What if…?
My apologies in advance to all my readers who live in civilized countries (and, strangely enough, California). [Edit: By "civilized", I mean places where filtering or lane splitting are already legal.] This post is for the unenlightened masses of the United States of America.
I’m stepping away from my normal program here for a moment; The 800-pound gorilla named politics has finally demanded an audience. I am going to remain neutral as long as possible. This issue is going to be decided by you, my readers.
Since there was such a horrible turnout at our local primaries yesterday, I’m wondering if anybody in America really cares about or even believes in politics anymore. For motorcyclists, politics has relevance in the laws society passes to govern our conduct and control our priviledges on the road. Like it or not, in this nominal democracy, we are the minority. With that in mind, let me present the following scenario…
The U.S. Congress introduces a bill to legalize lane-splitting nationwide, known as “filtering” in most of the rest of the world. But, American politics being what it is, opposing interests attach a rider (how ironic…) onto that bill that would institute a nationwide helmet law at the same time. Conditions being what they are, this bill will not pass unless it goes through with the rider intact.
If you live in a state that already has a helmet law, then this is a no-brainer for you. But what if you don’t? Would you put pressure on your representative to pass this law?
Since I don’t have the capability to conduct a poll here, I will ask for your comments instead. I will weigh in with my own views on the subject later… and of course, none of this reflects the views or aims of ridetowork.org. So, what do you think?
September 13th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
This is a phony hypothetical, because Congress doesn’t put something like that on the table without at least my calling my congressperson, twisting his or her arm (assuming she isn’t somebody impossible like Michelle Bachman, in which case I just look for an opportunity to twist the knife and heaping invective on the ancestors of anyone who would deign to put such a Hobson’s choice before the voters. If that fails, then I vote no because of the helmet law (even though I wear a helmet at least 99.9995% of the time) and continue to filter anyway.
I may even lane-split on occasion. The terms are not interchangeable in my mind.
September 13th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
thats a tough one.
Generally (exceptions abound), I tend to like laws that consent and dislike laws that restrict or impose requirements on individuals.
My state requires helmets, but probably will repeal that law soon – which suits me even though I don’t see myself riding without a helmet. We are not allowed to “lane-split”, though many do here. I would love to be able to do it without legal fear.
I say add a national right-to-carry and I’m good. (irrelevent riders are the american political way right?)
September 13th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
I live where there is a helmet law, but I would “generally” wear one anytime I ride anyways. That being said, I don’t think there should be required helmet laws, except maybe for new, inexperienced riders- maybe the first year or two with the license, so they have to buy one and get used to wearing it while they see what kind of stupidity goes on out there, and why helmets are a good thing, even though the law isn’t.
The only problem I have with filtering is that in this age of drivers who aren’t paying full attention to the task at hand, it can be inherently dangerous. Add to that the jealous cager stuck in traffic taking his frustrations out on me as I pass by… I realize that his action may be illegal and I may be right, but I don’t wanna be “dead-right”.
I’m a biker and I vote…
(but not Tuesday- I have no party affiliation and can’t vote in primaries…)
-Bro Shagg
September 13th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Can’t edit. Just pretend I included a close paren after “knife”. It might make sense then.
September 13th, 2006 at 11:03 pm
Strange! I live in a state (California) which allows lane splitting but also requires a helmet. I have lane split since 1968 and I have also worn a helmet all those years. In my accident last June, my helmet took a hit and I didn’t feel it. the scar is still on the helmet. I only lane split when the traffic is not moving so I am going only 5 MPH faster than traffic and only going 5 MPH all together. I don’t know what to say except that I am conservative on lane splitting and would wear a helmet even if not required. But to answer your first question, I think everyone in both parties are tired of the crap that is out there on both sides. “How do you tell if a politician (or lawyer) (usually the same thing) is lying?? His lips are moving.”
September 14th, 2006 at 2:29 am
Buster: I’m trying to understand your distinction between lane-splitting and filtering here. Let’s see if I have this right…
Filtering is lane-splitting to the front of the que at stoplights only, while lane-splitting itself can legally occur anytime traffic is not moving at the posted speed limit or above. If that is true, then I stick with lane-splitting in this scenario.
Ride well,
=gc=
September 14th, 2006 at 3:55 am
I live in a country where lane-splitting, and filtering, in all senses of the word, is an acceptable way for motorcycles of any size to behave in traffic. It isn’t law, and not likely required to be so.
It all seems to work well, and cars and bikes usually get along well in rush hour traffic. Except for the recalcitrant few drivers and bikers who seem to think unwritten rules don’t seem to apply to them.
September 14th, 2006 at 7:15 am
Good morning Gary,
I originally hail from England where ‘lane splitting/lane sharing’ is so common we don’t have a name for it. We just do it.
I arrive in Minnesota and something that’s perfectly normal and safe is forbidden. Weird!
I would certainly vote for allowing it. Whoever added the ‘rider’ of the helmet law was misusing his authority. I am however an inveterate helmet wearer and wear mine 100% of the time. I wouldn’t be alive to write this if I didn’t.
Keep the rubber side down.
Jeff
September 14th, 2006 at 8:53 am
If you’re asking an opinion about the political process of attaching riders to legislation, it is a common occurrence, but I am against it. It has been done in the past in the U.S. – remember the federal government threatening to withhold highway funds from all states not enacting a 55 mph speed limit? It is a method that forces federal control over states rights.
If you’re asking about helmet and filtering laws separately, IMO helmets should be required by all states, and filtering should be illegal.
JRC
‘99 KLR
‘01 LC1500
33 years riding in 4 states plus Europe : no accidents, no tickets (knock on wood)
September 14th, 2006 at 11:29 am
First, I would like to thank everyone for the reasonable tone of your responses. Now, from the top…
Buster: I realize this isn’t a purely plausible hypothetical, because of the supposed separation of powers. But as one other reader pointed out, the Feds have their ways of exerting pressure on the states, when the Insurance industry lobbies hard enough, for example. We see this in the nationwide seatbelt laws and minimum liability requirements.
This was the only simple way to present what you call Hobson’s Choice in this limited venue. My diabolical motives will become clear shortly…
Jeff C: Irrelevant, and even ironic riders seem to be in vogue these days. I thought the one that abolished the estate tax as a condition of raising the minimum wage was especially cynical.
Bro Shagg: I believe the way the California law is structured, the lane-splitting vehicle has no right of way, and the responsibility for accident avoidance rests solely on the operator of the lane-splitting vehicle. Somebody please correct me if I’m wrong.
Dick: Maybe you could weigh-in on that one. Also, I seem to recall that the speed limitation was no more than 15 mph above the speed of surrounding traffic, up to the speed limit. Is that correct?
Snark: The percentage of arsehole drivers is a universal constant, isn’t it?
What boggles my mind are the videos I’ve seen of uncontrolled intersections in certain countries which look chaotic as hell, but nothing horrible seems to happen.
Jeff B-G: In the case of a law like this, if it were to be introduced, you can bet our Insurance industry would be all over it with compromises and onerous riders.
JRC: Well, you must be doing something right.
Okay, briefly, here’s what motivated this little experiment…
I was stuck in traffic yesterday, on my way home from work. I coudn’t creep down the right hand side, next to the curb, as I do from time to time, because there were vehicles crowded right up against the curb. I couldn’t filter between the lanes because that is illegal, and there was a police cruiser in the que.
So I sat there and thought about how nice it would be if I could filter legally. Then I thought about how the legal and political process works in this country, and realized that, in order to have something like this pass, we would have to give up something in compromise.
Regardless of the fact that this would make motorbike commuting more efficient, and more attractive, the idea just doesn’t seem to have the traction it needs to be seriously considered in any state other than California.
Then there’s this: A law like that would be strenuously opposed by “Lifestyle®” types who only ride recreationally; to whom image is everything, and helmet laws are the vilest form of oppression. They don’t care about lane splitting, because they would rather sit in traffic, blipping their throttles and looking bad.
I don’t think I have many readers like that, or I would have heard from them by now.
Well, I’ll leave this up for a couple more days, to see what else comes in.
Ride well,
=gc=
September 14th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
As a car driver also (and we’re all car drivers at least some of the time, right?) I support helmet laws because I understand the difficulty in seeing motorcyclists at times. If I was involved in a car vs. bike accident and that motorcyclists was seriously injured or killed because of their reluctance to wear a helmet but would have reasonably not been injured or killed if they had been wearing a helmet should I be held responsible for their injury/death?
If seat belts are required for car drivers I think helmets should be for motorcyclists.
As for lane splitting/filtering I would support efforts to make it permissable but I don’t see myself utilizing the opportunity much.
Jen
‘01 BMW F650
‘95 MuZ Skorpion
September 14th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Ok, here’s my two cents. Allow filtering, lane splitting, whatever it takes to reduce congestion. I have no problem with wearing a helmet, in fact I think everyone should wear one always anyhow.
jim
September 14th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Gary,
Here is the official answer from California DMV:
Can motorcycle riders “split” lanes and ride between other vehicles?
Lane splitting by motorcycles is permissible but must be done in a safe and prudent manner
What this means is that it is up to the discreation of the Police Officer as to what is “safe” and “Prudent”.
I have had sheriff patrol cars, police patrol cars see me coming down splitting lanes and moved over so I could pass easier. I get that a lot from other drivers here in Northern California also. It is rare for me to see a cage driver deliberately block my passage. I can’t remember the last time it was done to me.
September 14th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
Dick-
You are lucky in CA. I live in NY where this lane sharing stuff is not legal. If I’m not mistaken, we can’t even ride down the shoulder (safely and prudently) if traffic is stopped. If we can, that doesn’t stop some idiot in a car from opening his passenger door or throwing something into the shoulder lane just as you reach is back bumper. I have personally seen this happen numerous times. Problem is, if I get into an accident beacuse of this or hit his door, it’s my fault for not maintaining proper control of my vehicle, even though I was essentially ambushed.
B.S.
September 15th, 2006 at 3:06 am
“If seat belts are required for car drivers I think helmets should be for motorcyclists.”
If helmets are required for motorcyclists, they should be required for all occupants of a car as well. Do you have any idea how many auto fatalities are caused by head injuries? In fact, if everyone wore a helmet, six-point harness and Nomex, think of the fatalities that could be averted.
September 15th, 2006 at 5:56 am
Texas brought up and considered a lane splitting bill last year. It was not passed, I suppose to avoid offending some good ole boys stuck in traffic while driving their Suburban or F350 Dually. In any case, I would not want to be the first one to try it. Maybe after they permit “Open Carry”, so it would be obvious when a motorcycllist was armed. Just to permit the MCs to balance the playing field so to speak.
Would have allowed a speed of up to 20 MPH over the stationary traffic.
September 15th, 2006 at 10:02 am
Bro Shagg,
Yes conditions are different all over. I only split lanes in my local area because that is where I would normaly hit traffic congestion. I am more conservative in other parts of California where I don’t know the average driver or how long the traffic will stay bad. In other states, I know nothing of their habits and will not split lanes.
September 15th, 2006 at 11:00 pm
This is why I joined ABATE, for which I am Chapter Coordinator for the North Olympic Chapter in Washington State. This is why we represent on “Black Thursday” in our state capitol in January. We have a voice, and we use it.
As a motorcyclist, a scooterist, a biker or whatever I am called, its my duty to do my part as a voter to protect and preserve my right to ride.
Bill
September 15th, 2006 at 11:42 pm
I’m against the government telling people what to do, whether it’s seatbelts, helmets, or smoking… AS LONG AS the person only harms himself by his actions.
So that means no public or private insurance or other monies to pay for his injuries that could reasonably have been prevented (whatever they didn’t do – wear a helmet, use a seatbelt – or did do – smoke, drink to excess…), or the rehab, or chemo, or liver transplant, or…
I would tell my representative to vote against the hypothetical bill, and lane-share if the need arose and I felt I could do it safely. And yes, I always wear a helmet; or a seatbelt, depending on how many wheels are under me. I like my brain more or less the way it is, thank you.
And I’ve love to have open carry. Redhead, female, with sidearm. Lookout!
September 15th, 2006 at 11:49 pm
I support lane splitting, or at least filtering, for the simple reason of congestion relief. If a bike can filter to the front at a stop light/stop sign, then that is one less vehicle waiting in line and a quicker cycle through the stop lights. Then again, in Washington state (I’m on the Eastern edge of WA) helmets are required. I support helmet laws, but I wear a helmet whether it is the law or not. I also support the no smoking standards in WA, but that is another kettle of fish entirely.
To put it bluntly, if you are so stupid as to not behave safely and considerately, then the rest of us will vote to make you do it.
On helmet laws, one final quote. “Yes, I know they will not protect you in all cases. It isn’t the “Big one” you have to worry about. It’s the little wreck that leaves you finger painting in your diaper in some God-forsaken nursing home that your helmet protects you from. ” Herbert Few, Yahoo Vstrom2 mailing list.
September 18th, 2006 at 8:20 am
Very interesting discussion. As Tinker pointed out – those fellas in their F-350s get a wee bit peeved when you pull past them – especially when you do it by the driver’s side. Earlier this summer I “filtered” through a particularly long section of stopped traffic due to road construction. I bet I cruised through a mile at least of stopped vehicles. Last vehicle I past was a big a$$ F-350. Guy virtually ran me off the road a mile or so later because he was so pi$$ed that he had to sit in traffic and I didn’t. In hindsight, I’d do it again – though probably not at the 15-20 mph that I was doing at the time.
Why shouldn’t we be allowed to do it? I’ll be the first to admit I’ve broken the law by “filtering” – and even riding on the sidewalk (hence the moniker) – but never “splitting.” Crap – most cagers can’t see us riding under normal conditions, why should I expect them to notice me when I’m in a place where I should not be? Why should I fry my clutch, bake under all my safety gear that I voluntarily wear???
Most times I’ll just sit in traffic – being a good rep. of M/C. However, certain situations just dictate otherwise (e.g., The MN State Fair), where braking the law (ride the sidewalk that borders crop land where nobody walks) and by passing at least an hour of stop and hardly go traffic becomes a very simple decision indeed.
As far as the helmet law tack-on, well I’d be for it. Doesn’t infringe on my rights – and (man I want to use not so nice words right now) if you think it infringes upon your rights, just be like the majority of the boozer crowd, wearing essentially half of a ping-pong ball for a helmet and you’ll be good to go. Do they really think that little peanut shell is going to help them in the long run, when their face has been completely rubbed off?
Maybe if the congress asks dubya he will introduce another famous bill and nickname it “No Cyclist Left Behind…” Sure that will work…
September 19th, 2006 at 6:33 am
Well now, that was fun, wasn’t it? It seems we have a bit of a Libertarian bent around here. That’s encouraging. So, let’s sum up:
We favor lane-splitting/lane-sharing/filtering, but we don’t favor helmet laws because that gives the government too much power. Most of us wear helmets by choice, but support the right not to do so. LS/Filtering should become legal everywhere on it’s own merits.
I wonder what the AMA is doing in regards to this issue. I suppose that is something I could research here, if there’s enough interest.
Interestingly enough, we have some support here for open carry of firearms. That’s something else I might delve into in the future, if things become routine.
But for now, I think I’m going to get back to Ramblin’. It’s probably high time for another scooter post…
Ride well,
=gc=
September 26th, 2006 at 10:01 am
Here’s my personal perspective from the Great White North…
Lane filtering: against it. I hate to admit it, but I see enough show-off bikers out there pulling wheelies on the freeway. Would just hate to imagine what they’d be trying to do if they could legally ride the white line.
Helmets: should be mandatory across the board (in Canada, it already is). Why should my insurance premiums go up because some poseur in leather fringe preferred to ride sans-helmet into a ditch?
Anyhow – my 2 cents worth. Your opinion may (and most likely will) vary.
Cheers,
Lucky
September 28th, 2006 at 9:58 am
Join the rest of the world: Wear helmets and filter like Billy-o!
January 6th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
“Gary Charpentier Says:
Bro Shagg: I believe the way the California law is structured, the lane-splitting vehicle has no right of way, and the responsibility for accident avoidance rests solely on the operator of the lane-splitting vehicle. Somebody please correct me if I’m wrong.”
From what I understand, and I may be wrong, but I think that when lane splitting in California as long as your not being really stupid the fault lies with the driver. I.E. traffic is all but stopped and a car decided to change lanes with out looking and hits a biker. The fault lies with the car.
Personaly I see nothing wrong with lane shareing, helmet laws are annoying but since I wear mine all the time anyway I don’t notice. How ever I am for personal freedoms and will extend it to helmets. Let people choose.
Just my $.02