Clarification on lane splitting? | Page 4 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Clarification on lane splitting?

And what if you get rear ended by a bike that was lane splitting on the 401, (figuring your lane was empty because he couldn't see your bike, due to stop and go traffic? I can happen. I am still suffering the effects, from this exact scenario 2.5 years later. The problem is if people lane split, (or filtered, although at least one member here sees no difference between the two), at a "reasonable" rate of speed then it "may" be considered. The issue is the idiots, (like the guy who hit me at 120 - 140 km/h when I was doing 30 Km/h, (with the flow of traffic).

So where do you recommend I should have "filtering up just to save our own a sses" to in my scenario??? Oh and I was an "actual rider" with 35 years of riding experience, (which was longer than the guy who hit me was alive). I was watching my mirrors, as well as traffic in front.

For every argument about lane splitting and filtering being "safer" there can be a counter balancing story or youtube video showing it isn't really all that safe.

Last Friday, I was eastbound on Steeles, having just turned left off Don Mills, when an Idiot on a bike felt "self entitled" enough to lane split. Had I been the normal inattentive cager, he would have eaten my rear bumper or the side of my car and the one in front of me in the other lane. I was ready to move to the right lane for my approach to the 404, when he lane split us with his speed being about 50 km/h when the rest of the flow was at best 20 km/h, (there was a red light about 400 metres ahead, that he was in n apparent rush to get to). So I am sure if asked he would state he was merely "filtering" to the light.

Motorcycle Mike said:
I know all of you love arguing so much, but if you are actually a rider you should be all for filtering because it is safer.

If you get rear ended driving a car, most likely you'll be fine... maybe a sore neck. If you get rear ended riding a bike, you will likely be seriously injured or dead. With the ever increasing amount of distracted drivers out there now, and police seemingly hardly ever addressing it, we should all be filtering up just to save our own *****.

Case in point: https://gfycat.com/NewCoordinatedGalapagossealion
Click to expand...
 
Calm down hedo, I didn't say a word about lane splitting, did I?

I said filtering is safer... which I believe it is, it protects you from being hit from cars driven by distracted drivers. Of course, you are still on the road and still in traffic so sure, **** can still happen.

hedo2002 said:
And what if you get rear ended by a bike that was lane splitting on the 401, (figuring your lane was empty because he couldn't see your bike, due to stop and go traffic? I can happen. I am still suffering the effects, from this exact scenario 2.5 years later. The problem is if people lane split, (or filtered, although at least one member here sees no difference between the two), at a "reasonable" rate of speed then it "may" be considered. The issue is the idiots, (like the guy who hit me at 120 - 140 km/h when I was doing 30 Km/h, (with the flow of traffic).

So where do you recommend I should have "filtering up just to save our own a sses" to in my scenario??? Oh and I was an "actual rider" with 35 years of riding experience, (which was longer than the guy who hit me was alive). I was watching my mirrors, as well as traffic in front.

For every argument about lane splitting and filtering being "safer" there can be a counter balancing story or youtube video showing it isn't really all that safe.

Last Friday, I was eastbound on Steeles, having just turned left off Don Mills, when an Idiot on a bike felt "self entitled" enough to lane split. Had I been the normal inattentive cager, he would have eaten my rear bumper or the side of my car and the one in front of me in the other lane. I was ready to move to the right lane for my approach to the 404, when he lane split us with his speed being about 50 km/h when the rest of the flow was at best 20 km/h, (there was a red light about 400 metres ahead, that he was in n apparent rush to get to). So I am sure if asked he would state he was merely "filtering" to the light.
Click to expand...
 
Motorcycle Mike said:
Calm down hedo, I didn't say a word about lane splitting, did I?

I said filtering is safer... which I believe it is, it protects you from being hit from cars driven by distracted drivers. Of course, you are still on the road and still in traffic so sure, **** can still happen.
Click to expand...

Filtering and splitting go hand in hand. You start filtering, the light changes, you are now splitting. Myself, I've yet to see a situation where filtering would have helped. Two accidents in 40+ years on the road. Both people hit, were at the front of the line. I've seen many distracted motorcyclists as well. So much for anecdotal evidence.
 
Baggsy said:
Filtering and splitting go hand in hand. You start filtering, the light changes, you are now splitting. Myself, I've yet to see a situation where filtering would have helped. Two accidents in 40 years on the road. Both people hit, were at the front of the line. I've seen many distracted motorcyclists as well. So much for anecdotal evidence.
Click to expand...

Lets make it simple for you with no anecdotes at all:

1) Do rear end accidents happen, yes or no?

2) If a motorcycle comes up to stationary traffic at a stop light, which is the safer location -- up near the front between two stopped cars or at the rear behind all of the stopped cars?
 
Motorcycle Mike said:
Lets make it simple for you with no anecdotes at all:

1) Do rear end accidents happen, yes or no?

2) If a motorcycle comes up to stationary traffic at a stop light, which is the safer location -- up near the front between two stopped cars or at the rear behind all of the stopped cars?
Click to expand...

I stop behind, but so that I can move between or beside the cars if necessary.

and the answer to your questions are yes and insufficient data.
 
Baggsy said:
I stop behind, but so that I can move between or beside the cars if necessary.
Click to expand...

As do I, as that is the law here. However, where do you think is the higher chance of being hit from behind? While at the back, or up near the front between two stationary cars?
 
From "Motorcycle Lane-splitting and Safety in California"

Lane-splitting motorcyclists were also injured much less frequently during their collisions. Lanesplittingriders were less likely to suffer head injury (9% vs 17%), torso injury (19% vs 29%),extremity injury (60% vs 66%), and fatal injury (1.2% vs 3.0%). Lane-splitting motorcyclists wereequally likely to suffer neck injury, compared with non-lane-splitting motorcyclists.

We also examined how the manner in which riders were lane-splitting affected their likelihoodof being injured for each of the three injury types using multivariate regression methods. Wefound that both traffic speed and motorcycle speed differential (the difference betweenmotorcycle speed and traffic speed) were important in predicting the occurrence of injury.There was no meaningful increase in injury incidence until traffic speed exceeded roughly 50MPH. Motorcycle speed differential was a stronger predictor of injury outcomes. Speeddifferentials of up to 15 MPH were not associated with changes in injury occurrence; above that 4point, increases in speed differential were associated with increases in the likelihood of injuryof each type.

Lane-splitting appears to be a relatively safe motorcycle riding strategy if done in traffic movingat 50 MPH or less and if motorcyclists do not exceed the speed of other vehicles by more than15 MPH. A significant number of motorcyclists lane-split in fast-moving traffic or at excessivespeed differentials. These riders could lower their risk of injury by restricting the environmentsin which they lane-split and by reducing their speed differential when they do choose to lanesplit.
Click to expand...
 
Motorcycle Mike said:
As do I, as that is the law here. However, where do you think is the higher chance of being hit from behind? While at the back, or up near the front between two stationary cars?
Click to expand...
It can't be a straightforward answer. Things would change. Risks would change. Not necessarily for the better. You're making yourself harder to hit by bad drivers, while increasing your risk of hitting others, and making yourself less predictable to typical drivers. If you're really interested, then take a sabbatical, and research it in Switzerland to see how it works there. Places like Italy everyone splits, cars, trucks, busses, scooters, motorcycles, bikes, and I don't think that's the model that you're going for.
 
Baggsy said:
It can't be a straightforward answer. Things would change. Risks would change. Not necessarily for the better. You're making yourself harder to hit by bad drivers, while increasing your risk of hitting others, and making yourself less predictable to typical drivers. If you're really interested, then take a sabbatical, and research it in Switzerland to see how it works there. Places like Italy everyone splits, cars, trucks, busses, scooters, motorcycles, bikes, and I don't think that's the model that you're going for.
Click to expand...


I lived and rode for 3.5 years in Jakarta.... lane split and filtered every day all day long. I would not have survived riding in Jakarta if not for filtering and splitting.
 
Motorcycle Mike said:
I lived and rode for 3.5 years in Jakarta.... lane split and filtered every day all day long. I would not have survived riding in Jakarta if not for filtering and splitting.
Click to expand...

And how many people there die each day due to motorcycle accidents? 100? 1000? Sort of reminds me of how people say a million riders don't use a helmet in India or China every day, therefore they aren't needed.

I can see some logic in filtering (not splitting), but also agree that it would take a lot of driver re-training for our roads to make it a safe thing. Also factor in our insurance laws and costs, and I can easily see any accident where a bike was filtering or splitting being immediately a 50%-100% at fault for the rider, even if the car went to change lanes while the driver was staring at their phone while forgetting to signal.
 
My point is if everyone did lane filtering or splitting safely, there wouldn't be as much opposition to it. I also in my example of last week stated the rider was IMHO lane splitting, BUT I am sure he would have called it "filtering" as there was a red light some 400 metres down the road that he had to stop at so when does one stop filtering to the "next light" and begin lane splitting?? 10'? 100'? 100 metres? 500 metres? 1 km?

Motorcycle Mike said:
Calm down hedo, I didn't say a word about lane splitting, did I?

I said filtering is safer... which I believe it is, it protects you from being hit from cars driven by distracted drivers. Of course, you are still on the road and still in traffic so sure, **** can still happen.
Click to expand...
 
1 Yes rear end collisions happen, Sure take out the anecdotal evidence of people being rear ended at the front and your removing a VERY valuable portion of the equation. therefore, limiting the data and skewing the results. You may as well remove ALL rear end collisions then, therefore, no reason to filter, because there are no rear end collisions. We have all seen youtube videos of as pointed out motorcycles stopped at intersections, (in the lead spot), being rear ended. However, for all we know they had filtered to get to that position, nor do we know if they simply were first in line. Seeing that we have insufficient data we can't simply "make up" data to support either position.

2. As stated insufficient data, there are no statistics to prove it is any safer, because no one keeps track of when collisions DIDN'T happen. You may "feel" it is safer, but given that the stopping at the rear of the line of cars happens likely millions of times daily in North America daily and we don't have the majority being rear ended "tends" to suggest it is a safe area to be.

Motorcycle Mike said:
Lets make it simple for you with no anecdotes at all:

1) Do rear end accidents happen, yes or no?

2) If a motorcycle comes up to stationary traffic at a stop light, which is the safer location -- up near the front between two stopped cars or at the rear behind all of the stopped cars?
Click to expand...
 
hedo2002 said:
1 Yes rear end collisions happen, Sure take out the anecdotal evidence of people being rear ended at the front and your removing a VERY valuable portion of the equation. therefore, limiting the data and skewing the results. You may as well remove ALL rear end collisions then, therefore, no reason to filter, because there are no rear end collisions. We have all seen youtube videos of as pointed out motorcycles stopped at intersections, (in the lead spot), being rear ended. However, for all we know they had filtered to get to that position, nor do we know if they simply were first in line. Seeing that we have insufficient data we can't simply "make up" data to support either position.

2. As stated insufficient data, there are no statistics to prove it is any safer, because no one keeps track of when collisions DIDN'T happen. You may "feel" it is safer, but given that the stopping at the rear of the line of cars happens likely millions of times daily in North America daily and we don't have the majority being rear ended "tends" to suggest it is a safe area to be.
Click to expand...

It is safer, and that's why it is legal in other places.

I realize if you're old it's a scary prospect, but you are doing yourself a disservice by posting with this tone and theme - that it is still a debate...there is no debate. If done correctly it IS safer...discussions need to focus on the legal hurdles to overcome, and educating riders on what constitutes safe lane splitting and filtering.

You can ride all year 'round in California, and there are more people there than all of Canada...your anecdotes from witnessing irresponsible riders here in the GTA...just don't amount to anything compelling.
 
I wasn't commenting on weather it is "safe" or not. Merely pointing the posters arguments are flawed as he is trying to dismiss anecdotal evidence of another poster using his own "feelings" and anecdotal evidence to support that argument.

Just as you dismiss my anecdotal evidence of irresponsible GTA riders, I can dismiss your California "evidence" because as you correctly stated they ride all year long in California so motorists are used to bikes 24/7 365 as opposed to perhaps 5 months "most" riders in the GTA are on the roads. So what occurs in California or ANY tepid climate has NO significant bearing on the GTA or Ontario.

There have been countless "discussions" on what legal hurdles need to be overcome, as well as a letter to the Minister of Transport by one of the members here, wherein the response from the gov't was basically "thanks for the note, but we are uninterested in this issue" The gov't has MUCH bigger items on their agenda than lane splitting, so no need for me to participate in about the 25th "discussion" of the issue again, all of which have produced ZERO results. If not mistaken there was an online petition, which garnered a pathetic few signatories, (certainly not the 25,000 needed to be introduced to the Ontario Legislature). So apparently even riders are EXTREMELY apathetic to the idea, and I doubt it would garner major support from the general public. But all the best in your efforts. As I said I don't have enough ACTUAL data, and research to make an informed decision, which is what I prefer to rely upon rather than peoples "feelings"

Lastly, you contend "if done correctly it IS safer" Who gets to determine what is "done correctly" How do you enforce and monitor it? unlike California we have VERY few motorcycle officers to enforce. When involved in a collision who gets the fault from insurance? Who if anyone gets charged?

unfaZed said:
It is safer, and that's why it is legal in other places.

I realize if you're old it's a scary prospect, but you are doing yourself a disservice by posting with this tone and theme - that it is still a debate...there is no debate. If done correctly it IS safer...discussions need to focus on the legal hurdles to overcome, and educating riders on what constitutes safe lane splitting and filtering.

You can ride all year 'round in California, and there are more people there than all of Canada...your anecdotes from witnessing irresponsible riders here in the GTA...just don't amount to anything compelling.
Click to expand...
 
hedo2002 said:
Lastly, you contend "if done correctly it IS safer" Who gets to determine what is "done correctly" How do you enforce and monitor it? unlike California we have VERY few motorcycle officers to enforce. When involved in a collision who gets the fault from insurance? Who if anyone gets charged?
Click to expand...

This is one of the most difficult points to contest, because "if it's done right, it's safer" applies to everything. Collisions are caused by mistakes - whether it's inattention or an improper action/reaction. So if everyone did everything right, we would all be safer and filtering wouldn't be necessary for safety. Then we move on to the other arguments about keeping traffic flowing, etc.

The fact that some jurisdictions do it and some don't doesn't mean it's proven to be safer - it's just a decision made by the legislators based on public opinion and the information available. They decide what's relevant in their jurisdiction and make the decision. In the U.S., motorcycles cannot be prohibited from using any lane - it's a federal law. So they can ride in HOV lanes. How did that come about? It goes back decades. When I made the argument that we would be safer in HOV lanes rather than other lanes on hwy that had them, I didn't even get much support from other riders. It's the same with lane splitting and filtering - there will always be some who see that the only benefits are more like privileges, and dismiss them.
 
I tried lane splitting in Cali ages ago. Was alright, but only tried it, didn't keep it up as I didn't feel safe doing it. Filtering I have no issue with as the other traffic is at a stand still...other than the possibility of being doored.

I define splitting as riding between lanes of cars moving at speed and filtering as riding in the parked lane(where there is ample space) beside stationary traffic.
 
Baggsy said:
I stop behind, but so that I can move between or beside the cars if necessary.

and the answer to your questions are yes and insufficient data.
Click to expand...

"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.
 
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...

I have also heard of a guy stepping off his bike onto the sidewalk just before it was hit.
He was fine, and wasn't in between cars, which could also be dangerous if they get twisted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom