WA-support lane sharing

[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.

 

[Threeteas]

Seattle I5

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.

 

[Threeteas]

Consolidated across the board action

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.

 

[Threeteas]

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".

 

[Threeteas]

I assume you'll agree

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.

 

[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.

 

[testinglogin]

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.

 

[Threeteas]

alternative

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.

 

[Threeteas]

colouring perceptions

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.