I presume that you're talking about California. If that were the case, then presumably we would see a goodly number of collisions in which filtering didn't seem to be the proximate cause. That doesn't seem to be the case.
Can we legalize lane filtering yet?
- Thread starter chodatus
- Start date
I presume that you're talking about California. If that were the case, then presumably we would see a goodly number of collisions in which filtering didn't seem to be the proximate cause. That doesn't seem to be the case.
I don't know about the average Ontario driver having all the necessary skills to accommodate lane filtering motorcyclists. Have been to California many times as I have a friend that lives there. I am not greatly impressed by the skill-level of the average car driver there, but they can keep their cars within their driving lane in a curve far better than the average Ontario drivers; I have seen Ontario drivers commonly wander out of their lane even on a straight road.
If there is a pressing necessity to keep the car strictly in between two lanes, then people will do so.
Just because we see people wandering off their lanes doesn't imply incapability. I admit it may take a few fatalities, hard learned lessons, and news coverages pointing to the fact that wandering may result in an accident with a filtering motorcyclist, but having passed a road test in Ontario certainly implies that a licensed driver has steering skills, as well as mirror using, shoulder checking, signal using etc.
Once you implant the idea of the fact that there may be a motorcyclist in between your car and the car next to you, the driver requires no further training, but adapting.
Last edited:
Riders already do it, not every rider but most in stop-n-go traffic that i see do. So people here are already use to seeing it, if it is legalized then a few more will also do it. But just because its legal doesnt mean everyone will, I mean we can all buy cigarettes but most people I know don't smoke. There are dangers in life, thats a fact, its about how you choose to roll the dice. Even if you live in a bubblewrapped house and never go out, you could still fall down the stairs and die.
There may be other reasons to that, like what percentage of single vehicle motorcycle collisions is reported to DMV by riders ? There may be a trend in Cali, just as in here, which types of accidents are reported most vs which ones are not reported at all...
Consistently reporting filtering incidents because both parties believe their own innocence each time, AND consistantly not reporting the lowsides (%100 at fault situatuion) may favour your argument, while not deriving your conclusion.
I can't tell you how many crashes are not reported. I'm going by video evidence.
From where I sit the idea of splitting to avoid being hit from behind is much like the concept of not wearing a seatbelt so that you don't get injured by the seatbelt; odds are somewhat slim. I say that as someone who has been hit from behind.
I think that it would be far better if the people who simply want to somewhat selfishly make their way in traffic faster, using the single track nature of their vehicles, would simply come out and say so. They seem to be in the majority and at least it would be an honest statement.
Except that people don't say they don't want to wear a seat belt to avoid seat belt injury; Filtering though will protect you from being rear ended.
There have been plenty of people who have explained how and why it's safer to allow filtering here's one that was a response to the vid linked at the start of this thread.
http://www.motovlog.net/motorcycle-almost-hits-car-why-motorcycles-lane-split-filter/
And here's a study done by UC berkeley
http://www.revzilla.com/common-tread/uc-berkeley-study-on-lane-splitting
As long as it's well regulated, taught and enforced it's safer.
You might not be surprised about the seat belt injury claim. It's one of the top reasons why people don't wear them.
Information about a study performed in California, for California. I've already addressed that.
Well they can't really do a study on something in a place where you can't do it now can they?
Sure they can. It's called a collision study. How many lives does it cost to get to where California already is?
Iceman
Well-known member
I got side swiped on a Slight curve on the 403 this week. Soccer mom mini van left her lane and hit me. We both pull over, she says " I don't know what happened, I was busy texting". I was gobsmacked! Wtf? Who would ever use that as an excuse?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Roomie
Banned
Ah the entitled. Must have been an important text or facebook message. The city is full of utter ****ing idiots but hey, lets lane split. Seems totally safe here
Last edited:
Thing is there are collision studies already showing that rear end collisions are the most prominent type of collision in Toronto
[TABLE="width: 680"]
Table 3.4: Initial Impact Type by Class of Collision, 2010[TR]
[TH] [/TH]
[TH="colspan: 3, align: center"]Class of Collision[/TH]
[TH="align: right"] [/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Initial Impact Type[/TH]
[TH="align: right"]Fatal[/TH]
[TH="align: right"]Personal Injury[/TH]
[TH="align: right"]Property Damage[/TH]
[TH="align: right"]Total[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Approaching[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]112[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]755[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1,452[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2,319[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Angle[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]65[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4,602[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]11,817[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]16,484[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Rear End[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]29[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]12,881[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]50,435[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]63,345[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Sideswipe[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]14[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2,944[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]20,358[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]23,316[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Turning Movement[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]40[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]10,139[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]31,352[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]41,531[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]With Unattended Motor Vehicle[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]8[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]467[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]13,300[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]13,775[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Single Motor Vehicle[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]266[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]12,457[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]39,219[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]51,942[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Other[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]185[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2,636[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2,821[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Unknown[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Total[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]534[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]44,430[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]170,569[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]215,533[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
What they CAN'T do though is what UC Berkeley did, which is include filtering collisions into their data
Last edited:
Sure they can. They just have to start accurately reporting that data, over a period of several years.
RedDogDarren
Well-known member
And how do you suggest we accurately report on something that relatively few people here do, none will admit to because it's illegal, and the conditions of the data would be ridiculously biased due to nobody expecting a bike to do it (which again, goes back to the illegal part).
The ONLY way to get your data is to make it legal, educate all drivers, and then collect data over many years.
The real problem lies in the fact that California is riding year round so there is never a break in routine. Cars ALWAYS expect it. What happens here in the spring with filtering? No car driver is looking for it and riders get squished.
As I stated, you do it based on collision statistics. We're talking about multi-vehicle collisions here, so there would presumably be data after some period of time.
Darren, you've apparently missed that my point is precisely that it wouldn't be expected.
RedDogDarren
Well-known member
I didn't miss it, I just disagree with the value you place on it. It would be apples to oranges.
I like your logic; it is quite interesting unencumbered with ....logic. Drivers keep their vehicles within the lane when there is a need; is this like drivers stop at a stop sign when there is a need. There is always a need. People that wander out of their lane of travel are incompetent. I have the ability to multitask so that I don't wander out of my lane of travel. If you can't multitask, you should leave driving to the professionals (like a bus driver-take the bus).
Pass rates have increased since the private contractor has been providing driver examination services. Does this mean that people that go to Drivetest practice more before attending their tests? You are using circular reasoning.
For those that are promoting filtering as a safer action (avoiding collision from rear) than not filtering, how about promoting better/driving riding skills which will reduce the number of collisions from rear for everyone not just motorcyclists? Also will reduce collisions in turns, at an angle, during lane changes etc. Better driving/riding will decrease the number of collisions by a much greater rate than lane filtering ever could.
You disagree with your own statement that, "the conditions of the data would be ridiculously biased due to nobody expecting a bike to do it"? My point is that the carnage would be spectacular if splitting was made legal, until drivers became used to it and that even in California a sizable minority don't even know that it's legal (or rather not illegal) there. That means the data wouldn't really biased, but rather quite representative of my premise. You're stating that you must first load the data, so that it will give the result that you want to get. Now THAT is biased data
