Lane splitting...do you do it?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Have you lane split?

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 55.6%
  • No way

    Votes: 9 50.0%

  • Total voters
    18

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
30,354
10,880
136
I'm all for it when safe, especially when traffic is stopped. why not?

Hell, even when it's unsafe. I don't care. We need more organ donors. This is what I like about motorcycle drivers.

See that's what you "learn" after roughly a year on the road on two wheels.

NOBODY in a car sees you and NOBODY in a car cares if you live or die. (and some would PREFER to see you dead)

Once this FACT sinks in, the majority of traffic "laws" become optional and all you care about is survival. And the FIRST to go is the UTTER BULLSHIT idea that you are "safe" riding at the same speed as the 4-wheel (or more) vehicles around you.

All you are under those circumstances is a victim. (you'll be dead/crippled and the cager will have a dented fender)
 
Last edited:

Saylick

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2012
4,098
9,577
136
I'm all for it when safe, especially when traffic is stopped. why not?

Hell, even when it's unsafe. I don't care. We need more organ donors. This is what I like about motorcycle drivers.
"More lane splitting for thee, more organs for me"? :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: zinfamous

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,905
31,435
146
See that's what you "learn" after roughly a year on the road on two wheels.

NOBODY in a car sees you and NOBODY in a car cares if you live or die. (and some would PREFER to see you dead)

Once this FACT sinks in, the majority of traffic "laws" become optional and all you care about is survival. (and the FIRST to go is the UTTER BULLSHIT idea that you are "safe" riding at the same speed as the 4-wheel (or more) vehicles around you.

All you are under those circumstances is a victim.

I don't really want motorcycle drivers to die, but I do respect their choice to do so and I think they should be free to make it. I have nothing against motorcycles either--I get it--just isn't my thing. Of course, far too many of them are just too fucking stupid and when I do see them being stupid, like anyone driving any sort of vehicle, I quickly lose my concern for their well-being.

But, I also think that mandatory organ donation to obtain a motorcycle license should be a federal law. We really are short on spare organs.
 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
30,354
10,880
136
I don't really want motorcycle drivers to die, but I do respect their choice to do so and I think they should be free to make it. I have nothing against motorcycles either--I get it--just isn't my thing. Of course, far too many of them are just too fucking stupid and when I do see them being stupid, like anyone driving any sort of vehicle, I quickly lose my concern for their well-being.

But, I also think that mandatory organ donation to obtain a motorcycle license should be a federal law. We really are short on spare organs.

I don't own a bike anymore but I did for most of my life. (although 95% of that time I also owned a car/truck)

Fact is that riders who survive the first year on a bike are FAR less likely to die on their ride anytime overall.... and that's 100% due to what I already posted.

Idiots doing 120 mph wheel-stands/stunts on I-95 in traffic should lose the right to drive for life period, BUT weaving that same traffic at a 7-15 mph higher speed gives the experienced rider the initiative to "manage" the situation while conversely riding along for miles right next to packs of oblivious, texting soccer-moms is tantamount to suicide. (even if said "weaving" is a bit "scary" for the drones among us)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Motostu

mindless1

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
8,783
1,774
136
Lane splitting to cheat your way through traffic is different than lane splitting to weave through vehicles driving at the normal posted speed limit with sufficient gaps between them.

Through traffic, it is a problem when people think they can cut ahead and then this slows down the person they cut in front of, same as if you did it at a fast food restaurant or wherever.

If you're waiting in line, inside McDonald's, and you're fat, but I am skinny so I can slide past you, do I then get to just take a place in line in front of you? That is what it often amounts to.

As far as open road goes, going a little faster than traffic so other drivers have a chance to notice you, shouldn't be a problem. Going faster than that, where they don't notice you and are instead startled that they nearly ran into you is a problem. You shouldn't put yourself into a space too quickly for someone else to notice you, drivers can't be swiveling their head constantly like they are a carnival ride, rather it is up to the motorcyclist to put themselves in an area the cager can see, for long enough to be seen, before pulling a maneuver.

I know that rains on the parade of people who just want to zip around everyone else in traffic, risking their own safety then blaming society for the obviousness of their mistake. When cars do that we call them wreckless.

The argument is something like "I was in the right" but being in the right doesn't account for the massive number of errors that drivers make every day. Bikers make mistakes too, like those I've already mentioned. Being in the right doesn't make a person invulnerable to serious injury, which is the paramount issue.

Ultimately, lane splitting is a really stupid idea. The whole concept of lanes is to keep any and every motor vehicle, in their own lane, specifically NOT to try to cram more vehicles into a space without having a marked separation between them. Advocates of lane splitting are fairly idiotic for claiming it reduces traffic because it slows everyone else down when they have to be so much more cautiously looking for bikers with too little patience to wait their turn in traffic. Notice i wrote traffic, meaning there isn't substantial space between vehicles.

I am in favor of highways being built with a narrow lane exclusively for motorcycles. They should not have to weave in and out of larger vehicles that pose a harm to them, and that should allow them to get to where they are going faster, until it then becomes a battle of lane splitting between faster and slower bikers.

Ultimately, if you are in that much of a hurry, that's your problem and it shouldn't be someone else's burden. Is it safer for the biker or more dangerous? It isn't relevant, except at stop signs/lights, it is reasonable to be off to the side so someone doesn't slam into you, but to still wait your turn in line.
 
Last edited:

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
30,354
10,880
136
Sounds good lol .... lmk me know when this "fantasy-world" takes effect. :tearsofjoy:

I personally know TWO different riders who were seriously injured/killed when some inattentive moron in a car failed to check their blind spot changing lanes right into/over them .... if you ride WITH 4-wheel vehicle traffic on a bike it's MUCH more dangerous then moving THROUGH that traffic.
 

mindless1

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
8,783
1,774
136
^ You knew the risk when you signed up for it?

The world isn't going to change overnight. Lane changing laws don't change public perception immediately. They don't change driver mistakes either. The only long term solution is isolation... like, having.. oh I dunno.... LANES... for.. bikers.... so.. they .... don't... split... them.

The obviousness of the truth should set in at some point. You are ahead of your time and will have to wait, society is not planning for biker safety yet and this lane splitting is just a dangerous stop gap measure.
 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
30,354
10,880
136
Do you even ride? I'm thinking not. ;)

Motorcycle lanes would be a more useless waste of precious highway real-estate (and tax-$'s) then carpool lanes have proven to be.
 

mindless1

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
8,783
1,774
136
Do you even ride? I'm thinking not. ;)

Motorcycle lanes would be a more useless waste of precious highway real-estate (and tax-$'s) then carpool lanes have proven to be.
Highway real-estate is not all that precious. Highways already have easments. They have right of way and could easily put in a lane if they had sufficient citizen demand.

It's not so similar to carpool lanes because that is BS liberal manipulation of the transit system instead of fact based, making traffic flow more efficient which is a no-contest agenda/need.

Carpool lanes should never have existed, truly a waste from a traffic perspective when they are bound by the same physics as other cars and the majority just aren't doing that. Motorcycles not so much.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Captante

olds

Elite Member
Mar 3, 2000
50,127
781
126
Lane splitting to cheat your way through traffic is different than lane splitting to weave through vehicles driving at the normal posted speed limit with sufficient gaps between them.

Through traffic, it is a problem when people think they can cut ahead and then this slows down the person they cut in front of, same as if you did it at a fast food restaurant or wherever.

If you're waiting in line, inside McDonald's, and you're fat, but I am skinny so I can slide past you, do I then get to just take a place in line in front of you? That is what it often amounts to.

As far as open road goes, going a little faster than traffic so other drivers have a chance to notice you, shouldn't be a problem. Going faster than that, where they don't notice you and are instead startled that they nearly ran into you is a problem. You shouldn't put yourself into a space too quickly for someone else to notice you, drivers can't be swiveling their head constantly like they are a carnival ride, rather it is up to the motorcyclist to put themselves in an area the cager can see, for long enough to be seen, before pulling a maneuver.

I know that rains on the parade of people who just want to zip around everyone else in traffic, risking their own safety then blaming society for the obviousness of their mistake. When cars do that we call them wreckless.

The argument is something like "I was in the right" but being in the right doesn't account for the massive number of errors that drivers make every day. Bikers make mistakes too, like those I've already mentioned. Being in the right doesn't make a person invulnerable to serious injury, which is the paramount issue.

Ultimately, lane splitting is a really stupid idea. The whole concept of lanes is to keep any and every motor vehicle, in their own lane, specifically NOT to try to cram more vehicles into a space without having a marked separation between them. Advocates of lane splitting are fairly idiotic for claiming it reduces traffic because it slows everyone else down when they have to be so much more cautiously looking for bikers with too little patience to wait their turn in traffic. Notice i wrote traffic, meaning there isn't substantial space between vehicles.

I am in favor of highways being built with a narrow lane exclusively for motorcycles. They should not have to weave in and out of larger vehicles that pose a harm to them, and that should allow them to get to where they are going faster, until it then becomes a battle of lane splitting between faster and slower bikers.

Ultimately, if you are in that much of a hurry, that's your problem and it shouldn't be someone else's burden. Is it safer for the biker or more dangerous? It isn't relevant, except at stop signs/lights, it is reasonable to be off to the side so someone doesn't slam into you, but to still wait your turn in line.
Username checks out
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
22,393
6,521
136
Lane splitting to cheat your way through traffic is different than lane splitting to weave through vehicles driving at the normal posted speed limit with sufficient gaps between them.

This first paragraph is your entire argument and reason for being against lane splitting. You feel like bikers have an unfair advantage and should have to wait like everyone else.
 

mindless1

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
8,783
1,774
136
^ I feel the same way about a road with only cars on it, that drivers shouldn't be trying to squeeze into every little gap trying to get ahead of other cars.

It's not as safe, is especially more dangerous for a biker not protected by a big metal cage, and can also cause road rage.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,905
31,435
146
Highway real-estate is not all that precious. Highways already have easments. They have right of way and could easily put in a lane if they had sufficient citizen demand.

It's not so similar to carpool lanes because that is BS liberal manipulation of the transit system instead of fact based, making traffic flow more efficient which is a no-contest agenda/need.

Carpool lanes should never have existed, truly a waste from a traffic perspective when they are bound by the same physics as other cars and the majority just aren't doing that. Motorcycles not so much.

carpool lanes are more of an incentive to reduce fuel use/reduce cost/increase efficiency. It's the opposite of what you assume it is, but that shouldn't be surprising.

Whether or not it works at all is a different story--the problem is that people are inherently selfish and enough of them (you sound like one of them), are going to shit in everyone's cheerios any chance they get just because some fantasy thing has hurt their feelings about something. The side benefit would be that maybe it can help with traffic, but in the status quo of course that would never work. People operating vehicles are just only ever going to think about themselves--tailgate, weave, cut off everyone else, use brakes on the highway for literally no reason, continue to deal with and create for everyone else the very same problems they are creating. If carpool lanes were ever sold as a traffic solution, it would be to convince the rubes that make up so much of this country because, for many decades, making the argument that it was to cut fuel costs and reduce use would get Big Oil and their endless drones of conservative asshole followers breathing flame and starting public violence. So, you have to deal with stupid people when dealing with public policy, and this country is infected with hordes of conservatives. I'm not sure if there is a better solution is to that, because you are going to have to sell their smooth brains on whatever it takes to do the right thing.

the real solution to this is removing people from the driver's seat entirely, primarily when it comes to highways and main public roads. People are why traffic exists, 100%, not the volume of cars. You just have to look at how colonies of millions of ants and bees move about so efficiently when individuality is completely droned out of them, then make cars/traffic do exactly that. Not easy, sure, but it is the only solution.

We could reclaim so much real estate, reduce all major highways to 2 or max 3 lanes each direction, and never lose a minute in traffic. It's the only answer.

Also, I'm surprised you don't support my proposal to make organ donating mandatory for bikers. It's a serious need that we have and if you feel so strongly about people considering the consequences of their decisions, let's at least create a real societal benefit, no? Like the bikers do as they will, and we all benefit!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: repoman0

mindless1

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
8,783
1,774
136
carpool lanes are more of an incentive to reduce fuel use/reduce cost/increase efficiency. It's the opposite of what you assume it is, but that shouldn't be surprising.

I'm well aware of the intention, but also of the effects, one of which is often decreased efficiency, a less used lane that could be put to better, unrestricted use.

Also, I'm surprised you don't support my proposal to make organ donating mandatory for bikers.
Where did I state that? You must be confusing someone else's posts.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,905
31,435
146
I'm well aware of the intention, but also of the effects, one of which is often decreased efficiency, a less used lane that could be put to better, unrestricted use.
Oh I agree. Just saying. The intent is one thing, but applying it to the real world of shitty, selfish humans means it simply won't work. This is the exact same problem with Libertarianism

Where did I state that? You must be confusing someone else's posts.

You didn't. I just interpreted your lack of full-throated support as a complete rejection of the proposal.
 

mindless1

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
8,783
1,774
136
^ I simply don't spend enough time posting to comment on *everything*.

I strongly encourage organ donation, but am against government mandates for most things concerning control of one's own body, including that. It's not so much that I think it matters to keep your organs after death when they could be put to good use, but rather the slippery slope if we let the government mandate even more of our decisions for us.
 
Last edited:

WilliamM2

Diamond Member
Jun 14, 2012
3,013
892
136
Also, I'm surprised you don't support my proposal to make organ donating mandatory for bikers. It's a serious need that we have and if you feel so strongly about people considering the consequences of their decisions, let's at least create a real societal benefit, no? Like the bikers do as they will, and we all benefit!
Why not make it mandatory for all drivers? There are far more people killed in cars each year, and if there is such a great need...

Not much of a consequence though. Dead people have little use for thier organs.
 

A///

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2017
4,351
3,160
136
I think it's a fantastic idea myself. there's always a shortage of good organ donors.
 

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
29,391
2,738
126
No. I've never owned a motorcycle. That said, motorcyclists who do so annoy me; particularly when they go in and out of my blind spot.
Open car door while at highway speed limit as motorcycle zips between you and middle lane car next to you
 
  • Wow
Reactions: olds and Captante

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
70,854
13,909
126
www.anyf.ca
IMO if it's going to be allowed it should be "at your own risk". If you mess up you can't sue the other drivers (unless they did something on purpose!) AND you're responsible for the damage to their car. If people are doing sudden dangerous maneuvers very close to me, and also in my blind spots I don't want to be responsible for that as a driver.

Overall it's just dangerous though, I personally wouldn't do it if I drove a motorcycle. I rather have space all around me and know that drivers see me, and be in an actual lane, not in between two lanes with a car on both sides. Also need that wiggle room in case I need to make any sudden avoidance maneuvers like avoiding a pot hole. Or if the cars around me need to do a similar maneuver I don't want to be in their blind spot.