The West Australian 28/1

[zadok]

Page 36 of todays West has an article on motorcycling. There has been a surge in bike registrations. The National Transport Commission has recommended a number of changes to the road rules, in particular "Lane Splitting and "Filtering".
I don't know that I condone lane splitting, but I would hate to see filtering banned. Fortunately the article puts up some good ideas why filtering should continue to be allowed.

[Jonchilds]

/gets paper out of car...

[danoz]

/gets paper out of bin....

[FJ Steve]

/gets paper from bottom of cocky&#39;s cage <_<

[mstriumph]

/retrieves paper from compost heap ....

[Jonchilds]

For those who didn&#39;t get the paper (or have bird shit on it)...

[attachmentid=1864]

[rz350]

Nice work with the scan/photo. Good to see they are supprting lane filtering.

[Dr Evil]

Thanks heaps Jon, he&#39;s still full of shit, there is no evidence that i can find that splitting is dangerous, the drivers are less likely to attempt a "blind" lanechange in heavy traffic cause there is no room to change into.

Ah shit, i&#39;m going to have to email this gimp also.

[Crimmo]

i cant see how the public is going to believe that lanesplitting is safe. there are very strong arguments for filtering and common sense shows its a good practise but splitting is a lot harder to support.
if ur gonna say lane splitting AND lane filtering are both safe then i reckon the public is going to think motorbike riders are reckless, and support a ban on both <_<

[zadok]

Originally posted by Crimmo@Jan 29 2006, 01:52 AM
i cant see how the public is going to believe that lanesplitting is safe. there are very strong arguments for filtering and common sense shows its a good practise but splitting is a lot harder to support.
if ur gonna say lane splitting AND lane filtering are both safe then i reckon the public is going to think motorbike riders are reckless, and support a ban on both* <_<

[snapback]220419[/snapback]

Yeah, I agree.

[chief wiggum]

i met a motorbike cop last night (socially, not on the road), and asked what his views were. he said he&#39;d never book anyone for filtering, provided they weren&#39;t being stupid, whether they bring in a new law or not. but then again, he&#39;s a bike enthusiast, where some cops just ride for work. but hopefully, they&#39;ll all think the same way anyway

[Dr Evil]

Originally posted by Crimmo@Jan 29 2006, 01:52 AM
i cant see how the public is going to believe that lanesplitting is safe. there are very strong arguments for filtering and common sense shows its a good practise but splitting is a lot harder to support.
if ur gonna say lane splitting AND lane filtering are both safe then i reckon the public is going to think motorbike riders are reckless, and support a ban on both* <_<

[snapback]220419[/snapback]

The guy that wrote the article is almost right. The big risk going through traffic is "blind lane changes" hawever he said that lane splitting increased this risk. it doesn&#39;t seem it does, when lanesplitting the driver is aware that lane changing is out of the question due to the dense traffic so does not perform any lane change let alone a "blind" one. The normal swaying of cars in slow traffic is not enough to close the space enough to prevent passing, unless a driver intentionally cuts you off.

When it comes down to it none of the accident reports i have read suggest that splitting causes a significant number of accidents. This data is all post accident so it is very reliable. Frankly if you can&#39;t find people that have had accidents doing it you cannot say it is unsafe. No matter how much joe public thinks it is.

[mstriumph]

Quandry here .....

on the one hand, i&#39;m generally a law-abiding citizen

on the OTHER hand, i&#39;m into survival ... which means i&#39;m probably going to continue filtering irresepective
of any change in the law as i honestly believe its the safest thing to do in traffic ........

it&#39;s a bit hard for me to come to terms with the image of me as an "outlaw biker" ................ but wat&#39;s a girl to do?????

pssssssst .....does this mean i have to get tatoos and stop washing my jeans ?

[shlacks]

i agree with this guy about filtering, but general public is going to see lane splitting as a motorbike just wanted to go faster between 2 cars which is dangerous at speed because both cars do use both there lanes to the full width now lane splitting at low speed traffic (eg. jams on freeway) seems sensible to me as the cars dont move around much and they hardly change lanes so unless they are going to make 2 differant laws for high speed and low speed lane splitting i doupt it will be made legal.

[devilsaltarboy]

I agree with this article and feel that this guy seems to have his head screwed on. My personal view is that lane splitting in moving traffic (I dont count traffic moving at a crawl as moving) is not that safe. This I feel is primarily due to the fact car drivers a lot of the time fail to look correctly when making lane changes and often do not use their indicators that they are legally meant to. I also feel a small portion of the motorcycle community (very small) take lane splitting to dangerous levels primarily placing there own lives at risk by lane splitting at high speeds.
Filtering on the other hand I feel increases the safety of the rider against rear end collisions and allows the motorcycle rider to clear a pack of cars which obviously makes things safer.
In a climate where Michelle Roberts has unleashed a hatred towards motorcycles we may have to accept a compromise position to appear reasonable to the public even if you believe that lane splitting is safe.

[Dr Evil]

I sent off a second submission today outlining the reasons lanesplitting moving cars doesn&#39;t show an increased statistical risk


For those of you who have nothing better to do.

In discussion with one of the people from the office of road safety in WA I have been asked to try and shed some light on why the accident data does not support the intuitive belief that lane splitting should be dangerous. More specifically I have been asked to explain why lane splitting through moving traffic has not been shown to be a dangerous act. I thought that the NTC should also have this information because it is very difficult to comprehend if you spend little or no time on a motorcycle.

Even at the speed limit motorcycles are in danger of being rear ended, drivers behind them changing radio stations, yelling at kids, whatever. They may also be "changed lanes into" you would be shocked if you knew the number of times someone does not look where they are going to put 2 tonne of steel at 60kph. Motorcyclists usually avoid this behaviour by taking evasive action. To take evasive action you must have somewhere to go, if you are boxed in (i.e. a car in front, behind and to your side) you have no escape route. So when any of the drivers around you make an error of judgement you are doomed, accidents in this scenario are very serious. Motorcyclists pre-empt these possible consequences and lane split to get to an area where there is at least one escape route. I found the study I referenced in my previous submission about the level of hazard perception displayed by motorcyclists interesting, it seems when most car drivers don&#39;t see a potential dangerous situation motorcyclists will.
*
Lane splitting is quite a safe thing to do, I have done it for 11 years and have not yet had an accident, or been close to one. I wish I could say the same for riding through a green light which I have found to be much more dangerous. Of course people will change lanes when I am lane splitting without indicating and this causes a moment of concern but given the level of caution you need to ride in the first place they are always easily avoided (on a side note if police would target lane changing without indicating I think multiple vehicle accidents involving motorcycles would drop about 20%) the driver tends to be shocked and angry at you for lane splitting but if they had have indicated the avoidance would not have been needed. the physical act of lane splitting is about the same as riding a bicycle through the bollards they put on cycle paths to stop cars driving down them, we trust 10yr olds to be able to accomplish this task on a bicycle, it&#39;s actually a very easy thing to do. I have never done it but if you were to clip the car beside you and you are not doing a much higher speed than that car you will not be thrown off the bike, it would be the same as hitting a bump in the road, the bike would swing a bit to one side and you would instantly correct it with your body weight (this skill is essential to ever being capable of turning a corner on a motorcycle). If you manage to find any accidents lane splitting (I couldn&#39;t in the data I read) I would almost guarantee the driver did not indicate (while lane splitting it is the number one thing you pay attention to, the other major thing is the back of the drivers head through the rear window or their face through their wing mirror, as this gives away 90+% of dangerous behaviour), if this current law was enforced you would not be considering this strange proposal.
*
I tend to lane split when I notice erratic behaviour from a neighbouring car, this happens occasionally and is something I rely on to remain safe on the road, motorcycling is a very defensive pursuit and hobbling us with this proposal would frankly scare me a little.*


I have been told by a friend that contacted Greg Deimos on the phone that you have no data that suggests lane splitting is dangerous? That brings me some relief because
I couldn&#39;t find any either but does upset me because it means that this proposal is baseless. All the data I have read mentions many forms of multiple vehicle accidents but makes no mention of lane splitting, as most of this data (especially the Hurt report) was taken from detailed accident reports and interviews with those involved and have not once mentioned lanesplitting as a risk factor. Importantly the Hurt report supported lane splitting as a way of avoiding dangerous behaviour from drivers.
* * *
I didn’t intend to show that lane splitting is safer than overtaking in another lane, though it may be (explained below) I am saying it is much safer than being "boxed in" in traffic. The reason being basically it is the drivers purposeful movements without looking that are really the ones that kill motorcyclists, I believe about 50% of all known motorcycle accidents in WA a rider is riding straight down the road and a driver turns in front of them or into them. These manoeuvres are intended by the drivers, they are turning corners and fail to pay attention to where they are turning. It is not the vagaries of another vehicle&#39;s poor lane tracking that kill motorcyclists at all, it is intended movements that are done without care. So if a driver intends to drive in a straight manner down the freeway in peak hour traffic they tend to do that quite well. Lane splitting is a way to

Now on to why it may be safer to lanesplit than to overtake normally. I actually do this on purpose at times if I am concerned about the vehicle. I will actually wait until the vehicle is at least a little along side the adjacent vehicle and slip between the two. This almost universally happens on freeways at peak hour (a very dangerous time for motorcycle accidents). When a vehicle is beside another it will not change lanes without indicating. The people paying little attention tend to realise there is a car in the other lane and will not crash into it. If there is a space (that I could overtake through) the driver is much more likely to spontaneously change lanes, without indicating and run into me because they did not look where they were going. This behaviour happens when there is a long delay in traffic, the drivers get impatient and start changing lanes all over the place, indicating and looking become very low priorities.

There is also the fact that we reduce the over all time in these high risk situations by lanesplitting, I would say I take 1/3 the amount of time to get through the traffic jams that happen on the freeway, through all of that time drivers perform erratic manoeuvres, if I can pass through I have 1/3 the chance of encountering them.

Another reason the data is opposed to your gut feeling about lane splitting is that riders do assess the situation carefully before lane splitting, and only tend to do it when safe. You will find an insignificant amount of accidents while lane splitting if you find any and given that 95% of the 118 riders I asked do it the amount of accidents should be higher. I know before I lanesplit a vehicle I have been studying the vehicles movements in its lane and the drivers reactions to what is happening around him/her for 10 or so seconds, if I fear that hey will do something inappropriate I will make sure I follow a gap in the traffic as I split past him/her. To give me space to move if they react badly, I will however try and make sure there is a car in the adjacent lane I am sharing so they are less likely to move onto me. Drivers tend to say that we just appeared out of no where but I had been studying that driver for some time before I went any where near them.

There is also a point that riders do take there own abilities seriously, one of the people that told me he did not lane split said that he did not believe he had the bike control to do it comfortably yet, another said that they are acquiring the skill but they only split on very wide lanes. This equates to riders "training" themselves and not charging straight down the freeway the moment they get a license. When I am riding with less experienced riders I will sometimes get them to follow me splitting, I will ensure the lanes are very wide and the traffic is not stressed, when a driver sees one bike they tend to be aware of the bike behind me as well, again building confidence and experience in a manoeuvre I consider critical to my safety.

One last, more difficult reason to comprehend. Again the vast majority of multiple vehicle accidents are the fault of drivers, we manoeuvre to avoid these accidents most of the time. I can only avoid what I can see. If something comes from behind it is much less noticeable, if I am moving faster than the dense traffic around me (even just 2 or 3 km) I will only encounter other vehicles from the front, which gives me a very good chance to avoid them.

So basically the reason splitting and overtaking is not the same is that a driver will be much more likely to change lanes into you when you are overtaking in another lane, the slight movements that occur when travelling* adjacent to another car are predictable and minor.

I really do hope I can help you understand the rationale behind this, I understand it is against what you would intuitively think, but there are a number of governments around the world have introduced special pro lane splitting legislation after doing unbiased research of their own, this would have been impossible if it was found that lane splitting was dangerous.
*
Thanks again
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or do not understand the logic used above.


Craig Pickering
craigp@student.uwa.edu.au

[monsta]

yeah, I reckon spliting can be a bit dodgy... but they aint gunna stop me filtering in a hurry...

[Shadow Keeper]

there is no evidence that i can find that splitting is dangerous, the drivers are less likely to attempt a "blind" lanechange in heavy traffic cause there is no room to change into.

I&#39;ve been travelling north on the Mitchell freeway just past the graham Farmer/ freeway on ramp and had the car on my left try to move into my lane at exactly the same time as the car to the right of me tried to also move into my lane. I gues they couldn&#39;t see each other because I was in their line of sight next to their front doors.... WE ARE ALL DOOOOOOOOOOMED

Shadow Keeper
2000 ZZR1100

[danoz]

I have only just started filtering at lights and friggin love it i can&#39;t see anything wrong with it and i only ever pass cars on the right hand side of that lanes so i am not breaking any road rules! As for lane splitting no way not for me! But i am gonna keep filtering no matter what.

My 2c

[Woodzzter]

Originally posted by Dr Evil@Jan 29 2006, 11:29 AM
The guy that wrote the article is almost right. The big risk going through traffic is "blind lane changes" hawever he said that lane splitting increased this risk. it doesn&#39;t seem it does, when lanesplitting the driver is aware that lane changing is out of the question due to the dense traffic so does not perform any lane change let alone a "blind" one. The normal swaying of cars in slow traffic is not enough to close the space enough to prevent passing, unless a driver intentionally cuts you off.

Try travelling along Tonkin Highway in peak traffic and trying to change lanes in an area where traffic is moving steady (lets say 80 to 100 kmh for example) but still congested. You take the small spaces when you get them. Having a bike lane splitting down the middle at 100kms an hour certainly doesn&#39;t help matters and yes - I&#39;ll say it - can be dangerous. Trying to change lanes and make sure that gap is still ther for you to change into as well as making sure the traffic isn&#39;t already banking up through a traffic light change up doesn&#39;t leave a lot of room for trying to look back down in between the lanes of traffic to ensure a motorbike isn&#39;t about to come up along side you.