WA-support lane sharing

[OfficerImpersonator]

Wow! Since when do you speak for the majority of car and truck drivers. FYI, you don't. BTW, motorcycles won't be 'whizzing by'.

I've never claimed to speak for anyone other than myself.

Really? Did you do a poll or do you just know what people think.

I do think I have a sixth sense for interpreting how local and state government will act, what the people will demand and/or accept, and how our elected officials will react to public policy proposals.

Wrong. HOV lanes on 167 are not an advantage during off-peak hours. All lanes travel at 60-70 mph between 7pm-5am. HOV lanes are not needed, therefore open to all traffic.

Unless of course there is an accident, or construction, or bad weather, or anything else that might screw up traffic during off-peak hours. Then SOVs get to use the HOV lane, and the HOV incentive has been eliminated.

This HOT or toll use is just wrong. Carpool/HOV means one less car on the road, unless of course you have the money for our greedy state/politicians, then anything goes. Nothing new here, you know, the golden rule, the man with the gold makes the rules. Greedy bastards. This has nothing to do with SOV resentment towards HOV/motorcycists and everything to do with money. It's just wrong. IMO of course.

HOT lanes are just a way for those with money to get something not otherwise available to those without money (access to HOV lanes for SOV

Me too, but mostly I just like to ride.

I have to work so I can afford to ride

Doug

Doug

 

[PacWestGS]

*SNIP*

"Steve Lind of the Washington State Highway Safety Commission, stated the commission was taking a neutral position for lack of any studies indicating lane-sharing as either a safe or dangerous practice. (H)e showed a video of a bike’s view of lane-splitting, he gleaned off of the internet that was, frankly, sketchy.

A representative of the Washington State Patrol testified that the department was taking a neutral position for the same reason that Steve Lind had. He also relayed a conversation with his counterpart at the CHP, reporting that most lane-sharing accidents are the fault of the motorcyclist and if he had his way, it would be outlawed in California.

“Texas” Larry Walker representing the Washington Road Riders Association, a state-level motorcycle rights organization (MRO) testified they were officially taking a neutral position for similar reasons and the WRRA membership was evenly divided on the matter. He also felt the bill, as written, was too vague and needed to be fleshed-out. Larry also intimated his personal view that lane-sharing was “institutional suicide”."

So - a traffic safety expert says there aren't any studies showing lane splitting to be safer than not lane splitting. A Washington State Patrol spokesperson testified that according to his counterpart with the California Highway Patrol, lane splitting should be outlawed in California. Finally, we have a lobbyist for the Washington State motorcycling community calling lane splitting "suicide".

I'm really enjoying perusing the "evidence" in support of lane splitting

I'd really hate to think that with all the "Professional" support given by these "Experts" (to take a "Neutral" stance) that our riding days are near an end.

I'm not referring to lane-sharing/splitting/filtering or any other form of passing slower moving or stopped automobiles in the adjacent lane only feet away (as you do every time you approach a traffic light that has more vehicles in one lane over the other that you are travelling faster in; perhaps 10 or more miles per hour faster). Or, when as you say the HOV lane is moving 20-30-60 miles per hour faster than the #1 lane with the ever present possibility of a lane jumper (which has happened to me a few times over the last few years of commuting on either WA167 or I-5) is any more or less dangerous?

I'm thinking that with these professionals and your opinion against further expanding the freedom of movement that those of us whom ride want to have the ability to explore to our own individual limits of comfort without fear of reprisal or unmitigated attack (vehiclular assault) from said motorist to become their own law-enforcers (which is called vigilantism).

I'm thinking that I should give up riding because, did you know? "Riding motorcycles is dangerous, and I know several people who have died while doing so." That is the same rhetoric used over and over by some "Professionals" that are opposed to anyone having the freedom to choose. The same non-riding, limited experienced people who make up the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, the National Transportation Safety Administration and the (Harley) Road Riders Association who don't even know what the F-ing front brake lever is used for...

If you think it is more dangerous than, as opposed to not more or less dangerous than riding a bike in general I can not support yours or their opinon.

I have been riding in other parts of the world with more congestion, faster speeds and more traffic control devices and round-a-bouts than they have here in Washington State or any of the 50-US States. And it (all of it - riding) is not any more or any less dangerous than riding past a row of parked cars along the sidewalk and having someone pull out, open a car door, or turn in front of you.

If you can't avoid any of those situations then I would highly recommend you give up riding because as they say, "Riding motorcycles is dangerous and you might die while doing so"!

We ride the same roads here in Washington and have come to at least two differing opinions. So who's is right - no one's is right. They are all wrong and we will all see that in time our government and the insurance agencies will determine that riding motorcycles is costing the tax payers too much money and they will outlaw it because a few "irresponsible" people cannot control their vehicle under the best of conditions.

JMHO

"With Risk, Comes Reward"

"He Who Dares, Wins"

"He Who Opposes Change, Will Neither Bask in the Comfort of Success or Wallow in the Failure of Their Desires"

 

[PacWestGS]

By the Way, I'm sure we could all sit down around the table (campfire) and have a few glasses of (your favorite drink) and discuss the merits and fallacies of lane-sharing and all have a wider view and understanding of what is really at stake here.

When some uneducated, inexperienced or ill advised persons' get to make policy and/or laws that affect other people with more education, training, experience and know-how. Then it causes these sorts of problems to exist.

When these laws were written (probaby in the late 60s and early 70s), there was no need to allow or disallow it. It was not seen as a positive or negative effect.

Times have changed, congestion is worse and getting worse. There needs to be foward thinking and inovative people in charge of our transportation needs and they need to be educated as to the benefits as well as the dangers posed by a growing population of motorcycle and scooter riders here in the US of A.

Without that change, we will continue to struggle down the gridlocked freeways and ever decreasing surface streets that make up our society.

Some people will die, more road rage will take place but as time progresses they will become "NORM" (as it is in other countries) and those people who choose for whatever reason not to ride will still gain from the benefits of those who do.

"ONE LESS CAR" = One less solo driver/rider sitting in a lane on a roadway taking up the same space and time of every other car going stop-go-stop until reaching the destination. Multiply that by hundreds or thousands and increase trained and experienced riders ten-fold over the next few years and you just surpassed the tax assisted (corrupted) under used mass transit system in WA State.

Cheers

 

[Threeteas]

This isn't an example of lane splitting saving lives - it's an example of getting the hell out of the way of dangerous drivers. Who cares what the law says if taking safe yet "illegal" action will save your life?

It's similar to running a red light when the small size of a bike won't trigger the traffic light sensors. Sure, technically it's illegal to run a red light, but if you explain to the officer that you waited through two cycles and your bike wouldn't trigger a green light for you, they'd let you go without giving you a ticket.

"Sorry I rode between the cars there officer, but otherwise I would have been rear-ended."

No cop will give you a ticket if you're trying to save your own skin and your actions don't further exacerbate or cause a dangerous situation.

I suppose that waiting until it becomes a matter of life or death is preferable to avoiding the situation from the start is it?

I'm not going to lay out the figures for you. They are there and I think you'll appreciate them all the more if you go and get them. Irrespective of Hurt, Boney's data showed a more current statistical peice of evidence, you could choose to argue against that.
So far you have said the arguement started when I accused you of using your political rights, now it's that I said you weren't qualified as you'd not read a report. I looked back and in fact it started when you were making assumptions about road conditions. In fact under the conditions you mentioned, I agreed I'd not lane share either. However, the conditions you proposed are not the everyday conditions that are faced here. They were a one off set of circumstances which you set to suit your arguement. I simply pointed out that your assumptions were not consistent and now neither are your accusations.

I did see elsewhere in campfire why you'd not lane share, or indeed ride on a wet day...you'd washed your bike at the weekend.

2004 proposal didn't have the limitations of the latest proposal included and even then no evidence was available to show lane-sharing would make matters worse.

It's the glass half empty, or half full.

TexasÔÇØ Larry Walker representing the Washington Road Riders Association, a state-level motorcycle rights organization (MRO) testified they were officially taking a neutral position for similar reasons and the WRRA membership was evenly divided on the matter. He also felt the bill, as written, was too vague and needed to be fleshed-out. Larry also intimated his personal view that lane-sharing was ÔÇ£institutional suicideÔÇØ."

You don't "intimate" something like that, either he said it blatantly or he didn't. If he did and those were his exact words, then perhaps it was because of the vagueness of the 2004 proposal, which I too felt was poorly conceived by the way.

I believe that the latest proposal meets the needs of riders, while respecting those of drivers too.
How would you see it changed, so that it became acceptable. You've stated that the lane betwen HOV and furthest left needs to be addressed-how?
You've said that you'd share if traffic was at a stand still, but also that 10mph over the traffic speed is insufficient, so what's your proposal there?

A quick question too, what level of training have you had, here or anywhere else (It's a genuine question, not an implied criticism)?

 

[PacWestGS]

Taking a different approach or look at the problem.

People who commute on bicycles

Why is it that some guy on two wheels with wide handlbars can ride under personal power up to an average speed of say 10-15 mph, with completely incapable brakes (as compared to a motorcycle), and he can safely pass and be passed by any number of autos (cars, pick-ups, and delivery trucks)? Back and forth they go down the road narrow as it may be.

Why is it that the one-person power rider is able to make the same average speed across town as the 200-horse power cage in stop-go-stop traffic? Each spending the same amount of time stopped at traffic lights - move forward and stop, move forward and stop.

All the while the rider is passing both stopped (parked) cars, and passing or being passed by a wide array of moving vehicles along his route.

Is he (the rider) any less aware of his surroundings? Are the drivers any more or less careful or careless of the bike rider as they play cat and mouse down the road?

Do the vehicle driver's have a contentious attitude of hate, disparity or inequality towards this bicycle rider? Because he is passing them every single time they have to stop for blocked traffic ahead of them. I'll answer that - NO! They (99.999%) do not feel any remorse or indifference towards that rider. Maybe there is 0.0001% asshats out there that feel they pay license tab taxes, car insurance and spend a small fortune fueling it, might believe they have a higher right to drive than the guy pedalling his way to work, but the majority could probably care less about him. And, some may even think, WOW! I should start riding to work, I'd get there in the same amount of time as driving or riding the bus.

Both bicycle rider and the drivers of cars share a responsibility if a collision occurs and the police will assign blame where it is needed. If the rider violated a law or rule of the road he is not without blame.

So if it so much more dangerous in the hands of an experienced and qualified rider (of a motor-driven) cycle or scooter to run in and out of traffic within the reasons of a set standard of care and resposibility. The same should hold true, don't you think?

If not, then I propose we create laws making it illegal for anyone on any form of transportation to actually pass any other motorist within say a proximity of five-feet (given that that's half the width of an average lane). And if this bill becomes law then the bicycle rider will be intitled to his space and no other vehicles will be allowed to pass him as long as he is not holding up five or more vehicles is maintaining the minimum speed as set forth in the vehicle codes and does not ride in the left lane any longer than is necessary to pass other vehicles or make a legal left turn.

What say you?

 

[bob_m]

Many Similarities

Taking a different approach or look at the problem.

People who commute on bicycles


What say you?

For those lucky enough to live where a 30 minute bicycle ride will get them to work, commuting on a bicycle is similar to commuting on a motorcycle. The agility and speed invigorate one as they travel. The commuter is part of the landscape and not watching it from a can. On a bicycle one has the advantage of arriving at work pumped with endorphines. Here in Portland bicycles are so common that motorists expect to see them much as motorists in LA expect to see lane splitting motorcycles during the freeway rush hour. It is just part of the culture. I have ridden in LA and done that very thing. It is freaking hairy! Even when you are only going 20 miles an hour faster than the gridlocked traffic, the focus necessary to look for head turns or to anticipate unsignaled lane changes is exhausting (exhilarating?!).

When I first moved to Oregon I split lanes thinking it was not that big a deal. This resulted in resentment and anger by drivers that accelerated my learning the culture here does not allow lane splitting. This all happened years before the words "Road Rage" became part of of our shared understanding. I think the idea of a wide berth law is a bad idea. It would result in cyclists blocking traffic, not sharing roads and it would result in resentment by drivers.

One serious down side about bicycle commuting is that one is extraordinarily vulnerable. It really bothers me when agressive (or stupid) cyclists anger drivers, because it makes them angry at all cyclists. I ride a bicycle in a manner to not to piss people off, because people in cars are poised to hurt people who make them angry. I nod or wave when I am extended a courtesy and try to be part of the Portland culture where bike and cars share the road.

I have driven in Washington and they have more than their share of bad drivers. (IMHO) Seattle is a dense congested modern city full of people who used to live in the country. It is not the car culture of LA where drivers are agressive and by necessity (usually) pretty good drivers. To just allow lane splitting in Washington would be a mistake. Urban cowboys stuck in traffic would resent and get angry at the percieved unfair advantage taken by motorcyclists and typical Seattle drivers, unused to seeing lane splitters, would hit them.

Lane splitting should be allowed after an extensive public relations campain and media blitz to introduce the practice and to begin to shift the culture into accepting lane splitting as a common and appropriate practice.

Even then it would not be a practice I would enjoy.

 

[boney]

It's similar to running a red light when the small size of a bike won't trigger the traffic light sensors. Sure, technically it's illegal to run a red light, but if you explain to the officer that you waited through two cycles and your bike wouldn't trigger a green light for you, they'd let you go without giving you a ticket.

Wow. Here in California we have a law on the books that allows a vehicle to proceed against a red light (when it is safe to do so) if the light is malfunctioning. I beleive, but haven't really looked into it, that being skipped for 2 cycles of lights is considered a "malfunction."

How is the "anti lane sharing" law written up there in WA? Are bicycles exempted from the lane sharing law or is every car/truck/motorcycle who passes one in the same lane breaking the law?

 

[Threeteas]

MSF web

additional info for consideration.

Motorcycle Safety Foundation


WHERE WE ARE

The relatively narrow width of a motorcycle on the road allows its rider to employ many strategies not available to drivers of other vehicles.

ÔÇó Motorcyclists can choose their position within their lane to avoid road surface hazards, other vehicles, pedestrians or other mobile hazards, intrusions, or potential intrusions into their right-of-way.

ÔÇó Motorcyclists may seek positions where they are in view of other drivers and pedestrians.

ÔÇó Motorcyclists may select a position that maximizes their view of the road and traffic ahead.

All states permit motorcycles to use high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes with a single rider on the motorcycle. Limited studies evaluating this practice have shown no traffic or safety problems (Jernigan, 1995).

A motorcycleÔÇÖs narrow width can allow it to pass between lanes of stopped or slow-moving cars on roadways where the lanes are wide enough to offer an adequate gap. This option can provide an escape route for motorcyclists who would otherwise be trapped or struck from behind. There is evidence (Hurt, 1981) that traveling between lanes of stopped or slow-moving cars (i.e., lane splitting) on multiple-lane roads (such as interstate highways) slightly reduces crash frequency compared with staying within the lane and moving with other traffic.

 

[OfficerImpersonator]

Wow. Here in California we have a law on the books that allows a vehicle to proceed against a red light (when it is safe to do so) if the light is malfunctioning. I beleive, but haven't really looked into it, that being skipped for 2 cycles of lights is considered a "malfunction."

How is the "anti lane sharing" law written up there in WA? Are bicycles exempted from the lane sharing law or is every car/truck/motorcycle who passes one in the same lane breaking the law?

There is no "anti-lane sharing" law on the books here. There is simply a law that says only one vehicle may occupy a lane at a time.

In Washington State, you can proceed against a red light if you have waited through two cycles without obtaining a green light and you yield to all other traffic.

 

[PacWestGS]

There is no "anti-lane sharing" law on the books here. There is simply a law that says only one vehicle may occupy a lane at a time.

In Washington State, you can proceed against a red light if you have waited through two cycles without obtaining a green light and you yield to all other traffic.

Ahh, but there is a law and the stipulation is that two motorcycles can ride abreast of each other, leaglly pass each other in the same lane if permitted by the rider, and that law enforcement officers on motorcycles can pass all other motorist as necessary.

RCW 46.61.608
Operating motorcycles on roadways laned for traffic.

(1) All motorcycles are entitled to full use of a lane and no motor vehicle shall be driven in such a manner as to deprive any motorcycle of the full use of a lane. This subsection shall not apply to motorcycles operated two abreast in a single lane.

(2) The operator of a motorcycle shall not overtake and pass in the same lane occupied by the vehicle being overtaken.

(3) No person shall operate a motorcycle between lanes of traffic or between adjacent lines or rows of vehicles.

(4) Motorcycles shall not be operated more than two abreast in a single lane.

(5) Subsections (2) and (3) of this section shall not apply to police officers in the performance of their official duties.


[1975 c 62 ?º 46.] <<<<<<< 37 years ago, this may have been not needed, and now it is causing problems for a larger society.


Notes:
Rules of court: Monetary penalty schedule -- IRLJ 6.2.

Severability -- 1975 c 62: See note following RCW 36.75.010.


I just want what's good for the police to be good for me too, because it will be good for everyone.

I'm not saying you have to do it, I'm not saying people who drive cars will like it but, they can always ride a bike/scooter and have the same privileges as we are seeking.

In time it will become accepted and life will continue forward for all.

 

[Threeteas]

The devil is in the detail

Does that mean that if two bikes are together in the lane (4), neither can go ahead of the other or drop behind, but must stay level together (2), forever and ever and ever, or until they leave the state?

Just goes to show, even existing laws can be questionable.

 

[PacWestGS]

Does that mean that if two bikes are together in the lane (4), neither can go ahead of the other or drop behind, but must stay level together (2), forever and ever and ever, or until they leave the state?

Just goes to show, even existing laws can be questionable.

Your not being serious are you?

Yes, once you lock handlebars with the bike next to you, you can not seperate until departing the state. Even if one has to go to the bathroom.

But if by chance you were, would that allow space for a motor officer to pass the pair (three wide) in the same lane?

 

[Threeteas]

illegal humour

I'm serious that even laws that set out to make sense, have to be thoroughly thought out, otherwise you can come up with daft exceptions like I did.

Laws should evolve with the times to reflect the needs of the current situations.

As to riding 'hand-in-hand' for the length of WA, then no, I'm not serious, but does that make me a law breaker?

According to these laws it would.

 

[PacWestGS]

AFAIK laws are created to protect the smallest dumbest parts of our society from themselves. I fear as time marches on the laws will evolve to make anything dangerous outlawed, (guns, bikes, skateboards and picking your nose) and you will not be permitted to discuss those laws with lawmakers or law enforcers. Common sense has died long ago and the freeist of nations in the world has some of the strictest laws to prevent freedom.

Except maybe talking on your cell phone, while eating, applying makeup, and doing a crossword puzzle, while simultaneously changing the CD/DVD multidisk changer at 70 during rush hour.

But that's JMO

As far as changing the law to allow lane-sharing for cycles and scooters during heavy congestion periods or blocked traffic ahead - I think it will happen someday, but probably not in Washington first.

 

[OfficerImpersonator]

Ahh, but there is a law and the stipulation is that two motorcycles can ride abreast of each other, leaglly pass each other in the same lane if permitted by the rider, and that law enforcement officers on motorcycles can pass all other motorist as necessary.

RCW 46.61.608
Operating motorcycles on roadways laned for traffic.

(1) All motorcycles are entitled to full use of a lane and no motor vehicle shall be driven in such a manner as to deprive any motorcycle of the full use of a lane. This subsection shall not apply to motorcycles operated two abreast in a single lane.

(2) The operator of a motorcycle shall not overtake and pass in the same lane occupied by the vehicle being overtaken.

(3) No person shall operate a motorcycle between lanes of traffic or between adjacent lines or rows of vehicles.

(4) Motorcycles shall not be operated more than two abreast in a single lane.

(5) Subsections (2) and (3) of this section shall not apply to police officers in the performance of their official duties.


[1975 c 62 ?º 46.] <<<<<<< 37 years ago, this may have been not needed, and now it is causing problems for a larger society.


Notes:
Rules of court: Monetary penalty schedule -- IRLJ 6.2.

Severability -- 1975 c 62: See note following RCW 36.75.010.


I just want what's good for the police to be good for me too, because it will be good for everyone.

I'm not saying you have to do it, I'm not saying people who drive cars will like it but, they can always ride a bike/scooter and have the same privileges as we are seeking.

In time it will become accepted and life will continue forward for all.

I believe the rationale for allowing motor officers to lane split is that they might be attempting to get through traffic backed up behind an accident to quickly get to the scene of the incident. With lights and sirens going, they should be able to lane split rather efficiently.

 

[PacWestGS]

Say, as efficiently with or without a siren that you can't hear in the modern cage with the windows rolled up? And, when was the last time you saw someone driving move out of the way for a big red fire truck before it was tailgating them?

Just asking.

The law as is was written in 1975 without any changes since, I think things have changed since then.

 

[Threeteas]

being obvious

With lights and sirens going, they should be able to lane split rather efficiently.

Can I take it that means, you'd support lane sharing in WA, if bikes are fitted with modulating headlights (see Goldwings) and loud cans?

 

[OfficerImpersonator]

Can I take it that means, you'd support lane sharing in WA, if bikes are fitted with modulating headlights (see Goldwings) and loud cans?

I have a modulating headlight. People still merge in on me all the time. It's dangerous out there for us two-wheeled folks I tell you!

I'd like to try the siren route, but I think that might cause more problems than it solves.

I do have dual Fiamm horns - maybe I should just permanently close the switch so they sound all the time?

Too bad I'm too old to become a State Trooper. Just saw one of their R1150RT-Ps in my wrench's shop. Man are those a beautiful bike in white and black - and they look so sharp with the single seat and radio box. I think a used RT-P will be my next bike.

It would be nice to have people get out of my way for a change. I'm tired of always having to be the guy who flinches in traffic.

 

[Threeteas]

It would be nice to have people get out of my way for a change. I'm tired of always having to be the guy who flinches in traffic.

My experience with lane sharing is that most people will move to let you through, in the UK, France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, in fact everywhere in Europe that I've ridden, in North and South Africa. Istanbul was the one exception although I believe Mumbai in India is bad, but they are due to no lane constraints and vast amounts of traffic. Certainly WA is no where near as bad.

 

[Threeteas]

flinch avoidance

Oh yes and California where I was lanesharing on the highway. It wasn't at all threatening and I wish I could have done it later in the ride when stuck outside Portland in a long, long, jam.

I'll be taking my rider instructor exams over the next few months. If I pass, I'll be happy to have you come down to the training range DV and run through a few exercises that might help you with those flinches.