WA-support lane sharing

[lamble]

I'd like to share this with you and ask if you can help in anyway, to then please do so.

Fellow riders:

The lane-sharing bill is in play this year and now we need your help!
We are getting good support in Olympia, but we need to let them know
we are serious about it. It's easy to let something like this slide,
but please invest some time helping the cause.

The links to the bills are listed in the forward below. This year we
are putting restrictions in the bills. Lane-sharing only between
lanes of traffic moving in the same direction, no faster than 10 mph
and must merge back into traffic when said traffic reaches half the
posted speed limit.

We placed these restrictions to avoid some of the pitfalls of the
California lane-splitting experience. Previous attempts of a law of
vague permission has no chance of passing. So this is where we are at:

There is a House bill (HB 2160) and a Senate bill (SB 5985).

Why do we need lane-sharing?

It's safer than being in-line between other vehicles. Every motorcycle
safety research study from the Hurt report (1981) to the MAIDS report
(2004) support this. Perhaps more telling, is there are no studies
with contrary findings. Countless motorcycle safety experts are on
record as supporting the practice.

It saves time and energy! The primary benefit is to the motorcyclist,
but there's a slight benefit to the commuting traffic in general as it
helps with traffic flow.

Law enforcement is divided on the practice in California, but when
there was a bill to repeal lane-sharing, it was the California Highway
Patrol (CHP) who shot it down.

WE NEED YOUR HELP IN FOUR WAYS:

#1- Larry Walker from Washington Road Riders Association, is asking
for your input. Let him know what you think about the bills at:
tellit2us@aol.com after you read his post below. Do this by this
Sunday, 2/18. Identify yourself either as a member of the WRRA or
not, but if you're not, let him know you'd consider joining if the
WRRA gets behind this cause.

#2- The House Transportation committee is having a hearing about HB
2160 next Wednesday, 2/21 at 3:30pm in House Hearing room B on the
main floor of the John L. O'Brien Building. It's essential that we
have a good showing at this hearing. You can testify or not, but sign
in showing your support. Please contact me if you can go. I'll give
you the information and a contact at the hearing.

#3- Please take the time to write your Senator and two
Representatives, supporting the bills. You can find your
representation at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/districtfinder/ A hard copy
(letter) carries the most weight, followed by email, followed by
phone.

#4- Forward this e-mail to your motorcycling friends and groups. The
more energy we can generate about these bills, the better.

Thanks for your support,
Bruce Scott
bscott678@sprintpcs.com
253-988-4982

Rolf Vitous
the.Toucan@gmail.com
(425) 444-4130

Pete Moss
petemoss@petemoss.org
(206) 427-1419



Washington Road Riders Association
Legislative Update 2/12/2007

Well, troops, guess what's back in play.

Lane Sharing (Splitting), or as the bill title says, Regarding the
operation of motorcycles between lanes of traffic or vehicles.

This time, the bill is much better. Rolf and Bruce have done an
excellent job of working this issue. It's tighter, more defined, and
it has some excellent support in the house and senate.

Here is the language:

1 AN ACT Relating to the operation of motorcycles between lanes of 2
traffic or vehicles; and amending RCW 46.61.608. 3 BE IT ENACTED BY
THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: 4 Sec. 1. RCW 46.61.608
and 1975 c 62 s 46 are each amended to read 5 as follows: 6 (1) All
motorcycles are entitled to full use of a lane and no motor 7 vehicle
shall be driven in such a manner as to deprive any motorcycle 8 of the
full use of a lane. This subsection shall not apply to 9 motorcycles
operated two abreast in a single lane. 10 (2) The operator of a
motorcycle shall not overtake and pass in the 11 same lane occupied by
the vehicle being overtaken, except as permitted 12 in subsection (3)
of this section. 13 (3) No person shall operate a motorcycle between
lanes of traffic 14 or between adjacent lines or rows of vehicles,
unless (a) the average 15 speed of traffic at any time is
substantially slower than the posted 16 speed limit for the roadway,
(b) there are two or more lanes of traffic 17 for vehicles proceeding
in the same direction at that time, and (c) a 18 reasonable and
prudent operator of a motorcycle would consider it safe p. 1 HB 2160 1
to operate a motorcycle no more than ten miles per hour over the 2
average speed of traffic at that time between the lanes of traffic. 3
As used in this subsection, "substantially slower" means a speed 4
that is half or less than half of the posted speed limit. 5 (4)
Motorcycles shall not be operated more than two abreast in a 6 single
lane. 7 (5) The restrictions imposed by subsections (2) and (3) of
this 8 section shall not apply to police officers in the performance
of their 9 official duties.
--- END ---

Here are links to the senate and house bills. Take note of the
sponsorship with law enforcement or fire and rescue in their
background.

_SB 5985 _
(http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5985&year=2007)


_HB 2160_
(http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/Summary.aspx?bill=2160&year=2007)

Everyone needs to look this language over and send me your feedback.
We need to know not only if you like it or hate it, but why. Looking
at the sponsorship, I would really be surprised if this bill does not
get a hearing. The WRRA is going to have to weigh in on the issue.
Personally, I think that this little gem has some potential, and we
should help it grow. That's just my opinion.

Now, send me your opinions at _tellit2us@aol.com_
(mailto:tellit2us@aol.com) . I've set up a special mail box just for
the feedback on this bill.

As we tabulate the results, I will try to update everyone.


"Texas" Larry Walker
Government Relations Specialist
Washington Road Riders Association
_wrraleg@aol.com_ (mailto:wrraleg@aol.com)

[Fritzc]

"Why do we need lane-sharing?
It's safer than being in-line between other vehicles. Every motorcycle
safety research study from the Hurt report (1981) to the MAIDS report
(2004) support this. Perhaps more telling, is there are no studies
with contrary findings. Countless motorcycle safety experts are on
record as supporting the practice.
It saves time and energy! The primary benefit is to the motorcyclist,
but there's a slight benefit to the commuting traffic in general as it
helps with traffic flow."

I will go to my grave insisting this is insanity! If you think for one minute that motorcycles claiming the right to SHARE a lane with a cage will not imply the same right of a cage to do the same with a cycle you are nuts!!!!
I refuse to use the term LANE SPLITTING because that is not what it is! The painted white line used to mark lanes is not a line but REPRESENTS a line. Any high school geometry student knows a line has no breadth so any lane splitting cycle is LANE SHARING when riding on the white line. I don't want any cycle, truck, automobile, sidecar rig or tricycle sharing my lane unless I signal it is okay. I own that lane between the painted yellow and white lines.:bolt

[Fritzc]

"Why do we need lane-sharing?
It's safer than being in-line between other vehicles. Every motorcycle
safety research study from the Hurt report (1981) to the MAIDS report
(2004) support this. Perhaps more telling, is there are no studies
with contrary findings. Countless motorcycle safety experts are on
record as supporting the practice.
It saves time and energy! The primary benefit is to the motorcyclist,
but there's a slight benefit to the commuting traffic in general as it
helps with traffic flow."

I will go to my grave insisting this is insanity! If you think for one minute that motorcycles claiming the right to SHARE a lane with a cage will not imply the same right of a cage to do the same with a cycle you are nuts!!!!
I refuse to use the term LANE SPLITTING because that is not what it is! The painted white line used to mark lanes is not a line but REPRESENTS a line. Any high school geometry student knows a line has no breadth so any lane splitting cycle is LANE SHARING when riding on the white line. I don't want any cycle, truck, automobile, sidecar rig or tricycle sharing my lane unless I signal it is okay. I own that lane between the painted yellow and white lines. The guy below is LANE SHARING NOT LANE SPLITTING. :bolt

[crazydrummerdude]

Not to be a nay-sayer, but; having lived in the midwest my whole life, I have never once seen this lane-sharing done in person. Knowing how we all drive around here at least, it just seems more dangerous for everyone. I guess things are different in Washington.

It's funny, though, how the laws don't apply to cops.

[jdmetzger]

While I personally can not see "splitting" lanes in traffic, there are a few things I'd like to be able to do, legally:

When traffic is under 5-10mph, allow splitting/shaing (keep my bike from overheating in traffic)

At a red light, allow a bike to split to the front of the line. Help me avoid getting rear-ended.

Aside from these two things, the way people drive around here, I'd be afraid to go between vehicles moving very fast. They hardly see me, as it is... and I wear high-viz. :banghead

[OscarMayer]

I live in Los Angeles where lane splitting/sharing is commonplace. Here's what I posted in another thread and still applies:

I'm pretty comfy splitting lanes; often catching up to other bikers doing the same, but at a slower clip. From my exp. lane splitting is quite safe if you pay close attention and adhere to a few things.

1. Pass cars that are side by side rather than staggered in the lanes. If a driver has an opening next to him/her they may try to switch lanes suddenly... esp. when traffic in front of them is slowing or stopping and the lane next to them is moving.

2. Go no more than 15 or 20 mph faster than the traffic around you.

3. Never assume the drivers around you see you. Even if they looked right into your eyes (directly or via a mirror).

4. Split the lanes closest to the center divider or the #1 and #2 lanes. There are less lane changes being made between those.

5. Avoid using your horn unless absolutely necessary. If there isn't enough room between two cars, just hang back and wait for a safe opportunity to continue.

* I use my headlight modulator during the day and high beems at night. Running lights or 4-way flashers are also useful.

I travel about 55 miles round trip via the I-405 fwy 5 days a week. I've found that a high percentage of drivers will actually make way for bikers. The very few times I've been "squeezed" or cut off I've found it was an inattentive driver and never malicious. I've heard lots of horror stories about drivers closing the gap, opening doors, etc. on bikers, but found none of them to be true for me.

...besides, My air-cooled bike wouldn't last in this traffic if I couldn't split them lanes.

[deancox]

I live in Los Angeles where lane splitting/sharing is commonplace. Here's what I posted in another thread and still applies:



...besides, My air-cooled bike wouldn't last in this traffic if I couldn't split them lanes.


I echo this. I regularly ride the 5, 405 and 210....we have plenty of idiots down here lane splitting at 60 miles an hour when the traffic is crawling, but the Darwin's Law will take care of them.

[Motor31]

Lets see. being near cagers is bad because cagers are oblivious and don't see bikes, cagers run into bikes. The statement is made that it's safer to split lanes with those same oblivious cagers who are likley to be upset, angry, in a hurry and frustrated rather than hold your place like you are supposed to be doing in normal traffic because those same oblivious cagers can't be counted on to not run into the bike. Now you want to run that by me again???

It's hard enough to keep cagers from infringing on a bikes lane yet you want to make bikers entitled to do the exact same thing to the cagers?

This is a simple case of wanting to have the cake and eat it too. It's wanting to have more privelidges than the cagers. If traffic is slowing you down, leave earlier.

[lamble]

Using lane sharing or splitting is semantics. Personally, sharing, sounds far more sociable.

The issue is, if vehicles are travelling at the speeds indicated in the proposal, is it safe for motorcycles to make progress between those vehicles?

I asked the UK m/cycle press, police and British Motorcycle Federation. None were able to show that adopting this move caused any increase in rta. The law in the UK has just been changed too, to over ride the previous predetermined outcome in court that it was the motorcyclists fault if an accident occured during a filtering manoeuvre.

In the UK there isn't a prescribed speed limit at which a m/cycle can filter, as long as it's within the signed limit of the road.
WA's proposal does state limits which are conservative and relate to both the m/cycle and the traffic around it.
It's also a law of option. Those who feel it isn't safe for them to share a lane, are not obliged to do so.

As an ex pat Brit, I would feel comfortable sharing lanes when traffic is static, I would make progress with caution if there were junctions (last minute lane changers) and when coming to the front of the static line, I'd merge rather than assume it was safe to move to the very front.

Educate drivers and riders, publicise any changes, re-inforce messages across media, add road signs and any other targetted manner.

[BONEY]

I've lived in CA all my life. In fact for the first few years of my legal motor vehicle transportation I rode an old vespa or a CB350... I can't imagine I would have ever logged as many miles on my motorcycles as I have if I'd been prevented from lane sharing and "filtering" to the front at stop lights, and I ABSOLUTELY KNOW FOR SURE that I would have been creamed twice from the rear by some errant cager who was not paying attention.

Here in the SF Bay Area there is a large number of year round motorcyclists. Combine the Carpool Lane, free bridge toll for motorcycles and lane sharing, and my commute goes from 1.25-1.5 hours to .75 :wave

Lane Sharing is not more dangerous than sitting at the end of a stopped line of cars, or proceeding slowly in stop and go traffic. Take a peek at how many accidents out there in traffic are rear-end accidents...

Lane Sharing is a particular skill that takes a short time to acquire. Imagine the freeway as a big ski slope, with all the traffic moving down toward the bottom of the hill. Just like the uphill skier, the motorcyclist who is lane sharing is responsible for watching out for "downhill" traffic. That's about it really. Move slowly and don't hit anyone (notice I didn't say don't get hit.)

Cars sharing the lane with me? Hasn't happened yet. I'm not going to say it's a poor argument, but in my experience it's not an issue. Most of us ride in the left or right wheel track anyway, which doesn't leave enough room for a car to squeeze in. On top of that, Lane Sharing is commonly done while traffic is moving slowly and it would be really difficult for a car to maneuver like that.

I've successfully "shared the lane" in Arizona, Tenessee, Missouri, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and Utah. Very occasionally I've come across someone who doesn't think I should be doing what I am, and makes it known, but they're rare and easy to deal with. Change lanes, wait until you're past 'em, and start sharing again.

Lane Sharing is not for everyone. I know many people here who don't do it.

Now, lets talk about Ride to Work (http://www.ridetowork.org/)day. Consider this; in California it doesn't take much to get us to ride to work. In fact, I'd say that I rode to work 75% of the time last year. Ride to Work day? That's every day. One of the reasons that Californians ride so much? It's easy to get through traffic and cut time off the commute without hindering traffic. Imagine going for a ride every day before and after work. Now shave some time off the daily traffic jam. Now consider the amount of gas money you can save by riding. Lane Sharing isn't the only reason I ride to work, but if you took it away, I'd ride less, pollute more, and waste more time sitting out on the freeway with all the other sheep.

Now for the important part:

If you are a nay-sayer, I challenge you. Come to my house and spend a couple of nights. Bring your motorcycle because we're going lane sharing. I'll start you off easy with some wide lanes and real slow traffic, we'll move forward a few cars at a time, then put it into one smooth move. And when you're comfortable, we'll move up to some more challenging locations like narrow lanes and faster traffic. Take me up on this offer. I dare you. :deal It's like that old saying, "If you have to ask, you'll never know." Come find out why Lane Sharing is a useful tool for commuters and heavy traffic situations. I'll convert you... Or at least give it a real good shot.

You can email me: taf at beachbus dot net to schedule appointments.

LAMBLE:

I have lane sharing artwork, t-shirts, and stickers. I'll be happy to donate the use of the artwork if you want to print your own. Contact me at the above email address and we'll figure it out.:thumb

[flymymbz]

I lived in SoCal for 36 of my 43 years. (or something like that....)

Having learned to ride AFTER I escaped the Republik, I returned to visit some inmates last summer (my ex and kids). Traffic has gotten worse in the last 7 years. And, stupid me, I got us stuck on the e/b 210 at 5 pm on a Friday afternoon. DOH!!! I was amused by the squids trying to avoid the Bots Dots between the Diamond lane and the fast lane. And it was quite comedic to watch a Chippie roll by with no less than 6 bikes in his wake. I am too damned chicken to attempt it, but, if you've got the cajones for it, by all means, have at.
We ended up getting off the freeway and taking the side roads over to the 605. The Guzzis were starting to get upset at the 5 mph pace.

LA traffic was reliable in its unreliableness. You knew that the guy on the cell phone, eating lunch and trying to program his GPS WOULD eventually cut in front of you with no signal. You knew that that nice Oriental lady in the doily equipped Mercedes wearing the long white gloves would make a right hand turn from the left lane to get off at the exit that was 100 yds ahead. That's just the way it was.

Seattle traffic makes no sense. You're traveling along s/b on the 5 at a goodly 75 mph clip, traffic is light, when all of a sudden, the guy in front of you just swerves into the lane to your right. No reason. He's not trying to get ahead of you, and he doesn't have to take the next exit. No signal, no looking behind him, one second he's in front of you, next second he's not. And then, a mile down the road, he'll just swerve back in front of you. And he doesn't even have a cup of Tullys or Seattles Best or <gasp> Starbucks in his hand. I will never understand it.

If they want lane splitting, fine. I don't partake, but who am I to deny them?

[Burnszilla]

Don't knock it until you try it.
Lane Sharing :thumb :thumb

[lamble]

Seattle traffic makes no sense. You're traveling along s/b on the 5 at a goodly 75 mph clip, traffic is light, when all of a sudden, the guy in front of you just swerves into the lane to your right. No reason. He's not trying to get ahead of you, and he doesn't have to take the next exit. No signal, no looking behind him, one second he's in front of you, next second he's not. And then, a mile down the road, he'll just swerve back in front of you. And he doesn't even have a cup of Tullys or Seattles Best or <gasp> Starbucks in his hand. I will never understand it.

If they want lane splitting, fine. I don't partake, but who am I to deny them?

Crazy I know, but aren't you supposed to move over to the right when that lane is clear, and use the others for over taking?
Of course it could just be all that caffeine in the system.

[glwestcott]

Don't knock it until you try it.
Lane Sharing :thumb :thumb

My sentiments exactly. Same with filtering through stopped traffic to the front of the line. Both are among the many reasons I ride year round both to work and to play.

[OfficerImpersonator]

I'll be sending an email to my State Representative who is a co-sponsor of the legislation and ask him what he thinks allowing lane splitting will accomplish. I do note that he (Rep. Al O'Brien) is a retired Seattle Police Dept. sergeant. Rep. Lovick (another co-sponsor) recently retired as a Trooper with the Washington State Patrol.

I bet if Trooper Lovick pulled me over for lane splitting, he'd have given me a lecture about how dangerous it is.

[OfficerImpersonator]

Here is the text of the email I just sent to my state representative, one of the co-sponsors to Washington State's pending "lane splitting" legislation:

Rep. O'Brien,

I just read a posting on the BMW Motorcycle Owners of America forum discussing HB 2160. As a daily, year-round motorcycle rider, I'm curious as to why you - a former police officer - and Rep. Lovick - a former State Trooper - think motorcycle "lane splitting" is a good idea.

I'll never do it, as I can't trust cars to remain in their lanes. Just this past week, I had to fend off a merging car with the sole of my boot. I'm interested in hearing your rationale as to how allowing the practice of lane splitting will improve traffic safety for motorcyclists and car drivers alike.

If you really want to make our highways safer for motorcycles, I suggest you instruct DOT to stop installing manhole covers in the middle of the HOV lanes. Next time you drive the southbound I-5 HOV lane through the Northgate area, you'll see what I mean. Imagine riding a motorcycle in the pre-dawn rain through the dangerous entrance to the Express Lanes while simultaneously trying to avoid the myriad metal plates, grates and manhole covers that litter the HOV lane through the area.

Also, motorcycles are especially vulnerable to pavement seams, places where lane striping has been sandblasted or ground away leaving a channel, and ruts left by studded tires. That the State of Washington continues to allow the use of studded tires regardless of the overwhelming evidence out there that studded tires provide no improvement in traction or performance on snow and decreased traction and performance on bare or wet pavement.

How many millions of dollars in damage to pavement are caused each year by studded tires? When I worked for the Legislature many years ago, the figure provided by WSDOT was $84 million a year.

How many accidents are caused each year by the puddles that pool in these ruts, or by the handling difficulties faced by motorists and motorcyclists as they try to negotiate these ruts?

If you want to improve motorcycle safety in Washington State, forget permitting lane splitting and instead make the roads themselves safer for both motorcycles and four wheeled vehicles.

I do look forward to hearing why you support HB 2160.

Thank you

[DarrylRi]

Sheesh, what's the problem?

California's experience is that lane splitting isn't more dangerous. Not only that, but "filtering" is a widespread practice outside of the US. There is certainly a vaild case to be made that it's not particularly dangerous, and can improve traffic flow and reduce gridlock.

If you personally don't want to do it, that's fine, that's certainly your decision to make. But why keep everyone else down because you don't feel that it's safe for you?

[OfficerImpersonator]

Sheesh, what's the problem?

California's experience is that lane splitting isn't more dangerous. Not only that, but "filtering" is a widespread practice outside of the US. There is certainly a vaild case to be made that it's not particularly dangerous, and can improve traffic flow and reduce gridlock.

If you personally don't want to do it, that's fine, that's certainly your decision to make. But why keep everyone else down because you don't feel that it's safe for you?

How is riding in the four foot wide space between two moving cars EVER safe?

Don't cars change lanes? Don't drivers throw burning cigarettes, cold coffee, and other garbage out their windows all the time? If traffic is stopped, don't drivers open their doors - particularly in hot weather situations?

There are so many other issues that need to be addressed before we add lane splitting to the long list of things that confuse motorists and thus cause problems for motorcyclists. I've ridden in cars when passed by lane splitters (illegal lane splitters here in WA, legal lane splitters in CA) and the universal response of the drivers was that the motorcyclists were stupid/moronic/suicidal for riding between two lanes of cars.

Our main problem with cars is conspicuously and visibility. Allowing lane splitting won't improve our visibility. It will antagonize motorists and cause them to try to squeeze the space available to the lane splitting motorcyclist. Permitting lane splitting won't make my ride any safer.

Until you can predict with complete reliability the behavior of car drivers, lane splitting should remain prohibited.

[DarrylRi]

How is riding in the four foot wide space between two moving cars EVER safe?

You're not answering my question, you're going off again on why it's not safe for you. There aren't any stats that show it to be more dangerous that I've seen.

Managing lane splitting risk is like the rest of managing risk in motorcycling. You try to understand what's a dangerous situation and what's not so dangerous.

[DarrylRi]

Until you can predict with complete reliability the behavior of car drivers, lane splitting should remain prohibited.

Using this definition, motorcycle riding in general should be prohibited. In fact, one should probably stay at home in bed, and certainly NEVER go into their bathroom.

[OfficerImpersonator]

You're not answering my question, you're going off again on why it's not safe for you. There aren't any stats that show it to be more dangerous that I've seen.

Managing lane splitting risk is like the rest of managing risk in motorcycling. You try to understand what's a dangerous situation and what's not so dangerous.

Of course it's all about managing risk and making smart decisions. In this case, I think it's the smart decision to not further aggravate already cranky drivers by engaging in a process I think is universally reviled by automobile drivers.

When you pass a car, do you spit on the windshield as you ride by? My observations of drivers passed by riders lane splitting is that you might as well have spit on their windshield. The practice is viewed by the general public as unsafe, dangerous to the rider, and potentially damaging to the car.

We can enact all the motorcycle-specific rules we're able to ram through our legislatures, but if the end result of those laws are antagonized drivers, what have we accomplished?

Our goal should be to educate drivers about motorcyclists, encourage them to share the roads, and ensure that us motorcyclists follow all traffic rules and regulations. Feel free to make your own evaluation regarding your own riding environment. My assessment of the traffic, driver attitudes and other variables here in Western Washington is that allowing lane splitting would be a step backwards in the push to encourage harmony between cars and motorcycles.

[Motor31]

You're not getting the point. It really isn't a safety issue at all. It's merely an issue designed to give motorcycles more "rights" than a cage and to enhance the enjoyment or convenience of the motorcyclist. Rather than behave according to the same rules designed for all traffic, motorcyclists will now be able to violate the lane space of a cage with no corresponding privelege to the cager.

The vehicles now occupy the lane with the understanding that the vehicle owns the lane from divider to divider. Now with this law change the motorcycle will own the lane from divider to divider and the cage will be allowed to have part of their lane. The cage will not be allowed to use the full lane as part must then be left for the passage of motorcyclists. Of course changing lanes for a cage will certainly be more interesting. A collision between a motorcycle and a cage will be interesting as well as if the impact occurs during the time of passing in the cagers lane, who failed to yield to whom? Normally it would be the biker's fault for passing a vehicle in the same lane. Since the biker will be allowed to pass in the same lane, fault will be up to significant dispute.

Did the bike pass at an inoportune time or did the cage simply fail to yield to a motorcyclist occupying the cagers lane?

At which point does the right of way shift from one vehicle to the other? What obligation, if any, will either vehicle have to notify the other that a passing situation is going to occur?

Will cagers be required to drive to the left or right side of the lane? That's important as the drivers of both styles of vehicles will need to know which side is yielded to the bike or cage in the case of passing in the same lane. How close will the cage be required to travel to either lane divider?

Yes indeed, the traffic situation will certinly be changed for the better by this kind of law change. :hungover

[OfficerImpersonator]

I guess I'm not doing a very good job of communicating my concerns with this legislation.

Here in Washington State we have stupid drivers. Last spring the wife and I were in our car and were rear-ended by a driver who: A. Did not speak English. B. Did not have insurance. C. Claimed she didn't know who owned the car. D. Was in the HOV lane illegally. We were stopped in stop and go traffic. I saw her coming. She was looking down (for a cigarette lighter, it turns out) and never saw us stopped. The last thing I saw was the top of her head instantly obscured by the deployment of her airbag. Luckily the airbag gave her a nice fat lip. It cost her her a $800 ticket (but only because I was lobbying the trooper to write her a ticket for all her transgressions). It cost me my $500 deductible.

I think many drivers here in Washington are equally stupid. I think motorcycles passing between the lanes will startle, surprise and anger these stupid drivers. I think this will manifest itself into incidents of road rage. Who looses the road rage war - the car or the motorcycle?

If this was a long-standing tradition here on the roads of Washington State, then perhaps our stupid drivers would understand that occassionally motorcycles will pass between you and the vehicle in the lane alongside. But this would be a completely new phenomenon to Washington drivers, and I think it would freak them out.

If we pass new motorcycle specific traffic legislation here in Washington, I can guarantee you the local media won't be leading the 5:00 news with a story on how drivers can now expect to see lane splitting. The drivers will remain ignorant of the change, and won't realize it until they make an unsignaled lane change and take out a rider.

When it comes to traffic laws and altering the dynamic between cars and bikes, it's the riders who always loose.

Sure, I can choose to not lane split if I so choose, but I'm also advocating to maintaining the status quo for the benefit of all riders who don't want to antagonize drivers.

[DarrylRi]

Of course it's all about managing risk and making smart decisions. In this case, I think it's the smart decision to not further aggravate already cranky drivers by engaging in a process I think is universally reviled by automobile drivers.

As Brian Curry says, where's your data? You have concistently stated your opinion as if it were fact. You simply don't know it as a fact, but hold it dear as an opinion. Show some data.

When you pass a car, do you spit on the windshield as you ride by? My observations of drivers passed by riders lane splitting is that you might as well have spit on their windshield. The practice is viewed by the general public as unsafe, dangerous to the rider, and potentially damaging to the car.

Data please? Because my experience here in California, where it has always been legal, is that most drivers are indifferent to judiciously conducted lane splitting. Many will pull over a bit to make room. A few try to squeeze you in. When I encounter someone like that, I wait for an opportunity to get around the roadblock.

So now, we have duelling anecdotes.

[DarrylRi]

You're not getting the point. It really isn't a safety issue at all. It's merely an issue designed to give motorcycles more "rights" than a cage and to enhance the enjoyment or convenience of the motorcyclist. Rather than behave according to the same rules designed for all traffic, motorcyclists will now be able to violate the lane space of a cage with no corresponding privelege to the cager.

I gather from your previous posts and your avatar that you are a former motor officer. Therefore, I would expect you to know the laws better. We make special rules for different vehicles all the time. There's nothing new about it. We allow vehicles with 2 or 3 people in them to use a special lane. We require certain vehicles (trucks) or those towing trailers to stay in certain lanes and possibly follow different speed limits.

And, you're ignoring the experience of decades of lane splitting in California, and many other parts of the world. It can work, the various issues surrounding it can be identified and clarified.

[DarrylRi]

I guess I'm not doing a very good job of communicating my concerns with this legislation.

Not to me, not so far.

Here in Washington State we have stupid drivers. Last spring the wife and I were in our car and were rear-ended by a driver who: A. Did not speak English. B. Did not have insurance. C. Claimed she didn't know who owned the car. D. Was in the HOV lane illegally. We were stopped in stop and go traffic. I saw her coming. She was looking down (for a cigarette lighter, it turns out) and never saw us stopped. The last thing I saw was the top of her head instantly obscured by the deployment of her airbag. Luckily the airbag gave her a nice fat lip. It cost her her a $800 ticket (but only because I was lobbying the trooper to write her a ticket for all her transgressions). It cost me my $500 deductible.

Are you saying that Washington state has a lock on stupid drivers and illegal aliens? Are you actually claiming that you've got more of each than California? Seriously? If so, you should be advocating for more Californians moving to Washington! :) Apparently, it will improve the driving in both states!

If this was a long-standing tradition here on the roads of Washington State, then perhaps our stupid drivers would understand that occassionally motorcycles will pass between you and the vehicle in the lane alongside. But this would be a completely new phenomenon to Washington drivers, and I think it would freak them out.

I would expect the Washington motorcycle groups, not to mention the news media, to publicize this. I think word would get around rather quickly.

Also, don't think for an instant that all Californians signal their lane changes (or even necessarily glance in their mirrors). Just as in any other traffic situation, you as a motorcyclist had better be riding for everyone around you, as well as yourself!

[DarrylRi]

If we pass new motorcycle specific traffic legislation here in Washington, I can guarantee you the local media won't be leading the 5:00 news with a story on how drivers can now expect to see lane splitting. The drivers will remain ignorant of the change, and won't realize it until they make an unsignaled lane change and take out a rider.

I'm sorry, I misread this paragraph in my last reply, and I want to address it as you stated it.

I think you're wrong about the news not talking about this new law, should it be enacted. It will be described as another god-forsaken import from California. There may well be a cry to get rid of it immediately, on that basis alone.

(I lived in Seattle for 8 years and understand the loathing the PNW has for all the southern emmigrants! ;-)

One thing that makes lane splitting better understood here in California is that the CHP and the local police do it. It only takes one news story about how a driver got a ticket for squeezing off an officer on the news for everyone to get the point that this is legal.

[Motor31]

I gather from your previous posts and your avatar that you are a former motor officer. Therefore, I would expect you to know the laws better. We make special rules for different vehicles all the time. There's nothing new about it. We allow vehicles with 2 or 3 people in them to use a special lane. We require certain vehicles (trucks) or those towing trailers to stay in certain lanes and possibly follow different speed limits.

And, you're ignoring the experience of decades of lane splitting in California, and many other parts of the world. It can work, the various issues surrounding it can be identified and clarified.



Yes I am retired LEO, no surprise there I certainly have made no secret of it.

Please tell me, what law we have allows multiple vehicles in the same lane simultaneously. In AZ. there is only one and it applies only to Police Motorcycle Officers for side by side riding and for required enforcement purposes. It also curiously does not excuse the Officer from the repercussions if there is a collision. If there is any indication of negligent action on the part of the Officer there will be sanctions.

Frankly the California experiance has bled over the state line. I have dealt with lane splitting in my job both as enforcement duties required and in dealing with Californians who assumed it was the same in AZ..

My experiance has been it's a bad idea. That's based on what I observed while performing that particular maneuver and investigating the collisions that happened when the cage driver was startled in the process of being passed in his lane.

I noticed that you ignored all the other situations I brought up. They are very real world concerns. There will be rather interesting bits of litigation over it.

[DarrylRi]

Please tell me, what law we have allows multiple vehicles in the same lane simultaneously. In AZ. there is only one and it applies only to Police Motorcycle Officers for side by side riding.

If you already had this kind of law in AZ, then we wouldn't be discussing it now. But this kind of law does exist in other places, and people seem to be able to deal with it.

My experiance has been it's a bad idea. That's based on what I observed while performing that particular maneuver and investigating the collisions that happened when the cage driver was startled in the process of being passed in his lane.

But it's illegal right now, and the drivers in AZ (those that aren't California expats) aren't aware of it. That's not the same situation that would obtain if it were legal in AZ. Especially not if the AZ LEOs were practicing it.

I noticed that you ignored all the other situations I brought up. They are very real world concerns. There will be rather interesting bits of litigation over it.
Yes, they are real world concerns, but do you believe that they've never been addressed in California? They are all handled by the law as a matter of routine.

In California, if you run into someone while lane splitting, it's pretty much the same thing as running into someone from behind. Unless you have some pretty good witnesses, you're at fault.

[OfficerImpersonator]

Yes I am retired LEO, no surprise there I certainly have made no secret of it.

Please tell me, what law we have allows multiple vehicles in the same lane simultaneously. In AZ. there is only one and it applies only to Police Motorcycle Officers for side by side riding and for required enforcement purposes. It also curiously does not excuse the Officer from the repercussions if there is a collision. If there is any indication of negligent action on the part of the Officer there will be sanctions.

Frankly the California experiance has bled over the state line. I have dealt with lane splitting in my job both as enforcement duties required and in dealing with Californians who assumed it was the same in AZ..

My experiance has been it's a bad idea. That's based on what I observed while performing that particular maneuver and investigating the collisions that happened when the cage driver was startled in the process of being passed in his lane.

I noticed that you ignored all the other situations I brought up. They are very real world concerns. There will be rather interesting bits of litigation over it.

I am really looking forward to reading the response I'll get from my local State Representative. As mentioned earlier, he's a retired Seattle Police Department sergeant. One of the other co-sponsors is a retired State Trooper. I'm really curious to see how he'll describe his support for this measure to me. As Motorman31 says above, it causes more problems than it fixes.

Here in Washington State, motorcyclists already have access to the HOV lane. If the HOV lane isn't fast enough for the motorcyclist, then the motorcyclist either needs to leave earlier or move closer to their destination.

EVERY accident I've ever witnessed was due either to driver inattention or driver in too much of a hurry. Neither one of these situations is improved with allowing lane splitting.

I've had arguments with uneducated drivers about the effectiveness of stoplights on freeway on ramps (ramp metering) that only allow one car every so many seconds to enter the freeway from a given on ramp. Invariably, the only argument they make is that the ramp meter delays them 30 seconds every morning, and those 30 seconds add up over years of commuting.

I think the same arguments are being used to support lane splitting. As far as I can tell, the only argument for allowing lane splitting is that it permits motorcycles to go faster than cars in heavy traffic. Big deal. Like I said earlier, leave earlier or move closer. Speed is not the only criteria that matters. Like we say in mountaineering, the summit is optional. Returning to the parking lot is mandatory.

Isn't arriving at the destination more important than getting there five minutes faster with lane splitting?

The best lame argument I've read so far is "my airhead will overheat unless I lane split". Whaaaa! So go get a water-cooled bike :stick

[Motor31]

If you already had this kind of law in AZ, then we wouldn't be discussing it now. But this kind of law does exist in other places, and people seem to be able to deal with it.

Because stupidity is present elsewhere does not mean it should be allowed other places either. What you posted is not an argument or justification nor is it any indication that it's safe to pass vehicles in the same lane within inches of the other vehicle.



But it's illegal right now, and the drivers in AZ (those that aren't California expats) aren't aware of it. That's not the same situation that would obtain if it were legal in AZ. Especially not if the AZ LEOs were practicing it.

Yes it IS illegal, but that is not what makes it unsafe. It's illegal because it is unsafe to be passing another vehicle in tight quarters, particularly when there is no means of warning the vehicle being passed.


Yes, they are real world concerns, but do you believe that they've never been addressed in California? They are all handled by the law as a matter of routine.

So you say it's handled. How is it handled? What law states the bike has the right of way at a specific point of time that eliminates the cagers right to the entire lane? What law specifies the liability for the act and when the bike is allowed to pass and the cage is required to avoid the bike? Remember you are not adding additional space, you are requring other drivers to allow you their lane.

In California, if you run into someone while lane splitting, it's pretty much the same thing as running into someone from behind. Unless you have some pretty good witnesses, you're at fault.

Really, then if that is the case there is no right to the lane is there. Why should a cage allow you to pass? It is their lane from divider to divider, or is it? Why shouldn't a cager be allowed the same privelidge of passing bikes to get to the front of the line particularly if they think the bike is going to turn anyhow?

This whole thing is just an attempt to gain time and be exempt rom following normal traffic flow. If it takes a long time to get to your destination start earlier. You aren't going to win friends among the cages and it certainly doesn't do anything to make traffic safer.

[kbasa]

With 30 years of riding experience living elsewhere in the country and 7 years here in the Bay Area, I can assure you that lane splitting, as practiced in California, is a minor miracle. When traffic is blocked solid, it's nice to be able to slide up between the cars and get where you're going. This is common practice in virtually every other country in the world and, in Europe, is known as "filtering".

The biggest problem states will have with implementation is going to be cultural. There are still folks in CA that don't know it's legal.

As far as lane ownership, motorcycles are specifically allowed to share lanes in California specifically because there is no law prohibiting it. This situation has stayed this way because the CHP has lobbied for it to remain so.

If you don't want to do it, that's fine. But why hold back those of us that view lane splitting as yet another increase in efficiency for motorcycles? I truly believe that because of lane splitting motorcycles enjoy huge popularity in California. Because of that, we have free passage during commute hours on bridges, have dedicated metered parking in our cities and enjoy a greater level of respect and awareness than any other place in the United States.

If you ask me, lane splitting is the one item that can put motorcycles on equal footing with cars.

[OfficerImpersonator]

...The biggest problem states will have with implementation is going to be cultural. There are still folks in CA that don't know it's legal.


If you don't want to do it, that's fine. But why hold back those of us that view lane splitting as yet another increase in efficiency for motorcycles? I truly believe that because of lane splitting motorcycles enjoy huge popularity in California. Because of that, we have free passage during commute hours on bridges, have dedicated metered parking in our cities and enjoy a greater level of respect and awareness than any other place in the United States.

If you ask me, lane splitting is the one item that can put motorcycles on equal footing with cars.

I've always said the two problems are lack of space between vehicles to safely "split lanes" and ignorance of motorcyclists in general and lane splitting specifically by cage drivers.

As I was riding home this afternoon, through downtown Seattle, north on I-5, rush hour traffic, I kept looking for situations where lane splitting would be advantageous. Not once did I experience a situation where it would have been safe, in my opinion, to ride between stopped or very slow lanes of traffic.

Ignorance by cage drivers results in how many dead or injured motorcyclists each year? We should increase that number by how many because it's so important for us to get there "X" minutes faster? I'd leave "X" minutes earlier to compensate rather than share the 10 feet with another car.

Another theory - perhaps your lanes are wider than our 1950s - 1960s era designed and built freeways?

Do you have free HOV lanes open to motorcycles, allowing you to travel at the same speed as mass transit (Express buses)?

Just wondering....

[jdmetzger]

I actually hope this thing gets passed in WA, and then spreads. I AM of mixed feelings, however. My issues mostly revolve around jerk motorcyclists who would ride 90mph through traffic moving at 65mph weaving the whole way while doing a wheelie (giving a bad appearance to bikers). Then again, some do that stuff, now. I'd be happy with filtering at red lights and when traffic is going less than XXX mph (say 10mph). Then again, that's just what I consider within my comfort level. I've never done it.

As for public awareness, you could do things in stages. Start with making filtering at red lights legal, and make sure there are some public service announcements or something. After a while, move to allowing it on the highway. Give people a chance to become aware.

[DarrylRi]

I've always said the two problems are lack of space between vehicles to safely "split lanes" and ignorance of motorcyclists in general and lane splitting specifically.

If there's really a lack of space, then you have to wait. But it's usually not a problem.

As I was riding home this afternoon, through downtown Seattle, north on I-5, rush hour traffic, I kept looking for situations where lane splitting would be advantageous. Not once did I experience a situation where it would have been safe, in my opinion, to ride between stopped or very slow lanes of traffic.

I've been on I-5 at the north end of Seattle. I recall taking the 520 across to I-5, to go up to Ravenna for the monthly Vintage Motorcycle Enthusiasts meeting at Teddy's on Roosevelt Ave. The traffic was always awful, and my R60/2 didn't much like it. I always wished I could split like I did when I lived in LA.

Another theory - perhaps your lanes are wider than our 1950s - 1960s era designed and built freeways?

Believe me, you've got plenty of room on I-5 to split. In LA, they've stolen pretty much all of the roadway to make lanes, so they range from not particularly wide to very narrow. Take a ride on the Arroyo Seco freeway (I-110) towards Pasadena from downtown. It was LA's first freeway, and the lanes are Model T sized.

The BEST time to split is when traffic is stopped. There are no spaces in adjacent lanes for people to jump across to. IMHO, the most dangerous time to split is when traffic is picking up, and there are staggered holes in the two left lanes. Almost certainly someone will decide they need to be in the other lane then. You're right that cars don't respect bikes, but cars usually respect cars, so splitting between two cars is a good bet and that is where I want to go.

Regarding speed, when traffic is completely stopped, I'm usually in 1st gear. When I get to the point that I'm starting to think about upshifting out of 2nd, that's when I get back in line.

In California, there's no actual law that governs how fast, or how much faster than the surrounding traffic, you can go. You'll hear all kinds of "rules", but the only one that matters is what the CHP officer says if he pulls you over. There are three or four sections they can use on you, none of which say anything at all about splitting. Things like unsafe speed or illegal lane change.

Do you have free HOV lanes open to motorcycles, allowing you to travel at the same speed as mass transit (Express buses)?

In the SF bay area, the HOV lanes are just the left lane with a diamond painted on them. They are restricted only certain hours of the day. This creates a certain amount of danger as people will jump into the HOV lane to get around some traffic and then jump back (because they don't want to be caught). In SoCal, the HOV lanes are generally separated by one or even two double yellow lines, and have only limited places to enter and exit. This can create a false sense of security, because people do ignore those double yellows and jump in and out, but it's much rarer.

I'm not aware of any completely separated HOV lanes down here like the I-5 and I-90 reversable express lanes.

[DarrylRi]

Because stupidity is present elsewhere does not mean it should be allowed other places either. What you posted is not an argument or justification nor is it any indication that it's safe to pass vehicles in the same lane within inches of the other vehicle.

Yes it IS illegal, but that is not what makes it unsafe. It's illegal because it is unsafe to be passing another vehicle in tight quarters, particularly when there is no means of warning the vehicle being passed.

"If all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?"

Sorry, my mom's words are echoing in my ears. Mike, if you'll allow me to quote your signature, "Take not counsel of your fears."

So you say it's handled. How is it handled? What law states the bike has the right of way at a specific point of time that eliminates the cagers right to the entire lane? What law specifies the liability for the act and when the bike is allowed to pass and the cage is required to avoid the bike? Remember you are not adding additional space, you are requring other drivers to allow you their lane.

The cars have no obligation to allow a bike to get by. Not all do let bikes get by. So? What's the problem? If a bike can't get by, then it's no different than being in the lane. Eventually there will be a way around. Or not.

This whole thing is just an attempt to gain time and be exempt rom following normal traffic flow. If it takes a long time to get to your destination start earlier. You aren't going to win friends among the cages and it certainly doesn't do anything to make traffic safer.

As I mentioned before, we place different requirements on vehicles all the time. It makes sense to make more efficient use of the pavement we have. "Normal traffic flow" is what we make of it. In this case, we're trying to make it flow when it doesn't.

I'm always amazed by this notion of "owning" the space on the road. You don't own it, and if you act like you do, you frustrate everyone else. In Europe, for example, pavement is a precious commodity. You use it and get out of the way. People expect others to pass. In Germany, if you drive too timidly or without sufficient regard to others' needs, you won't get a license.

The notion of traffic safety as an absolute is a red herring. Safety is always balanced off against time and cost. That's why we don't have a national 55 mph limit any more.

[lamble]

I rode up from Seattle on I5 today. The traffic came to a complete standstill, including the HOV lane 3 times in 22 miles. I saw opportunities where I'd have felt comfortable filtering. The cars couldn't change lane, there was nowhere for them to go they were so nose to tail.

Not everyone will want to filter. Not all drivers will pull to the side to let you through (I find the French particularly courtious in this matter) but there are none, absolutely none at all, that want to kill you. The consequences of killing someone are far too serious, even for a coffee drinking, texter.
I agree ignorance and unattentiveness are issues, but we face those already when traffic is moving freely and has the ability to change lanes haphazardly. Lane splitting/sharing/filtering is an action taken when speeds of all vehicles are reduced considerably, you have more or at least equivillent time to search, evaluate, execute.

Educate, reinforce with media, signage and I like the idea of bike police doing it too. Those who don't want to do it because it's outside their comfort zone, don't do it.

I saw opportunities because I'm looking as a lane sharer, not as someone who doesn't have the experience (sorry if you regard this as an insult, it's not, but unless you've filtered two up and fully luggaged for 70 plus miles around the M25London orbital road at 50mph, then I may have an edge on this one aspect, plus I was trained by the police in pursuit). I saw it differently that's all, granted it was a different part of I5 and a different time-I may have agreed with you given your circumstances, but that's it isn't it...you make a call when it's safe and within your and the law's limits.

[rangepig]

...there are none, absolutely none at all, that want to kill you. The consequences of killing someone are far too serious, even for a coffee drinking, texter.
Couple of comments about this. First, with extremely rare exceptions I agree no one intentionally wants to kill someone in a traffic accident, but I don't think the legal consequences in America are sufficient enough to get people's attention. There are way too many stories of someone killing a motorcyclist or pedestrian because of what boils down to inattentiveness and they get a slap on the wrist. If there were stiff penalties for injuring or killing someone in an accident in which you're at fault AND those penalties were enforced and publicized I think people might pay attention when they drive like they're supposed to. It seems like most people I see (and I commute two hours a day; 1 hour each way) would rather be doing anything else than driving. If they're that bored or busy call a cab or have someone else drive.

As far as lane splitting, I probably won't do it but don't see any reason to not let others do it. I do however think there are better, more immediate returns for motorcyclists if we spend our lobbying energies elsewhere, like banning cell phone use while driving (Oregon senate bill 293--write your state legislator! There's a "distracted driving" bill as well--SB521) or what I said above about stiffer penalties for injuring or killing someone.

[kbasa]

I've always said the two problems are lack of space between vehicles to safely "split lanes" and ignorance of motorcyclists in general and lane splitting specifically.

As I was riding home this afternoon, through downtown Seattle, north on I-5, rush hour traffic, I kept looking for situations where lane splitting would be advantageous. Not once did I experience a situation where it would have been safe, in my opinion, to ride between stopped or very slow lanes of traffic.

Ignorance by cage drivers results in how many dead or injured motorcyclists each year? We should increase that number by how many because it's so important for us to get there "X" minutes faster? I'd leave "X" minutes earlier to compensate rather than share the 10 feet with another car.

Another theory - perhaps your lanes are wider than our 1950s - 1960s era designed and built freeways?

Do you have free HOV lanes open to motorcycles, allowing you to travel at the same speed as mass transit (Express buses)?

Just wondering....

I think they might be. Here in the North Bay, I can easily fit my RT between rows of cars, though that's less successful on the surface streets in SF. Down in the South Bay and in portions of the East Bay, the lanes seem to be wider and splitting is even easier.

One thing you get attuned to is where you can and can't split. Golden Gate Bridge? No way. Bay Bridge? Join in and Get There.

And yes, we have full access to HOV lanes, as should you. I believe, under US Code, HOV lanes are usable for motorcycles. Under US Code, motorcycles are classified as high efficiency vehicles and are entitled to the HOV lane. This was true in Boston and I even got to go to court to prove it when a Mass. State Trooper didn't believe me.

Check with the AMA, but I believe that any highway that accepts US funding for construction or maintenance has to operate under those guidelines.

San Francisco, unlike many other US cities, does not have an interstate that runs through the city. Eventually, to get from north to south (or vice versa), you're going to have to wind up on city streets. When you're cruising down 19th avenue, the big north south route, having the ability to go to the head of the pack at every single stoplight dramatically speeds your trip, keeps you from getting hit from behind and saves you fuel.

Consider that the next time you're the 20th vehicle back at a traffic light and there are ten more lights to go to your destination.

[lamble]

Couple of comments about this. First, with extremely rare exceptions I agree no one intentionally wants to kill someone.

Good, glad you agree.

As far as lane splitting, I probably won't do it but don't see any reason to not let others do it. I do however think there are better, more immediate returns for motorcyclists if we spend our lobbying energies elsewhere, like banning cell phone use while driving (Oregon senate bill 293--write your state legislator! There's a "distracted driving" bill as well--SB521) or what I said above about stiffer penalties for injuring or killing someone.

Okay, I'm happy to support more than one initiative that will help motorcyclists.
There was input earlier in this thread about the state of the I5 HOV lane and a myriad of other issues the writer wanted addressing ahead of Lane Sharing.
I'll support those too, happily in fact, not ahead of any other initiative but in conjunction with, but are we being lazy or non-communicative, because I've not seen anything about those issues until this thread (I'm new here so there may be something somewhere, but not specifics like the lane share amendments).

Perhaps there should be a permanent thread stickified, where laws relating to bikers are posted and we can get behind them, and cascade them to other forums and groups, to solicit support. Just a thought and a wish.

In the UK we have central government, so lobbying is easier and we have the BMF that do that for us (sometimes effectively, sometimes less so, especially as Brussels and the Euro Council now issue European Laws that over ride UK specific laws in some cases), here with each state, you'd be looking at a beaurocratic kitten hurding contest, trying to wade through all the differences, so it would need State specific lobbying, but maybe with a central office, so efforts weren't duplicated in any campaigns. I dare say this exists already, does it?
What is it and who here partakes and inputs?

[kbasa]

Okay, I'm happy to support more than one initiative that will help motorcyclists.
There was input earlier in this thread about the state of the I5 HOV lane and a myriad of other issues the writer wanted addressing ahead of Lane Sharing.
I'll support those too, happily in fact, not ahead of any other initiative but in conjunction with, but are we being lazy or non-communicative, because I've not seen anything about those issues until this thread (I'm new here so there may be something somewhere, but not specifics like the lane share amendments).

Perhaps there should be a permanent thread stickified, where laws relating to bikers are posted and we can get behind them, and cascade them to other forums and groups, to solicit support. Just a thought and a wish.

In the UK we have central government, so lobbying is easier and we have the BMF that do that for us (sometimes effectively, sometimes less so, especially as Brussels and the Euro Council now issue European Laws that over ride UK specific laws in some cases), here with each state, you'd be looking at a beaurocratic kitten hurding contest, trying to wade through all the differences, so it would need State specific lobbying, but maybe with a central office, so efforts weren't duplicated in any campaigns. I dare say this exists already, does it?
What is it and who here partakes and inputs?

The AMA is the mothership for motorcycle rights. I agree with some of their activities and am disappointed in others, but they're pretty much all we've got.

[lamble]

The AMA is the mothership for motorcycle rights. I agree with some of their activities and am disappointed in others, but they're pretty much all we've got.

That's them. I knew I'd joined someone for something other than just one of the dullest bike magazines around.

I'll see whether my membership fees means I can get AMA support for the Lane Sharing.

I still think that this site could do with something covering rider laws and those that we need to be aware of when amendments are being sought though.

[OfficerImpersonator]

I think they might be. Here in the North Bay, I can easily fit my RT between rows of cars, though that's less successful on the surface streets in SF. Down in the South Bay and in portions of the East Bay, the lanes seem to be wider and splitting is even easier.

One thing you get attuned to is where you can and can't split. Golden Gate Bridge? No way. Bay Bridge? Join in and Get There.

And yes, we have full access to HOV lanes, as should you. I believe, under US Code, HOV lanes are usable for motorcycles. Under US Code, motorcycles are classified as high efficiency vehicles and are entitled to the HOV lane. This was true in Boston and I even got to go to court to prove it when a Mass. State Trooper didn't believe me.

Check with the AMA, but I believe that any highway that accepts US funding for construction or maintenance has to operate under those guidelines.

San Francisco, unlike many other US cities, does not have an interstate that runs through the city. Eventually, to get from north to south (or vice versa), you're going to have to wind up on city streets. When you're cruising down 19th avenue, the big north south route, having the ability to go to the head of the pack at every single stoplight dramatically speeds your trip, keeps you from getting hit from behind and saves you fuel.

Consider that the next time you're the 20th vehicle back at a traffic light and there are ten more lights to go to your destination.

That's my point. Up here we have free HOV lanes open to motorcycles operating 24/7. For the most part, they move more quickly than the general purpose lanes.

Let's make the following assumptions:

1. Lane splitting will only be legal/practical in rush hour/congested traffic, as the proposed Washington legislation states lane splitting will only be allowed if traffic is moving at half the posted speed limit or slower.
2. Lane splitting will only work when the lanes you want to ride between are moving at or near the same speed (or stopped completely). It won't work if one lane is stopped (i.e. the general purpose lane) and one lane is moving at 30 mph (i.e. the HOV lane).
3. Most motorcyclists in the Seattle area ride in the HOV lane, if one is available.
4. The HOV lane is usually moving at a speed greater than that of the general purpose lanes

So, under the above circumstances, splitting the HOV lane and the left general purpose lane will usually be illegal as the speed differential between the two lanes is too great. These are the conditions I observe daily. These are the only conditions in which lane splitting would be permitted, as it requires heavy traffic to trigger the law in the first place. There are too many cars merging from the slow general purpose lanes into the quicker HOV lane to allow a motorcyclist to split between these two lanes.

Our HOV lanes aren't the limited access type as in Southern California. Unlike Southern California's double yellow line, there is a solid white line between the HOV lane and the left general purpose lane, allowing unlimited merging between the two. To avoid spitting between these two lanes, with the speed differential and the frequent merges in and out of the HOV lane, motorcyclists desiring to lane split will have to forgo the HOV lane and instead ride between the general purpose lanes. I don't see motorcyclists giving up the HOV lane just so they can lane split the even slower general purpose lanes.

It may indeed work in California. I can't foresee how it would work here in Washington, considering our HOV system and our traffic "mores".

[lamble]

Let's make the following assumptions:

1. Lane splitting will only be legal/practical in rush hour/congested traffic, as the proposed Washington legislation states lane splitting will only be allowed if traffic is moving at half the posted speed limit or slower.
2. Lane splitting will only work when the lanes you want to ride between are moving at or near the same speed (or stopped completely). It won't work if one lane is stopped (i.e. the general purpose lane) and one lane is moving at 30 mph (i.e. the HOV lane).
3. Most motorcyclists in the Seattle area ride in the HOV lane, if one is available.
and if one isn't, or they are not one of the "most" you mention?
4. The HOV lane is usually moving at a speed greater than that of the general purpose lanes
except when merging, when there's no HOV, when an accident occurs in the HOV and, of course, when it's just not moving as fast.


Alternatively we could not make assumptions and just judge the situation as we find it . And when and if lane sharing is suitable for the individual and if it gets passed, then use it.

[rangepig]

I still think that this site could do with something covering rider laws and those that we need to be aware of when amendments are being sought though.
I like that idea...somewhere to "rally the troops" as well.

[widebmw]

Wow, you guys have more than one lane in each direction.:laugh

[Motor31]

Darryl,

Last post on this as I'm not going to play the game.

You want to advocate lane sharing, fine go for it. It's a bad idea and your only real justification is that it allows you to get to your destination faster and it's ok elsewhere. To use your analogy it's like a kid saying something like "joey can do it, why can't I?"

As to using my sig. quote. Nope I am not afraid of splitting lanes, I just recognize excessive risk when I see it. I've already had more than a little experience in riding and dealing with the aftermath of poor decisions. Like I said earlier I've also "done the deed" so it's certainly not fear of the unknown. Audacity has it's place as the real meaning of the sig really states, but when it's worth it.

You mention making different rules for vehicles, yet you do not give any examples like I did. Yep there are different rules for different vehicles but they are almost always implemented to make things more restrictive not less restrictive, speed limits for trucks vs other traffic for example. I am not familiar with one enacted to allow greater privileges than general traffic other than those for emergency vehicles.

You mention being amazed about "owning a lane". That's rather disingenuous of you. If a cage suddenly nosed up in your space there's no doubt in my mind you'd be pretty upset a vehicle entered your lane denying you the full use of it. You might even be tempted to kick the door or knock off the mirror wouldn't you. In the case of "owning a lane" it is a valid point. Hit someone while passing them in the same lane and watch it being enforced with responsibility for the collision assessed by that act.

[DarrylRi]

You mention being amazed about "owning a lane". That's rather disingenuous of you. If a cage suddenly nosed up in your space there's no doubt in my mind you'd be pretty upset a vehicle entered your lane denying you the full use of it. You might even be tempted to kick the door or knock off the mirror wouldn't you. In the case of "owning a lane" it is a valid point. Hit someone while passing them in the same lane and watch it being enforced with responsibility for the collision assessed by that act.

Not at all. I would be -- and have been -- pissed at myself for not being aware of the impending move in the first place. I've never kicked an intruding vehicle, and I doubt I'd ever tempted to do so. I rarely even use the horn, because I think it's more dangerous to do so, it will surprise the driver who is already apparently not paying much attention, and cause them to basically perform a random act with 3 tons of steel.

It's clear to me that I should have used a smiley or three in my last reply, because the smiling humor in which I was thinking about quoting your sig line obviously came across as mean spirited, which was not my intent at all. I'm very sorry about that.

What I do object to is that you want me to deny a tangential point you're making while you're busy denying the general case that the subject at hand is done safely around the world every day, and could be expanded here. You've got nothing to prove that it's not true, and you won't address that other than to quote your own opinion. Data, please.

That's the subject I want to address.

[OfficerImpersonator]

I received a response from one of my State Representatives who also happens to be a co-sponsor of the bill.

His reply is as follows:

"The motorcycle lobby asked for this bill. It is one of the organization's priorities this session. I was concerned about the hazards you noted, but those requesting the legislation said they were aware of the problems but still wanted the option."

Boy - that sure is a ringing endorsement if I've ever heard one. Reading between the lines, I think the only reason he agreed to co-sponsor the bill is so that he could have his name listed as a friend of motorcyclists in the annual member report of whatever organization is attempting to speak on behalf of all Washington State motorcyclists.

I also interpret from the tepid support of the measure by one of it's co-sponsors that it won't be passing this year.

[jdmetzger]

I received a response from one of my State Representatives who also happens to be a co-sponsor of the bill.

His reply is as follows:

"The motorcycle lobby asked for this bill. It is one of the organization's priorities this session. I was concerned about the hazards you noted, but those requesting the legislation said they were aware of the problems but still wanted the option."

Boy - that sure is a ringing endorsement if I've ever heard one. Reading between the lines, I think the only reason he agreed to co-sponsor the bill is so that he could have his name listed as a friend of motorcyclists in the annual member report of whatever organization is attempting to speak on behalf of all Washington State motorcyclists.

I also interpret from the tepid support of the measure by one of it's co-sponsors that it won't be passing this year.

On the other hand, maybe he is actually doing his job; representing the people. If people ask for the ability to lane-split legally, why not try to get it passed for them? Sounds like a politician actually doing what they're supposed to do, for once. :thumb

[lamble]

I received a response from one of my State Representatives who also happens to be a co-sponsor of the bill.

His reply is as follows:

"The motorcycle lobby asked for this bill. It is one of the organization's priorities this session. I was concerned about the hazards you noted, but those requesting the legislation said they were aware of the problems but still wanted the option."
.
Alternatively, he may just be agreeing that it's wise to be aware of the problems but feels they are able to be addressed and therefore feels able to support this motion.

Now, even if it's not passed, neither will any of the requests that you made. Would this make you feel justified, or wouldn't it just be conceivably more productive to support motions that will make m/cycling more enjoyable, safer and better for all, even if aspects of that "all" don't fit in with your particular agenda?

The arguements you have consistently made revolve solely around you, your impressions, your assumptions, take a step back and look at the bigger picture please.
If this motion passes, then a precident might just be set where m/cycle lobbyists aren't seen as just a bunch of bearded social outcasts, but as respectable active members of society, who can mount a case successfully, articulately and without personal emotion.

Wouldn't that just be great!
It's what happens elsewhere in the world.

[OfficerImpersonator]

The arguements you have consistently made revolve solely around you, your impressions, your assumptions, take a step back and look at the bigger picture please.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here, but I have the impression that you're telling me I should shut up and deal with the inevitable.

Do you live in Washington State? My point has always been that this will change the dynamic between motorcycles and cars. Most automobile drivers in California don't know lane splitting is legal in that state. Add lane splitting to Washington State and motorcylists will die. Guaranteed. Period.

Who is better equipped to forecast/predict/comment on how a proposed change to Washington State law will shake out in Washington State - me or you?

Now it's time to cite credentials. I've spent a sum total of four years as an assistant or chief of staff to three different Washington State State Representatives and State Senators. I know exactly how our state's legislative process works, and I think I have a good sense of what the "man on the street" is thinking in terms of Washington politics. Since working in the legislature, I've worked as a transportation lobbyist for a local business association - so I have some knowledge of public policy and transportation issues.

I can tell you that because of how our HOV lanes are utilized by motorcyclists, and because of how those HOV lanes on our freeways are set up that lane splitting won't work in the heavy urban traffic in our metropolitan areas. Due to the language in the bill, these are the only times and situations where lane splitting would be allowed. So lane splitting simply doesn't make sense for the Seattle area.

I'm not opposed to "filtering" whereby motorcyclists can work their way up to the front of a line of stopped cars at a red light, but to allow riding between the traffic lanes, bumping along on the "drive by braille" lane divider turtles on a dark and rainy afternoon commute home in the winter is simply going to result in someone's untimely death.

[lamble]

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here, but I have the impression that you're telling me I should shut up and deal with the inevitable.
.
In fact neither. It's not inevitable and you aren't being asked to shut up.
My suggestion is, that efforts to support this particular motion, might just have dividends in claims for other m/cycle initiatives later, including those elements you mentioned, which I agree do need addressing but without any motion to support how do you suggest we do this?

Establishing a track record is important and can colour perceptions favourably, making life a lot easier in future for all m/cyclists and you might just get the things you want too.

Yes I do live in WA, and to be perfectly honest, I hope I get to wave to you as I filter passed, but that will be your choice being expressed and mine too. Harmoniously agreeing to act as we see fit and both within the law.

[BONEY]

I'm at risk of hijacking this thread, so I waited to post this until the discussion had died down a bit.

I wear a helmet. ALL THE TIME. Even in states where I'm not required to. I just see it as a safety issue, and that is all. I also know that there are lots of folks out there, maybe even members of the MOA (GASP!), who choose not to. That's their decision, and thier decision only.

Likewise, I'm sure that they would prefer us not to legislate their safety. While I'm all for making our own decisions, I also don't think that forcing people to bend to someone elses will over such a topic is right, even if I don't agree with their stance.

"You do your thing, I'll do mine" has always been part of my belief system.

I find the topic of Lane Sharing to have very similar properties as the topic of helmet laws. Lane Sharing is legislated in all but one State. ( In CA it is technically not illegal, which by the way our laws work really means that it is legal. ) Some people in CA choose not to Share the Lane. Others do. It's a choice that we don't have over helmets. And, it's not likely that you'll find too may motorcyclists get in the way of repealing the helmet law even if they don't agree with it. I won't. It's your decision. Just like Lane Sharing is mine.

The AMA position statement on helmets goes like this: (paraphrased)

We think everyone should wear helmets, but believe in the choice to make our own decisions.


So, considering that everyone thinks Lane Sharing is such a safety issue, shouldn't they issue a position statement that goes something like this?


We think that no one should Lane Share, but believe that everyone should have the right to make their own decisions.


It's only logical considering the current state of the helmet debate, and further, the AMA is obviously silent on the Lane Sharing issue, showing us their position without having to say anything.

Like helmet laws, I'd like to see a trend of states repealing their overly draconian, nanny-state laws on Lane Sharing just like many would like to see CA, and many other states do the same with their helmet laws.




Discuss.

[Fritzc]

"We think that no one should Lane Share, but believe that everyone should have the right to make their own decisions."

Well now that is quite a profound statement. Does that philosophy follow for all the rest of traffic laws as well??? ( I swore I would not get into this again but just have to!)
Seems to me that all this talk about Lane Sharing is about motorcycles having the RIGHT to "accompany" me in my lane (yes! I said MY lane). The term "sharing" implies mutual consent which is fine with me and I would be glad to slide over in my cage and let you squeeze by but my neck hairs bristle a little at some that think they have a RIGHT to my lane of traffic.
:bolt

[BONEY]

I completely understand your sentiment Fritz. Perhaps as someone who has been around it for my entire life, on motorcycles and in cages, I have grown comfortable with the closeness of the situation.

EDIT: I'm not suggesting that we all make choices about whether we want to follow the laws. I'm suggesting that if Lane Sharing is somehow legalized in a state, that we all now have the choice whether or not to engage in the activity. Like wearing a helmet in, say, Utah. I can, or I don't have to, it is my choice because the law allows me to choose.

In my first post, back on the first page, I mentioned how it is much like downhill skiing. The basic law "don't hit the guy in front of you" applies. As a motorcyclist moving through traffic, it is my responsibility to avoid the accident. Not the car's. I have the "right" to try it, but I'm subject to a lot of different laws, including those ones of physics.

In fact, there's a plethora of laws that the CHP can throw at just about anyone who is not responsible in Sharing the Lane. Unsafe lane change (if you cross the line, technically you changed lanes), unsafe passing, strattling lanes (occupying space in two lanes at the same time), wreckless driving, violations of the "basic speed law" ( driving faster than the conditions safely allow.) It's not the wild west, and ANY patol officer could easily find a reason to pull over a cyclist engaged in Lane Sharing just about any time. They just ignore those of us who are responsible about it, and cause a lot of problems for those who can't help themselves. It's not uncommon to hear about someone who got a ticket while lane sharing... just that the ticket is not for "sharing" but some other related infraction.

I would imagine, that the topic of who had the "rights" to the lane would always point toward the person who originally occupied the lane. I.e. the car. The way the law is (not) written in CA (not that I'm an expert) would suggest that it is deliberately left off the books to prevent a battle of rights when it comes to who the lane "belongs" to. I know it's your part of the lane, and I know that if I hit you or vice versa, I'm probably going to be found at fault and cited for any or all of the above violations. I was the one taking the risk- you were an "innocent bystander" so to speak.

I know that this is not the first time WA has tried to pass this, perhaps they would be more successful in re-writing the portion of the Vehicle Code that pertained to the number of vehicles occupying a parallel space in one lane. This would not implicitly "allow" it so much as make it "not illegal" as it is here in CA, while still allowing for all the other types of citations.

And Fritz, all motorcyclists like people who move over a bit, or otherwise somehow allow for a better ride. I'm sure you do- when someone goes out of their way to be nice. Around here I wave, as do most, to the cagers who are friendly in that way. It's silly, I know, but somehow I think that everyone wants to be "the cool guy" and might one day move over to get the wave too.

[OfficerImpersonator]

One problem in this debate is that we're discussing apples and oranges. On one hand, we're talking about lane splitting in general. Is it a good idea? Is it safe? On the other hand, we're talking specifically about Washington State's proposed legislation. What does this legislation say? What would be the impact of this specific proposal were it to pass?

I don't care at all to hear anyone's opinions on the first issue. What matters is how this specific regulation would affect safe riding in Washington State.

My concerns with Washington State's proposal are the results that will occur under the three conditions in which lane splitting/sharing would be allowed:

1. Traffic in all lanes must be moving at or lower than 50% of the posted speed limit. (i.e. on our urban freeways, lane splitting would only be allowed when the speed of traffic is at or below 30 mph.

2. The rider splitting lanes can go no faster than 10 mph faster than the vehicles being passed.

3. There must be at least two lanes proceeding in the direction of travel.

So, with these definitions limiting the times and places when lane splitting can take place, we've restricted it to the busiest times on our busiest urban highways.

Those "splitting lanes" will be able to go no faster than 40 mph if the rest of the traffic is moving at 50% of the posted speed limit (30 mph). 10 mph faster isn't justification enough, in my opinion. To gain a 10 mph advantage, a rider could simply leave 10 minutes earlier to save just as much time in a much safer manner.

Lane splitting may work on sun-kissed California freeways, but on our dark and wet mid-Winter Seattle freeways, it's a different matter entirely. We don't need lane splitting to confuse and inflame the cagers.

[kbasa]

Lane splitting may work on sun-kissed California freeways, but on our dark and wet mid-Winter Seattle freeways, it's a different matter entirely. We don't need lane splitting to confuse and inflame the cagers.

You're obviously thinking of that other California, the one down south. We get plenty of rain up here in the Bay Area.

Regardless, you've missed the ability to filter to the front of the pack at stoplights.

That alone is almost worth it. Imagine riding on city streets and being able to enjoy that little bubble of empty street ahead of the pack, every time you leave a red light.

[OfficerImpersonator]

You're obviously thinking of that other California, the one down south. We get plenty of rain up here in the Bay Area.

Regardless, you've missed the ability to filter to the front of the pack at stoplights.

That alone is almost worth it. Imagine riding on city streets and being able to enjoy that little bubble of empty street ahead of the pack, every time you leave a red light.

I've said earlier and I'll say it again - I have no objection to filtering as long as the cages are all stopped. So let's submit a bill that allows filtering at a stoplight.

But the legislation we're talking about here isn't about filtering - it's about lane splitting/sharing, with cars moving 30 mph and bikes passing between the cars at 40 mph. And in my opinion, that's a dangerous situation. So that's what I've told my elected officials. Feel free to tell your elected officials your opinion. That's how democracy works :)

Here is the text of the legislation, in it's entirety:

HOUSE BILL 2160
_____________________________________________
State of Washington 60th Legislature 2007 Regular Session
By Representatives Curtis, Lovick, Upthegrove, O'Brien, Moeller and
Sells

Read first time 02/12/2007. Referred to Committee on Transportation.

AN ACT Relating to the operation of motorcycles between lanes of traffic or vehicles; and amending RCW 46.61.608.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
Sec. 1. RCW 46.61.608 and 1975 c 62 s 46 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) All motorcycles are entitled to full use of a lane and no motor vehicle shall be driven in such a manner as to deprive any motorcycle of the full use of a lane. This subsection shall not apply to motorcycles operated two abreast in a single lane.
(2) The operator of a motorcycle shall not overtake and pass in the same lane occupied by the vehicle being overtaken, except as permitted in subsection (3) of this section.
(3) No person shall operate a motorcycle between lanes of traffic or between adjacent lines or rows of vehicles, unless (a) the average speed of traffic at any time is substantially slower than the posted speed limit for the roadway, (b) there are two or more lanes of traffic for vehicles proceeding in the same direction at that time, and (c) a reasonable and prudent operator of a motorcycle would consider it safe to operate a motorcycle no more than ten miles per hour over the
average speed of traffic at that time between the lanes of traffic.

As used in this subsection, "substantially slower" means a speed that is half or less than half of the posted speed limit. Motorcycles shall not be operated more than two abreast in a single lane. The restrictions imposed by subsections (2) and (3) of this section shall not apply to police officers in the performance of their official duties.

[BONEY]

Where does imposing ones will on others end? In Southern California someone didn't like loud pipes and now there's whole subdivisions where motorcycles are not even allowed on the street. While I agree that loud pipes are obnoxious, my point is that if everyone would take a second and realize their impact on other peoples lives, those which really have very little influence on our own, then we'd all be far less likely to take a stance on something that doesn't really affect us.
When the car drivers, who far outnumber motorcyclists decide that motorcycling is too dangerous, what then do we do as motorcyclists? They already MAKE us wear helmets in some states whether or not we would anyway.



Curiously, lets just brainstorm a minute about what the effect someone else's Lane Sharing would be... Would it affect me in my car? Is there the possibility that it could benefit me in my car? Would it affect me if I rode my motorcycle and chose not to do it? What affect on me, personally, would someone else's lane sharing have? IMO, unless they hit me, probably none.

I can come up with a million "what if's" but I think the most important "what if" everyone in Washington should ask themself is "what if they allowed lane sharing?" Would there be mayhem? Not likely. An increase in traffic collisions and deaths? Hmmm, hard to say...

[More Musing:]

It seems like the common governmental theme of the last too-many years has been the "us vs. them" mentality, or the "my way or the highway." That mentailty is bleeding into our lives and becoming the national standard. Perhaps, instead of drawing our lines in the sand and daring each other to cross it we should all work together to come up with some reasonable legislation that works for everyone, not just the 51% who want to force something on 49% of the population. I'm not saying that I'm perfect and don't do it too... but if we were all a bit more aware of it...

[/More Musing]

dvandkq, I did notice that you're in favor of filtering :thumb and feel that the 10 mph limit over 50% of posted traffic speed is not worth the legislation. Please tell us what you think would be reasonable in the event that some sort of lane sharing provision did pass through the WA state govt.

[pdf]

:clap Glad to see this bill is back. I hope it passes this time.

I am amazed at all the posters who would block fellow motorcyclists from lane-splitting. I mean I get it - it's outside your comfort zone. You don't feel safe doing it. That's fine, but why do you want to rain on the parade for the rest of us?

[BONEY]

Here is a link to a blog where the guy analyzed fatal rear-end accident data between states and drew the conclusion that Lane Sharing saves several Californians lives each year.

http://www.whybike.com/blog/index.php?p=147


And let's not forget that Harry Hurt favored it too.

[lamble]

Once again dvandkq has used a case to suit his arguement, that being, the difference between travelling at 30mph and 40 mph. Even as an advocate of lane sharing, I too might decide that on dark, wet nights, 30mph progress is sufficient, staying in lane rather than opting for nominal additional progress at 40mph. Those conditions may well count as being adverse.

Likewise 10mph against static traffic, or 20mph against 10mph 30 against 20 etc.. on sunny dry days, would be a distinct benefit to me.
Favourable conditions.
It's about evaluating the situation.

I take a shades of grey approach, it appears dvandkq can't see beyond dark, wet, blackness, however, I'd guess he rides in less than ideal conditions, indeed he pointed out the state of the roads in places. Why does he feel that's acceptable riding conditions - because of his personal preferences and risk index.
He has his, others have theirs.
I can live with his, why can't he accept others?

Don't know.

[OfficerImpersonator]

Last night I spoke with a Motorcycle Safety Foundation instructor who told me he is personally opposed to lane splitting and that the MSF is, as an organization, opposed to lane splitting.

I'm no expert on motorcycle safety, but I feel confident the Motorcycle Safety Foundation is an expert on motorcycle safety. If they are opposed to lane splitting, that's good enough for me.

I've been sharing what I've learned with my elected representative (who is a co-sponsor of the bill) and his perception is that this legislation is dead for this year.

So, I think it's safe to say there will be no lane splitting allowed in Washington for at least another year.

[OfficerImpersonator]

Once again dvandkq has used a case to suit his arguement, that being, the difference between travelling at 30mph and 40 mph. Even as an advocate of lane sharing, I too might decide that on dark, wet nights, 30mph progress is sufficient, staying in lane rather than opting for nominal additional progress at 40mph. Those conditions may well count as being adverse.

Likewise 10mph against static traffic, or 20mph against 10mph 30 against 20 etc.. on sunny dry days, would be a distinct benefit to me.
Favourable conditions.
It's about evaluating the situation.

I take a shades of grey approach, it appears dvandkq can't see beyond dark, wet, blackness, however, I'd guess he rides in less than ideal conditions, indeed he pointed out the state of the roads in places. Why does he feel that's acceptable riding conditions - because of his personal preferences and risk index.
He has his, others have theirs.
I can live with his, why can't he accept others?

Don't know.

Feel free to share your perspective with your elected officials. That's what they're there for. I've shared my opinion with my elected representatives.

I apologize that I've worked in the Washington State Legislature as a chief of staff to several representatives and senators, and thus have an inside perspective on how our state capitol works. I also apologize for having been a transportation lobbyist in a former life, and using those skills and connections to kill lane splitting in Washington State for this year.

I'm sure lane splitting will be back in future legislative sessions, and you can feel free to ask your representatives to enact a bill that would permit lane splitting. Just keep in mind that I'll be there, too - actively fighting any attempt to allow lane splitting here in Washington State.

It's just democracy, after all.

[BONEY]

Last night I spoke with a Motorcycle Safety Foundation instructor who told me he is personally opposed to lane splitting and that the MSF is, as an organization, opposed to lane splitting.

Just out of curiosity, what lane sharing experience and expertise did this particular instuctor have. Has this instructor ever split lanes? How much? Or is he just spouting uninformed and inexperianced opinion?

I'll put money on this topic. I'll bet that 99% of MSF instructors in California are for Lane Sharing.


I'm no expert on motorcycle safety, but I feel confident the Motorcycle Safety Foundation is an expert on motorcycle safety. If they are opposed to lane splitting, that's good enough for me.


Please make reference to this official position for us. I'd like to see it in writing. I think your friend is mistaken.


So, I think it's safe to say there will be no lane splitting allowed in Washington for at least another year.

Not if I'm in town.

[BONEY]

I apologize that I've worked in the Washington State Legislature as a chief of staff to several representatives and senators, and thus have an inside perspective on how our state capitol works. I also apologize for having been a transportation lobbyist in a former life, and using those skills and connections to kill lane splitting in Washington State for this year.


IF any of the above is indeed true, Do not apologize. You have made it perfectly clear that you will not tolerate other people doing something that you do not like. The narrow minded "us vs. them" mentaility in our recent political process is preciely why this county is not what it used to be. Too bad that you appear to be interested in continuing the problem, not being part of the solution.

[BradfordBenn]

I'm no expert on motorcycle safety, but I feel confident the Motorcycle Safety Foundation is an expert on motorcycle safety. If they are opposed to lane splitting, that's good enough for me.

I applaud some of the efforts of the MSF, but some of their recent actions has put their motives into question in my mind. So I would instead encourage you to do some of your own research and look at other sources for additional information. Such as some of the excellent writings of Dave Hough. I have also been sitting in stopped traffic being more worried about being rear ended and thinking I should break the law and lane split as that would be safer...

Everything, and I do mean everything, has its risks... you need to determine what is the correct approach for you and your situation

[Fritzc]

Lane sharing, splitting, encroachment, trespassing or what ever you wish to call it has a sister her in Michigan. Take this from another prospective! Here in Michigan, especially in the northern areas, snowmobiles are allowed to ride on side roads in the winter when snow covered. However, ANY collision between an automobile and a snowmobile on said roads is considered to be the fault of the snowmobile. That is not a problem for me and I think the same could go for lane splitting/sharing etc.
The traffic laws also, I believe, consider an accident occurring when ANY vehicle is overtaking another on a two lane road it is always the passing vehicle that must take the blame. I just don't want to be blamed when some cyclist encroaches into my lane, goes under the wheels of my 25 ton truck then sues me!!!:nono :fight :bikes

[OfficerImpersonator]

Here is the text of an email just received from State Rep. Al O'Brien, a co-sponsor of the lane splitting legislation:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: O'Brien, Rep. Al [OBrien.Al@leg.wa.gov]
Sent: Mon 3/5/2007 11:32 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Motorcycle lane sharing/splitting

Doug,

I believe the bill is dead.

Al

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So now this debate is academic/moot/etc.

I'm happy/pleased/ecstatic/grateful that lane sharing works for you on your freeways in another state. In MY OPINION, lane sharing won't work here in Washington State. I conveyed MY OPINION to my elected representatives that our highways and motorists are too unsafe to allow lane sharing. I believe it is my right to share MY OPINION with my elected representatives. Why people must lambaste me for exercising my constitutional rights is beyond me.

If you live in Washington State, you have every right to contact YOUR elected representatives and ask them to resurrect lane sharing legislation this legislative session. Calling me names or criticizing my constitutionally protected activities won't get lane splitting legislation passed by the legislature this session.

If you don't live in Washington State, you have every right to contact YOUR elected representatives and ask them to specifically permit lane sharing in YOUR state.

The fact that NO state has legislation permitting lane sharing tells me volumes about the safety and practicality of this activity. Only one state permits lane sharing, and only because there is no law specifically allowing it (California). All the other 49 states specifically oppose lane splitting. Why? Is it because everyone is a moron, or is it because there are valid reasons for prohibiting the activity?

My unscientific observations are that the only people who are for lane splitting are the guys on their sport bikes who have to go 90 mph all the time. Those of us on touring or sport touring or cruising bikes are often too wide to split lanes with our luggage and fairings sticking out. Why should sport bikes be the only ones allowed to lane split?

I'm not an extremist. If the bill was re-written to only permit lane splitting when cage traffic was completely stopped, I'd be for it. But to permit lane splitting between moving columns of cages is simply asking for someone to kill a motorcyclist with their cage.

I apologize for wanting to save you and your bike from a stupid cage driver.

You guys probably opposed mandatory helmet regulations when they were introduced as well.

[lamble]

Great to see democracy working so well here, and that people with privileged acces don't abuse that power, instead preferring to operate in the non-elected role that the rest of us abide by, rather than short cutting the system to gain personal advantage.

[OfficerImpersonator]

Great to see democracy working so well here, and that people with privileged acces don't abuse that power, instead preferring to operate in the non-elected role that the rest of us abide by, rather than short cutting the system to gain personal advantage.

I have privileged access? I guess if having my State Rep's email address is "privileged access", then I have "privileged access".

Whatever.

I've never said lane splitting should remain illegal because the act of splitting is inherently dangerous to me.

I've repeatedly said lane splitting should remain illegal because it will confuse and anger cage drivers, who will respond by taking out their frustrations on ALL motorcyclists, not just those electing to split.

Of course we all need to evaluate our individual skills, our motorcycle's capabilities, and the weather and roadway conditions when we make any decision while riding.

Why aren't we allowed to drive on the shoulders when traffic gets bad? Perhaps because they are called "safety shoulders"? Perhaps because the free space is occasionally needed to accommodate disabled vehicles? Perhaps because the free space provides room for drivers to escape hazards ahead? Why are traffic lanes so much wider than the vehicles that use them? Is it simply to annoy the hurried motorcyclist who laments all that wasted unused space, or is it to provide additional cushion from the vehicles traveling in space around you? That space on either side of a car is the temporary property of that car. They have every right to use it as long as they don't cross the lines should they desire to avoid a pothole, something that fell off another vehicle, road kill - whatever it is that we find blocking our lanes on a daily basis.

Now if you want to propose legislation that creates a motorcycle only lane out of four feet of the left shoulder of major highways, you'll have my support...

[lamble]

[QUOTE=dvandkq;189582]I have privileged access? I guess if having my State Rep's email address is "privileged access", then I have "privileged access".

I apologize that I've worked in the Washington State Legislature as a chief of staff to several representatives and senators, and thus have an inside perspective on how our state capitol works. I also apologize for having been a transportation lobbyist in a former life, and using those skills and connections to kill lane splitting in Washington State for this year.

The transportation lobbying you dealt with wouldn't be in conflict with lane sharing would it, or, perhaps, be colouring your perspective by any chance?

It certainly doesn't seem to be an opinion you've based upon the indicated preferances of your fellow riders. So, is there a vested interest?

Just asking for clarity, on why you seem so happy to be going against the poll (inaccurate I know, but better than an 'I guess statement', eg. I've repeatedly said lane splitting should remain illegal because it will confuse and anger cage drivers, who will respond by taking out their frustrations on ALL motorcyclists, not just those electing to split or the even better example, [I]My unscientific observations are that the only people who are for lane splitting are the guys on their sport bikes who have to go 90 mph all the time. [/I

So, consistancy in arguements also adds to credibility, as does having some facts and I'd hoped majority support over minority belly aching louder would have held sway, but you seem to indicate that won't be the case. Well done.
.

[BONEY]

I've repeatedly said lane splitting should remain illegal because it will confuse and anger cage drivers, who will respond by taking out their frustrations on ALL motorcyclists, not just those electing to split.

Of course we all need to evaluate our individual skills, our motorcycle's capabilities, and the weather and roadway conditions when we make any decision while riding.

Why aren't we allowed to drive on the shoulders when traffic gets bad? Perhaps because they are called "safety shoulders"? Perhaps because the free space is occasionally needed to accommodate disabled vehicles? Perhaps because the free space provides room for drivers to escape hazards ahead? Why are traffic lanes so much wider than the vehicles that use them? Is it simply to annoy the hurried motorcyclist who laments all that wasted unused space, or is it to provide additional cushion from the vehicles traveling in space around you? That space on either side of a car is the temporary property of that car. They have every right to use it as long as they don't cross the lines should they desire to avoid a pothole, something that fell off another vehicle, road kill - whatever it is that we find blocking our lanes on a daily basis.


What I truely find puzzling, when Lane Sharing works everywhere else in this world (and California- SSHH!), is that a few people are so blinded by their fear of something different that they look beyond the facts, figures, and supporting data, and constantly reinforce themselves with misguided arguments that hold very little footing under scrutiny AND ACTUAL PRACTICE. Specifically when you apply them to the daily goings on in the global motorcycling community, (and California- SSHH!).

"If I repeat it enough times, it will be the truth."


EDIT: Or simply put, "the data proves that your opinion is misguided."

[OfficerImpersonator]

I have always said that my opposition to this legislation stems from MY BELIEF as to how lane splitting would manifest itself here in WASHINGTON STATE, given the state of our roads, weather conditions and distracted and raging drivers.

You can take your data and shove it up your tail pipe. I've never presented data and I've never argued with your data. There is no data out there that predicts how WASHINGTON STATE drivers will respond to lane splitting. Show me data with an acceptable confidence interval that Washington drivers won't respond to lane splitting with anger and vindictiveness and burning cigarette butts and cups of cold coffee and middle fingers and last minute swerves to cut a splitting motorcyclist off and I'll support your precious legislation.

The ONLY reason anyone would lane split is to save time. If time is so precious a commodity, move closer to your destination or leave earlier.

[FatChance]

Just a question from a disinterested outside observer, why should there be pressure on one of the 49 states where lane splitting is specifically illegal to legalize it when no one wants to pressure the one state where it is not illegal to also specifically legalize it? You would think that if anyone could craft a law based upon their own experience, it would be California. So why not also try to get them to legalize the practice? You may wonder why someone should legalize something that is already not illegal, but states have vested interests in what their laws actually say and mean. Have any of the Californians who are discussing what Washington should do ever asked their own state to craft a law specifically legalizing lane splitting in California?

[lamble]

I have always said that my opposition to this legislation stems from MY BELIEF as to how lane splitting would manifest itself here in WASHINGTON STATE, given the state of our roads, weather conditions and distracted and raging "](emotive and inacurate-imbuing personal judgement as a quality laid upon a group of which you have demonstrated no monitorable knowledge or repesentational status...a sweeping statement without foundation, analytical, historic, quantifiable.) [/COLOR] drivers.

You can take your data and shove it up your tail pipe (Not vey constructive or polite). I've never presented data and I've never argued with your data. There is no data out there that predicts how WASHINGTON STATE drivers will respond to lane splitting (Yes there is, it's based on human/driver behaviour-Washington drivers meet these criteria and are not special cases, only limited experience with other drivers in other areas could lead to such a presumption of WA uniqueness). Show me data with an acceptable confidence interval that Washington drivers won't respond to lane splitting with anger and vindictiveness and burning cigarette butts and cups of cold coffee and middle fingers and last minute swerves to cut a splitting motorcyclist off (any evidence, any at all, anywhere to back up this spurious verbage?) and I'll support your precious (emotive language, not worthy of comment, but commented upon none-the-less)) legislation.

The ONLY reason anyone would lane split is to save time (No it's not-read earlier in thread where rear ending was mentioned). If time is so precious a commodity (See emotive), move closer to your destination or leave earlier.Impractical solution as it suposes that traffic will always be static or slow at exactly the same time each day and has no variances, such as wave braking

So, you are saying your arguements have no validity what so ever, but are happy to have presented them as "knowledge" to senoir legislators. That your opinions have no credence at all, however your bias outweighs the research undertaken by others and their experiences and their data can be shoved.

It's a very open minded approach to democracy I must say, based solely on mustering support based on emotive, unsubstantiated, self-serving bigotry and ranting louder than others.
I'm genuinely disappointed in the position you have taken and believe with a little more consideration you could have been an able ally, willing to assist the advancement of motorcycling. Shame and a waste.

[OfficerImpersonator]

So, you are saying your arguements have no validity what so ever, but are happy to have presented them as "knowledge" to senoir legislators. That your opinions have no credence at all, however your bias outweighs the research undertaken by others and their experiences and their data can be shoved.

It's a very open minded approach to democracy I must say, based solely on mustering support based on emotive, unsubstantiated, self-serving bigotry and ranting louder than others.
I'm genuinely disappointed in the position you have taken and believe with a little more consideration you could have been an able ally, willing to assist the advancement of motorcycling. Shame and a waste.

Mr. Lamble,

You are now officially off your rocker. I have shared with my elected state representative, who was a co-sponsor of the legislation, my concerns with the legislation. It is my constitutional right to do so. It is also my constitutional right to express my opinions and beliefs in public forums such as this.

I refuse to continue to allow you to mischaracterize my remarks. You continue to lambaste me for expressing my opinions, as if I shouldn't have the right to do so. You've called me a bigot. What racial group have I disparaged with my comments and observations? You say I "rant louder than others". I don't see a volume control on my computer screen, so how can I "rant louder than others"? What arguments have I made that are without validity? If you'd like to comment on specific opinions I've shared, I'd be happy to discuss our differences in a rational and deliberative manner. Unfortunately, it appears you've become quite frustrated with this discussion and have resorted to name calling and character assassination to score points.

I have, at all times until now, disagreed with you and expressed my opinions in a calm, deliberative and rational manner. I have attempted to engage in a civilized discourse. You have chosen to respond with insults to my character. You, sir, do not know me well enough to comment upon my character. Please refrain from doing so in the future.

[lamble]

Mr. Lamble,

You are now officially off your rocker. I have shared with my elected state representative, who was a co-sponsor of the legislation, my concerns with the legislation. It is my constitutional right to do so. It is also my constitutional right to express my opinions and beliefs in public forums such as this.

I refuse to continue to allow you to mischaracterize my remarks. You continue to lambaste me for expressing my opinions, as if I shouldn't have the right to do so. You've called me a bigot. What racial group have I disparaged with my comments and observations? You say I "rant louder than others". I don't see a volume control on my computer screen, so how can I "rant louder than others"? What arguments have I made that are without validity? If you'd like to comment on specific opinions I've shared, I'd be happy to discuss our differences in a rational and deliberative manner. Unfortunately, it appears you've become quite frustrated with this discussion and have resorted to name calling and character assassination to score points.

I have, at all times until now, disagreed with you and expressed my opinions in a calm, deliberative and rational manner. I have attempted to engage in a civilized discourse. You have chosen to respond with insults to my character. You, sir, do not know me well enough to comment upon my character. Please refrain from doing so in the future.

Where and how do you read personal attacks into my comments. I point out the fragility of the arguements you make and you take it personally...I don't understand your complaint.

[OfficerImpersonator]

So, you are saying your arguements have no validity what so ever, but are happy to have presented them as "knowledge" to senoir legislators. That your opinions have no credence at all, however your bias outweighs the research undertaken by others and their experiences and their data can be shoved.

It's a very open minded approach to democracy I must say, based solely on mustering support based on emotive, unsubstantiated, self-serving bigotry and ranting louder than others.
I'm genuinely disappointed in the position you have taken and believe with a little more consideration you could have been an able ally, willing to assist the advancement of motorcycling. Shame and a waste.

Where and how do you read personal attacks into my comments. I point out the fragility of the arguements you make and you take it personally...I don't understand your complaint.

I'm moving on with my life as this issue is resolved for this legislative session. I suggest you do the same.

[lamble]

Let's clarify bigotry isn't racist, it's taking a stance against other groups, in this case those wanting lane sharing.
Bigot-n. One who holds obstinately to a belief or opinion intolerantly of others. source OED abridged version 1984

As pointed out earlier by your goodself, you have added cred from your access to people in the know.
Using capitals in text is a commonly accepted form of "shouting", plus shouting doesn't always equate to purely volume, the chosen wordage can indicate shouting "shove it up your tail pipe" is surely not a whispered comment after all is it?

Your arguements state a knowledge of all the WA car drivers, you have no such knowledge and so the arguement is unsubstantiated.

None of these, or any other comments I have made are more than criticism of your comments and the structure of your arguements, in fact standard debate techniques, totally devoid of the personal aspect.

You may and probably are, in all other matters the consumate human being and I'd hasten to add, as such, a potential friend-we do share motorcycling as a common thread.
I'm not out to score points against you, that would be futile, I am however out to show the stance you have taken against the lane sharing amendment is not a valid arguement.


Please distinguish between the two, as it will make you and I far happier.

Oh, and I'm not off my rocker...that is a personal attack and beneath both you and I, sir.

[lamble]

News I've just received:

I believe Lane sharing/splitting won't be passed this year in WA as the Bill did not move out of committee, but will continue into next year.

I thank those who showed support and especially those who did not, as we now have a clearer indication as to those issues we need to address and where the objections will come from and in what form.

It was an enlightening first look for me, at the US's processes.

Dvandkq, I hope that our m/cycling commonality will enable this discussion to be regarded in a lighter vein, as I'd hate to have someone who rides the first bike I had and hold in fond memory, as an adversary, although I believe we will continue to disagree on the lane sharing subject.

See you all again at the next reading.

[12bswayed]

I don't have much to say on this form, but after reading the bantering on this thread I feel I must say thanks so much for saving me from myself. From preventing me from choice.....I'm so glad that you will be fighting for my right not to choose to lane split or not.

I'm sure lane splitting will be back in future legislative sessions, and you can feel free to ask your representatives to enact a bill that would permit lane splitting. Just keep in mind that I'll be there, too - actively fighting any attempt to allow lane splitting here in Washington State.

[dtgates]

I am disappointed that bill is dead (this year).
To me it really makes sense to allow lane splitting or at least filtering to the front of a stop light. There is data out there that suggests filtering is safer (decreased rear end collisions), but also, I think this is a huge advantage to the motorcycle commuter.
One of the reason I ride is to commute to and from work. I can get from Renton to Bothell (about 25 miles) in the morning on the 405 in about 30-35 minutes in the HOV lane whereas it can take as long as 90 minutes in the car. A big part of that 30-35 minutes is on the surface arterial streets getting to the 405. Allowing filtering to the front of the stop lights would only make motorcycling commuting more attractive.

[lamble]

...just the end of the beginning.


We, the pro lane sharing riders, will just need to remember to lobby, or give support to lobbyists, fighting to overcome the ignorance, prejudices and bigotry of those in the minority (see poll).
Facts, figures and I hope logic, will outweigh the emotive, unsubstantiated and poorly professed beliefs of the anti folks (be they lovely people or not).

It's a case of long term education, which is tedious, tiresome, hard and unrewarding in the short term. But, as I tried to explain, success in one m/cycle initiative, well presented and supported, could lead to many more biking benefits being gained over time.

[lamble]

FRom a fellow GSer.


I received a reply from my one Representative (Rep. Ruth Kagi) after I
wrote to her urging her to support the lane splitting bill, HB 2160.

Here is a snippet from her reply: "After reading the bill and
discovering research out of California, I believe this bill may have
some merit. There will need to be some major education for legislators
by pro-motorcycle groups on what this legislation will do and what
have been the repercussions in other states. I will support HB 2160
should it come to the floor for a vote.".

Also, video of the house transportation committee hearing on HB2160 is
on-line at TVW -
http://www.tvw.org/MediaPlayer/Archived/WME.cfm?EVNum=2007020205&TYPE=V
It includes excellent testimony by a fellow GS-er, Russ Darr (sp?).

Eugene

[lamble]

I've just watched the video from the presentations in Olympia and have to say that the final two people presenting (the anti-lobby) would, if I were a layman, sway me to vote against the amendment. People dying and having arms torn off, that's a very strong arguement, except...under what circumstances were these incidents happening?

It's just conceivable the chp rider was in pursuit and travelling very fast indeed (arms don't just pop off), the older guys who lost friends didn't mention how, or why they crashed either...were they wearing helmets, were they riding in a group, too fast, inebriated, at unsuitable speeds perhaps...

But, sitting on those benches, all I'd hear would be, accident, injury, death.

In the UK, we aren't taught how to filter, it's not a mandatory part of our exam. Our roads are equally as poor, if not worse than here, they are just as crowded and our drivers are no more or less curtious/aware/able/attentive than those in WA, or anywhere else for that matter (Calcutta being an exception, where driving is appalling and I'd not ride in the city at all), however, from all of the information that can be gathered from around the world, lane sharing does not increase accidents, so how do we do it?
Perhaps every rider in the UK and every driver in the UK is better than their counterparts here in the USA. Perhaps this applies to every rider and driver around the world, in which case the USA is home to the worst riders and drivers?

I don't think this is the case for a moment.

People in cars and trucks don't want their vehicles hit by other vehicles, be they other cars, motorcycles, pedal bikes even pedestrians, and those using other vehicles don't want to be in collisions either. It's inconvenient (all that lost time filling in papers and forms for insurance, the time off the road for repairs) so they keep out of each others way. I saw cars move from the HOV lane to let faster vehicles get passed, cars and bikes.
People don't want to be involved in accidents or cause them.

Annecdotal, emotive statements sound good and hit our human nature self preservation buttons, but these statements are just not true and are beliefs, not facts.

I hope that legislators can see the difference.

Oh and to let you know, I'd have said filtering above 30 mph wasn't necessary, as that's making progress as far as I'm concerned, so under the proposal, traffic flowing at 20mph would have been where I'd have drawn the limit. It provides the safety measure of not being in a position where you will get tailended, but allows controlled progression. Perhaps it's a compromise they'll come to...I do hope so.

[dtgates]

I watched the video as well.

The older gentleman at the end who said he saw many friends 'go down' because of lane sharing has a credibility issue IMO.

Basically, he is testifying that lane sharing is unsafe. Yet, he says he will purposely pull his car into the path of a motorcyclist who is attempting to overtake him while lane sharing. IMO, this sounds like an act of aggression (road rage). He seems like a nice jolly guy on the video, but I think he has his priorities mixed up a bit about what 'safe' or 'unsafe' is.

Just a thought I had while watching.

p.s.
lamble;
I sent you a couple of PM's, did you get them?

[lamble]

I watched the video as well.

I sent you a couple of PM's, did you get them?

Had them, responded to them and forwarded them to the Bill principles.

Thanks.

I must admit I didn't pick up that it was the old boy himself that would block progression by lane sharers, but I just thought he could have been any guy pulled in off the street. He had no credibility other than he'd lived in California before, a number of years ago and had friends who had had accidents.

I fell off my bike in the UK where lane sharing is allowed, (however, the two were not related as I was on a muddy undulating forest track at the time and riding a street bike with road tyres. I fell off 22 times in a hour trying to take a short cut, in fact for the last 30 minutes I rode side saddle, so I didn't squash the fish and chips I was carrying in a pocket). So let's ban fish and chips. That's as spurious an arguement as he put forward-no foundation, evidence or association with the issue at hand. The Police guy had nothing better either, just emotional impact.

However, this may be sufficient to kill the bill (hey there's a good title for a film).

Finally, there was one moment the pro group shot themselves in the foot. When asked to speculate on what might happen if the Bill were introduced, they should have stuck to the line that they'd expect rear end accidents to reduce in line with the data they had. Anything beyond this wouldn't have any credence, as there is no data available.

The idea that you have to crash to learn is wrong. In the UK you don't get taught to filter, you use caution and judgement to do it. It's not a case of, "Did you filter today?
"Yes, and fell into only 3 cars, so that's two less than yesterday. I think I'll have it down to 1 by the end of the week."
"That is good news".

From day one, you make progression safely and cautiously, because...and this might seem a little far out to some..you don't want to be involved in an incident, so you take precautions when filtering, just like you do the rest of the time. It's why you put a foot down when you come to a halt, rather than try to balance. It's why you don't stand on the saddle to see over the car infront, I could go on but most of you have the idea already, others, will have their eyes covered and fingers in ears, while going, "blah blah blah, can't hear you!"

[dtgates]

Finally, there was one moment the pro group shot themselves in the foot. When asked to speculate on what might happen if the Bill were introduced, they should have stuck to the line that they'd expect rear end accidents to reduce in line with the data they had. Anything beyond this wouldn't have any credence, as there is no data available.

"

Yes. That really hurt their case.
I think this what lead to the comment of mandatory liability insurance for motorcyclists since there will be (in their minds) a temporary increase of 'accidents'.

[BONEY]

Just a question from a disinterested outside observer, why should there be pressure on one of the 49 states where lane splitting is specifically illegal to legalize it when no one wants to pressure the one state where it is not illegal to also specifically legalize it? You would think that if anyone could craft a law based upon their own experience, it would be California. So why not also try to get them to legalize the practice? You may wonder why someone should legalize something that is already not illegal, but states have vested interests in what their laws actually say and mean. Have any of the Californians who are discussing what Washington should do ever asked their own state to craft a law specifically legalizing lane splitting in California?

I'd just like to clarify the issue about Lane Sharing here in Kalifornistan.

It is legal here. I forget the proper legal term for the way it works, but our laws provide that if something is not illegal, then it is legal- no further law/documentation necessary. So, in other words, since lane sharing has not been outlawed, there is no reason to put a law on the books to make it legal- it already is- by default.

In My Opinion, what you are looking for is guidelines by which to split lanes. The Department of Motor Vehicles and the California Highway Patrol already cover that pretty well.

www.dmv.ca.gov

Years ago someone thought it necessary to legislate lane sharing out of existence in California. Who came to the side of the motorcyclists to prevent it from becoming law? One of the largest law enforcement agencies in the U.S.- The California Highway Patrol.

[lamble]

Yes. That really hurt their case.
I think this is what lead to the comment of mandatory liability insurance for motorcyclists since there will be (in their minds) a temporary increase of 'accidents'.

It's a shame, as this was an expression of belief, again based on no facts, so should have been treated as such, but wasn't. There should be no increase, as there are no facts that show there would be.

In the UK I wasn't allowed to turn right at red lights, or to overtake on inside lanes. The rules here are different and I adapted.

What about US drivers in Europe, especially the UK where we drive on the correct side, are they knocking down motorcyclists, driving on the wrong side? No, they adapt to the regulations. We are all capable of self preservation.
I don't feel anti to mandatory insurance though, it was a law in the UK, so I'm sort of committed to it.

[PacWestGS]

Do I still get "special privileges" in Washington to move to the front of the waiting line to get on and off the ferry first? Just checking cause I'd hate to PO any of those waiting drivers who all say (later, on the ferry) "That's a nice thing they do here, letting you guys on and off first without waiting in the rain". Yep, I think it's pretty cool too. Now, if I could ride past you when you're stuck in traffic. Just think, one less car on the road. One less vehicle taking up the space of a whole car stuck, waiting like you, one less person sitting between you and where you want to be. If a thousand more people rode MCs back and forth to work (because of percieved benefits) there would be a thousand less cars on the road at that same time.

When you get gas on your bike, do you wait out in the rain behind the car/SUV that is waiting for the one stopped at the last pump to move when the forward pump is clear, or do you weave forward, knowing that you will not have held anyone up while filling your tank and being on your way again? If you do then you are filtering, you are filtering because you can, you don't have to, but you can. You can do lots of things cars can't do because you are small and manueverable, you are here and then you are gone, you have inconvenienced no one, everyone was able to get gas quicker or at the same time it would have taken for everyone to wait like "Sheeples" because that is the way it had always been done. No one has ever been shot or run over for getting to the front of the gas line on a MC, but several have been backed over waiting in line. It's just a choice.

Some of you must always make right turns here in WA, because you've not been waiting forever for the left turn light to recognize your MC or you broke the law and turned left after an amount of time. It's a choice, wait for a car to pull up behind you, run the red, or go straight and make a U-Turn later. It's just a choice.

I don't want special privileges, I just want to be recognized as a benefit to society in my choice of transportation, if that means I will take up no more and usually much less space, then everyone benefits. It's just a choice.

It's only a choice, you can drive or ride, you can ride in the lane like everyone else (hoping for the same space allowance as all the other cars around you) or you can take advantage of your size and manueverability and pull alongside, past and around the cars stuck in what is a failure of legislature to improve traffic conditions in our state. Or, you can wait patiently for that "inatentive" driver slaming into the back of you. It's all a choice. Some you will walk away from, others you not ever walk again from. It's all just a choice.

Let me choose, I'm the one riding, I don't always have to ride any particular way, it is my responsibility to ride safely at all times, it that allows me to get past cars stuck in traffic for what ever the reason from, construction, accidents, to just plain too many cars, trucks and buses all trying to go to the same place at the same time, on a system of roads that cannot accommodate everyone. Let me help them to move better, because I won't be there waiting like them, I will be gone, along on my to my destination and everyone else will be getting there one less car faster.

Harmony and less stress for everyone.

JMHO
YMMV

It's your personal responsibilty to avoid hitting another vehicle not only because it cost money, but because it hurts. If your skills are not what they should be I would recommend against "Lane-Sharing" it may be hazardous to your health. If waiting like all the other people in the world is what makes you comfortable why ride a bike when the car is so much more comfortable? I can even drink coffee and talk on the phone when I drive. They allow people to do that even if it puts all others around you at a higher risk, especially those others whom choose to ride a motorcycle. There are no laws against being stupid in this country, so why do we have one that prevents others from someone elses stupidity?

Just asking. :D




:hide

[glwestcott]

For those of you who are against this but don't live in a state (California) that allows it or in another country that does, it seems to me that your opinions are basically uniformed. Those of us that live where it is common practice can talk about safety and other issues and you can't as it applies to lane splitting. It reminds me of friends who don't ride bikes and always explain how terribly dangerous it is. I don't take their opinions very seriously on that particular subject either.

Think I'll sit back after that one!:lurk

[BONEY]

Do I still get "special privileges" ... someone elses stupidity?

Just asking. :D




:hide


Well said.

[lamble]

We may well all be preaching to the converted, as the two who felt compelled to disagree no longer appear to post.

It may be they saw the reasoning and changed their opinions (I hope so).
It maybe they felt personally victimised and marginalised (I hope not)
Or, it may be that their views are so entrenched, that no logical arguements will permeate their opinions. (I suspect this).

Whatever reason is causing their absence, it should not be assumed pro-lane sharers, or those just wishing to have the option to choose, have won.

This is not a logical arguement that we are facing, watch the video and you'll see it's emotion, fear, bigotry and ignorance that we have to compete with.
Education is the only way to make progress, but how can you educate those who aren't prepared to listen, or think they know it all...it's a problem, especially when their self righteousness extends to stopping others from undertaking the practise and demonstrating it's beneficial aspects.

[lamble]

.
YMMV
It's your personal responsibilty to avoid hitting another vehicle not only because it cost money, but because it hurts.
:hide


Two quickies, what does YMMV stand for, is it something to do with a Yamaha Multi Maxi Valve?

I've not mentioned the hurt thing before, because I've looked at it from the car driver's perspective of not wanting to cause an accident with a m/cycle, as it is a complete hassle and totally against their immediate intention of making progress to where ever they are going, as quickly as possible. But you are right, it's as much in our interest to avoid contact (if not more so), however, some m/cycle people obviously feel they would be unable to ride between cars without rebounding from one to another like a pin ball, so, they shouldn't perform the manouevre, a bit like I don't do wheelies and stoppies two up, on a fully decked out GS. I could if I wanted to, but choose not to.

[username]

ymmv = your mileage may vary

with regard to wrecks, isnt there some smarmy saying like, "the guy on the bike was right, and the guy in the car was dead wrong. now the guy on the bike is dead right."

conservation of energy makes collision avoidance my top priority, regardless of who is right or wrong.

[OfficerImpersonator]

We may well all be preaching to the converted, as the two who felt compelled to disagree no longer appear to post.

It may be they saw the reasoning and changed their opinions (I hope so).
It maybe they felt personally victimised and marginalised (I hope not)
Or, it may be that their views are so entrenched, that no logical arguements will permeate their opinions. (I suspect this).

Whatever reason is causing their absence, it should not be assumed pro-lane sharers, or those just wishing to have the option to choose, have won.

This is not a logical arguement that we are facing, watch the video and you'll see it's emotion, fear, bigotry and ignorance that we have to compete with.
Education is the only way to make progress, but how can you educate those who aren't prepared to listen, or think they know it all...it's a problem, especially when their self righteousness extends to stopping others from undertaking the practise and demonstrating it's beneficial aspects.

I quit posting to this thread because I wasn't going to change your mind and you weren't going to change mine. It was pointless to continue the discussion, so I stopped.

I'm off to the next topic...

[lamble]

That'll be the third option then, as I suspected.

Glad you popped in again though to keep tabs on us. Hope you aren't carrying any bad feelings still, as I did sense from your rather choice writings, that you may have been getting upset at being contradicted?

I hope that this thread will continue to keep the issue of lane sharing in the minds of all riders and if we all agree, it's going to be a bit like self congratulatory masturbation, pleasant but ultimately not that rewarding.
So I'd like to think you'll bring your thoughts to bear once in a while, just to refresh the memory of what we are up against and why we pro lane sharers shouldn't take it for granted that a well reasoned arguement ,supported by factual evidence, will necessarily win out over unsubstantiated scaremongery.

A fellow rider, just with a different outlook on matters.

[dtgates]

I quit posting to this thread because I wasn't going to change your mind and you weren't going to change mine. It was pointless to continue the discussion, so I stopped.

I'm off to the next topic...

Compromise...
Let's Agree to Respect Each Other's Views,
No Matter How Wrong Yours May Be...
www.despair.com
:blah

[OfficerImpersonator]

That'll be the third option then, as I suspected.

Glad you popped in again though to keep tabs on us. Hope you aren't carrying any bad feelings still, as I did sense from your rather choice writings, that you may have been getting upset at being contradicted?

I hope that this thread will continue to keep the issue of lane sharing in the minds of all riders and if we all agree, it's going to be a bit like self congratulatory masturbation, pleasant but ultimately not that rewarding.
So I'd like to think you'll bring your thoughts to bear once in a while, just to refresh the memory of what we are up against and why we pro lane sharers shouldn't take it for granted that a well reason arguement ,supported by factual evidence, will necessarily win out over unsubstantiated scaremongery.

A fellow rider, just with a different outlook on matters.

Okay - so you've succeeded in the not very difficult task of re-engaging me on this topic.

Would you be so kind as to answer one simple question for me?

Why do zero of 50 states specifically allow lane splitting?

To my knowledge, California has no law prohibiting lane splitting, and the other 49 states specifically prohibit lane splitting.

If lane splitting is the cat's meow, why is it banned in 49 states and merely tolerated in the other? Are all 50 state legislatures full of morons?

Just perhaps, maybe, there are perspectives both inside and outside the motorcycle community that have convinced 49 state legislatures that lane splitting is a bad idea?

[PacWestGS]

YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary (Same with an opinion it may vary)

I grew up and learned to ride in So. Cal back in the mid 70s and have rode between cars both there and in Europe, it's really quite easy and as long as you remember to control your bike and being prepared to stop it remains easy. It's not a free pass to ride bewteen things, there are always areas that you must wait for others to make room, but far and large there is always a lane wide enough for a MC to sneak through and be out of the way again shortly. I have never seen a higher incidence of crashes because of lane-sharing/filtering/splitting unless the rider was at fault.

Have I been spit on, yes, so what birds crap on me too, have I had cigarette butts thrown at me yes, but I've had cigarette butts thrown at me following people too.

What ever they decide and when they decide will be alright by me. I enjoy the ability to ride around problems with a sense that it is legal to do so and that I am right for doing it. Until then and as long as I live in Wsahington I will mind my time and wait in traffic like all others.

It's not for everyone, but it sure beats sitting there like a dead duck, sweating, and over heating both bike and rider when there is ten feet worth of lane to ride down and escape the maddness of it all.

JMHO (Just My Honest/Humble Opinion)

[PacWestGS]

Okay - so you've succeeded in the not very difficult task of re-engaging me on this topic.

Would you be so kind as to answer one simple question for me?

Why do zero of 50 states specifically allow lane splitting?

To my knowledge, California has no law prohibiting lane splitting, and the other 49 states specifically prohibit lane splitting.

If lane splitting is the cat's meow, why is it banned in 49 states and merely tolerated in the other? Are all 50 state legislatures full of morons?

Just perhaps, maybe, there are perspectives both inside and outside the motorcycle community that have convinced 49 state legislatures that lane splitting is a bad idea?


Would it be because back when those laws were written it wasn't necessary because of traffic density? (A problem the rest of the world has always faced) And, it would have been seen as stupid, back then? Some laws on the books are vastly outdated and need to be changed to keep pace with society. Some need to be changed because of society like cell phone use while driving I'll bet the law makers never saw that one coming...

I really don't want to provide an answer to your forth question because I think you already answered it. :stick

But, if it is so dangerous - why are police allowed to use it, why are newer departments relying on MCs to serve as EMS and Fire Rescue quick response vehicles?

Maybe, perhaps the United States (all 50 states) should get on with what has effectivly been used all around the world with major success...

[knary]

For those of you who are against this but don't live in a state (California) that allows it or in another country that does, it seems to me that your opinions are basically uniformed. Those of us that live where it is common practice can talk about safety and other issues and you can't as it applies to lane splitting. It reminds me of friends who don't ride bikes and always explain how terribly dangerous it is. I don't take their opinions very seriously on that particular subject either.

Think I'll sit back after that one!:lurk

:thumb

I've had the pleasure of filtering when riding in California. Done with a cautious eye, it seemed no more dangerous than sitting trapped in traffic. This impression is born out by review of accident statistics - it's apparently no more safe and no more dangerous. It does, however, help alleviate congestion and make travel and commuting a helluvalot easier for the rider. Something "seeming" like a bad or good idea shouldn't be the basis of law.

[Visian]

it must work just about everywhere else in the world for *some* reason...

[knary]

it must work just about everywhere else in the world for *some* reason...

Those people rely on paying attention, not a somewhat arbitrary set of rules, to keep them sae. Watching traffic in Rome, for example, is an eye opener for an American.

[lamble]

I have yet to examine the laws of all 49 States where lane sharing is not allowed and do not wish to join you on the speculation as truth route, however, I believe that the messages from others may have answered your questions.

I have an hypothesis, which will need researching before I will come, via a theory and testing to a conclusion. My hypothesis is as follows:
Other states may not specifically define within their laws that motorcycles can not lane share, but this outcome has arisen as a subsequence of the wording of that law, a little like the worries currently being expressed about the WA off road noise bill.
I'll check the facts and get back to you.
It's how you formulate an arguement based on facts...try it, it would help me understand your position, which at the moment seems to be, "it's bad because I say it is and I know better than you".
That just doesn't hold water as an arguement with adults, unless you are in the army, remonstrating with a toddler or using your status to try to overwhelm an underling. I don't accept any of these precepts or your arguement therefore.

[lamble]

:thumb

I've had the pleasure of filtering when riding in California. Done with a cautious eye, it seemed no more dangerous than sitting trapped in traffic. This impression is born out by review of accident statistics - it's apparently no more safe and no more dangerous. It does, however, help alleviate congestion and make travel and commuting a helluvalot easier for the rider. Something "seeming" like a bad or good idea shouldn't be the basis of law.

Whilst agreeing whole-heartedly with the sentiment I must disagree with one fact.
It has been shown that rear end accidents involving static m/cycles in traffic are reduced by filtering and no data exists which shows filtering causes more accidents, therefore, it is actually statistically found to be safer to lane share than not. And, it improves congestion and the other good bits you mentioned.

[knary]

Whilst agreeing whole-heartedly with the sentiment I must disagree with one fact.
It has been shown that rear end accidents involving static m/cycles in traffic are reduced by filtering and no data exists which shows filtering causes more accidents, therefore, it is actually statistically found to be safer to lane share than not. And, it improves congestion and the other good bits you mentioned.

You've seen different stats than I. IIRC, it was a wash. Riders get squashed by errant drivers in either situation.

[BONEY]

You've seen different stats than I. IIRC, it was a wash. Riders get squashed by errant drivers in either situation.

I'd be interested to see the numbers. I would think that in a sharing situation all parties involved would be moving in the same direction and at a relatively low rate of speed. They would probably also all be aware if the incident and take measures to mitigate it. I would speculate that there would be fewer fatalities than in rear-end type accidents, while the number of injured riders would probably compensate for the difference.

I'd rather split and get hurt then be killed.

[lamble]

It was either 23 or 23% of m/cycle accidents that involved rear end collisions as stated in the video as fact. There aren't any figures for lane sharing accidents, however, using the poll and the number 23 rather than the precentage, here's rather rudimentary maths.

For simplicity let's say 20 riders are involved in rear enders. If 80% approx, of riders express that they'd lane share (poll), then 16 wouldn't be there to be hit.
4 would remain as rear end casualties (although that should drop as there's less chance of hitting 4 than 20, but never the less let stick with whole numbers).

Take that 16 and apply a variant, a reasonable assumption being that just as many will be hit filtering as standing still (although as mentioned previously, there's no indication that filtering carries any more danger index than normal riding, so this is weighting in favour of the anti lane share brigade quite heavily), so that will be a variant of +-4, giving a net safety improvement of 12 at worst, 16 at best.

If it was 23% of accidents the principle stays the same but the numbers saved and injured increases proportionately.
You will see I didn't account for the don't knows, who might just be out of the way of rear end danger, instead I added that into the anti figure, so in fact the bias is towards the anti group...but I don't think that matters in such a generalised calculation.

As side factoids, I heard yesterday that in 2004 46,000 americans were injured using the toilet and that you are twice as likely to die having liposuction as you are from a car accident.

Just thought I'd share those with you.

[pmdave]

After a month or two avoiding the MOA site, I dropped by and tediously waded through this whole argument.

We're in the debt of at least one rider who explained in detail how some people are opposed to changing the status quo--based mostly on inuendo, distrust, rumor, fear, and prejudice, it would appear. This whole "discussion" should be printed out and used by those working to make lane sharing not illegal. Each of the bigoted, factless points needs an answer, because these are probably the very thoughts of the typical state rep/senator/non-motorcylist.

It reminds me of some of the residents of Sequim who went into a tizzy after a couple of roundabouts were installed. The locals feel roundabouts are dangerous, expensive, confusing, yadda yadda. Never mind that roundabouts are very inexpensive compared to multiple signal light arrays, roundabouts are quick to negotiate (OK, with a little education) and you don't have to stop and wait for a roundabout in the middle of the night. And, BTW, roundabouts work very well elsewhere in the world.

What we have in the debate seems to be certain individuals with no experience, knowledge, or statistics to back up their bigoted position that a certain traffic act should be illegal. However, with experience, the bigots often figure out miraculously that the traffic act in question is at least OK, and maybe even an advantage after all.

And if that's the situation with splitting/filtering/sharing, then the primary task needs to be educating the bigots so they stop resisting logical improvements.

BTW, I am a WA resident with several WA licensed motorcycles, and I have ridden motorcycles in countries other than the US of A, and I have more than a passing understanding of motorcycle safety.

[lamble]

Is it my failing memory, or have some posts disappeared?

Is there an 8 page max?

[DarrylRi]

Check the global announcement that Scott Conary (Knary) just posted. There was a server crash, and posts after Sunday night were lost.

[lamble]

Thanks for the notice. It's a shame though, I'd had some of my best thoughts on Monday and Tuesday. Now I've forgotten them.

I think I'm losing my long term memory, but my short term memory is so poor I can't remember if it was worth remembering anyway.

[lamble]

We can't afford to let apathy win this arguement, so keep voting, otherwise we could end up with mega smugness from people who haven't had to put a single supported fact together and have just relied on the incohesive masses not getting their act together.

[lamble]

just to keep it in our collective consciousness.

[OfficerImpersonator]

Lamble,

I appreciate your determination in supporting HB 2160, but HB 2160 is "dead" for this legislative session.

The bill did not make it out of the State House before the deadline last week, so it is now impossible for the bill to be enacted this year.

See you next year :)

[lamble]

Whilst you may regard the current status as gloatworthy, I prefer to look upon it as 12 month in which to formulate a proposal that will outweigh the emotive ramblings of a minority, who have no experience or data that can support their case.

This has been a very enlightening exercise, as I've been able to see the fatuousness of the against arguements that you and a few others have put forward.
I shall be lending my experience to the pro team and use your dissentions as a basis for structuring a response.
This isn't 12 months where the topic will go away. It's 12 additional months to overcome prejudice and ignorance.

As your arguements require no foundation in fact, it's your perogative to sit on your backside and do diddly-squat, then just turn up on the day and spout twaddle spuriously, so enjoy your time off.

[OfficerImpersonator]

Lamble,

Why must you use 30 multisyllable words to say what could easily be said with 10 shorter words? Are you trying to impress someone with your vocabulary?

Why must you continue to criticize my expression of my opinion to my elected officials? Your response should be to express your opinion to your elected officials - that's how the process works.

There are no relevant studies to tell us if lane splitting is safe or unsafe in our state as it is not legal in any state. It is not illegal in California, but there is no law specifically allowing it, either.

Why is the MSF against lane splitting? Why are law enforcement organizations against lane splitting? Why are the retired motorcycle officers who've posted to this thread opposed to lane splitting?

Answer those questions for me and we'll have the beginning of a real debate - not a tirade by you against me for contacting my elected representative - and co-sponsor of your beloved legislation - and convincing him that it was a bad bill.

I refuse to allow you to criticize me for availing myself of the political process. That's how it's supposed to work, and I refuse to apologize for my ability to express my position to my elected officials.

If the supporters of the legislation had made a case that the bill was necessary, it would have passed - but they didn't, so it didn't. End of story.

You can try again next year, and unless the bill is reworded, you can count on my opposition.

Happy weekend :)

[mcdermottje]

I have lived in South Africa and now, in Germany where lane splitting for motorcycles has been an accepted practice for a very long time. In South Africa, it typically occurs at intersections to move motorcycles to the front of the pack for two reasons: 1. They accelerate off the line quicker and lead the traffic out rather than running a chance of being rear ended back in traffic and: 2. It keeps them from being assaulted and possibly high jacked while in traffic.

In Germany, the morning and afternoons staus (traffic jams) run between two and 7 kilometers in length. It is accepted and prefered by motorists to move the motorcycles through the stopped/slow moving traffic and here, they watch for motorcyclists and move to the sides of their lanes to provide adequate clearance.
I have been splitting lanes on my 83 R65, my 2001 R1200c and now, with my 2006 K1200LT.

But, you have to take into consideration lane widths, and in these two places, the average lane is wider than most found on US roads. You have to stay in your own personal comfort zone when considering to split lanes. I do it a lot less on the K12LT than I did on the other bikes.

[BONEY]

There are no relevant studies to tell us if lane splitting is safe or unsafe in our state as it is not legal in any state. It is not illegal in California, but there is no law specifically allowing it, either.

Please, please inform me why having a law to "specifically allow" lane sharing in CA would make one bit of difference... I am at a loss as to why you constantly (and I mean in many of your posts in this thread) beat this dead horse when you've obviously read the posts where it's been explained. I'll say it again: Lane Sharing is specifically allowed because there is no law preventing it's practice. Just like every other topic you'd like to discuss for which there is no law. How does that make it "not legal" (your words) ? In the next sentance you call it "not illegal." Well, which is it? "Not legal" or "not illegal?"


Why is the MSF against lane splitting? Why are law enforcement organizations against lane splitting? Why are the retired motorcycle officers who've posted to this thread opposed to lane splitting?


IMO, the MSF is very much like the AMA in that it must pander to a very large group of people. The "shotgun" approach, if you will. Obviously lane sharing is a hot button issue. The MSF wont touch it because it is controvertial and they cannot point to anything to support a "in favor of" statement. Just like the AMA. Until there is a study, there will be no support.

You mention retired and active LEO's and agnecies, but you have not referenced one from California. Considering the amount of lane sharing going on around here, I would think that they'd be the experts, not a bunch of guys who don't do it, have never done it regularly, and have never had to "enforce it." Sorry to say it, but a bunch of guys who have no experience with lane sharing are not experts. Go to the BayAreaRidersForum.com and look in the LEO forum. There you will find a thread that will give you a different perspective from the Law Enforcement Officer's who do it, promote it, and deal with it on a daily basis. You'll also find threads from jackass riders who got tickets while lane sharing and want to get out of them. (they mostly do not, ever, get out of tickets issued for infractions done while lane sharing.)

Now, you say you'd support it if it was re-written, but I did ask quite a while ago "what is it you'd like to see." I beleive you said you'd like to see "filtering" but not sharing. Is that right?

[lamble]

[QUOTE=dvandkq;193359]Lamble,

Why must you use 30 multisyllable words to say what could easily be said with 10 shorter words? Are you trying to impress someone with your vocabulary?

QUOTE]

Sorry dvandkq, I must apologise for using terminology that you find difficult, it's called English, it's what I was taught. I assumed you had a level of intelligence where you'd cope with more than monosyllabic words and indeed I think you can, but have just decided to have a personal snide swipe.

I've not criticised you for following your political path, just the lack of facts to support your suppositions, your continual use of emotive and unsubstantiated claims.
If you can't differentiate between personal attacks and criticism then that's your problem, perhaps you should steer clear of contradictory opinions.

Boney answered your questions.

[OscarMayer]

The Hurt Report contended that motorcyclists were safer sharing lanes than sitting at the end of a backup waiting for a car to rear end them. I wanted to look at the data and see if this hypothesis holds true. Here are some facts to chew on:

I could only get a complete set for 2005 from FARS so all data is from that year.

Percentage of fatalities resulting from a vehicle rear ending a motorcycle in:

Alabama: 11.9%
Arizona: 8.6%
California: 5.4%
Florida: 7.6%
Georgia: 0*
Louisiana: 5.7%*
Mississippi: 19.2%*
South Carolina: 10.2%
Texas: 9.7%

* Small data pool, results may be skewed.
States selected have a similar riding season.

If you look at just the largest states and only accidents that happened on the highway:

California: 6.0 rear-end fatalities/billion miles ridden on the highway
Florida: 9.0 rear-end fatalities/billion miles ridden on the highway
Texas: 9.4 rear-end fatalities/billion miles ridden on the highway

Is this because California drivers are especially careful? Or maybe they are more aware of the vehicles around them. Maybe Florida and Texas are much more congested. Percentage of fatalities resulting from a vehicle rear ending a passenger car:

California: 11.0%
Florida: 9.7%
Texas: 11.6%

So Californians are rear-ending cars and killing people at a similar rate as other states, but are not rear-ending motorcycles at as much as other states. This leaves me to ask, are there other factors influencing this trend? Are motorcyclists in the Golden state more visible than other states? Are the roads somehow safer for motorcyclists? Or is our unique ability to share lanes and not wait to be sandwiched by an inattentive driver helping us survive better than our out-of-state brethren? Here are the total fatality rates for these three largest states for multi-vehicle front-impact accidents of motorcycles:

California: 49.4 fatalities/billion miles ridden
Florida: 48.7 fatalities/billion miles ridden
Texas: 51.5 fatalities/billion miles ridden

So it looks like Californian bikers are fatally crashing into vehicles in front of them at the same rate as other states, but are not being rear-ended at the same rate. This leads me to believe that sharing lanes has a positive impact on preventing rear-end motorcycle fatalities, and a negligible effect on total fatalities. Insurance rates should be lower in California, not higher, although 3 fatalities for one billion miles seems like a small amount when spread over the large populations of insured drivers. Another conclusion from the Hurt Report was that less than 10% of riders did not have liability or health insurance, far below the national average of 30% for auto drivers. Let me know if there are alternatives to this conclusion, I can’t think of any.

source: http://www.whybike.com/blog/index.php?p=147

[lamble]

Oscar,

Beautiful data and an arguement so well constructed it bought a tear to my eye.

[tonkandy]

Insurance rates should be lower in California, not higher, although 3 fatalities for one billion miles seems like a small amount when spread over the large populations of insured drivers. Another conclusion from the Hurt Report was that less than 10% of riders did not have liability or health insurance, far below the national average of 30% for auto drivers. Let me know if there are alternatives to this conclusion, I can’t think of any.

source: http://www.whybike.com/blog/index.php?p=147

By only looking at fatalities you minimize the potential effect of lane-sharing on insurance rates. Implicit in your conclusion that insurance rates should be lower in California is the assumption that all insurance claim accidents caused by lane-sharing also result in the death of the rider.

[dtgates]

I couldn't help but wonder if the helmet laws played a role here.

California required
Texas/ Florida* not required (+21 yrs of age)

* when was the Florida helmet law repealed? Was before or after 2005? (when these numbers were derived).

Nevertheless, the front end fatality numbers were essentially equal suggesting helemts don't play a role.

[OfficerImpersonator]

Lamble,

I have a highly developed vocabulary and am quite capable of understanding any prose you toss my way. It just seems that you're complicating the debate by using larger than necessary words. Looks to me like you're trying to flaunt what you perceive to be a superior intelligence to make your point.

Wow. Statistics. You're cool. Did you know 57% of all statistics used in debates on the internet were made up on the spot? You can take my word for it ;)

Show me a study, done by the University of Washington's Transportation Center or equivalent, showing how Seattle-area traffic/motorcycling would be impacted with the introduction of lane splitting. Until you use a study that uses local drivers, local roads, local weather, etc. it's all comparing apples to oranges.

Did you know California (at least Southern California) has HOV lanes which are substantially different than our HOV lanes? They are limited access in California, with double-yellow lines. You are only allowed to enter and exit the HOV lanes at limited merge areas.

Stats from other states mean squat when compared Washington State driver, motorcyclist, infrastructure and weather conditions.

Here is the point I've tried to make again and again, and I'll use my commute this morning to illustrate it.

Under HB 2160, lane splitting would be allowed when the general purpose lanes are moving 30 mph or slower. The motorcyclist can ride no faster than 10 mph over the speed of the slower cars.

In my hypothetical, the HOV lane is moving at 60 mph and the general purpose anes are moving at 30 mph. So, will the motorcyclist split the 30 mph lanes, going 40 mph, or ride in the HOV lane at 60 mph? Duh - they motorcyclist will always choose the HOV lane given these conditions.

If you've read the legislation, you'll notice the legislation didn't specifically prohibit lane splitting between the far left general purpose lane and the HOV lane - a fatal flaw in my opinion. The speed differential between the HOV lane and the general purpose lane and the amount of traffic - especially buses - moving back and forth to and from the HOV lane is too great to safely allow lane splitting between those two lanes.

While I am indeed against lane splitting in general as I perceive it to be unsafe, I consider myself to have an open mind. I've tried to listen to your arguments, which all appear to be either "it's safer per this study conducted in other states" or "how dare you oppose this legislation because I really want it" - neither of which I've found particularly compelling.

Just to get Boney to shut up on the subject, I'll agree that because the California State Assembly and the California State Senate have not enacted legislation banning lane splitting that it is thus legal. I will continue to point out that the California code does not allow lane splitting, either, as this legislation would do. The Washington State legislation would take it one step further and make Washington State the ONLY state in the country to specifically allow lane splitting. A BAD move on our state's part, in my opinion.

I have referenced the opinions shared by a retired Arizona motorcycle LEO, who is opposed to lane sharing. He's shared his opinions earlier on this thread about his negative perceptions of lane splitting, and how he used to relish busting Californians who thought since it wasn't illegal in California, it wasn't illegal in Arizona.

My next door neighbor is the sergeant who commands the King County Sheriff's motorcycle unit. Part of his responsibilities are to train motorcycle officers motorcycle safety and operation for LEOs. He runs clinics at Seattle International Raceway for officers from across the state. I can't imagine a better expert on motorcycle safety in the Seattle area.

He opposes lane splitting as dangerous and unsafe.

So you won't accept my opinion that it's inherently unsafe - but will you accept the opinion of my next door neighbor?

[dtgates]

some thoughts on your argument...


Under HB 2160, lane splitting would be allowed when the general purpose lanes are moving 30 mph or slower. The motorcyclist can ride no faster than 10 mph over the speed of the slower cars.

In my hypothetical, the HOV lane is moving at 60 mph and the general purpose anes are moving at 30 mph. So, will the motorcyclist split the 30 mph lanes, going 40 mph, or ride in the HOV lane at 60 mph? Duh - they motorcyclist will always choose the HOV lane given these conditions.

I believe that HB2160 states that the average speed has to be 1/2 (or less) of the posted speed. I don't think your example would apply since the HOV lane is still travelling at 60 mph.


If you've read the legislation, you'll notice the legislation didn't specifically prohibit lane splitting between the far left general purpose lane and the HOV lane - a fatal flaw in my opinion. The speed differential between the HOV lane and the general purpose lane and the amount of traffic - especially buses - moving back and forth to and from the HOV lane is too great to safely allow lane splitting between those two lanes.

maybe something that needs to addressed next year


Just to get Boney to shut up on the subject, I'll agree that because the California State Assembly and the California State Senate have not enacted legislation banning lane splitting that it is thus legal. I will continue to point out that the California code does not allow lane splitting, either, as this legislation would do. The Washington State legislation would take it one step further and make Washington State the ONLY state in the country to specifically allow lane splitting. A BAD move on our state's part, in my opinion.


Perhaps our strategy should be to repeal the law that makes it illegal for two vehicles to share space in one lane...???

[BONEY]

Just to get Boney to shut up on the subject, I'll agree that because the California State Assembly and the California State Senate have not enacted legislation banning lane splitting that it is thus legal. I will continue to point out that the California code does not allow lane splitting, either, as this legislation would do. The Washington State legislation would take it one step further and make Washington State the ONLY state in the country to specifically allow lane splitting. A BAD move on our state's part, in my opinion.


I'll zip it. Thanks for making the distinction.

I agree on repealing the law rather than enacting another. This thought crossed my mind, but I wasn't going to say anything here...

The problem I see with conducting a study on traffic patterns and the collision rates of lane sharing vs. not, is that at some point there would have to be a section of freeway/highway designated as a study area where motorcycles were allowed to share. Because of every beaurocrats fear of reprocussions, they would pick some obscure stretch way out in the middle of nowhere that never has any traffic. Then they'd publish a report that says "there's no appreciable difference in the traffic patterns, and no increase in collision rates" of course failing to point out that there never really was any traffic anyway, so the study was kind of a waste of everyone's time and money.

Northern California does not have any dedicated HOV lanes. They are all regularly striped lanes with " HOV hours" posted. It is not uncommon for traffic in the number 1 (HOV) lane to be moving at 30 MPH and traffic in the number 2 lane to be moving 10- 15. No big deal. Much faster than that and most riders just tuck into the faster lane and wait for the next slow down.

So you won't accept my opinion that it's inherently unsafe - but will you accept the opinion of my next door neighbor?

In a word...No.

Did you check out the link I posted? Since you put so much faith in law enforcement opinion, I thought maybe you'd like to see the thoughts of those who are experienced in such matters as lane sharing.


Wow. Statistics. You're cool. Did you know 57% of all statistics used in debates on the internet were made up on the spot? You can take my word for it


Wow, cool, so did you follow the link and research where the info came from? (I did.) It's straight from the NHTSA and USDOT. That means it's about the most valid data you're ever going see referenced regarding those topics. You can take my word for it.


Now I'm starting to see a trend. Here we are trying to have a discussion, and providing some pretty interesting fodder for discussion, and yet you're not clicking the links to the referenced information. But then again dvandkq, you were never really interested in having a discussion about this were you?

[knary]

:dunno

I put a lot more faith in the opinions of those that have lived with and enforced the laws in places that have allowed filtering. Anyone else?

[lamble]

:dunno

I put a lot more faith in the opinions of those that have lived with and enforced the laws in places that have allowed filtering. Anyone else?

Well that would make sense to me Knary, although I guess dvandkq will find some reason not to. In fact he'll probably claim that my English here is too simplistic, or some other unrelated diatribe, so as to deflect from the continued denouncement of his arguements against lane sharing.

There isn't anything new in his protestations and there hasn't been since his first message, just jaundised speculations of doom. The law is a vital entity, ever changing to meet to circumstances that arise. Some move with the times, others don't.
The whole idea here was that people should be given a choice to lane share or not. Dvandkq has decided he knows best and we should all do as he says.
I have an opinion about that, but prefer to stick to shredding his arguements rather than getting personal about his attitude, use of word, sanity, or any other point he could take personally.

If there are valid, factual details that can help with the promotion of lane sharing then let's keep collecting them here.

Perhaps dvandkq could set up a thread where the anti brigade can gather their case. It might encourage both sides of the arguement to begin a dialogue based on truths rather than suppositions.

Dvandkq-if the best you have, is to criticise the words used here, or the reason they are used, then perhaps it's time you...I'm lost for words, it's just plainly pathetic.
If you believe that the chosen language is suitable for you but complicated for others, aren't you just calling them all stupid?

No one, at all, other than you, felt the language was worthy of commenting upon. Try, to stick to the topic in here, I'm hoping somewhere along the way you might just see there's some logic to the arguements the majority are putting forward and that just one day the changes, if we can get them in place with or probably without your support, could just save your life.

[tonkandy]

If you want to legalize lane sharing you have to show that it makes sense for the majority of road users (car drivers).

The Hurt report shows that it's safer for motorcycles to lane share than to have their butts sticking out in traffic - so what. It's probably safer for kids to be seat-belted in school buses than not, but there's no legislation requiring seat belts, it doesn't make economic sense.

What is the economic impact? At a gut level it may suck, but to decide if this is good policy you have to assign numbers to things. Assume that a bikers life is worth about $100,000 (probably a reasonable number , the government rates a soldiers life at $400,000 and an Iraqi civilians life at $2,500, and my insurance coverage is $100,000). Do the lives and injuries saved, and the gasoline and time saved by motorcyclists and car drivers as a result of lane sharing, more than compensate for the damage and injuries caused by lane sharing accidents?

The data are probably available for California, so do the math. If it's a winning proposition, show the car drivers of Washington State that it's a good idea, they are the ones who need to be persuaded.

Personally I'm ambivalent about allowing motorcyclists to have a privilege (lane sharing) that isn't available to other road users. However, my opinion is not relevant to the outcome of this initiative (next year). Firstly, I'm not a resident of Washington State; secondly, like the rest of you, I'm a member of a small special interest group.

[lamble]

If you want to legalize lane sharing you have to show that it makes sense for the majority of road users (car drivers).

The Hurt report shows that it's safer for motorcycles to lane share than to have their butts sticking out in traffic - so what. It's probably safer for kids to be seat-belted in school buses than not, but there's no legislation requiring seat belts, it doesn't make economic sense.

What is the economic impact?
The data are probably available for California, so do the math.
.
The school bus seat belts issue arose in the UK not too long ago. It's sad to say it took many children's deaths for law makers to see beyond the cost arguement and those deaths came in two major accidents, very close in time, to reinforce the case for while public opinion was still at the hotly concerned stage.

The cost implications will be added to the case for, however when you get someone turn up from California, who says he's lost friends riding, then we get back to the emotive, urban myth material and the "What price a single life?" question.

I've lost a friend in a motorcycle accident, the circumstances have nothing to do with lane sharing, in fact he was racing at the Isle of Man. The detail is what matters and what the Californian should have included. My friend became a statistic and now his fatality has changed how marshalling is carried out. My point is this, we need to get beyond the "I've got a friend who says", "I heard down the pub that..." and let's see how the existing law can be changed, so that more lives can be saved.

Tonkandy, I thank you for looking at this from an ambivalent view point and adding your considered opinion on a way forward, whilst not having a vested interest.

[OfficerImpersonator]

Lamble,

You obviously have a personal vendetta against me. After all, you mention my user name like ten times per post. That's fine - you're allowed to get personal with your arguments, but I've never once attacked your integrity nor your intelligence - something you seem to enjoy doing to me. That's fine. I have enough self esteem to weather your storm.

So tonkandy posts that his concern with the proposal to make Washington State the only one to specifically legalize lane splitting is that it won't be accepted by car drivers.

Why didn't you jump down his throat like you did when I made exactly the same contention the centerpiece of my argument opposing HB 2160?

I have always said that introducing lane splitting to Washington State will further the rift between riders and drivers. Drivers, the vast majority of the tonnage moving along our highways - already have a low enough opinion of riders. Adding motorcycles zooming between them when they're stuck in traffic and the anger will rise to the point that someone will die in a road rage incident.

When I make the argument, it requires a five paragraph response from you pointing out how stupid I am. When someone else makes the argument, you reply with "I thank you for looking at this from an ambivalent view point and adding your considered opinion on a way forward, whilst not having a vested interest."

Whatever.

I'm just glad we've been able to finally point out your personal bias against anything I have to say, regardless of what I'm saying.

Lane splitting ain't coming to Washington State this year.

Now - back to work and something that actually matters!

[lamble]

Listen, for the umpteenth time dvandkq, I've nothing against you as a person. The only personal comments that have been made have been from you. Everyone else, including me, have managed to stick to criticism of your comments rather than you as an individual.
I've even offered solutions if you feel victimised.
I was encouraged to keep the anti brigades views coming in as they showed the hypocrasy of their (your) arguements and present the best source of points that the pro brigade could find they need to answer..

I think, personally speaking, that I've heard all you can add to the arguement.
Tonkandy added a new facet to the discussion and from a non-biased stance, he didn't coat it in trite hearsay and unsubstantiated claims.

I won't be addressing any of your comments from here on, as they only detract from the point of this thread. I'm sure many people who have read this thread will have formulated opinions about you and your stance and I respect them for joining me in keeping them to themselves.

When you have anything of value to add, that remains on topic, perhaps you'll avail us of your considered thoughts, supported by facts.

[lamble]

Back on topic.
Sorry I got distracted.

Here's an interesting article that folks might like to read.


http://www.motorcyclecruiser.com/streetsurvival/splitting_lanes/

[OfficerImpersonator]

Listen, for the umpteenth time dvandkq, I've nothing against you as a person. The only personal comments that have been made have been from you. Everyone else, including me, have managed to stick to criticism of your comments rather than you as an individual.
I've even offered solutions if you feel victimised.
I was encouraged to keep the anti brigades views coming in as they showed the hypocrasy of their (your) arguements and present the best source of points that the pro brigade could find they need to answer..

I think, personally speaking, that I've heard all you can add to the arguement.
Tonkandy added a new facet to the discussion and from a non-biased stance, he didn't coat it in trite hearsay and unsubstantiated claims.

I won't be addressing any of your comments from here on, as they only detract from the point of this thread. I'm sure many people who have read this thread will have formulated opinions about you and your stance and I respect them for joining me in keeping them to themselves.

When you have anything of value to add, that remains on topic, perhaps you'll avail us of your considered thoughts, supported by facts.

Lamble,

All I've ever asked is for is for you to acknowledge that I'm entitled to express my opinion in this forum and to my elected representatives.

You have said my opinions are irrelevant as they don't have data to substantiate them. That's fine - personally I think an opinion can exist independent of supporting data. Common sense and practical solutions don't need no supporting data to be viable options.

For the umpteenth time, your only argument against my arguments is that the data from California shows lane splitting is safe. As pointed out by others, that same data also says it's just as safe to ride without a helmet as it is to ride with a helmet. To me, that says the data is suspect. Your entitled to your opinion as well, but if you're using data that also says helmets don't improve motorcycle safety, I'm going to question the quality of your data.

That the data comes from California, with California drivers, California weather, and California traffic makes this data, in my opinion, irrelevant to proposals to change Washington State law.

You turned against me the very moment I shared with this thread the actions I took to convey my opinions on this matter to my elected officials. You inferred that I was cheating by going directly to my State Representative and laying out my case against introducing lane splitting in Washington State.

You know, it is possible to make public policy decisions without reams of data to support one proposal over another. Common sense and rational thought get to play a role, too.

[lamble]

This has been referred to a number of times:


"The Hurt Report"
(AKA "Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and Identification of Countermeasures")


A brief summary of the findings is listed below. To order the full report, contact:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, Virginia 22161
(703)-487-4600
and order:
Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and Identification of Countermeasures, Volume 1: Technical Report, Hurt, H.H., Ouellet, J.V. and Thom, D.R., Traffic Safety Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90007, Contract No. DOT HS-5-01160, January 1981 (Final Report)
Vol.I (The Main Report and Summary) is PB81206443 (~400 pages)
Vol.II (Appendix: Supplementary Data) is PB81206450 (~400 pages)
Either document is $42.95 plus $3.00 shipping. (circa 1990)


Summary of Findings


Throughout the accident and exposure data there are special observations which relate to accident and injury causation and characteristics of the motorcycle accidents studied. These findings are summarized as follows:

1. Approximately three-fourths of these motorcycle accidents involved collision with another vehicle, which was most often a passenger automobile.

2. Approximately one-fourth of these motorcycle accidents were single vehicle accidents involving the motorcycle colliding with the roadway or some fixed object in the environment.

3. Vehicle failure accounted for less than 3% of these motorcycle accidents, and most of those were single vehicle accidents where control was lost due to a puncture flat.

4. In single vehicle accidents, motorcycle rider error was present as the accident precipitating factor in about two-thirds of the cases, with the typical error being a slideout and fall due to overbraking or running wide on a curve due to excess speed or under-cornering.

5. Roadway defects (pavement ridges, potholes, etc.) were the accident cause in 2% of the accidents; animal involvement was 1% of the accidents.

6. In multiple vehicle accidents, the driver of the other vehicle violated the motorcycle right-of-way and caused the accident in two-thirds of those accidents.

7. The failure of motorists to detect and recognize motorcycles in traffic is the predominating cause of motorcycle accidents. The driver of the other vehicle involved in collision with the motorcycle did not see the motorcycle before the collision, or did not see the motorcycle until too late to avoid the collision.

8. Deliberate hostile action by a motorist against a motorcycle rider is a rare accident cause. The most frequent accident configuration is the motorcycle proceeding straight then the automobile makes a left turn in front of the oncoming motorcycle.

10. Intersections are the most likely place for the motorcycle accident, with the other vehicle violating the motorcycle right-of-way, and often violating traffic controls.

11. Weather is not a factor in 98% of motorcycle accidents.

12. Most motorcycle accidents involve a short trip associated with shopping, errands, friends, entertainment or recreation, and the accident is likely to happen in a very short time close to the trip origin.

13. The view of the motorcycle or the other vehicle involved in the accident is limited by glare or obstructed by other vehicles in almost half of the multiple vehicle accidents.

14. Conspicuity of the motorcycle is a critical factor in the multiple vehicle accidents, and accident involvement is significantly reduced by the use of motorcycle headlamps (on in daylight) and the wearing of high visibility yellow, orange or bright red jackets.

15. Fuel system leaks and spills were present in 62% of the motorcycle accidents in the post-crash phase. This represents an undue hazard for fire.

16. The median pre-crash speed was 29.8 mph, and the median crash speed was 21.5 mph, and the one-in-a-thousand crash speed is approximately 86 mph.

17. The typical motorcycle pre-crash lines-of-sight to the traffic hazard portray no contribution of the limits of peripheral vision; more than three-fourths of all accident hazards are within 45deg of either side of straight ahead.

18. Conspicuity of the motorcycle is most critical for the frontal surfaces of the motorcycle and rider.

19. Vehicle defects related to accident causation are rare and likely to be due to deficient or defective maintenance.

20. Motorcycle riders between the ages of 16 and 24 are significantly overrepresented in accidents; motorcycle riders between the ages of 30 and 50 are significantly underrepresented. Although the majority of the accident-involved motorcycle riders are male (96%), the female motorcycles riders are significantly overrepresented in the accident data.

22. Craftsmen, laborers, and students comprise most of the accident-involved motorcycle riders. Professionals, sales workers, and craftsmen are underrepresented and laborers, students and unemployed are overrepresented in the accidents.

23. Motorcycle riders with previous recent traffic citations and accidents are overrepresented in the accident data.

24. The motorcycle riders involved in accidents are essentially without training; 92% were self-taught or learned from family or friends. Motorcycle rider training experience reduces accident involvement and is related to reduced injuries in the event of accidents.

25. More than half of the accident-involved motorcycle riders had less than 5 months experience on the accident motorcycle, although the total street riding experience was almost 3 years. Motorcycle riders with dirt bike experience are significantly underrepresented in the accident data.

26. Lack of attention to the driving task is a common factor for the motorcyclist in an accident.

27. Almost half of the fatal accidents show alcohol involvement.

28. Motorcycle riders in these accidents showed significant collision avoidance problems. Most riders would overbrake and skid the rear wheel, and underbrake the front wheel greatly reducing collision avoidance deceleration. The ability to countersteer and swerve was essentially absent.

29. The typical motorcycle accident allows the motorcyclist just less than 2 seconds to complete all collision avoidance action.

30. Passenger-carrying motorcycles are not overrepresented in the accident area.

31. The driver of the other vehicles involved in collision with the motorcycle are not distinguished from other accident populations except that the ages of 20 to 29, and beyond 65 are overrepresented. Also, these drivers are generally unfamiliar with motorcycles.

32. Large displacement motorcycles are underrepresented in accidents but they are associated with higher injury severity when involved in accidents.

33. Any effect of motorcycle color on accident involvement is not determinable from these data, but is expected to be insignificant because the frontal surfaces are most often presented to the other vehicle involved in the collision.

34. Motorcycles equipped with fairings and windshields are underrepresented in accidents, most likely because of the contribution to conspicuity and the association with more experienced and trained riders.

35. Motorcycle riders in these accidents were significantly without motorcycle license, without any license, or with license revoked.

36. Motorcycle modifications such as those associated with the semi-chopper or cafe racer are definitely overrepresented in accidents.

37. The likelihood of injury is extremely high in these motorcycle accidents-98% of the multiple vehicle collisions and 96% of the single vehicle accidents resulted in some kind of injury to the motorcycle rider; 45% resulted in more than a minor injury.

38. Half of the injuries to the somatic regions were to the ankle-foot, lower leg, knee, and thigh-upper leg.

39. Crash bars are not an effective injury countermeasure; the reduction of injury to the ankle-foot is balanced by increase of injury to the thigh-upper leg, knee, and lower leg.

40. The use of heavy boots, jacket, gloves, etc., is effective in preventing or reducing abrasions and lacerations, which are frequent but rarely severe injuries.

41. Groin injuries were sustained by the motorcyclist in at least 13% of the accidents, which typified by multiple vehicle collision in frontal impact at higher than average speed.

42. Injury severity increases with speed, alcohol involvement and motorcycle size.

43. Seventy-three percent of the accident-involved motorcycle riders used no eye protection, and it is likely that the wind on the unprotected eyes contributed in impairment of vision which delayed hazard detection.

44. Approximately 50% of the motorcycle riders in traffic were using safety helmets but only 40% of the accident-involved motorcycle riders were wearing helmets at the time of the accident.

45. Voluntary safety helmet use by those accident-involved motorcycle riders was lowest for untrained, uneducated, young motorcycle riders on hot days and short trips.

46. The most deadly injuries to the accident victims were injuries to the chest and head.

47. The use of the safety helmet is the single critical factor in the prevention of reduction of head injury; the safety helmet which complies with FMVSS 218 is a significantly effective injury countermeasure.

48. Safety helmet use caused no attenuation of critical traffic sounds, no limitation of precrash visual field, and no fatigue or loss of attention; no element of accident causation was related to helmet use.

49. FMVSS 218 provides a high level of protection in traffic accidents, and needs modification only to increase coverage at the back of the head and demonstrate impact protection of the front of full facial coverage helmets, and insure all adult sizes for traffic use are covered by the standard.

50. Helmeted riders and passengers showed significantly lower head and neck injury for all types of injury, at all levels of injury severity.

51. The increased coverage of the full facial coverage helmet increases protection, and significantly reduces face injuries.

52. There is no liability for neck injury by wearing a safety helmet; helmeted riders had less neck injuries than unhelmeted riders. Only four minor injuries were attributable to helmet use, and in each case the helmet prevented possible critical or fatal head injury.

53. Sixty percent of the motorcyclists were not wearing safety helmets at the time of the accident. Of this group, 26% said they did not wear helmets because they were uncomfortable and inconvenient, and 53% simply had no expectation of accident involvement.

54. Valid motorcycle exposure data can be obtained only from collection at the traffic site. Motor vehicle or driver license data presents information which is completely unrelated to actual use.

55. Less than 10% of the motorcycle riders involved in these accidents had insurance of any kind to provide medical care or replace property.

There are many more likely causes for motorcycle injury than sharing lanes. No helmet, no training, alcohol intake impairing judgement being just three. Also the type of journey seems to be a factor, short journies with junctions, not highways with slow moving traffic and few entrance and exit points where vehicles cross paths. The intentional harming is also dispelled.

It makes interesting reading, even in this abridged version. I'll post data from around the world when I find it, so more than California is represented.

[BONEY]

personally I think an opinion can exist independent of supporting data. Common sense and practical solutions don't need no supporting data to be viable options.



We need only to point to re!i@on for further support of this statement. Not that you're wrong, and not that I'm taking a stance, only that there's a parallel.

[ASPHALT]

Dave! That "other" California?! I resemble that remark. Honestly, living here in SoCal, commuting, recreationally riding and otherwise riding damn near every day, I believe I can give some honest commentary on lane splitting.
Before I ever split lanes, I thought it could not be done safely. I now find my self doing it where I thought I never could before on bikes I thought could never fit. You get used to it and your opinion on the practice changes greatly after some time. You also soon realize that the cagers generally accept it and/or make room for you.
If you live where the weather conditions seem to make lane splitting not safe...then you don't do it that day. But, down here in LaLa Land it is not always sunshine and lollipops. It has major weather sometimes and torrential rain. I wouldn't think that just because the idea is being considered in the Northwest that it is insanity based on the weather as some have posted here. That is nonsense. If it is not safe to do...then you don't do it. You cannot base laws on one persons riding ability or perception of safety.
I think that the collective should speak up and vote or push for the law in the Northwest. IMO, most of the riders would have a lot to gain from it.

[lamble]

Unless everyone else is devoid of common sense, here are some of their findings.
Of course, the arguement will come back "That's over there and not here. We are different." But that has no merit.
Australian Road Rules comments on proposed Amendments Lane Filtering, Lane Splitting Motorcycle Council of NSW Lane Splitting/Filtering as a safety issue.
If road authorities were concerned that lane splitting was ‘inherently dangerous’ as claimed in the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) for these Amendments, then lane splitting would be raised as a safety issue in their road safety strategies. Victoria1, South Australia2 and Tasmania3 have motorcycle road safety strategies and the Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW has an Issues paper4 and Action Plan5None of these documents raise lane splitting as an issue of concern.
Neither the Australian National Road Safety Strategy 2001-2010 nor the National Road Safety Action Plan for 2005-2006 raise this as a safety issue.
A study of motorcycle crashes conducted by Monash University Accident Research Centre6 found that of the 222 crashes investigated only 2, that is less than 1%, were the result of lane splitting and both of these crashes were relatively minor7.
The assertion in the RIS, that the practice of lane filtering/splitting is dangerous, is difficult to support, as there are no crash statistics that support this statement. The practice is also actively encouraged in parts of Europe.
In his discussion on traffic capacity in Section 11, he deals with advanced stop lines and their value in improved traffic flows and safety for motorcycles, as well as discussing road space occupancy and management. page 51 of the report, the following appears:-
“The recent advent of the Australian Road Rules on 1 December 1999 has created a need to address this issue, as the lane filtering through stationary vehicles that offers a safe additional road capacity benefit through motorcycle movements has now been restricted to movements only on the outside of a vehicle and within a lane. This effect has not yet been reviewed as part of the continuing updating and refinements of the National road rules.
2 The safety record of such filtering appears to have been very good. No examples have yet been located where such filtering has been the cause of an incident. The continued use of this additional road capacity would appear to be largely debarred from police, emergency vehicles, motorcycle MICA (emergency paramedic) and ordinary riders alike. This unintended side effect of the initial release of the Australian Road Rules needs to be reassessed. This is an issue that needs to be raised in the first round reviews of the Australian Road Rules, as the safety impacts do not appear to outweigh the capacity gains for the community and the critical access gains for emergency and medical services”
Many Australian motorcyclists have had experience lane filtering in Australia without incident for over 30 years. Only since the introduction of the National Australian Road Rules in 1999 has enforcement of lane filtering become an issue.
The September 2004 Fact Sheet from the London Road Safety Unittitled “Powered two wheeler user casualties in Greater London” gives a breakdown of motorcycle crashes across Greater London. There is no evidence there that lane filtering presents a crash risk for motorcycle riders.
In other countries, lane filtering (or lane splitting, as it is variously known in local usage) has been accepted practice as it contributes to reduction in congestion and reduces rear-end collisions with motorcycles in traffic. The accepted practice is that lane filtering does not commence until traffic is moving slowly or stopped. At normal traffic speeds, rules for all road users apply and any vehicle weaving in and out of traffic is subject to existing laws
Filtering is not, for example, moving between other vehicles on a multi lane highway e.g. Motorway, when traffic is observing the maximum speed limit.
Australia already provides for congestion management and improved safety for bicycles through lane splitting/filtering and provision of advanced stop lines.
3 We may regard bicycles and motorcycles as equivalent vehicles in stationary or slow moving traffic. There is no particular danger to safety in lane filtering above the normal risks of being in heavy traffic. If such a danger existed, then bicycles would be banned from the practice, yet we find increased amenity for bicycles to actively encourage this practice, e.g. specific exemptions to the Australian Road Rules and advanced stop lines.NSW traffic crash data does not enable a view of any particular problem with lane filtering by bicycles or motorcycles. It appears that a bigger injury risk problem may be associated with cars “lane sharing” with bicycles, overtaking bicycles within the same lane at higher traffic speeds than the bicycle is travelling. This indicates that there is a requirement for bicycle awareness in addition to motorcycle awareness, as part of the general principle of “Share the Road”13. In general, any incident during lane filtering is unlikely to result in a casualty, with only minor property damage as the likely outcome. In this context, the Motorcycle Council of NSW established Strategy 4.10 in their Road Safety Strategic Plan to raise the issue for discussion and move in the direction of a “Code of Conduct” to teach riders how to lane filter in greater safety and with less inconvenience or social upset for all vehicles in traffic.
The Motorcycle Strategy of the UK Government mentions lane splitting in relation to reducing congestion14 and discusses the development of Advanced Stop Lines15 to improve motorcycle safety. The introduction of advanced stop lines would encourage lane splitting rather than discourage the practice, as is current Australian enforcement practice. Lane filtering by motorcycles is generally condoned in most European countries as a part of transport policy. In many countries, the road rules are vague on the topic and while not proscribed as “legal”, neither is it regarded as specifically “illegal”.
4 The following table summarises the Federation of European Motorcyclists Association's findings:Country Splitting/Filtering Occurs?Specifically Legal?Tolerated?
Great Britain Yes No Yes Ireland Yes No Yes Netherlands Yes No Yes Italy Yes No Yes Finland Yes No Yes Germany Yes No Yes Sweden Yes No Yes Austria Yes Yes Yes Belgium Yes No Yes Spain Yes No Yes Portugal Yes No Yes
The general approach across Europe is one of tolerance, but there is also a distinction made between “aggressive” lane filtering/splitting and what is regarded as “normal lane filtering”. The more aggressive form is singled out for enforcement and adequate road laws exist to deal with that, but lack of definition in law means many safe riders are inconvenienced through imprecise enforcement.
As traffic slows when it enters an area of congestion, vehicles begin to be overtaken by bicycles. Bicycles exploit their manoeuvrability and narrow single track profile with full permission of the law. There appears to be more advantages to safety and mobility to allow this. At speeds below which a bicycle can overtake powered vehicles in traffic, the characteristics of a bicycle and a motorcycle are virtually identical. The safety risk for both bicycles and motorcycles is very similar at these slower speeds. Different conditions exist above these speeds, where bicycles are exposed to greater risks in swiftly moving traffic.
It makes sense for the law to recognise this transition in traffic behaviour and regulate the practices of lane filtering for both motorcycles and bicycles in exactly the same manner. It would be silly to claim that one is dangerous and the other safe, when the same conditions are in existence. In each case, it remains the responsibility of the overtaking rider to only overtake if it is safe to do so. Crash statistics indicate that the existing rider behaviour exhibits responsibility and effective risk management.
Attached herewith are a series of Appendices relating specific country information. Specifically, it is advice to riders, whether of a legal nature, advice from Police or Transport Authorities or accepted “Codes of Conduct”. European countries drive on the Right, so the sense of right and left is reversed for other than Great Britain.
Federation of European Motorcyclists Association, www.fema.kaalium.org
5 Appendix 1 Great Britain. The British publication “Motorcycle Roadcraft”17 ( The Police Riders Handbook to Better Motorcycling), notes the following under the general topic of “overtaking”:-Filtering. When traffic is stationary or moving slowly in queues, motorcyclists can use their manoevrability and limited space requirements to make progress. The advantages of filtering along or between stopped or slow moving traffic have to be weighed against the increased vulnerability while filtering.
If you decide to filter:• Take extreme care
• Keep your speed low- you need to be able to stop suddenly if circumstances change• Always identify a place where you can rejoin the traffic flow before you move out• Make yourself visible – consider using dipped headlight• Be ready to brake and/or use the horn• Use the opportunity to make progress but be courteous and avoid conflict with other road users.Watch out for and anticipate:• Pedestrians crossing between vehicles• Vehicles emerging from junctions• Vehicles changing lanes or U-turning without warning• Doors opening • Reflective paint and studs which could throw the bike off line• Traffic islands • Other bikes also filtering. The British Highway Code18 provides the following advice to riders
71: Manoeuvring. You should be aware of what is behind and to the sides before manoeuvring. Look behind you; use mirrors if they are fitted. When overtaking traffic queues look out for pedestrians crossing between vehicles and vehicles emerging from junctions.
6 Great Britain Advice for Car Users from Thames Valley Police. Lane filtering
Motorcyclists will often filter between lines of traffic held in queues. Motorways and dual carriageways are the most common, although in any heavy traffic you are likely to see motorcycles passing between the lanes. Most are responsible and keep to speeds that are generally safe although there are riders that travel too fast for the conditions. If you are considering a lane change, for whatever reason, make certain that you do not turn into the lane too quickly. Keep the view to the rear available in the door mirror and search for the motorcycle that may be filtering between the lines of traffic. Turn too quickly and without looking behind and you may not see the motorcyclist until he or she has hit you. Always use your indicators.
7 Below is the Dutch “Code of Conduct” for lane filtering motorcycles.
It is from the “Motorcycle Platform” established under the Dutch road authority.
http://www.motorplatform.nl/samenspelindefile.htm
A full membership list of the Motorcycle Platform is shown on the website above. (includes Police, Road Authorities, Motoring Clubs, Local Councils, etc. )
It is not an official law, but it is also not illegal. Typically Dutch: it is condoned. (Translators note) (translation from Motorcycle Action Group, Netherlands, MAG-NL)
Working together in a traffic jam.
Traffic jams are time consuming for car drivers. It would cost even more time if motorcyclists had to join the end of the traffic jam, or if motorcyclists would also use a car. By giving motorcyclist the room to filter through traffic the car driver will also profit. This code of conduct is an advice and is not a legal directive. This code of conduct consists of 'rules' for drivers and motorcyclists and is designed only for use in slow moving and stopped traffic on highways.
The rules for drivers
Check the traffic behind you - Motorcyclists are often overlooked by drivers. By using your mirrors frequently you can anticipate the behaviour of traffic approaching from behind.
Use the middle of your lane - Motorcyclists coming from behind usually have room enough to pass if you keep your car in the middle of your lane. Motorcyclist will pass between the lanes. Of course it helps if you give them a bit more room, by moving to the right if you are in the right lane or by moving to the left if you are in the left lane.
Changing lanes - Cars changing lanes are the greatest risk to motorcyclists. Check you mirrors before changing lanes and warn the other traffic by using your indicators.
Don't open your doors - In a traffic jam car drivers sometimes open their doors. This can have serious consequences for motorcyclists. Don't open your doors unless it's absolutely necessary, but check traffic coming from behind if you do open your doors.The rules for motorcyclist:
Adjust your speed - Filter through traffic in a calm way and don't let the difference in speed between you and the cars become to big. Big differences in speed irritate drivers and can cause dangerous situations.
Be alert for careless behaviour - Watch out for cars changing lanes and watch out for doors suddenly opening.
In a group - When filtering through traffic with more motorcyclists, stay calm and ride behind each other. Choose the same position to pass and keep a distance to the next motorcycle of at least two car lengths.
8 Approaching a traffic jam - When you approach a traffic jam, check your mirrors for traffic coming from behind and make sure that they slow down. Use warning lights (if available) to warn traffic coming from behind. Do not use the warning lights when filtering through traffic. When riding on a highway with more than two lanes, choose to filter between the lanes on the left.
Stopping in a traffic jam - If you are the last vehicle in a traffic jam, use your warning lights or your brake light to warn the traffic coming from behind. Drivers sometimes notice cars, but do not notice motorcycles. Keep your distance. [Note: this is essential for the safety of the rider. Motorcyclists are very often just not seen by drivers. In the driver's perception riders seem to dissapear in the silhouette of the 'bigger' object (car) in front of them.]
Where not to ride - It is not allowed to ride on the hard shoulder, or on the small strip of asfalt between the guard rail en the lane on the left. It is also not allowed to ride on bus specific lanes.
The end of the traffic jam - When traffic starts moving again, position yourself on a lane. Use your indicators to warn others before you change position.
9 France Lane splitting:FFMC point of view and recommendations Current state of affairs. Lane splitting amongst motorised two wheelers, in town and on rapid carriageways such as highways, dual carriageways separated by a median strip, has become, in case of congestions, a regular practice.There is no regulation, but a factual tolerance has existed for many years now.

[12bswayed]

That's good info. Lamble....

[tonkandy]

Although you'd hope it would be otherwise, common sense seems to have very little to do with the legislative process. Check this link from one of the recent morning reads (thank you to M1ka for doing these ).http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml;jsessionid=LPURD025R10JTQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQ WIV0?xml=/motoring/2007/03/17/nosplit/mfbike17.xml

It's from the other side of the Atlantic, but foolishness knows no boundaries.

There appears to be a compelling argument for lane sharing making the road safer for motorcyclists. But what's in it for the majority of road users? To take a quote out of context from lamble's recent post (because that's what will happen in next years debate) "In general, any incident during lane filtering is unlikely to result in a casualty, with only minor property damage as the likely outcome. " Well if I'm a car driver (as most voters in Washington State are) I can reduce that "likely outcome" of minor property damage to my car to zero by keeping lane-sharing illegal.

To be successful in getting lane-sharing legalized the best argument is not the Hurt report, or what Europeans do, it's the price of the gasoline that cagers burn while stuck in traffic ("time is on your side" - Mick Jagger). What is needed is a sort of "social change campaign" which if successful would not only result in legalized lane-sharing, but would also address the legitimate concerns of people who feel that a "rammed through" lane-sharing law will result in retaliatory behavior from frustrated cagers. You have to persuade car drivers that motorcycles are a patriotic, earth friendly, traffic reducing, time, and money saving benefit to them.

As an alternative if a motorcycle courier transporting transplant organs for terminally ill orphans was to be rear-ended in traffic, with the rider and cargo destroyed; there might be a sympathy bump that would enable the law to pass. But the timing would have to be just right.

[BONEY]

To be successful in getting lane-sharing legalized the best argument is not the Hurt report, or what Europeans do, it's the price of the gasoline that cagers burn while stuck in traffic ("time is on your side" - Mick Jagger). What is needed is a sort of "social change campaign" which if successful would not only result in legalized lane-sharing, but would also address the legitimate concerns of people who feel that a "rammed through" lane-sharing law will result in retaliatory behavior from frustrated cagers. You have to persuade car drivers that motorcycles are a patriotic, earth friendly, traffic reducing, time, and money saving benefit to them.


Such as maybe: My motorcycle gets 3 times the gas milage of my Jeep. While I could sell the Jeep and buy something more efficient, it would be a greater drain on the world's resources to produce a new vehicle for me to purchase when I could just maintain and use the ones I already have. Since I can lane split, I ride my motorcycle more which in turn negates the necessity to have an automobile that gets better gas milage, since I'm less likely to drive it. (Fact: I've driven a car 5 miles this week and riden my motorcycle over 200. If I couldn't lane share, the numbers would not be so different and may in fact be opposite.) So, not only does lane sharing allow me to shave a good portion of time off my commute, it actually saves gas and worldly resources. Likewise, my automobile or motorcycle will not be adding length to the line of slow/stopped cars on the highway which in essence lessens the time that some other commuter will spend in traffic and decrease their fuel consumption accordingly. On an individual scale, there's not a lot to it, but nationally? Imaging the amound of gas that could be saved.

What's that old saying? "Think globally, act locally."

[Fritzc]

Laws must be enforceable or they are meaningless and police are simply going to ignore them. As of yet I have seen no evidence that it is logical to make a law allowing motorcycles to share a lane with an automobile but not conversely!!!!!!!
:dunno :bolt

[lamble]

Laws must be enforceable or they are meaningless and police are simply going to ignore them. As of yet I have seen no evidence that it is logical to make a law allowing motorcycles to share a lane with an automobile but not conversely!!!!!!!
:dunno :bolt

I think I understand what you are getting at, but you lost me at the end.

However, the police could enforce lane sharing in exactly the same way as they currently enforce illegal lane sharing, speeding and other traffic violations that involve motorcycles being incorrectly ridden.

The money arguement raised a few messages earlier is valid, however, what changes is that the cost of the more serious (or indeed fatal) rear ending accidents at the tail of the queue is changed to being the less expensive type which (may be) are indicated in the report, which are incurred during filtering. It should not be, 'it's zero cost now and an increased cost if we let this amendment pass', as with most things, it would be a shading of grey rather than black or white, the cost type shifting proportionately to the amount of riders lane sharing as opposed to sitting at the traffic's tail.

Dvandkq did bring up one point, the outside left lane and the HOV, although the example was spoiled by the assumptions associated to it.
There should be some additional thought as to the wording used. 'Common sense' should have the rider use a flow of 60mph in the HOV, rather than split between the HOV and the left lane at a maximum of 45mph. I think that the assumption was, it was so obvious, there didn't need to be anything added, but assumptions are where mistakes can creep in, so just in case anyone would prefer to share at 45mph, instead of ride at 60 in a lane, an additional consideration needs adding.

[OfficerImpersonator]

Lamble,

So I've read your summary of the report.

What # says lane splitting is safe? I couldn't quite find the line that said lane splitting is a safe activity.

Here's what I got from your summary:

(My #'s respond to your #'s)

1. 3/4 of all motorcycle (m/c) accidents involve a m/c and another vehicle.

6. 3/4 of those accidents involve a car intruding into the m/c's right of way. (Under the California "model", m/c shares right of way with car, but car doesn't have to share the right of way with the m/c. Car always has right of way in lane splitting situations.)

7. Primary reason cars hit m/c is due to inability to see m/c (conspicuity). How does lane splitting improve m/c's conspicuity? Personally, I think logic dictates lane splitting degrades conspicuity as m/cs will now be in places drivers won't be expecting them to be - along side them in their lane instead of in an adjoining lane or behind them.

9. Where is #9?

14. "Conspicuity" is the "critical factor" in preventing collisions between m/cs and cars. See #7 above.

24 & 25 Training and experience are the two most critical factors in riders avoiding accidents.

47. Use a quality helmet.

So - to avoid accidents, improve your visibility to other motorists, take a training course, ride to gain experience, and wear a helmet.

Which number says riders should lane split to stay safe?

[lamble]

Although you'd hope it would be otherwise, common sense seems to have very little to do with the legislative process. Check this link from one of the recent morning reads (thank you to M1ka for doing these ).http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml;jsessionid=LPURD025R10JTQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQ WIV0?xml=/motoring/2007/03/17/nosplit/mfbike17.xml

It's from the other side of the Atlantic, but foolishness knows no boundaries.

There appears to be a compelling argument for lane sharing making the road safer for motorcyclists.

As an alternative if a motorcycle courier transporting transplant organs for terminally ill orphans was to be rear-ended in traffic, with the rider and cargo destroyed; there might be a sympathy bump that would enable the law to pass. But the timing would have to be just right.

From the Telegraph link-we get the officials we elect, so we deserve them.
If only we could elect people who didn't crave the powers they gain when elected-a utopian dream.

I'm not sure that you'd be able to get away with the last idea about the courier, however, if you could add that they had a pocket full of puppies and kittens that burst on impact, then I think we could be on to a winner.

[lamble]

To order the full report, contact:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, Virginia 22161
(703)-487-4600
and order:
Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and Identification of Countermeasures, Volume 1: Technical Report, Hurt, H.H., Ouellet, J.V. and Thom, D.R., Traffic Safety Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90007, Contract No. DOT HS-5-01160, January 1981 (Final Report)
Vol.I (The Main Report and Summary) is PB81206443 (~400 pages)
Vol.II (Appendix: Supplementary Data) is PB81206450 (~400 pages)
Either document is $42.95 plus $3.00 shipping. (circa 1990)

[lamble]

Since the data for the Hurt Report were collected, many components of the motorcycling and traffic environment have changed. The following is a partial listing.

I. Motorcycle engineering changes
A. Frame design and construction
B. New types of motorcycle (e.g., sportbikes) sold as original equipment
C. Suspension design
1. Front fork strength, stiffness, and geometry
2. Rear suspension change from two to one shock systems
D. Fuel tank design
E. Handlebar design and construction
F. Engine performance increases
G. Tire and wheel improvements
H. Brake efficiency improvements
1. Disc brakes more common
2. Interconnection of front and rear brake systems
3. Antilock braking system (ABS)
4. Hydraulic brakes
5. Linked brakes
I. Emissions systems introduced
J. Lighting changes
1. Daytime running lamps (DRL) since 1973
2. Integrated front parking lights
3. Higher performance headlamps
II. User population changes
A. Fewer total riders, higher percentage licensed
B. Maturing of motorcycle riding population
C. More females riding motorcycles
D. More widely available training
E. Changes in helmet use
F. Use of fake helmets in helmet law states
G. Fewer motorcycles registered
H. Changes in available protective apparel
I. Changes in use of protective apparel
J. Riders have information from Hurt Report available
III. Automobile engineering changes
A. Daytime running lamps (DRL)
B. Improved bumpers
C. More aerodynamic exteriors
D. ABS
E. Changing vehicle types, e.g., sport utility vehicles (SUV)
IV. Roadway Environmental changes
A. Roadside sound barriers
B. Animal diversion barriers
C. Rumble strips

All of these elements add to safety.
Data from National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety

[OfficerImpersonator]

Lamble,

I posted specific comments to your post that purported to demonstrate how the report said lane splitting was safer than not lane splitting. I did not find that conclusion in the report you cite and I've asked you to point out the specific language in your summary of the report that endorses lane splitting.

Secondly, I countered and/or elaborated upon many of the contentions/conclusions you drew from the report. I'd appreciate the courtesy of a response to my questions and comments.

You berated me for not dissecting the report the first time around. Now that I have done so, you choose to pretend my arguments don't exist.

That's fine, but it's no way to engage in a debate - that is if you are truly interested in having one.

[lamble]

Lamble,

I posted specific comments to your post that purported to demonstrate how the report said lane splitting was safer than not lane splitting. I did not find that conclusion in the report you cite and I've asked you to point out the specific language in your summary of the report that endorses lane splitting.

Secondly, I countered and/or elaborated upon many of the contentions/conclusions you drew from the report. I'd appreciate the courtesy of a response to my questions and comments.

You berated me for not dissecting the report the first time around. Now that I have done so, you choose to pretend my arguments don't exist.

That's fine, but it's no way to engage in a debate - that is if you are truly interested in having one.

I draw your attention to Message 137

[lamble]

Here's a proposal I saw elsewhere on the net:
Rumor is that this in the WA legislature again. I sent this idea to my Reps again since they did not respond the first time.

3/1/07 LANE SHARING

As a typically cynical citizen I think the best way to get the legislatures attention is with a revenue source and a way to reduce traffic congestion.

I would propose, for lack of a better name, a “Filtering Pass” to designate motorcycles that are allowed to split lanes. I think an accepted scenario is when traffic is moving 10 mph or less and motorcycles do not exceed 20 mph.

Riders would purchase a highly visible sticker to be placed on the license plate that allows them this privilege. Splitting lanes without one is the same violation it is now. To me this is similar to the proposal to allow single occupancy vehicles in the HOV lane for a fee. That, however, just affords special treatment those who can pay, and it just moves a car to another lane instead of taking one off of the road.

I would price this sticker at under $20 because if the cost were to high many riders would risk the cost of a citation. This money would be earmarked for studies or solutions to congestion. You could even make liability insurance a requirement to obtain the sticker. This would assure motorists that only the most responsible riders are allowed this privilege.

If enacted, a positively toned public awareness campaign could accomplish a number of things. Let the motorists know it is good for them too.

1. It would also be pointed out that each motorcycle is removing one car from the road.
2. It would be pointed out that extra caution is required.
3. Motorists would be made a ware that the practice is legal only by marked motorcycles.
4. That the rider has paid for the privilege and the money is going to reduce congestion.
5. To be afforded this privilege the rider has purchased liability insurance not otherwise required by law.
6. Motorcycles without stickers should be reported to the same phone number as HOV violators.

[OfficerImpersonator]

Here's a proposal I saw elsewhere on the net:
Rumor is that this in the WA legislature again. I sent this idea to my Reps again since they did not respond the first time.

3/1/07 LANE SHARING

As a typically cynical citizen I think the best way to get the legislatures attention is with a revenue source and a way to reduce traffic congestion.

I would propose, for lack of a better name, a “Filtering Pass” to designate motorcycles that are allowed to split lanes. I think an accepted scenario is when traffic is moving 10 mph or less and motorcycles do not exceed 20 mph.

Riders would purchase a highly visible sticker to be placed on the license plate that allows them this privilege. Splitting lanes without one is the same violation it is now. To me this is similar to the proposal to allow single occupancy vehicles in the HOV lane for a fee. That, however, just affords special treatment those who can pay, and it just moves a car to another lane instead of taking one off of the road.

I would price this sticker at under $20 because if the cost were to high many riders would risk the cost of a citation. This money would be earmarked for studies or solutions to congestion. You could even make liability insurance a requirement to obtain the sticker. This would assure motorists that only the most responsible riders are allowed this privilege.

If enacted, a positively toned public awareness campaign could accomplish a number of things. Let the motorists know it is good for them too.

1. It would also be pointed out that each motorcycle is removing one car from the road.
2. It would be pointed out that extra caution is required.
3. Motorists would be made a ware that the practice is legal only by marked motorcycles.
4. That the rider has paid for the privilege and the money is going to reduce congestion.
5. To be afforded this privilege the rider has purchased liability insurance not otherwise required by law.
6. Motorcycles without stickers should be reported to the same phone number as HOV violators.

How will this be enforced? Cage drivers are supposed to look for a tiny sticker on a motorcycle and report it in if they don't see one? Then what?

Your proposal is ridiculous. Lane splitting is dead this legislative session. You can bet on it.

You cite the Hurt Report as justification for permitting lane spitting. I've asked you, for the third time now, to please cite the section that says lane spitting is safer than remaining in line with traffic. Please show me the evidence instead of telling me you won't respond because you said in a previous post you wouldn't respond.

I'm guessing I've boxed you into a rhetorical corner and you find yourself unable to argue your way out of it with data that doesn't support your position. That would explain your refusal to discuss the data in the report.

If, on the other hand, you have data that specifically says lane splitting is safer than not lane splitting, I'll acknowledge your point and reconsider my opposition. But - I think you're just trying to boot-strap the Hurt Report into your argument and extrapolate a conclusion the data doesn't support. Just because riders are rear-ended in greater numbers than they are sideswiped does not mean lane spitting is safer than riding in the queue. Myriad factors would have to be included to extrapolate that the data concludes riding between columns of moving vehicles is safer than riding within current traffic laws.

I'm trying to have a debate with you about the statistics because you refused to debate when I was simply trying to argue common sense. Now that I'm arguing the data doesn't support your conclusion, you run away and hide.

If you want to be the leader on crusading for this proposal, you had better be able to defend your position.

[lamble]

How will this be enforced? Cage drivers are supposed to look for a tiny sticker on a motorcycle and report it in if they don't see one? Then what?

Your proposal is ridiculous. Lane splitting is dead this legislative session. You can bet on it.

You cite the Hurt Report as justification for permitting lane spitting. I've asked you, for the third time now, to please cite the section that says lane spitting is safer than remaining in line with traffic. Please show me the evidence instead of telling me you won't respond because you said in a previous post you wouldn't respond.

I'm guessing I've boxed you into a rhetorical corner and you find yourself unable to argue your way out of it with data that doesn't support your position. That would explain your refusal to discuss the data in the report.

If, on the other hand, you have data that specifically says lane splitting is safer than not lane splitting, I'll acknowledge your point and reconsider my opposition. But - I think you're just trying to boot-strap the Hurt Report into your argument and extrapolate a conclusion the data doesn't support. Just because riders are rear-ended in greater numbers than they are sideswiped does not mean lane spitting is safer than riding in the queue. Myriad factors would have to be included to extrapolate that the data concludes riding between columns of moving vehicles is safer than riding within current traffic laws.

I'm trying to have a debate with you about the statistics because you refused to debate when I was simply trying to argue common sense. Now that I'm arguing the data doesn't support your conclusion, you run away and hide.

If you want to be the leader on crusading for this proposal, you had better be able to defend your position.

You sir, fail to read even the first lines. This is not a proposal from me. You merit no further replies. ref message 137.

[OfficerImpersonator]

You sir, fail to read even the first lines. This is not a proposal from me. You merit no further replies. ref message 137.

So whose proposal is it? If you're going to use someone else's idea, you should cite your source.

Fine - take your marbles and run home to mommy. That's what most kids do when they run out of rhetorical ammunition.

I bet you and I could sit down over a couple of beers and enjoy a lively, civilized and entertaining discussion about this and countless other topics. Name the time and place and I'll be there. I might even buy the first round. Why you've decided to fold up your tent and run away is beyond my understanding - just as we were beginning to get to the lynchpin of your contentions - the Hurt Report.

[lamble]

Source: me-read 137
Source :Hurt-go read it, not just the summary.
Source: google. lots of pro lane sharing information globally. Go educate yourself on it.

[OfficerImpersonator]

Lamble:

BMWMOA Forum: Place BMW motorcycle owners discuss/debate items of mutual concern

Debate: Give and take between two or more people about the relative merits of a given proposal

Lamble: Person willing to participate in "debate" only when all other participants agree with him - unable to tolerate alternative opinions or differing philosophies. Also unable to respond to direct questions and requests for comment.

Whatever dude - you obviously own this thread since you get to make the rules. This issue is dead in Washington State this legislative session, regardless of what you read on the Internet. Should it be resurrected in future sessions, rest assured I'll be there to lobby against the introduction of lane splitting in Washington State. It's an unsafe technique that is explicitly illegal in 49 states - I presume for valid reasons.

I spent the past two days trying to discuss your interpretation of the data in the Hurt Report, and you ran away and hid, so I give up. Have fun debating yourself and those who agree with you - that should make for a scintillating discussion.

[BradfordBenn]

I would say that the stats and facts are not conclusive and that the fact that we as motorcyclists can not agree how do we expect our elected representatives to get it right.

Let's try to respect everyone's right to their opinion.

[lamble]

Bradford, there can't be conclusive evidence when the arguement comes back each time that, everything that happens elsewhere is different to what happens here. It always will be different unless it changes and then you'll get definitive data. It's a vicious circle that some try to break and others see as a safety ring they can sit inside.

You wont get all riders to agree either, some don't feel comfortable with the idea. No one is forcing them to share lanes, even if it does become legal, but a small minority even feel so strongly that they insist it's right that no one should be allowed to do it.
It's wasted time even bothering to reply and I feel badly that I have been drawn into giving credence to some by answering them.

I'm focusing on the positive, pro-active element and hope that decent dialogue can be formulated back on the topic of finding a way to bring lane sharing to the rest of the USA.

[OfficerImpersonator]

Bradford, there can't be conclusive evidence when the arguement comes back each time that, everything that happens elsewhere is different to what happens here. It always will be different unless it changes and then you'll get definitive data. It's a vicious circle that some try to break and others see as a safety ring they can sit inside.

You wont get all riders to agree either, some don't feel comfortable with the idea. No one is forcing them to share lanes, even if it does become legal, but a small minority even feel so strongly that they insist it's right that no one should be allowed to do it.
It's wasted time even bothering to reply and I feel badly that I have been drawn into giving credence to some by answering them.

I'm focusing on the positive, pro-active element and hope that decent dialogue can be formulated back on the topic of finding a way to bring lane sharing to the rest of the USA.

Lamble,

You ask for a forum where you can have a "decent dialogue (sic)...on finding a way to bring lane sharing to the rest of the USA".

That forum is here. The "decent dialog" is this thread. If you can only convince 75% of motorcyclists voting on the poll attached to this thread that lane splitting is a good idea, how can you expect to garner support from 50% + 1 of the electorate? That means 25% of motorcyclists voting in the poll you established don't agree with you. If 25% of motorcyclists disagree with your proposal to introduce lane splitting to Washington State, what percentage of the rest of the population will support your proposal?

I can guarantee you that the majority of car and truck drivers don't want lane splitting. They won't want motorcyclists to have an advantage not available to them. They won't want to be surprised by motorcycles whizzing by between them and the car in the next lane.

Heck - lots of people around here think HOV lanes give an unfair advantage to carpools - not to mention motorcycles. That's why we've seen successful movements in the Washington State Legislature to open the HOV lanes to everyone between 7 pm and 5 am, and that's why we're about to see the introduction of HOT (High Occupancy/Toll) lanes to SR 167 in the Kent Valley. If you're not a carpool, transit or a motorcycle, you can still use the HOV lane as long as you've bought the transponder and agree to have the toll automatically deducted from your account every time you drive a SOV on the SR 167 HOT lane.

Introducing HOT lanes and opening HOV lanes to SOVs during off-peak hours are examples that voters don't want anyone - carpools, transit, motorcycles - anything - to have an advantage they can't also enjoy. Personally, I think HOV lanes are the best thing about commuting by motorcycle. That's the primary reason I ride - to take advantage of the HOV lane and speed up my commute. That riding has ecological and economic advantages over driving my SOV or taking the bus is simply frosting on the cake. I like my HOV lanes, and I don't want to see them changed - yet vehicle drivers are achieving results in the Legislature and slowly are opening the HOV lanes to SOVs because it's only fair that everyone get to use that far left lane.

My point is that you don't need to convince 50% +1 of motorcyclists that lane splitting should be legalized. You need to convince 50% + 1 of all voters that lane splitting should be legalized, and my sense is that won't ever happen. And motorists are a vocal and powerful lobby. The Washington chapter of the American Automobile Association is a very powerful lobby in Olympia. They will always win in the Legislature when it's cars vs. motorcycles - just like out on the road.

Now - you'll ask "why should we trust your sense of what the voters will or won't support?"

That's where my experience in the Washington State political system comes in. You've berated me for having knowledge of and experience with the formulation and implementation of transportation policy here in Washington State, but I'm not embarrassed about having that knowledge and experience. I think it's an asset to this debate. I would think others might be glad to benefit from my knowledge and experience. My forecast of the political winds is that lane splitting is not something that would be accepted with open arms by the electorate, aka car drivers.

You can debate me all you want (or choose to run and hide), but it's the average driver you need to convince that lane splitting is a good idea, and that will never happen.

[lamble]

I already regret not having the will power to just ignore you and that I am raise your profile by replying, however, and this is the last time.

You weren't berated for your knowledge, your opinions, or any other reason than you maintain you had inside information on what was best for all of us. That you have the arrogance to assume that because you don't want to lane share, that no one should have that ability. That you present a case that everyone other than you is wrong. That you do not avail yourself of any facts, but opt to dismiss those that do and the facts they present. You insinuate that because I choose to ignore your bigotted diatribes that I'm somehow a 'playground run back to mommy with my marbles'. If this is your concept of a debating style, it's certainly not mine.

I concur that I will not change your opinion, based on whatever assumptions you have or reasons I or anyone else submit.
This thread should act as a place where constructive ideas can be collected to promote the idea of lane sharing. You have raised your objections: car drivers perhaps won't like it, (although presented correctly they should see it's a win win idea) and you don't like it. The police announced they'll look at it and see if it could make a difference to accident rates, while their initial concerns were as they admitted, based on unknown assumptions.

I've not touted Hurt as a be all and end all (my experience is in Europe and the rest of the world) and posted the summary to support the debate, as it had been raised by US riders. The summary doesn't say lane sharing helps, it also doesn't have a #9, no idea why, I didn't summaries it, although you accused me of doing so. The full report does state that lane sharing helps avoid the occurance of rear end accidents, plus Boney showed more recent stats that you chose to ignore, which indicate that while reducing rear end accidents, there was no increase in fatal accidents from filtering as opposed to any other forward progress.

Please do us all a favour and go and do some research, then when you have some foundation to any of your arguements, it might just mean it's credible to debate this with you. Also, read the post fully.

If you maintain the "running to mommy", "hiding" and other purile comments approach, I'm afraid that I will not be able to take anything you write seriously and will continue to ignore your posts.

[lamble]

A plea from an unnamed rider in NY.

NY need lane sharing

how about to get away from a dangerous situation? i just recently was being tailgated by a car. at a red light i passed 3 cars to go to the front of the line to avoid the guy tailgating me (not legal in NY). at the next light a tanker truck brought his truck within 6 inches of my tailight and got out of the truck and threatened me because i "lane shared". i think the best reason to allow lane sharing is to allow bikers to "escape" dangerous situations, but when there is no law written for it he/she may again be confronted by a dangerous situation. it is "OUR" lives on the line, not the tailgating VW GTI nor the tanker truck operator. shouldn't we be given the opportunity to save ourselves? i have over 100k miles on motorcycles in 20 years of riding, i rec'd 1 speeding ticket 19 years ago, no tickets since, but i have "illegally" lane shared many, many times to avoid trouble. unfortunately it isn't legal to do, and i usually don't because of that. i just hope that i'm not killed or maimed when i decide not to do it because of the law. one more point, ny spends alot of money on commercials telling people to watch out for bikers. if they really cared for our well being they should pass laws that allow us to protect ourselves from the 1% of the population that is killing us. anyway "my" answer is yes as i can still walk - 100k miles on a cycle in nyc metro is proof, someone please pass a law like cali so i can use it more effectively. it's only a matter of time before "the law" kills me :(

Let's try and collate enough good data here, to make this innevitable, attractive to all concerned and show the vacuous scaremonger comments up for what they are. Or, at least, force those who issue them as fact, to get off their backsides and do some work on refuting our findings with something better than tittle tattle, self serving and misguided opinion, ignorance, myth and supposition.

A few people emailed me saying I should let the Britishness go and step back from the aggro, as the input we needed had been gained. I tried, I really did. It's just that we have a blood line that doesn't take well to tin pot dictators, who tell us what's in our best interest, because it serves theirs.

www.laneshare.org (http://www.laneshare.org)

[dtgates]

I can guarantee you that the majority of car and truck drivers don't want lane splitting. They won't want motorcyclists to have an advantage not available to them. They won't want to be surprised by motorcycles whizzing by between them and the car in the next lane.
Wow! Since when do you speak for the majority of car and truck drivers. FYI, you don't. BTW, motorcycles won't be 'whizzing by'.


Heck - lots of people around here think HOV lanes give an unfair advantage to carpools - not to mention motorcycles.
Really? Did you do a poll or do you just know what people think.


That's why we've seen successful movements in the Washington State Legislature to open the HOV lanes to everyone between 7 pm and 5 am, and that's why we're about to see the introduction of HOT (High Occupancy/Toll) lanes to SR 167 in the Kent Valley. If you're not a carpool, transit or a motorcycle, you can still use the HOV lane as long as you've bought the transponder and agree to have the toll automatically deducted from your account every time you drive a SOV on the SR 167 HOT lane.

Introducing HOT lanes and opening HOV lanes to SOVs during off-peak hours are examples that voters don't want anyone - carpools, transit, motorcycles - anything - to have an advantage they can't also enjoy.

Wrong. HOV lanes on 167 are not an advantage during off-peak hours. All lanes travel at 60-70 mph between 7pm-5am. HOV lanes are not needed, therefore open to all traffic.
This HOT or toll use is just wrong. Carpool/HOV means one less car on the road, unless of course you have the money for our greedy state/politicians, then anything goes. Nothing new here, you know, the golden rule, the man with the gold makes the rules. Greedy bastards. This has nothing to do with SOV resentment towards HOV/motorcycists and everything to do with money. It's just wrong. IMO of course.


Personally, I think HOV lanes are the best thing about commuting by motorcycle. That's the primary reason I ride - to take advantage of the HOV lane and speed up my commute.

Me too, but mostly I just like to ride. :)

Doug

[BONEY]

Wrong. HOV lanes on 167 are not an advantage during off-peak hours. All lanes travel at 60-70 mph between 7pm-5am. HOV lanes are not needed, therefore open to all traffic.
This HOT or toll use is just wrong. Carpool/HOV means one less car on the road, unless of course you have the money for our greedy state/politicians, then anything goes. Nothing new here, you know, the golden rule, the man with the gold makes the rules. Greedy bastards. This has nothing to do with SOV resentment towards HOV/motorcycists and everything to do with money. It's just wrong. IMO of course.


I predict that any convenience provided by the HOV lane will be eliminated by the introduction of the HOT, and lane sharing will then be a necessity as ALL rush-hour traffic will be slow. Lets face it, if they can afford the gas for those oversized grocery-getters, they can pay the toll to drive it where they want.

[BONEY]

Oh, and for the record, anyone who makes reference to the poll on this page should be ashamed of themself for not knowing that it's about as unscientific as possible.

[lamble]

Boney,

Oh bugger it, see message 112. Now I've blown it good and proper.
:doh
In my defence, I did point out it was rubbish maths and rounded everything to favour the anti lobby, rather than put a case in my favour and claim it as fact.

[BONEY]

Boney,

Oh bugger it, see message 112. Now I've blown it good and proper.
:doh
In my defence, I did point out it was rubbish maths and rounded everything to favour the anti lobby, rather than put a case in my favour and claim it as fact.

I'm just sayin' that our little corner, here at BMWMOA campfire, is in no way a reflection of things larger than us in general. That's all...

It wouldn't be hard to delete the cookies off my computer a vote a hundred times. This is why people actually pay a lot of money to survey companies- to get valid numbers.

Hell, I posted a poll over on the local site about how many people had crashed while lane sharing. I defined what I considered a crash and so many people voted then realized that they hadn't voted properly that it was a joke. Again, useless numbers but I was wondering what the local numbers might look like.

I think you might be able to "get an idea" of things with the cute little poll at the top of the page, but again, for real numbers we have to look elsewhere.

[lamble]

I'm just sayin' that our little corner, here at BMWMOA campfire, is in no way a reflection of things larger than us in general. That's all...

It wouldn't be hard to delete the cookies off my computer a vote a hundred times. This is why people actually pay a lot of money to survey companies- to get valid numbers.

Hell, I posted a poll over on the local site about how many people had crashed while lane sharing. I defined what I considered a crash and so many people voted then realized that they hadn't voted properly that it was a joke. Again, useless numbers but I was wondering what the local numbers might look like.

I think you might be able to "get an idea" of things with the cute little poll at the top of the page, but again, for real numbers we have to look elsewhere.

I'd only use a poll here as a way to get traffic, it's not as you correctly point out, an expression of anything but at best about 100 voters.
I did a similar exercise for eating styles when riding and at one point it got quite heated, until I pointed out I'd use the figures to justify any outcome that suited and that it wasn't intended as anything other than a bit of fun. It calmed down then.
Just say they are all false chads or something, that way you can make up any results you want, ask Florida.

Even in their basic form, as here, the figures do help address sweeping statements however, such as, " It's only crotch rocket riders that want this". Not an exact quote but near enough, a bit like the figures really.
I think where the problem would lie is in taking the poll here and extrapolating the data as a projection for anywhere outside of this thread, then it just wouldn't stack up. If it was a serious poll, then to start with the questions would be different, and depending upon who was polling and what outcome they wanted would reflect bias;eg. do you think lane sharing should be passed? Y/N
Do you want to be killed by a rear end crash? Y/N

There wasn't that much thought given to the questions in this poll.

[OfficerImpersonator]

I already regret not having the will power to just ignore you and that I am raise your profile by replying, however, and this is the last time.

You weren't berated for your knowledge, your opinions, or any other reason than you maintain you had inside information on what was best for all of us. That you have the arrogance to assume that because you don't want to lane share, that no one should have that ability. That you present a case that everyone other than you is wrong. That you do not avail yourself of any facts, but opt to dismiss those that do and the facts they present. You insinuate that because I choose to ignore your bigotted diatribes that I'm somehow a 'playground run back to mommy with my marbles'. If this is your concept of a debating style, it's certainly not mine.

I concur that I will not change your opinion, based on whatever assumptions you have or reasons I or anyone else submit.
This thread should act as a place where constructive ideas can be collected to promote the idea of lane sharing. You have raised your objections: car drivers perhaps won't like it, (although presented correctly they should see it's a win win idea) and you don't like it. The police announced they'll look at it and see if it could make a difference to accident rates, while their initial concerns were as they admitted, based on unknown assumptions.

I've not touted Hurt as a be all and end all (my experience is in Europe and the rest of the world) and posted the summary to support the debate, as it had been raised by US riders. The summary doesn't say lane sharing helps, it also doesn't have a #9, no idea why, I didn't summaries it, although you accused me of doing so. The full report does state that lane sharing helps avoid the occurance of rear end accidents, plus Boney showed more recent stats that you chose to ignore, which indicate that while reducing rear end accidents, there was no increase in fatal accidents from filtering as opposed to any other forward progress.

Please do us all a favour and go and do some research, then when you have some foundation to any of your arguements, it might just mean it's credible to debate this with you. Also, read the post fully.

If you maintain the "running to mommy", "hiding" and other purile comments approach, I'm afraid that I will not be able to take anything you write seriously and will continue to ignore your posts.

What research would you have me conduct? I consider my year-round, daily 40 mile commute on the roads and freeways of urban Seattle plenty of research into how cars and motorcycles interact around here. What data set do I need to acquire to offer an informed opinion on the topic?

The facts surrounding the tiff between you and me stems from your earlier contention that I was unqualified to comment because I had not read the report you cited as evidence that lane splitting is safer than not lane splitting. While I did not read the 45 page report, I did read your summary of the conclusions of the report - and the executive summary that you cut and pasted into the thread. I did not find in either of those passages any data that indicated lane splitting was safer than not lane splitting.

You keep asking me to do research and read and interpret the data for myself. I've done that, and it doesn't lead me to the same conclusions you've drawn from the materials. You have chosen to not elaborate on your contentions that the data supports lane splitting as a safe activity. I'm not going to spend $50 for a hard copy of the report when you seem able to provide summaries for us.

If you have data - from the Hurt Report or any other source - that says lane splitting is safer than not lane splitting, I'll look it over. Heck - with data that said that, I'd be inclined to change my opinion - but until I'm presented with more than what I've seen so far, I remain opposed to lane splitting.

I think I'm being charitable, I think I'm being fair, and I think I'm being rational. I think you owe me and those who are following this thread some data that supports your position.

[OfficerImpersonator]

A plea from an unnamed rider in NY.

NY need lane sharing

how about to get away from a dangerous situation? i just recently was being tailgated by a car. at a red light i passed 3 cars to go to the front of the line to avoid the guy tailgating me (not legal in NY). at the next light a tanker truck brought his truck within 6 inches of my tailight and got out of the truck and threatened me because i "lane shared". i think the best reason to allow lane sharing is to allow bikers to "escape" dangerous situations, but when there is no law written for it he/she may again be confronted by a dangerous situation. it is "OUR" lives on the line, not the tailgating VW GTI nor the tanker truck operator. shouldn't we be given the opportunity to save ourselves? i have over 100k miles on motorcycles in 20 years of riding, i rec'd 1 speeding ticket 19 years ago, no tickets since, but i have "illegally" lane shared many, many times to avoid trouble. unfortunately it isn't legal to do, and i usually don't because of that. i just hope that i'm not killed or maimed when i decide not to do it because of the law. one more point, ny spends alot of money on commercials telling people to watch out for bikers. if they really cared for our well being they should pass laws that allow us to protect ourselves from the 1% of the population that is killing us. anyway "my" answer is yes as i can still walk - 100k miles on a cycle in nyc metro is proof, someone please pass a law like cali so i can use it more effectively. it's only a matter of time before "the law" kills me :(

Let's try and collate enough good data here, to make this innevitable, attractive to all concerned and show the vacuous scaremonger comments up for what they are. Or, at least, force those who issue them as fact, to get off their backsides and do some work on refuting our findings with something better than tittle tattle, self serving and misguided opinion, ignorance, myth and supposition.

A few people emailed me saying I should let the Britishness go and step back from the aggro, as the input we needed had been gained. I tried, I really did. It's just that we have a blood line that doesn't take well to tin pot dictators, who tell us what's in our best interest, because it serves theirs.

www.laneshare.org (http://www.laneshare.org)

This isn't an example of lane splitting saving lives - it's an example of getting the hell out of the way of dangerous drivers. Who cares what the law says if taking safe yet "illegal" action will save your life?

It's similar to running a red light when the small size of a bike won't trigger the traffic light sensors. Sure, technically it's illegal to run a red light, but if you explain to the officer that you waited through two cycles and your bike wouldn't trigger a green light for you, they'd let you go without giving you a ticket.

"Sorry I rode between the cars there officer, but otherwise I would have been rear-ended."

No cop will give you a ticket if you're trying to save your own skin and your actions don't further exacerbate or cause a dangerous situation.

[OfficerImpersonator]

This website has been provided as a source for information about lane splitting. There is a page (two years out of date) on the attempts to allow lane splitting in Washington State.

I've found a couple of interesting quotes from that page, regarding lane splitting legislation introduced in 2005:

"Steve Lind of the Washington State Highway Safety Commission, stated the commission was taking a neutral position for lack of any studies indicating lane-sharing as either a safe or dangerous practice. (H)e showed a video of a bike’s view of lane-splitting, he gleaned off of the internet that was, frankly, sketchy.

A representative of the Washington State Patrol testified that the department was taking a neutral position for the same reason that Steve Lind had. He also relayed a conversation with his counterpart at the CHP, reporting that most lane-sharing accidents are the fault of the motorcyclist and if he had his way, it would be outlawed in California.

“Texas” Larry Walker representing the Washington Road Riders Association, a state-level motorcycle rights organization (MRO) testified they were officially taking a neutral position for similar reasons and the WRRA membership was evenly divided on the matter. He also felt the bill, as written, was too vague and needed to be fleshed-out. Larry also intimated his personal view that lane-sharing was “institutional suicide”."

So - a traffic safety expert says there aren't any studies showing lane splitting to be safer than not lane splitting. A Washington State Patrol spokesperson testified that according to his counterpart with the California Highway Patrol, lane splitting should be outlawed in California. Finally, we have a lobbyist for the Washington State motorcycling community calling lane splitting "suicide".

I'm really enjoying perusing the "evidence" in support of lane splitting :)

[OfficerImpersonator]

Wow! Since when do you speak for the majority of car and truck drivers. FYI, you don't. BTW, motorcycles won't be 'whizzing by'.

I've never claimed to speak for anyone other than myself.

Really? Did you do a poll or do you just know what people think.

I do think I have a sixth sense for interpreting how local and state government will act, what the people will demand and/or accept, and how our elected officials will react to public policy proposals.

Wrong. HOV lanes on 167 are not an advantage during off-peak hours. All lanes travel at 60-70 mph between 7pm-5am. HOV lanes are not needed, therefore open to all traffic.

Unless of course there is an accident, or construction, or bad weather, or anything else that might screw up traffic during off-peak hours. Then SOVs get to use the HOV lane, and the HOV incentive has been eliminated.

This HOT or toll use is just wrong. Carpool/HOV means one less car on the road, unless of course you have the money for our greedy state/politicians, then anything goes. Nothing new here, you know, the golden rule, the man with the gold makes the rules. Greedy bastards. This has nothing to do with SOV resentment towards HOV/motorcycists and everything to do with money. It's just wrong. IMO of course.

HOT lanes are just a way for those with money to get something not otherwise available to those without money (access to HOV lanes for SOV

Me too, but mostly I just like to ride. :)

I have to work so I can afford to ride :)

Doug

Doug

[PacWestGS]

*SNIP*

"Steve Lind of the Washington State Highway Safety Commission, stated the commission was taking a neutral position for lack of any studies indicating lane-sharing as either a safe or dangerous practice. (H)e showed a video of a bike’s view of lane-splitting, he gleaned off of the internet that was, frankly, sketchy.

A representative of the Washington State Patrol testified that the department was taking a neutral position for the same reason that Steve Lind had. He also relayed a conversation with his counterpart at the CHP, reporting that most lane-sharing accidents are the fault of the motorcyclist and if he had his way, it would be outlawed in California.

“Texas” Larry Walker representing the Washington Road Riders Association, a state-level motorcycle rights organization (MRO) testified they were officially taking a neutral position for similar reasons and the WRRA membership was evenly divided on the matter. He also felt the bill, as written, was too vague and needed to be fleshed-out. Larry also intimated his personal view that lane-sharing was “institutional suicide”."

So - a traffic safety expert says there aren't any studies showing lane splitting to be safer than not lane splitting. A Washington State Patrol spokesperson testified that according to his counterpart with the California Highway Patrol, lane splitting should be outlawed in California. Finally, we have a lobbyist for the Washington State motorcycling community calling lane splitting "suicide".

I'm really enjoying perusing the "evidence" in support of lane splitting :)


I'd really hate to think that with all the "Professional" support given by these "Experts" (to take a "Neutral" stance) that our riding days are near an end.

I'm not referring to lane-sharing/splitting/filtering or any other form of passing slower moving or stopped automobiles in the adjacent lane only feet away (as you do every time you approach a traffic light that has more vehicles in one lane over the other that you are travelling faster in; perhaps 10 or more miles per hour faster). Or, when as you say the HOV lane is moving 20-30-60 miles per hour faster than the #1 lane with the ever present possibility of a lane jumper (which has happened to me a few times over the last few years of commuting on either WA167 or I-5) is any more or less dangerous?

I'm thinking that with these professionals and your opinion against further expanding the freedom of movement that those of us whom ride want to have the ability to explore to our own individual limits of comfort without fear of reprisal or unmitigated attack (vehiclular assault) from said motorist to become their own law-enforcers (which is called vigilantism).

I'm thinking that I should give up riding because, did you know? "Riding motorcycles is dangerous, and I know several people who have died while doing so." That is the same rhetoric used over and over by some "Professionals" that are opposed to anyone having the freedom to choose. The same non-riding, limited experienced people who make up the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, the National Transportation Safety Administration and the (Harley) Road Riders Association who don't even know what the F-ing front brake lever is used for...

If you think it is more dangerous than, as opposed to not more or less dangerous than riding a bike in general I can not support yours or their opinon.

I have been riding in other parts of the world with more congestion, faster speeds and more traffic control devices and round-a-bouts than they have here in Washington State or any of the 50-US States. And it (all of it - riding) is not any more or any less dangerous than riding past a row of parked cars along the sidewalk and having someone pull out, open a car door, or turn in front of you.

If you can't avoid any of those situations then I would highly recommend you give up riding because as they say, "Riding motorcycles is dangerous and you might die while doing so"!

We ride the same roads here in Washington and have come to at least two differing opinions. So who's is right - no one's is right. They are all wrong and we will all see that in time our government and the insurance agencies will determine that riding motorcycles is costing the tax payers too much money and they will outlaw it because a few "irresponsible" people cannot control their vehicle under the best of conditions.

JMHO

"With Risk, Comes Reward"

"He Who Dares, Wins"

"He Who Opposes Change, Will Neither Bask in the Comfort of Success or Wallow in the Failure of Their Desires"

[PacWestGS]

By the Way, I'm sure we could all sit down around the table (campfire) and have a few glasses of (your favorite drink) and discuss the merits and fallacies of lane-sharing and all have a wider view and understanding of what is really at stake here.

When some uneducated, inexperienced or ill advised persons' get to make policy and/or laws that affect other people with more education, training, experience and know-how. Then it causes these sorts of problems to exist.

When these laws were written (probaby in the late 60s and early 70s), there was no need to allow or disallow it. It was not seen as a positive or negative effect.

Times have changed, congestion is worse and getting worse. There needs to be foward thinking and inovative people in charge of our transportation needs and they need to be educated as to the benefits as well as the dangers posed by a growing population of motorcycle and scooter riders here in the US of A.

Without that change, we will continue to struggle down the gridlocked freeways and ever decreasing surface streets that make up our society.

Some people will die, more road rage will take place but as time progresses they will become "NORM" (as it is in other countries) and those people who choose for whatever reason not to ride will still gain from the benefits of those who do.

"ONE LESS CAR" = One less solo driver/rider sitting in a lane on a roadway taking up the same space and time of every other car going stop-go-stop until reaching the destination. Multiply that by hundreds or thousands and increase trained and experienced riders ten-fold over the next few years and you just surpassed the tax assisted (corrupted) under used mass transit system in WA State.

Cheers :drink

[lamble]

This isn't an example of lane splitting saving lives - it's an example of getting the hell out of the way of dangerous drivers. Who cares what the law says if taking safe yet "illegal" action will save your life?

It's similar to running a red light when the small size of a bike won't trigger the traffic light sensors. Sure, technically it's illegal to run a red light, but if you explain to the officer that you waited through two cycles and your bike wouldn't trigger a green light for you, they'd let you go without giving you a ticket.

"Sorry I rode between the cars there officer, but otherwise I would have been rear-ended."

No cop will give you a ticket if you're trying to save your own skin and your actions don't further exacerbate or cause a dangerous situation.

I suppose that waiting until it becomes a matter of life or death is preferable to avoiding the situation from the start is it?

I'm not going to lay out the figures for you. They are there and I think you'll appreciate them all the more if you go and get them. Irrespective of Hurt, Boney's data showed a more current statistical peice of evidence, you could choose to argue against that.
So far you have said the arguement started when I accused you of using your political rights, now it's that I said you weren't qualified as you'd not read a report. I looked back and in fact it started when you were making assumptions about road conditions. In fact under the conditions you mentioned, I agreed I'd not lane share either. However, the conditions you proposed are not the everyday conditions that are faced here. They were a one off set of circumstances which you set to suit your arguement. I simply pointed out that your assumptions were not consistent and now neither are your accusations.

I did see elsewhere in campfire why you'd not lane share, or indeed ride on a wet day...you'd washed your bike at the weekend.

2004 proposal didn't have the limitations of the latest proposal included and even then no evidence was available to show lane-sharing would make matters worse.

It's the glass half empty, or half full.

Texas” Larry Walker representing the Washington Road Riders Association, a state-level motorcycle rights organization (MRO) testified they were officially taking a neutral position for similar reasons and the WRRA membership was evenly divided on the matter. He also felt the bill, as written, was too vague and needed to be fleshed-out. Larry also intimated his personal view that lane-sharing was “institutional suicide”."

You don't "intimate" something like that, either he said it blatantly or he didn't. If he did and those were his exact words, then perhaps it was because of the vagueness of the 2004 proposal, which I too felt was poorly conceived by the way.

I believe that the latest proposal meets the needs of riders, while respecting those of drivers too.
How would you see it changed, so that it became acceptable. You've stated that the lane betwen HOV and furthest left needs to be addressed-how?
You've said that you'd share if traffic was at a stand still, but also that 10mph over the traffic speed is insufficient, so what's your proposal there?

A quick question too, what level of training have you had, here or anywhere else (It's a genuine question, not an implied criticism)?

[PacWestGS]

Taking a different approach or look at the problem.

People who commute on bicycles :nod

Why is it that some guy on two wheels with wide handlbars can ride under personal power up to an average speed of say 10-15 mph, with completely incapable brakes (as compared to a motorcycle), and he can safely pass and be passed by any number of autos (cars, pick-ups, and delivery trucks)? Back and forth they go down the road narrow as it may be.

Why is it that the one-person power rider is able to make the same average speed across town as the 200-horse power cage in stop-go-stop traffic? Each spending the same amount of time stopped at traffic lights - move forward and stop, move forward and stop.

All the while the rider is passing both stopped (parked) cars, and passing or being passed by a wide array of moving vehicles along his route.

Is he (the rider) any less aware of his surroundings? Are the drivers any more or less careful or careless of the bike rider as they play cat and mouse down the road?

Do the vehicle driver's have a contentious attitude of hate, disparity or inequality towards this bicycle rider? Because he is passing them every single time they have to stop for blocked traffic ahead of them. I'll answer that - NO! They (99.999%) do not feel any remorse or indifference towards that rider. Maybe there is 0.0001% asshats out there that feel they pay license tab taxes, car insurance and spend a small fortune fueling it, might believe they have a higher right to drive than the guy pedalling his way to work, but the majority could probably care less about him. And, some may even think, WOW! I should start riding to work, I'd get there in the same amount of time as driving or riding the bus. :banghead

Both bicycle rider and the drivers of cars share a responsibility if a collision occurs and the police will assign blame where it is needed. If the rider violated a law or rule of the road he is not without blame.

So if it so much more dangerous in the hands of an experienced and qualified rider (of a motor-driven) cycle or scooter to run in and out of traffic within the reasons of a set standard of care and resposibility. The same should hold true, don't you think?

If not, then I propose we create laws making it illegal for anyone on any form of transportation to actually pass any other motorist within say a proximity of five-feet (given that that's half the width of an average lane). And if this bill becomes law then the bicycle rider will be intitled to his space and no other vehicles will be allowed to pass him as long as he is not holding up five or more vehicles is maintaining the minimum speed as set forth in the vehicle codes and does not ride in the left lane any longer than is necessary to pass other vehicles or make a legal left turn.

What say you?

[Bob_M]

Taking a different approach or look at the problem.

People who commute on bicycles :nod


What say you?

For those lucky enough to live where a 30 minute bicycle ride will get them to work, commuting on a bicycle is similar to commuting on a motorcycle. The agility and speed invigorate one as they travel. The commuter is part of the landscape and not watching it from a can. On a bicycle one has the advantage of arriving at work pumped with endorphines. Here in Portland bicycles are so common that motorists expect to see them much as motorists in LA expect to see lane splitting motorcycles during the freeway rush hour. It is just part of the culture. I have ridden in LA and done that very thing. It is freaking hairy! Even when you are only going 20 miles an hour faster than the gridlocked traffic, the focus necessary to look for head turns or to anticipate unsignaled lane changes is exhausting (exhilarating?!).

When I first moved to Oregon I split lanes thinking it was not that big a deal. This resulted in resentment and anger by drivers that accelerated my learning the culture here does not allow lane splitting. This all happened years before the words "Road Rage" became part of of our shared understanding. I think the idea of a wide berth law is a bad idea. It would result in cyclists blocking traffic, not sharing roads and it would result in resentment by drivers.

One serious down side about bicycle commuting is that one is extraordinarily vulnerable. It really bothers me when agressive (or stupid) cyclists anger drivers, because it makes them angry at all cyclists. I ride a bicycle in a manner to not to piss people off, because people in cars are poised to hurt people who make them angry. I nod or wave when I am extended a courtesy and try to be part of the Portland culture where bike and cars share the road.

I have driven in Washington and they have more than their share of bad drivers. (IMHO) Seattle is a dense congested modern city full of people who used to live in the country. It is not the car culture of LA where drivers are agressive and by necessity (usually) pretty good drivers. To just allow lane splitting in Washington would be a mistake. Urban cowboys stuck in traffic would resent and get angry at the percieved unfair advantage taken by motorcyclists and typical Seattle drivers, unused to seeing lane splitters, would hit them.

Lane splitting should be allowed after an extensive public relations campain and media blitz to introduce the practice and to begin to shift the culture into accepting lane splitting as a common and appropriate practice.

Even then it would not be a practice I would enjoy. :blah

[BONEY]

It's similar to running a red light when the small size of a bike won't trigger the traffic light sensors. Sure, technically it's illegal to run a red light, but if you explain to the officer that you waited through two cycles and your bike wouldn't trigger a green light for you, they'd let you go without giving you a ticket.


Wow. Here in California we have a law on the books that allows a vehicle to proceed against a red light (when it is safe to do so) if the light is malfunctioning. I beleive, but haven't really looked into it, that being skipped for 2 cycles of lights is considered a "malfunction."

How is the "anti lane sharing" law written up there in WA? Are bicycles exempted from the lane sharing law or is every car/truck/motorcycle who passes one in the same lane breaking the law?

[lamble]

additional info for consideration.

Motorcycle Safety Foundation


WHERE WE ARE

The relatively narrow width of a motorcycle on the road allows its rider to employ many strategies not available to drivers of other vehicles.

• Motorcyclists can choose their position within their lane to avoid road surface hazards, other vehicles, pedestrians or other mobile hazards, intrusions, or potential intrusions into their right-of-way.

• Motorcyclists may seek positions where they are in view of other drivers and pedestrians.

• Motorcyclists may select a position that maximizes their view of the road and traffic ahead.

All states permit motorcycles to use high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes with a single rider on the motorcycle. Limited studies evaluating this practice have shown no traffic or safety problems (Jernigan, 1995).

A motorcycle’s narrow width can allow it to pass between lanes of stopped or slow-moving cars on roadways where the lanes are wide enough to offer an adequate gap. This option can provide an escape route for motorcyclists who would otherwise be trapped or struck from behind. There is evidence (Hurt, 1981) that traveling between lanes of stopped or slow-moving cars (i.e., lane splitting) on multiple-lane roads (such as interstate highways) slightly reduces crash frequency compared with staying within the lane and moving with other traffic.

[OfficerImpersonator]

Wow. Here in California we have a law on the books that allows a vehicle to proceed against a red light (when it is safe to do so) if the light is malfunctioning. I beleive, but haven't really looked into it, that being skipped for 2 cycles of lights is considered a "malfunction."

How is the "anti lane sharing" law written up there in WA? Are bicycles exempted from the lane sharing law or is every car/truck/motorcycle who passes one in the same lane breaking the law?

There is no "anti-lane sharing" law on the books here. There is simply a law that says only one vehicle may occupy a lane at a time.

In Washington State, you can proceed against a red light if you have waited through two cycles without obtaining a green light and you yield to all other traffic.

[PacWestGS]

There is no "anti-lane sharing" law on the books here. There is simply a law that says only one vehicle may occupy a lane at a time.

In Washington State, you can proceed against a red light if you have waited through two cycles without obtaining a green light and you yield to all other traffic.

Ahh, but there is a law and the stipulation is that two motorcycles can ride abreast of each other, leaglly pass each other in the same lane if permitted by the rider, and that law enforcement officers on motorcycles can pass all other motorist as necessary.

RCW 46.61.608
Operating motorcycles on roadways laned for traffic.

(1) All motorcycles are entitled to full use of a lane and no motor vehicle shall be driven in such a manner as to deprive any motorcycle of the full use of a lane. This subsection shall not apply to motorcycles operated two abreast in a single lane.

(2) The operator of a motorcycle shall not overtake and pass in the same lane occupied by the vehicle being overtaken.

(3) No person shall operate a motorcycle between lanes of traffic or between adjacent lines or rows of vehicles.

(4) Motorcycles shall not be operated more than two abreast in a single lane.

(5) Subsections (2) and (3) of this section shall not apply to police officers in the performance of their official duties.


[1975 c 62 § 46.] <<<<<<< 37 years ago, this may have been not needed, and now it is causing problems for a larger society.


Notes:
Rules of court: Monetary penalty schedule -- IRLJ 6.2.

Severability -- 1975 c 62: See note following RCW 36.75.010.


I just want what's good for the police to be good for me too, because it will be good for everyone.

I'm not saying you have to do it, I'm not saying people who drive cars will like it but, they can always ride a bike/scooter and have the same privileges as we are seeking.

In time it will become accepted and life will continue forward for all.

[lamble]

Does that mean that if two bikes are together in the lane (4), neither can go ahead of the other or drop behind, but must stay level together (2), forever and ever and ever, or until they leave the state?

Just goes to show, even existing laws can be questionable.

[PacWestGS]

Does that mean that if two bikes are together in the lane (4), neither can go ahead of the other or drop behind, but must stay level together (2), forever and ever and ever, or until they leave the state?

Just goes to show, even existing laws can be questionable.

Your not being serious are you? :brow

Yes, once you lock handlebars :love with the bike next to you, you can not seperate until departing the state. Even if one has to go to the bathroom. :nyah :laugh

But if by chance you were, would that allow space for a motor officer to pass the pair (three wide) in the same lane? :dunno

[lamble]

I'm serious that even laws that set out to make sense, have to be thoroughly thought out, otherwise you can come up with daft exceptions like I did.

Laws should evolve with the times to reflect the needs of the current situations.

As to riding 'hand-in-hand' for the length of WA, then no, I'm not serious, but does that make me a law breaker?

According to these laws it would.

[PacWestGS]

AFAIK laws are created to protect the smallest dumbest parts of our society from themselves. I fear as time marches on the laws will evolve to make anything dangerous outlawed, (guns, bikes, skateboards and picking your nose) and you will not be permitted to discuss those laws with lawmakers or law enforcers. Common sense has died long ago and the freeist of nations in the world has some of the strictest laws to prevent freedom. :violin :banghead

Except maybe talking on your cell phone, while eating, applying makeup, and doing a crossword puzzle, while simultaneously changing the CD/DVD multidisk changer at 70 during rush hour. :dunno

But that's JMO

As far as changing the law to allow lane-sharing for cycles and scooters during heavy congestion periods or blocked traffic ahead - I think it will happen someday, but probably not in Washington first. :dunno

[OfficerImpersonator]

Ahh, but there is a law and the stipulation is that two motorcycles can ride abreast of each other, leaglly pass each other in the same lane if permitted by the rider, and that law enforcement officers on motorcycles can pass all other motorist as necessary.

RCW 46.61.608
Operating motorcycles on roadways laned for traffic.

(1) All motorcycles are entitled to full use of a lane and no motor vehicle shall be driven in such a manner as to deprive any motorcycle of the full use of a lane. This subsection shall not apply to motorcycles operated two abreast in a single lane.

(2) The operator of a motorcycle shall not overtake and pass in the same lane occupied by the vehicle being overtaken.

(3) No person shall operate a motorcycle between lanes of traffic or between adjacent lines or rows of vehicles.

(4) Motorcycles shall not be operated more than two abreast in a single lane.

(5) Subsections (2) and (3) of this section shall not apply to police officers in the performance of their official duties.


[1975 c 62 § 46.] <<<<<<< 37 years ago, this may have been not needed, and now it is causing problems for a larger society.


Notes:
Rules of court: Monetary penalty schedule -- IRLJ 6.2.

Severability -- 1975 c 62: See note following RCW 36.75.010.


I just want what's good for the police to be good for me too, because it will be good for everyone.

I'm not saying you have to do it, I'm not saying people who drive cars will like it but, they can always ride a bike/scooter and have the same privileges as we are seeking.

In time it will become accepted and life will continue forward for all.

I believe the rationale for allowing motor officers to lane split is that they might be attempting to get through traffic backed up behind an accident to quickly get to the scene of the incident. With lights and sirens going, they should be able to lane split rather efficiently.

[PacWestGS]

Say, as efficiently with or without a siren that you can't hear in the modern cage with the windows rolled up? And, when was the last time you saw someone driving move out of the way for a big red fire truck before it was tailgating them?

Just asking. :lurk

The law as is was written in 1975 without any changes since, I think things have changed since then.

[lamble]

With lights and sirens going, they should be able to lane split rather efficiently.

Can I take it that means, you'd support lane sharing in WA, if bikes are fitted with modulating headlights (see Goldwings) and loud cans?

[OfficerImpersonator]

Can I take it that means, you'd support lane sharing in WA, if bikes are fitted with modulating headlights (see Goldwings) and loud cans?

I have a modulating headlight. People still merge in on me all the time. It's dangerous out there for us two-wheeled folks I tell you!

I'd like to try the siren route, but I think that might cause more problems than it solves.

I do have dual Fiamm horns - maybe I should just permanently close the switch so they sound all the time?

Too bad I'm too old to become a State Trooper. Just saw one of their R1150RT-Ps in my wrench's shop. Man are those a beautiful bike in white and black - and they look so sharp with the single seat and radio box. I think a used RT-P will be my next bike.

It would be nice to have people get out of my way for a change. I'm tired of always having to be the guy who flinches in traffic.

[lamble]

It would be nice to have people get out of my way for a change. I'm tired of always having to be the guy who flinches in traffic.

My experience with lane sharing is that most people will move to let you through, in the UK, France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, in fact everywhere in Europe that I've ridden, in North and South Africa. Istanbul was the one exception although I believe Mumbai in India is bad, but they are due to no lane constraints and vast amounts of traffic. Certainly WA is no where near as bad.

[lamble]

Oh yes and California where I was lanesharing on the highway. It wasn't at all threatening and I wish I could have done it later in the ride when stuck outside Portland in a long, long, jam.

I'll be taking my rider instructor exams over the next few months. If I pass, I'll be happy to have you come down to the training range DV and run through a few exercises that might help you with those flinches.

[jwhite518]

My experience with lane sharing is that most people will move to let you through, in the UK, France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, in fact everywhere in Europe that I've ridden, in North and South Africa. bad.

Add California to that list. Many more people move over for me than move to cut me off. Though the latter has happened.

[lamble]

Add California to that list. Many more people move over for me than move to cut me off. Though the latter has happened.

I did add California, I'm just a finger and thumb typist, so you beat me to it.

[kbasa]

Add California to that list. Many more people move over for me than move to cut me off. Though the latter has happened.

As a regular lane splitter, that's my experience, as well.

Not too many folks have moved to block me, but I've come across lots of folks that really crowd the line and pretend I'm invisible. Patience...

[PacWestGS]

As a regular lane splitter, that's my experience, as well.

Not too many folks have moved to block me, but I've come across lots of folks that really crowd the line and pretend I'm invisible. Patience...

That's a key ingredient in safely lane sharing, not every road user appreciates or approves of your ability to move around and past them while they are stuck in their circumstances. Most will say/think damn I wish I was riding a bike and could do that, and will happily move over for you.

But sometimes you just have to wait your turn and let traffic move again before getting past the pissy people. Don't let it bother you though they are pissy people all the time and already hate motorcyclists, you are not going to change their mind or make them hate you more.

As to the lights, horns and sirens, I think it's better to sneak up on them and quietly ride by.

But again, JMO

[kbasa]

As to the lights, horns and sirens, I think it's better to sneak up on them and quietly ride by.

But again, JMO

I run the Big Lights and the high beam. It helps the courteous know I'm coming and they'll move over. It'll keep the oblivious from making that lane change into me from time to time, but responsibility for that really lies with me.

If you get to the point where you need to rely on flashing lights and stuff to save your skin, you've already screwed up. (I paraphrased that from a passage in Zodiac, by Neal Stephenson).

[lamble]

Birmingham in the UK has a notorious stretch of motorway 3 lanes each way.
I started lane sharing and 35 miles later reached the front. My injury was a sore clutch hand and wrist and aching smile muscles. We were quick that day.

The furthest I've had continuous lane sharing was the M25 around London on a Bank Holiday-85 miles with all the 100,000 bikes going to world supers at Brands. They even opened the toll gates on the QE Bridge to let us through f.oc.
Amazing ride.

[BONEY]

I think that the LEO's who might lane share would be better served to have some experience sharing lanes before their official duties require it.

Also, does the term "official duty" allow them to share lanes without their lights and siren on? My first instinct would be to say "no" since that is truely the only way for the surrounding vehicles to know the LEO is enguaged in "official duty." (I also know that there's probably a whole lot of grey area involvled in this.)

Differenct case, similar circumstance:
My work vehicle is a bright red, 40,000 pound truck with at least 20 flashing lights, a 200 db mechanical siren and a couple of real loud air horns. Sometimes in traffic I wonder if any of it is working even though I can see that all the people on the sidewalk have their hands over their ears. I'm not too sure that a few lights, a dinky electronic siren and a motorcycle are going to make any better impression to get people on the highway to move- even if it's a few inches to let the LEO by. My experience is that the general public thinks emergency vehicles are a nuisance (like taxis) unless they're in need of one.

[lamble]

I think that the LEO's who might lane share would be better served to have some experience sharing lanes before their official duties require it.

Also, does the term "official duty" allow them to share lanes without their lights and siren on? My first instinct would be to say "no" since that is truely the only way for the surrounding vehicles to know the LEO is enguaged in "official duty." (I also know that there's probably a whole lot of grey area involvled in this.)
.
Two things. In the UK, if the kettle was boing and the canteen just opening, getting back to the station was "official duty".

Secondly, is anyone aware of "first on scene" training classes here in WA?

[BradfordBenn]

Secondly, is anyone aware of "first on scene" training classes here in WA?

The BMW MOA Foundation is sponsoring just an event at the BMW MOA Rally this year. You can find more info at http://www.bmwmoafoundation.org/projects/index.html

-=Brad
VP of BMW MOA Foundation

[lamble]

Took my wife out yesterday for her first bike ride as pillion in the USA. I'm not sure why it's taken 12 months, but anyhow it may take another 12 before she bothers again.
"It's a bit dull having to sit in a line of cars, isn't it"

"Yes!"

[OfficerImpersonator]

Took my wife out yesterday for her first bike ride as pillion in the USA. I'm not sure why it's taken 12 months, but anyhow it may take another 12 before she bothers again.
"It's a bit dull having to sit in a line of cars, isn't it"

"Yes!"

You should stop riding in the city and take her out to the country where there are no traffic lights and traffic jams.

Isn't that what a Sunday ride is all about?

[lamble]

You should stop riding in the city and take her out to the country where there are no traffic lights and traffic jams.

Isn't that what a Sunday ride is all about?

This was in the country, up the 9 then across to La Conner. Those solid yellows, for miles ahead, were playing havoc with our sense of progressing at an appropriate speed. There must be an arrangement between the lining companies and WADOT. Are all government employee houses painted bright yellow, free of charge, by any chance? Just a thought.

Still Spanish roads for two weeks as of this Wednesday, a riding nirvana. Up from Malaga, through Granada and the mountains, then drop down to the coast road, happily lanesharing as we go.

[OfficerImpersonator]

All these years I've enjoyed quiet rides through deserted countrysides and empty winding roads and I had no idea I wasn't having fun 'cuz I couldn't lane-split.

Come on, dude - you make it sound as if your ride through the Skagit County tulip farms was ruined because you had to contend with other motorists out enjoying the same things you were - beautiful weather, literal square miles of tulips blooming at the flower farms of the Skagit Valley - all completely un-enjoyable because you had to contend with others out experiencing the same sights you were.

So many places to ride without traffic - Eastern Washington, the Olympic Peninsula - all areas with deserted roads and beautiful scenery. Take advantage of not having to wait in line for a ferry and go ride around one of the ferry-served islands - Vashon, Bainbridge, the Kitsap Peninsula, the San Juans - since bikes get priority loading on ferries, take advantage and beat the cars to the island roads. When it comes to priority loading for bikes on the boats, riding onto a ferry is almost like having your own private float plane to reach the islands.

The absence of lane splitting shouldn't ruin your ride.

You could always move to California - I'm just sayin'. :stick

[lamble]

You may be surprised to learn that I've been on the ferries as a rider, I think in total, 9 times last year.
Plus, Eastern Washington, around the Olympic Peninsula 3 times. Approx 19500 miles last year.

Lane sharing isn't the be all and end all of a ride out, it's just that cherry on top.
I think you've jumped to conclusions that we didn't enjoy the time out, we did, but the...
Do you know what, I'd explain if I thought you were genuinely bothered?

Oh and I've never been a Dude and I've ridden and visited California sufficient times to be able to make a decision as to where I should or shouldn't live.

[OfficerImpersonator]

"Dude" is slang - it's not an evaluative or derogatory word.

A couple of days ago I was stuck in the "Mercer Mess". The cages were stacked up, unable to go anywhere. I thought to myself "if there was ever a place to filter to the front of the queue for the stoplight, this was it. I wouldn't myself as I believe my bike too wide for the space between the cars, but that Lamble DUDE may not be totally crazy after all - maybe you COULD snake a moped or 250 Ninja through the space".

Then you comment about how your ride on two lane country roads through the Skagit Valley could have been improved only if lane splitting was allowed in Washington. A "sundae without the cherry on top".

Except the only road within 30 miles of the Skagit Valley that could be lane split is I-5, because I-5 is the only road in the county with more than two lanes. You didn't ride I-5. The proposed legislation wouldn't allow splitting on two-laned roads - that's called "passing".

So I fail to see how splitting would have improved your ride through the country, and I fail to see why you posted a ride description completely devoid of lane splitting issues to this thread.

[lamble]

I didn't mention splitting lanes because, as you point out, there weren't lanes to split.
The point was about the miles of solid yellow lines which prevented overtaking.

It is and was, a posting that questioned the overly zealous safety of WADOT and perhaps their misguidedness.

Personally, I find the ability to turn right on a red light is fraught with danger, but it's allowed. Why is that? Could it be to expedite the flow of traffic?
Yet lane sharing, or over taking on a clear stretch of the 9 are prohibited.
Somewhere things don't stack up. There's inconsistency in policy.

That's why I posted and I assumed everyone would be able to read into the meaning.

[OfficerImpersonator]

I guess I just presumed that your post referenced lane splitting because it was posted to the lane splitting thread. I'll never do that again!

I've ridden/driven SR 9 many times. SR 9 is one of the most dangerous highways in Washington State. SR 9, SR 522, US 2 - they are all two-lane highways in rapidly growing rural -> suburban areas with 60 mph limits. This means that if no speeding is involved, a head-on collision will result in a closure speed at impact of 120 mph. Consider that most people exceed the speed limit when passing slower traffic on a two lane road and you'll have closure speeds at impact of 140+ mph.

I don't know about you, but in my opinion I need to see a very long stretch of no oncoming traffic and a safe passing environment before I'm willing to risk a head-on at 120+ mph.

Lots of people who live along SR 9 have blind driveways. I don't know about you, but I've experienced plenty of situations when I've determined it's clear to pass just as someone pulls out of a side street or driveway. Suddenly they are in my lane and approaching fast.

Not sure if you've noticed this or not, but the two local Seattle papers both have transportation "forums" where people can submit questions about local transportation "quirks" they've encountered and then reporters attempt to find out why something is the way it is.

Turns out that most decisions about placement and timing of stoplights, placement of road signs and pavement markings, etc. are all determined by traffic safety engineers with college degrees and years of experience. I'm not so willing to second-guess the decisions made by knowledgeable and experienced traffic engineers. I presume a section of SR 9 is marked as "no passing" because it's an unsafe place to pass, perhaps with a history of accidents, and not because it's a big conspiracy to slow down Lamble's Sunday ride.

Same with lane splitting. We don't allow lane splitting in Washington State because trained, educated and experienced traffic engineers have advised elected officials that it's not safe. Lobbyists for law enforcement agencies have advised elected officials that it's not safe. I presume not to know more than traffic engineers and law enforcement about what's safe and what isn't safe for our roadways.

You presume to know more/better than the professionals, and you have every right to say so and share your thoughts and opinions - just as I am doing mine.

If you want miles of unoccupied country roads for your ride with your sweetie on the first warm sunny Sunday of the year, you're going to have to get out of the Puget Sound region before you find what you seek. Otherwise, you're going to have to do what us motorcyclists ask the cars to do - Share the Road.

[BONEY]

More lane sharing fun. Not useful in the least bit, but fun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd-dLiEE8IE

[PacWestGS]

I like it. Can I have another... :ha

(The Raw-Hide sound track was perfect) :ha

I don't think I'll ever see dvandkq :stick doing something like that, and he probably would feel bad passing the LA County Sheriff (Patrol Car) at those speeds.

[lamble]

Oh to be blessed with the tranquility that prevails from knowing, everyone knows better than I do.
Unfortunately I'm dysfunctional and have a cynicism borne from experience, which frustratingly keeps nagging away in my head saying, "If a committee (with, or without paper based degrees) designed a race horse, it would look like a camel", and whilst there's no denying a camel's worth in certain situations, it's far from ideal in every circumstance.
I'd also cover my butt and put just a few extra lines in, just in case.

I'm unsure why you ride. There's usually some degree of enthusiasm evident in the words people use for two wheels. With your writings, there's only threat, danger, inconvenience, animosity, more fear and angst.

So, why?

Also, the lady in question is my wife, not my sweetie. You do have a way with words. Unfortunately, it's a way that is derrogatory.





I guess I just presumed that your post referenced lane splitting because it was posted to the lane splitting thread. I'll never do that again!

I've ridden/driven SR 9 many times. SR 9 is one of the most dangerous highways in Washington State. SR 9, SR 522, US 2 - they are all two-lane highways in rapidly growing rural -> suburban areas with 60 mph limits. This means that if no speeding is involved, a head-on collision will result in a closure speed at impact of 120 mph. Consider that most people exceed the speed limit when passing slower traffic on a two lane road and you'll have closure speeds at impact of 140+ mph.

I don't speed

I don't know about you, but in my opinion I need to see a very long stretch of no oncoming traffic and a safe passing environment before I'm willing to risk a head-on at 120+ mph.

I agree. And that's what we saw. Perhaps we have greater depth perception?

Lots of people who live along SR 9 have blind driveways. I don't know about you, but I've experienced plenty of situations when I've determined it's clear to pass just as someone pulls out of a side street or driveway. Suddenly they are in my lane and approaching fast.

I've yet to experience this. Perhaps I look further ahead and access the situation earlier as per my police rider training.

Not sure if you've noticed this or not, but the two local Seattle papers both have transportation "forums" where people can submit questions about local transportation "quirks" they've encountered and then reporters attempt to find out why something is the way it is.

Turns out that most decisions about placement and timing of stoplights, placement of road signs and pavement markings, etc. are all determined by traffic safety engineers with college degrees and years of experience. I'm not so willing to second-guess the decisions made by knowledgeable and experienced traffic engineers. I presume a section of SR 9 is marked as "no passing" because it's an unsafe place to pass, perhaps with a history of accidents, and not because it's a big conspiracy to slow down Lamble's Sunday ride.

Same with lane splitting. We don't allow lane splitting in Washington State because trained, educated and experienced traffic engineers have advised elected officials that it's not safe. Lobbyists for law enforcement agencies have advised elected officials that it's not safe. I presume not to know more than traffic engineers and law enforcement about what's safe and what isn't safe for our roadways.

Advice without supporting evidence is just unsubstantiated opinion. Like me saying black is white, or white is black, whenever the case suits.

You presume to know more/better than the professionals, and you have every right to say so and share your thoughts and opinions - just as I am doing mine.

Unlike you, who presume to know the thoughts of the government, the car drivers, fellow riders and it appears, my thoughts as well. Incredible insight.

If you want miles of unoccupied country roads for your ride with your sweetie on the first warm sunny Sunday of the year, you're going to have to get out of the Puget Sound region before you find what you seek. Otherwise, you're going to have to do what us motorcyclists ask the cars to do - Share the Road.

I hope Spain was far enough away from Puget Sound to qualify. I've just had 10 splendid days riding around the Sierra mountains, with my wife.

[MotomanBill]

Lane sharing is useful, overall it reduces traffic, it keeps aircooled motors cool and keeps the transmissions from those bikes from locking up due to shifting difficulties, it keeps your left hand from cramping up with frequent stop and go traffic. The downside of lane sharing is some people abuse it they go too fast, or only once I have seen this: a group of canyon racers "swarm" maybe 40 of them got on the freeway at the same time and were splitting all lanes at one time at a pretty good clip traffic was about 30 mph, leaving drivers no room for changes or emergency. On occaision I have had drivers cut me off and I always try to have an escape gap. Trucks, SUVs, Vans and semi's are the hardest to deal with. But as mentioned in other posts here, most of the drivers will move over for you. It is really important that you are moving forward to the next gap. Unfortunately there are alot of "mirror" drivers and not as many people looking back in lane changes. I have been riding the freeways here in southern California for 21 years and so far so good. I would estimate my total mileage at about 4500 miles between the lanes out of about 110,000 motorcycle miles. It is not my preferred method it makes me tense and my shoulders ache after a while, but when traffic slows to a crawl I used it. We are fortunate here because there are so many motorcycles year round and people look and expect them. Other states that have lower densities of bikers may not be looking for them. I think initially the learning curve might be steep but a good education through Public Service Announcements (radio,TV), Driver Licensing, Registration Flyers and Motorcycle Safety Programs could get people on the right track. Even some people here once they are educated to the reasons why lane splitting/sharing is legal- less traffic, overheating AirCooled motors, Rider fatigue etc, have a completly new appreciation for motorcyclists and the machines.

[OfficerImpersonator]

My philosophy while riding is that if you aren't afraid, you aren't paying attention to what could potentially happen.

I don't mean being afraid as in cowering from the challenges specific to motorcycling, I mean afraid as in being aware that at any moment you can die doing what you love.

In a car or truck, at any moment something could happen that would deploy the airbags, activate the seatbelt pretensioners, etc. With the modern safety equipment that's standard on any late-model automobile, chances are very high you'll survive the car crash.

On a motorcycle, at any moment that same something that becomes an inconvenience for the driver kills a motorcyclist. That's why the experts recommend you scan your path of travel 12 seconds ahead of you and suggest a four second following distance for riders - and longer in less than optimal conditions.

The stakes are so much higher on a motorcycle. I'd like to complete the ride safely so I can get home to my wife and toddler. Ride to live, live to ride.

As today is Sine Die in the Washington State Legislature, I propose this thread be closed until the next session of the legislature.

I'm glad you had a nice vacation in Europe.

[OfficerImpersonator]

I think initially the learning curve might be steep but a good education through Public Service Announcements (radio,TV), Driver Licensing, Registration Flyers and Motorcycle Safety Programs could get people on the right track.

The legislation that was proposed in Washington State had none of this included. It simply would have permitted lane splitting. Period. No education campaign, no outreach to motorists, no nothing. All the legislation called for was that on one day lane splitting would be illegal and the next day it would be legal.

My objection to lane splitting in Washington is that car drivers wouldn't expect riders passing between them and the car in the next lane. I'm not willing to sacrifice any of my fellow riders in the name of educating a driver.

[knary]

The legislation that was proposed in Washington State had none of this included. It simply would have permitted lane splitting. Period. No education campaign, no outreach to motorists, no nothing. All the legislation called for was that on one day lane splitting would be illegal and the next day it would be legal.

My objection to lane splitting in Washington is that car drivers wouldn't expect riders passing between them and the car in the next lane. I'm not willing to sacrifice any of my fellow riders in the name of educating a driver.

Your fellow rider isn't yours to sacrifice.

[lamble]

Riding with awareness and riding with fear are two completely different states.
Whilst you may be aware, fear can impere your reactions and judgement.

Riding abley and using good judgement should mean you don't need to be afraid, just aware of situations, what could happen and what strategies you have in place for elimination of the elements, which when compounded, lead to accidents.

If you can eliminate any one of the components, then the potential for an accident is avoided. It's like taking a link out of a chain which has a predetermined end. Remove the link and suddenly there are two endings. You have an option as to the outcome.

The times that relate to distances are minimums, they alter with speed, weather conditions, state of your bike and all other prevelent factors. You did however miss the 2 second time allowance between you and the nearest vehicle in front.
I doubt whether this applies in static traffic, although it could be the safety margin if lane sharing.

You are correct that an educational/awareness programme should be added for consideration. I believe it was assumed that such action would be taken and assumption is a mistake waiting to happen. It will be corrected.

[OfficerImpersonator]

Your fellow rider isn't yours to sacrifice.

Which is precisely why I'm not willing to sacrifice them.

Two riders "sacrificed" themselves here in the Seattle-metro region over the past two days. Both were riding "crotch rockets" shortly after bar-closing time. You do the math on why they wrecked. Both fatal accidents made the local news. Both now-dead riders contributed to furthering the negative perception the general public has of riders. I try to do everything I can to increase a positive relationship with car drivers, and that's one of the reasons I have the opinions I've expressed in this thread.

Some of my philosophy toward this issue comes from my interest in furthering positive and limiting negative interactions between motorcyclists and drivers.

[knary]

Which is precisely why I'm not willing to sacrifice them.

huh?

I'm still waiting for the opponents to provide some actual data, not just inexperienced opinion and supposition.

[12bswayed]

[QUOTE=dvandkq;201437]Which is precisely why I'm not willing to sacrifice them.

Two riders "sacrificed" themselves here in the Seattle-metro region over the past two days. Both were riding "crotch rockets" shortly after bar-closing time. You do the math on why they wrecked. Both fatal accidents made the local news. Both now-dead riders contributed to furthering the negative perception the general public has of riders. I try to do everything I can to increase a positive relationship with car drivers, and that's one of the reasons I have the opinions I've expressed in this thread.

How in the heck do you equate stupidity to a sacrifice?? Stupidity caused these crashes, not the fact they were riding crotch rockets. They most certainly didn't sacrifice themselves! I also fail to see how this could possibly further the negative perception the general public has about mororcyclist.

[OfficerImpersonator]

I'm still waiting for the opponents to provide some actual data, not just inexperienced opinion and supposition.

Just like I'm still waiting for the proponents to provide some actual data showing lane splitting to be safe.

All I've ever seen quoted are suppositions derived from the aptly named "Hurt Report". My understanding of the Hurt Report is that it is a now out of date compilation of motorcycle crash statistics. According to the summaries I've seen, the report never specifically mentions lane splitting. I've seen several supporters of lane splitting argue that since the report shows motorcyclists are sometimes rear-ended in traffic, those instances will disappear when lane splitting is introduced, and thus the Hurt Report says lane splitting improves motorcycle safety.

How about we talk about the law of unintended consequences? I'll grant that some rear-end collisions would be avoided if lane splitting were introduced. Will you grant that new types of crashes will occur specifically because of lane splitting?

We need to conduct a study that analyzes the causes of motorcycle crashes in California, as California is the only state where lane splitting happens legally. Let's study lane splitting in California (something that has yet to happen), see how lane splitting empirically (not anecdotally) impacts safety, and go from there.

You lane-splitting proponents seem to think Washington State is the only state that DOESN'T allow lane splitting - like we're a bunch of goofy hold-outs up here or something. No state specifically allows lane splitting. California is the only state that doesn't specifically prohibit lane splitting, and thus it's "legal" in one state and one state only. Can 49 states all be so wrong? What do you know that the legislators, safety advocates, transportation engineers, etc. in 49 states just don't get? Let's get real - states that don't have helmet laws still prohibit lane splitting. Why? Because everyone involved in the decision making process in 49 states are morons?

What about the opinions of LEO's who have posted to this thread, who consider lane splitting dangerous, and who are on record opposing its legalization? Are they a bunch of morons, too?

[knary]

You are, as I understand it, a new rider. Have you ever ridden in California? Have you ever lane split?

[PacWestGS]

Just like I'm still waiting for the proponents to provide some actual data showing lane splitting to be safe.

All I've ever seen quoted are suppositions derived from the aptly named "Hurt Report". My understanding of the Hurt Report is that it is a now out of date compilation of motorcycle crash statistics. According to the summaries I've seen, the report never specifically mentions lane splitting. I've seen several supporters of lane splitting argue that since the report shows motorcyclists are sometimes rear-ended in traffic, those instances will disappear when lane splitting is introduced.

How about we talk about the law of unintended consequences? I'll grant that some rear-end collisions would be avoided if lane splitting were introduced. Will you grant that crashes will occur specifically because of lane splitting?

We need to conduct a study that analyzes the causes of motorcycle crashes in California, as California is the only state where lane splitting happens legally. Let's study lane splitting in California (something that has yet to happen), see how lane splitting empirically (not anecdotally) impacts safety, and go from there.

You lane-splitting proponents seem to think Washington State is the only state that DOESN'T allow lane splitting - like we're a bunch of goofy hold-outs up here or something. No state specifically allows lane splitting. California is the only state that doesn't specifically prohibit lane splitting, and thus it's "legal" in one state and one state only. Can 49 states all be so wrong? What do you know that the legislators, safety advocates, transportation engineers, etc. in 49 states just don't get? Let's get real - states that don't have helmet laws still prohibit lane splitting. Why? Because everyone involved in the decision making process in 49 states are morons?

What about the opinions of LEO's who have posted to this thread, who consider lane splitting dangerous, and who are on record opposing its legalization? Are they a bunch of morons, too?

Your 'facts' and suppositions are all wrong. It's not illegal in California therefore it's "allowed" always has been. Other states saw a rise in motorcycle use and specifically made it illegal - for what reason - that is the root cause of descent. It wasn't necessary at the time. That was a long time ago.

The "Hurt" report is as valid today as it was in 1981 - not much has changed - really. (Except maybe the age groups)

What should be studied is the result of the last 40-years in California and other countries that it is NOT more or less dangerous. Not that it is somehow going to cause untold collisions between motorcycles and stopped or slow moving cars unless the car encroaches on the free space between lanes. That is the MC rider’s responsibility to avoid not the car driver’s indecision. Although it is illegal to change lanes without signaling, it is illegal to cause an accident, it is illegal to make an unsafe lane change without clearing all parts of your vehicle, it illegal to throw objects from a vehicle (burning or not).

Hell, it’s illegal to drive in the left lane without passing but people do that all the time.

This debate should not revolve around why 49 States decided to make that law (back then), and certainly not about whether Washington abolishes it first. It is that, the time has come to reduce traffic congestion and this is one way to do it.

No body is forcing you to ride in this manner – although I would bet you my paycheck for a month that the minute it becomes “legal” you will find yourself within the first year it’s adopted - sliding up along some stopped cars on the freeway or dividing lanes at a stop light to get passed a bunch of stopped or very slow moving cars/trucks.

Will dumbs*its crash – sure. They crash and get crashed into right now without the law. Just last year I had some woman change lanes on an open freeway lane (on I-5) and damn near take me out. It was nothing short of awareness that prevented that collision and maybe just maybe I got that awareness from splitting-lanes elsewhere.

It is pointless to debate with you any more, you have your opinion it is different than a majority.

And calling LEOs a moron will not get their support one was or the other. (All police stuck in a cruiser would hate this law during heavy traffic) because the rider could simply say, “I didn’t know he wanted me to stop. I wasn’t evading anyone” He just couldn’t pursue me. LOL I’ve talked to WSP motor-officers and the one’s I have spoke with support the idea because it would make their jobs safer while trying to respond to accidents that block the road ahead. Cruiser drivers will be against it – Motor-officers will overwhelmingly be for it. What conundrum?

[lamble]

You lane-splitting proponents seem to think Washington State is the only state that DOESN'T allow lane splitting - like we're a bunch of goofy hold-outs up here or something.

Where did you get this idea from?
Certainly not in this thread.

The facts from Hurt are reported and available. You have chosen not to look them up as suggested. What was included in this thread was only edited elements available on-line (edited by others, before you spout on about bias).

Sometimes you seem able to mount a rational arguement, then when anyone questions you, you seem to lose it again. That's a shame, as you are now the sole person still maintaining the anti position on this thread and it would be good to hear what the genuine arguements are, rather than having to sift your good points from your tantrum lead tirades.

The riding with fear genuinely concerns me, as it will limit your two wheel experience to being a purely functional travel alternative, rather than the pleasurable, life enhancing discovery, that the removal of fear would enable.

I do see your point. I do belive you are wrong. I do believe you have stated your case poorly. But, I respect the fact that you've stuck with it.

I'd still not want to have that drink with you though!