Do I still get "special privileges" ... someone elses stupidity?
Just asking.
Well said.
-
Welcome! You are currently logged out of the forum. Some forum content will be hidden from you if you remain logged out. If you want to view all content, please LOG IN!If you are not an MOA member, why not take the time to join the club, so you can enjoy posting on the forum, the BMW Owners News magazine, and all of the benefits of membership? If you click here, you have the opportunity to take us for a test ride at our expense. Enter the code 'FORUM25' in the activation code box to try the first year of the MOA on us!
WA-support lane sharing
- Thread starter OfficerImpersonator
- Start date
Well said.
Threeteas
New member
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.
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.
Threeteas
New member
Wheelie good.
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.
.
YMMV
It's your personal responsibilty to avoid hitting another vehicle not only because it cost money, but because it hurts.
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.
U
USERNAME
Guest
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.
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
Seattle-area Rounder
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...
Threeteas
New member
You were sorely missed.
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.
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.
Last edited:
Compromise...
Let's Agree to Respect Each Other's Views,
No Matter How Wrong Yours May Be...
www.despair.com
OfficerImpersonator
Seattle-area Rounder
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
25-MPH NEXT 1OO MILES
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)
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
25-MPH NEXT 1OO MILES
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.
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
looking for a coal mine
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!
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.
knary
looking for a coal mine
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.
Threeteas
New member
Good question-I'll find out.
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.
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.
Threeteas
New member
just a point
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.
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
looking for a coal mine
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.
Threeteas
New member
Maths, loosely slung together
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
