Official CHP release: Lane Splitting 101

[VEGASRIDER]

Then this writer and other drivers who oppose to lane splitting should never be upset or comment on how it's a waste for one motorcycle to occupy a single parking space when space is a premium.

We hear it all the time and honestly, I can agree with them because of the bikes small size and requires very little space, most of the time we can share or occupy a space where a car would normally cannot. Well this is the same principle and logic why lane splitting/sharing/filtering is in place.

Bottom line is that you are allowing a motorcycle to occupy a part of the roadway where a vehicle would not be able to. It's providing more space and reducing time for other vehicles to travel. It's no different than making other drivers spend extra time looking for a parking space because I had chosen to park in a parking stall rather than some little out of the way cut out in the parking lot.

Whether it's a parking lot or a freeway, the logic is the same. Let motorcycles occupy an area where cars normally cannot in order to free up more space for the cars!

 

[YZF73]

Then this writer and other drivers who oppose to lane splitting should never be upset or comment on how it's a waste for one motorcycle to occupy a single parking space when space is a premium.

We hear it all the time and honestly, I can agree with them because of the bikes small size and requires very little space, most of the time we can share or occupy a space where a car would normally cannot. Well this is the same principle and logic why lane splitting/sharing/filtering is in place.

Bottom line is that you are allowing a motorcycle to occupy a part of the roadway where a vehicle would not be able to. It's providing more space and reducing time for other vehicles to travel. It's no different than making other drivers spend extra time looking for a parking space because I had chosen to park in a parking stall rather than some little out of the way cut out in the parking lot.

Whether it's a parking lot or a freeway, the logic is the same. Let motorcycles occupy an area where cars normally cannot in order to free up more space for the cars!

I'm not aware of any point in the article where the author states that he actually opposes filtering. As far as I can see he purely acknowledges the fact that guidelines have been introduced by the CHP, and that many riders current habits don't mirror them. I think the author actually appears to be in favour of anything that increases road safety generally - including filtering - but would like to see laws put in place to ensure those who are reckless are forced to do so in a more considerate manner.

I'm from the UK, so can't comment specifically on the US situation, but I know over here the vast majority of riders don't follow the police's (rather thin) guidelines for filtering, and many appear to lack consideration for others.

I actually agree with many of the authors statements. For example, I'm sure we've all had it when a motorcycle has filtered past us sitting in a cage and caught us off guard, doesn't half make you jump sometimes.


Yamahaboyz

 

[Tailgate]

I'm not aware of any point in the article where the author states that he actually opposes filtering.

Well, yes but probably (doesn't "oppose" filtering) only because he knows that would really start a storm of angry responses. My feeling is that writer tempered or softened his stance but he still comes through to me as, somewhow, "annoyed" because, as he claims, for him it's one of the most "unnerving" things for a cyclist to "rocket past." His choice of terms ("rocket") reveals to me that he's exaggerating. I mean, really, I can't even remember the last time that happened to me while in a cage. And, when it does, it's no more typical than, say, a crazy motorist in a car making "unnerving" moves. The writer comes off to me as being disingenuous. For example, a much less loaded term would be, say, "speed past, travel past," etc. No, he uses the term "rocket" to help imply that this is a big problem with motorcyclists in California. Well, if you do have this kind of problem (motorcyclists who rocket past cagers) in England, I guess I'm not hitting chords with you.

Also, notable for me is that writer turned down a ride-along offer. This tells me something. Somebody who's not even willing to ride on the back of a motorcycle one time. I guess, for the writer, it's a "safety" issue? Sounds like a whimp.

 

[beatle]

Most car-motorcycle collisions are from the bike being rear ended,

Not according to this site: Motorcycle Related Injuries and Fatalities – trafficsafety.org

It shows "In 2006, 2,537 (51%) of all motorcycles involved in fatal crashes collided with another type of motor vehicle while in motion. In two-vehicle crashes, 79% of the motorcycles involved were impacted in the front. Only 5% were struck in the rear."

 

[Ssky0078]

Not according to this site: Motorcycle Related Injuries and Fatalities – trafficsafety.org

It shows "In 2006, 2,537 (51%) of all motorcycles involved in fatal crashes collided with another type of motor vehicle while in motion. In two-vehicle crashes, 79% of the motorcycles involved were impacted in the front. Only 5% were struck in the rear."

I think he missed the quote in regard to that the highest rate of motorcycle fatalities are rear end accidents. it's something like 30% of fatalities are rear end though only 5% of crashes

 

[YZF73]

Well, yes but probably (doesn't "oppose" filtering) only because he knows that would really start a storm of angry responses. My feeling is that writer tempered or softened his stance but he still comes through to me as, somewhow, "annoyed" because, as he claims, for him it's one of the most "unnerving" things for a cyclist to "rocket past." His choice of terms ("rocket") reveals to me that he's exaggerating. I mean, really, I can't even remember the last time that happened to me while in a cage. And, when it does, it's no more typical than, say, a crazy motorist in a car making "unnerving" moves. The writer comes off to me as being disingenuous. For example, a much less loaded term would be, say, "speed past, travel past," etc. No, he uses the term "rocket" to help imply that this is a big problem with motorcyclists in California. Well, if you do have this kind of problem (motorcyclists who rocket past cagers) in England, I guess I'm not hitting chords with you.

Also, notable for me is that writer turned down a ride-along offer. This tells me something. Somebody who's not even willing to ride on the back of a motorcycle one time. I guess, for the writer, it's a "safety" issue? Sounds like a whimp.

I think we're on the same page, we just interpreted the authors words differently. Personally I feel the terms 'unnerving' and 'rocketed' were purely used to make the article more interesting to read. I feel the authors later statement "The goal is to make our highways safer for everyone, motorcyclists included. There shouldn't be any argument about that." proves that the author is definitely not opposed to filtering, providing it is done in a way that best increases safety for motorcyclists and other road users alike.

Turning down the ride-along offer, "One motorcyclist challenged me to take a ride with him; I took a pass.", to me, doesn't really show any intent either way. The use of the word 'challenged' gives me the impression that the rider made the offer in a 'I'll show you what's what' sort of fashion. Would you jump on the back of a bike with someone you don't know, and feel is likely to ride in a potentially unsafe manner?


Yamahaboyz

 

[Tailgate]

Now, the newspaper's editorial cartoonist is chiming in on the lane splitting issue:

 

[marke14]

I see some guys here on the 405 in the mornings - and I have seen them both while idling along in gridlock in the cage as well as when riding in to work occasionally - some guys out here truly do go rocketing through very slow moving traffic. They are a minority of riders perhaps but they are definitely there. A larger majority I would say splits often at well over 39 mph.

The CHP bikes are among them and are often the ones splitting the fastest.

 

[CowtownBiomed]

An interesting report on the safety of lane splitting.

http://www.ridetowork.org/files/docs/LANE_SHARING_A_GLOBAL_SOLUTION_FOR_MOTORCYCLE_SAFETY.pdf

 

[Motogiro]

An interesting report on the safety of lane splitting.

http://www.ridetowork.org/files/docs/LANE_SHARING_A_GLOBAL_SOLUTION_FOR_MOTORCYCLE_SAFETY.pdf

This is a great presentation with positive data for lane sharing. You would think that there would be lobbying from insurance companies alone to get the laws changed for lane sharing.

The one thing we might do as riders, especially where it is legal is to be prudent in doing our lane splitting in a safe and kind way to help promote it in other states where it's not yet legal.

The only down side I can see is it might tax the emotionally disturbed and remove a law that provides revenue for some small towns.

 

[CowtownBiomed]

Yes, I think it is a real eye opener..well it was for me anyway.
I never really considered rear end'ers or side swipes, but I guess it makes sense.
I automaticaly asumed that it would be considered way too dangerous...I'm kind of glad I was mistaken.

I agree too, that there should be a huge lobby to get this approved in all of North America..