• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Lane Sharing is it time to legislate it?

Multiple levels;

-City traffic sharing up to a red light
-Hwy 24 and Hwy 13 in heavy commute traffic Friday night E/B
-W/B Bay Bridge and 101 in the AM whilst listening to Live105
That's less of a lane-sharing education and more like a lane-sharing hazing.:laughing

JFTR Send pics...for data purposes only of course *cough*. Doubt he'd out rank Toe. Or should I be scared of what I'll see?
 
Last edited:
That's less of a lane-sharing education and more like a lane-sharing hazing.:laughing

JFTR Send pics of the other guy...for data purposes only of course *cough*. Doubt he'd out rank Toe.

Mallards at Berryessa? My damn redneck husband is at it again. It's no wonder I picture Toe. uh, I picture Toe:wtf

PM Budman... He has all the pix.:rofl

roadrash.jpg
 
Lane sharing and filtering is totally common in Europe with none of the crybaby anger seen here. Why? because there is a bike friendly culture AND drivers over there have to take driving seriously. They have far fewer idiots that barely can operate a motor vehicle. Americans can be so childish about these kinds of things.
 
The fact that no effort is made to educate the public that the practice is not illegal is insane.

The fact that some riders do it horribly wrong is equally insane.
 
This is truely a great topic.... Like somebody else just said, I have been out of the loop for a bit and just got into this discussion.

In a past life as a fed (NHTSA) I also sat on this committee, or one like it... and I will use my fed experience to provide some info on this topic, I have been thinking about it for a few years. In the past few years NHTSA has done lots of studies on how to reach people with traffic safety messages. Their whole seatbelt media message (Click-it or Ticket) was designed to reach a certain age group, the group that statistics said were the least likely to use a seat belt. By identifying the group they could identify general characteristics of that group and then tailor a message and media outlets to them.

When we are talking about the car driving public as a whole there is no one media outlet or type of message that will stick with all of them, or grab their attention. This makes it difficult to get a message out to "everybody."

The same is true for the motorcycle community. You are not going to reach a harley rider the same way you are going to reach a sports bike rider, the same way you are going to reach a cruiser or a dual sport rider. And the messages themselves to these riders needs to be a little different to address them... that is what they will listen to.

...oh and I have to say that I firmly believe it is more important to educate the riding community than it is the motoring public. From my perspective, we shoot ourselves in the foot more times than we help ourselves... the majority of the riders I see are not the nicest people to people in cars.

I guess what I am saying, my experience is that there is no one size fits all for either the riding community or the driving community. So any single message will have a limited effect. But.... there was one message medium I liked alot.... the freeway message boards. You have a captive audience and it gets to most all of the people we want to get a message out to....

The two problems... limited space, and distraction. Everytime there is a message on one of those boards, traffic stacks up.

And.... the last time it was used it was a message to car drivers.... put out a message to motorcycle riders... I think this is important for two reasons... shows the car drivers that it is recognized that motorcycles can be part of the problem, and it reaches most types of riders.... How about a message like, "Riders, slow down between cars."

And last but not least, Data Dan and I have been talking about this very topic for a few months now... As always Dan is on the money and on time with what he does... I am dropping the ball on what I need to do.... My position.... when done correctly, lane sharing represents a distinct safety advantage to motorcycles... but like I said before... we shoot ourselves in the foot more times than we help ourselves..... and like most people say... it is not me... it is that other rider... that stupid (fill in the blank) motorcycle rider.

I like this idea, but choking the traffic flow is a problem, so obviously the message needs to be brief and coherent. And your idea that the message be directed to motorcyclists is an excellent way to both validate/soothe drivers frustrations AND let them know it is legit while "scolding" us riders instead of preaching to drivers.

"Motorcyclists: Slow down between cars"
"Motorcyclists: Use caution while lane-sharing"

Perfect! Great input Steve. :thumbup
 
Last edited:
Methinks we solve the cell/text/eat/makeup/tailgate/lanechangewithoutlooking issues- the perceived lane sharing one will take of itself...
 
Methinks we solve the cell/text/eat/makeup/tailgate/lanechangewithoutlooking issues- the perceived lane sharing one will take of itself...

It's coming. Cars already park themselves, keep in lane when you drift, wake you up when you snooze and brake for you when you're about to ass-pack a semi. Won't be long before they do all the driving for us and free us up for checkers, sex and fine dining in the fast lane.
 
I like this idea, but choking the traffic flow is a problem, so obviously the message needs to be brief and coherent. And your idea that the message be directed to motorcyclists is an excellent way to both validate/soothe drivers frustrations AND let them know it is legit while "scolding" us riders instead of preaching to drivers.

"Motorcyclists: Slow down between cars"
"Motorcyclists: Use caution while lane-sharing"

Double dip--warns of the traffic conditions most usually seeing sharing AND reaches both riders and drivers--

"Congested Traffic Ahead: Be Aware of Motorcycles"
"Congested Traffic: Watch for Lane Sharing Motorcycles"
"Congested Traffic: Motorcycles use caution"

From the "creating Public Policy" side I would suggest that posting anything that encourages splitting in normal or well flowing traffic will NOT get the support of people who are looking to bash the practice.
 
Double dip--warns of the traffic conditions most usually seeing sharing AND reaches both riders and drivers--

"Congested Traffic Ahead: Be Aware of Motorcycles"
"Congested Traffic: Watch for Lane Sharing Motorcycles"
"Congested Traffic: Motorcycles use caution"

From the "creating Public Policy" side I would suggest that posting anything that encourages splitting in normal or well flowing traffic will NOT get the support of people who are looking to bash the practice.

John and Budman, this really is one of the best suggestions I have seen to address this subject, particularly the 3rd one. I also liked the yellow cautionary sign somebody posted back toward the beginning.

The old highway engineering rule was not to post to many signs because it caused a distraction. This holds true with the freeway message boards. However, they are starting to diverge from this old rule. There are a number of new signs out there warning about all kinds of things.

A lot of good work by BARF on this topic.... and just so the record reflects this, I am a card carrying ABATE, MRF and AMA member and I don't like legislation of anything involving motorcycles. In this issue, the numbers just don't support legislation.
 
One area that is clearly the most contentious is the topic of lane sharing/lane splitting/filtering. There are organizations represented on the committee that would prefer to legislate and ban lane sharing. There are members that want to keep the ability to lane share. In my opinion we are close to a stalemate.
Zeroing in on the "... and ban lane sharing." part, do they have a reason why they want it banned? Looking for a valid point rather than along the lines of "they don't like it". Having a valid concern certainly is worth a starting point for educating those that do it.

Maybe I missed a response to that, too.
 
Zeroing in on the "... and ban lane sharing." part, do they have a reason why they want it banned? Looking for a valid point rather than along the lines of "they don't like it". Having a valid concern certainly is worth a starting point for educating those that do it.

Maybe I missed a response to that, too.


My take is they think it will save lives and that is part of the committees mission.
 
Double dip--warns of the traffic conditions most usually seeing sharing AND reaches both riders and drivers--

"Congested Traffic Ahead: Be Aware of Motorcycles"
"Congested Traffic: Watch for Lane Sharing Motorcycles"
"Congested Traffic: Motorcycles use caution"

From the "creating Public Policy" side I would suggest that posting anything that encourages splitting in normal or well flowing traffic will NOT get the support of people who are looking to bash the practice.

This might create a negative association between driving and motorcycles. Specially the first one.
 
This might create a negative association between driving and motorcycles. Specially the first one.

What I like about the 3rd one is it is perfectly ambiguous. Are you saying to the car driver look out for motorcycles, or are you saying to the motorcycles use caution? One message for both roadway users.
 
What I like about the 3rd one is it is perfectly ambiguous. Are you saying to the car driver look out for motorcycles, or are you saying to the motorcycles use caution? One message for both roadway users.

What I dislike about it is it doesn't do anything to make the public aware that lane sharing is legal. I much prefer the first two...
 
What I dislike about it is it doesn't do anything to make the public aware that lane sharing is legal. I much prefer the first two...

Fair enough, with one correction, lane sharing is not legal, and it is not illegal... fine line I understand. The best example I can think of off hand.... right turns on red. They are specifcally allowed in the Vehicle Code, so they are legal.
 
Fair enough, with one correction, lane sharing is not legal, and it is not illegal... fine line I understand. The best example I can think of off hand.... right turns on red. They are specifcally allowed in the Vehicle Code, so they are legal.

Well theres the old argument that there doesn't need to be a law stating something is legal. Because it is not illegal, it is legal. I will use the same example I read (in this thread maybe?)... There is no law stating I can eat sandwich, but it is totally legal. :teeth CA is the only state without a law that prohibits it.

That said, it does only take one little stroke of pen to change things.

Edit: I noticed you're a retired LEO. Is the above assessment correct, you certainly have a better understanding of the law than I do? I thought the rule was basically that there is enough on the books that if a CHP officer doesn't like what you're doing he can give you a ticket.
 
Last edited:
So where do we go from here? Is it time to push for some type of legislation?
No lane sharing at speeds in excess of 55 MPH?
Lane sharing only allowed between the #1 and #2 lanes?
No speed differential greater than 10 MPH?


I believe there’s no need for legislation if we can voluntarily regulate ourselves. Unfortunately, we all know how difficult it is to do that, but it does not mean it’s impossible to do so.

The manufacturers did it before, the famous one, the voluntary top speed cap of 186 MPH/300 KMH. The gaming industry formed their own rating committee and created their own rating system.

Sure, not all will follow/comply; some will always do whatever they want. But then again, there are still people who do that anyway even when there’s law/legislation in place. How many people still go speeding? Talk on the cell phone? Or the non-road example – steal, kill, not pay tax, etc.?

As already mentioned by some, I do believe that education is the solution. It is however more of a long-term solution.

The shorter-term solution would be posts and ads on publications. And I’m talking also on non-rider/driver related publications like Elle, Cosmopolitan, People’s Magazine, GQ, etc. We have to reach to the drivers and riders, of course, but more importantly we have to reach out to the rest of the road users.

I see this as something more serious than a lot of us think. Those who think that one’s action does NOT affect the rest, think again. It does affect the rest. Statistics (however bad some of you may think) is what used to take a measure in the society. And statistics are made of individual data provided by all of us (sampled of course, but that’s for another thread).

Before legislation, we should see how we can regulate ourselves. It can be as simple as doing the right things. Things we all have talked about like:

How fast we should go lanesharing: 55 MPH is fast for a limit. Yes it feels slow when the traffic is going 50, but by that time, we should join the traffic again anyway. Always check your speedo (if you haven’t done so regularly). I personally don’t do it above 40, but I will admit I have.

Only doing it between lane 1 and 2: I am a firm believer in this. Reasons: trying not to confuse the drivers. More and more of them are becoming more aware of this and are okay with it. I noticed this from my commute on 880 before where more people would make way for us. For that reason, I try to thank them with a wave when I can. Also going between 2 and 3 or 3 and 4 would cut the space between 1 and 2.

Speed difference of 10 MPH or less: I think spending less time between cars is safer. Of course the next question is how fast it should be before it becomes too fast.

The only reason I see to legislate it is to provide some measure of liability to both driver and rider for insurance purposes. Since there is no real data out there, insurance companies can't lobby it. However, I would love to know how much insurance companies have paid out on lane sharing mishaps for either side? My guess is not much since there hasn't been a stink raised like there was before helmet laws.

I agree that it seems the main reason to legislate it is so that there can be proper/official studies done on the subject. Even though I can only imagine that most of people doing it would be non-riders.

I've found I get a rather good response from individuals when I 1: tell them it isn't actually illegal, and 2: explain how it can ease congestion and actually increase motorcycle safety (filtering to the front at lights) when done with caution and awareness. I think there's a big information gap right now that fuels anti-lane-sharing sentiment, and that this gap should be filled before legislation is brought in. PSAs would be good; information in the DMV handbook would be good.

I’d love to see a page or two dedicated to lane-sharing than just a clause or a paragraph.

Saying goes "if it's not broken, don't fix it" is how it is with Lanesharing. Unofficially allowed because no laws against it. Traffic situations were vehicle lane sharing are mentioned in the drivers handbook.

How do you know that it’s not broken? Or if it is? What is the definition of lane-sharing being broken/not broken on the first place?

It all boils down to this: our driver education sucks. Everything else done after that is a knee jerk band-aid to cover the problem of poor driver/rider training.

Ultimately, it is the education that would be cheapest and most effective for society as a whole.

Yes and yes!

How to improve public awareness?
1) Start at the DMV.
Awareness of lane sharing should be incorporated into the DMV manual.
Signs should be posted at DMV..stating rules of the road so that while waiting for LONG LINES, we can read and be educated. Videos even better!!! Videos could point out the benefits to alleviating traffic, congestion, smog and other traffic hassles!
2.MSF and Driving Courses should also address it. Beginners should be warned of the potential hazards and made aware that it is a skill that should be Cautiously and Carefully developed over time. Start at dead stop traffic only/mirrors, use of mirrors and eyes!
3. Statewide ROAD SIGNS:: something like ALLOW (or Watch) FOR MOTORCYCLISTS WHO MAY BE SHARING LANES!!
At LEAST this gives motorists the understanding that we are out there, we are sharing and to have some consideration...whether they like it or not.
I bet that the moto communities in each town would be willing to even pitch in for signs and help to educate.

I don’t think there should be more signs, since we all know there are already 2 signs that people don’t follow/understand – YIELD and SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT. But I agree that we should ‘let people know’ better about lane-sharing.

I would also love to see a more comprehensive driver’s education. Wait, first thing first, make it mandatory for drivers to take a class before getting a license. This should cover all ages.

Our driver’s standard at best is based on the hands-down knowledge and skills from parents/uncles/aunts/relatives/friends to our kids. This includes existing/established bad habits which then compound with the new ones from the new drivers.

We need to at least establish a standard at which a driver and rider should start.

I noticed that Experienced City riders often share the RIGHT lanes only on (bay) Bridges...great example of a practical safety first issue that may not fit in a tight fit law.

Curiously, how do you know that they are experienced city riders? I hope you don’t mind the question. I understand that going through the Bay Bridge is a different animal altogether. 

I believe there is a problem with lane splitting. It is seen in the many crashes reported here on BARF and elsewhere. And sooner or later, it's going to be addressed by state government. Better for that to be on our terms than someone else's.

My preference would be to address the problem by indoctrinating riders with good lane-splitting practices. No laws, just awareness of specific risks and exercise of good judgment. But that's unlikely to be effective. When I read about riders splitting at high speed just for the fun of it or see videos of truly insane lane splitting, I know that, collectively, California riders lack the good sense to reduce lane-splitting crashes. A majority of riders splitting sensibly will not overcome the effect of a minority who either don't care or intentionally put themselves at risk.

I’m with you on that..

I don't see any point in educating drivers, except to let them know it's legal and to learn to deal with it. Pleading with them to look for lane splitters and putting responsiblity on them for safer lane splitting will have a negative effect. The 20 million California drivers who don't ride motorcycles gain next to nothing from lane splitting. A few million of them may enjoy commuting with marginally better traffic flow thanks to the 1% who commute on motorcycles rather than in cars. But if drivers are burdened with the responsibility to watch for motorcycles in places where they don't have to look for cars, or if they're held legally or financially responsible for crashes, lane splitting is all lose to them. The sensible reaction is just to support a ban it because it isn't worth the trouble.

But I do see the point in educating drivers. A lot of us riders have encountered this, where many friend/family drivers don’t even realize that lane-sharing is allowed and it is NOT illegal. By educating them even just to let them know that it is okay when done a certain way like what Roadstergal said above, it would help to make them understand better and be more aware.

Not to mention that there will be a longer-term benefit in having better education all across.

If laws are the solution, here's what I would propose:
  • Lane splitting is permitted only between two thru lanes moving in the same direction. It is NOT permitted between a thru lane and: the centerline or median; the fogline, a bicycle lane, or a merge lane; a right or left turn lane.

    The relative safety of lane splitting comes from riding between two lanes of traffic. Vehicles tend to stay in their own lanes and out of the lane-splitting space because of the presence of cars in the opposite lane. Riders should already understand this and comply with this proposed law, but they don't.
  • Lane splitting is not permitted in construction zones, or in areas with narrower than standard lanes specifically posted to prohibit splitting.

    The worst hazard in these areas is large trucks in narrow lanes. Four riders lost their lives at the 238/580 junction in lane-splitting crashes with big rigs when lanes were narrow and construction was in progress.
  • A lane-splitting motorcycle must yield to a vehicle changing lanes. If a collision occurs between a lane-splitting motorcycle and a vehicle legally changing lanes, it's the rider's fault.

    The most frequent lane-splitting crash I'm aware of is when the motorcycle hits a car changing lanes. This proposed law puts responsibility for preventing these crashes on the rider. It's the lane-splitter who has the best view to the developing situation and is in the best position to avert it.
  • If a vehicle in any lane must stop so as not to block an intersection (as required by the anti-gridlock law, 22526 VC), a lane-splitting motorcycle must yield to crossing traffic, notwithstanding any other right-of-way consideration.

    I know of a few crashes that occurred when a motorcycle split through stopped traffic into a intersection being kept clear in compliance with 22526 VC, only to slam into a crossing vehicle.

Can we keep the lane-sharing between lane 1 and 2 only? Do you think it’s a good idea to let it be all out between the other lanes as well? I think drivers get confused enough having to deal with bikes going through between 1 and 2. Adding more would only add to the chaos; we all know how much (little) attention is a lot of them have on the way they drive.

On the lane sharing issue

1st. I oppose any legislation at this point for sure.

2nd. I believe lane sharing to be valuable to motorcyclist and car drivers alike.

3rd. I don't think there is enough factual data on the subject to make very many determinations despite my own experiences. I realize mine are not enough and there are so many things (variables) that affect the practice.

4th. Any lane sharing legislation will/ should receive the full attention of motorcyclist and I have already seen that in this thread.

The only thing I believe should be done at this point is educate both motorists and motorcyclist and data collection

The education part is the most important part as that can have an immediate affect.

Data collection is great, but it must be filtered out to have it be useful by people who understand what they are looking at and to me that means include riders in the mix.

Even riders disagree on the what's and where's and will likely continue to do so.

There are several negative practices that "we" as riders do to hurt ourselves on this issue. These cause the general public to have negative feelings about us.

High Speed carving.
* Speed differential that is too great to safely make a corrective action.
* Annoying loud pipes that just piss off the cagers regardless of how safe the pass/share is.
* Dangerously aggressive manuevers.

All of these can be addressed with current law ~ However these are open to interpretation and that leaves the LEO's questioning whether to take action or not.

The problem I really see with identifying restrictions is there is always a situation where it can be safer or just as safe to do it that the law could preclude.

Examples:

If 35 was the max speed you can do it.

* Traffic flow is still sketchy going up to 45 and down to 15. Now you force the motorcyclist to use some of his attention on the speedo rather than traffic thus losing some of the mental resources available to do it safely.

* The Laguna Syndrome : Cars are moving at 20 to 50 and thousand of bikes are moving thru the vehicles. With that sort of dominance on the roadway where lines of bikes are sharing then the motorists are generally aware of our presence and will stay more lane locked and start to really pay attention before making lane changes.

If you could only do it between lane 1 and 2
* This could in cases put you in harm due to road conditions. If pavement is not level between 1 and 2, but is between 2 and 3 then it would be illegal to move to a safer condition.

I only noticed this uneven pavement joint on 101 from Palo Alto to Santa Clara. It just doesn’t make any sense how it is that way. And why is it not fixed, that’s beyond me either.

I’ve seen lane 2 drivers swerve to the right when a rider coming through between 1 and 2. Now imagine if another rider comes through between 2 and 3 a second or two behind the rider 1. I can see that being a potential dangerous situation.

* You lose the safety factor (not being rear ended) as you move to the right lanes to exit the freeway.

The list goes on and on.. and actually those examples need to be flushed out in more detail as this will continue to be a subject moving forward.

One of the good aspects of this committee is that many are riders and that includes Silversvs of course, folks within the CHP and OTS and I think the MSF folks ride too :p

I strongly feel lane sharing is valuable and as long as I am around I will fight to keep it legal... sound like I am running for office now.. :laughing

You should run for office, Budman. :)

Discussions like this are great as pieces of info get added to my brain that help with further meetings on the subject.

All of us probably have an idea or 10 on what a law should look like if there was to be one.. and many think we need to maintain the status quo. Like I said before.. I think the status quo needs to be maintained until the affects of education and a realistic view of data collection can be done.

Even then.. for me.. I don't really want a law to restrict what I feel I can do safely.

Amen to that. I believe that I’m smart enough to know how to ride safely. :)

I also touched upon DMV car and motorcycle manual and testing education, MSF education, and CHP's attending driving academy classes to educate new drivers to motorcycles. I mentioned signs and videos/dvds running at the DMV to educate during wait times.
The costs for SIGNS can be sponsored locally AND county/statewide. Hit up wealthy contributor/sponsors likeBrad Pitt, Tom Cruise, Michael Jordon, Matt le Blanc and other mc lovers who might donate money for signs. We need to work locally first and branch out to statewide.
There are MANY CLICK IT OR TICKET neon signs....can they add in WATCH FOR Motorcycles Lanesharing? Again, minimum cost. Chps can perhaps have a internet educational brochure made up that motorcyclists can download and distribute to all of the local forums and riders.
Finally, 30 second television ADS. They run em for drunk driving and click it or ticket, why not for Lanesharing? Having law enforcement be the spokespeople and cute beginner girls riding makes it more reputable and appealing. People will hear authority and see their daughters lanesharing and want to protect them, not kill them.


Agreed! A public campaign of some sort would be a good way to spread the words. If celebrities can do it, even better.

Here's another solution, no doubt already suggested. Require mandatory training for anyone wishing to obtain a motorcycle endorsement. Additionally, have a tiered licensing system where riders start out on 250's, and then progress to larger bikes.

We should add mandatory driver’s training for everyone obtaining driver’s license as well.
 
Fair enough, with one correction, lane sharing is not legal, and it is not illegal... fine line I understand. The best example I can think of off hand.... right turns on red. They are specifcally allowed in the Vehicle Code, so they are legal.

Right turns on red are not always allowed. I would argue that Lane Sharing is legal because we do not have any laws making it illegal. Just as it is ok to wear a T-Shirt to a dinner Party it's ok to Lane Share. We don't need laws to tell has how to act under every situation in life. Common sense will dictate the correct behavior for the majority of civilized society.

If you send this to the legislation it WILL be made illegal. Why? Money.

It will cost millions of dollars if they make this a law. It will cost them nothing if they make it illegal. It might even garner more revenue. Because turning right on red is not always allowed, allot of money is spent assessing each intersection and properly labeling it with signs informing motorists of the proper behavior. These are just intersections and not all intersections need this kind of oversight. With Lane Sharing, every road would need to be assessed and properly labeled for what is essentially a VERY small percentage of the motoring population when compared to cars.

The legislation will look at the big picture with little or no sympathy for a motorcyclists point of view. If anything the majority opinion will weigh the most and that will be the opinion of every anger cager who can't stand that motorcyclists don't have to "wait in line".

There's always a chance you might break something that's not broken when you try to fix it. :)
 
Just left the DMV and was pleasantly surprised to see this on the counter by each station in The Davis branch.
:ride
It's a glossy snazzy two-sided brochure just as I was hoping for!
IMGP0006-1.jpg

IMGP0007-1.jpg

IMGP0008-1.jpg

IMGP0009-1.jpg
 
Back
Top