From: svoboda@rtsg.mot.com (David Svoboda)
Subject: Re: Lane Splitting (was Re: Cager penile size (was Re: %$*#^$! Tailgaters))
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:23:59 GMT

cantrell@seqp4.sequoia.com (Paul Cantrell) writes:
|svoboda@rtsg.mot.com (David Svoboda) writes:
|> Well, the way I see it, a bike splitting between cars is somewhat
|> different than a car between bikes.  The reason for this lies in comparing
|> risk.  First, we have to take as given that less lanespace implies more
|> likelyhood of a collision.  Now, consider if a car initiates a lanesharing
|> situation.  In the now more likely collision, the bike *will* lose, and
|> the rider likely will sustain bodily injuries, while the car *might*
|> sustain some property damage, and the driver almost certainly will be
|> unhurt.  In effect, the driver is  taking some personal safety away from
|> the biker, at little cost to himself.
|
|> In the case of the biker initiating a laneshare, he is again increasing
|> the likelyhood of an accident, an accident which he will again lose.  The
|> driver  will likely take very little if any damage from such a collision.
|
|I hate to say this, but I think David is just trying to rationalize the fact
|that bikers *are* often hypocritical on this issue. I don't think it's at all
|reasonable to argue that it's okay to for bikers to put cagers at risk, while
|it's not okay for cagers to put us at risk. It's not the *cagers* fault that
|you decided to ride a motorcycle. They're just as entitled to the full use
|of the lane as you are. So I think David's argument is flawed. Perhaps someone
|can think of a better one.

I do not rationalize that bikers are hypocritical.  I am explaining that I
believe that if the argument is accepted that lane splitting poses a danger
to a car, that that danger is MUCH less than the danger to the rider of a 
car performing the very same maneuver.  It is NOT tit-for-tat.  You have 
not rationally rebutted this.

So, if I understand correctly, you are telling me my argument is flawed 
because you suspect my motives?  Or are you just re-stating the premise, over
and over again, to attempt to make your point?

I suggest that you, Paul, make an effort to actually ride in California, and
try lane splitting .  It gives you a completely different viewpoint on the 
subject.

You know, the statement "It's not *my* fault that you ride such a dangerous
machine" (paraphrased from yours, but the gist) is a common justification for
a cagers inattentiveness, especially when they have caused an accident with
a motorcyclist.  It could well cause all of us to lose our right to ride.  
You as a motorcyclist have the right not to be hurt by the idiocy of a 
boneheaded cager.

And finally, Paul, I suggest that you read the rest of my post, which
denies the very premise that lane splitting is dangerous.  Automobile drivers
should be *happy* to see motorcycles lane splitting, as it is truly safer
for the motorcyclists, and shifts the likely blame for any accident from
them (in the case of the "biker sandwich", in which case the biker is likely
maimed or killed) to the biker (in an accident in which the cager might
get some scratched paint and a broken mirror, and injuries are much less
likely.)  But of course no cager would ever admit that he is at all likely
to cause an accident through his own inattentiveness.  Furthermore, every
motorcycle that is splitting could be a car taking up space, further blocking
movement.  *Lane splitting helps.*

|Generally, when I drive a car in California (not very often) I feel quite
|uncomfortable on the freeway with motorcycles lane splitting. 

Because you are uneducated on the subject.  And like many who are uneducated,
you hold your ignorance out before you like a banner before which you expect
us all to bow.  I will not accept that "logic".

|I wouldn't
|feel uncomfortable about motorcycles using the breakdown lane, 

You should.  I ask you--in an emergency situation, in what direction is a 
car most likely to dive; into the car beside, or into the breakdown lane?  
Okay, another scenario; where is a really angry, frustrated cager likely to 
jam with no warning whatsoever, to get around the traffic in front of him; 
into the car beside him, or into the breakdown lane?  And what's going to
happen to the motorcycle that is in that breakdown lane.  (That *may* be
why riding the breakdown lane is illegal, or at least frowned upon by law
enforcement, almost everywhere.)

|and I don't
|care that they're getting someplace faster than I am. 

Good.  That sort of petulant childishness has no place on our highways.

|I'm sure that a lot
|of my problem with it is just that I'm not used to it, so it feels
|strange. But I'm also a little nervous with a vehicle passing within a
|foot or so of me. A 15 MPH difference in speed seems like a lot when the
|vehicles are that close together. By the way, it doesn't bother me as much
|when traffic is totally stopped. 

Of course, when traffic is totally stopped, that is when the danger of
the suddenly opening door arises.  That is a risk.

|I'm more nervous when I'm in start and
|stop, or slowly moving traffic, and motorcycles are passing close to the
|car.

And that is the safest thing a motorcyclist can do in that sort of traffic,
short of getting off the highway.  Little lane changing danger, no door opening
risk, and the motorcycle is travelling fast enough for stability.

So, did you witness an accident, or are you just relating to us your 
insecurities? 

|Are California motorcyclists allowed to use the carpool lanes?

Yes.  Any justification for carpool lanes can naturally apply to motorcycles.

Dave Svoboda (rubis@gagme.chi.il.us)        | "I just can't take
90 Concours 1000 (Feeling poorly)           |  this weird shit
84 RZ 350 (Ring Ding) (Being bored)         |  before breakfast!"
AMA 583905      DoD #0330    COG 939        |   -- Evo Woman