-
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
Threeteas
New member
lost in the mists of time.
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.
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.
Threeteas
New member
out of sight-out of mind?
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.
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.
OfficerImpersonator
Seattle-area Rounder
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
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
Threeteas
New member
12 month work.
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.
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
Seattle-area Rounder
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
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
New member
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.
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.
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?"
dvandkq said:
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?
Threeteas
New member
O
OscarMayer
Guest
Some FACTS to chew on...
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 canÔÇÖt think of any.
source: http://www.whybike.com/blog/index.php?p=147
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 canÔÇÖt think of any.
source: http://www.whybike.com/blog/index.php?p=147
T
tonkandy
Guest
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.
Looking at the numbers...
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.
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
Seattle-area Rounder
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?
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?
some thoughts
some thoughts on your argument...
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.
maybe something that needs to addressed next year
Perhaps our strategy should be to repeal the law that makes it illegal for two vehicles to share space in one lane...???
some thoughts on your argument...
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.
maybe something that needs to addressed next year
Perhaps our strategy should be to repeal the law that makes it illegal for two vehicles to share space in one lane...???
Last edited:
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.
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, 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?
Threeteas
New member
There is no arguement, just contradiction.
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.
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.
T
tonkandy
Guest
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.
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.
