Sign This

[olds]

Or I will haunt you in your dreams nightmares.

Allow lane splitting

 

[waggy]

NO! I REFUSE TO.


I rarely lane split. though i thought it was legal in all states.

 

[Skel]

I don't really have a dog in the race, but what's the benefit to it? Other than the rider get a bonus in traffic over the car.

 

[olds]

I don't really have a dog in the race, but what's the benefit to it? Other than the rider get a bonus in traffic over the car.

Less congestion

 

[master_shake_]

Less congestion

for whom exactly?

cars are still going to be stopped.

the only less congestion is for the cyclists.

 

[Homerboy]

Compared to riders who were not splitting lanes, lane-splitting motorcyclists were markedly less likely to suffer head injury (9 percent vs. 17 percent), torso injury (19 percent vs. 29 percent) or fatal injury (1.2 percent vs. 3 percent)

Lane-splitting riders were significantly less likely to be rear-ended than non-lane-splitting riders (2.6 percent vs. 4.6 percent)

wat?

 

[BoomerD]

Nope. Won't sign it. I understand why bikers want to be able to do it...but it's dangerous...for bikers and drivers alike. (for the drivers, the "danger" is to their vehicle)

Far too many motorcyclists ignore "common sense" when splitting lanes and drive between the lines of cars MUCH faster than would be prudent.

 

[Homerboy]

Less congestion

I know it's not the best source in the world, but wiki says...

n the US, transportation engineers have suggested that motorcycles are too few, and will remain too few, to justify any special accommodation or legislative consideration, such as lane splitting. Unless it becomes likely that very large number of Americans will switch to motorcycles, they will offer no measurable congestion relief even with lane splitting. Rather, laws and infrastructure should merely incorporate motorcycles into normal traffic with minimal disruption and risk to riders

 

[Crusty]

Nope. Won't sign it. I understand why bikers want to be able to do it...but it's dangerous...for bikers and drivers alike. (for the drivers, the "danger" is to their vehicle)

Far too many motorcyclists ignore "common sense" when splitting lanes and drive between the lines of cars MUCH faster than would be prudent.

By that logic I would like to revoke the drivers license of anyone that owns a cellphone because too many motorists ignore "common sense" when driving and drive with their head between their legs.

 

[waggy]

Nope. Won't sign it. I understand why bikers want to be able to do it...but it's dangerous...for bikers and drivers alike. (for the drivers, the "danger" is to their vehicle)

Far too many motorcyclists ignore "common sense" when splitting lanes and drive between the lines of cars MUCH faster than would be prudent.

this is my issue with it. I have seen (while on rides and in my car) idiots that blow between stopped vehicles at like 30+ MPH. WHAT THE FUCK

but then why should they penalize those that do it legally because of dumb fucks? they are going to do it anyway..

 

[BoomerD]

By that logic I would like to revoke the drivers license of anyone that owns a cellphone because too many motorists ignore "common sense" when driving and drive with their head between their legs.

Well...I'd support revoking the license of anyone caught using their cell phone while driving...

 

[zinfamous]

congestion is a problem that will be vaporized by driverless cars, and future generations will learn about this little frustration that past generations endured with amusement and curiosity.

No need to incur some extra deaths and insurance costs on the population while waiting for the actual solution to the problem to be viable.

Also, OP: you are in CA where lane-splitting is legal. Would you say that you are or are not exposed to a model where lane-splitting reduces congestion?

 

[Skel]

congestion is a problem that will be vaporized by driverless cars, and future generations will learn about this little frustration that past generations endured with amusement and curiosity.

No need to incur some extra deaths and insurance costs on the population while waiting for the actual solution to the problem to be viable.

Isn't congestion caused mostly by the amount of people attempting to use the road? I'm not sure how driverless cars will help that..

 

[brianmanahan]

sorry not signing

 

[zinfamous]

Well...I'd support revoking the license of anyone caught using their cell phone while driving...

Amen, brutha.

 

[brianmanahan]

Isn't congestion caused mostly by the amount of people attempting to use the road? I'm not sure how driverless cars will help that..

no, congestion is caused largely by people who drive suboptimally, distracted, and greedily

 

[zinfamous]

Isn't congestion caused mostly by the amount of people attempting to use the road? I'm not sure how driverless cars will help that..

nope, not at all. congestion is almost exclusively caused by humans and their stupid dumb human decisions. In fact, in the most populated areas, you could probably cut the lanes on the busiest interstates by half if the roadways were completely automated, with the same population, and there would be no traffic.

Think about it: would a driverless car ruberneck, cut you off, or tailgate? would it selfishly run red lights, stop in the intersection and block oncoming traffic?

added to that, the cars could essentially drive at full speed inches away from each other. This is one way that the density issue can be crammed into less lanes.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Bikes benefit from this, and cars lose nothing .. but, people bitch because soemebody else gets something good how come they cant get something good too.

Humanity is disappoint.

 

[Skel]

nope, not at all. congestion is almost exclusively caused by humans and their stupid dumb human decisions. In fact, in the most populated areas, you could probably cut the lanes on the busiest interstates by half if the roadways were completely automated, with the same population, and there would be no traffic.

Think about it: would a driverless car ruberneck, cut you off, or tailgate? would it selfishly run red lights, stop in the intersection and block oncoming traffic?

added to that, the cars could essentially drive at full speed inches away from each other. This is one way that the density issue can be crammed into less lanes.

I'm not saying that idiot drivers don't help... man do they.. I just remember working in a City and having to deal with their planning group. There was an issue of capacity of the roads and they needed to add lanes to handle the amount of cars going down the roads. It appears, at least to me and I admit I know almost nothing on the subject so take what i say with a grain of salt, but it appears that the problem is two fold. The amount of cars on the roads and that's compounded by idiot drivers. I can see the second part fixed with driverless cars, but if they become more popular the amount will still cause issues.

 

[Sonikku]

not signing

 

[zinfamous]

I'm not saying that idiot drivers don't help... man do they.. I just remember working in a City and having to deal with their planning group. There was an issue of capacity of the roads and they needed to add lanes to handle the amount of cars going down the roads. It appears, at least to me and I admit I know almost nothing on the subject so take what i say with a grain of salt, but it appears that the problem is two fold. The amount of cars on the roads and that's compounded by idiot drivers. I can see the second part fixed with driverless cars, but if they become more popular the amount will still cause issues.

yeah, I think there certainly is a density part to the math--think of the intertubes and the amount of data, the roads being the max bandwidth. But that is also a good analogy for how much data (cars) can be crammed down such little space, with very little to no issues, if that data is crammed through efficiently.

The reason your contractors are claiming x lanes need to be added to accommodate x cars/people, is because that math is corrected for idiot human drivers. There is enough data now where your typical city planner is going to understand that a certain population, in heavy commute zones will need x amount of lanes...but human brains are the most important part of their equation--the brains controlling those death machines. Density is a part of it, but a very small part of it. You could probably chart two lines for density and population, what is required for commuter traffic, and those lines even out quite early on in an automated system. The fact that humans are the primary component of the current paradigm is very well hidden within the math, and it would surprise most people how few lanes are truly needed to sustain major metro commuter corridors in an automated system.

This is a really cool article I read years ago about traffic and the conditions that cause traffic. The primary focus is Moscow (notoriously one of the worst traffic places in the world), but talks about the disasters in other 3rd world and developing countries like Pakistan, India, China (also--what happens when traffic laws don't exist. basically: lol)

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/08/02/stuck-3

There's also a lot of information coming out more recently as the driverless vehicle paradigm approaches. It's going to be a real game-changer and it can't come soon enough, imo.

 

[Dirigible]

As a person who wants America to be great, I signed it.

 

[edro]

nah brah

I don't want to have another thing to worry about in rush hour traffic.
I've seen too many videos online of lane splitters rear ending car that were switching lanes.

 

[Krazy4Real]

not signing... see you in my nightmares.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Well...I'd support revoking the license of anyone caught using their cell phone while driving...

There's a petition I'd willingly sign and I'll even donate to the lobbyists needed to get it passed. But whiny ass bitch riders who demand special rules of the road because they think they shouldn't have to wait in traffic like everyone else can grow up and fuck off, not necessarily in that order.