Lane-splitting

[Rincewiend]

He's overtaking people because they're in congested traffic and traveling slowly.

If people don't want to be stuck in traffic, maybe they should buy a bike.

Wait, what?
The traffic was moving at a nice and steady pace, no need for lane-splitting necesarry...
And as some said, some f the moments he chose to weave to traffic where freaking dangerous to him and others...
The guy is a twat...

 

[Tiberius Jim]

What's your point? The CHP site says it is not illegal. It doesn't get any clearer or any better of a source.

Where did I or anything I've posted contradict the assertion that lane-splitting isn't illegal in California?

There's a line in your quote from Wiki about lane splitting not being legal, not even in California and it read as an attempt to say that it's not legal here. Which didn't make sense because clearly it is.

You can think any way you want, you just can't operate a motorcycle any way you want.

I operate my motorcycle in accordance with the laws in the state of California, so actually, yes I can.

I didn't predict your demise, but the chances of your behavior leading to death are significantly higher every time you decide to lane split. The odds are against you.

California OTS Motorcycle Lane Split Survey 2012.

In the survey, 11.7% of motorcyclists were hit by a vehicle while lane splitting, 3.2% hit a vehicle while lane splitting. 45% of them were in near accidents while lane splitting. Of the ones mentioned above, 34.6% hit a car mirror, 11.1% had minor injuries, 9.9% had serious injuries, 2.5% hit more than one car, and 1.2% were ran over. As a new rider, how fast are your reflexes, Flux?

My chances of being hurt or killed go up every time I mount up at all. Just as yours go up every time you get in a car or even step outside. If you're saying I should stop doing things because the odds say they might kill me then my options outside of never leaving my home are pretty slim.

Besides...84% in the survey answered they have never hit nor have they been hit by a car. I've always sucked at math but that seems like good odds to me.

 

[Amaris]

You can think any way you want, you just can't operate a motorcycle any way you want.

I operate my motorcycle in accordance with the laws in the state of California, so actually, yes I can.

Do you pay attention to what you're saying? I said you can't operate your motorcycle any way you want. You said that you could in accordance with the laws in the state of California, which means you have to abide by the rules. In other words: NO, YOU CANNOT OPERATE YOUR MOTORCYCLE ANY WAY YOU WANT.

That is why your opinion is fine, until it is an opinion coupled with an action that puts others in danger.

My chances of being hurt or killed go up every time I mount up at all. Just as yours go up every time you get in a car or even step outside. If you're saying I should stop doing things because the odds say they might kill me then my options outside of never leaving my home are pretty slim.

I'm saying don't put other people's lives, or your own, in danger, by taking part in dangerous actions. Riding a motorcycle can be dangerous, yes, but riding in between large steel objects, ones that can easily crush you when simply waiting is the better option for all involved, is foolish. You raise your chances of severe injury by taking a voluntary action you don't need to take.

Yes, when I get in my car, I accept a certain amount of risk, though that risk is minimized by being defensive. If I decide that I'm going to go up on a curb to get around some slowpoke, I have endangered others' lives by being a fool.

Besides...84% in the survey answered they have never hit nor have they been hit by a car. I've always sucked at math but that seems like good odds to me.

 

[Saito S]

I think I was pretty gentle in my assessment of the whole lane-splitting question before, but I'm sorry, this is getting ridiculous.

The only time I will split on surface streets is when there is a short line stopped at a red light, and at that point I'm "filtering" toward the front so that I can get out of the middle of the pack, which is always a bad spot for a rider. You have to think about all the things that a rider has to pay attention to on the road...many more than the driver of a car does. By filtering through, getting to the front of the queue and then being able to take off and get in front of everyone, the rider is in a more comfortable position than if he had sat in between everyone and remained there. Nothing is more disconcerting to a rider than being followed closely or being surrounded by other cars like that. Filtering allows them to get up and away from all of that.

Then it should be limited to this "filtering", when everyone is STOPPED AT A RED LIGHT. That's it. I understand what you are saying about why that's a good idea, and don't have a problem with that in particular.

Other than that, lane-splitting through moving traffic on a surface street is not something I can approve of. More on that in a minute.

Why is this guy automatically an idiot? Everything he did on the road was completely legal. Since when does following the law make someone an idiot? Just because you don't agree with the law? Yeah, that's fair.

It's quite fair. People watch the video and see the guy doing something they consider idiotic. So, they say so. Legal =/= safe, nor "free from criticism."

That old lady was jaywalking...which is illegal pretty much everywhere.

So? People do illegal and reckless things sometimes, that doesn't mean you almost plow into them by being reckless yourself to save a few minutes time getting home. Wrong though it was, she thought it was safe to cross because traffic wasn't moving, and then all of a sudden a bike comes speeding through the gap.

^
This. Was the lady in the wrong in terms of the law? Yes, but as Hocutus points out, this is part of the danger of lane-splitting. People ALREADY do unexpected things when it comes to driving - cars, pedestrians, bikes, buses and trucks will all sometimes do things you didn't think they were going to do. Sometimes it's something illegal, sometimes not, but either way, the responsibility lies with EVERYONE on the road to do whatever they can to avoid an accident, even if it's technically the other guy who was doing something wrong. Lane-splitting down a city street just adds another layer of danger to the whole affair. If traffic is slowed or stopped, then SLOW. Or STOP. Simply because you have a small vehicle doesn't mean you get to just ride right on through and ignore the extremely high potential for sudden, unexpected things to happen in front of you on a busy city street.

And YES, before you mention the CHP page for the third time, I know that it's legal, so you CAN ride right on through. I'm talking about how I feel about it, despite its legality, which was the question you originally asked and seemed to be the point of the thread. (More on that in a minute!)

Which brings me to: I think lane-splitting is more dangerous - and more pointless - on city streets than on highways, honestly. The ONLY part about being on the highway/freeway/autobahn/whatever you want to call them, that is worse than a city street is the speed. Everyone's going faster. Ok, granted.

On city streets, you have way more STUFF that can happen. You've got parked cars, you've got people making turns, changing speeds frequently, changing lanes frequently (to MAKE turns or go into a driveway or... etc), crosswalks, pedestrians, intersections, stop signs...

WAY more going on. And way less reason TO split. What's the point? In that video, the traffic wasn't even that BAD for a good portion of it. He was lane-splitting through moving traffic just to GO FASTER.

Greed. It's exactly what you accuse the car drivers and people arguing with you of doing: saying "Get the fuck outta my way so I don't have to sit in this traffic!"

The dude in the video also called someone a dumbass for making a turn ahead of him (just after the 1:30 mark, the black Prius). WAY WAY ahead of him. There was no Earthly reason for that car to not make that turn. Mr. Expert Lane-Splitter should have just accepted that and slowed down to let him in without tossing off a completely unwarranted insult if he (or you) wants me to think this video was some kind of example of behavior that should be in any way lauded.

Actually there are several times he chose not to split, either when he had no room or there was a chance someone might be coming into the other lane. Like I said, from a fellow rider's perspective everything looked good. From someone who would take the "Who does he think he is getting in front of ME?!" attitude, yeah I can see how it would seem annoying.

This is what I meant when I said things were getting ridiculous. This is bullshit. No one in this thread is talking about this. No one is getting indignant that a motorcycle would DARE to not be stuck in traffic with the rest of us. It's clearly been about safety, through and through, and the fact that zipping between lanes for the sole benefit of the motorcycle rider's time is not worth the danger it presents not only to the rider, but to everyone around him.

The bolded is nothing more than an effort on your part to twist things into a position where the criticism of lane-splitting is being voiced by unreasonable douchebags who are just jealous of your cage-free traffic busting.

And trying to say that one photo of one messy intersection in Bangkok destroys all notion that lane splitting can be a good thing is asinine at best.

Now you're just moving the goalposts. The photo wasn't meant to disprove - or even address - the argument about lane-splitting. It was a direct rebuttal to an assertion you made that if people don't like traffic congestion, they should all just get bikes.

Yes, because Wikipedia is such a trusted source of information.

From the California Highway Patrol guidelines page:

Lane splitting in a safe and prudent manner is not illegal in the state of California.

Yes, it's legal. WE ALREADY KNEW THAT. It's not in dispute. The Wikipedia page is a far BETTER source of information in this case because all the CHP page tells us is what we already knew. It's legal, but should it be? If not, why not? The Wiki page goes beyond just saying "Yep. Legal." and gets into the discussion... a discussion YOU STARTED by asking what we thought of it even though we all already know it's legal in California!

As for Wikipedia: I'm getting real tired of people just blithely brushing it off anytime anyone uses it for ANYTHING. No, it's not always reliable. Yes, it can be edited by anyone. That doesn't just automatically mean it's full of crap on any given subject. The particular article in this case is well-written and cites all its sources, so simply dismissing it with "lawl Wikipedia" doesn't fly.

I appreciate the point you're trying to make, J., but unfortunately none of those are from California. Our traffic, bad as it is, is much more orderly than that.

The first thing that definitively gave it away for me was the fact that the buses look way off for North America and one of them clearly has doors on the left side.

 

[Amaris]

Hey, hippie buses can have doors on other sides. Why don't you free your mind, Herbert?

 

[Tiberius Jim]

Do you pay attention to what you're saying? I said you can't operate your motorcycle any way you want. You said that you could in accordance with the laws in the state of California, which means you have to abide by the rules. In other words: NO, YOU CANNOT OPERATE YOUR MOTORCYCLE ANY WAY YOU WANT.

I know what I said. The way I want to operate my bike is also the way that the state of CA tells me I am allowed to. So yes, I can ride it how I want to because how I want to ride it is legal.

I'm saying don't put other people's lives, or your own, in danger, by taking part in dangerous actions. Riding a motorcycle can be dangerous, yes, but riding in between large steel objects, ones that can easily crush you when simply waiting is the better option for all involved, is foolish. You raise your chances of severe injury by taking a voluntary action you don't need to take.

Yes, when I get in my car, I accept a certain amount of risk, though that risk is minimized by being defensive. If I decide that I'm going to go up on a curb to get around some slowpoke, I have endangered others' lives by being a fool.

Good thing I don't do anything as stupid as ride up on the curb then, right?

And lets look at the alternative. Say I stop lane splitting all together and I sit on I-680 in rush hour traffic and just go with the flow. And then here comes Mr. Hummer H2 on his cell phone, too busy Tweeting about how horrible his gas mileage is to see that traffic has stopped, and ends up crushing me between himself and the car in front of me. Yes, that situation is much less dangerous! Being a sitting duck on the freeway with minimal chance of escape from a rear end collision is much better than having some control over my destiny by staying mobile and out of the path of the vehicles behind me.

 

[Amaris]

I know what I said. The way I want to operate my bike is also the way that the state of CA tells me I am allowed to. So yes, I can ride it how I want to because how I want to ride it is legal.

So you promise you'll never speed? You won't split lanes over 39 MPH? You will give all appropriate signals at all times? You'll equate the freedom of the open road with the state laws of California and always obey them to the letter? Because the moment you don't, you're operating your bike the way you want, and not the way the State of California law demands. If you can do that, more power to you.

Good thing I don't do anything as stupid as ride up on the curb then, right?

Right. You only zip between cars that are moving down the highway, or on city streets. No way on earth that can go wrong.

And lets look at the alternative. Say I stop lane splitting all together and I sit on I-680 in rush hour traffic and just go with the flow. And then here comes Mr. Hummer H2 on his cell phone, too busy Tweeting about how horrible his gas mileage is to see that traffic has stopped, and ends up crushing me between himself and the car in front of me. Yes, that situation is much less dangerous! Being a sitting duck on the freeway with minimal chance of escape from a rear end collision is much better than having some control over my destiny by staying mobile and out of the path of the vehicles behind me.

Ooh, Ooh, I have one!

So you're lane splitting, right? And some asshole in a mini-van turns into the lane in front of you, and you see him just soon enough to slam into him at 40 MPH. Fortunately, the children in the backseat are unharmed, but you slide over the hood and into the rear fender of a Prius, one that has innocent people inside who get to witness your face becoming a permanent window tattoo.

And then the dinosaurs came, but they got too big and fat, so they all died and they turned into oil. And then the Arabs came and they bought Mercedes Benzes.

Seriously, god forbid people try to help you to learn not to act the fool, to keep you from getting injured, only for you to feel we're envious about your motorcycle skills. You are a novice who has the kind of overconfidence that will see you hurt and badly. Don't get too high up there, Icarus, because it's a long goddamn fall.

 

[Tiberius Jim]

This is what I meant when I said things were getting ridiculous. This is bullshit. No one in this thread is talking about this. No one is getting indignant that a motorcycle would DARE to not be stuck in traffic with the rest of us.

Not true.

And, really, what makes a biker so "special" that he gets to go 10 miles an hour faster than the rest of traffic in slow conditions?

 

[Tiberius Jim]

I know what I said. The way I want to operate my bike is also the way that the state of CA tells me I am allowed to. So yes, I can ride it how I want to because how I want to ride it is legal.

So you promise you'll never speed? You won't split lanes over 39 MPH? You will give all appropriate signals at all times? You'll equate the freedom of the open road with the state laws of California and always obey them to the letter? Because the moment you don't, you're operating your bike the way you want, and not the way the State of California law demands. If you can do that, more power to you.

I don't speed, I use signals and follow the laws. It's not that difficult, especially when not following laws can get you killed

Good thing I don't do anything as stupid as ride up on the curb then, right?

Right. You only zip between cars that are moving down the highway, or on city streets. No way on earth that can go wrong.

Good thing I don't "zip between cars" then, right? There's a difference between riding down the middle of the lane and "zipping" between vehicles.

Ooh, Ooh, I have one!

So you're lane splitting, right? And some asshole in a mini-van turns into the lane in front of you, and you see him just soon enough to slam into him at 40 MPH. Fortunately, the children in the backseat are unharmed, but you slide over the hood and into the rear fender of a Prius, one that has innocent people inside who get to witness your face becoming a permanent window tattoo.

And then the dinosaurs came, but they got too big and fat, so they all died and they turned into oil. And then the Arabs came and they bought Mercedes Benzes.

Seeing as I don't split at 40 mph, that's not a realistic scenario. And thanks for ignoring mine, which is very realistic and happens all too frequently.

 

[Amaris]

I know what I said. The way I want to operate my bike is also the way that the state of CA tells me I am allowed to. So yes, I can ride it how I want to because how I want to ride it is legal.

So you promise you'll never speed? You won't split lanes over 39 MPH? You will give all appropriate signals at all times? You'll equate the freedom of the open road with the state laws of California and always obey them to the letter? Because the moment you don't, you're operating your bike the way you want, and not the way the State of California law demands. If you can do that, more power to you.

I don't speed, I use signals and follow the laws. It's not that difficult, especially when not following laws can get you killed

Right. You only zip between cars that are moving down the highway, or on city streets. No way on earth that can go wrong.

Good thing I don't "zip between cars" then, right? There's a difference between riding down the middle of the lane and "zipping" between vehicles.

Ooh, Ooh, I have one!

So you're lane splitting, right? And some asshole in a mini-van turns into the lane in front of you, and you see him just soon enough to slam into him at 40 MPH. Fortunately, the children in the backseat are unharmed, but you slide over the hood and into the rear fender of a Prius, one that has innocent people inside who get to witness your face becoming a permanent window tattoo.

And then the dinosaurs came, but they got too big and fat, so they all died and they turned into oil. And then the Arabs came and they bought Mercedes Benzes.

Seeing as I don't split at 40 mph, that's not a realistic scenario. And thanks for ignoring mine, which is very realistic and happens all too frequently.

Yes, I'm certainly ignoring you. You'll show me one day, won't you, Easy Rider? You'll show all of us what it means to have the Sun at our back and the wind in our faces, but we'll never really know the true freedom that comes with bein' a tight lippin', lane splittin' son of a gun.

Ride that hog.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNjzzDNIJWw[/yt]

 

[Tiberius Jim]

In other words, you have nothing to say about what my alternative situation could be if I were to stop splitting lanes and become a stationary target in low to non-moving freeway traffic, which is proven to be dangerous.


Here's what can easily happen when you don't split lanes, ladies and gents.
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnwZm_hw_oQ[/yt]

 

[CorporalCaptain]

What's your point? The CHP site says it is not illegal. It doesn't get any clearer or any better of a source.

Where did I or anything I've posted contradict the assertion that lane-splitting isn't illegal in California?

There's a line in your quote from Wiki about lane splitting not being legal, not even in California and it read as an attempt to say that it's not legal here. Which didn't make sense because clearly it is.

That's a quote attributed to

Hahn, Pat (2012), Motorcyclist's Legal Handbook: How to Handle Legal Situations from the Mundane to the Insane, MotorBooks International, pp. 75, 134–135, ISBN 978-0-7603-4023-3​

The quote is

"Lane sharing with vehicles other than motorcycles is not legal anywhere, including California. However, it is tolerated in California to large degree" and that "California is the only state in the country that allows lane splitting, lane sharing, and filtering. However, contrary to legend, it is not legal. Nor is it illegal. It falls in a gray area unique to California … You can (and will) get stopped and cited if you're riding like an ass."[59]​

Is he right? Well, Pat wrote that in 2012. Here's something from this year:

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf4ms3B9Zmw[/yt]

That sorta sounds like Pat may well have been quite right about there being a gray area, at least back when he wrote his book.

What's your point?

Well, first of all, I just posted that, as I explicitly said, for what it's worth. I neither affirmed nor contested its veracity. A lot of what it said was cited to government sources; some, such as the passage discussed in this post, wasn't, at least directly (apparently, one has to buy Pat's book to find out).

In posting that, I was hoping, through discussion, to get a better grasp on what the law in California actually says. Getting a better grasp on the what the law says is evidently something that Californians themselves are still in the process of doing. It's hardly an open and shut situation, since CHP has perceived the need to post guidelines to limit what should and should not be done, as the law itself doesn't provide that information. And, really, since the law itself evidently hasn't changed, I have to wonder whether Pat Hahn is legally correct even today.

What's my point? Discussion leading to education.

What's yours?

 

[Gov Kodos]

Hey, hippie buses can have doors on other sides. Why don't you free your mind, Herbert?

You know who else has doors on the other side of the bus? The British, the folks we had that revolution against. Why do you hate America so much?

 

[Amaris]

In other words, you have nothing to say about what my alternative situation could be if I were to stop splitting lanes and become a stationary target in low to non-moving freeway traffic, which is proven to be dangerous.

No, it is simply that I have realized you have decided you're not going to listen to anyone, and that we're all wrong, we're against you, we're mindless, fearful cage drivers who just don't get it, man.™ You were born to be free, and you're willing to engage in behaviors that could get you and others around you killed. I mean, 86% out of 100% didn't get seriously injured in a collision while lane splitting, so you MUST be good enough to avoid that. You like those odds, and you're willing to put my life on the line to beat them. Way to go, man.

Hey, hippie buses can have doors on other sides. Why don't you free your mind, Herbert?

You know who else has doors on the other side of the bus? The British, the folks we had that revolution against. Why do you hate America so much?

Freedom.

 

[Tiberius Jim]

I'm putting your life on the line...how? A car hitting a bike at the speeds I split at aren't going to be killing anyone in the car. Ya know what could kill me? Being rear ended and crushed between two cars. But you refuse to acknowledge that that's a worse alternative than splitting so...

 

[Amaris]

I'm putting your life on the line...how? A car hitting a bike at the speeds I split at aren't going to be killing anyone in the car. Ya know what could kill me? Being rear ended and crushed between two cars. But you refuse to acknowledge that that's a worse alternative than splitting so...

I drive a 1993 Saturn SL2. The average weight of a motorcycle is around 600-800 lbs. My Saturn weighs 2300 lbs. A motorcycle at anywhere from 10 - 40 mph could absolutely kill me right along with you, depending on where you hit. Rear impact? I could suffer from neck and spinal trauma. Side impact? Yeah, I'm either severely injured or dead.

 

[Tiberius Jim]

A 440lb bike versus a 2320lb car? I'm thinking you're exaggerating a bit.

 

[Amaris]

A 440lb bike versus a 2320lb car? I'm thinking you're exaggerating a bit.

You think my driver side door can handle 440 lbs traveling at 15 feet per second (10 mph)? Ye gods, do you care about anyone? You didn't even care what the damage would do to me or my car, you just think it's silly that I would complain about the reality of your motorcycle causing such damage.

See, I am the reality you will be facing. You won't always be up against new cars with all the safety standards, you'll be up against people in used cars, with lots of wear and tear, and car safety standards designed for other cars at low impacts, where the damage can be spread out over the frame, unlike a motorcycle which has a smaller area of impact, meaning the damage won't get spread out all over, it will be concentrated in one specific area, namely where I'm sitting in the driver's seat.

Surely you know this and take this seriously.

 

[Tiberius Jim]

No, I simply think you're overstating the severity of injuries someone would suffer if a bike like mine hit a car like yours in a plausible lane-splitting related incident. It would be more of a sideswipe than a t-bone anyway. In other words, you were exaggerating to make a point.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

No, I simply think you're overstating the severity of injuries someone would suffer if a bike like mine hit a car like yours in a plausible lane-splitting related incident. It would be more of a sideswipe than a t-bone anyway. In other words, you were exaggerating to make a point.

O RLY?

http://www.sptimes.com/News/121601/NorthPinellas/Palm_Harbor_man_kille.shtml

Graham was taken to Mease Countryside Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

Edit: This appears to cover the side impact scenario that J was discussing here, just to make sure the goal posts are placed at a known location, although admittedly it doesn't give the speed of the motorcycle and it isn't completely clear what all the details are.