WA-support lane sharing

[OfficerImpersonator]

I have always said that my opposition to this legislation stems from MY BELIEF as to how lane splitting would manifest itself here in WASHINGTON STATE, given the state of our roads, weather conditions and distracted and raging drivers.

You can take your data and shove it up your tail pipe. I've never presented data and I've never argued with your data. There is no data out there that predicts how WASHINGTON STATE drivers will respond to lane splitting. Show me data with an acceptable confidence interval that Washington drivers won't respond to lane splitting with anger and vindictiveness and burning cigarette butts and cups of cold coffee and middle fingers and last minute swerves to cut a splitting motorcyclist off and I'll support your precious legislation.

The ONLY reason anyone would lane split is to save time. If time is so precious a commodity, move closer to your destination or leave earlier.

 

[FatChance]

Just a question from a disinterested outside observer, why should there be pressure on one of the 49 states where lane splitting is specifically illegal to legalize it when no one wants to pressure the one state where it is not illegal to also specifically legalize it? You would think that if anyone could craft a law based upon their own experience, it would be California. So why not also try to get them to legalize the practice? You may wonder why someone should legalize something that is already not illegal, but states have vested interests in what their laws actually say and mean. Have any of the Californians who are discussing what Washington should do ever asked their own state to craft a law specifically legalizing lane splitting in California?

 

[Threeteas]

I have always said that my opposition to this legislation stems from MY BELIEF as to how lane splitting would manifest itself here in WASHINGTON STATE, given the state of our roads, weather conditions and distracted and raging [COLOR="red[COLOR="red"]"](emotive and inacurate-imbuing personal judgement as a quality laid upon a group of which you have demonstrated no monitorable knowledge or repesentational status...a sweeping statement without foundation, analytical, historic, quantifiable.) [/COLOR][/COLOR] drivers.

You can take your data and shove it up your tail pipe (Not vey constructive or polite). I've never presented data and I've never argued with your data. There is no data out there that predicts how WASHINGTON STATE drivers will respond to lane splitting (Yes there is, it's based on human/driver behaviour-Washington drivers meet these criteria and are not special cases, only limited experience with other drivers in other areas could lead to such a presumption of WA uniqueness). Show me data with an acceptable confidence interval that Washington drivers won't respond to lane splitting with anger and vindictiveness and burning cigarette butts and cups of cold coffee and middle fingers and last minute swerves to cut a splitting motorcyclist off (any evidence, any at all, anywhere to back up this spurious verbage?) and I'll support your precious (emotive language, not worthy of comment, but commented upon none-the-less)) legislation.

The ONLY reason anyone would lane split is to save time (No it's not-read earlier in thread where rear ending was mentioned). If time is so precious a commodity (See emotive), move closer to your destination or leave earlier.Impractical solution as it suposes that traffic will always be static or slow at exactly the same time each day and has no variances, such as wave braking

So, you are saying your arguements have no validity what so ever, but are happy to have presented them as "knowledge" to senoir legislators. That your opinions have no credence at all, however your bias outweighs the research undertaken by others and their experiences and their data can be shoved.

It's a very open minded approach to democracy I must say, based solely on mustering support based on emotive, unsubstantiated, self-serving bigotry and ranting louder than others.
I'm genuinely disappointed in the position you have taken and believe with a little more consideration you could have been an able ally, willing to assist the advancement of motorcycling. Shame and a waste.

 

[OfficerImpersonator]

So, you are saying your arguements have no validity what so ever, but are happy to have presented them as "knowledge" to senoir legislators. That your opinions have no credence at all, however your bias outweighs the research undertaken by others and their experiences and their data can be shoved.

It's a very open minded approach to democracy I must say, based solely on mustering support based on emotive, unsubstantiated, self-serving bigotry and ranting louder than others.
I'm genuinely disappointed in the position you have taken and believe with a little more consideration you could have been an able ally, willing to assist the advancement of motorcycling. Shame and a waste.

Mr. Lamble,

You are now officially off your rocker. I have shared with my elected state representative, who was a co-sponsor of the legislation, my concerns with the legislation. It is my constitutional right to do so. It is also my constitutional right to express my opinions and beliefs in public forums such as this.

I refuse to continue to allow you to mischaracterize my remarks. You continue to lambaste me for expressing my opinions, as if I shouldn't have the right to do so. You've called me a bigot. What racial group have I disparaged with my comments and observations? You say I "rant louder than others". I don't see a volume control on my computer screen, so how can I "rant louder than others"? What arguments have I made that are without validity? If you'd like to comment on specific opinions I've shared, I'd be happy to discuss our differences in a rational and deliberative manner. Unfortunately, it appears you've become quite frustrated with this discussion and have resorted to name calling and character assassination to score points.

I have, at all times until now, disagreed with you and expressed my opinions in a calm, deliberative and rational manner. I have attempted to engage in a civilized discourse. You have chosen to respond with insults to my character. You, sir, do not know me well enough to comment upon my character. Please refrain from doing so in the future.

 

[Threeteas]

Mr. Lamble,

You are now officially off your rocker. I have shared with my elected state representative, who was a co-sponsor of the legislation, my concerns with the legislation. It is my constitutional right to do so. It is also my constitutional right to express my opinions and beliefs in public forums such as this.

I refuse to continue to allow you to mischaracterize my remarks. You continue to lambaste me for expressing my opinions, as if I shouldn't have the right to do so. You've called me a bigot. What racial group have I disparaged with my comments and observations? You say I "rant louder than others". I don't see a volume control on my computer screen, so how can I "rant louder than others"? What arguments have I made that are without validity? If you'd like to comment on specific opinions I've shared, I'd be happy to discuss our differences in a rational and deliberative manner. Unfortunately, it appears you've become quite frustrated with this discussion and have resorted to name calling and character assassination to score points.

I have, at all times until now, disagreed with you and expressed my opinions in a calm, deliberative and rational manner. I have attempted to engage in a civilized discourse. You have chosen to respond with insults to my character. You, sir, do not know me well enough to comment upon my character. Please refrain from doing so in the future.

Where and how do you read personal attacks into my comments. I point out the fragility of the arguements you make and you take it personally...I don't understand your complaint.

 

[OfficerImpersonator]

So, you are saying your arguements have no validity what so ever, but are happy to have presented them as "knowledge" to senoir legislators. That your opinions have no credence at all, however your bias outweighs the research undertaken by others and their experiences and their data can be shoved.

It's a very open minded approach to democracy I must say, based solely on mustering support based on emotive, unsubstantiated, self-serving bigotry and ranting louder than others.
I'm genuinely disappointed in the position you have taken and believe with a little more consideration you could have been an able ally, willing to assist the advancement of motorcycling. Shame and a waste.

Where and how do you read personal attacks into my comments. I point out the fragility of the arguements you make and you take it personally...I don't understand your complaint.

I'm moving on with my life as this issue is resolved for this legislative session. I suggest you do the same.

 

[Threeteas]

Let's clarify bigotry isn't racist, it's taking a stance against other groups, in this case those wanting lane sharing.
Bigot-n. One who holds obstinately to a belief or opinion intolerantly of others. source OED abridged version 1984

As pointed out earlier by your goodself, you have added cred from your access to people in the know.
Using capitals in text is a commonly accepted form of "shouting", plus shouting doesn't always equate to purely volume, the chosen wordage can indicate shouting "shove it up your tail pipe" is surely not a whispered comment after all is it?

Your arguements state a knowledge of all the WA car drivers, you have no such knowledge and so the arguement is unsubstantiated.

None of these, or any other comments I have made are more than criticism of your comments and the structure of your arguements, in fact standard debate techniques, totally devoid of the personal aspect.

You may and probably are, in all other matters the consumate human being and I'd hasten to add, as such, a potential friend-we do share motorcycling as a common thread.
I'm not out to score points against you, that would be futile, I am however out to show the stance you have taken against the lane sharing amendment is not a valid arguement.


Please distinguish between the two, as it will make you and I far happier.

Oh, and I'm not off my rocker...that is a personal attack and beneath both you and I, sir.

 

[Threeteas]

News I've just received:

I believe Lane sharing/splitting won't be passed this year in WA as the Bill did not move out of committee, but will continue into next year.

I thank those who showed support and especially those who did not, as we now have a clearer indication as to those issues we need to address and where the objections will come from and in what form.

It was an enlightening first look for me, at the US's processes.

Dvandkq, I hope that our m/cycling commonality will enable this discussion to be regarded in a lighter vein, as I'd hate to have someone who rides the first bike I had and hold in fond memory, as an adversary, although I believe we will continue to disagree on the lane sharing subject.

See you all again at the next reading.

 

[12BSWAYED]

I don't have much to say on this form, but after reading the bantering on this thread I feel I must say thanks so much for saving me from myself. From preventing me from choice.....I'm so glad that you will be fighting for my right not to choose to lane split or not.

I'm sure lane splitting will be back in future legislative sessions, and you can feel free to ask your representatives to enact a bill that would permit lane splitting. Just keep in mind that I'll be there, too - actively fighting any attempt to allow lane splitting here in Washington State.

 

[dtgates]

disappointed...

I am disappointed that bill is dead (this year).
To me it really makes sense to allow lane splitting or at least filtering to the front of a stop light. There is data out there that suggests filtering is safer (decreased rear end collisions), but also, I think this is a huge advantage to the motorcycle commuter.
One of the reason I ride is to commute to and from work. I can get from Renton to Bothell (about 25 miles) in the morning on the 405 in about 30-35 minutes in the HOV lane whereas it can take as long as 90 minutes in the car. A big part of that 30-35 minutes is on the surface arterial streets getting to the 405. Allowing filtering to the front of the stop lights would only make motorcycling commuting more attractive.

 

[Threeteas]

It's not the beginning of the end...

...just the end of the beginning.


We, the pro lane sharing riders, will just need to remember to lobby, or give support to lobbyists, fighting to overcome the ignorance, prejudices and bigotry of those in the minority (see poll).
Facts, figures and I hope logic, will outweigh the emotive, unsubstantiated and poorly professed beliefs of the anti folks (be they lovely people or not).

It's a case of long term education, which is tedious, tiresome, hard and unrewarding in the short term. But, as I tried to explain, success in one m/cycle initiative, well presented and supported, could lead to many more biking benefits being gained over time.

 

[Threeteas]

positive gov't feedback

FRom a fellow GSer.


I received a reply from my one Representative (Rep. Ruth Kagi) after I
wrote to her urging her to support the lane splitting bill, HB 2160.

Here is a snippet from her reply: "After reading the bill and
discovering research out of California, I believe this bill may have
some merit. There will need to be some major education for legislators
by pro-motorcycle groups on what this legislation will do and what
have been the repercussions in other states. I will support HB 2160
should it come to the floor for a vote.".

Also, video of the house transportation committee hearing on HB2160 is
on-line at TVW -
http://www.tvw.org/MediaPlayer/Archived/WME.cfm?EVNum=2007020205&TYPE=V
It includes excellent testimony by a fellow GS-er, Russ Darr (sp?).

Eugene

 

[Threeteas]

I've just watched the video from the presentations in Olympia and have to say that the final two people presenting (the anti-lobby) would, if I were a layman, sway me to vote against the amendment. People dying and having arms torn off, that's a very strong arguement, except...under what circumstances were these incidents happening?

It's just conceivable the chp rider was in pursuit and travelling very fast indeed (arms don't just pop off), the older guys who lost friends didn't mention how, or why they crashed either...were they wearing helmets, were they riding in a group, too fast, inebriated, at unsuitable speeds perhaps...

But, sitting on those benches, all I'd hear would be, accident, injury, death.

In the UK, we aren't taught how to filter, it's not a mandatory part of our exam. Our roads are equally as poor, if not worse than here, they are just as crowded and our drivers are no more or less curtious/aware/able/attentive than those in WA, or anywhere else for that matter (Calcutta being an exception, where driving is appalling and I'd not ride in the city at all), however, from all of the information that can be gathered from around the world, lane sharing does not increase accidents, so how do we do it?
Perhaps every rider in the UK and every driver in the UK is better than their counterparts here in the USA. Perhaps this applies to every rider and driver around the world, in which case the USA is home to the worst riders and drivers?

I don't think this is the case for a moment.

People in cars and trucks don't want their vehicles hit by other vehicles, be they other cars, motorcycles, pedal bikes even pedestrians, and those using other vehicles don't want to be in collisions either. It's inconvenient (all that lost time filling in papers and forms for insurance, the time off the road for repairs) so they keep out of each others way. I saw cars move from the HOV lane to let faster vehicles get passed, cars and bikes.
People don't want to be involved in accidents or cause them.

Annecdotal, emotive statements sound good and hit our human nature self preservation buttons, but these statements are just not true and are beliefs, not facts.

I hope that legislators can see the difference.

Oh and to let you know, I'd have said filtering above 30 mph wasn't necessary, as that's making progress as far as I'm concerned, so under the proposal, traffic flowing at 20mph would have been where I'd have drawn the limit. It provides the safety measure of not being in a position where you will get tailended, but allows controlled progression. Perhaps it's a compromise they'll come to...I do hope so.

 

[dtgates]

video testimony

I watched the video as well.

The older gentleman at the end who said he saw many friends 'go down' because of lane sharing has a credibility issue IMO.

Basically, he is testifying that lane sharing is unsafe. Yet, he says he will purposely pull his car into the path of a motorcyclist who is attempting to overtake him while lane sharing. IMO, this sounds like an act of aggression (road rage). He seems like a nice jolly guy on the video, but I think he has his priorities mixed up a bit about what 'safe' or 'unsafe' is.

Just a thought I had while watching.

p.s.
lamble;
I sent you a couple of PM's, did you get them?

 

[Threeteas]

I watched the video as well.

I sent you a couple of PM's, did you get them?

Had them, responded to them and forwarded them to the Bill principles.

Thanks.

I must admit I didn't pick up that it was the old boy himself that would block progression by lane sharers, but I just thought he could have been any guy pulled in off the street. He had no credibility other than he'd lived in California before, a number of years ago and had friends who had had accidents.

I fell off my bike in the UK where lane sharing is allowed, (however, the two were not related as I was on a muddy undulating forest track at the time and riding a street bike with road tyres. I fell off 22 times in a hour trying to take a short cut, in fact for the last 30 minutes I rode side saddle, so I didn't squash the fish and chips I was carrying in a pocket). So let's ban fish and chips. That's as spurious an arguement as he put forward-no foundation, evidence or association with the issue at hand. The Police guy had nothing better either, just emotional impact.

However, this may be sufficient to kill the bill (hey there's a good title for a film).

Finally, there was one moment the pro group shot themselves in the foot. When asked to speculate on what might happen if the Bill were introduced, they should have stuck to the line that they'd expect rear end accidents to reduce in line with the data they had. Anything beyond this wouldn't have any credence, as there is no data available.

The idea that you have to crash to learn is wrong. In the UK you don't get taught to filter, you use caution and judgement to do it. It's not a case of, "Did you filter today?
"Yes, and fell into only 3 cars, so that's two less than yesterday. I think I'll have it down to 1 by the end of the week."
"That is good news".

From day one, you make progression safely and cautiously, because...and this might seem a little far out to some..you don't want to be involved in an incident, so you take precautions when filtering, just like you do the rest of the time. It's why you put a foot down when you come to a halt, rather than try to balance. It's why you don't stand on the saddle to see over the car infront, I could go on but most of you have the idea already, others, will have their eyes covered and fingers in ears, while going, "blah blah blah, can't hear you!"

 

[dtgates]

Finally, there was one moment the pro group shot themselves in the foot. When asked to speculate on what might happen if the Bill were introduced, they should have stuck to the line that they'd expect rear end accidents to reduce in line with the data they had. Anything beyond this wouldn't have any credence, as there is no data available.

"

Yes. That really hurt their case.
I think this what lead to the comment of mandatory liability insurance for motorcyclists since there will be (in their minds) a temporary increase of 'accidents'.

 

[boney]

Just a question from a disinterested outside observer, why should there be pressure on one of the 49 states where lane splitting is specifically illegal to legalize it when no one wants to pressure the one state where it is not illegal to also specifically legalize it? You would think that if anyone could craft a law based upon their own experience, it would be California. So why not also try to get them to legalize the practice? You may wonder why someone should legalize something that is already not illegal, but states have vested interests in what their laws actually say and mean. Have any of the Californians who are discussing what Washington should do ever asked their own state to craft a law specifically legalizing lane splitting in California?

I'd just like to clarify the issue about Lane Sharing here in Kalifornistan.

It is legal here. I forget the proper legal term for the way it works, but our laws provide that if something is not illegal, then it is legal- no further law/documentation necessary. So, in other words, since lane sharing has not been outlawed, there is no reason to put a law on the books to make it legal- it already is- by default.

In My Opinion, what you are looking for is guidelines by which to split lanes. The Department of Motor Vehicles and the California Highway Patrol already cover that pretty well.

www.dmv.ca.gov

Years ago someone thought it necessary to legislate lane sharing out of existence in California. Who came to the side of the motorcyclists to prevent it from becoming law? One of the largest law enforcement agencies in the U.S.- The California Highway Patrol.

 

[Threeteas]

Facts are what count

Yes. That really hurt their case.
I think this is what lead to the comment of mandatory liability insurance for motorcyclists since there will be (in their minds) a temporary increase of 'accidents'.

It's a shame, as this was an expression of belief, again based on no facts, so should have been treated as such, but wasn't. There should be no increase, as there are no facts that show there would be.

In the UK I wasn't allowed to turn right at red lights, or to overtake on inside lanes. The rules here are different and I adapted.

What about US drivers in Europe, especially the UK where we drive on the correct side, are they knocking down motorcyclists, driving on the wrong side? No, they adapt to the regulations. We are all capable of self preservation.
I don't feel anti to mandatory insurance though, it was a law in the UK, so I'm sort of committed to it.

 

[PacWestGS]

Do I still get "special privileges" in Washington to move to the front of the waiting line to get on and off the ferry first? Just checking cause I'd hate to PO any of those waiting drivers who all say (later, on the ferry) "That's a nice thing they do here, letting you guys on and off first without waiting in the rain". Yep, I think it's pretty cool too. Now, if I could ride past you when you're stuck in traffic. Just think, one less car on the road. One less vehicle taking up the space of a whole car stuck, waiting like you, one less person sitting between you and where you want to be. If a thousand more people rode MCs back and forth to work (because of percieved benefits) there would be a thousand less cars on the road at that same time.

When you get gas on your bike, do you wait out in the rain behind the car/SUV that is waiting for the one stopped at the last pump to move when the forward pump is clear, or do you weave forward, knowing that you will not have held anyone up while filling your tank and being on your way again? If you do then you are filtering, you are filtering because you can, you don't have to, but you can. You can do lots of things cars can't do because you are small and manueverable, you are here and then you are gone, you have inconvenienced no one, everyone was able to get gas quicker or at the same time it would have taken for everyone to wait like "Sheeples" because that is the way it had always been done. No one has ever been shot or run over for getting to the front of the gas line on a MC, but several have been backed over waiting in line. It's just a choice.

Some of you must always make right turns here in WA, because you've not been waiting forever for the left turn light to recognize your MC or you broke the law and turned left after an amount of time. It's a choice, wait for a car to pull up behind you, run the red, or go straight and make a U-Turn later. It's just a choice.

I don't want special privileges, I just want to be recognized as a benefit to society in my choice of transportation, if that means I will take up no more and usually much less space, then everyone benefits. It's just a choice.

It's only a choice, you can drive or ride, you can ride in the lane like everyone else (hoping for the same space allowance as all the other cars around you) or you can take advantage of your size and manueverability and pull alongside, past and around the cars stuck in what is a failure of legislature to improve traffic conditions in our state. Or, you can wait patiently for that "inatentive" driver slaming into the back of you. It's all a choice. Some you will walk away from, others you not ever walk again from. It's all just a choice.

Let me choose, I'm the one riding, I don't always have to ride any particular way, it is my responsibility to ride safely at all times, it that allows me to get past cars stuck in traffic for what ever the reason from, construction, accidents, to just plain too many cars, trucks and buses all trying to go to the same place at the same time, on a system of roads that cannot accommodate everyone. Let me help them to move better, because I won't be there waiting like them, I will be gone, along on my to my destination and everyone else will be getting there one less car faster.

Harmony and less stress for everyone.

JMHO
YMMV

It's your personal responsibilty to avoid hitting another vehicle not only because it cost money, but because it hurts. If your skills are not what they should be I would recommend against "Lane-Sharing" it may be hazardous to your health. If waiting like all the other people in the world is what makes you comfortable why ride a bike when the car is so much more comfortable? I can even drink coffee and talk on the phone when I drive. They allow people to do that even if it puts all others around you at a higher risk, especially those others whom choose to ride a motorcycle. There are no laws against being stupid in this country, so why do we have one that prevents others from someone elses stupidity?

Just asking.

 

[glwestcott]

For those of you who are against this but don't live in a state (California) that allows it or in another country that does, it seems to me that your opinions are basically uniformed. Those of us that live where it is common practice can talk about safety and other issues and you can't as it applies to lane splitting. It reminds me of friends who don't ride bikes and always explain how terribly dangerous it is. I don't take their opinions very seriously on that particular subject either.

Think I'll sit back after that one!