Most people are accustomed to looking for other cars and trucks on the road, not motorcycles or bicycles. Plus the majority of motorcyles are speeding and are on you before you can react. Plus, there is little or no traffic enforcement of any kind anymore, which leads everyone to drive like idiots. The CHP is totally useless and needs to be disbanded.
Don't make us laugh... noisy and inefficient. It's funny how all sorts of people are claiming to be Green in hope of making their chosen form of societal offense more palatable.
What an ignorant article...it doesn't even touch on the main reason, lane splitting should remain legal. It's SAFER.
Yup, I ride. Nope, I'm not retarded enough to do it on Bay Area freeways at rush hour - that's what's dangerous. For those that do choose such insanity...give them a farkin' break. Lane splitting is far safer for them, than plodding around single file in stop and go traffic.
Lane splitting reduces rear end impacts to motorcyclists from cars - it's a fact. Many studies have been done comparing California to other states where lane splitting is illegal, and such accidents are far more prevalent in these states. Rear impact accidents kill far more motorcylicsts, than the risks associated with lane splitting.
As for the reports mentioned in the article of lane splitting related deaths...I don't know the specifics of all of them, but the idiots that choose to fly between cars going 20-40MPH faster than the traffic flow, will end up in the morgue some day regardless of lane splitting laws. Darwin in action.
I am a former MC owner, builder, rider who lost his nerve 25yrs ago when my luck ran out when a 16wfj turned her mother's station wagon in front of me on a through roadway trying to turn into a driveway. I was going 25mph (calculated from skids by CHP) and went down and received a spiral fracture of my right leg (Tib/Fib) and was off work for 5 months. I finally "saw the light" and realized that no matter how observant and safe a MC rider is, it doesn't matter, other drivers are not following suit efficiently enough! Food for thought, that was in the days before the cell phone problem and there were a lot less immigrant drivers in those days compared to now (I won't go into what I'm inferring to re: that dynamic, I'm sure most drivers know what I'm talking about)
The concept of splitting lanes on a MC does not compute. I could not even consider doing that in todays traffic environment (too distracting and just plain terrifying!)
"and there were a lot less immigrant drivers in those days compared to now (I won't go into what I'm inferring to re: that dynamic, I'm sure most drivers know what I'm talking about)"
Ahh, yes, you must be referring to all those eastern European immigrant women I see driving their Rovers and Beemers more recklessly than they really know how to handle. I don't know for sure that they're eastern European, but you mentioned "immigrants," so I assume they must be from eastern Europe since they're white and not likely from England or France. Damn eastern Europeans.
The only reason for lane splitting is because most older bikes were air cooled and needed to be moving. Nowadays most are liquid cooled. I think lane splitting is fine in traffic but when traffic is at a full 65mph or even 45mph and the idiots are still splitting lanes?!
i ride a kawasaki 750 (82) which is air cooled, and i do not do lane splitting, yes, during hot weather and stop & go traffic, my bike overheats and shots off.
I will keep my GUNS, my FREEDOM, my MONEY, you can keep the CHANGE
Other than "I want to move faster than the rest of traffic", most of the reasons for lane-splitting that seem to make sense come down to cooling (maybe no longer a problem), getting rear-ended in stopped traffic, and having to bring a bike to a stop and then start again... a laborious process on a large bike (I assume, I don't ride).
Simple law: lane splitting legal only at speeds below 25 mph.
Solves the bulk of the bikers' problems, with much lower risk.
According to my wife's sister's husband, who builds and repairs Harley's for a living, lane splitting came into being to allow air cooled motorcycles to keep moving. The California Vehicle Code does not make this distinction, however. Regardless, most motorcycles today are water cooled and lane splitters are taking advantage of a loophole in the law.
Someone mentioned that fewer cyclists are killed lane splitting than being rear-ended. A consequence of a motorcycle's ability to stop faster than a car. A common situation is a motorcyclist following a car closely, a car following the motorcyclist at typical car spacings. The front car slows suddenly, the motorcyclist slows faster and gets rear-ended by the car behind that can't stop quickly enough to keep from overtaking the motorcycle.
Filtering, where a motorcyclist rides between lines of cars stopped at a light, gets to the front, sits there until the light changes, accelerates ahead of the cars and then pulls into one of the car lanes, is ILLEGAL. You're changing lanes within 50-ft of an intersection.
But hey, you motorcyclists out there keep doing it. You make great "donors". Don't be surprised is you're not real popular with drivers. You fall into the same category as exit lane passers. You're taking advantage of a loophole in the law to gain an advantage for yourself at the expense of those around you. You want to lane split? Fine, stay on the stripe and don't pull back into the car lanes, thereby pushing the drivers back a space in traffic.
You're right, in a "panic" stop cars stop faster than motorcycles (and they usually remain upright), but motorcycles slow more abruptly than cars, and this is the problem.
You're also right about lane changes in the CVC (I did a search). It turns out that the solid lines leading up to an intersection are a Department of Transportation recommendation (the link is not allowed), not law. Lane changes in the CVC are covered in 22107, which requires they be done safely. So a motorcyclist lane splitting or filtering that hits another vehicle will likely be cited under 22107 for an unsafe lane change. Go for it!
"Regardless, most motorcycles today are water cooled"
Did your wife"s sister's husband bother to mention that Harley along with most manufactuers do not make a liquid cooled motor on cruiser type motorcycles, and most sport bikes. I am not sure where exactly you get your facts but they to say the least are not accurate. There is nothing in the Ca vehicle code that prohibits changing lanes in or around an intersection, one of the common urban myths about driving like driving bare foot.
The biggest issues with lane splitting are speed, and inattention plain and simple. We have all been stuck in traffic and seen or been cut off by the driver who is in too much of a hurry for what ever reason and just has to get into the lane that is moving just a tiny bit faster than he/she is. Usually without any regard for the cars or motorcycles that are in that lane.
Just did a random check, cruisers, sport, and dirt motorcycles and all but Harley's were liquid cooled, including the motocross bikes. Even the Gas Gas trials bikes are liquid cooled (a two-stroke with reed valve induction - go figure).
You are right, there is nothing specific in the CVC about changing lanes near an intersection, but in most cases where there are two, or more lanes in the same direction there are lane divider lines between the lanes, and the divider line near an intersection is a solid line - changing lanes over a solid line is illegal, dispite the frequency it's done.
Most Yamaha's cruisers are not liquid cooled neither are Victory's, Suzuki's come both ways, so that leaves Honda for major brands and yes most of the Honda big cruisers are liquid cooled. Your right you are not supposed to cross a solid line, but solid lines at intersections are more the exception than rule, I can't think of any I have seen recently though.
I just went through the Yamaha web site and the FJR1300's for this year and next are liquid cooled, as are all the other Yamaha's I looked at. As I recall, Yamaha started liquid cooling their bikes in the early 80's, even their dirt bikes. But I got out of dirt biking in the late 70's (and out of Yamaha dirt bikes in the early 70's) so I may be off here.
Yamaha / Star cruisers that are liquid cooled Royal Star, V Star 1300, and the VMax. 3 out of 12 models yep that is most of them. So I guess you just looked at the sport bikes.
Lanesplitting should be made illegal as it is in the other 49 states. It is dangerous and rude. When I drive I am constantly watching the cars in front, back and on the side. When i know where they are I do not expect to have a motorcycle zipping up on the side. i count on having all of the area in the lane where i am driving. I also cannot stand the motorcycle driver who is lane splitting and then thinks that they should be able to push into my lane. If a person has a deathwish they should keep me out of it
Rude? Do you consider it rude when other vehicles pass you in free flow traffic? What possible difference is there in your mind between someone passing you and ...someone passing you...
As for dangerous...well, you think motorcycles are inherently dangerous anyway, don't you? Be honest now.
I rode some on the street but mostly in the dirt for 15 years, about 10 of those competitively. I banged my knee on the triple clamp once - that was it. I rode with a bunch of other guys, one of them cracked and arm bone. That, too, was it. We didn't ride on the street much and rocks and trees don't move. So, can motorcycles be safe? Of course they can. Can they be dangerous? Sure, particularly if they're ridden irresponsibly. Gee, I wonder where lane splitting falls?
In other words, you don't really know what it's like to commute on a motorcycle.
I commute 12,000 miles a year, year round, rain or shine on my motorcycle and I've been doing that since 1999. No offense, but I think I have a slightly better idea what dangers motorcycles face on the highways, while lanesharing or not.
I can count the number of close calls I've had while lanesharing over the past 10 years on one hand. I have lost track of the number of times I've had to take evasive actions while riding in free flow traffic. And the number of times I've avoided a right of way incursion by anticipating a maneauver before a vehicle executed it is at least an order of magnitude higher than that.
There is a reason the motorcyclists mantra is "ride like you are invisible." Car drivers will not see you, even if they look directly at you before turning left in to your path.
I can count the number of close calls I've had while lanesharing over the past 10 years on one hand.
I have no problems with motorcycles (or cars) passing me. I try to just concentrate on my own speed and not get caught up in who is getting ahead of me. But I have to say the times I have been startled by a motorcycle suddenly shooting between me and the next vehicle are nerve wracking. There are plenty of times when I have thought "wow, that guy was lucky I was paying attention". There are many more "close calls" than you may know about. I try to signal when changing lanes, but have sometimes been guilty of not doing so. If you are only counting the times someone changed lanes or swerved in front of you, you are missing out on all the times they were considering doing so or happened to see you at the last second.
I would be interested if a motorcycle fan would like to take issue with any of the following:
1) Cars are bigger than bikes.
2) Motorcyclists have a better view of the surroundings than someone inside a car (better visibility)
3) It's not speed, as much as difference in speeds that creates danger
4) Cars are much more prevalent on highways (than motorcycles)
If you agree with the above, lane-splitting has the following issues:
a) motorcycles are harder to see, esp if you're inside a car
b) lane-slitting motorcycles are traveling faster than surrounding traffic
c) motorcycles have much less mass than the things that they may hit or be hit by
d) motorist do not, and will never, expect to find a motorcycle in point 'x' as often as they will expect to find a car... and THEY WILL NOT take the extra time/care to look.
The last is the killer problem. Unfair as it may seem to the motorcycle crowd, the average motorist rarely takes into account the possibility that between the time they took that quick look in the rear-view mirror and the time they actually make the move into that supposedly open spot in the lane next to them, some motorcycle traveling 20 mph faster than traffic shows up in exactly the wrong spot.
At 20 mph (difference) you move 30 feet every second. A motorcycle 5 cars back (and likely invisible to any driver trying to catch a quick look in the rear-view mirror) is next to you in only 2-3 seconds. This is a recipe for disaster, and as much as the lane-splitters would like this to be a problem of inattentive drivers, the reality is this problem cannot be made to go away in any meaningful way. If drivers took enough time to completely scan for the occasional lane-splitter, they'd end up rear-ending the car in front of them because they didn't look forward fast enough to see the brake lights.
Lane-splitting, esp at rates much faster than surrounding traffic, is inherently unsafe, and CANNOT be made safe. It needs to be stopped, or at least restricted.
We all drive in a manner in which we feel "safe". Whether we actually are is debatable, but it's human nature to try and create a safe environment for yourself that you're in control of. When somebody suddenly bursts into that safe envelope our brains switch into fight or flight mode, and we react with anger. This is true whether it's a motorcycle or a car that takes away that feeling of being safe and in control. As Cal Old Blue pointed out, the intrusions by lane splitters are sudden and startling, which accentuates our reactions. As anyone who has suddenly had a loud Harley (or any other bike) come flying past will testify the experience can be very nerve wracking.
Yes, lane-splitting is a freedom, a lifestyle, something a lot of motorcyclists are used to as Camili said...just like texting while driving, drinking and driving, trying to beat the red light...all of which are bad driver habits.
The only difference is, lane splitting has no law expressly prohibiting it. Others may justify lane splitting accidents as being the fault of other motorists. But then again, if you weren't weaving in between the lanes, you wouldn't have gotten in an accident the first place now would you? You have to watch out for yourself as much as you have to watch out for other drivers, not lane splitting is certainly no skin off your nose.
If passing on the right is illegal does that mean lane splitting on the right is also illegal? The thing I find upsetting when it comes to bike riders is that most act as if we are in their way. Out here where I live we have a lot of riders, and while most that I know off the bike are sweethearts, on the bike is a different story. If you ride you need to do it defensively, like we all do while driving a car. There is no reason to throw caution to the wind unless you are prepared to eat pavement over it.
Also, the rudest encounter I have ever had while driving was by a bike rider. We were stopped at a red light, and he came up on his purple & yellow harley and stopped by my driver door... he gave me a look that was mean to say the least and then slammed my drivers mirror against my window. What gives him the right to touch my car and act as if I had no right to be where I was?? Anyway, every time I see a purple or yellow harley I am more likely to stay in his way then to move over. You can figure a lot of people have experiences like this and that is why they have no need to get out of the way for you to pass.
Remember when you decide to pass a car that they have blind spots, and you don't want to be in one of them.
What a popular topic! FWIW, I don't have a problem with lane splitters and had not known that the practice of pulling up your motorcycle up in front cars stopped at a light is called “filtering.”
As for lane changes in an intersection. They are not illegal but you can get cited for violating CVC 21658(a) which says that when there are lanes then you stay in your lane and do not change lanes unless you can do it safely. Lane changes in intersections are considered unsafe because there is an expectation by other drivers that you will not change lanes in the intersection. For example, you are in the left lane and approaching an intersection. Someone waiting at the cross street and wanting to turn right can make the assumption you will not change to the right lane while in the intersection and will turn. Or, you are in the right lane and someone coming in the opposite direction (towards you) wants to turn left. They assume you will stay in the right lane and so start the turn a little early. If there’s a collision then in both cases the other driver will be cited for failure to yield and you will be cited for an unsafe lane change.
There’s also CVC 22107-22108 which says you must signal continuously for 100 feet before the lane change. If you signal properly and then change lanes in the intersection the ticketing officer can argue you were unable to evaluate if the upcoming lane change in the intersection would be safe at the time you started signaling.
If there’s a collision then in both cases the other driver will be cited for failure to yield and you will be cited for an unsafe lane change.
So let me get this straight, cause this confusses me, if I am driving along near an intersection, and signal to change lanes check behind and to my side assure that there is nothing there that presents a danger. I change lanes and some bozo pulls infront of me in either of your examples, you would cite me for an unsafe lane change? I surely hope I never get in a collision and you respond to take the report. You must have missed the part in CVC sections 21801(a) and 21804(a) that basically say "yield to any vehicle close enough to be a hazard".
Most collisions are in intersections and thus should be considered extra-hazardous. Anyone doing a lane change in a high-hazard area is not driving safely. Cops, and the courts, tend to interpret the law with a bias towards safely. Hence the ticket and good luck getting a judge to strike it.
Every time I approach and am going through an intersection I'm checking for cross traffic or that someone in the opposite left turn or right side right turn will pull out in front of me even though I have the green. It's an easy habit to get into. With the red light runners about 1/2 of the time when I slow down or evade the other driver does not even appear to notice they just blew through a red light. The cross traffic check usually needs very little attention because usually there are cars stopped effectively blocking off the intersection.
accidents is violation of right of way (21800.....sections of the CVC). With Motorcycle operators this involves the automobile in the left turn pocket on a through roadway as you are approaching from the opposite direction. The MC has the right of way, yet too many times the car driver will turn directly in front of the bike because they just aren't looking carefully enough!! With this knowledge all MC operators should be slowing down and preparing to take the possible evasive action required to avoid becoming a statistic!!
"Anyone doing a lane change in a high-hazard area is not driving safely."
Then why is it not illegal? What you are telling us is that the law,(outside of cvc 22350) is subject to your intrepretation based on what you think is safe? And you still have not answered the question, given your example I don't think you could stand up in court and explain why someone who was doing something perfectly legal could be found at fault or given a citation. Having written and reviewed plenty of collision reports, and it is real simple V1 caused this collision when D1 failed to yeild the right of way to V2 in violation of CVC Sec. 21801(a) or whichever appropriate section.
"Anyone doing a lane change in a high-hazard area is not driving safely."
> Then why is it not illegal?
Because you can still drive there but need to pay extra attention for hazards. The basic driving rules are you do what’s safe. You drive at a safe speed, change lanes in a safe fashion, etc. The definition of “safe” depends on the current environment meaning what’s around you in terms of other vehicles, obstructions, the weather, time of day, your personal attention level, worse case assumptions about the attention level of others around you, worse case assumptions about what others may do, lane splitting/sharing motorcycles, etc.
I’m surprised signaling was codified as “100 feet” rather than something like “five seconds or 100 feet, whichever is more.” 60mph is 88 feet per second meaning on the freeway you could signal for 1.14 seconds, have met the “100 foot” rule, but still get cited for an unsafe lane change.
As “safe” depends on many factors it’ll be your interpretation of “safe” vs. a professional law enforcement officer when explaining things in court.
Wednesday, 9/30/2009 - 10:44 a.m. PDT — Professional
P5Ret
Joined: Oct 2007
Current Posts: 687
"As “safe” depends on many factors it’ll be your interpretation of “safe” vs. a professional law enforcement officer when explaining things in court."
And here is where the problem lies, most professional's don't make things up in an attempt to prove a point, and dodge a legit question. I am sure you know better than I or at least think you do, so I'll just let it go, and hope that if I ever get into a collision that you are not responding to take the report.
So would it be safe to assume that a motorcycle that is weaving between two lanes of traffic "splitting" could be held in violation of an unsafe lane change because they did not give 100ft notice with signals?
Lane splitting is the practice of riding between slower moving or stopped traffic, a more appropriate term or description could be lane sharing. Lane splitting does not necessarily mean using more than one lane. It is not weaving in and out of traffic. Doing it at high speed more than 10 - 15 mph more than traffic is moving is foolish, doing it at freeway speed is stupid.
Sharing is something you do voluntarily. How about "lane stealing"? Lane splitting may not be illegal, but it sure irritates the people around you. Or haven't you figured that out by now? Or do you care? You needn't answer that. I only know a few who ride motorcycles anymore and only a couple of them lane split, but they're just like you - they think they are fully justified in doing so in spite of being fully aware of how irritating it is to most of those around them.
You don't bother to read do you? Where did I say that I split lanes? Here is a hint I didn't say it. Oh and I never have, I don't think it is a safe or smart practice even with my air cooled 2006 Yamaha / Star cruiser. The only time I have ever done anything that could be considered lane splitting was on a police motorcycle at a red light when I was responding to calls.
I think MOST people get irked by behavior that impacts them adversely while at the same time demonstrates someone else believes themselves above the law.
Examples include: bicyclists who fail to yield or stop at stop signs, pedestrians jaywalking (esp slowly), people traveling slower than the traffic flow in the fast lane (regardless of whether or not they are traveling in the speed limit), people who use exit ramps to jump ahead of stalled traffic.
It is human nature to feel abused when someone selfishly puts their interests/feelings ahead of yours. Overreacting is one thing, getting p-oed is to be expected.
Personal irk: pedestrians in a downtown area who think it's OK to enter the crosswalk after the DON'T sign comes up, as long as they think they can get across before the green. Here's why that is selfish: people trying to make a right turn are screwed. They can only make that turn when they have the green, and if pedestrians eat all that green then the right turn lane can be hung for several cycles.
But lanesharing is not something above the law. It is legal.
Obviously I'm talking about lanesharing that is done in a safe and prudent manner. It's pointless to talk about unsafe riding (or driving). There are laws that can be applied to that behavior regardless of whether it's done in free flow traffic or while lanesharing. And yes, most lanesharing is done in a safe and prudent manner. No one remembers the countless motorcycles that slip by barely noticed, they only remember the jerks. Just like no one remembers the hundreds of other cars they pass on their commute, only that dude in the jacked up 4x4 weaving through traffic and getting no where fast.
The biggest misconception is that it is done for time savings alone. That is part of it, but only a small part. It only saves a substantial amount of time when traffic is utterly snarled for miles on end. In any other conditions the amount of time saved by lanesharing is offset by the time it takes me to don and doff all my protective gear. Safety is the main reason for lanesharing.
As was previously mentioned several times above, drivers typically do not see motorcyclists. So how is lanesharing possibly safer?? Well, beyond the aspect of eliminating the risk of being rearended, the main safety stems from the fact that the vast majority of vehicles passed while lanesharing are directly beside another vehicle in the adjacent lane! You don't need to see the motorcyclist, in fact, we fully expect that you do not see us. You will, however, see the Honda beside you and not try to change lanes in to it. Besides, most people don't actually change lanes all that much (except that jerk in the 4x4).
Use your signal (before begining your lane change), check over your shoulder, use your mirrors...in other words, practice good driving habits. No motorcyclist is out there trying to get hit. We will make every attempt to avoid you, trust me.
And lastly, snarled traffic does not suddenly transform a highway in to a check out line at the grocery store. No one is cutting in line or adding to your commute time. If anything lanesharing reduces congestion by removing one vehicle from the rows of traffic.
Which is more likely to happen: 1) a motorcycle that stays in its lane gets rear-ended in traffic,; or 2) a motorcycle that is lane-splitting in traffic gets side-swiped by a car attempting to change lanes? I honestly don't know the answer because I don't ride a motorcycle, but I would guess the second scenario poses a greater statistical risk because there are probably more morons who are trying to change lanes in traffic without signaling or checking their mirrors than there are morons who don't stop fast enough to avoid rear-ending the vehicle in front of them. I have no statistical basis for my opinion, but just an attempt at an educated guess.
And Traq, I hear you re: wanting people to practice better driving habits, but I gotta tell you: I'm appalled by the lack of signaling by cars in the Bay Area. I moved here from NYC not long ago, and the difference in attentiveness to basic driving rules is like black and white (excluding, of course, the yellow cabs in Manhattan, who are a different animal altogether). So as much as you'd like to improve your safety by telling car-drivers to signal and be more attentive, I think you have a tall order in front of you.
On a separate note, I don't begrudge the MC's who are getting to their destination faster than me. I wish I had the testicular fortitude to do what they do, but alas, I like being surrounded by metal and airbags on all sides.
However, anecdotally...I was hit while lanesharing. A guy in the #2 lane swerved hard in to the #1 where I was. He was driving aggressively and I didn't see him before he made his move due to the SUV that was behind him riding the lane line and blocking my view. The end result of that collision was him with a door ding. I didn't even go down.
I have also been hit by a left turning driver. One that looked DIRECTLY at me before he turned his head and turned in to my path. I tried to swerve to avoid him, but was unable to. His bumper basically hit my ankle and then broke the frame of my motorcycle directly underneath it. Miraculously I didn't go down in that collision either, and beyond a swollen painful ankle for several months, I didn't suffer any major damage.
So anecdotally, lanesharing accidents are a lot less damaging.
Granted that flies in the face of the subject of this article, but that's been the entire point of why I've been commenting. Isolated incidents and anecdotes are irrelevant. Until there is cold hard statistical evidence showing lanesharing is dangerous in and of itself, articles such as this are just yellow journalism.
Posted on Monday, 9/28/2009 - 8:04 a.m. PDT — by James Garrard
Joined: Jun 2009
Current Posts: 71
Most people are accustomed to looking for other cars and trucks on the road, not motorcycles or bicycles. Plus the majority of motorcyles are speeding and are on you before you can react. Plus, there is little or no traffic enforcement of any kind anymore, which leads everyone to drive like idiots. The CHP is totally useless and needs to be disbanded.
Joined: Apr 2008
Current Posts: 61
What a great article!
Joined: Jan 2008
Current Posts: 377
Don't make us laugh... noisy and inefficient. It's funny how all sorts of people are claiming to be Green in hope of making their chosen form of societal offense more palatable.
Joined: Jul 2008
Current Posts: 13
What an ignorant article...it doesn't even touch on the main reason, lane splitting should remain legal. It's SAFER.
Yup, I ride. Nope, I'm not retarded enough to do it on Bay Area freeways at rush hour - that's what's dangerous. For those that do choose such insanity...give them a farkin' break. Lane splitting is far safer for them, than plodding around single file in stop and go traffic.
Lane splitting reduces rear end impacts to motorcyclists from cars - it's a fact. Many studies have been done comparing California to other states where lane splitting is illegal, and such accidents are far more prevalent in these states. Rear impact accidents kill far more motorcylicsts, than the risks associated with lane splitting.
As for the reports mentioned in the article of lane splitting related deaths...I don't know the specifics of all of them, but the idiots that choose to fly between cars going 20-40MPH faster than the traffic flow, will end up in the morgue some day regardless of lane splitting laws. Darwin in action.
Joined: Feb 2009
Current Posts: 273
I am a former MC owner, builder, rider who lost his nerve 25yrs ago when my luck ran out when a 16wfj turned her mother's station wagon in front of me on a through roadway trying to turn into a driveway. I was going 25mph (calculated from skids by CHP) and went down and received a spiral fracture of my right leg (Tib/Fib) and was off work for 5 months. I finally "saw the light" and realized that no matter how observant and safe a MC rider is, it doesn't matter, other drivers are not following suit efficiently enough! Food for thought, that was in the days before the cell phone problem and there were a lot less immigrant drivers in those days compared to now (I won't go into what I'm inferring to re: that dynamic, I'm sure most drivers know what I'm talking about)
The concept of splitting lanes on a MC does not compute. I could not even consider doing that in todays traffic environment (too distracting and just plain terrifying!)
Joined: Sep 2009
Current Posts: 10
"and there were a lot less immigrant drivers in those days compared to now (I won't go into what I'm inferring to re: that dynamic, I'm sure most drivers know what I'm talking about)"
Ahh, yes, you must be referring to all those eastern European immigrant women I see driving their Rovers and Beemers more recklessly than they really know how to handle. I don't know for sure that they're eastern European, but you mentioned "immigrants," so I assume they must be from eastern Europe since they're white and not likely from England or France. Damn eastern Europeans.
Joined: Jun 2008
Current Posts: 4
The only reason for lane splitting is because most older bikes were air cooled and needed to be moving. Nowadays most are liquid cooled. I think lane splitting is fine in traffic but when traffic is at a full 65mph or even 45mph and the idiots are still splitting lanes?!
Joined: Dec 2005
Current Posts: 1247
i ride a kawasaki 750 (82) which is air cooled, and i do not do lane splitting, yes, during hot weather and stop & go traffic, my bike overheats and shots off.
I will keep my GUNS, my FREEDOM, my MONEY, you can keep the CHANGE
Joined: Mar 2008
Current Posts: 61
Other than "I want to move faster than the rest of traffic", most of the reasons for lane-splitting that seem to make sense come down to cooling (maybe no longer a problem), getting rear-ended in stopped traffic, and having to bring a bike to a stop and then start again... a laborious process on a large bike (I assume, I don't ride).
Simple law: lane splitting legal only at speeds below 25 mph.
Solves the bulk of the bikers' problems, with much lower risk.
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 14
According to my wife's sister's husband, who builds and repairs Harley's for a living, lane splitting came into being to allow air cooled motorcycles to keep moving. The California Vehicle Code does not make this distinction, however. Regardless, most motorcycles today are water cooled and lane splitters are taking advantage of a loophole in the law.
Someone mentioned that fewer cyclists are killed lane splitting than being rear-ended. A consequence of a motorcycle's ability to stop faster than a car. A common situation is a motorcyclist following a car closely, a car following the motorcyclist at typical car spacings. The front car slows suddenly, the motorcyclist slows faster and gets rear-ended by the car behind that can't stop quickly enough to keep from overtaking the motorcycle.
Filtering, where a motorcyclist rides between lines of cars stopped at a light, gets to the front, sits there until the light changes, accelerates ahead of the cars and then pulls into one of the car lanes, is ILLEGAL. You're changing lanes within 50-ft of an intersection.
But hey, you motorcyclists out there keep doing it. You make great "donors". Don't be surprised is you're not real popular with drivers. You fall into the same category as exit lane passers. You're taking advantage of a loophole in the law to gain an advantage for yourself at the expense of those around you. You want to lane split? Fine, stay on the stripe and don't pull back into the car lanes, thereby pushing the drivers back a space in traffic.
Joined: Sep 2009
Current Posts: 9
Two things you (albrooks) said are completely untrue:
1) Motorcycles do NOT stop faster than cars. There are plenty of stopping numbers out there for bikes, cars, and trucks; go check them yourself.
2) In CA there is no law that prohibits lane changes within 50 ft of an intersection, in fact, it is legal to change lanes IN an intersection in CA.
The rest of your tirade isn't worth bothering to address.
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 14
You're right, in a "panic" stop cars stop faster than motorcycles (and they usually remain upright), but motorcycles slow more abruptly than cars, and this is the problem.
You're also right about lane changes in the CVC (I did a search). It turns out that the solid lines leading up to an intersection are a Department of Transportation recommendation (the link is not allowed), not law. Lane changes in the CVC are covered in 22107, which requires they be done safely. So a motorcyclist lane splitting or filtering that hits another vehicle will likely be cited under 22107 for an unsafe lane change. Go for it!
Joined: Oct 2007
Current Posts: 687
"Regardless, most motorcycles today are water cooled"
Did your wife"s sister's husband bother to mention that Harley along with most manufactuers do not make a liquid cooled motor on cruiser type motorcycles, and most sport bikes. I am not sure where exactly you get your facts but they to say the least are not accurate. There is nothing in the Ca vehicle code that prohibits changing lanes in or around an intersection, one of the common urban myths about driving like driving bare foot.
The biggest issues with lane splitting are speed, and inattention plain and simple. We have all been stuck in traffic and seen or been cut off by the driver who is in too much of a hurry for what ever reason and just has to get into the lane that is moving just a tiny bit faster than he/she is. Usually without any regard for the cars or motorcycles that are in that lane.
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 14
Just did a random check, cruisers, sport, and dirt motorcycles and all but Harley's were liquid cooled, including the motocross bikes. Even the Gas Gas trials bikes are liquid cooled (a two-stroke with reed valve induction - go figure).
You are right, there is nothing specific in the CVC about changing lanes near an intersection, but in most cases where there are two, or more lanes in the same direction there are lane divider lines between the lanes, and the divider line near an intersection is a solid line - changing lanes over a solid line is illegal, dispite the frequency it's done.
Joined: Oct 2007
Current Posts: 687
Most Yamaha's cruisers are not liquid cooled neither are Victory's, Suzuki's come both ways, so that leaves Honda for major brands and yes most of the Honda big cruisers are liquid cooled. Your right you are not supposed to cross a solid line, but solid lines at intersections are more the exception than rule, I can't think of any I have seen recently though.
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 14
I just went through the Yamaha web site and the FJR1300's for this year and next are liquid cooled, as are all the other Yamaha's I looked at. As I recall, Yamaha started liquid cooling their bikes in the early 80's, even their dirt bikes. But I got out of dirt biking in the late 70's (and out of Yamaha dirt bikes in the early 70's) so I may be off here.
Joined: Sep 2009
Current Posts: 9
Take a look at BMW next, specifically the R series (CHP ride R1200RTPs).
Joined: Dec 2005
Current Posts: 1247
@trag,
they stopped making the r series in 2004
I will keep my GUNS, my FREEDOM, my MONEY, you can keep the CHANGE
Joined: Sep 2009
Current Posts: 9
You are incorrect.
Joined: Oct 2007
Current Posts: 687
Yamaha / Star cruisers that are liquid cooled Royal Star, V Star 1300, and the VMax. 3 out of 12 models yep that is most of them. So I guess you just looked at the sport bikes.
Joined: Mar 2008
Current Posts: 438
Lane splitting has nothing, nothing to do with cooling off an engine...any engine.
Joined: Mar 2009
Current Posts: 10
Lanesplitting should be made illegal as it is in the other 49 states. It is dangerous and rude. When I drive I am constantly watching the cars in front, back and on the side. When i know where they are I do not expect to have a motorcycle zipping up on the side. i count on having all of the area in the lane where i am driving. I also cannot stand the motorcycle driver who is lane splitting and then thinks that they should be able to push into my lane. If a person has a deathwish they should keep me out of it
Joined: Sep 2009
Current Posts: 9
Rude? Do you consider it rude when other vehicles pass you in free flow traffic? What possible difference is there in your mind between someone passing you and ...someone passing you...
As for dangerous...well, you think motorcycles are inherently dangerous anyway, don't you? Be honest now.
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 14
I rode some on the street but mostly in the dirt for 15 years, about 10 of those competitively. I banged my knee on the triple clamp once - that was it. I rode with a bunch of other guys, one of them cracked and arm bone. That, too, was it. We didn't ride on the street much and rocks and trees don't move. So, can motorcycles be safe? Of course they can. Can they be dangerous? Sure, particularly if they're ridden irresponsibly. Gee, I wonder where lane splitting falls?
Joined: Sep 2009
Current Posts: 9
In other words, you don't really know what it's like to commute on a motorcycle.
I commute 12,000 miles a year, year round, rain or shine on my motorcycle and I've been doing that since 1999. No offense, but I think I have a slightly better idea what dangers motorcycles face on the highways, while lanesharing or not.
I can count the number of close calls I've had while lanesharing over the past 10 years on one hand. I have lost track of the number of times I've had to take evasive actions while riding in free flow traffic. And the number of times I've avoided a right of way incursion by anticipating a maneauver before a vehicle executed it is at least an order of magnitude higher than that.
There is a reason the motorcyclists mantra is "ride like you are invisible." Car drivers will not see you, even if they look directly at you before turning left in to your path.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 3047
I can count the number of close calls I've had while lanesharing over the past 10 years on one hand.
I have no problems with motorcycles (or cars) passing me. I try to just concentrate on my own speed and not get caught up in who is getting ahead of me. But I have to say the times I have been startled by a motorcycle suddenly shooting between me and the next vehicle are nerve wracking. There are plenty of times when I have thought "wow, that guy was lucky I was paying attention". There are many more "close calls" than you may know about. I try to signal when changing lanes, but have sometimes been guilty of not doing so. If you are only counting the times someone changed lanes or swerved in front of you, you are missing out on all the times they were considering doing so or happened to see you at the last second.
Joined: Sep 2009
Current Posts: 9
Sorry, that argument doesn't pass the smell test. There's no such thing as an "almost sorta maybe could have been close call."
Joined: Mar 2008
Current Posts: 61
I would be interested if a motorcycle fan would like to take issue with any of the following:
1) Cars are bigger than bikes.
2) Motorcyclists have a better view of the surroundings than someone inside a car (better visibility)
3) It's not speed, as much as difference in speeds that creates danger
4) Cars are much more prevalent on highways (than motorcycles)
If you agree with the above, lane-splitting has the following issues:
a) motorcycles are harder to see, esp if you're inside a car
b) lane-slitting motorcycles are traveling faster than surrounding traffic
c) motorcycles have much less mass than the things that they may hit or be hit by
d) motorist do not, and will never, expect to find a motorcycle in point 'x' as often as they will expect to find a car... and THEY WILL NOT take the extra time/care to look.
The last is the killer problem. Unfair as it may seem to the motorcycle crowd, the average motorist rarely takes into account the possibility that between the time they took that quick look in the rear-view mirror and the time they actually make the move into that supposedly open spot in the lane next to them, some motorcycle traveling 20 mph faster than traffic shows up in exactly the wrong spot.
At 20 mph (difference) you move 30 feet every second. A motorcycle 5 cars back (and likely invisible to any driver trying to catch a quick look in the rear-view mirror) is next to you in only 2-3 seconds. This is a recipe for disaster, and as much as the lane-splitters would like this to be a problem of inattentive drivers, the reality is this problem cannot be made to go away in any meaningful way. If drivers took enough time to completely scan for the occasional lane-splitter, they'd end up rear-ending the car in front of them because they didn't look forward fast enough to see the brake lights.
Lane-splitting, esp at rates much faster than surrounding traffic, is inherently unsafe, and CANNOT be made safe. It needs to be stopped, or at least restricted.
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 14
We all drive in a manner in which we feel "safe". Whether we actually are is debatable, but it's human nature to try and create a safe environment for yourself that you're in control of. When somebody suddenly bursts into that safe envelope our brains switch into fight or flight mode, and we react with anger. This is true whether it's a motorcycle or a car that takes away that feeling of being safe and in control. As Cal Old Blue pointed out, the intrusions by lane splitters are sudden and startling, which accentuates our reactions. As anyone who has suddenly had a loud Harley (or any other bike) come flying past will testify the experience can be very nerve wracking.
Joined: Sep 2009
Current Posts: 17
Yes, lane-splitting is a freedom, a lifestyle, something a lot of motorcyclists are used to as Camili said...just like texting while driving, drinking and driving, trying to beat the red light...all of which are bad driver habits.
The only difference is, lane splitting has no law expressly prohibiting it. Others may justify lane splitting accidents as being the fault of other motorists. But then again, if you weren't weaving in between the lanes, you wouldn't have gotten in an accident the first place now would you? You have to watch out for yourself as much as you have to watch out for other drivers, not lane splitting is certainly no skin off your nose.
Joined: Apr 2008
Current Posts: 61
If passing on the right is illegal does that mean lane splitting on the right is also illegal? The thing I find upsetting when it comes to bike riders is that most act as if we are in their way. Out here where I live we have a lot of riders, and while most that I know off the bike are sweethearts, on the bike is a different story. If you ride you need to do it defensively, like we all do while driving a car. There is no reason to throw caution to the wind unless you are prepared to eat pavement over it.
Also, the rudest encounter I have ever had while driving was by a bike rider. We were stopped at a red light, and he came up on his purple & yellow harley and stopped by my driver door... he gave me a look that was mean to say the least and then slammed my drivers mirror against my window. What gives him the right to touch my car and act as if I had no right to be where I was?? Anyway, every time I see a purple or yellow harley I am more likely to stay in his way then to move over. You can figure a lot of people have experiences like this and that is why they have no need to get out of the way for you to pass.
Remember when you decide to pass a car that they have blind spots, and you don't want to be in one of them.
Joined: Mar 2008
Current Posts: 279
What a popular topic! FWIW, I don't have a problem with lane splitters and had not known that the practice of pulling up your motorcycle up in front cars stopped at a light is called “filtering.”
As for lane changes in an intersection. They are not illegal but you can get cited for violating CVC 21658(a) which says that when there are lanes then you stay in your lane and do not change lanes unless you can do it safely. Lane changes in intersections are considered unsafe because there is an expectation by other drivers that you will not change lanes in the intersection. For example, you are in the left lane and approaching an intersection. Someone waiting at the cross street and wanting to turn right can make the assumption you will not change to the right lane while in the intersection and will turn. Or, you are in the right lane and someone coming in the opposite direction (towards you) wants to turn left. They assume you will stay in the right lane and so start the turn a little early. If there’s a collision then in both cases the other driver will be cited for failure to yield and you will be cited for an unsafe lane change.
There’s also CVC 22107-22108 which says you must signal continuously for 100 feet before the lane change. If you signal properly and then change lanes in the intersection the ticketing officer can argue you were unable to evaluate if the upcoming lane change in the intersection would be safe at the time you started signaling.
Joined: Oct 2007
Current Posts: 687
If there’s a collision then in both cases the other driver will be cited for failure to yield and you will be cited for an unsafe lane change.
So let me get this straight, cause this confusses me, if I am driving along near an intersection, and signal to change lanes check behind and to my side assure that there is nothing there that presents a danger. I change lanes and some bozo pulls infront of me in either of your examples, you would cite me for an unsafe lane change? I surely hope I never get in a collision and you respond to take the report. You must have missed the part in CVC sections 21801(a) and 21804(a) that basically say "yield to any vehicle close enough to be a hazard".
Joined: Mar 2008
Current Posts: 279
Most collisions are in intersections and thus should be considered extra-hazardous. Anyone doing a lane change in a high-hazard area is not driving safely. Cops, and the courts, tend to interpret the law with a bias towards safely. Hence the ticket and good luck getting a judge to strike it.
Every time I approach and am going through an intersection I'm checking for cross traffic or that someone in the opposite left turn or right side right turn will pull out in front of me even though I have the green. It's an easy habit to get into. With the red light runners about 1/2 of the time when I slow down or evade the other driver does not even appear to notice they just blew through a red light. The cross traffic check usually needs very little attention because usually there are cars stopped effectively blocking off the intersection.
Joined: Feb 2009
Current Posts: 273
accidents is violation of right of way (21800.....sections of the CVC). With Motorcycle operators this involves the automobile in the left turn pocket on a through roadway as you are approaching from the opposite direction. The MC has the right of way, yet too many times the car driver will turn directly in front of the bike because they just aren't looking carefully enough!! With this knowledge all MC operators should be slowing down and preparing to take the possible evasive action required to avoid becoming a statistic!!
Joined: Oct 2007
Current Posts: 687
"Anyone doing a lane change in a high-hazard area is not driving safely."
Then why is it not illegal? What you are telling us is that the law,(outside of cvc 22350) is subject to your intrepretation based on what you think is safe? And you still have not answered the question, given your example I don't think you could stand up in court and explain why someone who was doing something perfectly legal could be found at fault or given a citation. Having written and reviewed plenty of collision reports, and it is real simple V1 caused this collision when D1 failed to yeild the right of way to V2 in violation of CVC Sec. 21801(a) or whichever appropriate section.
Joined: Mar 2008
Current Posts: 279
"Anyone doing a lane change in a high-hazard area is not driving safely."
> Then why is it not illegal?
Because you can still drive there but need to pay extra attention for hazards. The basic driving rules are you do what’s safe. You drive at a safe speed, change lanes in a safe fashion, etc. The definition of “safe” depends on the current environment meaning what’s around you in terms of other vehicles, obstructions, the weather, time of day, your personal attention level, worse case assumptions about the attention level of others around you, worse case assumptions about what others may do, lane splitting/sharing motorcycles, etc.
I’m surprised signaling was codified as “100 feet” rather than something like “five seconds or 100 feet, whichever is more.” 60mph is 88 feet per second meaning on the freeway you could signal for 1.14 seconds, have met the “100 foot” rule, but still get cited for an unsafe lane change.
As “safe” depends on many factors it’ll be your interpretation of “safe” vs. a professional law enforcement officer when explaining things in court.
Joined: Oct 2007
Current Posts: 687
"As “safe” depends on many factors it’ll be your interpretation of “safe” vs. a professional law enforcement officer when explaining things in court."
And here is where the problem lies, most professional's don't make things up in an attempt to prove a point, and dodge a legit question. I am sure you know better than I or at least think you do, so I'll just let it go, and hope that if I ever get into a collision that you are not responding to take the report.
Joined: Apr 2008
Current Posts: 61
So would it be safe to assume that a motorcycle that is weaving between two lanes of traffic "splitting" could be held in violation of an unsafe lane change because they did not give 100ft notice with signals?
Joined: Oct 2007
Current Posts: 687
Lane splitting is the practice of riding between slower moving or stopped traffic, a more appropriate term or description could be lane sharing. Lane splitting does not necessarily mean using more than one lane. It is not weaving in and out of traffic. Doing it at high speed more than 10 - 15 mph more than traffic is moving is foolish, doing it at freeway speed is stupid.
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 14
Sharing is something you do voluntarily. How about "lane stealing"? Lane splitting may not be illegal, but it sure irritates the people around you. Or haven't you figured that out by now? Or do you care? You needn't answer that. I only know a few who ride motorcycles anymore and only a couple of them lane split, but they're just like you - they think they are fully justified in doing so in spite of being fully aware of how irritating it is to most of those around them.
Joined: Oct 2007
Current Posts: 687
You don't bother to read do you? Where did I say that I split lanes? Here is a hint I didn't say it. Oh and I never have, I don't think it is a safe or smart practice even with my air cooled 2006 Yamaha / Star cruiser. The only time I have ever done anything that could be considered lane splitting was on a police motorcycle at a red light when I was responding to calls.
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 14
You didn't say you lane split, and neither did I. Enough.
Joined: Sep 2009
Current Posts: 9
What other users on the road do you find irritating? HOV? Bicycles? Pedestrians? People in the fast lane going the speed limit?
You need to look inside yourself to find the answer as to why you are a road rager. Don't blame the motorcyclists for your anger issues.
Joined: Sep 2009
Current Posts: 10
"...anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac."
Joined: Mar 2008
Current Posts: 61
I think MOST people get irked by behavior that impacts them adversely while at the same time demonstrates someone else believes themselves above the law.
Examples include: bicyclists who fail to yield or stop at stop signs, pedestrians jaywalking (esp slowly), people traveling slower than the traffic flow in the fast lane (regardless of whether or not they are traveling in the speed limit), people who use exit ramps to jump ahead of stalled traffic.
It is human nature to feel abused when someone selfishly puts their interests/feelings ahead of yours. Overreacting is one thing, getting p-oed is to be expected.
Personal irk: pedestrians in a downtown area who think it's OK to enter the crosswalk after the DON'T sign comes up, as long as they think they can get across before the green. Here's why that is selfish: people trying to make a right turn are screwed. They can only make that turn when they have the green, and if pedestrians eat all that green then the right turn lane can be hung for several cycles.
Joined: Sep 2009
Current Posts: 9
But lanesharing is not something above the law. It is legal.
Obviously I'm talking about lanesharing that is done in a safe and prudent manner. It's pointless to talk about unsafe riding (or driving). There are laws that can be applied to that behavior regardless of whether it's done in free flow traffic or while lanesharing. And yes, most lanesharing is done in a safe and prudent manner. No one remembers the countless motorcycles that slip by barely noticed, they only remember the jerks. Just like no one remembers the hundreds of other cars they pass on their commute, only that dude in the jacked up 4x4 weaving through traffic and getting no where fast.
The biggest misconception is that it is done for time savings alone. That is part of it, but only a small part. It only saves a substantial amount of time when traffic is utterly snarled for miles on end. In any other conditions the amount of time saved by lanesharing is offset by the time it takes me to don and doff all my protective gear. Safety is the main reason for lanesharing.
As was previously mentioned several times above, drivers typically do not see motorcyclists. So how is lanesharing possibly safer?? Well, beyond the aspect of eliminating the risk of being rearended, the main safety stems from the fact that the vast majority of vehicles passed while lanesharing are directly beside another vehicle in the adjacent lane! You don't need to see the motorcyclist, in fact, we fully expect that you do not see us. You will, however, see the Honda beside you and not try to change lanes in to it. Besides, most people don't actually change lanes all that much (except that jerk in the 4x4).
Use your signal (before begining your lane change), check over your shoulder, use your mirrors...in other words, practice good driving habits. No motorcyclist is out there trying to get hit. We will make every attempt to avoid you, trust me.
And lastly, snarled traffic does not suddenly transform a highway in to a check out line at the grocery store. No one is cutting in line or adding to your commute time. If anything lanesharing reduces congestion by removing one vehicle from the rows of traffic.
Joined: Sep 2009
Current Posts: 10
Which is more likely to happen: 1) a motorcycle that stays in its lane gets rear-ended in traffic,; or 2) a motorcycle that is lane-splitting in traffic gets side-swiped by a car attempting to change lanes? I honestly don't know the answer because I don't ride a motorcycle, but I would guess the second scenario poses a greater statistical risk because there are probably more morons who are trying to change lanes in traffic without signaling or checking their mirrors than there are morons who don't stop fast enough to avoid rear-ending the vehicle in front of them. I have no statistical basis for my opinion, but just an attempt at an educated guess.
And Traq, I hear you re: wanting people to practice better driving habits, but I gotta tell you: I'm appalled by the lack of signaling by cars in the Bay Area. I moved here from NYC not long ago, and the difference in attentiveness to basic driving rules is like black and white (excluding, of course, the yellow cabs in Manhattan, who are a different animal altogether). So as much as you'd like to improve your safety by telling car-drivers to signal and be more attentive, I think you have a tall order in front of you.
On a separate note, I don't begrudge the MC's who are getting to their destination faster than me. I wish I had the testicular fortitude to do what they do, but alas, I like being surrounded by metal and airbags on all sides.
Joined: Sep 2009
Current Posts: 9
There aren't any statistics.
However, anecdotally...I was hit while lanesharing. A guy in the #2 lane swerved hard in to the #1 where I was. He was driving aggressively and I didn't see him before he made his move due to the SUV that was behind him riding the lane line and blocking my view. The end result of that collision was him with a door ding. I didn't even go down.
I have also been hit by a left turning driver. One that looked DIRECTLY at me before he turned his head and turned in to my path. I tried to swerve to avoid him, but was unable to. His bumper basically hit my ankle and then broke the frame of my motorcycle directly underneath it. Miraculously I didn't go down in that collision either, and beyond a swollen painful ankle for several months, I didn't suffer any major damage.
So anecdotally, lanesharing accidents are a lot less damaging.
Granted that flies in the face of the subject of this article, but that's been the entire point of why I've been commenting. Isolated incidents and anecdotes are irrelevant. Until there is cold hard statistical evidence showing lanesharing is dangerous in and of itself, articles such as this are just yellow journalism.
Joined: Sep 2009
Current Posts: 10
accidental double post deleted