Wildguzzi.com

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: gooseontheloose on June 26, 2015, 07:42:29 AM

Title: Lane splitting study
Post by: gooseontheloose on June 26, 2015, 07:42:29 AM
Not sure if its been posted before?

http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-lanesplitting-safe-uc-berkeley-study-20150529-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-lanesplitting-safe-uc-berkeley-study-20150529-story.html)
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Chuck in Indiana on June 26, 2015, 07:59:58 AM
I don't think this one has, but that's good news.
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: redrider on June 26, 2015, 08:07:27 AM
How many motorcyclists will obey the rules? Shoot, the stunnah's already terrorize the cagers here. (Yes Millicent, the boys spell it that way)
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: biking sailor on June 26, 2015, 08:46:13 AM
For those that commute by motorcycle outside of California, need bumper stick on the back of bike that says:

"If Lane Splitting were legal,
I wouldn't be here, and
YOU could move up!"
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Tom on June 26, 2015, 08:55:58 AM
 :1:
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Randown on June 26, 2015, 09:02:42 AM
Once again the great state of California sets the example for what is right & proper. Backwater & 60th parallel states get a clue.  :evil:
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Arizona Wayne on June 26, 2015, 11:49:19 AM
Once again the great state of California sets the example for what is right & proper. Backwater & 60th parallel states get a clue.  :evil:



This time Kaifornia got it right. But this example in no way compares to their sad decisions since then. (former Californian)  :wink:
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Zinfan on June 26, 2015, 01:12:27 PM
Once again the great state of California sets the example for what is right & proper. Backwater & 60th parallel states get a clue.  :evil:

Well reading the article seems to indicate that the study came out just before the vote so the pols still have time to f it up.
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: rodekyll on June 26, 2015, 01:58:56 PM
Once again the great state of California sets the example for what is right & proper. Backwater & 60th parallel states get a clue.  :evil:

We got the clue.  We despised it, them, and theirs.  We called the clue kaliforication.  You may keep it, thanks.

Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: oldbike54 on June 26, 2015, 02:01:29 PM
 Aw fellas California ain't so bad , move here to Oklahoma , we will show ya bad  :cry:

  Dusty
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: rodekyll on June 26, 2015, 02:16:38 PM
No, other than the political, social, economic and weather climates, the overpaving, overcrowding and overarrogant people, the crumbling infrastructure and inability to solve any problems it's probably only a mid level of hell.

I surely do get completely tired of kalifornians trying to tell me what I am and am not, and what I can and can't do.  The other day I had some newly transplanted asshat from Chico schooling me on "proper cultural sensitivity" with regard to the local native population.  He's one of those typical kalifornians who makes his living inventing problems where there are none so he can sell the solution to questions nobody asked.  Kinda like the shill in the auction nobody wanted to bid.  Go get 'em, tiger.   :coffee:
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Zinfan on June 26, 2015, 02:52:17 PM
No, other than the political, social, economic and weather climates, the overpaving, overcrowding and overarrogant people, the crumbling infrastructure and inability to solve any problems it's probably only a mid level of hell.

I surely do get completely tired of kalifornians trying to tell me what I am and am not, and what I can and can't do.  The other day I had some newly transplanted asshat from Chico schooling me on "proper cultural sensitivity" with regard to the local native population.  He's one of those typical kalifornians who makes his living inventing problems where there are none so he can sell the solution to questions nobody asked.  Kinda like the shill in the auction nobody wanted to bid.  Go get 'em, tiger.   :coffee:

somehow felt the need to respond to the "typical kalifornians" comment but then decide to put on my Lycra and go for a bike ride.  See ya later!
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: oldbike54 on June 26, 2015, 02:56:44 PM
 "Proper cultural sensitivity"  :huh: Well , there is certainly a segment of the population in Caaaleeeforniaa that is arrogant , but we have that same problem here with city folks from Tulsa and OKC , telling us small town dwellers how back wards we are after they move to a more rural area and then bitch about the lack of one hour dry cleaning and the dearth of , well , almost everything they believe necessary to maintain their "civilized" ex lifestyle . My response is always , "then move the eff back" , we didn't invite you here anyway  :angry:
I do however have good friends in the Golden state , and they are MOSTLY OK  :grin:

  Dusty
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Arizona Wayne on June 26, 2015, 02:59:52 PM
No, other than the political, social, economic and weather climates, the overpaving, overcrowding and overarrogant people, the crumbling infrastructure and inability to solve any problems it's probably only a mid level of hell.

I surely do get completely tired of kalifornians trying to tell me what I am and am not, and what I can and can't do.  The other day I had some newly transplanted asshat from Chico schooling me on "proper cultural sensitivity" with regard to the local native population.  He's one of those typical kalifornians who makes his living inventing problems where there are none so he can sell the solution to questions nobody asked.  Kinda like the shill in the auction nobody wanted to bid.  Go get 'em, tiger.   :coffee:



If you think Chico, Ka. residents are bad, don't ever talk to a college trained 1 from Eugene, Or. !   :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: canuguzzi on June 26, 2015, 04:51:05 PM
For those that commute by motorcycle outside of California, need bumper stick on the back of bike that says:

"If Lane Splitting were legal,
I wouldn't be here, and
YOU could move up!"

 :1: :1:
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: normzone on June 26, 2015, 05:32:28 PM
It always makes me happy to hear people bad mouthing California for any reason. And I'm glad when they're afraid of earthquakes and fires as well.

Anything that discourages even one more person from moving here or staying here just makes my life that much better.

 :grin:
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Arizona Wayne on June 26, 2015, 05:43:24 PM
It always makes me happy to hear people bad mouthing California for any reason. And I'm glad when they're afraid of earthquakes and fires as well.

Anything that discourages even one more person from moving here or staying here just makes my life that much better.

 :grin:




Not to worry, more have left Kaliforny than arrive the last few years, mostly those that have a decent income stream to llve on.  But you are getting a lot of illegals for your free medical/dental/schooling/child care/ housing/and welfare benefits.  :thumb:  So be sure to keep paying your state, county, city, sales taxes.
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: stmike on June 26, 2015, 07:57:08 PM



Not to worry, more have left Kaliforny than arrive the last few years, mostly those that have a decent income stream to llve on.  But you are getting a lot of illegals for your free medical/dental/schooling/child care/ housing/and welfare benefits.  :thumb:  So be sure to keep paying your state, county, city, sales taxes.
:1: I love the climate and the wonderful canyon roads; but you can have the taxes, entitlements, socialism, liberalism, crowds, drought, and probably a few other things that will come to me momentarily.  When my wife is old enough to retire we'll likely take our pensions elsewhere.
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Randown on June 26, 2015, 09:45:15 PM
No, other than the political, social, economic and weather climates, the overpaving, overcrowding and overarrogant people, the crumbling infrastructure and inability to solve any problems it's probably only a mid level of hell.

I surely do get completely tired of kalifornians trying to tell me what I am and am not, and what I can and can't do.  The other day I had some newly transplanted asshat from Chico schooling me on "proper cultural sensitivity" with regard to the local native population.  He's one of those typical kalifornians who makes his living inventing problems where there are none so he can sell the solution to questions nobody asked.  Kinda like the shill in the auction nobody wanted to bid.  Go get 'em, tiger.   :coffee:

You are way off base sir. We aren't "overarrogant". Our populace averages mild to moderate arrogance & that is about the right amount.

Now see here, we have a template to get this done in other states, feel free to piggyback our university's study onto your own if you have one. :tongue:
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: travelingbyguzzi on June 26, 2015, 09:56:16 PM
Northern California is nice......
But back on topic, I have a 5 mile stretch where the HOV lane is stop and go. It was 90° today and 'filtering' would have been a good thing.
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: rodekyll on June 26, 2015, 10:58:50 PM
You are way off base sir. We aren't "overarrogant". Our populace averages mild to moderate arrogance & that is about the right amount.

Now see here, we have a template to get this done in other states, feel free to piggyback our university's study onto your own if you have one. :tongue:

When kalifornians feel their sphere of influence passes 60º north, they are overarrogant by at least 15º.  Your promotion of a Kalifornianized 'template' for my life doesn't do much to change my position.
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Randown on June 27, 2015, 11:20:23 AM
When kalifornians feel their sphere of influence passes 60� north, they are overarrogant by at least 15�.  Your promotion of a Kalifornianized 'template' for my life doesn't do much to change my position.

Well I guess it wouldn't if you're on a trike & the biggest impediment to forward motion is roadkill.  :wink:

A few weeks back my dad & his bride were among the masses visiting Sitka via a steamer out of San Francisco, thanks for being a gracious host, I do hope the locals aren't unduly influenced by our regular invasions.  :evil:

You brought it up first, you said you wish CA would come down one side or another on lane splitting, well we have & now the tune is I don't care about Kalifornians?
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Tom on June 27, 2015, 12:42:27 PM
We get the overflow of fruits and nuts out here too.  :evil:
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: rodekyll on June 27, 2015, 02:31:43 PM

Well I guess it wouldn't if you're on a trike & the biggest impediment to forward motion is roadkill.  :wink:

A few weeks back my dad & his bride were among the masses visiting Sitka via a steamer out of San Francisco, thanks for being a gracious host, I do hope the locals aren't unduly influenced by our regular invasions.  :evil:

You brought it up first, you said you wish CA would come down one side or another on lane splitting, well we have & now the tune is I don't care about Kalifornians?

Yes, I said the legality and rules for lanesplitting need clarification.  What does that have to do with you taking a cheap shot at the trike? 
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: donn on June 27, 2015, 08:49:32 PM
Rodekyll, I'm kind of surprised at you, taking a grudge against a whole state full of people, 39.8 million at last count.  Next you'll be telling us stuff you heard on Fox News.  California is bigger and more diverse than a lot of countries.  Don't be a character in someone's cartoon.

As for the study, I find it unconvincing.  They point out the problem with their analysis as if it supports them:  the riders they're looking at apparently have better safety skills - apparel, alcohol, acceleration (they speed less.)  So sure, they're able to [fill in the blank] and get away with fewer accidents than you might think - and that thoroughly disqualifies them as a statistically representative sample.
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: rodekyll on June 27, 2015, 08:52:20 PM
I have said that the lane splitting issue is a problem that the state of California needs to solve.  I've also said I don't care which side they come down on as long as a decision is made.  It seems as though they're settling it.  That's all I wanted.  Why does that make me the bad guy in the discussion?
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Yeahoo Whoyah on June 28, 2015, 12:10:23 AM
I hope other states like Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Texas and Tennessee will considered and approve lane splitting too.
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: ken farr on June 28, 2015, 12:14:12 PM
I have said that the lane splitting issue is a problem that the state of California needs to solve.  I've also said I don't care which side they come down on as long as a decision is made

Hello all, getting in here kinda late, but here it is.
1) Born and raised in California, come here or don't, like the place or don't, like the people or don't.

2)  As far as lane splitting being a problem that needed to be solved,  that is incorrect. The practice wasn't, isn't a problem.
Lane splitting in Ca. isn't unlawful.  That is the big major difference. It isn't legislated her like most everywhere else. There are other violations in the California Vehicle Code that reflect on various practices, that would stem from a squid dashing along at 60 between stopped traffic.  The problem is a matter of practicality, do you chase said squid doing 60 by going 90 to catch him ?  Do you wait for the collision, where Mr. Squid has now involved some innocent in his actions?  No real good answer.

3) Personal observation: The C.H.P. put out some public affairs guide lines about motorcycles and lane splitting a year or so ago.  I commute from Ventura county into Calabasas every weekday.  Calabasas is the epicenter for texting, calling, distracted and entitled drivers, period.  I actually had folks moving over when I was splitting traffic, more so than normal.  I thought, wow, this P.R. stuff actually worked to a degree that I did not expect.  I was impressed.  There were still squids.

4) Then someone sent an angry letter to the Governors office saying he didn't like that the C.H.P. was endorsing this kind of behavior, and thought that Jerry should do something about it.  Yep it takes 1 angry letter to kill a project.  So the website came down, the P.R. campaign stopped, and not as many people are moving as before. There are still squids.

5)  I understand that the State will legislate lane splitting.  This will probably not have an effect or affect on me or my actions.
However, I have seen the process in action and the frankenstien like monstrosity that comes from these sessions, and I know I am just going to shake my head and say bad words under my breath. 
No it wasn't a problem that needed to be fixed.
The fix, is generally not a good thing.

6)  Anyway, I hope other places can educate the masses and lane splitting can become a common practice most everywhere else.

7)  Gotta go, a friend has just bought some big $ Harley Electra Glide, so we gotta go have a looksee, a cup of coffee and such.


kjf
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: blackcat on June 28, 2015, 12:45:38 PM


Quote

6)  Anyway, I hope other places can educate the masses and lane splitting can become a common practice most everywhere else.


Too bad ABATE organizations couldn't take this on but I assume that most of the rank and file have no interest in this issue.
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: LowRyter on June 28, 2015, 01:44:36 PM

Too bad ABATE organizations couldn't take this on but I assume that most of the rank and file have no interest in this issue.

Yeah. I mentioned it to an ABATE guy and he was totally clueless even with the meaning of the term.  I really don't think ABATE is any use to riders. 
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Tom on June 28, 2015, 01:47:53 PM
ABATE in CA, lost it's meaning to me when they couldn't fight the helmet law.  The local AMA outlet might do a better job. 
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Arizona Wayne on June 28, 2015, 02:15:51 PM
Hello all, getting in here kinda late, but here it is.
1) Born and raised in California, come here or don't, like the place or don't, like the people or don't.

2)  As far as lane splitting being a problem that needed to be solved,  that is incorrect. The practice wasn't, isn't a problem.
Lane splitting in Ca. isn't unlawful.  That is the big major difference. It isn't legislated her like most everywhere else. There are other violations in the California Vehicle Code that reflect on various practices, that would stem from a squid dashing along at 60 between stopped traffic.  The problem is a matter of practicality, do you chase said squid doing 60 by going 90 to catch him ?  Do you wait for the collision, where Mr. Squid has now involved some innocent in his actions?  No real good answer.

3) Personal observation: The C.H.P. put out some public affairs guide lines about motorcycles and lane splitting a year or so ago.  I commute from Ventura county into Calabasas every weekday.  Calabasas is the epicenter for texting, calling, distracted and entitled drivers, period.  I actually had folks moving over when I was splitting traffic, more so than normal.  I thought, wow, this P.R. stuff actually worked to a degree that I did not expect.  I was impressed.  There were still squids.

4) Then someone sent an angry letter to the Governors office saying he didn't like that the C.H.P. was endorsing this kind of behavior, and thought that Jerry should do something about it.  Yep it takes 1 angry letter to kill a project.  So the website came down, the P.R. campaign stopped, and not as many people are moving as before. There are still squids.

5)  I understand that the State will legislate lane splitting.  This will probably not have an effect or affect on me or my actions.
However, I have seen the process in action and the frankenstien like monstrosity that comes from these sessions, and I know I am just going to shake my head and say bad words under my breath. 
No it wasn't a problem that needed to be fixed.
The fix, is generally not a good thing.

6)  Anyway, I hope other places can educate the masses and lane splitting can become a common practice most everywhere else.

7)  Gotta go, a friend has just bought some big $ Harley Electra Glide, so we gotta go have a looksee, a cup of coffee and such.


kjf



This is exactly right.  Lane splitting in Kalifornia has been legal for decades if you follow the rules.  It's the asshats that give it a bad name.
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: travelingbyguzzi on June 28, 2015, 02:35:31 PM
I think it NEEDS to be written into law so that the general public knows that they cannot impede the motorcycles progress.
Last week, near Seattle, I saw a bike slowly moving down the solid white line between the HOV  lane and the general purpose lane. As soon as it passed, a Caddilac Escalade  put his drivers side wheels on the white line. He was NOT going to allow another to go by.
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: MotoGoosy on June 28, 2015, 02:48:25 PM
It's true, it's not illegal in CA.  Local TV channel interviewed me about the proposed law as it looks like it's going to pass, with restrictions on speeds.  One question asked is "If you shear off someone's mirror, who is responsible?".  Thought that was a no-brainer.  Asked if I'm a lane-splitter, i answered "No".
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Tom on June 28, 2015, 03:15:22 PM
Seems the new legislation is to fine tune the previous regulation concerned with filtering through traffic.  There is no need to lane split at speeds higher than 45mph.  I have been passed by squids while I was on the 405.  They were going way faster and the traffic was moving at 30mph.
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Arizona Wayne on June 28, 2015, 03:24:11 PM
Seems the new legislation is to fine tune the previous regulation concerned with filtering through traffic.  There is no need to lane split at speeds higher than 45mph.  I have been passed by squids while I was on the 405.  They were going way faster and the traffic was moving at 30mph.



1 time on a L.A freeway we were doing 75 mph like everyone around us and a CHP BMW bike lane split all of us with no lights or siren on!   :thewife:
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Tom on June 28, 2015, 03:26:29 PM
Law or no law.  CHP can do what they want to do.
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Zinfan on June 28, 2015, 03:29:03 PM
Law or no law.  CHP can do what they want to do.

And I've seen squids do the same thing at the same speeds.  There are crazy riders out there law or no law.
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Lannis on June 28, 2015, 03:33:15 PM
Rodekyll, I'm kind of surprised at you, taking a grudge against a whole state full of people, 39.8 million at last count. 

Well, it's kind of hard NOT to assume that there's some arrogance and control-freaking going on when the majority of packages of EVERTHING I eat, drink, wash with, or clean with says:

"The State of California has determined that this product contains ingredients that cause cancer".    That's an overblown, BS statement, so if you don't want California impugned, make 'em take it off.   

You won't do it?   Then a majority of you 39 million people are the problem.

Lannis
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Randown on June 28, 2015, 11:25:00 PM
Well, it's kind of hard NOT to assume that there's some arrogance and control-freaking going on when the majority of packages of EVERTHING I eat, drink, wash with, or clean with says:

"The State of California has determined that this product contains ingredients that cause cancer".    That's an overblown, BS statement, so if you don't want California impugned, make 'em take it off.   

You won't do it?   Then a majority of you 39 million people are the problem.

Lannis
Quote
Dear state representative,

A member on a motorcycle list is annoyed with that carcinogen warning on various products & is of the opinion that it is BS. He's on the verge of pronouncing us Kalifornians as arrogant & controlling, I beseech you to reconsider this program.

Cordially yours,

Hope that does it.  :whip2:
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Lannis on June 28, 2015, 11:29:17 PM
Hope that does it.  :whip2:

38,999,999 more to go.
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Chuck in Indiana on June 29, 2015, 07:47:31 AM


This is exactly right.  Lane splitting in Kalifornia has been legal for decades if you follow the rules. It's the asshats that give it a bad name.

True, but it's not been legal, it just hasn't been enforced. This law would make it legal, and give the police rules to abide by.
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: rocker59 on June 29, 2015, 08:14:26 AM

I hope other places can educate the masses and lane splitting can become a common practice most everywhere else.


Don't hold your breath.  Lane sharing will not become common or legal outside Kalifornia in the lifetimes of anyone currently posting in this thread.

It just won't.

It would take a huge change in the status quo.  "Wait your turn" is taught to people from kindergarten.  "Don't cut line" is taught to people from kindergarten.  Sorry, but most citizens will not be able to handle the sea change of allowing others to cut line and get an "unfair advantage" in traffic, regardless of how much it would help congestion.  The culture just won't allow it.

And the legislators will not go against The People to make it legal, and pay for all the PSAs to educate The People, and pay to enforce the law on citizens who block and harass those who are lane sharing.

It just won't happen anytime soon.
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Lannis on June 29, 2015, 08:55:58 AM
Don't hold your breath.  Lane sharing will not become common or legal outside Kalifornia in the lifetimes of anyone currently posting in this thread.

It just won't.

It would take a huge change in the status quo.  "Wait your turn" is taught to people from kindergarten.  "Don't cut line" is taught to people from kindergarten.  Sorry, but most citizens will not be able to handle the sea change of allowing others to cut line and get an "unfair advantage" in traffic, regardless of how much it would help congestion.  The culture just won't allow it.

......

It just won't happen anytime soon.


I think this is the majority of the truth.   I think the rest of it is the "competitive spirit" that seems to be built into Americans.   That CAN be turned into positive energy and positive achievements, and has been, but on the road it turns into the "I HAVE TO BEAT YOU" philosophy.

If I get ahead of a man in his car, I've castrated him.   If I get ahead of a woman, I've made her self-defensive about this man-dominated world and she's going to use her weapon to get back.    It's why roundabouts are so difficult here; people think they're a NASCAR track and they have to get there first.

I agree - it won't happen anytime soon ....

Lannis
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: rocker59 on June 29, 2015, 09:06:45 AM
The lane sharing guidelines from the CHP were published in the LA Times and even on this forum. After that I saw where the attorney general of CA wanted these guidelines withdrawn because being issued by the CHP made them a "de-facto" law and it was determined that is was too soon to issue such guidelines until the legislature actually approved. In other words it could open a real can of worms in the courts.
 

This is the way I understand it.
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: blackcat on June 29, 2015, 09:30:42 AM
Don't hold your breath.  Lane sharing will not become common or legal outside Kalifornia in the lifetimes of anyone currently posting in this thread.

It just won't.


Can't argue with this, plus it's a revenue stream and a way to check those bad boys.

They even stopped traffic on the LIE to grab bikes as they filtered through to the police:
https://youtu.be/Xh0lFQ_rQYM
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Moto on June 29, 2015, 09:51:47 AM
As for the study, I find it unconvincing.  They point out the problem with their analysis as if it supports them:  the riders they're looking at apparently have better safety skills - apparel, alcohol, acceleration (they speed less.)  So sure, they're able to [fill in the blank] and get away with fewer accidents than you might think - and that thoroughly disqualifies them as a statistically representative sample.

 :1: Good comment on the original topic. In fact, about the only comment on the original topic!

However, when the law is passed there won't be random assignment of riders to do the lane splitting. The better-prepared ones will still be doing it, and the drunks will not, since there is nothing stopping either group from splitting lanes now. So I think the study is still valuable in showing that the group doing the splitting is not causing particular problems, and should not be made to ride like the others.
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Lannis on June 29, 2015, 11:06:02 AM



Curious statement, seems they all are somewhat related more or less, about normal for a thread no?

Well, some folks, if any comment on the thread is not SPECIFICALLY and EXACTLY related to the original post, they don't like that.   In this case, the topic was the Berkeley Lane Splitting Study, so a comment on Lane Splitting that doesn't include the Study is "Off Topic" and needs to be commented on or suppressed ...

If it's all in good fun, that's fine, but if it's not, then control-freakism may be raising it's ugly and prune-faced head ....

Lannis
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Arizona Wayne on June 29, 2015, 11:54:18 AM
When I lived in Yuba City, Ka. off the I-5 corridor, when I split lanes in town traffic @ signals, some drivers there would get pissed off as if I was doing something illegal.  :sad:  So not all drivers in Ka. know it's legal either.  :huh:
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Moto on June 29, 2015, 12:53:36 PM
Well, some folks, if any comment on the thread is not SPECIFICALLY and EXACTLY related to the original post, they don't like that.   In this case, the topic was the Berkeley Lane Splitting Study, so a comment on Lane Splitting that doesn't include the Study is "Off Topic" and needs to be commented on or suppressed ...

If it's all in good fun, that's fine, but if it's not, then control-freakism may be raising it's ugly and prune-faced head ....

Lannis

You can write what you like, Lannis, but those looking for information about a topic never get back the time they spend reading off-topic blather, like your comment. I get a bit impatient about it at times. Carry on as you like, but have you ever considered whether you really have over seven (7.275) useful remarks to contribute per day? I don't think you do.

P.S. Don't call me prune faced.
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: kirkemon on June 29, 2015, 01:24:47 PM
It always makes me happy to hear people bad mouthing California for any reason. And I'm glad when they're afraid of earthquakes and fires as well.

Anything that discourages even one more person from moving here or staying here just makes my life that much better.

 :grin:
Amen brother!  :thumb:
Get off my wave, I'm surfin' here!
Here's the state ranking:
http://www.thrillist.com/travel/nation/ranking-the-united-states-of-america-from-best-to-worst?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Thrillist
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Lannis on June 29, 2015, 05:14:17 PM
You can write what you like, Lannis, but those looking for information about a topic never get back the time they spend reading off-topic blather, like your comment. I get a bit impatient about it at times. Carry on as you like, but have you ever considered whether you really have over seven (7.275) useful remarks to contribute per day? I don't think you do.

P.S. Don't call me prune faced.

Well, if me old mucker Dusty can have 13.9 remarks per day, and I'm only half as useful as him (a conservative estimate), then 7.2 remarks per day doesn't sound so bad.   That's only one comment every three hours or so; I think it shows admirable restraint.

Not only that, I make SURE I have my name at the top of every one of them, so anyone who wants to say "There's that Lannis again dammit" can just skip them and (now here's a shocking and radical concept) NOT READ THEM!   Our friend "The Bailey" has already said that he doesn't read my BS at all, although for some reason he can't help responding to what he hasn't read, which leads to some interesting interchanges, like a blind guy fencing with someone who can see.

If everyone has to wait their turn and raise their hand and say Mother May I and certify that they are On Topic before responding, the board's going to slow down some.   There's probably some software (which comes with a stick up its butt, a hair bun in the back, and a real prune-ey face) which does that ....  :thewife:

Lannis
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Moto on June 29, 2015, 05:30:36 PM
Well, if me old mucker Dusty can have 13.9 remarks per day, and I'm only half as useful as him (a conservative estimate), then 7.2 remarks per day doesn't sound so bad.   That's only one comment every three hours or so; I think it shows admirable restraint.

Not only that, I make SURE I have my name at the top of every one of them, so anyone who wants to say "There's that Lannis again dammit" can just skip them and (now here's a shocking and radical concept) NOT READ THEM!   Our friend "The Bailey" has already said that he doesn't read my BS at all, although for some reason he can't help responding to what he hasn't read, which leads to some interesting interchanges, like a blind guy fencing with someone who can see.

If everyone has to wait their turn and raise their hand and say Mother May I and certify that they are On Topic before responding, the board's going to slow down some.   There's probably some software (which comes with a stick up its butt, a hair bun in the back, and a real prune-ey face) which does that ....  :thewife:

Lannis

You slow down the board by being off-topic. I hope that the Topics will lead to material I'm interested in, rather than to more of your bile and self-indulgence. You just waste my time more than you should, though you make an occasional worthwhile contribution.
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Lannis on June 29, 2015, 05:34:23 PM
You slow down the board by being off-topic. I hope that the Topics will lead to material I'm interested in, rather than to more of your bile and self-indulgence. You just waste my time more than you should, though you make an occasional worthwhile contribution.

Look at the time you've spent today responding to my bile and self-indulgence; you could have been doing brain surgery instead.   I didn't "make" you do that, you did it yourself!   

I'll put this in the category of "Worthwhile Contribution".

Lannis
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: yackee on June 29, 2015, 07:05:58 PM
I'm confused. When I lived in LA I split lanes all the time (almost always at stop lights and traffic jams, not at speed) and so did everyone else. I thought it already *was* legal?? The article implies that it is not currently legal, but may be if the new law passes. Am I missing something?
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: rodekyll on June 29, 2015, 07:08:39 PM
Yes, you're missing the point that I'm being vilified for saying  -- the issue is murky and needs clarification.  I think the topical parts of this discussion and your confusion bear that out.
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: cruzziguzzi on June 29, 2015, 07:59:07 PM
I'm confused. When I lived in LA I split lanes all the time (almost always at stop lights and traffic jams, not at speed) and so did everyone else. I thought it already *was* legal?? The article implies that it is not currently legal, but may be if the new law passes. Am I missing something?

What you're missing is generally this:

It wasn't "legal" as a codified method of vehicle operation. At the same time, it was not illegal for two vehicles to occupy the same lane laterally. Many states in which "filtering" and "splitting" are notably illegal, base the code upon this lateral lane sharing being prohibited.

So, it wasn't illegal to split but it wasn't actually an authorized method of vehicular operation either.

Todd.
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Arizona Wayne on June 29, 2015, 10:36:01 PM
Christ, this subject has turned into the equivalent of an oil thread just because 1 person in Kalif. complained about it not even because of what it was originally for, saving the over heating of an air cooled MC motor in stalled traffic.   :cry:  Cars are water cooled and their drivers don't understand that unlike them , a MC rider can't sit there w/o destroying his motor doing it.  Even W/C MC motors can't stay stationary as long as car  motors w/o overheating.  :evil:
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Lannis on June 30, 2015, 09:05:23 AM
Christ, this subject has turned into the equivalent of an oil thread just because 1 person in Kalif. complained about it not even because of what it was for originally for, saving the over heating of an air cooled MC motor in stalled traffic.   :cry:  Cars are water cooled and their drivers don't understand that unlike them , a MC rider can't sit there w/o destroying his motor doing it.  Even W/C MC motors can't stay stationary as long as car  motors w/o overheating.  :evil:

All of what you say is true, but look at it from the car owner's point of view.

Even if they UNDERSTAND that the air-cooled motorcycle can't just sit and idle in traffic, their response would be "Well then they shouldn't be on the highway to begin with!"   They don't WANT to share the road, they don't WANT anyone to "get in front of them" even if it SPEEDS UP TRAFFIC, and they think motorcycles should be gone anyway.   Between stunting squids and loud obnoxious pipes, many of them hate all of us.

So that argument is not going to work.

Lannis
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: guzzimike on June 30, 2015, 10:33:55 PM
Christ, this subject has turned into the equivalent of an oil thread just because 1 person in Kalif. complained about it not even because of what it was originally for, saving the over heating of an air cooled MC motor in stalled traffic.    

BINGO !!


And because Police motorcycles of the time were mostly air cooled, they had the option to "Lane Split" as needed. And so too the tactic applied tacitly to civilian owned motorcycles.

 IOW, it was NOT Illlegal for us to Lane split.

BTW, I think that the "study" is Bullshiite.

IMHO, it is akin to the proverbial Camel first sticking his nose into the tent...It is but another mechanism ( sugar-coated for ease of consumption ) for an ever growing, overreaching "progressive" legislature to define, limit, encroach on and finally, marginalize yet one more Natural Right of one select minority sector of the Citizenry.


Lane Splitting is a system which was ( is ) Not Broken. Why the rush to "fix it"..?


And speaking personally, I have been Lane Splitting on Highways located all over California since the Mid-1970s; though mostly in SoCal.

Never a problem, never any issue of any kind. Sometimes drivers pulled over, sometimes they do not.

It's all about developing a sense of what the driver is going to do before He / She them-self know what they will do .

Its about putting some of our most noted advantages to work...

Recall that a motorcycle affords us a greater field of view than that which surrounds a typical driver stuck in traffic. We can see farther than they can; and in addition, we can see inside their vehicles. We can watch their body movements; and we scan multiple targets almost simultaneously, sometimes up to five or ten cars ahead of our present position in the Freeway peloton.

In due time, as one succeeds in Freeway Combat 101, 202 and 303, a person tends to develop a certain type of situation awareness.. Your own sense of survival sharpens and focuses this mechanism. It's sort of a Two-Wheeled Darwinism.

Hard to describe exactly, but I think that it boils down to this - most drivers are prone to displaying subtle "Tells" which much more often than not prove indispensable in determining the best line for the motorcyclist to navigate.

You learn to pick up on these multi-variable "Tells"...and you learn to Trust them with YOUR LIFE..


And No Effin SUCK-ramento  Gummint Asswipe is qualified to tell me How, When and by How Much to apply my hard-gained "Spidey Sense".

f*** them and the Limo they rode in on.







-
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Arizona Wayne on June 30, 2015, 11:38:36 PM
You put into words readable that I'm not capable of, Mike.  Those that have not BTDT don't understand. It's a sphere of knowledge they have no experience of so they automatically don't know it exists.  In Europe it's accepted.  Here only in California.  And now some know nothings are trying to stop it from existing there due to their ignorance on the subject.

Kind of reminds me when those in charge believed the earth was flat.  :evil:
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Moz on June 30, 2015, 11:57:33 PM
lane 'filtering' is legal here in Oz in some states - lane 'splitting' isn't  :grin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWh0t1fX_EY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJaXE191nj4

http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/stayingsafe/motorcyclists/lanefiltering/
What is lane filtering?

Lane filtering is when a motorcycle rider moves alongside vehicles that have either stopped or are moving slowly (less than 30 km/h).
What motorcyclists need to know about safe lane filtering

    Motorcycle lane filtering laws now apply in NSW, with strict conditions
    Motorcyclists must only lane filter when travelling less than 30 km/h
    Motorcyclists can lane filter through stationary and slow moving traffic
    Motorcyclists caught moving between traffic at over 30km/h  face heavy fines and three demerit points under a new offence called ‘lane splitting’
    It will be illegal for motorcyclists to lane filter:
        next to the kerb
        next to parked vehicles
        in school zones
    Motorcyclists should always look out for pedestrians and cyclists
    Motorcyclists should not lane filter around heavy vehicles and buses
    Only fully licensed motorcyclists are allowed to lane filter
    Motorcyclists must only lane filter when it’s safe
    Motorcyclists must comply with all existing road rules when lane filtering. This includes stopping before the stop line at a red traffic light or stop sign, never in front or over it.

Safety information for other road users
Motorists

Motorists should always check twice for motorcycles.
Motorists should not deliberately move into the path of a motorcyclist who is lane filtering.
To ensure safety, motorcyclists:

    Are only allowed to lane filter when they are travelling less than 30 km/h
    Are only allowed to lane filter when they do it safely
    Should not be lane filtering around heavy vehicles and buses.

Pedestrians

Pedestrians should always check twice for motorcycles.
Pedestrians should always cross at pedestrian crossings or traffic lights where they are available.
To help protect the safety of pedestrians, motorcyclists:

    Are being advised to always look out for pedestrians when lane filtering
    Should not lane filter near buses
    Should not lane filter near parked vehicles
    Are not allowed to lane filter in school zones
    Are only allowed to lane filter when it’s safe.

Cyclists

Cyclists should always check twice for motorcycles.
To help protect the safety of cyclists, motorcyclists:

    Are being advised to always look out for cyclists when lane filtering
    Are not allowed to lane filter next to the kerb
    Should not lane filter near heavy vehicles or buses
    Should not lane filter near parked vehicles
    Are only allowed to lane filter when it’s safe.

Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Arizona Wayne on July 01, 2015, 12:13:54 AM
In Calif. it's already illegal to 'filter' on the shoulder of a road.   18 km is less than 20 mph.  We can go faster than that 'lane sharing'(AKA lane splitting).   Glad to hear not only Europe countries allow it.  :smiley:
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: rocker59 on July 01, 2015, 08:20:17 AM
  'lane sharing'(AKA lane splitting).   

There is a difference in "lane sharing" and "lane splitting".

If you're on the white dashed line, you're splitting.

If you're on either side of it, your sharing.

I'm pretty sure California is discussing lane sharing, which means you are within the lane with the cars.
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Chuck in Indiana on July 01, 2015, 08:43:29 AM
The way I read it.. it has never been "legal" to lane split or lane share in California.. it just has not been "illegal" and not enforced unless someone was being crazy doing it.
All they are doing is establish limits on speeds that it can be done, *and* legalize it. Except for the occasional squid, everyone I've seen pretty much follows those rules instinctively anyway. I'd say it is a good thing. It will give other states something to hang their hat on, too.
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: ITSec on July 03, 2015, 06:48:39 PM
Yeah. I mentioned it to an ABATE guy and he was totally clueless even with the meaning of the term.  I really don't think ABATE is any use to riders.

I think ABATE has done more harm than good for the safety of riders, let alone their reputation. In most states, the ABATE definition of 'freedom' and 'motorcyclist rights' starts and ends with helmet laws, and I've never seen an ABATE officer wearing proper riding gear (there may be some, but I've never seen one). BTW, 'proper' gear means armored jacket, DOT or better helmet, long pants, at least hard leather foot gear, and gloves - you know, ATGATT.

California's debate is useful simply because it clarifies something from being 'not illegal' to being specifically sanctioned. Adoption by other states is usually based on positive legislation rather than CA's historic pattern of allowance by omission - see the website for the Council of State Governments, where state legislators trade copies of bills, etc.
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: oldbike54 on July 03, 2015, 07:01:49 PM
Well, if me old mucker Dusty can have 13.9 remarks per day, and I'm only half as useful as him (a conservative estimate), then 7.2 remarks per day doesn't sound so bad.   

 WTF ,  have been out of town , how the hell did I get drug into this  :huh:



 Besides , a quick word count comparing my posts to some of the novels posted here might be revealing  :tongue:

 Dusty

 



















Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: kirkemon on July 04, 2015, 12:02:09 AM
There is a difference in "lane sharing" and "lane splitting".

If you're on the white dashed line, you're splitting.

If you're on either side of it, your sharing.

I'm pretty sure California is discussing lane sharing, which means you are within the lane with the cars.
From the CHP website: "California law does not allow or prohibit motorcycles from passing other vehicles proceeding in the same direction within the same lane, a practice often called "lane splitting," "lane sharing" or "filtering."
https://www.chp.ca.gov/programs-services/programs/california-motorcyclist-safety

A little confusing :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: jas67 on July 04, 2015, 07:49:04 AM
I hope other states like Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Texas and Tennessee will considered and approve lane splitting too.

I wish PA would legalize it too, but, that'll never happen.   Heck, 2-lane road passing zones are disappearing rapidly.
Every 2 lane road around me that has been repaved in the last two years has then been striped double yellow, end-to-end.   In many cases the "No Passing" pennant signs at the end of the former passing zone remain as a reminder of where the it was. 
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: Tom on July 04, 2015, 12:06:54 PM
 :1:  After repaving, they drop the speed limit by 5 too.
Title: Re: Lane splitting study
Post by: jas67 on July 05, 2015, 01:34:52 PM
:1:  After repaving, they drop the speed limit by 5 too.

I haven't seen that yet, but, a section of US22, that I travel daily, which runs parallel to a section of I-81 had it's speed limit reduced from 50 MPH to 40 MPH and strictly enforced during an I-81 construction project to discourage the trucks from using 22 instead of 81.    When the I-81 construction project was done, only a portion of that section of 22 returned to 50 MPH, the rest has been 40 every since.   :angry: