WA-support lane sharing

[Threeteas]

it's in the detail

If you want to legalize lane sharing you have to show that it makes sense for the majority of road users (car drivers).

The Hurt report shows that it's safer for motorcycles to lane share than to have their butts sticking out in traffic - so what. It's probably safer for kids to be seat-belted in school buses than not, but there's no legislation requiring seat belts, it doesn't make economic sense.

What is the economic impact?
The data are probably available for California, so do the math.
.

The school bus seat belts issue arose in the UK not too long ago. It's sad to say it took many children's deaths for law makers to see beyond the cost arguement and those deaths came in two major accidents, very close in time, to reinforce the case for while public opinion was still at the hotly concerned stage.

The cost implications will be added to the case for, however when you get someone turn up from California, who says he's lost friends riding, then we get back to the emotive, urban myth material and the "What price a single life?" question.

I've lost a friend in a motorcycle accident, the circumstances have nothing to do with lane sharing, in fact he was racing at the Isle of Man. The detail is what matters and what the Californian should have included. My friend became a statistic and now his fatality has changed how marshalling is carried out. My point is this, we need to get beyond the "I've got a friend who says", "I heard down the pub that..." and let's see how the existing law can be changed, so that more lives can be saved.

Tonkandy, I thank you for looking at this from an ambivalent view point and adding your considered opinion on a way forward, whilst not having a vested interest.

 

[OfficerImpersonator]

Lamble,

You obviously have a personal vendetta against me. After all, you mention my user name like ten times per post. That's fine - you're allowed to get personal with your arguments, but I've never once attacked your integrity nor your intelligence - something you seem to enjoy doing to me. That's fine. I have enough self esteem to weather your storm.

So tonkandy posts that his concern with the proposal to make Washington State the only one to specifically legalize lane splitting is that it won't be accepted by car drivers.

Why didn't you jump down his throat like you did when I made exactly the same contention the centerpiece of my argument opposing HB 2160?

I have always said that introducing lane splitting to Washington State will further the rift between riders and drivers. Drivers, the vast majority of the tonnage moving along our highways - already have a low enough opinion of riders. Adding motorcycles zooming between them when they're stuck in traffic and the anger will rise to the point that someone will die in a road rage incident.

When I make the argument, it requires a five paragraph response from you pointing out how stupid I am. When someone else makes the argument, you reply with "I thank you for looking at this from an ambivalent view point and adding your considered opinion on a way forward, whilst not having a vested interest."

Whatever.

I'm just glad we've been able to finally point out your personal bias against anything I have to say, regardless of what I'm saying.

Lane splitting ain't coming to Washington State this year.

Now - back to work and something that actually matters!

 

[Threeteas]

Listen, for the umpteenth time dvandkq, I've nothing against you as a person. The only personal comments that have been made have been from you. Everyone else, including me, have managed to stick to criticism of your comments rather than you as an individual.
I've even offered solutions if you feel victimised.
I was encouraged to keep the anti brigades views coming in as they showed the hypocrasy of their (your) arguements and present the best source of points that the pro brigade could find they need to answer..

I think, personally speaking, that I've heard all you can add to the arguement.
Tonkandy added a new facet to the discussion and from a non-biased stance, he didn't coat it in trite hearsay and unsubstantiated claims.

I won't be addressing any of your comments from here on, as they only detract from the point of this thread. I'm sure many people who have read this thread will have formulated opinions about you and your stance and I respect them for joining me in keeping them to themselves.

When you have anything of value to add, that remains on topic, perhaps you'll avail us of your considered thoughts, supported by facts.

 

[Threeteas]

street survival

Back on topic.
Sorry I got distracted.

Here's an interesting article that folks might like to read.


http://www.motorcyclecruiser.com/streetsurvival/splitting_lanes/

 

[OfficerImpersonator]

Listen, for the umpteenth time dvandkq, I've nothing against you as a person. The only personal comments that have been made have been from you. Everyone else, including me, have managed to stick to criticism of your comments rather than you as an individual.
I've even offered solutions if you feel victimised.
I was encouraged to keep the anti brigades views coming in as they showed the hypocrasy of their (your) arguements and present the best source of points that the pro brigade could find they need to answer..

I think, personally speaking, that I've heard all you can add to the arguement.
Tonkandy added a new facet to the discussion and from a non-biased stance, he didn't coat it in trite hearsay and unsubstantiated claims.

I won't be addressing any of your comments from here on, as they only detract from the point of this thread. I'm sure many people who have read this thread will have formulated opinions about you and your stance and I respect them for joining me in keeping them to themselves.

When you have anything of value to add, that remains on topic, perhaps you'll avail us of your considered thoughts, supported by facts.

Lamble,

All I've ever asked is for is for you to acknowledge that I'm entitled to express my opinion in this forum and to my elected representatives.

You have said my opinions are irrelevant as they don't have data to substantiate them. That's fine - personally I think an opinion can exist independent of supporting data. Common sense and practical solutions don't need no supporting data to be viable options.

For the umpteenth time, your only argument against my arguments is that the data from California shows lane splitting is safe. As pointed out by others, that same data also says it's just as safe to ride without a helmet as it is to ride with a helmet. To me, that says the data is suspect. Your entitled to your opinion as well, but if you're using data that also says helmets don't improve motorcycle safety, I'm going to question the quality of your data.

That the data comes from California, with California drivers, California weather, and California traffic makes this data, in my opinion, irrelevant to proposals to change Washington State law.

You turned against me the very moment I shared with this thread the actions I took to convey my opinions on this matter to my elected officials. You inferred that I was cheating by going directly to my State Representative and laying out my case against introducing lane splitting in Washington State.

You know, it is possible to make public policy decisions without reams of data to support one proposal over another. Common sense and rational thought get to play a role, too.

 

[Threeteas]

This has been referred to a number of times:


"The Hurt Report"
(AKA "Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and Identification of Countermeasures")


A brief summary of the findings is listed below. To order the full report, contact:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, Virginia 22161
(703)-487-4600
and order:
Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and Identification of Countermeasures, Volume 1: Technical Report, Hurt, H.H., Ouellet, J.V. and Thom, D.R., Traffic Safety Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90007, Contract No. DOT HS-5-01160, January 1981 (Final Report)
Vol.I (The Main Report and Summary) is PB81206443 (~400 pages)
Vol.II (Appendix: Supplementary Data) is PB81206450 (~400 pages)
Either document is $42.95 plus $3.00 shipping. (circa 1990)


Summary of Findings


Throughout the accident and exposure data there are special observations which relate to accident and injury causation and characteristics of the motorcycle accidents studied. These findings are summarized as follows:

1. Approximately three-fourths of these motorcycle accidents involved collision with another vehicle, which was most often a passenger automobile.

2. Approximately one-fourth of these motorcycle accidents were single vehicle accidents involving the motorcycle colliding with the roadway or some fixed object in the environment.

3. Vehicle failure accounted for less than 3% of these motorcycle accidents, and most of those were single vehicle accidents where control was lost due to a puncture flat.

4. In single vehicle accidents, motorcycle rider error was present as the accident precipitating factor in about two-thirds of the cases, with the typical error being a slideout and fall due to overbraking or running wide on a curve due to excess speed or under-cornering.

5. Roadway defects (pavement ridges, potholes, etc.) were the accident cause in 2% of the accidents; animal involvement was 1% of the accidents.

6. In multiple vehicle accidents, the driver of the other vehicle violated the motorcycle right-of-way and caused the accident in two-thirds of those accidents.

7. The failure of motorists to detect and recognize motorcycles in traffic is the predominating cause of motorcycle accidents. The driver of the other vehicle involved in collision with the motorcycle did not see the motorcycle before the collision, or did not see the motorcycle until too late to avoid the collision.

8. Deliberate hostile action by a motorist against a motorcycle rider is a rare accident cause. The most frequent accident configuration is the motorcycle proceeding straight then the automobile makes a left turn in front of the oncoming motorcycle.

10. Intersections are the most likely place for the motorcycle accident, with the other vehicle violating the motorcycle right-of-way, and often violating traffic controls.

11. Weather is not a factor in 98% of motorcycle accidents.

12. Most motorcycle accidents involve a short trip associated with shopping, errands, friends, entertainment or recreation, and the accident is likely to happen in a very short time close to the trip origin.

13. The view of the motorcycle or the other vehicle involved in the accident is limited by glare or obstructed by other vehicles in almost half of the multiple vehicle accidents.

14. Conspicuity of the motorcycle is a critical factor in the multiple vehicle accidents, and accident involvement is significantly reduced by the use of motorcycle headlamps (on in daylight) and the wearing of high visibility yellow, orange or bright red jackets.

15. Fuel system leaks and spills were present in 62% of the motorcycle accidents in the post-crash phase. This represents an undue hazard for fire.

16. The median pre-crash speed was 29.8 mph, and the median crash speed was 21.5 mph, and the one-in-a-thousand crash speed is approximately 86 mph.

17. The typical motorcycle pre-crash lines-of-sight to the traffic hazard portray no contribution of the limits of peripheral vision; more than three-fourths of all accident hazards are within 45deg of either side of straight ahead.

18. Conspicuity of the motorcycle is most critical for the frontal surfaces of the motorcycle and rider.

19. Vehicle defects related to accident causation are rare and likely to be due to deficient or defective maintenance.

20. Motorcycle riders between the ages of 16 and 24 are significantly overrepresented in accidents; motorcycle riders between the ages of 30 and 50 are significantly underrepresented. Although the majority of the accident-involved motorcycle riders are male (96%), the female motorcycles riders are significantly overrepresented in the accident data.

22. Craftsmen, laborers, and students comprise most of the accident-involved motorcycle riders. Professionals, sales workers, and craftsmen are underrepresented and laborers, students and unemployed are overrepresented in the accidents.

23. Motorcycle riders with previous recent traffic citations and accidents are overrepresented in the accident data.

24. The motorcycle riders involved in accidents are essentially without training; 92% were self-taught or learned from family or friends. Motorcycle rider training experience reduces accident involvement and is related to reduced injuries in the event of accidents.

25. More than half of the accident-involved motorcycle riders had less than 5 months experience on the accident motorcycle, although the total street riding experience was almost 3 years. Motorcycle riders with dirt bike experience are significantly underrepresented in the accident data.

26. Lack of attention to the driving task is a common factor for the motorcyclist in an accident.

27. Almost half of the fatal accidents show alcohol involvement.

28. Motorcycle riders in these accidents showed significant collision avoidance problems. Most riders would overbrake and skid the rear wheel, and underbrake the front wheel greatly reducing collision avoidance deceleration. The ability to countersteer and swerve was essentially absent.

29. The typical motorcycle accident allows the motorcyclist just less than 2 seconds to complete all collision avoidance action.

30. Passenger-carrying motorcycles are not overrepresented in the accident area.

31. The driver of the other vehicles involved in collision with the motorcycle are not distinguished from other accident populations except that the ages of 20 to 29, and beyond 65 are overrepresented. Also, these drivers are generally unfamiliar with motorcycles.

32. Large displacement motorcycles are underrepresented in accidents but they are associated with higher injury severity when involved in accidents.

33. Any effect of motorcycle color on accident involvement is not determinable from these data, but is expected to be insignificant because the frontal surfaces are most often presented to the other vehicle involved in the collision.

34. Motorcycles equipped with fairings and windshields are underrepresented in accidents, most likely because of the contribution to conspicuity and the association with more experienced and trained riders.

35. Motorcycle riders in these accidents were significantly without motorcycle license, without any license, or with license revoked.

36. Motorcycle modifications such as those associated with the semi-chopper or cafe racer are definitely overrepresented in accidents.

37. The likelihood of injury is extremely high in these motorcycle accidents-98% of the multiple vehicle collisions and 96% of the single vehicle accidents resulted in some kind of injury to the motorcycle rider; 45% resulted in more than a minor injury.

38. Half of the injuries to the somatic regions were to the ankle-foot, lower leg, knee, and thigh-upper leg.

39. Crash bars are not an effective injury countermeasure; the reduction of injury to the ankle-foot is balanced by increase of injury to the thigh-upper leg, knee, and lower leg.

40. The use of heavy boots, jacket, gloves, etc., is effective in preventing or reducing abrasions and lacerations, which are frequent but rarely severe injuries.

41. Groin injuries were sustained by the motorcyclist in at least 13% of the accidents, which typified by multiple vehicle collision in frontal impact at higher than average speed.

42. Injury severity increases with speed, alcohol involvement and motorcycle size.

43. Seventy-three percent of the accident-involved motorcycle riders used no eye protection, and it is likely that the wind on the unprotected eyes contributed in impairment of vision which delayed hazard detection.

44. Approximately 50% of the motorcycle riders in traffic were using safety helmets but only 40% of the accident-involved motorcycle riders were wearing helmets at the time of the accident.

45. Voluntary safety helmet use by those accident-involved motorcycle riders was lowest for untrained, uneducated, young motorcycle riders on hot days and short trips.

46. The most deadly injuries to the accident victims were injuries to the chest and head.

47. The use of the safety helmet is the single critical factor in the prevention of reduction of head injury; the safety helmet which complies with FMVSS 218 is a significantly effective injury countermeasure.

48. Safety helmet use caused no attenuation of critical traffic sounds, no limitation of precrash visual field, and no fatigue or loss of attention; no element of accident causation was related to helmet use.

49. FMVSS 218 provides a high level of protection in traffic accidents, and needs modification only to increase coverage at the back of the head and demonstrate impact protection of the front of full facial coverage helmets, and insure all adult sizes for traffic use are covered by the standard.

50. Helmeted riders and passengers showed significantly lower head and neck injury for all types of injury, at all levels of injury severity.

51. The increased coverage of the full facial coverage helmet increases protection, and significantly reduces face injuries.

52. There is no liability for neck injury by wearing a safety helmet; helmeted riders had less neck injuries than unhelmeted riders. Only four minor injuries were attributable to helmet use, and in each case the helmet prevented possible critical or fatal head injury.

53. Sixty percent of the motorcyclists were not wearing safety helmets at the time of the accident. Of this group, 26% said they did not wear helmets because they were uncomfortable and inconvenient, and 53% simply had no expectation of accident involvement.

54. Valid motorcycle exposure data can be obtained only from collection at the traffic site. Motor vehicle or driver license data presents information which is completely unrelated to actual use.

55. Less than 10% of the motorcycle riders involved in these accidents had insurance of any kind to provide medical care or replace property.

There are many more likely causes for motorcycle injury than sharing lanes. No helmet, no training, alcohol intake impairing judgement being just three. Also the type of journey seems to be a factor, short journies with junctions, not highways with slow moving traffic and few entrance and exit points where vehicles cross paths. The intentional harming is also dispelled.

It makes interesting reading, even in this abridged version. I'll post data from around the world when I find it, so more than California is represented.

 

[boney]

personally I think an opinion can exist independent of supporting data. Common sense and practical solutions don't need no supporting data to be viable options.

We need only to point to re!i@on for further support of this statement. Not that you're wrong, and not that I'm taking a stance, only that there's a parallel.

 

[ASPHALT]

Dave! That "other" California?! I resemble that remark. Honestly, living here in SoCal, commuting, recreationally riding and otherwise riding damn near every day, I believe I can give some honest commentary on lane splitting.
Before I ever split lanes, I thought it could not be done safely. I now find my self doing it where I thought I never could before on bikes I thought could never fit. You get used to it and your opinion on the practice changes greatly after some time. You also soon realize that the cagers generally accept it and/or make room for you.
If you live where the weather conditions seem to make lane splitting not safe...then you don't do it that day. But, down here in LaLa Land it is not always sunshine and lollipops. It has major weather sometimes and torrential rain. I wouldn't think that just because the idea is being considered in the Northwest that it is insanity based on the weather as some have posted here. That is nonsense. If it is not safe to do...then you don't do it. You cannot base laws on one persons riding ability or perception of safety.
I think that the collective should speak up and vote or push for the law in the Northwest. IMO, most of the riders would have a lot to gain from it.

 

[Threeteas]

experience based common sense RTW.

Unless everyone else is devoid of common sense, here are some of their findings.
Of course, the arguement will come back "That's over there and not here. We are different." But that has no merit.
Australian Road Rules comments on proposed Amendments Lane Filtering, Lane Splitting Motorcycle Council of NSW Lane Splitting/Filtering as a safety issue.
If road authorities were concerned that lane splitting was ÔÇÿinherently dangerousÔÇÖ as claimed in the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) for these Amendments, then lane splitting would be raised as a safety issue in their road safety strategies. Victoria1, South Australia2 and Tasmania3 have motorcycle road safety strategies and the Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW has an Issues paper4 and Action Plan5None of these documents raise lane splitting as an issue of concern.
Neither the Australian National Road Safety Strategy 2001-2010 nor the National Road Safety Action Plan for 2005-2006 raise this as a safety issue.
A study of motorcycle crashes conducted by Monash University Accident Research Centre6 found that of the 222 crashes investigated only 2, that is less than 1%, were the result of lane splitting and both of these crashes were relatively minor7.
The assertion in the RIS, that the practice of lane filtering/splitting is dangerous, is difficult to support, as there are no crash statistics that support this statement. The practice is also actively encouraged in parts of Europe.
In his discussion on traffic capacity in Section 11, he deals with advanced stop lines and their value in improved traffic flows and safety for motorcycles, as well as discussing road space occupancy and management. page 51 of the report, the following appears:-
ÔÇ£The recent advent of the Australian Road Rules on 1 December 1999 has created a need to address this issue, as the lane filtering through stationary vehicles that offers a safe additional road capacity benefit through motorcycle movements has now been restricted to movements only on the outside of a vehicle and within a lane. This effect has not yet been reviewed as part of the continuing updating and refinements of the National road rules.
2 The safety record of such filtering appears to have been very good. No examples have yet been located where such filtering has been the cause of an incident. The continued use of this additional road capacity would appear to be largely debarred from police, emergency vehicles, motorcycle MICA (emergency paramedic) and ordinary riders alike. This unintended side effect of the initial release of the Australian Road Rules needs to be reassessed. This is an issue that needs to be raised in the first round reviews of the Australian Road Rules, as the safety impacts do not appear to outweigh the capacity gains for the community and the critical access gains for emergency and medical servicesÔÇØ
Many Australian motorcyclists have had experience lane filtering in Australia without incident for over 30 years. Only since the introduction of the National Australian Road Rules in 1999 has enforcement of lane filtering become an issue.
The September 2004 Fact Sheet from the London Road Safety Unittitled ÔÇ£Powered two wheeler user casualties in Greater LondonÔÇØ gives a breakdown of motorcycle crashes across Greater London. There is no evidence there that lane filtering presents a crash risk for motorcycle riders.
In other countries, lane filtering (or lane splitting, as it is variously known in local usage) has been accepted practice as it contributes to reduction in congestion and reduces rear-end collisions with motorcycles in traffic. The accepted practice is that lane filtering does not commence until traffic is moving slowly or stopped. At normal traffic speeds, rules for all road users apply and any vehicle weaving in and out of traffic is subject to existing laws
Filtering is not, for example, moving between other vehicles on a multi lane highway e.g. Motorway, when traffic is observing the maximum speed limit.
Australia already provides for congestion management and improved safety for bicycles through lane splitting/filtering and provision of advanced stop lines.
3 We may regard bicycles and motorcycles as equivalent vehicles in stationary or slow moving traffic. There is no particular danger to safety in lane filtering above the normal risks of being in heavy traffic. If such a danger existed, then bicycles would be banned from the practice, yet we find increased amenity for bicycles to actively encourage this practice, e.g. specific exemptions to the Australian Road Rules and advanced stop lines.NSW traffic crash data does not enable a view of any particular problem with lane filtering by bicycles or motorcycles. It appears that a bigger injury risk problem may be associated with cars ÔÇ£lane sharingÔÇØ with bicycles, overtaking bicycles within the same lane at higher traffic speeds than the bicycle is travelling. This indicates that there is a requirement for bicycle awareness in addition to motorcycle awareness, as part of the general principle of ÔÇ£Share the RoadÔÇØ13. In general, any incident during lane filtering is unlikely to result in a casualty, with only minor property damage as the likely outcome. In this context, the Motorcycle Council of NSW established Strategy 4.10 in their Road Safety Strategic Plan to raise the issue for discussion and move in the direction of a ÔÇ£Code of ConductÔÇØ to teach riders how to lane filter in greater safety and with less inconvenience or social upset for all vehicles in traffic.
The Motorcycle Strategy of the UK Government mentions lane splitting in relation to reducing congestion14 and discusses the development of Advanced Stop Lines15 to improve motorcycle safety. The introduction of advanced stop lines would encourage lane splitting rather than discourage the practice, as is current Australian enforcement practice. Lane filtering by motorcycles is generally condoned in most European countries as a part of transport policy. In many countries, the road rules are vague on the topic and while not proscribed as ÔÇ£legalÔÇØ, neither is it regarded as specifically ÔÇ£illegalÔÇØ.
4 The following table summarises the Federation of European Motorcyclists Association's findings:Country Splitting/Filtering Occurs?Specifically Legal?Tolerated?
Great Britain Yes No Yes Ireland Yes No Yes Netherlands Yes No Yes Italy Yes No Yes Finland Yes No Yes Germany Yes No Yes Sweden Yes No Yes Austria Yes Yes Yes Belgium Yes No Yes Spain Yes No Yes Portugal Yes No Yes
The general approach across Europe is one of tolerance, but there is also a distinction made between ÔÇ£aggressiveÔÇØ lane filtering/splitting and what is regarded as ÔÇ£normal lane filteringÔÇØ. The more aggressive form is singled out for enforcement and adequate road laws exist to deal with that, but lack of definition in law means many safe riders are inconvenienced through imprecise enforcement.
As traffic slows when it enters an area of congestion, vehicles begin to be overtaken by bicycles. Bicycles exploit their manoeuvrability and narrow single track profile with full permission of the law. There appears to be more advantages to safety and mobility to allow this. At speeds below which a bicycle can overtake powered vehicles in traffic, the characteristics of a bicycle and a motorcycle are virtually identical. The safety risk for both bicycles and motorcycles is very similar at these slower speeds. Different conditions exist above these speeds, where bicycles are exposed to greater risks in swiftly moving traffic.
It makes sense for the law to recognise this transition in traffic behaviour and regulate the practices of lane filtering for both motorcycles and bicycles in exactly the same manner. It would be silly to claim that one is dangerous and the other safe, when the same conditions are in existence. In each case, it remains the responsibility of the overtaking rider to only overtake if it is safe to do so. Crash statistics indicate that the existing rider behaviour exhibits responsibility and effective risk management.
Attached herewith are a series of Appendices relating specific country information. Specifically, it is advice to riders, whether of a legal nature, advice from Police or Transport Authorities or accepted ÔÇ£Codes of ConductÔÇØ. European countries drive on the Right, so the sense of right and left is reversed for other than Great Britain.
Federation of European Motorcyclists Association, www.fema.kaalium.org
5 Appendix 1 Great Britain. The British publication ÔÇ£Motorcycle RoadcraftÔÇØ17 ( The Police Riders Handbook to Better Motorcycling), notes the following under the general topic of ÔÇ£overtakingÔÇØ:-Filtering. When traffic is stationary or moving slowly in queues, motorcyclists can use their manoevrability and limited space requirements to make progress. The advantages of filtering along or between stopped or slow moving traffic have to be weighed against the increased vulnerability while filtering.
If you decide to filter:ÔÇó Take extreme care
ÔÇó Keep your speed low- you need to be able to stop suddenly if circumstances changeÔÇó Always identify a place where you can rejoin the traffic flow before you move outÔÇó Make yourself visible ÔÇô consider using dipped headlightÔÇó Be ready to brake and/or use the hornÔÇó Use the opportunity to make progress but be courteous and avoid conflict with other road users.Watch out for and anticipate:ÔÇó Pedestrians crossing between vehiclesÔÇó Vehicles emerging from junctionsÔÇó Vehicles changing lanes or U-turning without warningÔÇó Doors opening ÔÇó Reflective paint and studs which could throw the bike off lineÔÇó Traffic islands ÔÇó Other bikes also filtering. The British Highway Code18 provides the following advice to riders
71: Manoeuvring. You should be aware of what is behind and to the sides before manoeuvring. Look behind you; use mirrors if they are fitted. When overtaking traffic queues look out for pedestrians crossing between vehicles and vehicles emerging from junctions.
6 Great Britain Advice for Car Users from Thames Valley Police. Lane filtering
Motorcyclists will often filter between lines of traffic held in queues. Motorways and dual carriageways are the most common, although in any heavy traffic you are likely to see motorcycles passing between the lanes. Most are responsible and keep to speeds that are generally safe although there are riders that travel too fast for the conditions. If you are considering a lane change, for whatever reason, make certain that you do not turn into the lane too quickly. Keep the view to the rear available in the door mirror and search for the motorcycle that may be filtering between the lines of traffic. Turn too quickly and without looking behind and you may not see the motorcyclist until he or she has hit you. Always use your indicators.
7 Below is the Dutch ÔÇ£Code of ConductÔÇØ for lane filtering motorcycles.
It is from the ÔÇ£Motorcycle PlatformÔÇØ established under the Dutch road authority.
http://www.motorplatform.nl/samenspelindefile.htm
A full membership list of the Motorcycle Platform is shown on the website above. (includes Police, Road Authorities, Motoring Clubs, Local Councils, etc. )
It is not an official law, but it is also not illegal. Typically Dutch: it is condoned. (Translators note) (translation from Motorcycle Action Group, Netherlands, MAG-NL)
Working together in a traffic jam.
Traffic jams are time consuming for car drivers. It would cost even more time if motorcyclists had to join the end of the traffic jam, or if motorcyclists would also use a car. By giving motorcyclist the room to filter through traffic the car driver will also profit. This code of conduct is an advice and is not a legal directive. This code of conduct consists of 'rules' for drivers and motorcyclists and is designed only for use in slow moving and stopped traffic on highways.
The rules for drivers
Check the traffic behind you - Motorcyclists are often overlooked by drivers. By using your mirrors frequently you can anticipate the behaviour of traffic approaching from behind.
Use the middle of your lane - Motorcyclists coming from behind usually have room enough to pass if you keep your car in the middle of your lane. Motorcyclist will pass between the lanes. Of course it helps if you give them a bit more room, by moving to the right if you are in the right lane or by moving to the left if you are in the left lane.
Changing lanes - Cars changing lanes are the greatest risk to motorcyclists. Check you mirrors before changing lanes and warn the other traffic by using your indicators.
Don't open your doors - In a traffic jam car drivers sometimes open their doors. This can have serious consequences for motorcyclists. Don't open your doors unless it's absolutely necessary, but check traffic coming from behind if you do open your doors.The rules for motorcyclist:
Adjust your speed - Filter through traffic in a calm way and don't let the difference in speed between you and the cars become to big. Big differences in speed irritate drivers and can cause dangerous situations.
Be alert for careless behaviour - Watch out for cars changing lanes and watch out for doors suddenly opening.
In a group - When filtering through traffic with more motorcyclists, stay calm and ride behind each other. Choose the same position to pass and keep a distance to the next motorcycle of at least two car lengths.
8 Approaching a traffic jam - When you approach a traffic jam, check your mirrors for traffic coming from behind and make sure that they slow down. Use warning lights (if available) to warn traffic coming from behind. Do not use the warning lights when filtering through traffic. When riding on a highway with more than two lanes, choose to filter between the lanes on the left.
Stopping in a traffic jam - If you are the last vehicle in a traffic jam, use your warning lights or your brake light to warn the traffic coming from behind. Drivers sometimes notice cars, but do not notice motorcycles. Keep your distance. [Note: this is essential for the safety of the rider. Motorcyclists are very often just not seen by drivers. In the driver's perception riders seem to dissapear in the silhouette of the 'bigger' object (car) in front of them.]
Where not to ride - It is not allowed to ride on the hard shoulder, or on the small strip of asfalt between the guard rail en the lane on the left. It is also not allowed to ride on bus specific lanes.
The end of the traffic jam - When traffic starts moving again, position yourself on a lane. Use your indicators to warn others before you change position.
9 France Lane splitting:FFMC point of view and recommendations Current state of affairs. Lane splitting amongst motorised two wheelers, in town and on rapid carriageways such as highways, dual carriageways separated by a median strip, has become, in case of congestions, a regular practice.There is no regulation, but a factual tolerance has existed for many years now.

 

[12BSWAYED]

Hurt report stats

That's good info. Lamble....

 

[tonkandy]

Common sense, not likely.

Although you'd hope it would be otherwise, common sense seems to have very little to do with the legislative process. Check this link from one of the recent morning reads (thank you to M1ka for doing these ).http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring...xml=/motoring/2007/03/17/nosplit/mfbike17.xml

It's from the other side of the Atlantic, but foolishness knows no boundaries.

There appears to be a compelling argument for lane sharing making the road safer for motorcyclists. But what's in it for the majority of road users? To take a quote out of context from lamble's recent post (because that's what will happen in next years debate) "In general, any incident during lane filtering is unlikely to result in a casualty, with only minor property damage as the likely outcome. " Well if I'm a car driver (as most voters in Washington State are) I can reduce that "likely outcome" of minor property damage to my car to zero by keeping lane-sharing illegal.

To be successful in getting lane-sharing legalized the best argument is not the Hurt report, or what Europeans do, it's the price of the gasoline that cagers burn while stuck in traffic ("time is on your side" - Mick Jagger). What is needed is a sort of "social change campaign" which if successful would not only result in legalized lane-sharing, but would also address the legitimate concerns of people who feel that a "rammed through" lane-sharing law will result in retaliatory behavior from frustrated cagers. You have to persuade car drivers that motorcycles are a patriotic, earth friendly, traffic reducing, time, and money saving benefit to them.

As an alternative if a motorcycle courier transporting transplant organs for terminally ill orphans was to be rear-ended in traffic, with the rider and cargo destroyed; there might be a sympathy bump that would enable the law to pass. But the timing would have to be just right.

 

[boney]

To be successful in getting lane-sharing legalized the best argument is not the Hurt report, or what Europeans do, it's the price of the gasoline that cagers burn while stuck in traffic ("time is on your side" - Mick Jagger). What is needed is a sort of "social change campaign" which if successful would not only result in legalized lane-sharing, but would also address the legitimate concerns of people who feel that a "rammed through" lane-sharing law will result in retaliatory behavior from frustrated cagers. You have to persuade car drivers that motorcycles are a patriotic, earth friendly, traffic reducing, time, and money saving benefit to them.

Such as maybe: My motorcycle gets 3 times the gas milage of my Jeep. While I could sell the Jeep and buy something more efficient, it would be a greater drain on the world's resources to produce a new vehicle for me to purchase when I could just maintain and use the ones I already have. Since I can lane split, I ride my motorcycle more which in turn negates the necessity to have an automobile that gets better gas milage, since I'm less likely to drive it. (Fact: I've driven a car 5 miles this week and riden my motorcycle over 200. If I couldn't lane share, the numbers would not be so different and may in fact be opposite.) So, not only does lane sharing allow me to shave a good portion of time off my commute, it actually saves gas and worldly resources. Likewise, my automobile or motorcycle will not be adding length to the line of slow/stopped cars on the highway which in essence lessens the time that some other commuter will spend in traffic and decrease their fuel consumption accordingly. On an individual scale, there's not a lot to it, but nationally? Imaging the amound of gas that could be saved.

What's that old saying? "Think globally, act locally."

 

[Fritzc]

Writing Laws!

Laws must be enforceable or they are meaningless and police are simply going to ignore them. As of yet I have seen no evidence that it is logical to make a law allowing motorcycles to share a lane with an automobile but not conversely!!!!!!!

 

[Threeteas]

Laws must be enforceable or they are meaningless and police are simply going to ignore them. As of yet I have seen no evidence that it is logical to make a law allowing motorcycles to share a lane with an automobile but not conversely!!!!!!!

I think I understand what you are getting at, but you lost me at the end.

However, the police could enforce lane sharing in exactly the same way as they currently enforce illegal lane sharing, speeding and other traffic violations that involve motorcycles being incorrectly ridden.

The money arguement raised a few messages earlier is valid, however, what changes is that the cost of the more serious (or indeed fatal) rear ending accidents at the tail of the queue is changed to being the less expensive type which (may be) are indicated in the report, which are incurred during filtering. It should not be, 'it's zero cost now and an increased cost if we let this amendment pass', as with most things, it would be a shading of grey rather than black or white, the cost type shifting proportionately to the amount of riders lane sharing as opposed to sitting at the traffic's tail.

Dvandkq did bring up one point, the outside left lane and the HOV, although the example was spoiled by the assumptions associated to it.
There should be some additional thought as to the wording used. 'Common sense' should have the rider use a flow of 60mph in the HOV, rather than split between the HOV and the left lane at a maximum of 45mph. I think that the assumption was, it was so obvious, there didn't need to be anything added, but assumptions are where mistakes can creep in, so just in case anyone would prefer to share at 45mph, instead of ride at 60 in a lane, an additional consideration needs adding.

 

[OfficerImpersonator]

Lamble,

So I've read your summary of the report.

What # says lane splitting is safe? I couldn't quite find the line that said lane splitting is a safe activity.

Here's what I got from your summary:

(My #'s respond to your #'s)

1. 3/4 of all motorcycle (m/c) accidents involve a m/c and another vehicle.

6. 3/4 of those accidents involve a car intruding into the m/c's right of way. (Under the California "model", m/c shares right of way with car, but car doesn't have to share the right of way with the m/c. Car always has right of way in lane splitting situations.)

7. Primary reason cars hit m/c is due to inability to see m/c (conspicuity). How does lane splitting improve m/c's conspicuity? Personally, I think logic dictates lane splitting degrades conspicuity as m/cs will now be in places drivers won't be expecting them to be - along side them in their lane instead of in an adjoining lane or behind them.

9. Where is #9?

14. "Conspicuity" is the "critical factor" in preventing collisions between m/cs and cars. See #7 above.

24 & 25 Training and experience are the two most critical factors in riders avoiding accidents.

47. Use a quality helmet.

So - to avoid accidents, improve your visibility to other motorists, take a training course, ride to gain experience, and wear a helmet.

Which number says riders should lane split to stay safe?

 

[Threeteas]

tasteless

Although you'd hope it would be otherwise, common sense seems to have very little to do with the legislative process. Check this link from one of the recent morning reads (thank you to M1ka for doing these ).http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring...xml=/motoring/2007/03/17/nosplit/mfbike17.xml

It's from the other side of the Atlantic, but foolishness knows no boundaries.

There appears to be a compelling argument for lane sharing making the road safer for motorcyclists.

As an alternative if a motorcycle courier transporting transplant organs for terminally ill orphans was to be rear-ended in traffic, with the rider and cargo destroyed; there might be a sympathy bump that would enable the law to pass. But the timing would have to be just right.

From the Telegraph link-we get the officials we elect, so we deserve them.
If only we could elect people who didn't crave the powers they gain when elected-a utopian dream.

I'm not sure that you'd be able to get away with the last idea about the courier, however, if you could add that they had a pocket full of puppies and kittens that burst on impact, then I think we could be on to a winner.

 

[Threeteas]

Source

To order the full report, contact:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, Virginia 22161
(703)-487-4600
and order:
Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and Identification of Countermeasures, Volume 1: Technical Report, Hurt, H.H., Ouellet, J.V. and Thom, D.R., Traffic Safety Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90007, Contract No. DOT HS-5-01160, January 1981 (Final Report)
Vol.I (The Main Report and Summary) is PB81206443 (~400 pages)
Vol.II (Appendix: Supplementary Data) is PB81206450 (~400 pages)
Either document is $42.95 plus $3.00 shipping. (circa 1990)

 

[Threeteas]

Post Hurt

Since the data for the Hurt Report were collected, many components of the motorcycling and traffic environment have changed. The following is a partial listing.

I. Motorcycle engineering changes
A. Frame design and construction
B. New types of motorcycle (e.g., sportbikes) sold as original equipment
C. Suspension design
1. Front fork strength, stiffness, and geometry
2. Rear suspension change from two to one shock systems
D. Fuel tank design
E. Handlebar design and construction
F. Engine performance increases
G. Tire and wheel improvements
H. Brake efficiency improvements
1. Disc brakes more common
2. Interconnection of front and rear brake systems
3. Antilock braking system (ABS)
4. Hydraulic brakes
5. Linked brakes
I. Emissions systems introduced
J. Lighting changes
1. Daytime running lamps (DRL) since 1973
2. Integrated front parking lights
3. Higher performance headlamps
II. User population changes
A. Fewer total riders, higher percentage licensed
B. Maturing of motorcycle riding population
C. More females riding motorcycles
D. More widely available training
E. Changes in helmet use
F. Use of fake helmets in helmet law states
G. Fewer motorcycles registered
H. Changes in available protective apparel
I. Changes in use of protective apparel
J. Riders have information from Hurt Report available
III. Automobile engineering changes
A. Daytime running lamps (DRL)
B. Improved bumpers
C. More aerodynamic exteriors
D. ABS
E. Changing vehicle types, e.g., sport utility vehicles (SUV)
IV. Roadway Environmental changes
A. Roadside sound barriers
B. Animal diversion barriers
C. Rumble strips

All of these elements add to safety.
Data from National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety

 

[OfficerImpersonator]

Lamble,

I posted specific comments to your post that purported to demonstrate how the report said lane splitting was safer than not lane splitting. I did not find that conclusion in the report you cite and I've asked you to point out the specific language in your summary of the report that endorses lane splitting.

Secondly, I countered and/or elaborated upon many of the contentions/conclusions you drew from the report. I'd appreciate the courtesy of a response to my questions and comments.

You berated me for not dissecting the report the first time around. Now that I have done so, you choose to pretend my arguments don't exist.

That's fine, but it's no way to engage in a debate - that is if you are truly interested in having one.

 

[Threeteas]

Lamble,

I posted specific comments to your post that purported to demonstrate how the report said lane splitting was safer than not lane splitting. I did not find that conclusion in the report you cite and I've asked you to point out the specific language in your summary of the report that endorses lane splitting.

Secondly, I countered and/or elaborated upon many of the contentions/conclusions you drew from the report. I'd appreciate the courtesy of a response to my questions and comments.

You berated me for not dissecting the report the first time around. Now that I have done so, you choose to pretend my arguments don't exist.

That's fine, but it's no way to engage in a debate - that is if you are truly interested in having one.

I draw your attention to Message 137