Can we legalize lane filtering yet?

nm1 said:
you can come on a ride with me and I'll teach you how to do it properly, and you'll realize the truth of what I'm saying for yourself.

you're so heavily indoctrinated that right now even with the benefit of my experience you can't be educated.
Click to expand...

Ok So let's concede your right and that lane splitting can be done safety BY THOSE WHO HAVE LEARNED TO DO IT PROPERLY. So given that your the self professed "expert" having done 25,000 miles per year in California. Then I agree we can make lane splitting legal in Ontario, as soon as YOU teach every single rider in the province, how to do it according to your expert standards. Of course not sure who we can get to instruct the cagers.

We have seen the Ontario gov't institute "knee jerk" legistlation over one single incident, (zero alcohol for anyone under 22, 172 etc etc). Therefore, I would rather "fly under the radar" and not permit lane splitting because we all know some twit on a sport bike convinced he is Rossi wh will be taped lane splitting stop and go traffic at 150 km/h. He will then end up as a smear along the side of a truck or cage, and we will have terribly restrictive legislation, "to save the children"..lol

In my 35 years of riding and driving, (including those I spent as a patrol officer), I have seen more than my share of riders and cagers that I didn't consider competent to operate a vehicle in a parking lot.I certainly wouldn't want them lane splitting period. But then again I am no expert as you.
 
Last edited:
hedo2002 said:
In my 35 years of riding and driving, (including those I spent as a patrol officer), I have seen more than my share of riders and cagers that I didn't consider competent to operate a vehicle in a parking lot.I certainly wouldn't want them lane splitting period. But then again I am no expert as you.
Click to expand...

This will never change though.

I know many riders that will do 100+ the limit on local streets midtown/uptown simply because they can. Most of them don't realize that cars will not see them coming, and it will be completely their fault when one pulls out or changes a lane, and they splatter across the floor.

Our licensing system for bikes absolutely blows.
 
hedo2002 said:
Ok So let's concede your right and that lane splitting can be done safety BY THOSE WHO HAVE LEARNED TO DO IT PROPERLY. So given that your the self professed "expert" having done 25,000 miles per year in California. Then I agree we can make lane splitting legal in Ontario, as soon as YOU teach every single rider in the province, how to do it according to your expert standards.
Click to expand...

Sounds good! haha

Of course not sure who we can get to instruct the cagers.
Click to expand...

No education is required for car drivers other than "hey it's legal so don't rage out and kill someone (please)"...the responsibility of splitting safely is on the rider...if you don't fit, don't split...

It's a pet peeve of mine that we have these campaigns "look twice for motorcycles" - I find it arrogant and probably people think to themselves "why don't they just get a car".

All drivers need to do to make roads safe for us (and for splitting) is check their blind spots and use their turn signals...which they should be doing anyway.

We have seen the Ontario gov't institute "knee jerk" legistlation over one single incident, (zero alcohol for anyone under 22, 172 etc etc). Therefore, I would rather "fly under the radar" and not permit lane splitting because we all know some twit on a sport bike convinced he is Rossi wh will be taped lane splitting stop and go traffic at 150 km/h. He will then end up as a smear along the side of a truck or cage, and we will have terribly restrictive legislation, "to save the children"..lol
Click to expand...

Agreed, I don't think it will be legalized here and I don't really care...I do it when it is safe and prudent like I would in CA.

In my 35 years of riding and driving, (including those I spent as a patrol officer), I have seen more than my share of riders and cagers that I didn't consider competent to operate a vehicle in a parking lot.I certainly wouldn't want them lane splitting period. But then again I am no expert as you.
Click to expand...

Splitting is pretty frightful if you're not confident on your machine at slow speed...I don't think we would see droves of new riders trying it just because it was made legal.
 
Was on the DVP this evening. Guy goes by me around Don Mills and is filtering down and goes out of my sight. I take the Bloor off ramp and he's in front of me by a couple of cars. lol
 
Rob MacLennan said:
A passenger vehicle with three or four people in it has much better per person mileage than does the average motorcycle. Even if I was to accept your incorrect statement that the majority of such passenger vehicles are in fact SUVs, vans, and pickups, my statement still holds up. For example let's look at the 2015 Nissan Pathfinder; a reasonably large SUV. Listed fuel use, city, is 12.1L/100Km. Put 2 people in that vehicle and they are accounting for a little more than 6L/100Km. My real world calculation on fuel consumption for my ER6n, in city riding conditions, came out to something slightly north of 6.5L/100Km.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you're not accounting for the decline in fuel mileage due to the added weight of putting extra people and their gear in the vehicle. For example, adding an extra 180lbs requires a vehicle to work harder and the smaller the car the more that problem is exacerbated. Putting four people in a 1.6L vehicle could add 720lbs to a vehicle, throwing its economy off severely. Adding 100lbs to an average vehicle reduces fuel economy by 2%, and with four 200lb people that's a staggering 30% loss in economy. Terrible.

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5503484_weight-affect-gas-mileage.html


Again, a piddling little number of vehicles, so minimal advantage. And again, the post was talking about HOV lanes, so the idling thing is largely a red herring. No drama involved.
Click to expand...

I could use the same argument to rationalize motorcycles in the HOV lanes. The effect of their presence would be minimal while creating a safety advantage as clearly illustrated in the California study.

If you can convince the Province that motorcycles should be classed as "green vehicles", then you would have a point.
Click to expand...

I have seen the newspaper articles on motorcycle emissions. It is important to note that only one of these articles points to an expert reference from a California university professor who it claims endorses the results, with no specific details on what he endorses. With an anti-motorcycle bent they almost triumphantly make the blanket proclaimation that motorcycles are greater polluters than cars. To that end they have favored their findings on monoxide and nitrogen emissions that are admittedly higher because motorcycles have poorer emissions devices, while conveniently casting aside the more significant finding that more damaging CO2 output is as much as 33% lower on motorcycles. The problem? Well, a simple look at Wiki will tell you that carbon monoxide and nitrous emissions are transient in the atmosphere, while deadly CO2 is not:

Non-greenhouse gases[edit]

Although contributing to many other physical and chemical reactions, the major atmospheric constituents, nitrogen (N

2​
), oxygen (O

2​
), and argon (Ar), are not greenhouse gases. This is because molecules containing two atoms of the same element such as N

2​
and O

2​
and monatomic molecules such as argon (Ar) have no net change in their dipole moment when they vibrate and hence are almost totally unaffected by infrared radiation. Although molecules containing two atoms of different elements such as carbon monoxide (CO) or hydrogen chloride (HCl) absorb IR, these molecules are short-lived in the atmosphere owing to their reactivity and solubility. Because they do not contribute significantly to the greenhouse effect, they are usually omitted when discussing greenhouse gases.
Click to expand...

So, while in the short term motorcycles may minutely add to smog (and I would argue it's laughably insignificant), the far greater long term threat to the atmosphere is clearly the catastrophically higher carbon dioxide emissions from cars. To wit: I disagree with the references being cited as fact in this thread, and I challenge their findings as selective and quite frankly playing to their advertiser base.

That would be injuries for operators of all vehicles, not just motorcycles. The greatest single danger to motorcyclists is head on collisions with oncoming left turning vehicles as cited by dozens of studies, in many countries including this one.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're trying to argue here. That because there are more left turn collisions rear-end collisions are somehow insignificant? You're not making sense. If the Road Safety Annual Report is not good enough for you because you feel it is not specific to motorcycles (I fail to see what factor could separate motorcycles from other vehicles in this category) you can find more specific data in the USC study Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and Identification of Countermeasures which also stated:

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.
Click to expand...

Removing motorcycles from that environment and putting them in HOV lanes certainly would be an added safety measure. You seem to be disagreeing for the sake of argument. I can't believe I'm hearing this from another motorcyclist.
 
A 30% loss in economy for a 300% increase in capacity.....not bad. What happens to motorcycle fuel consumption when you put a passenger on the back?
 
jc100 said:
A 30% loss in economy for a 300% increase in capacity.....not bad. What happens to motorcycle fuel consumption when you put a passenger on the back?
Click to expand...

By the emptiness of the HOV lanes you can clearly see it isn't happening.
 
jc100 said:
A 30% loss in economy for a 300% increase in capacity.....not bad. What happens to motorcycle fuel consumption when you put a passenger on the back?
Click to expand...

Milage gets better for not hooliganing due to the passenger. True story lol
 
jc100 said:
A 30% loss in economy for a 300% increase in capacity.....not bad. What happens to motorcycle fuel consumption when you put a passenger on the back?
Click to expand...

Precisely what I was thinking. Doesn't seem like a very persuasive argument, does it? So you take a car like a Honda Civic, that has a published city fuel economy of 7.9L/100Km, and add three more people to the vehicle. Now you're using 10.3L/100KM, or roughly 2.6L/100Km/person.

And the "deadly" CO2 thing. Jeez. CO is a poison. It's transient in the atmosphere because it's reactive. That's why it's a poison. CO2 not so much, though it is a "greenhouse gas."
 
griff2 said:
Including oxygen.
Click to expand...

Especially oxygen actually. Whereas some gasses just have effect of displacing oxygen from an environment and kill by suffocation, others are actively toxic at the right dose and have an effect on biological pathways and cell and tissue types. Anyway...that's off topic. Carry on.
 
What about all the people who remove pipes and catalytic converters to save lives?


Also, I saw an episode on Mythbusters once . . .

Can riders really be taught to ride safe?
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom