Risk Aversion

[hbelkins]

During Day 1 of the Philadelphia Meet traffic was thick on the Vine Street Expressway.  Two bikers passed much off the slowed traffic via lane splitting.  At the time it didn't strike me as a big deal given lane splitting is so common in California.  I got to thinking afterwards what the rest of the people slogging through traffic thought of lane splitting, I'm sure their opinions vary greatly to mine.

Lane splitting is dangerous and should be illegal. If I was driving a junker vehicle stuck in traffic and saw a motorcyclist coming up behind me lane splitting, I'd be tempted to open my door and pour out a drink or something just as they were getting close.

[Scott5114]

During Day 1 of the Philadelphia Meet traffic was thick on the Vine Street Expressway.  Two bikers passed much off the slowed traffic via lane splitting.  At the time it didn't strike me as a big deal given lane splitting is so common in California.  I got to thinking afterwards what the rest of the people slogging through traffic thought of lane splitting, I'm sure their opinions vary greatly to mine.

Lane splitting is dangerous and should be illegal. If I was driving a junker vehicle stuck in traffic and saw a motorcyclist coming up behind me lane splitting, I'd be tempted to open my door and pour out a drink or something just as they were getting close.

> I think lane splitting should be banned because it is dangerous
> If I was nearby I would go out of my way to make it more dangerous

Incredible.

I don't think the lane splitter is the problem in this situation, H.B.

[SSOWorld]

During Day 1 of the Philadelphia Meet traffic was thick on the Vine Street Expressway.  Two bikers passed much off the slowed traffic via lane splitting.  At the time it didn't strike me as a big deal given lane splitting is so common in California.  I got to thinking afterwards what the rest of the people slogging through traffic thought of lane splitting, I'm sure their opinions vary greatly to mine.

Lane splitting is dangerous and should be illegal. If I was driving a junker vehicle stuck in traffic and saw a motorcyclist coming up behind me lane splitting, I'd be tempted to open my door and pour out a drink or something just as they were getting close.

So I see you promote and are more than willing to commit vehicular aggravated assault.  You will get arrested and convicted for this.  If they're dead as a result, You'll be charged with vehicular homicide.

[thspfc]

Lane splitting is illegal in 49 out of 50 states, with the lone exception being California, the state that created prop 65. Interesting juxtaposition.

Sometimes I seriously wonder what they're doing out there.

[SSOWorld]

Lane splitting is illegal in 49 out of 50 states, with the lone exception being California, the state that created prop 65. Interesting juxtaposition.

Sometimes I seriously wonder what they're doing out there.

Ignoring the law.

[SSOWorld]

Lane splitting is illegal in 49 out of 50 states, with the lone exception being California, the state that created prop 65. Interesting juxtaposition.

Sometimes I seriously wonder what they're doing out there.

Lane splitting is known by the state of California to cause cancer or reproductive harm.

[Max Rockatansky]

Lane splitting is illegal in 49 out of 50 states, with the lone exception being California, the state that created prop 65. Interesting juxtaposition.

Sometimes I seriously wonder what they're doing out there.

For whatever reason the traffic code doesn't cater much to hand holding in California.  My personal favorite is if a road isn't signed out in the boons it has a default 55 MPH speed limit.  Trying to maintain 55 MPH on a clear winter morning on the likes of CA 1 in Big Sur is a whole crap ton of technically legal fun. 

[Scott5114]

Lane splitting is illegal in 49 out of 50 states, with the lone exception being California, the state that created prop 65. Interesting juxtaposition.

Sometimes I seriously wonder what they're doing out there.

When someone chooses to engage in lane splitting (or indeed ride a motorcycle at all) they are willfully engaging in a behavior that is higher-risk, for the reward of being able to move in traffic faster. The risks are obvious, and I wouldn't be surprised if they're detailed in official state education materials for motorcyclists. By engaging in lane splitting, a cyclist is making an informed decision to accept that risk, and the state is giving them the freedom to do so. There is no requirement to lane-split if you are on a motorcycle.

Prop 65 warnings are intended to prevent businesses from concealing the presence of hazardous chemicals in their products. If this information is concealed from the consumer, they cannot make an informed decision as to whether they should accept that risk or not. The risk is unknown to them. There is no way to judge whether the risk is low enough to be acceptable, or whether it is high enough that they would not want to engage in that risk. (The appearance of Prop 65 warnings on almost everything is an unfortunate unintended consequence of businesses having figured out the hit in sales from carrying a Prop 65 warning is less than it would cost to test for the need for a Prop 65 warning, but that has nothing to do with what the purpose of the law was intended to be.) You can still buy something with a Prop 65 warning on it–by doing so you are (theoretically) making an informed decision to accept that risk.

So it is entirely sensible and internally consistent to have both.

[vdeane]

Motorcycles.  I think they are a useful gauge for how risk-averse a person is.  Someone willing to ride a motorcycle on a regular basis in the United States, in my observation, has a high tolerance for risk or a low appreciation of risk.  And I'm not even talking about the jags who do wheelies or ride dirt bikes off jumps or whatever. Simply driving around in traffic on a motorcycle is far more dangerous to the individual than if they were in a normal vehicle.  Even more so if they don't wear a goddamn helmet.

So in my mind, it's like "Yeah I go hiking by myself, but it's not like I'm getting there on a motorbike!"

Great point and could not agree more! I have never been on a motorcycle and have no interest in ever doing so. It's just a recipe for something bad to happen.

My distaste for motorcycles and motorcycling in general increased today after an incident that occurred this morning. I was on NY 262 heading west, and came upon a pair of motorcycles. After several miles, I established that their cruising speed was around 62-63 mph. As it happened, my preferred speed was a bit faster than that, around 70 mph, since was in a bit of a hurry. So, I pulled out to pass as soon as there was a long passing zone and an ample opportunity to do so.

By the time I was completing the pass, we had reached a very slight curve in the road and I could see traffic approaching a ways in the distance. Meanwhile, the motorcycles had started accelerating, so I accelerated too, to around 80 mph, to ensure I could complete the pass, which I did. After I moved back to the right, one of the motorcycles came right up behind me, clearly agitated, and tailgated me for a good 1/2 mile or so. (Good thing for him, I'm not one to brake check, although in hindsight, I should have put my hazards on.)

By that time, we were quickly approaching two more cars. I pulled out to pass the first one, and the motorcycles followed, the first one still tailgating. After passing the first car, I moved back to the right. The motorcycles went roaring past me and the second car, pulling a wheelstand as they passed. I maintained 70 mph as I passed the second car, and momentarily caught back up to the motorcyclists, one of whom looked back and gave me a little wave, as if to say "bye-bye". They sped up again, but would eventually slow back down to 65 mph or so, which continued as I followed them through Byron and most of the way to Bergen. Near Bergen, they passed a string of four vehicles led by a slow camper, and I soon lost sight of them.

The camper turned off at the end of NY 262, and I continued down NY 19 to NY 33 to I-490. Not far down I-490, I again saw the same two motorcycles in the distance, and eventually caught up to them as I was cruising at just under 80 mph. I again pulled out to pass and they sped up to match my speed, rode along side me for a while, and eventually roared off. At the next exit, a red Mazda entered the highway and merged well in front of me, then easily overtook the motorcycles a moment later with no problem at all. I caught up to the motorcycles again by the time they exited at NY 531, so I rolled my window down and waved as they went over the overpass.

Even though I don't feel I did anything wrong here, I was certainly distressed and annoyed by the interaction which brought a sour ending to an otherwise delightful Saturday morning clinching trip.

I find that same phenomenon often with cars. They want to go slower than you want to go, but they also don't want you to pass them.

I've been known to respond to that phenomenon on the Thruway by matching speed with a vehicle (usually a truck) going slower than they want to go for a few miles when ahead of them.  That tends to get the message through.  This is fairly easy on the Thruway, with the long distance between most exits and nearly all of it being just two lanes each way - traffic patterns tend to get stale unless you have a noticeable speed differential from surrounding traffic, and it's easy to box someone in, intentionally or otherwise (given how thick traffic can be, especially when passing a string of trucks).

[thspfc]

Lane splitting is illegal in 49 out of 50 states, with the lone exception being California, the state that created prop 65. Interesting juxtaposition.

Sometimes I seriously wonder what they're doing out there.

When someone chooses to engage in lane splitting (or indeed ride a motorcycle at all) they are willfully engaging in a behavior that is higher-risk, for the reward of being able to move in traffic faster. The risks are obvious, and I wouldn't be surprised if they're detailed in official state education materials for motorcyclists. By engaging in lane splitting, a cyclist is making an informed decision to accept that risk, and the state is giving them the freedom to do so. There is no requirement to lane-split if you are on a motorcycle.

Prop 65 warnings are intended to prevent businesses from concealing the presence of hazardous chemicals in their products. If this information is concealed from the consumer, they cannot make an informed decision as to whether they should accept that risk or not. The risk is unknown to them. There is no way to judge whether the risk is low enough to be acceptable, or whether it is high enough that they would not want to engage in that risk. (The appearance of Prop 65 warnings on almost everything is an unfortunate unintended consequence of businesses having figured out the hit in sales from carrying a Prop 65 warning is less than it would cost to test for the need for a Prop 65 warning, but that has nothing to do with what the purpose of the law was intended to be.) You can still buy something with a Prop 65 warning on it–by doing so you are (theoretically) making an informed decision to accept that risk.

So it is entirely sensible and internally consistent to have both.

Prop 65 was a good idea that was horribly executed. When people see prop 65 stickers everywhere, no one cares, and nothing bad happens, they lose their significance. The threshold should have been higher, to the point where the warnings stand out and therefore businesses are enticed to keep their products below the warning level.

Your argument for the legality of lane splitting is akin to the argument against COVID mask and vaccine mandates. "Individual people can make their own decisions", except, those decisions can have devastating impacts on others. Lane splitting motorcyclists cause an accident, vehicles behind them swerve to avoid, and chaos ensues. So I hope you weren't in favor of those mandates . . .

[Scott5114]

I mean, I don't really care whether lane splitting is legal or not, since I don't ride a motorcycle. My point was merely that Prop 65 and lane-splitting are ideologically consistent.

[Max Rockatansky]

Just as an observation, I don't really recall a specific instance where lane splitting caused an issue on a road.  For the most part it takes place in slow commuter traffic in California rather than high speed scenarios.  Lane splitting is most popular in the Bay Area where it is largely difficult to get around in a car because of the high amount of commuter traffic.

[thspfc]

I mean, I don't really care whether lane splitting is legal or not, since I don't ride a motorcycle. My point was merely that Prop 65 and lane-splitting are ideologically consistent.

That's a fair point. But no other state has done hazardous chemical warnings as widespread as CA has with prop 65. So it's odd that CA is on the most concerned end of the spectrum with prop 65, yet they're the least concerned with lane splitting. And that fits in a thread about risks.

[thspfc]

Just as an observation, I don't really recall a specific instance where lane splitting caused an issue on a road.  For the most part it takes place in slow commuter traffic in California rather than high speed scenarios.  Lane splitting is most popular in the Bay Area where it is largely difficult to get around in a car because of the high amount of commuter traffic.

I don't recall any either. But if 49 of 50 states agree it should be illegal, in a country where states disagree on a lot? That means something.

[hotdogPi]

Paris allows lane splitting. I didn't see any in London, but I don't know if I simply missed it.

[Max Rockatansky]

Just as an observation, I don't really recall a specific instance where lane splitting caused an issue on a road.  For the most part it takes place in slow commuter traffic in California rather than high speed scenarios.  Lane splitting is most popular in the Bay Area where it is largely difficult to get around in a car because of the high amount of commuter traffic.

I don't recall any either. But if 49 of 50 states agree it should be illegal, in a country where states disagree on a lot? That means something.

The contradiction is pretty amusing given how lax California can be regarding traffic laws while at the take time being incredibly bureaucratic with other safety regulations.

[Scott5114]

Just as an observation, I don't really recall a specific instance where lane splitting caused an issue on a road.  For the most part it takes place in slow commuter traffic in California rather than high speed scenarios.  Lane splitting is most popular in the Bay Area where it is largely difficult to get around in a car because of the high amount of commuter traffic.

I don't recall any either. But if 49 of 50 states agree it should be illegal, in a country where states disagree on a lot? That means something.

The contradiction is pretty amusing given how lax California can be regarding traffic laws while at the take time being incredibly bureaucratic with other safety regulations.

If I had to guess, it was probably originally enacted to help traffic and/or reduce vehicle emissions (both of which are bigger problems in California than other states). Given that the California legislature has no inhibition about enacting new regulations when they feel it's justified, and going on what you said, I'm guessing there simply haven't been enough incidents to bother doing so.

[kphoger]

If I had to guess, it was probably originally enacted to help traffic and/or reduce vehicle emissions (both of which are bigger problems in California than other states). Given that the California legislature has no inhibition about enacting new regulations when they feel it's justified, and going on what you said, I'm guessing there simply haven't been enough incidents to bother doing so.

Lane-splitting was found to be neither expressly permitted nor expressly prohibited in California state law.  The state therefore set about studying the issue.

I can find plenty of articles whose authors state that easing traffic congestion was the reason for the change, but that doesn't mean the safety implications were simply ignored.  Quite the contrary:  read the actual bill analysis, and you won't see any mention of traffic congestion, but you will see mention of safety studies.

AB 51
BILL ANALYSIS
April 6, 2015

SUBJECT:  Vehicles:  motorcycles:  lane splitting

A 2014 study published by the University of California at Berkeley, in collaboration with OTS and CHP, found that lane splitting can be done safely when riders are travelling only slightly faster than surrounding traffic.  The study also points out that lane splitting offers motorcyclists a safer position in traffic which protects them from often catastrophic rear-end impacts.  The Hurt Report of 1981, reportedly the one of most comprehensive motorcycle crash causation studies to date, also noted that reducing a motorcyclist's exposure to vehicles that are frequently accelerating and decelerating on congested roadways is one way to reduce front- and rear-end collisions.

According to the author, removing the guidelines from CHP and OTS websites left a void in informing the public about safe lane splitting practices, particularly since CHP curtailed all education and outreach efforts on the subject.  To address this concern, the author introduced this bill which codifies CHP's lane splitting guidelines.  Specifically, the bill expressly authorizes lane splitting under two conditions: when the speed of traffic moving in the same direction does not exceed 30 mph; and the motorcycle is not driven more than 10 mph faster than the speed of traffic.  Additionally, the bill provides that motorcycles must continue to be operated in a safe manner, in compliance with existing laws, to ensure that law enforcement has the ability to cite motorcyclists that misuse the practice.   

The author notes that lane splitting, when performed in accordance with CHP guidelines, improves safety by reducing the potential for catastrophic rear-end collisions, making motorcycles more visible to drivers in heavy traffic, and preventing motorcycle engine breakdowns that occur from excessive idle time.  The author contends that providing reasonable guidelines for lane splitting helps inform drivers and motorcycle riders alike and removes ambiguities in the law.

[US 89]

I find that same phenomenon often with cars. They want to go slower than you want to go, but they also don't want you to pass them.

Just last week on I-65 I was behind a car that was passing a string of trucks while cruising at a steady 72 mph. After clearing the last truck he sped up to 76 but refused to move over to the right. When I attempted to pass on the right, he sped up to at least 85 mph to prevent it, and was back down to 72 upon reaching the next group of trucks to pass.

I had this same thing happen to me multiple times on my most recent cross-country trip. I find that drivers who engage in this kind of behavior almost always have California, New York, or Florida license plates.

[webny99]

Motorcycles.  I think they are a useful gauge for how risk-averse a person is.  Someone willing to ride a motorcycle on a regular basis in the United States, in my observation, has a high tolerance for risk or a low appreciation of risk.  And I'm not even talking about the jags who do wheelies or ride dirt bikes off jumps or whatever. Simply driving around in traffic on a motorcycle is far more dangerous to the individual than if they were in a normal vehicle.  Even more so if they don't wear a goddamn helmet.

So in my mind, it's like "Yeah I go hiking by myself, but it's not like I'm getting there on a motorbike!"

Great point and could not agree more! I have never been on a motorcycle and have no interest in ever doing so. It's just a recipe for something bad to happen.

My distaste for motorcycles and motorcycling in general increased today after an incident that occurred this morning. ...

eanwhile, the motorcycles had started accelerating, so I accelerated too, to around 80 mph, to ensure I could complete the pass, which I did. After I moved back to the right, one of the motorcycles came right up behind me, clearly agitated, and tailgated me for a good 1/2 mile or so. (Good thing for him, I'm not one to brake check, although in hindsight, I should have put my hazards on.)

By that time, we were quickly approaching two more cars. I pulled out to pass the first one, and the motorcycles followed, the first one still tailgating. After passing the first car, I moved back to the right. The motorcycles went roaring past me and the second car, pulling a wheelstand as they passed. I maintained 70 mph as I passed the second car, and momentarily caught back up to the motorcyclists, one of whom looked back and gave me a little wave, as if to say "bye-bye". They sped up again, but would eventually slow back down to 65 mph or so, which continued ...

Even though I don't feel I did anything wrong here, I was certainly distressed and annoyed by the interaction which brought a sour ending to an otherwise delightful Saturday morning clinching trip.

I find that same phenomenon often with cars. They want to go slower than you want to go, but they also don't want you to pass them.

Just last week on I-65 I was behind a car that was passing a string of trucks while cruising at a steady 72 mph. After clearing the last truck he sped up to 76 but refused to move over to the right. When I attempted to pass on the right, he sped up to at least 85 mph to prevent it, and was back down to 72 upon reaching the next group of trucks to pass.

Absolutely, I've seen this many times, and as vdeane notes, it often seems to happen on the Thruway. It baffles me that people would insist on passing slowly and then speeding up when they're done passing. If anything, I'd do the opposite to help maintain speed differential between lanes and improve the overall traffic flow.

However, before today I'd never really encountered it on a two-lane road before. The way the motorcyclists reacted was almost like they were insulted that I would try to pass them. Of course, about half of the driving population seems to have a phobia of passing on two-lane roads, which I've never understood. Yes, it's very different than passing on the freeway, but there's no reason to be held up by a slower driver for miles on end if the coast is clear to pass - that's what the passing zones are there for. And I've found that the vast majority of the time, you can do it almost as easily as you can on the freeway, just with some extra caution and alertness (sometimes even with the cruise control set the whole time, although generally speaking this is more doable out west than it is here).

I had this same thing happen to me multiple times on my most recent cross-country trip. I find that drivers who engage in this kind of behavior almost always have California, New York, or Florida license plates.

This is anecdotal but I recall one specific occurrence with a Chevy SUV with CT plates, and it was nowhere near Connecticut.

Also, with regards to Florida plates, they're often used on rentals around here, so it could be anybody.

[kirbykart]

I just looked up what lane splitting is and yikes, is that dangerous. That should not be legal anywhere, what a horrendous idea.

[MATraveler128]

I just looked up what lane splitting is and yikes, is that dangerous. That should not be legal anywhere, what a horrendous idea.

I see people do it occasionally, what a bad idea. In addition to California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Oregon, and Texas are trying to make it legal in those states.

[Max Rockatansky]

I just looked up what lane splitting is and yikes, is that dangerous. That should not be legal anywhere, what a horrendous idea.

I see people do it occasionally, what a bad idea.

Until you see it in practice during stopped traffic on the Bay Bridge.  Totally saves time and is probably the sole reason you see sports bikes during commute hours in general around San Francisco.

[Scott5114]

Yeah, it's insanely dangerous...if you do it at 70 mph. If it's happening in the middle of a pack of cars rolling along at 10 mph I don't see why there's much reason to disallow it.

[hbelkins]

During Day 1 of the Philadelphia Meet traffic was thick on the Vine Street Expressway.  Two bikers passed much off the slowed traffic via lane splitting.  At the time it didn't strike me as a big deal given lane splitting is so common in California.  I got to thinking afterwards what the rest of the people slogging through traffic thought of lane splitting, I'm sure their opinions vary greatly to mine.

Lane splitting is dangerous and should be illegal. If I was driving a junker vehicle stuck in traffic and saw a motorcyclist coming up behind me lane splitting, I'd be tempted to open my door and pour out a drink or something just as they were getting close.

So I see you promote and are more than willing to commit vehicular aggravated assault.  You will get arrested and convicted for this.  If they're dead as a result, You'll be charged with vehicular homicide.

Only if it's illegal for me to open my door if I'm sitting stopped in traffic. Which, to my knowledge, it isn't.

However, if someone is committing an illegal act (lane splitting) then wouldn't they be liable for their own law-breaking and reaping the consequences thereof?

If you break into my house and fall down the steps and kill yourself, it's not my fault.