Lane-splitting

[Alidar Jarok]

THAT was what you consider safe and prudent and similar to what you do? Holy shit. I was cringing throughout that whole video and expecting that douche to smack into someone's car, or worse, that old lady who crossed the middle of the road. Those lanes were way too narrow for him to be lane-splitting safely. I thought we were talking about doing it on the freeway where you have a little more wiggle room.

He almost hit cars that were pulling into the next lane a few times, and even more often came really close to clipping mirrors and side-wiping cars that were leaning to the far left or right of the lane. He was dangerously weaving in and out of traffic instead of sticking to one gap and getting mad that drivers made a turn without noticing him, but why would they when they're concentrating on the cars and the lanes and not someone sprinting out of a gap between them?

I'm sorry, but that looked incredibly reckless to me.

Yeah, that was my thought. Even putting that aside, you could look at every single driver that jumped as he went by and either slammed their breaks or swerved to the side. Swerving to the side isn't being courteous to him, it's reacting to a startling event. He's lucky no one slammed into another car while jumping out of his way.

To me, weaving in traffic is one of the most dangerous things one can do. And that's what he's doing here, not simply "lane splitting." If all cars are going faster than the speed limit, it's possible for everyone to be safe as long as no one drives like an asshole.

And besides, this hypothetical collision only happens if one or both of us screws up. Either you dart out in front of me with no signal or warning and I wasn't paying attention to the gap that you were aiming for or both.

Well, no. You screwed up by driving through other people's blindspots down a major road. Regardless of California law, you're still creating this substantially greater risk by driving between moving cars.

 

[Scout101]

Not legal, and voted for shouldn't be. And I ride a bike frequently. Benefits of doing so, and 'risks' of not doing it, are both highly overblown. You can wait in traffic just like the big boys. If you're worried about being crushed, leave it in 1st gear and aim your front tire at an angle so you can escape if you're worried. And pretty sure your bike isn't strictly air-cooled, either, you won't overheat. Not like you're in traffic forever, it's stop and go.

Cutting in between people, or riding in breakdown lane, pretty dangerous. And I don't have a lot of pity there, you get what you get if something happens. Cars change lanes, or hug a little too close, or just drift, and you're dead or injured. Now lots of OTHER people are stuck in traffic, including the guy coming to scrape you off the street.

It's just an excuse for being an ass and doing whatever you want, with weak justification. Pretty much the same justification people use for driving their cars in the breakdown lane to try and avoid traffic. Just impatience and feeling that you're special. Which is fine, until you hit the accident, or random debris, or someone pulls over...

 

[BillJ]

Accidents, by definition, are accidental.

Another stooge falling for the lies of the liberal media!

 

[BillJ]

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oM_ayYy8Ok[/yt]

All I can say is that lane-splitting looks really fucking dangerous and I can't believe it's legal anywhere.

It is illegal here in Kentucky and from everything I've seen online, it isn't legal much anywhere outside of California.

I did find this interesting:

Motorcycle safety author and consultant Pat Hahn wrote in his 50-state handbook of US motorcycling laws that:

"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."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_splitting

 

[Trekker4747]

And then there's this asshole:

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB2j45GLEdk[/yt]

And that's why lane-splitting is illegal pretty much everywhere in the states and seems vague if at the very least discouraged in Cali. Dense traffic, people crawling along, self-freeing independent biker guy cruising up the line! Driver making a lane change likely checks her mirrors, looks over her shoulder and probably saw a bike in it but didn't realize he was cruising up the line vastly faster than everyone else.

Fault her for the short-signal but this is a nice look at how lane-splitting can be dangerous. A minor collision that wouldn't have happened if bikers stayed inside the lane.

I mean, I can see the need or dislike of being a stopped or very slow-moving object that's vulnerable in an impact that people often miss so wanting to be out of the line of fire. So why not cruise in a safe-zone between lanes? Why accelerate or cruise vastly faster than everyone else on the line?

The lady in the Prius was moving along at a crawl along with everyone else so she makes a lane-change AT a crawl not expecting a biker to be zipping up the line at a much greater speed.

But, hey, cagers, right?

 

[Tiberius Jim]

And then there's this asshole:

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB2j45GLEdk[/yt]

And that's why lane-splitting is illegal pretty much everywhere in the states and seems vague if at the very least discouraged in Cali. Dense traffic, people crawling along, self-freeing independent biker guy cruising up the line! Driver making a lane change likely checks her mirrors, looks over her shoulder and probably saw a bike in it but didn't realize he was cruising up the line vastly faster than everyone else.

Fault her for the short-signal but this is a nice look at how lane-splitting can be dangerous. A minor collision that wouldn't have happened if bikers stayed inside the lane.

I mean, I can see the need or dislike of being a stopped or very slow-moving object that's vulnerable in an impact that people often miss so wanting to be out of the line of fire. So why not cruise in a safe-zone between lanes? Why accelerate or cruise vastly faster than everyone else on the line?

The lady in the Prius was moving along at a crawl along with everyone else so she makes a lane-change AT a crawl not expecting a biker to be zipping up the line at a much greater speed.

But, hey, cagers, right?

First of all, where is this mystical safe-zone between lanes you speak of? That's what lane splitting is...riding in between lanes. I don't understand what your solution is here.

Secondly, I don't cruise "vastly faster" than everyone else. Using people who are doing it wrong (and no the video I posted probably wasn't the best example after watching it again) is not a valid argument for why nobody should be able to do it at all.

 

[BillJ]

First of all, where is this mystical safe-zone between lanes you speak of? That's what lane splitting is...riding in between lanes. I don't understand what your solution is here.

Don't lane split. Problem solved.

 

[Tiberius Jim]

He's saying a solution to splitting lanes is riding in a "safe-zone between lanes" and I don't understand what he means by that.

By the way, that collision also could have been avoided if the rider had simply slowed the hell down. But nobody seems to see that splitting can be done correctly and only want to focus on the people who do it incorrectly as a reason why nobody should be able to. A lot of people speed on the freeway in their cars and cause accidents yet nobody says that all driving should be banned because some people choose to speed.

 

[Amaris]

First of all, where is this mystical safe-zone between lanes you speak of? That's what lane splitting is...riding in between lanes. I don't understand what your solution is here.

Don't lane split. Problem solved.

Being responsible for your own actions? Foolishness. It's the other drivers. They're the problem. If this lady would have bought a better car to protect against motorcycle accidents (which she probably caused), none of this would have happened.

 

[Trekker4747]

First of all, where is this mystical safe-zone between lanes you speak of? That's what lane splitting is...riding in between lanes. I don't understand what your solution is here.

I'd guess at the corner/junction point of four cars. I can get with the idea of sitting there and "cruising" along with traffic, or getting there in a stop/slow moving traffic and then falling back in line inside the lane when traffic is moving again. I just cannot agree with the concept of a bike being able to speed down the line 10 miles an hour faster than everyone else because... They don't like moving slow? I dunno what the justification is. I see the safety needs of it for the rider when it comes to slow-moving traffic or stopped traffic just not the speeding-through traffic aspects narrow squeezing through tight spaces. Get to a safe-point and cruise there.

 

[BillJ]

By the way, that collision also could have been avoided if the rider had simply slowed the hell down. But nobody seems to see that splitting can be done correctly and only want to focus on the people who do it incorrectly as a reason why nobody should be able to. A lot of people speed on the freeway in their cars and cause accidents yet nobody says that all driving should be banned because some people choose to speed.

You're simply introducing yet another element into something that isn't all that safe to begin with (driving). Introducing a greater degree of danger for both cyclist and motorist.

 

[MacLeod]

Here is something from the wikipedia article on the subject.

Preliminary results from a study in the United Kingdom, conducted by the University of Nottingham for the Department for Transport, show that filtering is responsible for around 5% of motorcycle Killed or Seriously Injured (KSI) accidents.[33] It also found that in these KSI cases the motorist is twice as likely to be at fault as the motorcyclist due to motorists "failing to take into account possible motorcycle riding strategies in heavy traffic"

Now of course it would be simple to say that if motorcyclists didn't lane filter those 5% deaths could be averted. But as with anything there are other factors which might not mean that happens.

In congested traffic you might have vehciles changing lane towards an exit or moving over to allow other traffic to enter, a motorcylce can be hard to pick out in heavy traffic, you might have cars behind you that partially obsecuring your side mirrors because of their position. Perhaps the safest place would be in the offside line closest to the centre of the road, motorcyclists could then overtake with minimal risk to themselves,.

But when does lane filtering become undertaking? Which is against the law in the UK except in certain circumstances?

As a driver I've lost count the number of times I've been overtaken by a motorcylcist despite driving at the speed limit. The speed limit applies to them as well.

 

[Tiberius Jim]

First of all, where is this mystical safe-zone between lanes you speak of? That's what lane splitting is...riding in between lanes. I don't understand what your solution is here.

Don't lane split. Problem solved.

Being responsible for your own actions? Foolishness. It's the other drivers. They're the problem. If this lady would have bought a better car to protect against motorcycle accidents (which she probably caused), none of this would have happened.

If you still seriously think I was sayin that you should buy a better car so that I can feel better about hitting you, you either need a reading comprehension class or an appointment with a mental health professional.

First of all, where is this mystical safe-zone between lanes you speak of? That's what lane splitting is...riding in between lanes. I don't understand what your solution is here.

I'd guess at the corner/junction point of four cars. I can get with the idea of sitting there and "cruising" along with traffic, or getting there in a stop/slow moving traffic and then falling back in line inside the lane when traffic is moving again. I just cannot agree with the concept of a bike being able to speed down the line 10 miles an hour faster than everyone else because... They don't like moving slow? I dunno what the justification is. I see the safety needs of it for the rider when it comes to slow-moving traffic or stopped traffic just not the speeding-through traffic aspects narrow squeezing through tight spaces. Get to a safe-point and cruise there.

I still don't get this "safe-point" idea. So I should just stay in between 4 cars? 4 cars whose position is always changing? It would be impossible to just stay in this so-called safe-zone because it would be ever-changing. Plus I would likely be in the front two cars' blind spot the whole time.

 

[Amaris]

If you still seriously think I was sayin that you should buy a better car so that I can feel better about hitting you, you either need a reading comprehension class or an appointment with a mental health professional.

"If your car cannot protect you from being killed if hit by a 440lb motorcycle at 10mph, it's time to look for a new car. If it can't handle that, what chance do you have if another car hits you?"

Your words.

I realize you're saying you didn't mean buy a new car, so what did you mean? Do you know someone who will give me one? Trade my 20 year old car for one? Can I win it in a game of Scrabble? What did you mean by "time to look for a new car" if you didn't mean I needed to purchase one? How does one go about these things? I am unsure in the ways of the world, and am in need of guidance. I mean, from my perspective, you made it seem like you were blaming me for my injuries because I didn't buy a better car. Your words certainly indicated that if I was injured, then the blame lay with me for not having something to withstand the 440 lbs motorcycle moving at 15 feet per second. How dare I not take into consideration your feelings on the subject. I'm sorry, did I wound you buy suggesting you take responsibility for your actions? How are those odds, Flux? Still think 86% is good enough for you, even if we end up being the 14%?

 

[Tiberius Jim]

I meant what I said: if your car cannot handle a crash with a mid sized motorcycle I would fear for your chances against another car which is more likely to be what hits you. I don't know how else to word it.

 

[Gov Kodos]

And motorcycles weaving through traffic increase the chances of such crashes.

 

[Amaris]

I meant what I said: if your car cannot handle a crash with a mid sized motorcycle I would fear for your chances against another car which is more likely to be what hits you. I don't know how else to word it.

I've explained it twice, and Gov. Radner tried to explain it as well, and you still can't grasp that your vehicle has a more narrow profile. You have no bumpers, so the impact is not spread out across the frame, it is concentrated in one spot. One more time:

Wider Car + Bumper + 10 MPH = Damage spread across frame, less likely to cause direct injury to driver.

Narrow Motorcycle + No Bumper + 10 MPH = Damage focused directly at point of impact, resulting in higher localized damage, resulting in direct injury to driver.

If you're concerned about my chances, you know what would help them? Novice motorcyclists who don't lane split. That would help my chances a hell of a lot. Whether you like it or not, Flux, you are a novice, but you've got the self-assured arrogance of someone who considers themselves an expert. You've planned for every eventuality, so long as everything works out as planned. That's a bad combination. I just don't want to pay for your inexperience if it comes down to it. I don't want you paying for it, either.

If you, as a novice, feel you can handle lane splitting, and disregard the discomfort of other drivers who have to watch for you, then you shouldn't be on a motorcycle.

 

[Tiberius Jim]

I don't disregard anything, which is why I ride as if the other drivers aren't looking for me. If I see a chance that a car might make a move, I react accordingly. Again I think the speed at which all of this happens at least when I do it is being exaggerated, especially since 90% of the time I do it, traffic is completely stopped or barely crawling.

Am I a novice rider? Sure, I admit that. But there are others in here, yourself included who I don't believe have touched a motorcycle yet are suddenly experts on what is involved when riding and when lane splitting. Novice or not I still have a perspective of someone who has been there versus those who have not. You'd think that would count for something, especially when there are expert riders who would surely back up my position on this.

 

[nightwind1]

I've been riding for seven years, and I sure as HELL would NEVER ride between two cars. It's a body-bag waiting to happen.

The whole concept goes against every principal of motorcycle safety I ever learned.

 

[Amaris]

I don't disregard anything, which is why I ride as if the other drivers aren't looking for me. If I see a chance that a car might make a move, I react accordingly. Again I think the speed at which all of this happens at least when I do it is being exaggerated, especially since 90% of the time I do it, traffic is completely stopped or barely crawling.

Am I a novice rider? Sure, I admit that. But there are others in here, yourself included who I don't believe have touched a motorcycle yet are suddenly experts on what is involved when riding and when lane splitting. Novice or not I still have a perspective of someone who has been there versus those who have not. You'd think that would count for something, especially when there are expert riders who would surely back up my position on this.

Sorry, but I'm involved whether I ride a bike or not. You're on the road with me, and we share it. Your behavior directly affects me.