Keeping the Faith

[Haversack]

I think the perceived danger of lane-splitting is based on perspective. From the car driver's point of view, a lane-splitting motorcycle, especially on a freeway, appears alarmingly fast and recklessly threads between cars. It is not what you usually look for. From the motorcyclist's point of view, lane-splitting is less dangerous in dense traffic than it is to ride in the center of the lane, and start and stop like a car. (Especially on a freeway. The reason is that drivers behind a motorcycle tend to gauge their distance by the car in front of the motorcycle. This leads to some very hairy experiences for the motorcyclist when traffic slows down or comes to a stop. For the motorcyclist, lane-splitting on a freeway, while it looks dangerous to car drivers, appears less dangerous than does taking the lane. I don't know if California's decision to allow lane-splitting on freeways was based on accident statistics, but it would not surprise me.

Haversack.

 

[jamespowers]

I don't know if California's decision to allow lane-splitting on freeways was based on accident statistics, but it would not surprise me.

Haversack.

I think it has more to do with the fact that many motorcycles are air cooled and sitting in gridlocked traffic is likely to cause more problems and more gridlock than allowing them to lane split.

Regards,

J

 

[RedPop4]

Interesting, I read the first post, and then skimmed the rest. I've been thinking about this a lot, lately, too. I get on one highway where two lanes merge into another two to become four.

 

[RondoHatton]

I just think motorcyclists should grin and bare it when it comes to stupid drivers. It's a risk they are willing to take.

It never ceases to amaze me: the opinions of motorcycling by non-motorcyclists.
"Death Defying Thrills"? Sheesh, give me a break.
Grin and bear it? Have non-smokers just "grinned and beared it"?
Cancer patients? Bear as in bearing a load, not "bare" faced tom
foolery behind the wheel like silly cell phones. It's MY risk THEY
are willing to take, kind of like, "hey, you go fight, I'll hold your jacket".
Take yourself down to Zeitgeist and start this conversation?
http://zeitgeist.ypguides.net/
199 Valencia St
San Francisco, CA 94103
Daily 9:00am- 2:00am
Tel: (415) 255-7505

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollie_Free

 

[John in Covina]

The social contract is it. If you tie in a sense of what we were taught as to interacting with others outside of our homes and the idea of operating in a habitual manner youget a general population that follows "the Rules" and society needs to have a high percentage of rule followers in order to function.

Pressure to not follow the rules, such as speeding, tailgating and un-safe lane changing comes into play when we are late, angry, or already running from the High patrol due to bad decision making skills. The percentage of those people varies in number and degree of non-rule following by what they learn , take to heart and is shaped by how the see themselves and how they perceive others around them. (Parents in teaching your children remember John Gotti and Adolf Hitler had high self esteem, high enough to treat others like non entities.)

Even in neighbor hoods wear crime is rampant the majority of the neighbor hood is law abiding, otherwise the neighbrhood would explode into chaos and anarchy.

As to whether makind is inherently good, I'd say no not really, we all get mad, we all get envious and jealous, we all have a sense of greed and me-ism built in. So why doesn't every one act like brigand? Because we have learned to restrain ourselves and know that in this type of co-operation we win in the long run. Also, don't forget, alot is always simmering underneath and bad behavior often only takes a triggering event for the escallation to begin.