Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 62

Thread: New law on Lane Sharing / Splitting .. how do you read this?

  1. #46
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by greenwald View Post
    HEY! Quit pickin' on Gail. You yourself mentioned the moniker of "Bezerkeley" in reference to UC-Berkeley's colorful history. LOL
    When did asking for support from someone for a statement that they made, become "pickin" on them? Yes, I mentioned Berkeley's "colorful history." I'm proud of the fact that I was there for one of the first rounds, the Free Speech Movement. I wasn't a student, but rather one of the oft cited "outside agitators." Except that we weren't "agitators," we were just a small group of non–students that were taking advantage of the University's open door policy by sitting in on classes that interested us. I was tear gassed at People's Park and hit by officer's batons a couple of times as well. Good times. Back then we were fighting for free speech on the campus. The latest round of [STRIKE] protests [/STRIKE] riots was to SUPPRESS free speech. I'm ashamed for those people, but again, that's ANOTHER discussion!

    What I mentioned about Berkeley's, as you called it "colorful history" bolstered the study. What shortythorne said, denigrated it. And so my question was appropriate. We have yet to hear from him but I doubt that he has anything of substance to question the study.

    Quote Originally Posted by greenwald View Post
    On a more serious note, for a moment I thought we might actually re-engage in discussion about an interesting development in the motorcycle traffic arena. You raised some interesting points and I enjoyed reading them.

    But then you drifted back to "staw man" barbs or "a typical debate tactic when one really has nothing of substance to present."
    Pointing out that someone is using a straw man argument isn't a "'barb." It's pointing out a logical flaw in their argument. In this case it was the opinion piece from an obviously highly–biased "reporter" who picked out the rare rider who does lane sharing very dangerously, insinuating that the new law somehow endorsed that kind of riding. That's about as dishonest as journalism gets, presenting 'the rare' as if it was 'the rule rather than the exception, and then deliberately misrepresenting what the law says. The law certainly DOES NOT endorse such dangerous riding. In fact, in short order (when the guidelines become codified) it will make enforcement of such riding far easier than it was before the law passed and, I think, will cut down on the dangerous and offensive–to–the–cagers, riding that some do.

    Quote Originally Posted by greenwald View Post
    I will address a few points you made, but refuse to get dragged into posturing.
    When did asking someone to support a claim they made become "dragging [them] into posturing?" Let's review. You made a statement regarding the rate of disapproval of lane sharing. I had not seen that statistic and simply asked for you to supply a link to support it. You have not. Instead, you've tried to make it look as if I was doing something untoward by asking. If you won't answer simple, direct questions about your statements, why should anyone believe them? In fact, I've asked you several questions that you've not answered. It's not unusual in such discussions, and attention should be called to it, when it happens.

    Quote Originally Posted by greenwald View Post
    Despite UC-Berkeley's reputation (which, like it or not, includes the 'bad' with the 'good'), my daughter attends some classes there as part of her seminary studies, so I'm hardly on the offensive against them. I believe I was most complimentary of the authors of this study.
    Yes, you were. Another member was not and so I asked HIM about his comment. Instead, YOU responded, and made the ludicrous assertion that I was "pickin' " on him.

    Quote Originally Posted by greenwald View Post
    I have little respect for most legislatures, so their unanimous passing does not impress me.
    Me too. As I've mentioned, I think the less government intrusion in our lives, the better off we are. But it's rare that any legislature votes unanimously on anything. When they do, there can't be a stronger endorsement from them. Yet you claimed there was quite a large disapproval rating of 61%. (Reading ahead, now it appears that you claim that it was "cagers" who disapproved – but still, you've not done as I asked, simply supply a link to support your statement).

    Quote Originally Posted by greenwald View Post
    California is a very liberal state (except when it comes to emission standards!), so what they rally behind, I never confuse with "a good idea" without some serious reflection. The 61% 'objection' to lane-splitting didn't involve your state legislators - it came from the caged motorists you must share the road with.
    I asked for a link to this information. You failed to provide it. As I pointed out, often objections to this practice are based on feelings, rather than logic or reason. In a rational world (which admittedly, we sometimes don't have) feelings should give way to safety considerations. The best, and most recent, study says that when done within specified parameters, lane sharing is safer for motorcyclists than staying in traffic.

    Quote Originally Posted by greenwald View Post
    I agree with your assessment of "what passes for journalism these days." I think the reporter's assessment of what he saw that day was biased by his feelings. But keep in mind that while the UC-Berkeley report collected data (I never implied the data was faulty), the conclusions drawn did little to convince me this can flourish as a safe practice, if codified - only that it's a 'safe' practice at very specific speed diferentials that I view as impossible to enforce in heavy traffic. Good luck to the CHP on that one.
    You say, "[T]he conclusions drawn did little to convince me this can flourish as a safe practice, if codified" Do you think that codifying the practice makes it less safe? More safe? No change? Don't you think that making the suggest guidelines into law will have at least SOME riders complying with the law? Don't you think that will make THEM safer? Do you think that right now, all riders are aware of the suggested guidelines? Do you think that if they are codified that MORE riders will become aware of them?

    The study showed us where the speed becomes unreasonable and turns a "relatively safe activity" into one that's not so safe. This shift from 'relative safety' to 'not so safe,' is based on the actual rate of accidents and the seriousness of the injuries that resulted, that the study revealed. And so, as you say, there will soon be "codifi[cation]" of what a safe speed should be. This is virtually identical to what is done on every public road in the nation. When a new roadway is built, traffic engineers set speed limits for them. Then signs are erected and enforcement takes place. Arguing against codification of the speed at which lane sharing should be done, is similar to arguing that we should not have any limits on our speed on any roadway. Before it was officially made legal, there was no guidance for enforcement. Officers had to use their discretion as to when it was unsafe. With codification (when the guidelines become official) such LE opinions won't be necessary. Go faster than what the law allows or when it allows it, and you have an enforceable violation. Having concrete guidelines will make convictions easier to obtain. Courts hearing these cases will not have to rely on the officer's opinion that it was unsafe. An officer will merely have to testify that the violator was exceeding the limit imposed by the law.

    It's absurd that you "view as impossible to enforce in heavy traffic" Back when I was working we had one of the abusers of the privilege of lane sharing cause a accident that resulted in serious injury. We did a survey and discovered that quite a few motorcyclists were unsafely engaging in this practice in our jurisdiction, by moving through stopped and slow traffic at high speeds. We put a motorcycle task force on it, and the problem went away in a matter of 2-3 weeks. I can't say that these riders stopped this practice, but they stopped doing it in our jurisdiction. Perhaps they were taking other routes, perhaps they just slowed down while in our jurisdiction, but it stopped DEAD, (pardon the pun) when the word got out. Obviously enforcement can't be done from a police car, it takes a motor officer. But there's certainly no shortage of them, either on local agencies or on the CHP. I predict that when the guidelines become codified, the number of riders who are doing this unsafely, meaning at high speed differentials or when traffic is moving quickly and well, will drop dramatically and we'll all be safer as a result.

    Quote Originally Posted by greenwald View Post
    You've been lane-splitting your entire riding experience, believe in it, and will continue to do so. We all get that. Any criticism – any 'attack' on lane-splitting is directed at the practice - not the practitioners.
    Like the highly biased 'reporter' that I quoted, it appears that you are lumping the unsafe riders in with the ones who are practicing lane sharing safely. That's just as inappropriate as when he did it. The practice WHEN DONE SAFELY (within easily met guidelines) is SAFER than riding in line in traffic with the cars. A fact which you conveniently and consistently overlook.

  2. #47
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by shortythorne View Post
    Yea,dood...common sense. Lane splitting is completely safe until it isn't.
    Here's some more "common sense" for you. Take out "lane splitting" from your sentence, and insert "motorcycling" and your statement makes just as much sense. Based on the fact that you didn't supply any information that might question the findings of the study, we can safely assume that you don't have anything, correct?

  3. #48
    FUKENGRUVEN SURVIVOR akbeemer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    THE BIG SKY
    Posts
    6,393
    Dood, You care to the point of discomposure. Not every comment that disagrees with your stance on lane sharing is worth of a stony retort.
    Kevin Huddy
    Tm Pterodactyl MT Outpost

  4. #49
    Registered User mdcgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Calabasas CA
    Posts
    6

    Never so glad for lane splitting

    I rode from Las Vegas to calabasas CA today in this miserable weather on my 1600GT. Actually a great, although at times surreal, ride. That's another story..... When I got to Pasadena the traffic was slammed as the skies opened up, after a steady drizzle with high winds most of the way. I was able to easily split when the traffic bunched as the rain increased, all the way home, saving at least 1/2 hour or more in B to B traffic that was moving at 10-20 mph. I was greatly assisted by our local drivers, who perhaps thanks to the CalTrans awareness program moved over and helped me out. Maybe they were jealous, and maybe they felt sorry for me, but if I had ridden in lanes, in that rain and traffic, for 25 or 30 miles I'm sure my chances of taking a tap in the butt, or having to deal with a slammer in front of me, were very high indeed. I like lane splitting, and done safely it doesn't reduce my own safety and likely increases it. Two cents worth from a 30 year CA lane splitter.

  5. #50
    3 Red Bricks
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pleasanton, Ca.
    Posts
    4,289
    For the life of me, I don't understand the insistance of some non-California residents to continually want to piss in our corn flakes.

    Their opinion on lane splitting is entirely irrelevant. It's like our opinion on ice fishing regulations or open carry laws in other states.

    They don't live here. They rarely, if ever, have lane split. They have no stake in the success or failure of the practice. They have minimal understanding of the dynamic involved between the drivers and riders involved in the practice in this state that has developed over decades.

    But everyone has opinions. I just don't understand the need of some to want to impose their opinions from thousands of miles away. I have yet to see anyone from here tell other states that they are somehow lacking common sense for not allowing lane splitting.

    The OP requested INFORMATION on the practice, since he would be visiting and was interested in trying it properly. That was clearly answered. Remember, it is not mandatory. Then the opinionators from afar showed up and added absolutely nothing to the conversation. The practice is not going to change because of their opinions. They should be contacting their own local state law makers to insure that they never will be subjected to the evils of lane sharing. At least the opinions would be relevant there.



    LONG MAY YOUR BRICK FLY!

    Ride Safe, Ride Far, Ride Often

    Lee Fulton Forum Moderator
    3 Marakesh Red K75Ss
    Mine, Hers, Spare

  6. #51
    Registered User greenwald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Sheboygan, WI
    Posts
    4,944

    Smile



    Beemerdood - The mysterious "61% disapproval stat" is conspicuously mentioned within paragraph 4 of page 5 of the UC-Berkeley study from 2015.

    "The survey confirmed that the non-motorcycling public often disapproves of lane-splitting. Among passenger vehicle drivers, 61% “somewhat” or “strongly” disapproved of the practice of lane-splitting."

    My apologies - I thought you had read the paper.

    98lee - if you visit Wisconsin but once, tried ice fishing, and thought it was stupid - you're entitled to that opinion and the freedom to express it, regardless of your zip code. Just so you know, it's OK with us.

    Everyone, enjoy your evening.
    Kevin Greenwald - MSF Lead RiderCoach # 121656 (BRC,SBRC,IS,IME,SMARTrainer)
    Nationally Certified Law Enforcement Motor Officer (Ret.) / IBA Member #34281
    Motorcycle/High Performance/Teen/Winter/ATV Driving Instructor - ROAD AMERICA Track

  7. #52
    3 Red Bricks
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pleasanton, Ca.
    Posts
    4,289
    Kevin's statement that 61% of California drivers disapprove of lane splitting needs a little perspective.

    They asked the question to 951 drivers (in a state with 22.6 MILLION licenced drivers). 580 responded that they disapprove. 456 did not realize that it was legal.

    The opinion of someone not familiar with the rules of the road should not carry as much weight as someone who takes driving seriously enough to actually learn the rules.

    The survey size was so small as to be inconclusive given the size of the states driving population.

    If the survey was taken in the Berekely area, how many were non-resident students? There are alot of people in the Berekely area that drive very little or don't even own cars. Were they part of the survey? How many were from rural areas of the state where lane splitting rarely happens? What was the age (average length of driving experience) of the respondents? Who knows?

    Surveys, especially small crosssection ones, tell very little.

    Statistics, such as ALL the accidents involving lane splitting in a given area, can give a more accurate picture, as they are not opinions. A better picture can be derived if the numbers are checked over several years so as to eliminate fluctuations and outliers.



    Last edited by 98lee; 02-19-2017 at 04:16 PM.
    LONG MAY YOUR BRICK FLY!

    Ride Safe, Ride Far, Ride Often

    Lee Fulton Forum Moderator
    3 Marakesh Red K75Ss
    Mine, Hers, Spare

  8. #53
    I live in Texas, 53 miles from town. I can go those 53 miles and meet only three or 4 cars. I used to live in Kansas. Before that Iowa. Before that North Dakota. Does a picture emerge here?

    Back in '99 I rode in the Iron Butt Rally. It started and finished in Ojai, California. To save vacation time I rode out on a weekend a week early; flew home to work a few days, and flew back to California. I stored my bike with a friend in Altadena, and then we rode to Ojai on Saturday for the Monday start. He split lanes. I, the rural boy from Kansas was scared shirtless, but followed him. It was an experience. I applaud those that do it with ease. I might learn the skill. But at the time I was scared shirtless.

    But I never thought it "unsafe" per se, or reckless. Just a manner of riding that I was not used to. I saw it in Spain, and Germany, and South Africa while those places, and again thought wow, OK.

    If it was universal in the US, like in much of Europe it would be no big deal. The real hazzard is a$$hole motorists, who consider even a lane-change turn signal as a personal challenge to cut you off. I am offended by the attitude of urban drivers intent on hurting others or even themselves in a thinly veiled lauch of their masculinity. Not to mention their feminity.
    Paul Glaves - "Big Bend", Texas U.S.A
    "The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution." - Bertrand Russell
    http://web.bigbend.net/~glaves/

  9. #54
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by greenwald View Post
    Beemerdood - The mysterious "61% disapproval stat" is conspicuously mentioned within paragraph 4 of page 5 of the UC-Berkeley study from 2015.
    FINALLY! That wasn't so hard was it?

    Quote Originally Posted by greenwald View Post
    My apologies – I thought you had read the paper.
    I did read the paper greenwald, but I didn't think it was necessary to memorize every line of it. It's very interesting that while you managed to pick up this trivial detail, you completely missed the main conclusion of the study, that I've repeated several times now, "Lane splitting [when done within stated guidelines] appears to be a relatively safe motorcycle riding strategy," Your idea of what is "conspicuous" seems to be a bit, shall we say – 'off.'

    Why I had to repeat the request for a source from you several times, is a mystery. Can you tell us why you simply didn't supply it when asked? In my readings I found disapproval ratings from the public ranging from as high as 77% to as low as 33%, depending where the questions were asked. I had never come across the 61% figure in the press and was looking for more information. By refusing to answer my simple, direct question, you needlessly prolonged the discussion, when you could have simply said that it was in the study.

    But now that you're suddenly in the mood to answer questions, here are some more that you seem to have overlooked. I won't bother with the full list but here are a few of the more important ones.

    1. How do you reconcile this statement while seeming to be intent on denying it to others on an every–day basis? Replace "wagon train of Winnebago's" with 'slow moving vehicles stuck in traffic (or at a traffic signal)' and you have the same situation as lane sharing.
    2. Do you think that codifying the practice makes it less safe? More safe? No change?
    3. Don't you think that making the suggested guidelines into law will have at least SOME riders complying with the law?
    4. Don't you think that will make THEM safer?
    5. Do you think that right now, all riders are aware of the suggested guidelines?
    6. Do you think that if they are codified that MORE riders will become aware of them?

  10. #55
    not so retired henzilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    CENTEX USA
    Posts
    9,218


    I thought we were good here without the depositions. Can we ease off the throttle a tad please?
    Steve Henson
    SABMWRA MOA Club#62's Flat Fixer/ current forum moderator
    It's not the breaths you take, but the moments that take your breath away-D.Dillon/G. Strait

  11. #56
    Registered User greenwald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Sheboygan, WI
    Posts
    4,944

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by henzilla View Post


    I thought we were good here without the depositions. Can we ease off the throttle a tad please?
    I'm good with that. Besides, only an attorney can depose me - not a retired supervisor.

    The only thing 'on trial' here is the issue of will lane-splitting in CA become more safer now that it has been legalized? It's a good question and circles back to the original poster's comments.

    The Berkeley paper is there for all to read for themselves, and evaluate its validity.

    Some think it's the Magna Carta of motorcycle traffic law.

    I am less impressed with its conclusions.

    Just express your own opinions, attacking no one. Try that?!
    Kevin Greenwald - MSF Lead RiderCoach # 121656 (BRC,SBRC,IS,IME,SMARTrainer)
    Nationally Certified Law Enforcement Motor Officer (Ret.) / IBA Member #34281
    Motorcycle/High Performance/Teen/Winter/ATV Driving Instructor - ROAD AMERICA Track

  12. #57
    Rocky Bow BMW Riders #197 bogthebasher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Calgary AB
    Posts
    1,519
    I have finally read the report and it is an interesting read. Although I have ridden in California several times, I never had the need to lane split and likely wouldn't without an experienced person with me to show me the ropes. The practice is used world wide where congestion exists simply to provide relief and traffic movement. Safety can be measured to some extent but there is room for subjectivity for sure.

    The part that disappointed me though was the attack on the people (and their credentials) who authored the study. As a person who has a wife who is finishing her PhD I can't believe how belittling and closed minded some of our membership are to educated people. This is not acceptable. Keep to the facts and discuss the merits of the conclusions of the study please without belittling the people who wrote it.
    Last edited by bogthebasher; 02-19-2017 at 03:02 PM. Reason: typo
    Ken Dittrick
    2008 R1200RT (Biarritz Blau)

    Excuses are the rocks upon which our dreams are crushed - Tim Fargo

  13. #58
    Registered User greenwald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Sheboygan, WI
    Posts
    4,944

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by bogthebasher View Post
    I have finally read the report and it is an interesting read. Although I have ridden in California several times, I never had the need to lane split and likely wouldn't without an experienced person with me to show me the ropes. The practice is used world wide where congestion exists simply provide relief and traffic movement. Safety can be measured to some extent but there is room for subjectivity for sure.

    The part that disappointed me though was the attack on the people (and their credentials) who authored the study. As a person who has a wife who is finishing her PhD I can't believe how belittling and closed minded some of our membership are to educated people. This is not acceptable. Keep to the facts and discuss the merits of the conclusions of the study please without belittling the people who wrote it.
    Kevin Greenwald - MSF Lead RiderCoach # 121656 (BRC,SBRC,IS,IME,SMARTrainer)
    Nationally Certified Law Enforcement Motor Officer (Ret.) / IBA Member #34281
    Motorcycle/High Performance/Teen/Winter/ATV Driving Instructor - ROAD AMERICA Track

  14. #59
    FUKENGRUVEN SURVIVOR akbeemer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    THE BIG SKY
    Posts
    6,393
    I suspect the "close minded" remark is aimed at me given my earlier post about academics. Fair enough. My opinion, however, is based on a fair amount of time spent working on a top level research campus as faculty and senior staff. Just like every other human pursuit those with terminal degrees in their fields run the spectrum in their abilities and ethics. Additionally, money drives research and too often the outcome of research as well. Companies don't fund efforts that are counter to their interests and, unfortunately, the same is true for our federal government. PhDs are not unlike most other things in life; you get what you pay for. That being said, I also worked with some brilliant, committed and wonderful academics that are making positive contributions to our world.
    Kevin Huddy
    Tm Pterodactyl MT Outpost

  15. #60
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by greenwald View Post
    I'm good with that. Besides, only an attorney can depose me - not a retired supervisor.
    It's good that you realize that this is not a deposition. There you are required to answer questions honestly and completely to the best of your ability. Here you can hide behind silence and not answer simple direct questions. Why someone would not want to support their position is a mystery.

    Quote Originally Posted by greenwald View Post
    The only thing 'on trial' here is the issue of will lane-splitting in CA become more safer now that it has been legalized? It's a good question and circles back to the original poster's comments.
    Now that lane sharing has been legalized, the CHP has been authorized to study the issue. They'll look at the facts, many as presented in the Berkeley paper, but there will probably be other studies too. The Berkeley paper will be updated this year with more information that will further clarify that lane sharing is a relatively safe practice. They plan on looking at the alternative, sitting in traffic. The CHP will also seek input from motorcycle safety experts and groups that support motorcycle safety. Rest assured that they won't be consulting with people who have closed minds or who refuse to explain their opinions.

    Earlier I posed this list of questions to greenwald. They had been asked previously but he had been not responded to them. Here are my responses to them. These responses seem to be to be obvious.

    1. How do you reconcile this statement while seeming to be intent on denying it to others on an every–day basis? Replace "wagon train of Winnebago's" with 'slow moving vehicles stuck in traffic (or at a traffic signal)' and you have the same situation as lane sharing.
      (NOTE: this question came after greenwald wrote, "I too have been 'prioritized' by flaggers while on I-70 in Colorado –nice to 'go to the head of the class' on a bike when you have an entire wagon train of Winnebago's.")
      The "reconciliation" is easy. Simply set up a double standard. 'It's OK for me when I say it is. But not OK for others because I say it's not.'
    2. Do you think that codifying the practice [of lane sharing] makes it less safe? More safe? No change?
      Of course codifying the practice of lane sharing (when the guidelines become part of the law) will make riders more safe. It will give guidance to experienced and less experienced riders as well. Without that guidance, less experienced and the over–confident may ride in a manner that endangers themselves and others. We find this guidance frequently on the road. Speed limits tell drivers what a safe speed is under ideal conditions. Yield, stop signs and traffic signals tell riders that there are dangers ahead with intersections of roadways. Hundreds of informational signs tell us such things as that the roadway is 'slippery when wet,' or that it may be 'icy.' They tell us that there is a 'narrow bridge' ahead. They tell us that ahead is an area where there are 'deer crossing' It only makes sense to give guidance to riders who are engaging in this specialized activity as well.
    3. Don't you think that making the suggested guidelines into law will have at least SOME riders complying with the law?
      Of course it will. As with most laws, MOST will comply with it. Of course, many will commit minor violations, just as many people exceed the speed limit by small amounts. Those who do not will be more easily convicted of violating it, because it will contain guidelines for enforcement.
    4. Don't you think that will make THEM safer?
      Of course it will.
    5. Do you think that right now, all riders are aware of the suggested guidelines?
      Of course they're not. There isn't much training that covers these guidelines and only a small percentage of riders take part in advanced road rider training. While many riders take tracks classes, lane sharing isn't a part of them.
    6. Do you think that if they are codified that MORE riders will become aware of them?
      Of course they will. There will be PSA's on TV, motorcycle periodicals, websites, and more. When the DMV mails out forms for the re–registration of vehicles, a pamphlet can be enclosed in the mailings. Inexperienced riders who do not know that guidelines exist for this activity, may ride at speeds and speed differentials that they feel comfortable with. Sometimes those speeds are higher than affords a relatively safe experience.


    Quote Originally Posted by greenwald View Post
    The Berkeley paper is there for all to read for themselves, and evaluate its validity.

    Some think it's the Magna Carta of motorcycle traffic law.
    I have no idea who thinks this, I certainly don't. But it is the most recent, the most thorough, and in short, the best study we have on the topic under discussion. If you have something that you think is better please show it to us. If you have anything that contradicts its findings, please show that to us too.

    Quote Originally Posted by greenwald View Post
    I am less impressed with its conclusions.
    I'm not surprised. Problem is, in spite of being asked for details, you remain virtually mute on the topic of WHY you feel this way. Someone who wanted to support his side of the question would tells us why he was "less impressed with its conclusions." Perhaps he thinks that the stats were gathered improperly. He might think that they were interpreted improperly. He might doubt the veracity or the credentials of the authors were in doubt.

    And, if you won't answer these simple, direct questions, will you at least tell us why you won't answer them? It only seems reasonable that one would want to support his opinions, but you seem to be more interested in being vague. I'd expect more from someone with your background and experience. I'm sure that the forum will benefit from some concrete answers from you.

    I can only guess that you realize that your position of opposing lane sharing is untenable in the face of the evidence and are hoping to save face by being evasive?!

    Quote Originally Posted by greenwald View Post
    Just express your own opinions, attacking no one. Try that?!
    It's very strange that you think that asking you simple, direct questions about your position, is an "attack" on you personally. It's not. It's an attack on your ideas and your opinions. Earlier you wrote, "Any criticism – any 'attack' on lane-splitting is directed at the practice - not the practitioners." My comments are the same. In the words of George Bernard Shaw, "Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted."

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •