Clarification on lane splitting? | Page 5 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Clarification on lane splitting?

JFD said:
"always ready". At a light, you're in gear and watching mirrors until the car approaching behind you is stopping comfortably...if your gut tells you to move, you move up beside the cars to save yourself.

I see the people at lights not watching - I've seen once instance where a guy got rear ended. Yes, he got up and got mad at the driver, rightfully so, but he could've gotten outta the way easily if he was aware.

point is, if you're inclined to keep yourself safe you will be safe. Trying to filter up between cars in a proactive effort to keep yourself is safe is weird.

its not really necessary.
Click to expand...

Let's say you are stopped behind a car, a bit to the right or left, watching your mirrors. A car comes to a complete stop behind you, but a little too close for comfort... but what can you do, since it's illegal to filter? Said car behind you gets rear ended and pushed into you... and there you are, crushed between two cars because you could not see that rear ending happening...

Face it, filtering is safer for a rider in regards to avoiding being rear ended. Anyone here opposing that fact is just being obtuse -- and many studies proving so indicate the same... far from anecdotal evidence this way or that.
 
Let's make it very simple though, as a number here still don't seem to understand.

Not being at the end of the line means you are much less likely to be rear ended.

Anyone who disagrees with that statement must be retarded and probably shouldn't be on two or four wheels as it is.

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk
 
You continue to ,make these silly statements then have the nerve to use a highly INAPPROPRIATE and OFFENSIVE term to describe anyone who dares argue, with common sense.

So feel free to post ACTUAL MTO stats as to how many bikes are involved in rear end collisions, (surely it must be in the thousands over a season given how mentally challenged we all are, by not filtering and saving ourselves instead choosing to place ourselves in such grave danger. I have no idea how I managed to survive 35 seasons on 2 wheels. and 40 years on 4 wheels.

Could you also enlighten us by posting all these studies you speak of, that show filtering is the only safe manner in which to operate a motorcycle. I am sure you have attended many high level meetings with the MTO in regards to this obvious over sight by informing riders to instead ensure they have a "safe escape route" when stopped.

Not sure why if the car behind you gets rear ended your getting "crushed between two cars" Firstly if the rider WAS paying attention they surely would see the car approaching at a HIGH rate of speed, (in order to thrust the car behind you) they wouldn't be traveling at 20 km/h. Secondly, and MORE importantly had you as a SAFE rider, left adequate space between YOU and the car in front of you, then there should be NO reason for you to ever come into contact with that vehicle. Even if you had filtered and became the bike at the front if the car behind you gets rear ended, (in the silly scenario you presented), then wouldn't you now be pushed into the intersection and at risk of being t boned by a vehicle traveling at FULL speed through the intersection? So how exactly is that better??

Motorcycle Mike said:
Let's say you are stopped behind a car, a bit to the right or left, watching your mirrors. A car comes to a complete stop behind you, but a little too close for comfort... but what can you do, since it's illegal to filter? Said car behind you gets rear ended and pushed into you... and there you are, crushed between two cars because you could not see that rear ending happening...

Face it, filtering is safer for a rider in regards to avoiding being rear ended. Anyone here opposing that fact is just being obtuse -- and many studies proving so indicate the same... far from anecdotal evidence this way or that.
Click to expand...
 
Filtering isn't about safety. It's about getting to the front so you can be first to go. To be safe, stop to the left or right of the car in front of you, so you have an escape route, watch your mirrors and be ready to split the lane if necessary.
 
Riceburner said:
Filtering isn't about safety. It's about getting to the front so you can be first to go. To be safe, stop to the left or right of the car in front of you, so you have an escape route, watch your mirrors and be ready to split the lane if necessary.
Click to expand...
Sure, whatever you say.

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk
 
hedo2002 said:
You continue to ,make these silly statements then have the nerve to use a highly INAPPROPRIATE and OFFENSIVE term to describe anyone who dares argue, with common sense.

So feel free to post ACTUAL MTO stats as to how many bikes are involved in rear end collisions, (surely it must be in the thousands over a season given how mentally challenged we all are, by not filtering and saving ourselves instead choosing to place ourselves in such grave danger. I have no idea how I managed to survive 35 seasons on 2 wheels. and 40 years on 4 wheels.

Could you also enlighten us by posting all these studies you speak of, that show filtering is the only safe manner in which to operate a motorcycle. I am sure you have attended many high level meetings with the MTO in regards to this obvious over sight by informing riders to instead ensure they have a "safe escape route" when stopped.

Not sure why if the car behind you gets rear ended your getting "crushed between two cars" Firstly if the rider WAS paying attention they surely would see the car approaching at a HIGH rate of speed, (in order to thrust the car behind you) they wouldn't be traveling at 20 km/h. Secondly, and MORE importantly had you as a SAFE rider, left adequate space between YOU and the car in front of you, then there should be NO reason for you to ever come into contact with that vehicle. Even if you had filtered and became the bike at the front if the car behind you gets rear ended, (in the silly scenario you presented), then wouldn't you now be pushed into the intersection and at risk of being t boned by a vehicle traveling at FULL speed through the intersection? So how exactly is that better??
Click to expand...
Sorry, can't be bothered to read all that keyboard diarrhea... Especially from someone who can't differentiate between your or you're half the time. If simple grammar confuses you, no wonder simple logic does too.

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk
 
Motorcycle Mike said:
Sorry, can't be bothered to read all that keyboard diarrhea... Especially from someone who can't differentiate between your or you're half the time. If simple grammar confuses you, no wonder simple logic does too.

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Hedo had an entirely cogent and well-reasoned post. If you're refusing to acknowledge it as such simply because of a couple of very minor grammar mistakes, why should any of us take what you're saying seriously?

Also, insulting others simply because they don't agree with your post.. *slow clap*

I agree with both Hedo and Riceburner. Filtering is a tricky subject and works differently in different areas.. here, I follow what Riceburner said.
 
Last edited:
I guess you couldn't find the studies and empirical evidence to support your silly arguments, nor the supporting data from the MTO. Class dismissed.

Sorry I offended you with a typo on ONE occasion, (which to correct you, would be 100% of the time not "half the time"). Glad that you are perfect. Did you ever consider that perhaps English is not my first language? Of course not, better to belittle someone than present a reasoned reply. Again, you demonstrated how you view others, (by referring to us as "retarded"). Try moving into modern times, without the offensive comments and you "may" actually been taken seriously.


Motorcycle Mike said:
Sorry, can't be bothered to read all that keyboard diarrhea... Especially from someone who can't differentiate between your or you're half the time. If simple grammar confuses you, no wonder simple logic does too.

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
 
hedo2002 said:
I guess you couldn't find the studies and empirical evidence to support your silly arguments, nor the supporting data from the MTO. Class dismissed.

Sorry I offended you with a typo on ONE occasion, (which to correct you, would be 100% of the time not "half the time"). Glad that you are perfect. Did you ever consider that perhaps English is not my first language? Of course not, better to belittle someone than present a reasoned reply. Again, you demonstrated how you view others, (by referring to us as "retarded"). Try moving into modern times, without the offensive comments and you "may" actually been taken seriously.
Click to expand...
I posted one paper and a few articles a few pages back.

Anyway, I'm done here... Nothing you say will make me change my opinion due to my personal experiences, and I imagine vice versa, so sayonara, until next time.

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk
 
What about car drivers that see cars approaching fast from the rear? In an extreme case are they not going to try to move to the side too to lessen the impact? If there's a bike there that isn't going to end well for the bike rider either.
 
Had someone split me yesterday just east of Islington on Bloor.

If I'd been turning right, to park at the Starbuck's, or even just shifting within my lane, he's still be in the hospital.

Luckily, I like Tim's better.

Not to mention the repair bills to the side of my 2015 minivan.

He was going that fast between me and the curb.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6467...4!1sdgZzBCB4kZRgpFv-ZAZzCw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
 
Articles and "op Ed" pieces aren't ACTUAL studies, nor are they from the MTO, But I guess if they support your contention then we should all just blindly follow the advice, from people pretending they know what they are speaking of.

So again feel free to post stats and actual scientific research from the MTO, I could care less, what they do in Australia, or California where they ride 12 months of the year in a mild climate. Drivers here see bikes, (for the most part) approx 5 months of the year. Just because they grow Strawberries in California in Feb doesn't mean the concept will work here. Exactly as I suspected, anyone who doesn't see the world through your rose coloured glasses has no intelligence and obviously your "feelings and beliefs" are the only valid ones. Maybe someday you will develop critical thinking and get out of the sheeple crowd.

LOUD PIPES, combined with lane filtering, save lives... dude.

Motorcycle Mike said:
I posted one paper and a few articles a few pages back.

Anyway, I'm done here... Nothing you say will make me change my opinion due to my personal experiences, and I imagine vice versa, so sayonara, until next time.

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
 
hedo2002 said:
Articles and "op Ed" pieces aren't ACTUAL studies, nor are they from the MTO, But I guess if they support your contention then we should all just blindly follow the advice, from people pretending they know what they are speaking of.

So again feel free to post stats and actual scientific research from the MTO, I could care less, what they do in Australia, or California where they ride 12 months of the year in a mild climate. Drivers here see bikes, (for the most part) approx 5 months of the year. Just because they grow Strawberries in California in Feb doesn't mean the concept will work here. Exactly as I suspected, anyone who doesn't see the world through your rose coloured glasses has no intelligence and obviously your "feelings and beliefs" are the only valid ones. Maybe someday you will develop critical thinking and get out of the sheeple crowd.

LOUD PIPES, combined with lane filtering, save lives... dude.
Click to expand...

The articles actually reference scholarly studies. That's not the issue. The real issue is that the studies referenced are performed in places, in which lane splitting has been the norm for an extended period of time. I'd like to see a 5 year study that spans the beginning of the legalization of splitting/filtering, in a place that has somewhat similar traffic to us. That's not happening.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
The articles actually reference scholarly studies. That's not the issue. The real issue is that the studies referenced are performed in places, in which lane splitting has been the norm for an extended period of time. I'd like to see a 5 year study that spans the beginning of the legalization of splitting/filtering, in a place that has somewhat similar traffic to us. That's not happening.
Click to expand...

I had to step back in just to say, yeah, while the studies conducted have been in year long riding areas, don't forget, Rob, that in our areas (Brampton, Mississauga), likely around 80% of the population (Indians, Pakistani, Chinese, Filipino) all not only grew up with lane splitting/filtering, they likely did it themselves with 3 others on the scooter... so it would not surprise them at all. In fact, I figure the only resistance is from the old white guys who cannot accept change, and not actually the majority of the drivers on the road in the heavily congested areas (i.e. the GTA).

Now, I just opened my latest issue of Road Runner magazine that I have a subscription to -- a great touring magazine -- and here is a quote from their page on filtering/lane splitting (November/December 2016, pg 15):

Considered risky by some, "lane splitting keeps riders safer by eliminating their exposure to rear-end collisions, and it helps ease congestion by effectively removing motorcycles from the traffic lanes," said Rob Dingman, president and CEO of the American Motorcycle Association.

In May 2015, the University of California at Berkeley published a report concluding that motorcyclists who split lanes in heavy traffic are much less likely to be struck from behind, to suffer head or torso injuries, and/or to sustain fatal injuries in a crash.
Click to expand...

That 2015 study referred to is the very same one that I linked to a few pages back.

Regarding whether it would be safer or not here, I don’t see why not… you are taking away the risk of being rear ended for the most part. You still have the same risks moving forward, but fewer from behind.
 
Last edited:
I also have to laugh at the credo hedo gives to MTO studies....

Hedo, in the late '90s I used to work for the MTO assisting with these 'studies'... And that is a bit of a joke...

I have a MSc in GIS/remote sensing, and while the studies I took part in were in regards to aggregate management for road construction, I don't think the methodology was very different in other departments.

Our 'studies' would have never passed the test at any university, we basically 'yahooed' whatever we could find as Google didn't exist, and cited a couple of journal articles which supported our goal and called it a day... We were government employees, after all, who had other important things to do like take the big yellow suburban out to go fishing ...

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Motorcycle Mike said:
I had to step back in just to say, yeah, while the studies conducted have been in year long riding areas, don't forget, Rob, that in our areas (Brampton, Mississauga), likely around 80% of the population (Indians, Pakistani, Chinese, Filipino) all not only grew up with lane splitting/filtering, they likely did it themselves with 3 others on the scooter... so it would not surprise them at all. In fact, I figure the only resistance is from the old white guys who cannot accept change, and not actually the majority of the drivers on the road in the heavily congested areas (i.e. the GTA).

Now, I just opened my latest issue of Road Runner magazine that I have a subscription to -- a great touring magazine -- and here is a quote from their page on filtering/lane splitting (November/December 2016, pg 15):

That 2015 study referred to is the very same one that I linked to a few pages back.

Regarding whether it would be safer or not here, I don’t see why not… you are taking away the risk of being rear ended for the most part. You still have the same risks moving forward, but fewer from behind.
Click to expand...

And don't you forget that those areas have the highest insurance rates in the country, because we have the highest insurance claim count in the country.
 
Is someone advocating that we should all drive like we're in India when going through Brampton/Mississauga?

Are they prepared for EVERYONE, motorcycles/scooters/bicycles/cars/trucks/pedestrians/livestock to be doing the same?
 
I didn't say I placed a great deal of confidence i the MTO studies, just that I prefer some studies from OUR area with OUR riding conditions, IE 5 months as opposed to year round. So the question back to you is if you consider any studies conducted by MTO to be unreliable, then why are you so willing to place faith in other studies?

As for the comment from the "president and CEO of the American Motorcycle Association" What would you expect him to say, that he has has NO evidence that it safe and therefore, and that an ACTUAL study should be done? Simply because he is the President and CEO of a motorcycle group does not make him ANY type of an expert, it is in essence an "op ed" comment.

So again other than that fellows opinion and your feeling/beliefs do you have anything of substance, (which relates directly to an area with a limited riding season), to prove your theory? If not then your feelings/beliefs should be given no more credibility, than mine which states it is not widely accepted/expected here in the GTA.

Motorcycle Mike said:
I also have to laugh at the credo hedo gives to MTO studies....

Hedo, in the late '90s I used to work for the MTO assisting with these 'studies'... And that is a bit of a joke...

I have a MSc in GIS/remote sensing, and while the studies I took part in were in regards to aggregate management for road construction, I don't think the methodology was very different in other departments.

Our 'studies' would have never passed the test at any university, we basically 'yahooed' whatever we could find as Google didn't exist, and cited a couple of journal articles which supported our goal and called it a day... We were government employees, after all, who had other important things to do like take the big yellow suburban out to go fishing ...

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Where above did I advocate driving like they do in those countries?

Rob stated that filtering might not work here due to our half a year riding season... I.e people would forget to watch for MCs over the winter. I countered saying these people grew up with filtering, so it's ingrained in them to expect filtering. Thats it. Full stop.

That's why it's pointless to even try and have a discussion here. If you even mention India you get accused of advocating riding lawlessly like there while I said nothing about that at all.

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk
 
Motorcycle Mike said:
Where above did I advocate driving like they do in those countries?

Rob stated that filtering might not work here due to our half a year riding season... I.e people would forget to watch for MCs over the winter. I countered saying these people grew up with filtering, so it's ingrained in them to expect filtering. Thats it. Full stop.

That's why it's pointless to even try and have a discussion here. If you even mention India you get accused of advocating riding lawlessly like there while I said nothing about that at all.

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I think you're conflating that somewhat. Or perhaps the opposite of conflation; separating out only the vehicular behaviour that supports your claim, while ignoring other learnt behaviour which is not conducive to vehicular safety? It doesn't work like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom