It's still a bad idea, dangerous and reckless and MFFY selfish behavior, and should be illegal.
Hook and ladder a bit much there at the end???
Quote from: hbelkins on May 14, 2016, 05:06:11 PM
It's still a bad idea, dangerous and reckless and MFFY selfish behavior, and should be illegal.
You're just jealous that lane splitters get where they're going faster than you do.
Also, MFFY? How are you inconvenienced by lane splitting? The fact that you have to look before you change lanes?
I agree. Lane splitting is dangerous and should be illegal. I recall being stuck in traffic in California, and being caught off guard a couple of times with motorcycles coming up between the lanes unexpectedly. It makes changing lanes difficult, because it can be hard to anticipate lane changes where you are waiting for gaps in slowly moving traffic.
Just to be clear, we're talking about the lane splitting that was being done by the car in that video? Or the motorcycles? Or both?
iPhone
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on May 26, 2016, 11:28:40 PM
I agree. Lane splitting is dangerous and should be illegal. I recall being stuck in traffic in California, and being caught off guard a couple of times with motorcycles coming up between the lanes unexpectedly. It makes changing lanes difficult, because it can be hard to anticipate lane changes where you are waiting for gaps in slowly moving traffic.
It's either (A) have them line up with other cars, or (B) have them ride between the lanes.
The problem is that (A) has been shown to be more dangerous, even though the perceived danger of (B) is as-high or higher than (A).
As for lane changing, just watch your mirror. Even if you do hit a motorcyclist, you'll probably be fine. The only one in any peril here is the motorcyclist.
Quote from: empirestate on May 26, 2016, 11:34:59 PM
Just to be clear, we're talking about the lane splitting that was being done by the car in that video? Or the motorcycles? Or both?
As far as I know, HB is talking about the lane splitting being performed by the motorcycle (the car isn't lane splitting so much as they're just changing lanes illegally).
I fully support lane-splitting. Even though I don't own a motorbike, I support more people riding them because they are much more space-efficient than a full-sized car or truck carrying a single person.
I find it unfortunate that hbelkins takes satisfactions in other people's road accidents, but I guess to each their own. I would strongly advise you not to visit Southern Europe or Southeast Asia, as you would be overwhelmed by motorbikes and their "dangerous and reckless and MFFY selfish behavior".
Quote from: jakeroot on May 26, 2016, 11:47:29 PM
Quote from: empirestate on May 26, 2016, 11:34:59 PM
Just to be clear, we're talking about the lane splitting that was being done by the car in that video? Or the motorcycles? Or both?
As far as I know, HB is talking about the lane splitting being performed by the motorcycle (the car isn't lane splitting so much as they're just changing lanes illegally).
Right; point essentially being that both vehicles were occupying part of the roadway they shouldn't have been, because the double yellow line prohibits it.
Quote from: empirestate on May 27, 2016, 10:39:56 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 26, 2016, 11:47:29 PM
Quote from: empirestate on May 26, 2016, 11:34:59 PM
Just to be clear, we're talking about the lane splitting that was being done by the car in that video? Or the motorcycles? Or both?
As far as I know, HB is talking about the lane splitting being performed by the motorcycle (the car isn't lane splitting so much as they're just changing lanes illegally).
Right; point essentially being that both vehicles were occupying part of the roadway they shouldn't have been, because the double yellow line prohibits it.
Riding along the double yellows is accepted practice in California (as is lane sharing, hence why lane splitting is legal there). You'll see police riding along the double yellows all the time. In theory, it's the safest spot because cars can't change lanes (though they do, it's still far less common than between other lanes).
Quote from: jakeroot on May 27, 2016, 11:03:01 AM
Quote from: empirestate on May 27, 2016, 10:39:56 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 26, 2016, 11:47:29 PM
Quote from: empirestate on May 26, 2016, 11:34:59 PM
Just to be clear, we're talking about the lane splitting that was being done by the car in that video? Or the motorcycles? Or both?
As far as I know, HB is talking about the lane splitting being performed by the motorcycle (the car isn't lane splitting so much as they're just changing lanes illegally).
Right; point essentially being that both vehicles were occupying part of the roadway they shouldn't have been, because the double yellow line prohibits it.
Riding along the double yellows is accepted practice in California (as is lane sharing, hence why lane splitting is legal there). You'll see police riding along the double yellows all the time. In theory, it's the safest spot because cars can't change lanes (though they do, it's still far less common than between other lanes).
Accepted, yes. But when we've discussed this before, it wasn't conclusively shown to be legal (mainly because CA law is silent on lane-splitting but not in double yellow markings). And since this video very obviously shows a car where it isn't supposed to be, the question really arises whether this is about lane splitting at all.
iPhone
Quote from: empirestate on May 27, 2016, 12:30:11 PM
Accepted, yes. But when we've discussed this before, it wasn't conclusively shown to be legal (mainly because CA law is silent on lane-splitting but not in double yellow markings). And since this video very obviously shows a car where it isn't supposed to be, the question really arises whether this is about lane splitting at all.
I'm still not completely sure what you're getting at here, but the law [that permits lane sharing] is so vague, it would be exceedingly difficult to enforce. In theory, the only way a motorcyclist breaks the law here is if he or she
entirely crosses over the double yellow. Simply riding upon the yellow may not constitute crossing it.
Quote from: jakeroot on May 26, 2016, 11:19:34 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 14, 2016, 05:06:11 PM
It's still a bad idea, dangerous and reckless and MFFY selfish behavior, and should be illegal.
You're just jealous that lane splitters get where they're going faster than you do.
Not really, not my fault if they crash and either seriously injure themselves/others or worse.
Quote from: jakeroot on May 27, 2016, 01:51:26 PM
Quote from: empirestate on May 27, 2016, 12:30:11 PM
Accepted, yes. But when we've discussed this before, it wasn't conclusively shown to be legal (mainly because CA law is silent on lane-splitting but not in double yellow markings). And since this video very obviously shows a car where it isn't supposed to be, the question really arises whether this is about lane splitting at all.
I'm still not completely sure what you're getting at here, but the law [that permits lane sharing] is so vague, it would be exceedingly difficult to enforce. In theory, the only way a motorcyclist breaks the law here is if he or she entirely crosses over the double yellow. Simply riding upon the yellow may not constitute crossing it.
That pretty much is what I'm getting at. As I recall, the law that allows lane splitting in CA is actually merely the absence of any law; i.e., lane splitting is implicitly legal because it isn't prohibited. So, point 1 is that lane splitting should be discarded altogether as an issue here (and I was probably misleading by using the term in my original comment) since there's no language about it in the law. So that leaves us with the law regarding the double yellow marking. However vaguely worded that law may be, there's no question that both vehicles here are occupying space near, on or across the double yellow marking, so that would be the first place I'd examine in finding fault, were that my job. I wouldn't even consider lane splitting, since there's no legal language for that in CA.
Point 2 would be the phrase "both vehicles". The OP didn't mention which vehicle he had in mind as the lane splitter, but customary usage assumes it's the motorcycle. Obviously, the car is also very complicit in this accident, so I wanted to clarify that he was referring to that vehicle also.
iPhone
Quote from: ET21 on May 27, 2016, 05:23:10 PM
Not really, not my fault if they crash and either seriously injure themselves/others or worse.
Well that's kind of the point. We are so obsessed with
not letting them "get ahead" (because, lets face it, we're jealous), that we insist they ride where they don't feel comfortable, and/or where it's been proven to be, in many cases, much more dangerous (that is, sitting between a car's trunk and another car's hood).
There's no denying that motorcyclists are the one's who are at greater risk for injury, right? In that case, let them ride where they feel safe (be it behind a car, or next to one). That's it.
Quote from: jakeroot on May 27, 2016, 07:46:26 PM
...we insist they ride where they don't feel comfortable...
...let them ride where they feel safe (be it behind a car, or next to one....)
If I feel more comfortable and safe barreling down the shoulder so I'm not in the traffic stream, should I be allowed to go ahead and do that?
I don't really care if they feel safer riding the lane striping - They are driving a motor vehicle and should be subject to the same traffic laws as everyone else. I don't feel 'safe and comfortable' with some idiot zooming in between cars. This kind of behavior is beyond dangerous and California should ban it outright. You're placing a vehicle where nobody could reasonably expect it to be and where it is illegal in most of the country. The motorcyclist in the video was doing something incredibly stupid and was lucky they weren't killed.
I've seen so many instances whenever I go to New York City...it is so dangerous. Demented I am, I actually laugh at their pain, cause they deserve it for being a-holes. Though I still feel sorry for them...
It should be illegal. I actually prefer HOT/HOV/carpool/express/local lanes to be separated by concrete, which would discourage lane splitting and instead motorcycles are forced to pick one or the other instead of weaving in and out of double solid lines/lane splitting. This also stops cars from hitting motorcycles because those dedicated lanes aren't separated by double solid yellow lines, but instead a nice fluffy concrete barricade.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on May 26, 2016, 11:54:20 PM
I find it unfortunate that hbelkins takes satisfactions in other people's road accidents, but I guess to each their own.
I did not say that, and if you infer that from my comment, then you're delusional.
Quote from: jakeroot on May 27, 2016, 07:46:26 PM
Quote from: ET21 on May 27, 2016, 05:23:10 PM
Not really, not my fault if they crash and either seriously injure themselves/others or worse.
Well that's kind of the point. We are so obsessed with not letting them "get ahead" (because, lets face it, we're jealous), that we insist they ride where they don't feel comfortable, and/or where it's been proven to be, in many cases, much more dangerous (that is, sitting between a car's trunk and another car's hood).
It's not jealousy, it's common sense. I don't feel jealous if someone whizzes by me weaving at 110 or cuts through a jam. That's their choice and in some awful cases their funeral.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on May 27, 2016, 09:14:25 PM
This kind of behavior is beyond dangerous
Quote from: noelbotevera on May 27, 2016, 09:24:46 PM
..it is so dangerous.
Quote from: ET21 on May 27, 2016, 11:01:30 PM
in some awful cases their funeral.
All three of you are completely delusional. There are
no stats, and I mean none, that show lane splitting to be dangerous. Your perceptions are worthless if you can't back them up with facts.
Lane splitting at roughly 10-20 mph above the speed of surrounding traffic poses little, to no danger to either the motorcyclists or drivers.
All of you are used to seeing the dangerous motorcyclists, who purposely flout the law, riding between vehicles and along the shoulder at speeds well over the limit, and you've translated their behaviour to be representative of all motorcyclists. I also don't like those motorcyclists, but this is not at all fair to the thousands of motorcyclists in California, and hell, many other countries, who commute everyday to work, splitting lanes, causing danger to no one, hardly even themselves, so long as they're paying attention.
But, no, you insist that a two wheeled contraption be treated like a four-wheeled contraption, even though the two have absolutely nothing in common. Bikes and cars have been treated the same for decades, but that doesn't mean that they are the same. Anyone with a brain knows that the safest way to get from A to B is by car (well, unless we include trains or planes). It is a well known fact that riding a motorcycle poses a much greater inherent threat to the operator of the motorcycle, than to the operator of a vehicle. Thus, perhaps we need to bend the laws to more accurately reflect the situation at hand: namely, that motorcycles are
not cars, and though they should be limited to roughly the same rules as vehicles, there are areas for improvement.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on May 27, 2016, 09:14:25 PM
If I feel more comfortable and safe barreling down the shoulder so I'm not in the traffic stream, should I be allowed to go ahead and do that?
Sure, as long as you can prove that doing so is safer. After all, that's all I'm doing.
Sorry that I dont trust bikes on interstates. You can call me delusional, but I will not be accountable for some jackass who decides to take a chance in-between lanes and gets me involved in some sort of accident.
We're delusional if we think it's dangerous??? It IS dangerous.
I really don't know why this scab of a topic was reborn, we all know what happened to the last one :poke: . It's those against vs those for.
Quote from: ET21 on May 28, 2016, 07:17:40 AM
Sorry that I dont trust bikes on interstates. You can call me delusional, but I will not be accountable for some jackass who decides to take a chance in-between lanes and gets me involved in some sort of accident.
We're delusional if we think it's dangerous??? It IS dangerous.
I really don't know why this scab of a topic was reborn, we all know what happened to the last one :poke: . It's those against vs those for.
You don't have to accept responsibility. They'll just apply it to you if you're found to be in the wrong. You can talk to a judge about it and let him make the final ruling.
I still think we're getting confused by the applicability of lane splitting to the video in the OP. (Understandably so, since the OP draws this connection to the video and, indeed, the entire thread is named for it...)
For a parallel example, consider a line of traffic stopped for a red light; the approach is just a single lane with no auxiliary turn lanes. A couple of people want to turn right at this light and decide they don't want to wait for the green, since they can make a right on red. One driver sees the long line of traffic ahead before he reaches it, and so he moves immediately to the shoulder, bypassing the entire line. Another driver, already in the queue and close to the front of it, decides to pull out onto the shoulder to do likewise. The first driver, already using the shoulder, comes upon the second as he pulls out and can't stop in time to avoid hitting him. Who's at fault?
Quote from: jakeroot on May 28, 2016, 02:05:29 AM
There are no stats, and I mean none, that show lane splitting to be dangerous. Your perceptions are worthless if you can't back them up with facts.
I am not all that interested in who's right on this topic, and I've never ridden a motorcycle. But the quote above is, to me, the hinge-point of the debate. There has been a call for statistics to back up the assertion that lane-splitting is dangerous, and so far no one has presented any. Until someone puts forth some stats, I'll remain unconvinced.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 28, 2016, 07:59:19 AM
Quote from: ET21 on May 28, 2016, 07:17:40 AM
I will not be accountable for some jackass who decides to take a chance in-between lanes and gets me involved in some sort of accident.
You don't have to accept responsibility. They'll just apply it to you if you're found to be in the wrong. You can talk to a judge about it and let him make the final ruling.
Unless you're dead, in which case it's impossible to appeal to the judge. Again, I don't particularly care who's right or wrong; I just want to point out that legal fault is not the only form of consequence when it comes to traffic accidents.
Quote from: empirestate on May 28, 2016, 10:25:37 AM
For a parallel example, consider a line of traffic stopped for a red light; the approach is just a single lane with no auxiliary turn lanes. A couple of people want to turn right at this light and decide they don't want to wait for the green, since they can make a right on red. One driver sees the long line of traffic ahead before he reaches it, and so he moves immediately to the shoulder, bypassing the entire line. Another driver, already in the queue and close to the front of it, decides to pull out onto the shoulder to do likewise. The first driver, already using the shoulder, comes upon the second as he pulls out and can't stop in time to avoid hitting him. Who's at fault?
There are other similar parallel scenarios. Roads that are wide enough for four lanes of traffic but only striped for two, traffic driving side-by-side. Where a 2-way left-turn lane becomes a left-only lane and through traffic is backed up for a half-mile so traffic rides the TWLTL. When traffic is backed up for two blocks at a stoplight and a cyclist rides along in the gutter to get to the head of the line.
Quote from: kphoger on May 28, 2016, 11:22:55 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 28, 2016, 02:05:29 AM
There are no stats, and I mean none, that show lane splitting to be dangerous. Your perceptions are worthless if you can't back them up with facts.
I am not all that interested in who's right on this topic, and I've never ridden a motorcycle. But the quote above is, to me, the hinge-point of the debate. There has been a call for statistics to back up the assertion that lane-splitting is dangerous, and so far no one has presented any. Until someone puts forth some stats, I'll remain unconvinced.
After exhaustive research, I submit the following as factual evidence of the danger of lane splitting:
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on May 28, 2016, 12:04:07 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 28, 2016, 11:22:55 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 28, 2016, 02:05:29 AM
There are no stats, and I mean none, that show lane splitting to be dangerous. Your perceptions are worthless if you can't back them up with facts.
I am not all that interested in who's right on this topic, and I've never ridden a motorcycle. But the quote above is, to me, the hinge-point of the debate. There has been a call for statistics to back up the assertion that lane-splitting is dangerous, and so far no one has presented any. Until someone puts forth some stats, I'll remain unconvinced.
After exhaustive research, I submit the following as factual evidence of the danger of lane splitting:
Would a video of someone lane splitting and not getting into an accident contradict that?
Quote from: kphoger on May 28, 2016, 11:22:55 AM
There are other similar parallel scenarios. Roads that are wide enough for four lanes of traffic but only striped for two, traffic driving side-by-side. Where a 2-way left-turn lane becomes a left-only lane and through traffic is backed up for a half-mile so traffic rides the TWLTL. When traffic is backed up for two blocks at a stoplight and a cyclist rides along in the gutter to get to the head of the line.
Sure, there are others. But the important parallel is that two vehicles are using an area not normally provided for the movement of traffic, both having an equal right to be there (whether that's a full right or no right at all–or somewhere in between), and they have an accident. Does their use of such an area count towards finding fault, or does it have to be discarded because it gives neither motorist a greater or lesser justification for being there?
And so, if it is discarded, then do we look at other factors, such as whether motorist A should have seen ahead of time that motorist B was in his path and taken steps to avoid the collision? How much at fault is motorist A for being in motorist B's path to begin with? And so forth.
In my area, as I'm sure elsewhere, the local police have set up shop near intersections where motorists tend to ride the shoulder to pass stopped traffic in the travel lane in order to make a right turn. The primary reason for enforcing this law (besides revenue enhancement) is safety - People are not expecting some guy to come barreling down the shoulder since it is not a travel lane and illegal to do so, and thus accidents as described above happen when some guy pulls onto the shoulder and gets rear-ended. It's the same for lane splitting. The lane striping is not intended as a middle lane, nobody expects someone to be there and it is illegal (in most places in the US) to drive there. Furthermore, motorcycles can be hard to see anyway, which is why they often keep their headlight on and is often a contributor in car-motorcycle crashes. Motorcyclists are already at a safety disadvantage on the road - why put yourself in an even more dangerous situation and drive where no motorist expects you to be and where it is illegal to do so? There were references to other countries where lane splitting is common, but it's simply not common here. We don't expect it to happen and it's illegal most places, so nobody is going to look for it. Especially when you are in stopped or slowing traffic (like the video), you are looking at the other stopped cars next to you and making your lane change into a gap based on the position of the cars directly opposite in the adjacent legally defined lane. You are not constantly on the lookout in your mirror in these situations for some clown zipping down between the cars.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on May 28, 2016, 12:04:07 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 28, 2016, 11:22:55 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 28, 2016, 02:05:29 AM
There are no stats, and I mean none, that show lane splitting to be dangerous. Your perceptions are worthless if you can't back them up with facts.
I am not all that interested in who's right on this topic, and I've never ridden a motorcycle. But the quote above is, to me, the hinge-point of the debate. There has been a call for statistics to back up the assertion that lane-splitting is dangerous, and so far no one has presented any. Until someone puts forth some stats, I'll remain unconvinced.
After exhaustive research, I submit the following as factual evidence of the danger of lane splitting:
[youtube
I didn't ask for evidence, I asked for statistics. I could post a YouTube video of someone getting run over while walking a dog, but that doesn't mean dog-walkers are more likely to get run over than pedestrians without dogs.
Quote from: empirestate on May 28, 2016, 12:11:30 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 28, 2016, 11:22:55 AM
There are other similar parallel scenarios. Roads that are wide enough for four lanes of traffic but only striped for two, traffic driving side-by-side. Where a 2-way left-turn lane becomes a left-only lane and through traffic is backed up for a half-mile so traffic rides the TWLTL. When traffic is backed up for two blocks at a stoplight and a cyclist rides along in the gutter to get to the head of the line.
Sure, there are others. But the important parallel is that two vehicles are using an area not normally provided for the movement of traffic, both having an equal right to be there (whether that's a full right or no right at all–or somewhere in between), and they have an accident. Does their use of such an area count towards finding fault, or does it have to be discarded because it gives neither motorist a greater or lesser justification for being there?
And so, if it is discarded, then do we look at other factors, such as whether motorist A should have seen ahead of time that motorist B was in his path and taken steps to avoid the collision? How much at fault is motorist A for being in motorist B's path to begin with? And so forth.
My post was not intended to contradict you, but rather to support your statement. All of the scenarios I mentioned are ones in which fault could be a fuzzy thing. I agree with you that determining fault in a case of lane-splitting would be difficult to determine if lane-splitting is either explicitly or tacitly permitted.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on May 28, 2016, 12:43:31 PM
The lane striping is not intended as a middle lane, nobody expects someone to be there and it is illegal (in most places in the US) to drive there ... We don't expect it to happen and it's illegal most places, so nobody is going to look for it ... You are not constantly on the lookout in your mirror in these situations for some clown zipping down between the cars.
Yes, when I see a motorcyclist approaching from behind, I
do keep a close eye on my mirrors to see if the rider will split the lanes. I've seen them do so with enough frequency to consider that simply part of defensive driving, whether in sparse or heavy traffic. I'm also used to driving in México, where slower drivers (which can include motorcyclists, since smaller engines are more popular there) often drive in the shoulder non-stop, passing down the center stripe is commonplace even with oncoming traffic, and drivers of all sorts will use any space available to complete a passing maneuver. In other words, I'm used to looking for faster and more agile traffic to make bolder moves. I'm not necessarily saying all of those things are innocuous, just that they're common enough that a good driver should expect to see them on the road.
I've found some statistics that study lane splitting in California. This PDF (http://www.ots.ca.gov/pdf/Publications/Motorcycle-Lane-Splitting-and-Safety-2015.pdf) shows a study on lane splitting and how many accidents are caused at different speeds.
So I'll change my opinion and say that lane splitting is fine, you just have to be smart about it. Here's (http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2015/05/28/43025/sharing-the-road-lane-splitting-could-soon-be-legal) a radio report that talk about some studies about lane splitting in California.
However, California is divided about lane splitting. People say that it's not safe and should be illegal, and people that say it is safe and should be legal.
Oregon did a study about this too, and this PDF (https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP_RES/docs/reports/2010/motorcycle_lane_sharing.pdf) talks about prior experience in other countries and the U.S., and also the forces at play in a lane splitting accident. Unfortunately, the law to allow lane spitting (http://www.asphaltandrubber.com/news/oregon-kills-lane-splitting-law-house-committee/) was later killed in the house committee and was never made legal, unlike in California.
The search results I had here is true about the divide and controversy. Some articles say it is safe, some say it is not safe, and some are neutral about it.
This article (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/06/17/motorcyclist-lane-splitting/) says that it is a cause of road rage and is not favored with cops here on the East Coast.
This analysis (http://www.ridetowork.org/files/docs/Lane-splitting-California-freeways-James-Oulet.pdf) talks about some data after doing their own studies (for further evidence).
This article however, (http://news.berkeley.edu/2015/05/29/motorcycle-lanesplitting-report/) says it is safe. So it's really up to you if you think it's safe or not.
Quote from: noelbotevera on May 28, 2016, 04:23:03 PM
So I'll change my opinion and say that lane splitting is fine, you just have to be smart about it.
you can say that about many different things. people tend not to be very smart, though. And laws usually don't account for smartness as well
Quote from: kalvado on May 28, 2016, 04:40:08 PMAnd laws usually don't account for smartness
And this is the primary illness of the American system. We attempt to make the roads safe by prohibiting so many things that nobody has to use a brain or accept personal responsibility, rather than allowing drivers substantial freedom and autonomy or taking driving education seriously.
[/soapbox]
Quote from: kphoger on May 28, 2016, 04:46:28 PM
Quote from: kalvado on May 28, 2016, 04:40:08 PMAnd laws usually don't account for smartness
And this is the primary illness of the American system. We attempt to make the roads safe by prohibiting so many things that nobody has to use a brain or accept personal responsibility, rather than allowing drivers substantial freedom and autonomy or taking driving education seriously.
[/soapbox]
It is not just legislating everything. It is about liability (most frightening word in US) for the accidents. Which, in case of collision, have just 3 possible verdicts: Motorist A, Motorist B, or both.
I would say motorcycle riders should be free to use lane sharing at their own risk - but next thing that would happen is a line of cars eager to be hit by motorcycle, just because that would be someone's else liability!
Quote from: kphoger on May 28, 2016, 01:23:26 PM
Quote from: empirestate on May 28, 2016, 12:11:30 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 28, 2016, 11:22:55 AM
There are other similar parallel scenarios. Roads that are wide enough for four lanes of traffic but only striped for two, traffic driving side-by-side. Where a 2-way left-turn lane becomes a left-only lane and through traffic is backed up for a half-mile so traffic rides the TWLTL. When traffic is backed up for two blocks at a stoplight and a cyclist rides along in the gutter to get to the head of the line.
Sure, there are others. But the important parallel is that two vehicles are using an area not normally provided for the movement of traffic, both having an equal right to be there (whether that's a full right or no right at all–or somewhere in between), and they have an accident. Does their use of such an area count towards finding fault, or does it have to be discarded because it gives neither motorist a greater or lesser justification for being there?
And so, if it is discarded, then do we look at other factors, such as whether motorist A should have seen ahead of time that motorist B was in his path and taken steps to avoid the collision? How much at fault is motorist A for being in motorist B's path to begin with? And so forth.
My post was not intended to contradict you, but rather to support your statement. All of the scenarios I mentioned are ones in which fault could be a fuzzy thing. I agree with you that determining fault in a case of lane-splitting would be difficult to determine if lane-splitting is either explicitly or tacitly permitted.
Also if it's expressly or tacitly prohibited, I would say. Surely, the lane change made by the car in the video would be deemed unsafe even if it were made between a pair of regular lanes separated by a broken white line. So the fact that, in this case, it happened in a place where the vehicles weren't permitted to be doesn't change the outcome; it doesn't contribute to the fault (nor would it mitigate the fault if it were regular lanes). It just plain isn't a factor.
I know your reply wasn't meant to contradict, although one distinction I might find is in the case of the two-way left turn lane, if a conflict arises between someone jumping the gun on a left turn by riding the TWLTL and somebody pulling into the left-turn only lane at the point where it actually begins. In that case, depending on the configuration, it's arguable that one vehicle has the right to be there while the other one doesn't.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on May 28, 2016, 12:43:31 PM
People are not expecting some guy to come barreling down the shoulder since it is not a travel lane and illegal to do so, and thus accidents as described above happen when some guy pulls onto the shoulder and gets rear-ended. It's the same for lane splitting.
It's not illegal everywhere, I don't believe. But, again, that actually doesn't matter, as long as it's equally legal for both vehicles. In my example, if shoulder use is illegal, that means both vehicles don't have the right to be there, and so their being there isn't the cause of the accident. And if shoulder use is legal, that means both vehicles do have the right to be there, and so their being there isn't the cause of the accident.
Taking that point back to the original video, if the motorcycle had a right to be on the double yellow line and the car didn't, then we might find the car to be at fault solely because it crossed the double yellow line. But if the motorcycle doesn't have the right to be there (because it's a double yellow line, not because it's lane splitting), then that isn't a factor.
(And one thing I can certainly guarantee is that our personal opinions about lane splitting do not affect whose fault this accident was!)
I see people splitting lanes all the time on the Northway. Someone blew past me last week doing it in bumper to bumper traffic while zig-zagging all over the place and they had to be going at least 100. No helmet and they were popping wheelies. I'm shocked there aren't more motorcycle deaths on that road for that reason.
Quote from: cl94 on May 28, 2016, 11:56:31 PM
I see people splitting lanes all the time on the Northway. Someone blew past me last week doing it in bumper to bumper traffic while zig-zagging all over the place and they had to be going at least 100. No helmet and they were popping wheelies. I'm shocked there aren't more motorcycle deaths on that road for that reason.
We're trying to filter out these motorcyclists from the ones who safely lane split at speeds, roughly 10-20 mph, above the surrounding traffic.
What you saw was, technically, "lane splitting". But, it's not the type of lane splitting that lane splitting advocates are about (which is, in the California context, riding between vehicles during heavy traffic, at speeds higher than the surrounding cars (but not over the limit)).
FWIW, maybe it's just that part of the country, but I rarely see motorcyclists doing anything like that around here. I have seen some, in groups of 5 to 10, going maybe 10-15 over the limit in the HOV lane, but they all had helmets on; they pulled wheelies every now and then, but were pretty civil otherwise.
Quote from: jakeroot on May 29, 2016, 12:09:39 AM
Quote from: cl94 on May 28, 2016, 11:56:31 PM
I see people splitting lanes all the time on the Northway. Someone blew past me last week doing it in bumper to bumper traffic while zig-zagging all over the place and they had to be going at least 100. No helmet and they were popping wheelies. I'm shocked there aren't more motorcycle deaths on that road for that reason.
We're trying to filter out these motorcyclists from the ones who safely lane split at speeds, roughly 10-20 mph, above the surrounding traffic.
What you saw was, technically, "lane splitting". But, it's not the type of lane splitting that lane splitting advocates are about (which is, in the California context, riding between vehicles during heavy traffic, at speeds higher than the surrounding cars (but not over the limit)).
FWIW, maybe it's just that part of the country, but I rarely see motorcyclists doing anything like that around here. I have seen some, in groups of 5 to 10, going maybe 10-15 over the limit in the HOV lane, but they all had helmets on; they pulled wheelies every now and then, but were pretty civil otherwise.
That's the only type of lane splitting I see around here. It's either old people on Harleys doing 5 under while staying in their lane or idiots on sport bikes going 20+ over with little in between.
Quote from: cl94 on May 29, 2016, 12:14:42 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 29, 2016, 12:09:39 AM
FWIW, maybe it's just that part of the country, but I rarely see motorcyclists doing anything like that around here. I have seen some, in groups of 5 to 10, going maybe 10-15 over the limit in the HOV lane, but they all had helmets on; they pulled wheelies every now and then, but were pretty civil otherwise.
That's the only type of lane splitting I see around here. It's either old people on Harleys doing 5 under while staying in their lane or idiots on sport bikes going 20+ over with little in between.
Yes, since lane splitting isn't permitted around here, you don't have a class of obedient-type drivers doing it. Those that are are basically joyriding.
I agree with Jake on a lot of what he's saying on lane splitting. I think it should be legal, so long as you aren't whipping your bike through a bumper to bumper traffic jam. Not to mention, motorcycles will just add onto what might already be a bad jam, so if they lane split, it'll just be that many people less clogging up the road.
Quote from: jakeroot on May 29, 2016, 12:09:39 AM
We're trying to filter out these motorcyclists from the ones who safely lane split at speeds, roughly 10-20 mph, above the surrounding traffic.
(emphasis added)
Interesting, since one of the biggest arguments against split truck/car speed limits is the perceived danger of speed differential between the two types of vehicles -- and this is for vehicles that typically obey lane restrictions. So, following the logic that speed differential between trucks and cars is dangerous, wouldn't a speed differential between four-wheel (or more-wheel) vehicles and motorcycles be even more dangerous, especially since lane-splitters don't stay in a marked lane of travel?
Quote from: ET21 on May 28, 2016, 07:17:40 AM
I really don't know why this scab of a topic was reborn, we all know what happened to the last one
Because my main foil in that last thread was such an arrogant jerk out it, I wanted him to see (if he's still around) a visual example of why he was wrong.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 31, 2016, 02:10:55 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 29, 2016, 12:09:39 AM
We're trying to filter out these motorcyclists from the ones who safely lane split at speeds, roughly 10-20 mph, above the surrounding traffic.
(emphasis added)
Interesting, since one of the biggest arguments against split truck/car speed limits is the perceived danger of speed differential between the two types of vehicles -- and this is for vehicles that typically obey lane restrictions. So, following the logic that speed differential between trucks and cars is dangerous, wouldn't a speed differential between four-wheel (or more-wheel) vehicles and motorcycles be even more dangerous, especially since lane-splitters don't stay in a marked lane of travel?
It's about reaction time. You have a lot more of it at lower speeds. At higher speeds (read: rural freeway speeds), there is little reaction time, thus it's important for all vehicles to be going roughly the same speed. At lower speeds, because you have much more time to react, you can get away with a bigger differential (that said, there is still a "limit", thus why advocates still suggest not going any more than 10 to 20 mph above surrounding traffic (http://goo.gl/eyy4Gd) -- any faster than that, and you can't react in time).