity; lane filtering and splitting I mean, as all are enraged by speed cameras. This encouraged tut tutting by some motorists, other motorists to actively block lane filtering and formed a good basis for good old road rage.
It is often said that if enough good citizens disobey the law then maybe the law should be looked at. Well sanity prevailed and the filtering law was looked at and the law, finally, changed to legalise filtering. It was a long and slow process and lined the pockets of many academic producers of "authoritative studies" with much tax payers gold, kept shock jocks in subject matter, parliamentarians in front of press cameras and the latté sippers hearts a-fluttering. In short everyone was happily occupied. But it was done. Bloody carnage? No. Insurance battles? No. Increase in road rage? No, because filtering was now legal and that kind of tends to undermine the basis of a good rage. Motorists and motorcyclists have come, in the main, to realise filtering actually works to benefit both parties. With time greasing the wheels of change most motorists now actively give a little room when they are aware that there is a bike in the rear view mirror. And I am grateful to them for that and the milk of human kindness washes the tension from my forearms as I filter with gay (in the traditional sense) abandon.
The filtering laws vary slightly from State to State but are essentially the same in that filtering is defined as the act of manoeuvring, at speeds of up to 30kph, between lines of traffic when the traffic is either stationary or moving at low speed. There are rules which I won't bother to post here. Just Google if you are interested. Anything resembling, but outside of that, is defined as lane splitting and is specifically outlawed. Fines and worse may be applied. Of course a small minority of motorcyclists still split. They often make the news.
So, what's my point? Basically that we, being the Australian road using community, did surely find a compromise on this issue and guess what? It works. The idea of 30kph was earlier scoffed at. Maybe that was part of the compromise.
Cheers
It is often said that if enough good citizens disobey the law then maybe the law should be looked at. Well sanity prevailed and the filtering law was looked at and the law, finally, changed to legalise filtering. It was a long and slow process and lined the pockets of many academic producers of "authoritative studies" with much tax payers gold, kept shock jocks in subject matter, parliamentarians in front of press cameras and the latté sippers hearts a-fluttering. In short everyone was happily occupied. But it was done. Bloody carnage? No. Insurance battles? No. Increase in road rage? No, because filtering was now legal and that kind of tends to undermine the basis of a good rage. Motorists and motorcyclists have come, in the main, to realise filtering actually works to benefit both parties. With time greasing the wheels of change most motorists now actively give a little room when they are aware that there is a bike in the rear view mirror. And I am grateful to them for that and the milk of human kindness washes the tension from my forearms as I filter with gay (in the traditional sense) abandon.
The filtering laws vary slightly from State to State but are essentially the same in that filtering is defined as the act of manoeuvring, at speeds of up to 30kph, between lines of traffic when the traffic is either stationary or moving at low speed. There are rules which I won't bother to post here. Just Google if you are interested. Anything resembling, but outside of that, is defined as lane splitting and is specifically outlawed. Fines and worse may be applied. Of course a small minority of motorcyclists still split. They often make the news.
So, what's my point? Basically that we, being the Australian road using community, did surely find a compromise on this issue and guess what? It works. The idea of 30kph was earlier scoffed at. Maybe that was part of the compromise.
Cheers
the Ferret
Road warrior
What say ye Randy, Ulve, MMC, Aschem, Lunatic, Retsel et al can you guys keep to down to max 30 kph (18 mph?)
Ulve that would no doubt require you to be under 4500 rpms lol
Ulve that would no doubt require you to be under 4500 rpms lol
Pterodactyl_imp
Road warrior
True Ferret. Some can't. They are part of the problem, not the solution.The ferret_imp said:
Cheers
mattmcuomo@yahoo.com
Been there
18 mph? No, sorry.
Sent from me......
Sent from me......
Ulvetanna_imp
Road warrior
:rofl:The ferret_imp said:
No, not possible, preposterous actually. Bike would fall over, no stability.
I would say when traffic starts to drop below 45 mph I start looking to lane-split.
I don't say it's my favorite thing to do but when I find myself in the situation I usually go with it. However I have been known to just get off the freeway and take surface streets if I am not up to it.
Funny though, as far as gearing, I did some riding in 3rd gear instead of 2nd on one of my fave roads today and it is quite relaxed, but I just really like to have the engine braking available. However it does pull almost as hard in 3rd as in 2nd due to time retard in 2nd. I was very much in cruise mode today. So the bike doesn't care too much how you ride it, wind it up, lug it, that's the beauty of that big engine.
Pterodactyl_imp
Road warrior
And of course that leads to :Quote: I know when I was driving out there in a car lane splitters scared the absolute beejeesus out of me when they would come blasting by inches from the side of the car. If I saw them coming in the rear view and got prepared for it, it wasn't as bad, but still unnerving to have someone so close to your elbow. Sound familiar? An "informed discussion" need not have to find absolute winners or losers. Compromise is an option. That's what I like about the law as it stands in Oz. Filtering is done where it's most useful, not as a demonstration of superhuman motorcycling prowess.The ferret_imp said:
Cheers
jerrycon_imp
Running like a top
Thanks for the definitions of filtering and lane splitting, Mr. Dactyl. I filter, but I don't lane split. Maybe part of the problem here in California is that we call it all lane splitting when, in fact, it is two distinctly different activities.
And Mr. Ferret, I assure you that if I had putt-putted by your rental car stuck in a traffic jam, you would have felt comfortable. I am quite slow and deliberate about it.
And Mr. Ferret, I assure you that if I had putt-putted by your rental car stuck in a traffic jam, you would have felt comfortable. I am quite slow and deliberate about it.
Great explanation of how it works in Australia, Pterodactyl. I agree with the 30 kph limit even if I often see it observed in the breach. It provides a useful definition (albeit arbitrary) of when filtering is no longer acceptable. The theory is that, if the traffic is moving at that pace there is no need for anyone to travel more quickly. By all means argue about the speed, but it goes a significant way to resolving the liability question posed by EmptySea.
I'm a fan of the law, even if I don't often use it. On the freeway where using the shoulder is allowed, it's fantastic when traffic is at a virtual standstill; in the city where, in the normal course of events, cars move from side to side in their lanes, even at low speed I am less comfortable. At traffic lights, or at other times when the traffic is at a standstill and I can ride between cars, I'm grateful for the opportunity.
Sensible law makers (or is that an oxymoron) everywhere will, as part of a range of strategies to remove as many cars as possible from increasingly congested roads, find ways to encourage more and more people on to small, manoeuvrable scooters and bikes. Giving them a legal advantage in traffic seems a good first step.
As someone said earlier, law makers are unlikely to make filtering compulsory. That suits me fine.
I'm a fan of the law, even if I don't often use it. On the freeway where using the shoulder is allowed, it's fantastic when traffic is at a virtual standstill; in the city where, in the normal course of events, cars move from side to side in their lanes, even at low speed I am less comfortable. At traffic lights, or at other times when the traffic is at a standstill and I can ride between cars, I'm grateful for the opportunity.
Sensible law makers (or is that an oxymoron) everywhere will, as part of a range of strategies to remove as many cars as possible from increasingly congested roads, find ways to encourage more and more people on to small, manoeuvrable scooters and bikes. Giving them a legal advantage in traffic seems a good first step.
As someone said earlier, law makers are unlikely to make filtering compulsory. That suits me fine.
Yes, joe, I think that's a view that informs many opponents of lane splitting and filtering. But, what then of overtaking?
Chapomis_imp
Road warrior
For some reason my brain is programmed to only pass on the left. I don't like it when drivers or riders pass me on the right, except at slow speeds, like traffic jams or free right turns at stops.
