Lane-splitting redux

[jeffandnicole]

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?

[empirestate]

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.

[Roadrunner75]

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. 

[kphoger]

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.

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.

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.

[noelbotevera]

I've found some statistics that study lane splitting in California. This 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 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 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 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 says that it is a cause of road rage and is not favored with cops here on the East Coast.

This analysis talks about some data after doing their own studies (for further evidence).

This article however, says it is safe. So it's really up to you if you think it's safe or not.

[kalvado]

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

[kphoger]

And 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]

[kalvado]

And 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!

[empirestate]

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.

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!)

[cl94]

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.

[jakeroot]

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.

[cl94]

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.

[empirestate]

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.

[Ian]

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.

[hbelkins]

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?

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.

[jakeroot]

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 -- any faster than that, and you can't react in time).