‘Is lane splitting safe?’ or ‘Is lane splitting fair?’, friend, you are asking the wrong questions. This video dives into the philosophical disagreements that are at the heart of every lane splitting, filtering, and shoulder riding arguments we see time and time again.
While most discussions revolve around a few studies (Hurt Report, University of California Berkeley, New South Wales trail) there is no empirical data that can tell us definitively how dangerous these behaviors are. Instead you need to examine the key concepts around ‘Danger’ and ‘Fairness’, which is what we’ll do in this video.
After the discussion there are prescriptions for how to build a framework to legalized and safe lane splitting.
My Previous video on guidelines for safe lane splitting:
Chapters:
0:00 Intro
1:28 Is lane splitting dangerous
8:15 Is lane splitting fair?
13:35 Prescriptions for safe lane splitting laws
16:20 Outro
18:04 Utah filtering law
Find and support me:
►PATREON –
►PAYPAL – PayPal.me/SquidTips
►TWITTER – @AyyJayAre @SquidTips
►INSTAGRAM – ayejayarr
►SNAPCHAT – squid.tips
►STREAM –
►DISCORD –
►EMAIL – SickSquidTips@gmail.com
#Motorcycle #LaneSplitting #Philosiphy
Likes: 240
Views: 4221
I must admit. I found it slightly unnerving when I was on a bike trip to California but your very articulate comments are noted.
Nicely presented.
In Europe and UK this is called 'filtering' and it is totally legal. Motorbikes take up less space and therefore there is no need to restrict them to car width lanes.
I think everyone needs to drive a 2 wheel vehicle for at least a year. I think that alone would make drivers better when they get to cars.
Nice argument, I regularly filter but never lane split unless the traffic is at walking pace – I personally don't like the risk-benefit analysis. So here's my counter-argument – and be warned, it's also a sermon 🙂
I totally agree that legalising lane splitting it is a philosophical argument – but it's one IMHO we will generally lose. Fairness (or morals) are typically (but not always….) determined by the majority of the population to which they apply. Rules and laws are written and then policed to ensure these are upheld (again not always but that's a bigger issue for you guys to try and sort). So for me the greatest hurdle when adding (i.e. it's new!) any law or rule is: who benefits?
Q1. Is it 'fair'?
The problem with lane splitting laws is that it benefits a minority (riders) and dis-advantages the majority (car drivers) by putting more responsibility on their spatial awareness skills AND all the liability of a collision on them as well. So simply on the ratio of car: bikes we are already behind the 8-ball.
Q2. Is it fair?
YouTube has hundreds of videos of cars turning across bikes, but no matter the law and the protestations of the righteous IMHO most of the cause factors of these accidents are determined by the rider – you regularly make that observation as well. Your +15mph recommendation is logical because if it's lower then what's the point, but if my conversion maths to imperial is correct then that is still 22 feet per second. So even with that ceiling there simply isn't much reaction time available to drivers in what is a challenging line-of-sight scenario.
For example, I do not adjust my car passenger mirror to look down the side of the car, it is set to the adjacent lane blind spot behind the b-pillar. So even I can't use the side mirror to see a lane splitting bike, only the central rear view mirror. But with high traffic density (and trucks) that might be useless as well. So it's not simple even for car drivers who are very bike conscious – the side mirror simply isn't big enough and I don't have any fancy blind-spot detection system in my car (side note – I love seeing these when on my bike though!). Add more traffic density means drivers are already having to concentrate harder on what's in front and immediately around them AND they are also likely to be feeling stressed (e.g. late for work) which all adds up to higher risk scenario of unexpected lane changes.
So IMHO we are asking a lot (probably too much) from drivers to comprehend lane splitting – especially when I don't think many folks are good drivers anyway!
Q3. What driving standards would we need to change? Always tricky, but a real-world example is my lad has just got his probationary driver license. We have a pretty good system here (min 12 months as learner, log books and professional training/assessment) but he still got flustered with traffic on a roundabout and turned into another car. There was absolutely no intent (he was devastated) and although he got 100% on the theory license test here roundabout rules are not always the same – which makes it tricky even for experienced drivers. So I know driving is not simple, and even with the appropriate training people can still make mistakes, especially under pressure scenarios. I don't believe our licensing system can effectively train drivers for lane-splitting or even filtering, so I ride accordingly.
Summary
For me the lane-splitting (and filtering) solution is make it legal with sensible conditions like you state. Again because of line-of-sight difficulties I would only add that you cannot do it past trucks or buses.
But my controversial argument is put %90 of the liability for a collision onto the rider – even if the car changes lanes in front of them. This means riders can do it if they want (so it's their choice) it doesn't put more responsibility or training onto drivers (so their arguments become less valid) but the legal liability (and cost) should encourage riding 'invisible', which IMHO they should be doing anyway under these conditions.
A win-win IMHO, I wonder what others think? 🙂
I'll add a final point for interest. There are set international boating rules (curiously termed rules of the road), and there are plenty of Vessel A must give-way to Vessel B scenarios. But overriding all of these is a higher priority rule that state's it is the Master's responsibility to avoid a collision. Which basically means that YOUR decisions & actions are more important than others – no matter what. So whilst this type of responsibility rule generally doesn't appear in road rules, it's certainly one if the fundamentals of ensuring safety in commercial maritime law.
Long live the order of the sacred squid! 🙂
Guns dont kill people, people kill people
I'm fine with lane splitting as long as it's understood that the biker is going be at fault 90% of the time. Bikers are entitled to a full lane width, but so are the cars on the road. If you invade my lane, or lane split while I'm changing lanes (while using my indicators of course) and we collide, then I'm not paying for any of your property or personal damage and your probably gonna be paying for damage to my car. You are the one accepting the danger, not me.
Americans rightly mock us in the UK for not having gun rights, and we can't believe that most US states don't allow you to take advantage of the maneuverability and width advantage of your motorcycles!
🤣😂 lmfao great information
If you got the joke at 15:45 you are a degenerate. Also if you like this stuff you should hit that goddamn thumbs up button, subscribe, and then checkout my playlists like the Accident Analysis series https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBbh8r16dm-0ifNvtEj-dJ3uXpBa6L3UM