In the MSF course, we talk about a "ladder of risk" and a "crash chain" of causation, where the more risk factors are present, the more likely a crash will happen. So, in those 13 crashes, were the riders just innocently splitting between 1 and 2, with a speed delta of less than 15 mph when a car quickly changed lanes and took them out in every case? Or were they splitting, being inattentive, unaware of the width of their bike (that happened in one case, I'm pretty sure) drunk, or riding in poor visibility/road conditions? If so, splitting was just one factor of many, not the primary cause. It kind of surprises me that you see it otherwise.
That's a good point: What else was going on that may have contributed to the crash? Would it have been likely even if the rider weren't splitting?
My unstated assumption that splitting was the crucial factor is a result of reading about these crashes for a long time. Circumstances generally haven't suggested to me that riders are taking excessive risk in other ways. But that's just an impression. So I revisited the Bay Area lane-splitting deaths more objectively, to see what other risks were present. This is what I found:
- All occurred on weekdays, between 6:00am and 6:00pm.
- All but one occurred on a freeway (exception was a busy surface street).
- Alcohol was not a factor; the only rider above .00 was a .03 at 4:15pm.
- All riders had valid motorcycle licenses.
- 9 riders were age 45+, 2 were under 30.
- 7 motorcycles were cruisers, 2 sportbikes, 1 tourer, 1 sport-tourer.
Here are 11 of the 12 Bay Area lane-splitting deaths I know about since 2004. I've omitted the 2004 death of a moto-LEO. And, in the 13 crashes I mentioned previously, I had erroreously included a Tracy crash. Since I have not included San Joaquin County in my other Bay Area analyses, I shouldn't include the lane-splitting crash.
lanes
|
mc speed
|
traf speed
|
description
unknown | 48 | unknown | hit car that changed lanes in traffic slowing for another crash
1-2 | 18 | 15 | crashed under braking next to truck; fell under trailer
1-2 | 15 | 8 | hit truck; fell under trailer
unknown | 55 | 35 | split into slowing traffic, hit car, fell under big-rig trailer
1-2 | 63 | 38 | swerved into SUV that had changed lanes; fell under car
1-2 | unknown | 25 | attempting to split at "high speed", hit trailer
unknown | 33 | 33 | hit bus while splitting, fell under tires
1-2 | 30 | 5 | hit two-axle truck, fell under big rig in opposite lane
1-2 | 20 | unknown | hit big rig
unknown | 75 | unknown | swerved to avoid lane changer and fell
1-2 | 70 | 60 | split between truck and car; hit one, then the other, and fell
With a few exceptions, these riders weren't at uncommon speeds and deltas. Most of us have been there, if only briefly. These riders were generally following the "rules" but didn't recognize the threats that tragically took them out.
The BARF threads about splitting crashes (link to my post earlier in this thread) are similar. None of those riders was doing anything stupid. They just fell victim to unanticipated danger.
That's why I worry about the future of lane splitting in California. Motorcyclists have doubled in number in the past 10 years, and more are commuting. Splitting to cut down time on the road is a big attraction. But many inexperienced splitters have a rosy impression about safety that comes from the fact of legality ("if it's legal, it
must be safe, otherwise Our Government wouldn't let us do it"), the supportive attitude of the motorcycling community, and a few overly simple rules. They will eventually get a reality check--hopefully, without crashing. It would be better if noobs learned early that it
is dangerous and exactly where the risks are, and accepted sole responsibility for their own safety.
). They give all of them a survey to fill out, then rate their answers which covers street and dirt riding. Most of them didn't fill it out, but its interesting to see the answers of those that did. You can actually see the surveys in their own handwriting. 
