You're right. No one in Canada should have the OPTION of lane splitting.
...or the option to wear helmets right? As I pointed out, here they might both be seen as safety issues.
Can we legalize lane filtering yet?
- Thread starter chodatus
- Start date
...or the option to wear helmets right? As I pointed out, here they might both be seen as safety issues.
Didn't the CHP have to pull that video later on? Is it actually legal in California now, or is it still not illegal?
My understanding was that if you split in California, and you hit something, you've bought it.
Even in California, I hear of people splitting too fast, or between trucks, at the wrong time etc. which results in unnecessary deaths.
Bikerider
Well-known member
I agree with your points when it comes to Lane Splitting but they do not apply at all to Lane Filtering when traffic is at a stop at a red light. Our streets are very wide and there is usually a lot of space to filter. It's more tight downtown in the core but everywhere else this can be done very safely imo. There is no need for any extra skills on the drivers since all they are doing is just sitting at the light anyway. As the rider you should be able to make a decision if there is enough space in a given situation.
Last edited:
Why not ban all the motorcycles while we're at it?
After all, our season is not continuous. Riders get rusty, drivers on top of it forget about motorcyclists (whatever that means), even our lane marks diminish up here, and clearly people on sport bikes ride too fast, or between trucks, at the wrong time, or when it's icy on the roads, etc.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1579372/Ban-motorcycles-safety-expert-says.html
Didn't make too much sense, did it? My reaction is similar to those who claim that Canada has a unique non-feasible environment for introducing lane-splitting, compared to the rest of the World.
For instance:
[video=youtube;jAOM_LRwjW8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAOM_LRwjW8[/video]
Yes they did and I'm still peaved about it. Some numnut filed a lawsuit that the CHP doesn't have the authority to interpret the law and thus could not issue saftey guidelines on them. A procedural judge agreed and thus no more public awareness campaign.
lane splitting is in a legal twilight zone in CA; it is neither expressly allowed, nor is it expressly prohibited. It is up to the individual officers to determine if it is "reckless driving". All the CHP did was issue guidelines to its officers under what circumstances to issue a ticket and when not to. The guidelines are still in effect, they're just not publicly available.
And yes, riders still stretch the boundaries, but when haven't they? For the most part, the majority of riders are pretty sensible about it. But some crotch rocket boys, just as an example, are always gonna give the Riding community a black eye. I'm sure Canadians have problems with reckless riders too, it's not just a CA phenomena.
Last edited:
...or the option to wear helmets right? As I pointed out, here they might both be seen as safety issues.
I see them both as safety issues. Riding with a helmet is safer than without one. Riding with the option of lane splitting is safer than without it.
Please take note of my wording. The OPTION of lane splitting and filtering is safer, not necessarily the act in all circumstances. There are times it is safer, there are times when it's not. It's not for everyone, but since it's generally only the rider that gets hurt, he should be given the ability to ride as safe as possible.
Last edited:
I do like the concept of assuming 100% fault and liability in the event a collision were to occur whilst lane filtering. Similar to how you're 100% at-fault during a left turn, u-turn collision. Both manoeuvres are legal, and if a collision were to occur you would be 100% at-fault.
As long as cagers were protected, such that if they were to change lanes and collide with a motorcycle their hands would be clean.
We can't have our cake and eat it as well. We can't make filtering legal, and expect extra protections under the Insurance or Highway Traffic Act.
As long as cagers were protected, such that if they were to change lanes and collide with a motorcycle their hands would be clean.
We can't have our cake and eat it as well. We can't make filtering legal, and expect extra protections under the Insurance or Highway Traffic Act.
Roadghost
Well-known member
Rob, give your head a shake. CO2 isn't deadly? Well, not in the amounts we naturally breathe in, and you are correct when you say that you would die of CO before CO2 locked in a garage with a running car (it was a joke, I didn't mean it, honest), but it IS a deadly gas. Deadly if breathed in concentration and deadly to the environment because it causes atmospheric warming. It has also killed people in large numbers:
http://www.snopes.com/horrors/freakish/smother.asp
I'm sorry you got shot down when you tried to make arguments for HOV lane use, but I can see how it could happen to a guy like you. I don't really have the time to approach the legislature to make the arguments myself. I know that the Bikers Rights Organization of Ontario had a petition going to allow motorcycles in the HOV lanes at the motorcycle show. It's a pity more people don't support them.
I remain completely unconvinced that motorcycles are greater greenhouse gas producers than cars. It will take more than a portable sniffer test by a bunch of newspaper hacks to convince me. I find a lot of their blanket statements laughable.
I also maintain - based on the studies and data available - that HOV lane use would remove motorcycles from proven risk exposure and lessen a burden on society due to injuries; less burden on emergency services and the health care system as a whole will lower costs and save lives. That is a pretty compelling argument. I don't think you have made any convincing argument to the contrary.
HOV lanes are woefully underused and use of them by less congestive, less carbon dioxide emitting vehicles is again a very truthful and compelling argument in favor of motorcycles.
A dedicated intelligent person could do a very good research paper and make a strong argument to legislators for HOV use and indeed lane splitting based on available data. The overwhelming reason against will simply be what it always is and has been: that lawmakers don't want to do anything that would encourage more people to ride motorcycles. That is the real mindset you're up against.
Roadghost
Well-known member
Nobody is saying that carpooling isn't a good idea. But motorcycles in HOV lanes are also a good idea, and an innocuous one at that.
I consider this comment to be childish and hollow, like the rest of your posts. If you're going to engage in a conversation at least do it with some maturity.
In the incident to which you linked CO2 levels rose and oxygen levels fell, after a MASSIVE release of CO2. Like the man said, that ain't normal. The word "freakish" is used in the link. If nitrogen levels rose in the same manner you'd die too, because you need oxygen. *EDITED TO ADD* At those concentrations you might as well be saying "water is deadly", because it's effectively a flood.
I made no claims that motorcycles produce more greenhouse gasses than do cars. I said that they release higher concentrations of more dangerous pollutants than do cars. As 'childish' as you may think caboose56's post to be he makes a fairly accurate point that you are ignoring those more dangerous emissions, while concentrating on the one bugaboo of carbon dioxide. Motorcycle emissions technology is decades behind that of cars, because the same rules don't apply to them. Manufacturers do not develop technologies that they don't have to, because it cuts into the bottom line.
As to the rest if you think that you can do better, and this is something that you seem to be passionate about, do you not feel some duty to press it forward? If not, then you're just another internet complainer. For all of your veiled comments, at least I actually tried
Last edited:
So instead of defending the statements you've made that have been challenged you resort to name calling...... interesting debate tactics.
Going to have to disagree with you there. Like I said before, my brother in the UK has only had a serious accident when lane splitting...and that's in a country where lane splitting is allowed. He wouldn't say it makes you safer...it's convenient yes. Safer no.
Well recent studies at Berkley and CHP suggest otherwise. They find it no more dangerous than anything else in motorcycling. So if you find MC safe, then splitting is also.
Sorry your brother got hurt, but I never said it wasn't possible to get hurt while lane splitting; it's not a magic cure-all that avoids all danger. We are still riding motorcycles after all.
And what about all the riders who've gotten rear-end just sitting in a lane? I personally know four that were hit because they didn't split or filter. If all you're going by is the report of one family member, then you really need to do more research before you determine if it's safe.
And again let me repeat myself. I'm not advocating lane splitting as the be all, end all promised land of motorcycle. I only advocate for the OPTION to do it. It obviously didn't workout for your brother. But I've done it most days for 25 years with narry a scratch. If it was as dangerous as you suggest, shouldn't I be dead by now? I mean come on, 25 years through some of the worst traffic in the world, I'd have to have been hurt somehow if it was SO dangerous. Wouldn't you think?
As I said before, it's not for everyone. But for those who've learned to do it and can improve their safety doing it, we should be able to ride as we feel safest.
Last edited:
I knew a guy who had been riding for decades and had never crashed. Claimed that it was because he used the same sort of mental regimen that a commercial pilot does, when riding. Even said that he was going to write a book about it.
... then he crashed.
I'm having trouble making a connection between my statement and yours, please enlighten me.
Still not buying it sorry. The driver was found totally at fault in the accident, not my brother. Drivers pull out and change lanes without warning more than I see them rear ending people. Yes, both happen, but one happens on a much more regular basis. That has a massive effect on anything not expected to be beside that vehicle when it pulls out. If it's another car, that car has a rollcage and crumple zones. A bike..not so much.
You don't have to buy it. YOU don't have to do it. It's not manditory. But why deny others if they feel it is safer and it's been proven to be a safe activity? Who is it going to hurt other than the participant? That's the beauty of what I'm saying. It's the OPTION of doing it.
i just like having as many legal tools and skills in my riding toolbox as possible. If it's not for you, fine; sit in the lane. But why be against something you've no interest in participating in? Is your judgement superior to mine? Are you trying to save me from myself? I don't understand the logic of denying others an activity that is really none of your concern since you Won't participate in it.
No, you're not getting it. If it was legal I'd do it, but I'm not going to pretend it's safer than being in the traffic lane. I'll be honest and say it's a massive convenience for me. When I ride, I'm not as bothered by being rear ended as I am by cars changing into my lane. If I was filtering here in this country and that happened my buffer zone just disappeared. So, for the convenience of getting ahead a few blocks you want to chance that occurrence, fine. Go ahead and do it, but don't pretend you're doing it for the good of society, be honest.
I NEVER said I did it for the "good of society". I do it purely for selfish reasons, admittedly. Yes it is a huge time saver (good for me), but I also think it is safer (also good for me). The fact that it also cuts down on traffic is a bit of a societal side benefit, but not one Im generally concerned with. And I'm really NOT pretending that it's safer; I truely believe it is. In my experience, I'd much rather have some form of control of a situation and actively be moving, splitting or filtering, than be passive and sitting in a lane just waiting to be rear-ended.
Think of this... My rule #1 when riding is that we are invisible to traffic. If you're just riding in a lane, there's a good chance a driver doesn't see you and will incur in your lane and your "buffer zone just disappeared". With lane splitting said driver may not see you, but he does see the car next to them, hence he doesn't attempt a lane change and a rider just takes advantage of the space in between; basically it's using the Car's buffer zone.. It's one of the reasons I find it safer.
I believe a MCs greatest defense in the motoring world is a good offense. It's quickness, maneuverability, braking and ability to fit in small spots are all superior to autos. I like to use these tools to my advantage in order to ride safely. Stopped, just sitting in a lane, none of these advantages can be used, you're just waiting on the kindness of strangers to A) see you (see above rule #1), B) pay attention (virtually impossible with cell phones in hand) and C) stop in time. With filtering and splitting, I don't rely on the kindness of strangers, I move forward, out of harms way. So this is no act, I really think it is safer.
But that's me. That's what has worked for me for a long time. It may not be for you or others, but why be against it as a legitimate, safe riding option?
Last edited:
Roadghost
Well-known member
But it still illustrates how it can be deadly, something that wasn't being acknowleged. CO isn't deadly in natural concentrations either, but it is still deadly.
I believe I already answered this. Again, carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide that are in higher concentrations from motorcycles break down quickly in sunlight and become harmless. During that journey they create ground level ozone that irritates asthma sufferers. A sniffer test will easily show this and make motorcycles look bad. Higher PPMs mean's more pollution right? That's what the motorcycle haters would have you believe but... there's that little issue of CFM to factor in. Bear in mind that an engine is basically an air pump. A Honda 250cc running at 3000rpm vs a 2.2L passenger car at 1900rpm at around 50-60mph. Idling in traffic both are turning 700-900rpm. Which one do you think is pumping the most gas into the atmosphere? I think you can do the math. If for one cubic foot the bike makes 100% more ppm than a car, it still has to work mighty hard to catch up to what the car is pumping out, and that doesn't factor in all the 7L pickup trucks, 5L SUVs and 4L minivans, and DIESELS, don't forget about them. Sure, one cubic foot of air from the bike is dirtier, but it's a drop in the bucket in comparison.
