lanesplitting on the books again

MNellis · 03-31-2009, 11:51 PM

I broached this subject a week or so ago and only received a few comments. Here are my thoughts, as shared on another site, regarding the upcoming Lane Splitting Bill.

I've followed various discussions on several msg. boards and almost all have been talking up this bill, just like this message board is going.

Again, cudos to the hard charging people that are fighting for what they want. The act of getting involved is more important than standing by and watching the world go by.

I got my license in So. California and grew up riding there so I'm well versed in the benefits and dangers of splitting traffic. The proponents of this bill advocate how important it is to keep the bikes moving in rush hour traffic on the highway. The reality is that overheating motorcycles, especially liquid cooled ones nowadays, is rare. Maybe my old RC-51 is an exception but it's not nearly as big a problem as it was in So. Cal. in the late 60's on an air cooled Norton. The subject of how lane splitting will actually increase safety and will put more helmets on riders is a joke. Don't pee on my face and tell me it's raining. The only real advantage to this bill is that you'll be able to go to the head of the line at a traffic light and maybe make up 5 minutes in traffic during peak rush hours. Think about it, if traffic is moving over 20 mph then lane splitting is not authorized. Really, other than a T/A, how often is traffic moving under 20 mph on the highway. Even during peak hours it moves at 20 mph or better. The 'S' turns in S. Austin might be an exception. Additionally, this law will not allow you to pass on the left in the far left lane and it will not allow you to pass on the right in the "slow lane".

On the surface, I think lane splitting is a good idea. I'm comfortable with it and I know how to work it. The problem as I see it, is they combined it with a helmet law. What a surprise, the government is offering motorcyclist something....but they want a wee little something in return.

They've added this requirement for one of two reasons. Either they think lane splitting is so dangerous that to do so requires a helmet due to the increased risk of crashing or they want to get some sort of helmet law on the books. If statistics show that safe riding is compromised by lane splitting to the extenet that a helmet law is necessary then why, why, why, why would we pass a law approving it for the general public?? Hell, the Lawmakers are outlawing the sale of mini-quads targeted at children under the supervision of adults yet they're going to approve a dangerous maneuver like lane splitting that is so dangerous that in order to do it a helmet is mandated???? Right, I've got a bridge to sell you too. It's smoke and mirrors my friends, there is a real agenda here and it's not to improve the comfort and traffic flow for motorcyclists.

A helmet law, regardless or how menial, is still a law and much more difficult to rescind. Once it's in place then they'll do what they want in the future as it relates to requiring/mandating helmets with very little to stop them. It's a like a $.01 sales tax. On the surface it's probably not a big deal. When is the last time you saw a state lower or abolish a tax of any sort. Conversely, how many states started with a $.02-$.03 sales tax and are now paying 8.5%. Would you vote in an income tax even though it only applied to a small group of wealthy people? I don't think so, because you know it'll trickle down to the average family in no time and you'll probably never see the benefit of the tax regardless of how they try to convince you it was money well spent.

Don't get me wrong, I will advise people to wear helmets and I do so myself almost all the time. What I don't want is the government telling me I have to. It's just one more chance for them to tell me how to run my life. Next, it'll be I have to wear a certain type of jacket while riding, regardless of the weather. After that, they'll require the use of some sort of "air bag vest".

I know, I know, lots of states have helmet laws but that's not the point.

Anyway, I didn't want to get into a helmet law debate. It just sticks in my craw that people, sheep if you will, will sacrifice a freedom for the privileged of riding between cars. Trust me, you'll see more accidents because of lane splitting and the traffic will be backed up because of it... and you'll continue to go nowhere fast.

If lane splitting is a good thing then it should pass on it's merits. If a mandatory helmet law is what people want then it should be voted on, and adopted, on it's merits. But do not, I repeat, do not dangle a carrot in front of me, BUT, I have to accept a swat on the butt with a paddle at the same time.....for my own good.

In my world, I'll notice the swat on the back side a lot more than I'll enjoy eating the carrot.

Adeptus_Minor · 04-01-2009, 06:45 AM

I see what you're saying, Mike.
But, since most of us are going to be wearing helmets anyway, it seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Normally I'm very wary of 'slippery slope' type legislation, but this just isn't sending up any red flags for me.
Perhaps I've just been stuck behind one too many slow accelerating people when I could have easily cut to the front and been the first away from the stoplight.

Archren · 04-01-2009, 07:35 AM

Mike.. I commute EVERY DAY in rush hour traffic from S. Austin to E. 51st St... Traffic gets below 20mph (as in stop, roll forward 2 feet, stop) for a stretch of about 5-10 miles (depending on if I leave work at 5:00 or 5:05).. and my bike doesn't overheat, per se, but my thighs cooking, my left hand cramping, and ME overheating isn't pleasant, either. The only way for me to get around that traffic is to either go through downtown (usually worse) or take the 130 toll road (kinda out of the way, takes the same amt of time as sitting in traffic).

And that's just 35. Mopac is far, far worse.

But that's just my personal take. I see what you're getting at.. But I don't really agree.

I don't really care one way or the other about helmet laws, but really if people don't want to wear a helmet, they should have that freedom, and in that I do agree with you.. But I don't really get the vibe that this is the ultimate end game for this bill. I think it was a compromise thrown in to appease the nay-sayers.

anthonyk · 04-01-2009, 09:18 AM

I commute the whole length of Mopac every day, and it moves below 20mph for much of that length during rush hour. It pretty much sucks.

I'm still not buying the "freedom" argument, Mike. First, Texas has a helmet law on the books already. Riders are required to wear helmets. There's just an exception specified that says that a peace officer can't arrest you or give you a ticket for it if you meet specific criteria. It may sound like semantics, but the fact is, riding without a helmet in Texas is against the law. Remove that one exception, and riders can start getting ticketed again. In my mind, compared to that, this lanesplitting thing isn't a slippery slope at all.

Also, by supporting this, nobody is really giving up any freedoms. Conversely, nobody is preserving freedoms by opposing it. If this passes, ol' Sputnik and his crew will be in the same position they are now. They won't be able to lanesplit, and won't get penalized for not wearing a helmet. If they successfully kill it, they're in the same position. What's the big deal?

The truth is that the general public thinks motorcyclists are hooligans. We're daredevils who don't care about safety. If they're going to extend us the courtesy of allowing lanesplitting, I think it's reasonable to help reinforce the image (at least) that many motorcyclists are interested in safe and responsible riding. Like it or not, wearing a helmet is associated with being safe and responsible. It's a reasonable tradeoff in my mind.

Adeptus_Minor · 04-23-2009, 09:32 PM

Always nice when they reply

Quote:

Thank you for contacting me concerning Senate Bill 506, which would allow a motorcyclist to drive between lanes at a speed no more than 5 mph over the other vehicles traffic, at a maximum of 25 mph.

As you may know, I serve as Vice Chair on the Senate Committee on Transportation and Homeland Security, where SB 506 was referred. I am pleased to inform you that SB 506 was voted out of committee with my support and passed favorably on the Senate floor with 27 Yeas and 4 Nays.

Thank you again for writing. I appreciate your continued support as we work to reduce traffic congestion. Please do not hesitate to contact me again if I can be of assistance in the future.

Sincerely,

Kirk Watson

pdog · 04-27-2009, 08:12 PM

A!@*&^#!@#

KXAN selected the lane splitting bill as the "Wild Bill of the Week" in their Session 09 program (Sunday mornings) and basically reiterated the pro-car "it's unfair and not safe" viewpoint.

azoomm · 04-27-2009, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdog

A!@*&^#!@#

KXAN selected the lane splitting bill as the "Wild Bill of the Week" in their Session 09 program (Sunday mornings) and basically reiterated the pro-car "it's unfair and not safe" viewpoint.

You can thank TMRA for that. If THEY say it's not safe then it won't ever have a chance, even in years to come. If they get the CARS to say it's not safe then they can reposition in the future.

03-31-2009, 11:51 PM	#1
MNellis Trailer Queen Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 18	A different point of view I broached this subject a week or so ago and only received a few comments. Here are my thoughts, as shared on another site, regarding the upcoming Lane Splitting Bill. I've followed various discussions on several msg. boards and almost all have been talking up this bill, just like this message board is going. Again, cudos to the hard charging people that are fighting for what they want. The act of getting involved is more important than standing by and watching the world go by. I got my license in So. California and grew up riding there so I'm well versed in the benefits and dangers of splitting traffic. The proponents of this bill advocate how important it is to keep the bikes moving in rush hour traffic on the highway. The reality is that overheating motorcycles, especially liquid cooled ones nowadays, is rare. Maybe my old RC-51 is an exception but it's not nearly as big a problem as it was in So. Cal. in the late 60's on an air cooled Norton. The subject of how lane splitting will actually increase safety and will put more helmets on riders is a joke. Don't pee on my face and tell me it's raining. The only real advantage to this bill is that you'll be able to go to the head of the line at a traffic light and maybe make up 5 minutes in traffic during peak rush hours. Think about it, if traffic is moving over 20 mph then lane splitting is not authorized. Really, other than a T/A, how often is traffic moving under 20 mph on the highway. Even during peak hours it moves at 20 mph or better. The 'S' turns in S. Austin might be an exception. Additionally, this law will not allow you to pass on the left in the far left lane and it will not allow you to pass on the right in the "slow lane". On the surface, I think lane splitting is a good idea. I'm comfortable with it and I know how to work it. The problem as I see it, is they combined it with a helmet law. What a surprise, the government is offering motorcyclist something....but they want a wee little something in return. They've added this requirement for one of two reasons. Either they think lane splitting is so dangerous that to do so requires a helmet due to the increased risk of crashing or they want to get some sort of helmet law on the books. If statistics show that safe riding is compromised by lane splitting to the extenet that a helmet law is necessary then why, why, why, why would we pass a law approving it for the general public?? Hell, the Lawmakers are outlawing the sale of mini-quads targeted at children under the supervision of adults yet they're going to approve a dangerous maneuver like lane splitting that is so dangerous that in order to do it a helmet is mandated???? Right, I've got a bridge to sell you too. It's smoke and mirrors my friends, there is a real agenda here and it's not to improve the comfort and traffic flow for motorcyclists. A helmet law, regardless or how menial, is still a law and much more difficult to rescind. Once it's in place then they'll do what they want in the future as it relates to requiring/mandating helmets with very little to stop them. It's a like a $.01 sales tax. On the surface it's probably not a big deal. When is the last time you saw a state lower or abolish a tax of any sort. Conversely, how many states started with a $.02-$.03 sales tax and are now paying 8.5%. Would you vote in an income tax even though it only applied to a small group of wealthy people? I don't think so, because you know it'll trickle down to the average family in no time and you'll probably never see the benefit of the tax regardless of how they try to convince you it was money well spent. Don't get me wrong, I will advise people to wear helmets and I do so myself almost all the time. What I don't want is the government telling me I have to. It's just one more chance for them to tell me how to run my life. Next, it'll be I have to wear a certain type of jacket while riding, regardless of the weather. After that, they'll require the use of some sort of "air bag vest". I know, I know, lots of states have helmet laws but that's not the point. Anyway, I didn't want to get into a helmet law debate. It just sticks in my craw that people, sheep if you will, will sacrifice a freedom for the privileged of riding between cars. Trust me, you'll see more accidents because of lane splitting and the traffic will be backed up because of it... and you'll continue to go nowhere fast. If lane splitting is a good thing then it should pass on it's merits. If a mandatory helmet law is what people want then it should be voted on, and adopted, on it's merits. But do not, I repeat, do not dangle a carrot in front of me, BUT, I have to accept a swat on the butt with a paddle at the same time.....for my own good. In my world, I'll notice the swat on the back side a lot more than I'll enjoy eating the carrot. Last edited by MNellis; 04-01-2009 at 02:12 AM..

04-01-2009, 06:45 AM	#2
Adeptus_Minor Hopster Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Austin, TX Moto: 2009 Buell 1125R Posts: 4,743	I see what you're saying, Mike. But, since most of us are going to be wearing helmets anyway, it seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Normally I'm very wary of 'slippery slope' type legislation, but this just isn't sending up any red flags for me. Perhaps I've just been stuck behind one too many slow accelerating people when I could have easily cut to the front and been the first away from the stoplight. __________________ “Well, obviously before; after was all gendarmes and dick stitches.”

04-01-2009, 07:35 AM	#3
Archren Sham WOW Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: ATX Moto: 2007 Ducati 1098 Posts: 2,741	Mike.. I commute EVERY DAY in rush hour traffic from S. Austin to E. 51st St... Traffic gets below 20mph (as in stop, roll forward 2 feet, stop) for a stretch of about 5-10 miles (depending on if I leave work at 5:00 or 5:05).. and my bike doesn't overheat, per se, but my thighs cooking, my left hand cramping, and ME overheating isn't pleasant, either. The only way for me to get around that traffic is to either go through downtown (usually worse) or take the 130 toll road (kinda out of the way, takes the same amt of time as sitting in traffic). And that's just 35. Mopac is far, far worse. But that's just my personal take. I see what you're getting at.. But I don't really agree. I don't really care one way or the other about helmet laws, but really if people don't want to wear a helmet, they should have that freedom, and in that I do agree with you.. But I don't really get the vibe that this is the ultimate end game for this bill. I think it was a compromise thrown in to appease the nay-sayers. __________________ Photography "The Vincent was like a bullet that went straight; the Ducati is like the magic bullet that went sideways and hit JFK and the Governor of Texas at the same time. It was impossible." - Hunter S. Thompson, Song of the Sausage Creature "Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -Dr. Seuss Last edited by Archren; 04-01-2009 at 07:37 AM..

04-01-2009, 09:18 AM	#4
anthonyk WERA White Plate Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Austin, TX Moto: '01 Aprilia Falco Posts: 1,041	I commute the whole length of Mopac every day, and it moves below 20mph for much of that length during rush hour. It pretty much sucks. I'm still not buying the "freedom" argument, Mike. First, Texas has a helmet law on the books already. Riders are required to wear helmets. There's just an exception specified that says that a peace officer can't arrest you or give you a ticket for it if you meet specific criteria. It may sound like semantics, but the fact is, riding without a helmet in Texas is against the law. Remove that one exception, and riders can start getting ticketed again. In my mind, compared to that, this lanesplitting thing isn't a slippery slope at all. Also, by supporting this, nobody is really giving up any freedoms. Conversely, nobody is preserving freedoms by opposing it. If this passes, ol' Sputnik and his crew will be in the same position they are now. They won't be able to lanesplit, and won't get penalized for not wearing a helmet. If they successfully kill it, they're in the same position. What's the big deal? The truth is that the general public thinks motorcyclists are hooligans. We're daredevils who don't care about safety. If they're going to extend us the courtesy of allowing lanesplitting, I think it's reasonable to help reinforce the image (at least) that many motorcyclists are interested in safe and responsible riding. Like it or not, wearing a helmet is associated with being safe and responsible. It's a reasonable tradeoff in my mind.

04-27-2009, 08:12 PM	#6
pdog Refugee Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: San Francisco, CA Moto: Pimped 2005 SV650 Posts: 332	A!@*&^#!@# KXAN selected the lane splitting bill as the "Wild Bill of the Week" in their Session 09 program (Sunday mornings) and basically reiterated the pro-car "it's unfair and not safe" viewpoint.