Lane Splitting Motorcycles: Legal Or Illegal?

[molten_dragon]

In areas of high traffic, it is statistically safer for the motorcycle.

Given the very limited amount of study done on lane splitting, I think it's foolish to claim outright that it's safer for motorcyclists. The one study I did find, which you quoted a couple times shows now causality between lane splitting and fewer injuries. In fact it goes on to point out that riders who lane split engage in safer behavior than most riders, which likely accounts for the fewer injuries.

Motorcycles are harder to see than other cars anyway, and letting them drive in places that drivers don't expect another vehicle to be doesn't seem like the best idea.

 

[Ikari]

Given the very limited amount of study done on lane splitting, I think it's foolish to claim outright that it's safer for motorcyclists. I suspect though I have no data to back it up per the previous comment, that motorcycles lane-splitting may get into fewer accidents, but the ones they are in are more severe. Motorcycles are harder to see than other cars anyway, and letting them drive in places that drivers don't expect another vehicle to be doesn't seem like the best idea.

While it is true that more studies should be done and more data collected so that we can build the proper statistics, what we do have now does indicate that under certain circumstances (such as heavy stop-and-go freeway traffic) splitting lanes is a bit safer than queuing up in line.

 

[Ontologuy]

Motorcycles should be allowed on city streets, but not on expressways, toll roads, and freeways where speeds over 45 mph are allowed by law.

As for lane splitting, I'm completely against it. I've come too close to hitting a motorcycle that crept up into my blind spot in heavy traffic while I had my turn signals on and was about to change lanes.

It's extremely scary.

We need to understand, however, that motorcyclists for the most part are a completely different breed of cat, and they get excited about taking risks.

I doubt that any change of law will stop them from lane-splitting in heavy traffic.

Sadly, too often I've seen a man face down in the pavement on the expressway with a crowd gathered around him, his cycle a hundred feet or so down the road.

I would change the law to read any accident involving a motorcycle lane-splitting is the motorcyclist's fault.

Only a wallet-hit is likely to curtail this dangerous behavior that also endangers other motorists.

 

[Ikari]

Motorcycles should be allowed on city streets, but not on expressways, toll roads, and freeways where speeds over 45 mph are allowed by law.

As for lane splitting, I'm completely against it. I've come too close to hitting a motorcycle that crept up into my blind spot in heavy traffic while I had my turn signals on and was about to change lanes.

It's extremely scary.

We need to understand, however, that motorcyclists for the most part are a completely different breed of cat, and they get excited about taking risks.

I doubt that any change of law will stop them from lane-splitting in heavy traffic.

Sadly, too often I've seen a man face down in the pavement on the expressway with a crowd gathered around him, his cycle a hundred feet or so down the road.

I would change the law to read any accident involving a motorcycle lane-splitting is the motorcyclist's fault.

Only a wallet-hit is likely to curtail this dangerous behavior that also endangers other motorists.

I think it's a bit extreme to not want to allow motorcycles on the interstate, they are motor vehicles and honestly, statistically speaking, the interstate is safer than the roadways for motorcycles.

It is true that some can behave in unsafe activities, or in manners that increase risks, but that isn't true across the board. And certainly one should be aware of blind-spots for vehicles and do their best to avoid it. But people in cars also need to behave reasonably, safely, and responsibly. Which includes looking over your shoulder to check your blind-spots before changing lane. While you may have had your blinker on, the motorcycle may have already been on your side before doing so. If splitting lanes is legal where you are at, then check your blind spots before changing lanes. In fact, just check your blind-spots in general. Mirrors help a lot, but always look.

 

[MickeyW]

I know I owned one.

Still I see many more water cooled bikes out there than Harleys.

There are a number of Moto Guzzi on the road, both new and used. Some of the new ones have air/oil cooling

 

[MickeyW]

Motorcycles should be allowed on city streets, but not on expressways, toll roads, and freeways where speeds over 45 mph are allowed by law.

Why?

As for lane splitting, I'm completely against it. I've come too close to hitting a motorcycle that crept up into my blind spot in heavy traffic while I had my turn signals on and was about to change lanes.

It's extremely scary.

Shouldn't be scary for you, only for the biker.

We need to understand, however, that motorcyclists for the most part are a completely different breed of cat, and they get excited about taking risks.

Not altogether true...I ride much more cautiously on my bikes than I do driving cars or pickups. I'm fairly aggressive in those.


I doubt that any change of law will stop them from lane-splitting in heavy traffic.

Shouldn't and mostly unenforceable.

Sadly, too often I've seen a man face down in the pavement on the expressway with a crowd gathered around him, his cycle a hundred feet or so down the road.

Happens with any vehicle out there. As a cop, I've dealt with very few bike accidents vs. 4 wheeled vehicles accidents.

Overall, I say most bikers are better drivers across the board.

I would change the law to read any accident involving a motorcycle lane-splitting is the motorcyclist's fault.

Only a wallet-hit is likely to curtail this dangerous behavior that also endangers other motorists.

Well, it's sad that you have all this prejudice and animosity going on. Once again............those smoking dope, texting, talking on cell phones are far more likely to endanger motorists. Your bias is HUGE!

 

[MickeyW]

I think it's a bit extreme to not want to allow motorcycles on the interstate, they are motor vehicles and honestly, statistically speaking, the interstate is safer than the roadways for motorcycles.

It is true that some can behave in unsafe activities, or in manners that increase risks, but that isn't true across the board. And certainly one should be aware of blind-spots for vehicles and do their best to avoid it. But people in cars also need to behave reasonably, safely, and responsibly. Which includes looking over your shoulder to check your blind-spots before changing lane. While you may have had your blinker on, the motorcycle may have already been on your side before doing so. If splitting lanes is legal where you are at, then check your blind spots before changing lanes. In fact, just check your blind-spots in general. Mirrors help a lot, but always look.

All good advice. Many motorists are pretty damn arrogant about motorcycles. Same mentality that I see with firearms.

Basically: "I don't like them, they are evil and should be banned"....Fear....or Butt Hurt mentality!

Strange how certain people want to judge and condemn mechanical devices that they either don't understand, are afraid of, or just have a mental block against. I tell folks to "Open Your Mind" you can't go all your life being skeeeered of stuff...and then teach that crap to your children.!

 

[MickeyW]

I see so many young people today, who have ingrained fear, taught by numbskull parents....spiders, snakes, motorcycles, guns....you name it!
You want to be a good parent? Teach them about everything. You need not be afraid and you don't have to teach your kids to be afraid.

 

[molten_dragon]

In fact, just check your blind-spots in general. Mirrors help a lot, but always look.

While this is definitely a good policy to engage in, I'll point out that motorcycles are smaller and harder to see than other cars are, and lane-splitting puts them much closer to your car, which is a position another car generally wouldn't be in. This makes them difficult to see even if you do check your blind spots.

 

[Ikari]

While this is definitely a good policy to engage in, I'll point out that motorcycles are smaller and harder to see than other cars are, and lane-splitting puts them much closer to your car, which is a position another car generally wouldn't be in. This makes them difficult to see even if you do check your blind spots.

They are certainly smaller, and can be harder to see. But unless you're in one of those monster trucks, if you look you'll see them. Bikes aren't exactly that small, plus splitting lanes does put them closer which also means they are easier to hear. There are plenty of ques and data to identify most other vehicles on the road if one is actually looking for people around them.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

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.



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.

You seem to not understand that the so called study is incomplete and it says so. You cannot point to that study and say it supports your position.

I said that riding between lanes is riskier than not riding between lanes. DO you disagree that riding close to other vehicles is more dangerous than riding farther away from other vehicles?

The study only talks about the accidents. it doesnt say anywhere in there that lane splitting is safer than not lane splitting. In fact I bolded the sentence where they tried to make that clear to you. Wiggle all you want with your bias but the study said this clearly: The current data set cannot be used to compare the collision risks for lane-splitting or non-lane-splitting riders.

 

[Ikari]

You seem to not understand that the so called study is incomplete and it says so. You cannot point to that study and say it supports your position.

I said that riding between lanes is riskier than not riding between lanes. DO you disagree that riding close to other vehicles is more dangerous than riding farther away from other vehicles?

The study only talks about the accidents. it doesnt say anywhere in there that lane splitting is safer than not lane splitting. In fact I bolded the sentence where they tried to make that clear to you. Wiggle all you want with your bias but the study said this clearly: The current data set cannot be used to compare the collision risks for lane-splitting or non-lane-splitting riders.

I disagree with your assessment that it is universally riskier for motorcycles to split lanes.

While the study may be incomplete, you seem to not understand statistics. It clearly points to a reduction in the number and severity of injury for motorcycles who split lanes in heavy, weekday traffic. It doesn't directly compare collision risks for lane-splitting. It is comparing aggregate collision rates (this is different from "risks", in case you didn't figure it out), and the statistics show that for heavy traffic, there is a decrease in the frequency and severity or injury when splitting lanes compared to not splitting lanes.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I disagree with your assessment that it is universally riskier for motorcycles to split lanes.

While the study may be incomplete, you seem to not understand statistics. It clearly points to a reduction in the number and severity of injury for motorcycles who split lanes in heavy, weekday traffic. It doesn't directly compare collision risks for lane-splitting. It is comparing aggregate collision rates (this is different from "risks", in case you didn't figure it out), and the statistics show that for heavy traffic, there is a decrease in the frequency and severity or injury when splitting lanes compared to not splitting lanes.

"The current data set cannot be used to compare the collision risks for lane-splitting or non-lane-splitting riders."

 

[MickeyW]

While this is definitely a good policy to engage in, I'll point out that motorcycles are smaller and harder to see than other cars are, and lane-splitting puts them much closer to your car, which is a position another car generally wouldn't be in. This makes them difficult to see even if you do check your blind spots.

If the numskull, inept drivers out there, would stay in their lane, there wouldn't be a problem.

They are certainly smaller, and can be harder to see. But unless you're in one of those monster trucks, if you look you'll see them. Bikes aren't exactly that small, plus splitting lanes does put them closer which also means they are easier to hear. There are plenty of ques and data to identify most other vehicles on the road if one is actually looking for people around them.

Some of my bikes have loud electric horns, and I come as a complete package with hand gestures included.

As a long time cop and motor cop, I've seen many marginal drivers on the road, everyday. They can't drive for ****, just driving. Their margin of error is razor thin from the time they start their car or truck. When they have kids, cell phones, food, drink, dope..... in or on them, that razor thin margin of control, is gone and they are very dangerous.

 

[MickeyW]

You seem to not understand that the so called study is incomplete and it says so. You cannot point to that study and say it supports your position.

I said that riding between lanes is riskier than not riding between lanes. DO you disagree that riding close to other vehicles is more dangerous than riding farther away from other vehicles?

The study only talks about the accidents. it doesnt say anywhere in there that lane splitting is safer than not lane splitting. In fact I bolded the sentence where they tried to make that clear to you. Wiggle all you want with your bias but the study said this clearly: The current data set cannot be used to compare the collision risks for lane-splitting or non-lane-splitting riders.

How are we bike riders supposed to give a kick with our boots to the cars, or smack with our chains, if we can't get close to them?

:lamo

I disagree with your assessment that it is universally riskier for motorcycles to split lanes.

While the study may be incomplete, you seem to not understand statistics. It clearly points to a reduction in the number and severity of injury for motorcycles who split lanes in heavy, weekday traffic. It doesn't directly compare collision risks for lane-splitting. It is comparing aggregate collision rates (this is different from "risks", in case you didn't figure it out), and the statistics show that for heavy traffic, there is a decrease in the frequency and severity or injury when splitting lanes compared to not splitting lanes.

I see both points above, but either way, I'm not going to pay any attention to risk factors....if I had to do that, I wouldn't drive at all.
Everything in life is a risk. I operate all vehicles in a safe manner, don't drive with my head up my ass like I see so many people doing...... and to hell with "studies"!

 

[Ikari]

"The current data set cannot be used to compare the collision risks for lane-splitting or non-lane-splitting riders."

Indeed, it is not comparing collision RISKS. It is comparing aggregate collision RATES.

Understand the difference? If not, you're arguments are moot because they do not address the base.

 

[molten_dragon]

If the numskull, inept drivers out there, would stay in their lane, there wouldn't be a problem.

So no one should ever change lanes for any reason? Kind of an extreme 'solution' to the problem.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Indeed, it is not comparing collision RISKS. It is comparing aggregate collision RATES.

Understand the difference? If not, you're arguments are moot because they do not address the base.

Your study (the only study btw) doesnt show that it is actually safer to split traffic. What it shows is that the accidents that happen while splitting traffic are not as severe as rear end accident. Actually read the study, that is what its all about.

Now splitting traffic might be safer for motorcycle riders, but that study isnt proof that it is. It just shows that the in those two types of accidents favor splitting over being rear ended.

It is still more dangerous to ride close to another vehicle, rather than far away.

 

[Ikari]

Your study (the only study btw) doesnt show that it is actually safer to split traffic.

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.

The data presented clearly shows a trend that in heavy traffic, there are fewer and less severe accident with motorcycles who split vs. those who do not. Lower accident rate + reduced injuries does mean something is relatively safer compared to another. The article doesn't assess absolute risk, it just compares rates and from those it would appear that in heavy traffic, it is safer to split lanes than not. It's like you didn't actually read it.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

The data presented clearly shows a trend that in heavy traffic, there are fewer and less severe accident with motorcycles who split vs. those who do not. Lower accident rate + reduced injuries does mean something is relatively safer compared to another. The article doesn't assess absolute risk, it just compares rates and from those it would appear that in heavy traffic, it is safer to split lanes than not. It's like you didn't actually read it.

The study clearly said that it cant tell you which is more risky. Hell I showed you where it said that several times. "The current data set cannot be used to compare the collision risks for lane-splitting or non-lane-splitting riders."

At best you can say that the study is a good start for showing that lane splitting is potentially safer. Obviously more studies need to be done. And this study even says that more studies need to be done. Outside of that you are only telling me your subjective opinions on lane splitting.

Personally I would rather see motorcycle lane(s) instead of pushing for lane splitting. It would be much safer if there was a lane designated for bikes to filter rather than making riders ride close to other vehicles. If such a lane was for example down the center, it would make drivers aware that they should look for bikes before changing lanes. A lot of freeways have drivers from other states using them. This way even those drivers would be aware that a bike might come trucking down that center bike lane.

 

[Ikari]

The study clearly said that it cant tell you which is more risky. Hell I showed you where it said that several times. "The current data set cannot be used to compare the collision risks for lane-splitting or non-lane-splitting riders."

At best you can say that the study is a good start for showing that lane splitting is potentially safer. Obviously more studies need to be done. And this study even says that more studies need to be done. Outside of that you are only telling me your subjective opinions on lane splitting.

Personally I would rather see motorcycle lane(s) instead of pushing for lane splitting. It would be much safer if there was a lane designated for bikes to filter rather than making riders ride close to other vehicles. If such a lane was for example down the center, it would make drivers aware that they should look for bikes before changing lanes. A lot of freeways have drivers from other states using them. This way even those drivers would be aware that a bike might come trucking down that center bike lane.

It's not assessing absolute risk.

Jesus tap dancing Christ on a pogo stick.

I've said that. Listen you need to learn to read, not go in circles.

There is no assessment of absolute risk for either lane-splitting or not. This is a comparison of accident rate and injuries for a RELATIVE measurement.

At best what I can say is that current data indicates that splitting lanes in heavy traffic is safer than not since it leads to fewer accidents overall and less extreme injuries.

Wow...just.....wow.

 

[Joe51]

Loud pipes save lives. They can definitely be heard in a cagers blind spot. While no experienced rider would be riding there more than a couple seconds there by choice, sometimes traffic pushes one there.

My bike weighs in at 950 pounds, so I can understand not wanting to be trapped in stop and go. It can be like wrestling a bear. I also understand the needs of an air cooled engine. Still in 10 years of riding, I've never squeezed between cars to keep moving. Seems like a suicide to me. One should never choose to operate with less cushion from the cages.

Legal or illegal, I don't care. I've got things to do tomorrow, so I must live!

Great thread. Interesting read.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

It's not assessing absolute risk.

Jesus tap dancing Christ on a pogo stick.

I've said that. Listen you need to learn to read, not go in circles.

There is no assessment of absolute risk for either lane-splitting or not. This is a comparison of accident rate and injuries for a RELATIVE measurement.

At best what I can say is that current data indicates that splitting lanes in heavy traffic is safer than not since it leads to fewer accidents overall and less extreme injuries.

Wow...just.....wow.

Look you need to realize that I am saying something different than you and what you want me to be saying. That is how debates and conversations work.

And your bias is making you read the study differently than I am. So save the wows for recess.

 

[Ikari]

Look you need to realize that I am saying something different than you and what you want me to be saying. That is how debates and conversations work.

And your bias is making you read the study differently than I am. So save the wows for recess.

I'll save the wows for moments on incredulous denial, such as your arguments. I have read the report and everything I stated is absolutely correct. Your mistake is that you have clamped onto this one line where they claim they cannot speak to the absolute risks involved and mistakenly concluded that this means there can be no relative comparison.

There is comparison, and the article makes it clear. From the available data, splitting lanes in high-congested traffic is safer than not. There are fewer accidents and the accidents that do happen are reduced in severity.

 

[Thoreau72]

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.

IMO, the idea that "loud pipes save lives" is a fallacy. I agree with Mycroft on that issue. Depending upon wind direction and speed of the motorcycle and wind, because of the Doppler effect, most loud pipes are not heard as the bike approaches any given point.

As practiced today so often, I think loud pipes are rude behavior. I love the sound of the Harley engine, I really do, but the noise is pollution in many cases.