Lane Splitting Motorcycles: Legal Or Illegal?

[Ikari]

I don't care if it is deemed legal or not. Each locality is free to make up their own mind.

However, anybody who does it, in my opinion, is a dumbass.

Let's face it, bike riders are already at a disadvantage when it comes to using the road. Why on earth would a rider put themselves in increased danger?

:roll:


ps...I've been riding motorcycles for over 40 years.

Because in certain situations, it's not increased dangers, but decreased.

 

[Thoreau72]

Eh, nothing personal, it's just something I wasn't raised to do.

I came of age in the 1960's and early 1970's.
We held doors open for ladies.
We tipped our hats at older gentlemen, and said, "Good morning, sir."

We always bought the first round at the bar, always let the lower-Enlisted get their chow before we ate, always made sure our ladies had nine or twelve orgasms before we had ours, and we never split lanes on our motorcycles.

It's just a regional or cultural thing, I reckon.

I'm starting to wish I had never brought it up.

Don't worry, I'm not offended. It's cool, and I'm into individual choice in all things, including driving style, as long as rules and common sense prevail.

I guess I just did some "lane splitting" on yesterday's ride. When coming up to a stop light at which just a few cars are already stopped, usually no more than 2 in each lane, I will frequently split through to the front so that when the light turns green I'm in front of the traffic. A bike is much safer with car traffic behind, rather than cars in front. Unpredictable drivers, distracted by cell phones and such are more dangerous when you're mixed up with them, compared to when they are far behind you.

 

[cabse5]

Dangerous and stupid. Every time I hear or read something about watching for motorcycles I get annoyed. Motorcycle riders are the most dangerous drivers I've ever seen.

It's not as much motorcycle drivers are dangerous as many don't realize how vulnerable a driver they are. It's hard to see one and there's no protection in case of an accident. Then there are those who want to play the daredevil role...

To get my motorcycle license, I had to show I could shift gears and drive slowly around traffic cones in a school parking lot. There should be, at least, some instruction in defensive driving for prospective motorcyclists. Cops should ticket motorcyclists who 'stunt' (I've never seen a cop pull over a motorcyclist for an infraction).

 

[Ikari]

Safer than what?

Then being queued up in stop-and-go, heavy traffic.

http://www.ots.ca.gov/pdf/Publications/Motorcycle-Lane-Splitting-and-Safety-2015.pdf

UC Berkeley Study Shows Lane-Splitting Motorcyclists are Safer in Traffic | Cycle World

A new study by the University of California Berkeley shows that motorcyclists who split lanes in heavy traffic are significantly less likely to be struck from behind by other motorists and are less likely to suffer head or torso injuries, the American Motorcyclist Association reports.

Researchers, led by Dr. Thomas Rice of the Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (SafeTREC), reviewed nearly 6,000 motorcycle-involved traffic collisions between June 2012 and August 2013, including 997 in which the riders were splitting lanes at the time of the crash.

"Perhaps one of the most dangerous situations for any motorcyclist is being caught in congested traffic, where stop-and-go vehicles, distracted and inattentive vehicle operators, and environmental conditions increase the risk of physical contact with another vehicle or hazard," said Wayne Allard, AMA vice president for government relations. "Reducing a motorcyclist's exposure to vehicles that are frequently accelerating and decelerating on congested roadways can be one way to reduce rear-end collisions for those most vulnerable in traffic."

 

[Thoreau72]

I don't see it as rude, but I do see it as unnecessarily dangerous. I do think there is some jealousy from car drivers, though they won't come out and say so.

Driving is a dynamic situation, and I judge each particular situation one at a time. Most of the time it's perfectly safe, but there are situations in which it can be dangerous.

 

[Groogrux]

It's not as much motorcycle drivers are dangerous as many don't realize how vulnerable a driver they are with their motorcycle. It's hard to see one and there's no protection in case of an accident. Then there are those who want to play the daredevil role...

Agreed. But it's difficult to be mindful and careful when they're weaving in and out of lanes, cutting you off and pulling wheelies.

 

[cabse5]

Agreed. But it's difficult to be mindful and careful when they're weaving in and out of lanes, cutting you off and pulling wheelies.

Where is this and what do cops do about the wheelies and cutting off? Have you ever used your cell phone to turn in a motorcyclist to the police?

 

[Thoreau72]

If your bike does not have proper cooling complain to the builder, buy one that does, do not expect me to agree to extra privileges in traffic law to mitigate your mistake.

What extra privilege are you talking about?

 

[Mycroft]

Because in certain situations, it's not increased dangers, but decreased.

Yeah, yeah...and loud pipes saves lives, too.

Look, in certain conditions, riding a bicycle can give you the edge to stay alive where others would die. That doesn't mean riding a bicycle in heavy traffic in an unusual manner is a good idea. Same for a motorcycle.

All it takes is for one person to react to your lane-splitting in a manner that you are not expecting and you are screwed. Because you are between vehicles, you have no place to go...no way to react safely.

But hey...go ahead. Heck, ride without a helmet just because your state allows it (I live in Colorado, too), take your girlfriend on your crotch rocket when she's wearing flip-flops, shorts and a tank-top, do all the stupid **** that people do on motorcycles. It's your life.

 

[Ikari]

What extra privilege are you talking about?

staying alive, I think.

Actually, the "extra privilege" is that he's thinking completely egocentrically. For him, he sits in traffic and may see a bike splitting lanes, making progress and he's like "Why does that guy get to do that while I have to wait here".

It's a common attitude, the world is meant for me and everyone else is a roadblock to where I want to be, sort of thing. What people don't stop to think about is that splitting lanes, in certain circumstances, is safer for the motorcyclists and better for traffic.

 

[Ikari]

Yeah, yeah...and loud pipes saves lives, too.

Look, in certain conditions, riding a bicycle can give you the edge to stay alive where others would die. That doesn't mean riding a bicycle in heavy traffic in an unusual manner is a good idea. Same for a motorcycle.

All it takes is for one person to react to your lane-splitting in a manner that you are not expecting and you are screwed. Because you are between vehicles, you have no place to go...no way to react safely.

But hey...go ahead. Heck, ride without a helmet just because your state allows it (I live in Colorado, too), take your girlfriend on your crotch rocket when she's wearing flip-flops, shorts and a tank-top, do all the stupid **** that people do on motorcycles. It's your life.

Loud pipes can certainly alert people to where one is at.

But there was studies done on this, and that is what was found. It is safer in certain situations to split lanes.

But if you just want to spit vitriol and not pay attention to science, that's cool. have fun,

 

[Dragonfly]

Agreed. But it's difficult to be mindful and careful when they're weaving in and out of lanes, cutting you off and pulling wheelies.

In your mind, is every single priest/minster/preacher a pedophile?

 

[Groogrux]

In your mind, is every single priest/minster/preacher a pedophile?

Please show me where I said all motorcyclist are dangerous.

 

[Mycroft]

Loud pipes can certainly alert people to where one is at.

But there was studies done on this, and that is what was found. It is safer in certain situations to split lanes.

But if you just want to spit vitriol and not pay attention to science, that's cool. have fun,

I'm not spitting vitriol. I'm only expressing my personal opinion...based on decades of riding experience.

I also don't care if you do what you want. Make your own choice.

btw, the only time loud pipes can alert people is when the motorcycle is already in front of them. Unless the bike's pipes are pointed forward, anyone who is in front of the motorcycle is likely not to hear the bike.

 

[Ikari]

I'm not spitting vitriol. I'm only expressing my personal opinion...based on decades of riding experience.

I also don't care if you do what you want. Make your own choice.

btw, the only time loud pipes can alert people is when the motorcycle is already in front of them. Unless the bike's pipes are pointed forward, anyone who is in front of the motorcycle is likely not to hear the bike.

Nope, that's not the "only time loud pipes" can alert people. it doesn't matter that the pipes are pointed backwards, sound still travels forward. While it is certainly louder behind the bike, there is still noise in front of the bike. Or do you....what....with your "decades of riding experience" never hear a motorcycle when standing in front of it? HAHAHAHA, what a laughable lack of physics knowledge.

Also, statistically, splitting lanes in heavy traffic is safer than waiting in the line, and this has been shown in the study I linked earlier.


HAHAHAHAHHA....decades of experience, but doesn't know you can still hear a motorcycle even if you're in front of it, lol.

 

[radcen]

There is some logic to lane-slitting, though I still feel it should be illegal. Any benefit is minimal. The "logic" behind loud pipes being a safety measure is specious, at best, and deserves to be ridiculed.

 

[Ikari]

There is some logic to lane-slitting, though I still feel it should be illegal. Any benefit is minimal. The "logic" behind loud pipes being a safety measure is specious, at best, and deserves to be ridiculed.

it's situational. There is no evidence collected for or against. But it can help, it's of course no guarantee, but it is possible that it can alert people to a motorcycle nearby. The argument that the pipes pointing backwards thus no noise occurs ahead of the bike shows a lack of basic science understanding and should be ridiculed.

As for the lane-splitting, I linked an study that indicates that splitting lanes in heavy traffic result is fewer and less severe injuries than riding in heavy traffic proper.

 

[Mycroft]

Nope, that's not the "only time loud pipes" can alert people. it doesn't matter that the pipes are pointed backwards, sound still travels forward. While it is certainly louder behind the bike, there is still noise in front of the bike. Or do you....what....with your "decades of riding experience" never hear a motorcycle when standing in front of it? HAHAHAHA, what a laughable lack of physics knowledge.

Also, statistically, splitting lanes in heavy traffic is safer than waiting in the line, and this has been shown in the study I linked earlier.


HAHAHAHAHHA....decades of experience, but doesn't know you can still hear a motorcycle even if you're in front of it, lol.

Standing in front of it??? Is THAT how you measure it?

No consideration about what actually happens in moving traffic? Road noise, radio, talking, etc, in the vehicle? Other nearby vehicles? Windows rolled up or down? A vehicle's soundproofing?

I think you are being dishonest if all you are considering is if someone is "standing in front of it".

 

[Ikari]

Standing in front of it??? Is THAT how you measure it?

No, did I say that, or is intellectually dishonest arguments the only way you can try to make an argument. I said it's still audible in the front of the motorcycle, and it is. Even when moving, you can hear a bike despite not being behind the pipes. Sound travels in all directions, while pipes do send a significant portion of the noise behind it, it's not completely directed backwards, and soundwaves are produced which travel in front of the bike.

No consideration about what actually happens in moving traffic? Road noise, radio, talking, etc, in the vehicle? Other nearby vehicles? Windows rolled up or down? A vehicle's soundproofing?

I think you are being dishonest if all you are considering is if someone is "standing in front of it".

There's all things that can happen on the road, I don't promote this as a cure-all, and one shouldn't be lax in their riding even if they have pipes loud enough for other motorists to hear. Again, an intellectually dishonest argument as I never said it will prevent all circumstances. But rather that it carries the possibility of alerting others.

 

[Mycroft]

No, did I say that, or is intellectually dishonest arguments the only way you can try to make an argument. I said it's still audible in the front of the motorcycle, and it is. Even when moving, you can hear a bike despite not being behind the pipes. Sound travels in all directions, while pipes do send a significant portion of the noise behind it, it's not completely directed backwards, and soundwaves are produced which travel in front of the bike.



There's all things that can happen on the road, I don't promote this as a cure-all, and one shouldn't be lax in their riding even if they have pipes loud enough for other motorists to hear. Again, an intellectually dishonest argument as I never said it will prevent all circumstances. But rather that it carries the possibility of alerting others.

...when standing in front of it?

So...now it's not "loud pipes saves lives", it's "...it carries the "possibility" of alerting others."

Given all the common conditions involved in driving on our roads that I mentioned, that possibility is negligible and any rider who depends on that possibility is an idiot...as well as a public nuisance.

 

[Ikari]

So...now it's not "loud pipes saves lives", it's "...it carries the "possibility" of alerting others."

Given all the common conditions involved in driving on our roads that I mentioned, that possibility is negligible and any rider who depends on that possibility is an idiot...as well as a public nuisance.

Not at all. Quite possible to alert people with proper pipes, non-zero number have been able to avoid accidents because of it. And one shouldn't "depend" on any passive device on their motorcycle for safety, proper defensive driving is always necessary. Which I stated, so once again you have employed intellectually dishonest argument techniques to try to make a point, but it all fails as I was never making the claims you did.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Then being queued up in stop-and-go, heavy traffic.

http://www.ots.ca.gov/pdf/Publications/Motorcycle-Lane-Splitting-and-Safety-2015.pdf

UC Berkeley Study Shows Lane-Splitting Motorcyclists are Safer in Traffic | Cycle World

From your scientific study: "This study is not without limitations. The primary limitation is our lack of exposure data. To
estimate how the risk of being involved in a collision changes when motorcyclists chose to lanesplit,
we would require information on both the lane-splitting and non-lane-splitting riding that
is done by some identifiable sample of motorcyclists. The collection of these data is fraught
with problems, and the current study did not attempt to collect such data. The current data set
cannot be used to compare the collision risks for lane-splitting or non-lane-splitting riders. The
data that we do have enables us only to examine the collision, personal, and injury
characteristics of the riders who were involved in traffic collisions and whose collisions occurred
in the study jurisdiction

We are also not currently able to examine how collision and injury characteristics vary across
roadway types because access to data on roadway characteristic is pending. One particular
analysis that we plan to conduct using roadway data is a comparison of injury outcomes by
whether the motorcyclist was rear-ended. There is considerable concern in the motorcycling
community about the relative dangers of being rear-ended. A good approach to conducting an
analysis of this topic would be to compare injury types and injury severities by whether the
rider was rear-ended for given roadway types. Making comparisons within given roadway types
will control for the influence (confounding) of collision severity (energy) and other collision
characteristics. The importance of controlling for this confounding necessitates our delay of
examining the impact of lane-splitting on rear-end collisions until we have roadway data.

Finally, our injury data in this analysis consisted of a yes/no indicator, which results in minor
injuries being grouped together with severe or even critical injuries. It is known that injury
severity is related to motorcycle speed, but we were only able to examine the occurrence of
some level of observable injury. In an ongoing project, we will acquire hospital-based injury
data, including the specific nature and severity of each injury. These data will allow for a more
detailed analysis of the role that a variety of characteristics, including lane-splitting and helmet
type, play in the incidence of specific injuries.

Research is also needed to increase our understanding of how motorcycle collisions come
about, for both lane-splitting and non-lane-splitting riders. A planned study will focus on
collision causation among our 997 lane-splitting motorcyclists. The study will still lack
information on the motorcycling done when a collision did not occur, but it is still likely to
identify causal factors that would have a high likelihood of preventing collisions if they are
modifiable (e.g., specific practices among riders). "

Sorry but the study doesnt actually show that lane splitting is safer. It only shows that in certain situations, the injury risk is different. I did not see anything that indicated that there were fewer collisions. The study actually points towards the conclusion that motorcycles shouldnt be ridden on freeways during high traffic situations. I am not saying that should be the outcome. But it seems logical that if a rider can split lanes they could also use that ability to remove them self from the freeway to a safer environment. But they dont because splitting lanes (on a freeway) is faster than traffic lights.

At any rate I think your bias for lane splitting is clouding what you think the study says.

 

[Ikari]

From your scientific study: "This study is not without limitations. The primary limitation is our lack of exposure data. To
estimate how the risk of being involved in a collision changes when motorcyclists chose to lanesplit,
we would require information on both the lane-splitting and non-lane-splitting riding that
is done by some identifiable sample of motorcyclists. The collection of these data is fraught
with problems, and the current study did not attempt to collect such data. The current data set
cannot be used to compare the collision risks for lane-splitting or non-lane-splitting riders. The
data that we do have enables us only to examine the collision, personal, and injury
characteristics of the riders who were involved in traffic collisions and whose collisions occurred
in the study jurisdiction

We are also not currently able to examine how collision and injury characteristics vary across
roadway types because access to data on roadway characteristic is pending. One particular
analysis that we plan to conduct using roadway data is a comparison of injury outcomes by
whether the motorcyclist was rear-ended. There is considerable concern in the motorcycling
community about the relative dangers of being rear-ended. A good approach to conducting an
analysis of this topic would be to compare injury types and injury severities by whether the
rider was rear-ended for given roadway types. Making comparisons within given roadway types
will control for the influence (confounding) of collision severity (energy) and other collision
characteristics. The importance of controlling for this confounding necessitates our delay of
examining the impact of lane-splitting on rear-end collisions until we have roadway data.

Finally, our injury data in this analysis consisted of a yes/no indicator, which results in minor
injuries being grouped together with severe or even critical injuries. It is known that injury
severity is related to motorcycle speed, but we were only able to examine the occurrence of
some level of observable injury. In an ongoing project, we will acquire hospital-based injury
data, including the specific nature and severity of each injury. These data will allow for a more
detailed analysis of the role that a variety of characteristics, including lane-splitting and helmet
type, play in the incidence of specific injuries.

Research is also needed to increase our understanding of how motorcycle collisions come
about, for both lane-splitting and non-lane-splitting riders. A planned study will focus on
collision causation among our 997 lane-splitting motorcyclists. The study will still lack
information on the motorcycling done when a collision did not occur, but it is still likely to
identify causal factors that would have a high likelihood of preventing collisions if they are
modifiable (e.g., specific practices among riders). "

Sorry but the study doesnt actually show that lane splitting is safer. It only shows that in certain situations, the injury risk is different. I did not see anything that indicated that there were fewer collisions. The study actually points towards the conclusion that motorcycles shouldnt be ridden on freeways during high traffic situations. I am not saying that should be the outcome. But it seems logical that if a rider can split lanes they could also use that ability to remove them self from the freeway to a safer environment. But they dont because splitting lanes (on a freeway) is faster than traffic lights.

At any rate I think your bias for lane splitting is clouding what you think the study says.

It's a study. It's not exhaustive, but it is evidence that highlights the statistics. Surely more research should be conducted, but this is where we've gotten thus far.

It shows that for those periods of time when lane splitting is typically used, splitting lanes results in fewer and less severe injuries.

Is it absolutely safe? No. But the injuries sustained are different and there is a slight reduction in rate.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

It's a study. It's not exhaustive, but it is evidence that highlights the statistics. Surely more research should be conducted, but this is where we've gotten thus far.

It shows that for those periods of time when lane splitting is typically used, splitting lanes results in fewer and less severe injuries.

Is it absolutely safe? No. But the injuries sustained are different and there is a slight reduction in rate.

The results are not compelling evidence, it only shows a slightly better outcome in injuries. The study admits that it does not show that there are fewer collisions. As far as we know there might be more collisions due to lane splitting.

"Lane-splitting motorcyclists were also injured much less frequently during their collisions. Lanesplitting
riders were less likely to suffer head injury (9% vs 17%), torso injury (19% vs 29%),
extremity injury (60% vs 66%), and fatal injury (1.2% vs 3.0%). Lane-splitting motorcyclists were
equally likely to suffer neck injury, compared with non-lane-splitting motorcyclists. "

The study also points out that lane splitting is riskier than not lane splitting:

"There appear to be some risks to lane-splitting. The most basic is that lane-splitting riders often
put themselves closer to other vehicles than they otherwise would. This proximity reduces the
time riders have to identify and react to changes in the behaviors of other motorists."

And they say some other things about risk and lane splitting. But my point is that riding that close to traffic isnt a good safe idea no matter how much you dont want to get rear ended. You are just trading one risk for another risk. Drivers drift and no laws can stop people from drifting into the other lane. Then there is the tendency of a driver to drift while looking in the mirror.

You can bank of the fact that these studies will only reduce when a rider can lane split. Meaning that riders are doing something unsafe while lane splitting. But you make it sound like everything is fine as it stands now.

 

[Ikari]

The results are not compelling evidence, it only shows a slightly better outcome in injuries. The study admits that it does not show that there are fewer collisions. As far as we know there might be more collisions due to lane splitting.

"Lane-splitting motorcyclists were also injured much less frequently during their collisions. Lanesplitting
riders were less likely to suffer head injury (9% vs 17%), torso injury (19% vs 29%),
extremity injury (60% vs 66%), and fatal injury (1.2% vs 3.0%). Lane-splitting motorcyclists were
equally likely to suffer neck injury, compared with non-lane-splitting motorcyclists. "

The study also points out that lane splitting is riskier than not lane splitting:

"There appear to be some risks to lane-splitting. The most basic is that lane-splitting riders often
put themselves closer to other vehicles than they otherwise would. This proximity reduces the
time riders have to identify and react to changes in the behaviors of other motorists."

And they say some other things about risk and lane splitting. But my point is that riding that close to traffic isnt a good safe idea no matter how much you dont want to get rear ended. You are just trading one risk for another risk. Drivers drift and no laws can stop people from drifting into the other lane. Then there is the tendency of a driver to drift while looking in the mirror.

You can bank of the fact that these studies will only reduce when a rider can lane split. Meaning that riders are doing something unsafe while lane splitting. But you make it sound like everything is fine as it stands now.

When people can split lanes is already rather restricted. It doesn't mean that riders are doing something unsafe while lane splitting in general. The study even points out that those who are lane-splitting are typically safer, or practicing safer riding, than those who are not.

Compared with other motorcyclists, lane-splitting motorcyclists
were more often riding on weekdays and during commute hours, were using better helmets,
and were traveling at lower speeds. Lane-splitting riders were also less likely to have been using
alcohol and less likely to have been carrying a passenger.

Lane-splitting motorcyclists were also injured much less frequently during their collisions. Lanesplitting
riders were less likely to suffer head injury (9% vs 17%), torso injury (19% vs 29%),
extremity injury (60% vs 66%), and fatal injury (1.2% vs 3.0%). Lane-splitting motorcyclists were
equally likely to suffer neck injury, compared with non-lane-splitting motorcyclists.

So your conclusions are necessarily supported by the available data. Even what you pointed out

"There appear to be some risks to lane-splitting. The most basic is that lane-splitting riders often
put themselves closer to other vehicles than they otherwise would. This proximity reduces the
time riders have to identify and react to changes in the behaviors of other motorists."

Does not support the conclusion you drew. You said that the article says that it is RISKIER than not lane-splitting. This is not supported. It does say that there are some risks associated with lane-splitting, this is true. But the conclusion is that during times of heavy traffic, lane-splitting is less risky than not.