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

98lee said:

I think the trend towards legislation favoring self driving cars will eventually kill lane splitting altogether, as a motorcycle coming through the lanes from the rear is something that they can not recognize easily and the cars are programmed to stay in the center of the lane. They will get confused. It will be easier to ban lane splitting than have the cars recognize the situation.

Click to expand...

I am not certain I agree with your assessment. I believe as self driving cars become the norm and more sophisticated future MC riders will take more and more advantage of lane splitting. One of the difficulties with the current generation of these cars is the standardization and programming of the rules of the road, and how to apply them in the real world.

Lane splitting will be one of the future selling points to MC travel becoming the motorized two wheeled version of bicycles and the advantages they have in various urban settings.In the present the rules of the road being developed are v1.0 and we are state law alpha or beta testers.

I have split lanes in states and countries where it is acceptable. I did not feel comfortable doing it because of my Fly-Over-Land cycling roots. Heck we haven’t figured out how to zipper merge. Even if it were legal in my corner of F-O-L cage pilots take great umbrage at riders doing it and you could quickly find yourself arguing with the mud flaps of a jacked up F150, Chevy, CMC or ominously named Ram 4X4, determined to use their plow mounting frame or bush bumper complete with winch, to teach you their rules of the road.

I understand the passion these discussions generate for both sides of the argument. I don’t get to cranked up either way. I do believe this is just the beginning of sorting out the rules of the future road.

greenwald said:

I'm sure many operators in CA are curious how to take this new law out for a spin, and yet abide by its parameters. Continue to comment or solicit other opinions - just remember, short of physics, nearly everything in life is an opinion - even mine.

Click to expand...

My guess is that those who have been lane sharing using their common sense will continue to do so. Those who have not been using their common sense, will continue in that vein. But soon, when the parameters become codified, some of the second group will probably slow down.

greenwald said:

While the authors (3 individuals from UC-Berkeley)

Click to expand...

The fact that the study came from Berkeley (aka Bezerkeley – due to its high incidence of extreme POV's) makes it unattractive and less confidence inspiring to some. But the fact is that UC Berkeley is academically, one of the most highly regarded institutions of learning and teaching in the country.

greenwald said:

lean to endorsing lane-splitting from a perspective of less severity of injury, the study does raise some red flags insomuch as of the collisions studied (5,969) involve 17% (997) lane-splitting accidents. In my little 'universe of motorcycle traffic safety,' that's too high.

Click to expand...

I agree that 17% is too high. I think that 1% is too high! But since motorcycling is by definition a dangerous avocation, there are going to be accidents anyplace that bikes are ridden. I've witnessed both sides of the coin and it's not hard to see where the accidents are occurring. Riders who have been obeying the suggestions to keep their differential speeds within 15 MPH of the cars they're passing and have been doing it only when traffic slows to below 50mph are far safer than those who are riding faster and who are doing it when traffic is moving 'normally.' I predict that the law will soon contain some sort of guidance as to differential speeds and maximum speed of traffic.

When the data is broken down by speed differential, it shows that the higher the differential, the more likely the rider is to crash and the more likely he is to be injured. The study revealed that when lane sharing is done with a speed differential of 15 mph when traffic is moving at 50 mph or slower, that lane sharing "appears to be a relatively safe motorcycle riding strategy."

There is no shortage of YouTube videos showing insanity on the topic of lane sharing. I remember seeing one, from Russia I think of a biker rolling at 120 mph (no, not kph) through fairly heavy traffic, probably moving at the legal maximum (whatever that happened to be). THAT GUY is the one that heavily represents the 17% of lane sharers who get into accidents. If traffic is moving at the maximum, legal speed (although it usually is about 5mph above that) there's not much reason for bikers to lane share. Yet, some will. THOSE people are also heavily represented in the 17%. As we know, speed not only increases the rate of accidents, but it adds to the likelihood and severity of injuries that may occur during them.

greenwald said:

It also reported that among the driving public in CA, disapproval was significant,

Click to expand...

On the second go–round, when speed differential and traffic speed limitations were removed (because they were not supported by science or consensus) the law passed without the slightest bit of opposition, in the Assembly 69-0. It was quickly signed by the Governor. The sponsor of the bill, Bill Quirk, said, "the proposed law had many positives, including reducing traffic congestion and promoting safety. No issue is more important to me than roadway safety," http://www.latimes.com/politics/ess...lish-lane-splitting-1470328822-htmlstory.html

The LA Times reported that it "sailed through the legislative process." (same link)

That same news story says, "Other groups and individuals, who believe that lane splitting is dangerous regardless of the speed, objected to the proposal on principle." But it does not say that the opposition was, as you claim "significant."

That same link has a video of a rider splitting lanes in heavy freeway traffic in Los Angeles that might interest some.

This reporter, http://thedailybanter.com/2016/08/lane-splitting-legal-california/ sure thinks it's a bad idea but look at what I've emboldened in his writing as to what he thinks lane sharing is. "If this practice sounds dangerous, trust me, it sure as hell feels that way when a motorcycle comes barreling past you, inches away from your car or maybe your left arm, at three times your speed while you're moving slowly or are stopped altogether. ..."

This reporter obviously has a problem discerning between reality and perception when he writes that lane sharing "sure as hells feels [dangerous]." He's talking about his FEELINGS, not reality. This has become standard for the snowflakes of today's politically correct world. FEELINGS, are more important to them than reality, it seems. Lots of people these days, start a sentence with "I feel like ..." when what they really mean is "I think that ..." I think it's cheap insurance because feelings aren't wrong, but opinions might be, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.

But this reporter continues on to bash the new law with a rant about illegal behavior and trying to equate it to the new law. He's wrong when on both counts when he writes this, referring to the limiting of speed differential to 15 (as the earliest version of the law did) "... any driver in this state -- certainly in gridlocked Southern California -- will tell you that a prohibition on motorcycles traveling more than 15 miles-per-hour more than the traffic around it likely won't make a dent in the number of guys hauling ass through a space that's sometimes a mere three feet apart and is constantly fluctuating. What's more, the legal adoption of lane-splitting will shift the burden more to the car drivers when it comes to any potential accidents, since it will then be codified that drivers have to stay rigidly hyper-aware of people coming up along their sides, in their very lanes, much faster than they're traveling"

Once the law (as passed it does not contain any speed differential or limiting speed for traffic – that's to be studied by the CHP in conjunction with motorcycle safety groups) does contain those restrictions, it means that no longer will an officer have to use his discretion and judgment as to whether a motorcyclist is unsafe, if he's over the speed differential, he can be cited. AND the "burden" for drivers who change lanes has ALWAYS been on them to do so safely. If the driver is continuing straight in his lane, there's no worries about what's going on in the split. A straw man argument if ever there was one. It's a shame, what passes for journalism these days. But that’s ANOTHER discussion too. LOL.

greenwald said:

which PSA's will have to address in the future, if lane-splitting is to thrive there, sharing the roads with those same respondents.

Click to expand...

Since lane sharing has been legal here for decades, the CHP took the position that since it's not banned by law, it's not illegal (an example of how government is supposed to work), I don't know if there will be the same amount of PSA's as would be necessary in states that have taken the opposite viewpoint.

greenwald said:

61% strongly disapproved of the practice, with an additional 48% believing it illegal or unsure of its legality. Now that it is the 'law of the land' in CA, the "48%" could be considered essentially nullified.

Click to expand...

Can you link us to a primary source for these figures? In almost the same number that you cite motorists who usually drive alone in their cars, "disapprove" of car pool lanes. Yet, there's no shortage of those lanes in CA. For awhile traffic engineers would convert existing fast lanes to car pool lanes, until that was stopped by a lawsuit. Now if they want such lanes, they have to be created anew or when the freeway is first built. It's thought by many that these lanes are just an excuse for social engineering, an effort to force people to ride with others, to reduce congestion.

greenwald said:

When looking at the data, I could not help but recall one of my favorite quotes from Mark Twain: "There are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics!"

Click to expand...

Mark Twain was one of the greatest authors and social commentators of his time. He also wrote about legislators, "... suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of Congress, but I repeat myself." But legislators, like scientific studies and the statistics they generate, are necessary if we are to understand the mechanics of our daily lives and why things happen as they do.

If you can show us where those who prepared the study, were in error, lied or mislead, please do so. Absent any such showing, we should accept the stats and what they show. The results of the study were so clear that this statement appears in the abstract, "Lane-splitting appears to be a relatively safe motorcycle riding strategy if done in traffic moving at 50 MPH or less and if motorcyclists do not exceed the speed of other vehicles by more than 15 MPH." [Emphasis is mine]

greenwald said:

Examine information at your disposal, recognize that data selectively used to support an opinion does not equal 'facts,'

Click to expand...

If you can show us that this data was used "selectively" please do. Absent that, we have nothing but the unsupported insinuation that somehow it's wrong or should not be considered, a typical debate tactic when one really has nothing of substance to present.

So far I've only seen two objections to lane sharing. The first comes from the drivers that we ride past as they sit in traffic. Some of them are outraged that someone seems to be 'cutting in line' ahead of them. They think that they are stuck and so, everyone else be stuck too! This is stupidity and selfishness of the highest order. Every one of them, if traffic were to suddenly open up, would proceed forward. The fact is that for a narrower vehicle that a motorcycle is, traffic IS open. Some of them are 'afraid' that we might damage their mirrors or their arms that they let dangle outside their vehicles. Yet consider the car pool lanes. Often traffic to the right of them is completely stopped, yet the car pool lane is moving at 60+mph! These same folks exhibit no such 'fear' from vehicles only a paint stripe away from them in the car pool lane. Vehicle that are far heavier than any motorcycle, and would do far more damage than just to snap off a mirror, if they were to suddenly veer to the right. There's more to it than just a fear of having a mirror broken off. I think, the psychology of having someone move ahead of them, when they are trapped by traffic plays a much larger part. Time after time we see responses to queries asking about lane sharing laws that go something like "They should wait their turn." and "They should behave like everyone else." and "I don't think it's fair."

The second objection is a FEELING, that it's wrong, that somehow gaining an advantage of a few feet or a few miles is somehow unfair. I've not seen anything real as an objection to it. The stats support it and say that it's safer than sitting in traffic. Laws should not be based on feelings, but on reality. Please realize that I’m not talking about idiots who blast past stop vehicles at very high speed differentials or those who do the same when traffic is flowing well and quickly. I'm ONLY talking about lane sharing as done within reasonable guidelines.

greenwald said:

Ride safe, ride often, and if you dare, ride skinny between traffic.

Click to expand...

If I "dare?" Hey, I'm already a thrill seeker, I ride a motorcycle! I've been lane sharing for 50+ years LOL

But it's kinda hard for me to "ride skinny." I'm a wide–body myself, and I ride an R1200RT with bags and sometimes the large top box. On another note, I recently saw a thread on another forum asking what was 'the best motorcycle to use for lane sharing?' My response, would have been, "the one you're riding."

shortythorne said:

The fact that Berkeley conducted the study kinda makes me laugh out loud .

Click to expand...

Do you have anything that contradicts or reveals issues with the study or the findings?

beemerdood said:

Do you have anything that contradicts or reveals issues with the study or the findings?

Click to expand...

HEY! Quit pickin' on Gail. You yourself mentioned the moniker of "Bezerkeley" in reference to UC-Berkeley's colorful history. LOL

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 "...straw man" barbs or "...a typical debate tactic when one really has nothing of substance to present."

I will refer to a few points you made, but refuse to get dragged into posturing.

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.

I have little respect for most legislatures, so their unanimous passing of AB51 does not impress me. California is a very liberal state (except when it comes to emission standards!), so what they rally behind, I never accept carte blanche as "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 will be surrounded by on the freeways.

I agree with your thoughts of "...what passes for journalism these days." I think the reporter's assessment of what he saw that day was biased by his feelings/fears. 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, even now 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 task.

Essentially, most of the UC-Berkeley report hinges on a very specific 'speed differential.' I doubt that there can be effective compliance or enforcement of that 'window.'

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.

Ride safe, ride often, and if (like me as well) it's too late to ride skinny, ride lucky.

beemerdood said:

Do you have anything that contradicts or reveals issues with the study or the findings?

Click to expand...

Yea,dood...common sense. Lane splitting is completely safe until it isn't.

greenwald said:

HEY! Quit pickin' on Gail. You yourself mentioned the moniker of "Bezerkeley" in reference to UC-Berkeley's colorful history. LOL

Click to expand...

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.

greenwald said:

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."

Click to expand...

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.

greenwald said:

I will address a few points you made, but refuse to get dragged into posturing.

Click to expand...

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.

greenwald said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

greenwald said:

I have little respect for most legislatures, so their unanimous passing does not impress me.

Click to expand...

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).

greenwald said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

greenwald said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

greenwald said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

shortythorne said:

Yea,dood...common sense. Lane splitting is completely safe until it isn't.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

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.

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.

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'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.

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.

greenwald said:

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

Click to expand...

FINALLY! That wasn't so hard was it?

greenwald said:

My apologies – I thought you had read the paper.

Click to expand...

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?

I thought we were good here without the depositions. Can we ease off the throttle a tad please?

henzilla said:

I thought we were good here without the depositions. Can we ease off the throttle a tad please?

Click to expand...

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?!

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.

bogthebasher said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

greenwald said:

I'm good with that. Besides, only an attorney can depose me - not a retired supervisor.

Click to expand...

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.

greenwald said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.​

greenwald said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

greenwald said:

I am less impressed with its conclusions.

Click to expand...

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?!

greenwald said:

Just express your own opinions, attacking no one. Try that?!

Click to expand...

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."