@ Sneaky Jimmy"UC Berkeley did a study and concluded that lane
splitting actually increased rider safety"Was that before or
after the study (riots) that concluded that someone wanting to speak who
doesn't hold their views actually decreased the speaker's safety?
Bunch of smart folks doing work at that university.
Having lived and driven extensively in California, I've found lane
splitting to be a good way to separate the motorbikes from the cars. Lane
splitting happens mostly at stop lights when all the motorcycles behind you wind
their way forward to the front. This gets them out of the way so that when the
light turns green, they're out in front instead of along side you. It IS
safer and creates an easier driving experience. It freaked me out at first, but
I gradually came to realize that it is a benefit to drivers. This
bill should be revived for further debate and a vote.
It would be interesting to see whether lane splitting really improves safety
when all else is equal.For example, in most of Utah, motorcycles are
only ridden seasonally whereas California has about 360 good riding days a year.
In Cali, motorcycles are always ridden, so they are always present and always
expected. In Utah, motorcycles mostly disappear each fall and emerge each
spring. Drivers are not as accustomed to seeing bikes.(Ditto for
bicycles by the way.)In other words, how much of the safety
improvement from lane splitting comes from lane splitting and how much comes
from where it is done?I understand it was first permitted to keep
early, air cooled bikes from overheating in stop and go traffic. That is no
longer needed with modern, water cooled street bikes, and certainly less needed
in most of Utah than in Cali.I'm not hugely opposed to lane
splitting so long as the biker assumes all liability if he gets hit. But
I'm not are there really significant benefits other thanetting bikers get
through traffic faster. We already let them use the HOV lane.
The Bay Area study may not be valid here in Utah. Remember, our weather
patterns are different-even constantly changing in the spring and fall. Getting
more bikes on the roads is great in good weather, but what about the other 300
days a year in Utah?Also, why would someone be entitled to go to the front
of the line just because they bought a motorcycle? If I have one of those tiny
little cars, can I do it too? How about driving over the curb on the right
because I have a big truck?
I ride in bay area traffic which is consistently rated some of the worst in the
country and lane splitting is very common. Allowing lane splitting is a big
incentive to get fewer cars and more bikes on the road. UC Berkeley did a study
and concluded that lane splitting actually increased rider safety (you can
google it to verify). It's too bad that Utah legislatures rely on "i
drove in California once and I didn't like it" rather than factual
I've ridden motorcycles for more than 30 years and lived and driven in
California off and on for over 5 years. The first time I saw white lining in
practice I thought it was just another case of stupid showboating. When I
learned it was legal, I was pretty shocked. However, though I've rarely
done it myself, I can appreciate some of the rationale for the argument in favor
of allowing the practice.For example, every time I'm driving my
bike here in Utah and am stopped at a red light with just a few cars in front of
me, I'd love to be able to roll up to stop between the cars in the front so
I can spurt out when the light turns green. In such cases there is virtually no
chance of accident and the advantages to the motorcyclist is obvious.On the other hand, when on the freeway in a slowdown, with traffic ambling
along in the 30's or 40's, and someone drives between the lanes at 50,
a common practice in California, the danger increases exponentially.So, to put it succinctly, I'm torn.
I'm a rider and I think the move to cancel this bill is great.White lining it is just plain dumb when riding.It's a hazard
for everyone on the road.
Glad to see representatives with common sense.
According to the article, there are lots of "supporters" of the bill but
only one guy had "concerns." Nevertheless, it went down in flames. I'd like to know what those "concerns" are or why the bill
had no support and of those voting against it, how many are motorcycle riders.
More often than not, it is very common for non-riders to be antagonistic against
those of us who do ride.