centex
Mini Bike
In a separate thread about a specific lane-splitting ticket, member "PopPop" mentioned an October, 2011 Motorcycle Consumer News (MCN) article about lane sharing. I'm starting this thread for discussion of ideas presented in that article which are very different from the subject of the 'ticket' thread about unilateral lane-splitting in a state where it is not an accepted practice.
Thanks, PopPop, for mentioning the MCN article by Steve Guderian titled "Lane Sharing - Not a Hazard, But a Global Solution for Motorcycle Safety". I got a copy and as you implied, it is provocative and presents data that make me rethink my opinion of the practice. I encourage anyone that's interested in the subject of motorcycle safety to read the article. Unfortunately, the article is not available online. I won’t post or provide copyrighted material, but here’s a brief summary:
Mr. Guderian posits that:
1. Rear-end collisions, both ‘by and upon’ motorcycles, are a significant cause of motorcycle fatalities.
2. Rear-end collisions, both ‘by and upon’ motorcycles, are significantly reduced in locations where lane sharing is accepted in comparison to locations where lane sharing is not practiced.
As I use the phrases, ‘by a motorcycle’ refers to cases when the bike rear ends a vehicle; ‘upon a motorcycle’ refers to cases when the bike is hit from behind. Mr. Guderian presents data for both situations separately in his report.
Mr. Guderian uses US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) accident data to support his position. He compares data for California (the accepted lane sharing location) with data for Texas, Florida and Arizona (locations with similar weather and riding seasons but where lane sharing is not practiced). National averages for the data are also presented. The accident data seems fairly presented and seems, to me, to rationally support Mr. Guderian’s position.
Mr. Guderian further posits that:
3. Where lane sharing is practiced it is likely that accidents of a type not seen where lane sharing is not practiced will occur.
4. The types of accidents that occur when lane sharing are less serious than rear-end collisions and therefore there is a ‘net gain’ in motorcycle safety where lane sharing is practiced.
Mr. Guderian relies more on intuitive and rational discussion than on statistical data to support his position about these last two points. Some general data relating to lane sharing accidents in California and in Europe (where he says lane sharing has long been practiced and is known as “traffic filtering”) are used to support these last two positions.
Mr. Guderian is careful to point-out that in both California and Europe, safe lane sharing is a function of both rider and driver awareness and acceptance. He also acknowledges that it is possible to lane-share in an unsafe manner.
In his concluding paragraphs, Mr. Guderian seems to suggest that wider implementation of lane sharing as a practice could provide a safer environment for motorcyclists.
I have never lived in a place where lane sharing is practiced and from afar, I’ve long considered it an insane endeavor practiced by fools who value time more than life. The data presented in the MCN article is the first to cause me to consider a different perspective on the subject.
That notwithstanding, I have trouble with the idea that lane sharing could be introduced in locations where it is not currently practiced with positive results. It is my understanding that in both California and Europe, the practice of lane sharing has evolved with all other road-use habits since the dawn of motorized transportation.
Each generation has learned to drive and ride with lane sharing as much a part of the process as red, yellow and green traffic lights. Surely there are driving habits that are particular to lane sharing that must be learned and implemented by both riders and drivers for the practice to be safe. I can only imagine that a phase-in of lane sharing in a place where it is not already institutionalized would result in an extraordinary number of lane sharing related accidents. Who can predict if that learning-curve cost would be worth the gain that seems to be present after lane sharing has been long accepted as suggested by Mr. Guderian’s article?
Even if I accept the safety benefits for riders that seem to come with lane sharing in California, I would not want to see lane sharing made explicitly legal in my home state of Texas. Both as a driver and as a rider, I’m concerned that too many folks in both seats would pay too high a price for too long until everyone learned the new rules of the road. In this case, I think the tuition is not worth the benefit of graduation.
Thanks, PopPop, for mentioning the MCN article by Steve Guderian titled "Lane Sharing - Not a Hazard, But a Global Solution for Motorcycle Safety". I got a copy and as you implied, it is provocative and presents data that make me rethink my opinion of the practice. I encourage anyone that's interested in the subject of motorcycle safety to read the article. Unfortunately, the article is not available online. I won’t post or provide copyrighted material, but here’s a brief summary:
Mr. Guderian posits that:
1. Rear-end collisions, both ‘by and upon’ motorcycles, are a significant cause of motorcycle fatalities.
2. Rear-end collisions, both ‘by and upon’ motorcycles, are significantly reduced in locations where lane sharing is accepted in comparison to locations where lane sharing is not practiced.
As I use the phrases, ‘by a motorcycle’ refers to cases when the bike rear ends a vehicle; ‘upon a motorcycle’ refers to cases when the bike is hit from behind. Mr. Guderian presents data for both situations separately in his report.
Mr. Guderian uses US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) accident data to support his position. He compares data for California (the accepted lane sharing location) with data for Texas, Florida and Arizona (locations with similar weather and riding seasons but where lane sharing is not practiced). National averages for the data are also presented. The accident data seems fairly presented and seems, to me, to rationally support Mr. Guderian’s position.
Mr. Guderian further posits that:
3. Where lane sharing is practiced it is likely that accidents of a type not seen where lane sharing is not practiced will occur.
4. The types of accidents that occur when lane sharing are less serious than rear-end collisions and therefore there is a ‘net gain’ in motorcycle safety where lane sharing is practiced.
Mr. Guderian relies more on intuitive and rational discussion than on statistical data to support his position about these last two points. Some general data relating to lane sharing accidents in California and in Europe (where he says lane sharing has long been practiced and is known as “traffic filtering”) are used to support these last two positions.
Mr. Guderian is careful to point-out that in both California and Europe, safe lane sharing is a function of both rider and driver awareness and acceptance. He also acknowledges that it is possible to lane-share in an unsafe manner.
In his concluding paragraphs, Mr. Guderian seems to suggest that wider implementation of lane sharing as a practice could provide a safer environment for motorcyclists.
I have never lived in a place where lane sharing is practiced and from afar, I’ve long considered it an insane endeavor practiced by fools who value time more than life. The data presented in the MCN article is the first to cause me to consider a different perspective on the subject.
That notwithstanding, I have trouble with the idea that lane sharing could be introduced in locations where it is not currently practiced with positive results. It is my understanding that in both California and Europe, the practice of lane sharing has evolved with all other road-use habits since the dawn of motorized transportation.
Each generation has learned to drive and ride with lane sharing as much a part of the process as red, yellow and green traffic lights. Surely there are driving habits that are particular to lane sharing that must be learned and implemented by both riders and drivers for the practice to be safe. I can only imagine that a phase-in of lane sharing in a place where it is not already institutionalized would result in an extraordinary number of lane sharing related accidents. Who can predict if that learning-curve cost would be worth the gain that seems to be present after lane sharing has been long accepted as suggested by Mr. Guderian’s article?
Even if I accept the safety benefits for riders that seem to come with lane sharing in California, I would not want to see lane sharing made explicitly legal in my home state of Texas. Both as a driver and as a rider, I’m concerned that too many folks in both seats would pay too high a price for too long until everyone learned the new rules of the road. In this case, I think the tuition is not worth the benefit of graduation.