WA-support lane sharing

[Threeteas]

Here's an alternative

Here's a proposal I saw elsewhere on the net:
Rumor is that this in the WA legislature again. I sent this idea to my Reps again since they did not respond the first time.

3/1/07 LANE SHARING

As a typically cynical citizen I think the best way to get the legislatures attention is with a revenue source and a way to reduce traffic congestion.

I would propose, for lack of a better name, a ÔÇ£Filtering PassÔÇØ to designate motorcycles that are allowed to split lanes. I think an accepted scenario is when traffic is moving 10 mph or less and motorcycles do not exceed 20 mph.

Riders would purchase a highly visible sticker to be placed on the license plate that allows them this privilege. Splitting lanes without one is the same violation it is now. To me this is similar to the proposal to allow single occupancy vehicles in the HOV lane for a fee. That, however, just affords special treatment those who can pay, and it just moves a car to another lane instead of taking one off of the road.

I would price this sticker at under $20 because if the cost were to high many riders would risk the cost of a citation. This money would be earmarked for studies or solutions to congestion. You could even make liability insurance a requirement to obtain the sticker. This would assure motorists that only the most responsible riders are allowed this privilege.

If enacted, a positively toned public awareness campaign could accomplish a number of things. Let the motorists know it is good for them too.

1. It would also be pointed out that each motorcycle is removing one car from the road.
2. It would be pointed out that extra caution is required.
3. Motorists would be made a ware that the practice is legal only by marked motorcycles.
4. That the rider has paid for the privilege and the money is going to reduce congestion.
5. To be afforded this privilege the rider has purchased liability insurance not otherwise required by law.
6. Motorcycles without stickers should be reported to the same phone number as HOV violators.

 

[OfficerImpersonator]

Here's a proposal I saw elsewhere on the net:
Rumor is that this in the WA legislature again. I sent this idea to my Reps again since they did not respond the first time.

3/1/07 LANE SHARING

As a typically cynical citizen I think the best way to get the legislatures attention is with a revenue source and a way to reduce traffic congestion.

I would propose, for lack of a better name, a “Filtering Pass” to designate motorcycles that are allowed to split lanes. I think an accepted scenario is when traffic is moving 10 mph or less and motorcycles do not exceed 20 mph.

Riders would purchase a highly visible sticker to be placed on the license plate that allows them this privilege. Splitting lanes without one is the same violation it is now. To me this is similar to the proposal to allow single occupancy vehicles in the HOV lane for a fee. That, however, just affords special treatment those who can pay, and it just moves a car to another lane instead of taking one off of the road.

I would price this sticker at under $20 because if the cost were to high many riders would risk the cost of a citation. This money would be earmarked for studies or solutions to congestion. You could even make liability insurance a requirement to obtain the sticker. This would assure motorists that only the most responsible riders are allowed this privilege.

If enacted, a positively toned public awareness campaign could accomplish a number of things. Let the motorists know it is good for them too.

1. It would also be pointed out that each motorcycle is removing one car from the road.
2. It would be pointed out that extra caution is required.
3. Motorists would be made a ware that the practice is legal only by marked motorcycles.
4. That the rider has paid for the privilege and the money is going to reduce congestion.
5. To be afforded this privilege the rider has purchased liability insurance not otherwise required by law.
6. Motorcycles without stickers should be reported to the same phone number as HOV violators.

How will this be enforced? Cage drivers are supposed to look for a tiny sticker on a motorcycle and report it in if they don't see one? Then what?

Your proposal is ridiculous. Lane splitting is dead this legislative session. You can bet on it.

You cite the Hurt Report as justification for permitting lane spitting. I've asked you, for the third time now, to please cite the section that says lane spitting is safer than remaining in line with traffic. Please show me the evidence instead of telling me you won't respond because you said in a previous post you wouldn't respond.

I'm guessing I've boxed you into a rhetorical corner and you find yourself unable to argue your way out of it with data that doesn't support your position. That would explain your refusal to discuss the data in the report.

If, on the other hand, you have data that specifically says lane splitting is safer than not lane splitting, I'll acknowledge your point and reconsider my opposition. But - I think you're just trying to boot-strap the Hurt Report into your argument and extrapolate a conclusion the data doesn't support. Just because riders are rear-ended in greater numbers than they are sideswiped does not mean lane spitting is safer than riding in the queue. Myriad factors would have to be included to extrapolate that the data concludes riding between columns of moving vehicles is safer than riding within current traffic laws.

I'm trying to have a debate with you about the statistics because you refused to debate when I was simply trying to argue common sense. Now that I'm arguing the data doesn't support your conclusion, you run away and hide.

If you want to be the leader on crusading for this proposal, you had better be able to defend your position.

 

[Threeteas]

How will this be enforced? Cage drivers are supposed to look for a tiny sticker on a motorcycle and report it in if they don't see one? Then what?

Your proposal is ridiculous. Lane splitting is dead this legislative session. You can bet on it.

You cite the Hurt Report as justification for permitting lane spitting. I've asked you, for the third time now, to please cite the section that says lane spitting is safer than remaining in line with traffic. Please show me the evidence instead of telling me you won't respond because you said in a previous post you wouldn't respond.

I'm guessing I've boxed you into a rhetorical corner and you find yourself unable to argue your way out of it with data that doesn't support your position. That would explain your refusal to discuss the data in the report.

If, on the other hand, you have data that specifically says lane splitting is safer than not lane splitting, I'll acknowledge your point and reconsider my opposition. But - I think you're just trying to boot-strap the Hurt Report into your argument and extrapolate a conclusion the data doesn't support. Just because riders are rear-ended in greater numbers than they are sideswiped does not mean lane spitting is safer than riding in the queue. Myriad factors would have to be included to extrapolate that the data concludes riding between columns of moving vehicles is safer than riding within current traffic laws.

I'm trying to have a debate with you about the statistics because you refused to debate when I was simply trying to argue common sense. Now that I'm arguing the data doesn't support your conclusion, you run away and hide.

If you want to be the leader on crusading for this proposal, you had better be able to defend your position.

You sir, fail to read even the first lines. This is not a proposal from me. You merit no further replies. ref message 137.

 

[OfficerImpersonator]

You sir, fail to read even the first lines. This is not a proposal from me. You merit no further replies. ref message 137.

So whose proposal is it? If you're going to use someone else's idea, you should cite your source.

Fine - take your marbles and run home to mommy. That's what most kids do when they run out of rhetorical ammunition.

I bet you and I could sit down over a couple of beers and enjoy a lively, civilized and entertaining discussion about this and countless other topics. Name the time and place and I'll be there. I might even buy the first round. Why you've decided to fold up your tent and run away is beyond my understanding - just as we were beginning to get to the lynchpin of your contentions - the Hurt Report.

 

[Threeteas]

Sources

Source: me-read 137
Source :Hurt-go read it, not just the summary.
Source: google. lots of pro lane sharing information globally. Go educate yourself on it.

 

[OfficerImpersonator]

Lamble:

BMWMOA Forum: Place BMW motorcycle owners discuss/debate items of mutual concern

Debate: Give and take between two or more people about the relative merits of a given proposal

Lamble: Person willing to participate in "debate" only when all other participants agree with him - unable to tolerate alternative opinions or differing philosophies. Also unable to respond to direct questions and requests for comment.

Whatever dude - you obviously own this thread since you get to make the rules. This issue is dead in Washington State this legislative session, regardless of what you read on the Internet. Should it be resurrected in future sessions, rest assured I'll be there to lobby against the introduction of lane splitting in Washington State. It's an unsafe technique that is explicitly illegal in 49 states - I presume for valid reasons.

I spent the past two days trying to discuss your interpretation of the data in the Hurt Report, and you ran away and hid, so I give up. Have fun debating yourself and those who agree with you - that should make for a scintillating discussion.

 

[BRADFORDBENN]

I would say that the stats and facts are not conclusive and that the fact that we as motorcyclists can not agree how do we expect our elected representatives to get it right.

Let's try to respect everyone's right to their opinion.

 

[Threeteas]

A circle.

Bradford, there can't be conclusive evidence when the arguement comes back each time that, everything that happens elsewhere is different to what happens here. It always will be different unless it changes and then you'll get definitive data. It's a vicious circle that some try to break and others see as a safety ring they can sit inside.

You wont get all riders to agree either, some don't feel comfortable with the idea. No one is forcing them to share lanes, even if it does become legal, but a small minority even feel so strongly that they insist it's right that no one should be allowed to do it.
It's wasted time even bothering to reply and I feel badly that I have been drawn into giving credence to some by answering them.

I'm focusing on the positive, pro-active element and hope that decent dialogue can be formulated back on the topic of finding a way to bring lane sharing to the rest of the USA.

 

[OfficerImpersonator]

Bradford, there can't be conclusive evidence when the arguement comes back each time that, everything that happens elsewhere is different to what happens here. It always will be different unless it changes and then you'll get definitive data. It's a vicious circle that some try to break and others see as a safety ring they can sit inside.

You wont get all riders to agree either, some don't feel comfortable with the idea. No one is forcing them to share lanes, even if it does become legal, but a small minority even feel so strongly that they insist it's right that no one should be allowed to do it.
It's wasted time even bothering to reply and I feel badly that I have been drawn into giving credence to some by answering them.

I'm focusing on the positive, pro-active element and hope that decent dialogue can be formulated back on the topic of finding a way to bring lane sharing to the rest of the USA.

Lamble,

You ask for a forum where you can have a "decent dialogue (sic)...on finding a way to bring lane sharing to the rest of the USA".

That forum is here. The "decent dialog" is this thread. If you can only convince 75% of motorcyclists voting on the poll attached to this thread that lane splitting is a good idea, how can you expect to garner support from 50% + 1 of the electorate? That means 25% of motorcyclists voting in the poll you established don't agree with you. If 25% of motorcyclists disagree with your proposal to introduce lane splitting to Washington State, what percentage of the rest of the population will support your proposal?

I can guarantee you that the majority of car and truck drivers don't want lane splitting. They won't want motorcyclists to have an advantage not available to them. They won't want to be surprised by motorcycles whizzing by between them and the car in the next lane.

Heck - lots of people around here think HOV lanes give an unfair advantage to carpools - not to mention motorcycles. That's why we've seen successful movements in the Washington State Legislature to open the HOV lanes to everyone between 7 pm and 5 am, and that's why we're about to see the introduction of HOT (High Occupancy/Toll) lanes to SR 167 in the Kent Valley. If you're not a carpool, transit or a motorcycle, you can still use the HOV lane as long as you've bought the transponder and agree to have the toll automatically deducted from your account every time you drive a SOV on the SR 167 HOT lane.

Introducing HOT lanes and opening HOV lanes to SOVs during off-peak hours are examples that voters don't want anyone - carpools, transit, motorcycles - anything - to have an advantage they can't also enjoy. Personally, I think HOV lanes are the best thing about commuting by motorcycle. That's the primary reason I ride - to take advantage of the HOV lane and speed up my commute. That riding has ecological and economic advantages over driving my SOV or taking the bus is simply frosting on the cake. I like my HOV lanes, and I don't want to see them changed - yet vehicle drivers are achieving results in the Legislature and slowly are opening the HOV lanes to SOVs because it's only fair that everyone get to use that far left lane.

My point is that you don't need to convince 50% +1 of motorcyclists that lane splitting should be legalized. You need to convince 50% + 1 of all voters that lane splitting should be legalized, and my sense is that won't ever happen. And motorists are a vocal and powerful lobby. The Washington chapter of the American Automobile Association is a very powerful lobby in Olympia. They will always win in the Legislature when it's cars vs. motorcycles - just like out on the road.

Now - you'll ask "why should we trust your sense of what the voters will or won't support?"

That's where my experience in the Washington State political system comes in. You've berated me for having knowledge of and experience with the formulation and implementation of transportation policy here in Washington State, but I'm not embarrassed about having that knowledge and experience. I think it's an asset to this debate. I would think others might be glad to benefit from my knowledge and experience. My forecast of the political winds is that lane splitting is not something that would be accepted with open arms by the electorate, aka car drivers.

You can debate me all you want (or choose to run and hide), but it's the average driver you need to convince that lane splitting is a good idea, and that will never happen.

 

[Threeteas]

finally

I already regret not having the will power to just ignore you and that I am raise your profile by replying, however, and this is the last time.

You weren't berated for your knowledge, your opinions, or any other reason than you maintain you had inside information on what was best for all of us. That you have the arrogance to assume that because you don't want to lane share, that no one should have that ability. That you present a case that everyone other than you is wrong. That you do not avail yourself of any facts, but opt to dismiss those that do and the facts they present. You insinuate that because I choose to ignore your bigotted diatribes that I'm somehow a 'playground run back to mommy with my marbles'. If this is your concept of a debating style, it's certainly not mine.

I concur that I will not change your opinion, based on whatever assumptions you have or reasons I or anyone else submit.
This thread should act as a place where constructive ideas can be collected to promote the idea of lane sharing. You have raised your objections: car drivers perhaps won't like it, (although presented correctly they should see it's a win win idea) and you don't like it. The police announced they'll look at it and see if it could make a difference to accident rates, while their initial concerns were as they admitted, based on unknown assumptions.

I've not touted Hurt as a be all and end all (my experience is in Europe and the rest of the world) and posted the summary to support the debate, as it had been raised by US riders. The summary doesn't say lane sharing helps, it also doesn't have a #9, no idea why, I didn't summaries it, although you accused me of doing so. The full report does state that lane sharing helps avoid the occurance of rear end accidents, plus Boney showed more recent stats that you chose to ignore, which indicate that while reducing rear end accidents, there was no increase in fatal accidents from filtering as opposed to any other forward progress.

Please do us all a favour and go and do some research, then when you have some foundation to any of your arguements, it might just mean it's credible to debate this with you. Also, read the post fully.

If you maintain the "running to mommy", "hiding" and other purile comments approach, I'm afraid that I will not be able to take anything you write seriously and will continue to ignore your posts.

 

[Threeteas]

Not just WA

A plea from an unnamed rider in NY.

NY need lane sharing

how about to get away from a dangerous situation? i just recently was being tailgated by a car. at a red light i passed 3 cars to go to the front of the line to avoid the guy tailgating me (not legal in NY). at the next light a tanker truck brought his truck within 6 inches of my tailight and got out of the truck and threatened me because i "lane shared". i think the best reason to allow lane sharing is to allow bikers to "escape" dangerous situations, but when there is no law written for it he/she may again be confronted by a dangerous situation. it is "OUR" lives on the line, not the tailgating VW GTI nor the tanker truck operator. shouldn't we be given the opportunity to save ourselves? i have over 100k miles on motorcycles in 20 years of riding, i rec'd 1 speeding ticket 19 years ago, no tickets since, but i have "illegally" lane shared many, many times to avoid trouble. unfortunately it isn't legal to do, and i usually don't because of that. i just hope that i'm not killed or maimed when i decide not to do it because of the law. one more point, ny spends alot of money on commercials telling people to watch out for bikers. if they really cared for our well being they should pass laws that allow us to protect ourselves from the 1% of the population that is killing us. anyway "my" answer is yes as i can still walk - 100k miles on a cycle in nyc metro is proof, someone please pass a law like cali so i can use it more effectively. it's only a matter of time before "the law" kills me

Let's try and collate enough good data here, to make this innevitable, attractive to all concerned and show the vacuous scaremonger comments up for what they are. Or, at least, force those who issue them as fact, to get off their backsides and do some work on refuting our findings with something better than tittle tattle, self serving and misguided opinion, ignorance, myth and supposition.

A few people emailed me saying I should let the Britishness go and step back from the aggro, as the input we needed had been gained. I tried, I really did. It's just that we have a blood line that doesn't take well to tin pot dictators, who tell us what's in our best interest, because it serves theirs.

www.laneshare.org

 

[dtgates]

I can guarantee you that the majority of car and truck drivers don't want lane splitting. They won't want motorcyclists to have an advantage not available to them. They won't want to be surprised by motorcycles whizzing by between them and the car in the next lane.

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'.

Heck - lots of people around here think HOV lanes give an unfair advantage to carpools - not to mention motorcycles.

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

That's why we've seen successful movements in the Washington State Legislature to open the HOV lanes to everyone between 7 pm and 5 am, and that's why we're about to see the introduction of HOT (High Occupancy/Toll) lanes to SR 167 in the Kent Valley. If you're not a carpool, transit or a motorcycle, you can still use the HOV lane as long as you've bought the transponder and agree to have the toll automatically deducted from your account every time you drive a SOV on the SR 167 HOT lane.

Introducing HOT lanes and opening HOV lanes to SOVs during off-peak hours are examples that voters don't want anyone - carpools, transit, motorcycles - anything - to have an advantage they can't also enjoy.

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.
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.

Personally, I think HOV lanes are the best thing about commuting by motorcycle. That's the primary reason I ride - to take advantage of the HOV lane and speed up my commute.

Me too, but mostly I just like to ride.

Doug

 

[boney]

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.
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.

I predict that any convenience provided by the HOV lane will be eliminated by the introduction of the HOT, and lane sharing will then be a necessity as ALL rush-hour traffic will be slow. Lets face it, if they can afford the gas for those oversized grocery-getters, they can pay the toll to drive it where they want.

 

[boney]

Oh, and for the record, anyone who makes reference to the poll on this page should be ashamed of themself for not knowing that it's about as unscientific as possible.

 

[Threeteas]

Hands up

Boney,

Oh bugger it, see message 112. Now I've blown it good and proper.

In my defence, I did point out it was rubbish maths and rounded everything to favour the anti lobby, rather than put a case in my favour and claim it as fact.

 

[boney]

Boney,

Oh bugger it, see message 112. Now I've blown it good and proper.

In my defence, I did point out it was rubbish maths and rounded everything to favour the anti lobby, rather than put a case in my favour and claim it as fact.

I'm just sayin' that our little corner, here at BMWMOA campfire, is in no way a reflection of things larger than us in general. That's all...

It wouldn't be hard to delete the cookies off my computer a vote a hundred times. This is why people actually pay a lot of money to survey companies- to get valid numbers.

Hell, I posted a poll over on the local site about how many people had crashed while lane sharing. I defined what I considered a crash and so many people voted then realized that they hadn't voted properly that it was a joke. Again, useless numbers but I was wondering what the local numbers might look like.

I think you might be able to "get an idea" of things with the cute little poll at the top of the page, but again, for real numbers we have to look elsewhere.

 

[Threeteas]

chads

I'm just sayin' that our little corner, here at BMWMOA campfire, is in no way a reflection of things larger than us in general. That's all...

It wouldn't be hard to delete the cookies off my computer a vote a hundred times. This is why people actually pay a lot of money to survey companies- to get valid numbers.

Hell, I posted a poll over on the local site about how many people had crashed while lane sharing. I defined what I considered a crash and so many people voted then realized that they hadn't voted properly that it was a joke. Again, useless numbers but I was wondering what the local numbers might look like.

I think you might be able to "get an idea" of things with the cute little poll at the top of the page, but again, for real numbers we have to look elsewhere.

I'd only use a poll here as a way to get traffic, it's not as you correctly point out, an expression of anything but at best about 100 voters.
I did a similar exercise for eating styles when riding and at one point it got quite heated, until I pointed out I'd use the figures to justify any outcome that suited and that it wasn't intended as anything other than a bit of fun. It calmed down then.
Just say they are all false chads or something, that way you can make up any results you want, ask Florida.

Even in their basic form, as here, the figures do help address sweeping statements however, such as, " It's only crotch rocket riders that want this". Not an exact quote but near enough, a bit like the figures really.
I think where the problem would lie is in taking the poll here and extrapolating the data as a projection for anywhere outside of this thread, then it just wouldn't stack up. If it was a serious poll, then to start with the questions would be different, and depending upon who was polling and what outcome they wanted would reflect bias;eg. do you think lane sharing should be passed? Y/N
Do you want to be killed by a rear end crash? Y/N

There wasn't that much thought given to the questions in this poll.

 

[OfficerImpersonator]

I already regret not having the will power to just ignore you and that I am raise your profile by replying, however, and this is the last time.

You weren't berated for your knowledge, your opinions, or any other reason than you maintain you had inside information on what was best for all of us. That you have the arrogance to assume that because you don't want to lane share, that no one should have that ability. That you present a case that everyone other than you is wrong. That you do not avail yourself of any facts, but opt to dismiss those that do and the facts they present. You insinuate that because I choose to ignore your bigotted diatribes that I'm somehow a 'playground run back to mommy with my marbles'. If this is your concept of a debating style, it's certainly not mine.

I concur that I will not change your opinion, based on whatever assumptions you have or reasons I or anyone else submit.
This thread should act as a place where constructive ideas can be collected to promote the idea of lane sharing. You have raised your objections: car drivers perhaps won't like it, (although presented correctly they should see it's a win win idea) and you don't like it. The police announced they'll look at it and see if it could make a difference to accident rates, while their initial concerns were as they admitted, based on unknown assumptions.

I've not touted Hurt as a be all and end all (my experience is in Europe and the rest of the world) and posted the summary to support the debate, as it had been raised by US riders. The summary doesn't say lane sharing helps, it also doesn't have a #9, no idea why, I didn't summaries it, although you accused me of doing so. The full report does state that lane sharing helps avoid the occurance of rear end accidents, plus Boney showed more recent stats that you chose to ignore, which indicate that while reducing rear end accidents, there was no increase in fatal accidents from filtering as opposed to any other forward progress.

Please do us all a favour and go and do some research, then when you have some foundation to any of your arguements, it might just mean it's credible to debate this with you. Also, read the post fully.

If you maintain the "running to mommy", "hiding" and other purile comments approach, I'm afraid that I will not be able to take anything you write seriously and will continue to ignore your posts.

What research would you have me conduct? I consider my year-round, daily 40 mile commute on the roads and freeways of urban Seattle plenty of research into how cars and motorcycles interact around here. What data set do I need to acquire to offer an informed opinion on the topic?

The facts surrounding the tiff between you and me stems from your earlier contention that I was unqualified to comment because I had not read the report you cited as evidence that lane splitting is safer than not lane splitting. While I did not read the 45 page report, I did read your summary of the conclusions of the report - and the executive summary that you cut and pasted into the thread. I did not find in either of those passages any data that indicated lane splitting was safer than not lane splitting.

You keep asking me to do research and read and interpret the data for myself. I've done that, and it doesn't lead me to the same conclusions you've drawn from the materials. You have chosen to not elaborate on your contentions that the data supports lane splitting as a safe activity. I'm not going to spend $50 for a hard copy of the report when you seem able to provide summaries for us.

If you have data - from the Hurt Report or any other source - that says lane splitting is safer than not lane splitting, I'll look it over. Heck - with data that said that, I'd be inclined to change my opinion - but until I'm presented with more than what I've seen so far, I remain opposed to lane splitting.

I think I'm being charitable, I think I'm being fair, and I think I'm being rational. I think you owe me and those who are following this thread some data that supports your position.

 

[OfficerImpersonator]

A plea from an unnamed rider in NY.

NY need lane sharing

how about to get away from a dangerous situation? i just recently was being tailgated by a car. at a red light i passed 3 cars to go to the front of the line to avoid the guy tailgating me (not legal in NY). at the next light a tanker truck brought his truck within 6 inches of my tailight and got out of the truck and threatened me because i "lane shared". i think the best reason to allow lane sharing is to allow bikers to "escape" dangerous situations, but when there is no law written for it he/she may again be confronted by a dangerous situation. it is "OUR" lives on the line, not the tailgating VW GTI nor the tanker truck operator. shouldn't we be given the opportunity to save ourselves? i have over 100k miles on motorcycles in 20 years of riding, i rec'd 1 speeding ticket 19 years ago, no tickets since, but i have "illegally" lane shared many, many times to avoid trouble. unfortunately it isn't legal to do, and i usually don't because of that. i just hope that i'm not killed or maimed when i decide not to do it because of the law. one more point, ny spends alot of money on commercials telling people to watch out for bikers. if they really cared for our well being they should pass laws that allow us to protect ourselves from the 1% of the population that is killing us. anyway "my" answer is yes as i can still walk - 100k miles on a cycle in nyc metro is proof, someone please pass a law like cali so i can use it more effectively. it's only a matter of time before "the law" kills me

Let's try and collate enough good data here, to make this innevitable, attractive to all concerned and show the vacuous scaremonger comments up for what they are. Or, at least, force those who issue them as fact, to get off their backsides and do some work on refuting our findings with something better than tittle tattle, self serving and misguided opinion, ignorance, myth and supposition.

A few people emailed me saying I should let the Britishness go and step back from the aggro, as the input we needed had been gained. I tried, I really did. It's just that we have a blood line that doesn't take well to tin pot dictators, who tell us what's in our best interest, because it serves theirs.

www.laneshare.org

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.

 

[OfficerImpersonator]

Quotes from the "laneshare.org" website:

This website has been provided as a source for information about lane splitting. There is a page (two years out of date) on the attempts to allow lane splitting in Washington State.

I've found a couple of interesting quotes from that page, regarding lane splitting legislation introduced in 2005:

"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