• 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.

Lanesplitting/Sharing in Oregon - Bay Area to represent

Marcoose said:
The joke is on self-described funny men not getting (subtle, yet obvious) sarcasm. Precious!
Click to expand...

Oh, I got it. But it was a tired joke on a topic that tends to permeate some motorcyclists' uninformed take on what the AMA does.

As for your commentary here, it's rather ironic, given that you were so butthurt about the most miniscule perceived slight that you now don't speak to me in person. So back off with your special brand of "insight" since there are serious matters being discussed here. I'm done with this—if you have something to say to me, take it to PMs or talk to me in person.
 
Surj said:
Presumably they'll be involved and helping. As I'm sure you know, the AMA is pro-splitting.

There's a lot more behind the scenes here that I'm not going to comment on—this particular phase is just starting up, although the efforts in Oregon date back many years. But to be clear, it's not "our efforts." We have been asked to join discussions and will obviously help out however we can, but since we're not Oregon residents, that limits direct efforts to assistance.



Solid commentary, presumably coming from someone who's actually made an impact. Right? :rolleyes

Here's the AMA's actual position on helmet use. I don't agree with some of it, and the AMA ain't perfect, but if you can find me a shred of explicit promotion of not wearing a helmet, I'll make your next insurance payment.

In other words, there's enough ignorance in conversations about splitting without motorcyclists contributing to it (more).

--

For the doubters, note that (as stated above), these efforts have been underway in OR for close to a decade, including a previous formal literature review and several bills. I introduced Dr. Rice to some folks up there a couple years ago, and have been working with people on gathering information and playbook even before this latest development.

So don't write it off, but don't expect a law this year, either. Remember, getting something on the books in California, where splitting was already legal and widely accepted, took several years.
Click to expand...

Yeah, aware that the AMA is pro-splitting. Just haven't seen them working as hard on splitting and mainly see emails about repealing helmet laws or MC only checkpoints. While I understand things may be going on behind the scenes, to the outsider, their efforts are less than stellar.
 
Surj said:
...you now don't speak to me in person.
Click to expand...

Don't I have to see you in person in order to speak to you in person? You don't call me to coffee, lunch, rides, etc. When am I going to speak to you? :dunno But wait, do I have a reason to not to speak to you in person? Have you crossed me, wrong me, deride me? You never do that kind of stuff. You're BARF's #1 sweetheart.

But 10-4, you decide what is or is not a joke, what is or is not minuscule.
 
RightCoastBias said:
Yeah, aware that the AMA is pro-splitting. Just haven't seen them working as hard on splitting and mainly see emails about repealing helmet laws or MC only checkpoints. While I understand things may be going on behind the scenes, to the outsider, their efforts are less than stellar.
Click to expand...

I’m not here to defend the AMA, though I am a member. I have plenty of beef with their effectiveness but the reality is that it’s a small organization that’s limited in what it can do at the state level, but is trying to do more at that level by enabling local members—which is extremely difficult. I think it’s unrealistic for them to be hands-on advocates for splitting laws at the state level, even if I think other areas of focus are silly. That has to be handled by residents of each state, and the AMA should support them, which is what I expect will happen here, just as it did in California.

For what it’s worth, I scanned all my AMA emails from the last two months and didn’t see any helmet law mentions, although the bullshit profiling law did get some attention, as it should since I’m a California resident. I assume they segment their list, so you may be getting different stuff than me, but I haven’t seen a lot of evidence recently to support the old complaint that all they do is try to fight helmet laws.

If you want the AMA to function differently, you should join and try to effect that change. Your other options are really to join a different MRO, of which the choices are slim and even more ineffective, or to not support any organization at all.
 
Surj said:
I’m not here to defend the AMA, though I am a member. I have plenty of beef with their effectiveness but the reality is that it’s a small organization that’s limited in what it can do at the state level, but is trying to do more at that level by enabling local members—which is extremely difficult. I think it’s unrealistic for them to be hands-on advocates for splitting laws at the state level, even if I think other areas of focus are silly. That has to be handled by residents of each state, and the AMA should support them, which is what I expect will happen here, just as it did in California.

For what it’s worth, I scanned all my AMA emails from the last two months and didn’t see any helmet law mentions, although the bullshit profiling law did get some attention, as it should since I’m a California resident. I assume they segment their list, so you may be getting different stuff than me, but I haven’t seen a lot of evidence recently to support the old complaint that all they do is try to fight helmet laws.

If you want the AMA to function differently, you should join and try to effect that change. Your other options are really to join a different MRO, of which the choices are slim and even more ineffective, or to not support any organization at all.
Click to expand...

I was a member for many years, but got sick of the aforementioned types of emails. I understand why they fight the helmet laws, it's what a lot of AMA folks are interested in.

In recent months I've considered rejoining. I'd like to see the effort/money/resources they put into fighting helmet laws/mc "profiling" into lane splitting, no matter how small it may be.

I also get what you're saying, it's up to "us" to change shit as we want it, and not rely on paying $50 to a small org and expect them to do it for us. I don't disagree.
 
Alright already enough of poking and uncalled for words.
This is all about a good thing we are allowed to do here potentially done someplace else.

Lets support Budman & Surj and unite for what we are blessed to do here.:thumbup
 
Whammy said:
Alright already enough of poking and uncalled for words.
This is all about a good thing we are allowed to do here potentially done someplace else.

Lets support Budman & Surj and unite for what we are blessed to do here.:thumbup
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
Keep an eye for moto groups pushing for it and let them know they have some advocates from down south. Happy to do whatever I can to help.
 
RightCoastBias said:
Legalize lanesplitting

Make it illegal to impede a lanesplitting motorcyclist

Educate drivers on the above via new driver training, radio/print/tv campaigns.

Law enforcement to enforce laws.

Then, in time, people will adjust.
Click to expand...
^^^This

:thumbup

takes time, but is a winnable fight! totally helps to have BARF, AMA, and LEO's pushing the cause!
 
well... the meeting was interesting.

They gave the floor to Surj and I at the beginning to share our experiences in CA. They allowed us way more time than the other participants. They ran the meeting on the clock.. military like.

Each speaker got 4 minutes. PERIOD.

There were some for it and some against. (Trucking rep and LEO's).
The one cool thing was Oregon seems open to working with CA on further analysis of Dr. Rice's study. That would be cool.

We will see where this goes.
I will add more detail after another meeting.
 
budman said:
well... the meeting was interesting.

They gave the floor to Surj and I at the beginning to share our experiences in CA. They allowed us way more time than the other participants. They ran the meeting on the clock.. military like.

Each speaker got 4 minutes. PERIOD.

There were some for it and some against. (Trucking rep and LEO's).
The one cool thing was Oregon seems open to working with CA on further analysis of Dr. Rice's study. That would be cool.

We will see where this goes.
I will add more detail after another meeting.
Click to expand...

Trucking rep and LEOs were against?
 
Yup... both.

Trucking rep said... "Hard to see... Dangerous etc"
LEO said that dealing with fatal's would greatly affect traffic as they take 4-7 hours to deal with.

I came back at him on the types of injuries that were noted in the study being less invasive than typical rear end accidents and other :blah.
Already making friends..:p
 
budman said:
Yup... both.

Trucking rep said... "Hard to see... Dangerous etc"
LEO said that dealing with fatal's would greatly affect traffic as they take 4-7 hours to deal with.

I came back at him on the types of injuries that were noted in the study being less invasive than typical rear end accidents and other :blah.
Already making friends..:p
Click to expand...

I wonder if it would be beneficial to have a CHP rep with you guys to talk to the Oregon LEOs about CHP experiences with lane splitting?
 
I think that reach out, that would be good.

Thanks for the suggestion Ho Ho.
 
RightCoastBias said:
Sounds like an anecdotal response from LEOs/Truckers. IIRC, the data doesn't back them up.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. I get frustrated because it often feels like people in other states just start listing reasons to say no, without looking at the data: the LEO rep was definitely doing this, and it wasn't a surprise. Those mindsets will have to be worked on over time.

But if you look at splitting fatalities, many involve trucks. It's not the fault of splitting, but splitting next to trucks, of course. The trucking rep also mentioned their blind spots and concerns that they'll move over on bikes without even knowing they're there. So there are legitimate concerns mixed with preconceived notions.
 
well put Surj.

The trucking group does have legit concerns. Unfortunately riders add to that perspective by applying the practice next to them that sometimes have bad results. Probably one of the easiest things to avoid and one of the things that can send you home in a box.
 
There were 18 lane-splitting fatalities in the 2012-13 SafeTREC study (12 in the CHP-reported subset), so it's not an imaginary problem.

I have kept track of the lane-splitting deaths reported by the media from LE sources--12-16 per year 2014-present, and about half involve large trucks. Truckers and LEOs make fair points. The solution is rider awareness of the problem. We don't do a very good job of that here in CA. Oregon should take note of the problem and include a solution in their plan.

EDIT: Bud and Surj just made the same point.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top