TexasCHLforum.com

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

TVGuy wrote:We don't know the circumstances for the invalid license charge. Did he never have a class "M" license? Did he never have a license? Was it the day after his birthday and it expired?

The old man tried to kill these two people, he then had zero remorse after he saw what his actions caused. This thread is about lane splitting, which is currently illegal. Would you have an only somewhat problem if someone was lane splitting and a cage driver shot them? What about someone going 70 in a 65 (in a car), are they worthy of agg assault or attempted murder?

Some of the responses here are bizarre.

I have not seen a single post here saying that the car driver was in the right. Everyone is saying that he was wrong. A lot of folks are also saying that the motorcycle rider was in the wrong.

Did the rider "deserve" to get injured? No.

Was the car driver right to try and injure him and his passenger? No.

Was the motorcycle rider also in the wrong? Yes.

Could the rider's actions have injured someone else? Yes.

Could this whole incident have been avoided if the motorcycle rider been responsible and followed the law? Yes.

These are the consistent responses throughout this thread. Which part do you find to be "bizarre"? Do you not believe there is mutual fault here?

This is the comment that concerned me:

If he was injured while breaking the law, here's the world's smallest violin

That's the equivalent of saying "he deserved it", which as I mentioned above is bizarre.

I took it as meaning that he didn't feel sorry for the motorcycle rider, not that the rider deserved to get injured. Subtle difference, but meaningful.

If I get drunk and jump out of a second story window, do I "deserve" to break a leg? No. I haven't harmed anyone, so why would I "deserve" to be injured?

But does anyone feel sorry for me if I do break a leg? No, because I was doing something reckless and stupid that led to my injury.

Not sure how you don't see the difference there. In the example above, you chose to jump out of the window (stupidly) and got hurt. This is not the same as the incident we are discussing.

Let's make it the same...

We are at a party and Soccerdad is drunk. He acts like he might and tells me he will jump out of the window, so I grab some large knives out of the kitchen and jam them in the ground below, pointing upward toward the window.

Soccerdad jumps and thinks it's a good idea to pull his girlfriend out with him, both land on the knives and nearly die.

Yes, Soccerdad made a poor decision. By putting the knives down there I was a complete moron and criminally responsible.

There is a reason the old man is in prison and the rider only got a couple of tickets.

I'm not advocating breaking the law. I've never driven without a license, or insurance. I can't say I've never driven or ridden over the speed limit. The number of people driving without a license or insurance makes me frustrated, but that doesn't mean I'm going to open fire on one.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

TVGuy wrote:We don't know the circumstances for the invalid license charge. Did he never have a class "M" license? Did he never have a license? Was it the day after his birthday and it expired?

The old man tried to kill these two people, he then had zero remorse after he saw what his actions caused. This thread is about lane splitting, which is currently illegal. Would you have an only somewhat problem if someone was lane splitting and a cage driver shot them? What about someone going 70 in a 65 (in a car), are they worthy of agg assault or attempted murder?

Some of the responses here are bizarre.

I have not seen a single post here saying that the car driver was in the right. Everyone is saying that he was wrong. A lot of folks are also saying that the motorcycle rider was in the wrong.

Did the rider "deserve" to get injured? No.

Was the car driver right to try and injure him and his passenger? No.

Was the motorcycle rider also in the wrong? Yes.

Could the rider's actions have injured someone else? Yes.

Could this whole incident have been avoided if the motorcycle rider been responsible and followed the law? Yes.

These are the consistent responses throughout this thread. Which part do you find to be "bizarre"? Do you not believe there is mutual fault here?

This is the comment that concerned me:

If he was injured while breaking the law, here's the world's smallest violin

That's the equivalent of saying "he deserved it", which as I mentioned above is bizarre.

We don't know the circumstances for the invalid license charge. Did he never have a class "M" license? Did he never have a license? Was it the day after his birthday and it expired?

The old man tried to kill these two people, he then had zero remorse after he saw what his actions caused. This thread is about lane splitting, which is currently illegal. Would you have an only somewhat problem if someone was lane splitting and a cage driver shot them? What about someone going 70 in a 65 (in a car), are they worthy of agg assault or attempted murder?

Some of the responses here are bizarre.

Oh, by the way he was cited at the scene for both "invalid license" and passing in a no-passing zone, so he was punished. I'm still mesmerized that someone could think those infractions could make it OK to try and kill them.

ninjabread wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:

WTR wrote:I agree with the punishment. However. The motorcycle driver should face punishment also.

Passing in no passing zone and possibly speeding is all I see.

Reports said he didn't have a motorcycle license, so I see a squid who shouldn't be on the street in the first place, riding aggressively and hurting the public image of motorcyclists.

If he was injured while breaking the law, here's the world's smallest violin

Seriously? The guy was ridden off the road and caused to wreck intentionally by some jerk. It could have easily killed he and his girlfriend. You think it's no big deal and have no sympathy because of a couple of minor infractions?

He shouldn't have been on the road if he didn't have a license (first report I've heard of that), but the psychotic old man didn't know that. It wouldn't have mattered if he did. That old man is the same kind of jerk that would pull a knife on you for accidentally skipping him in a line at Luby's.

Liberty wrote:

bmwrdr wrote: ... motorcycles also have a smaller carbon footprint and if one splits lanes he may make it to work on time while the car driver is late. Because there is no A/C on a motorcycle moving is essential to avoid a heat stroke and therefor it should be allowed to split lanes.

I've heard people complain about the bikes themselves overheating due to lack of airflow.

This is especially true on air cooled bikes.

At 5 MPH you could easily stop if there was an issue. Where lane splitting is legal (CA and most of the rest of the world) and people know about it, many drivers move over just a bit to help the flow of bikes when they notice them.

As for the shoulder - I don't know the ramifications of the bill as it's written, but I'd imagine you could split to the left of the left lane...near the shoulder at least. The speed restrictions are a must, I don't think anyone wants bikes going 65 in between stopped cars or on the shoulder.

I don't know the safety of the shoulder Vs. regular splitting.

bnc wrote:It doesn't grant anyone more rights since there is nothing legally stopping a car driver from becoming a motorcycle rider.

Traffic would be greatly reduced that way as well.

http://www.tmleuven.be/project/motorcyc ... g/home.htm

If only 10% of vehicles on the road were motorcycles, there would be 40% less congestion.

seph wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

seph wrote: Slightly does not cut it for me. Would need to see the data for the number of crashes that this would cause. Got a study to show that?

The info says it reduces crashes, so what do you mean by "number of crashes it would cause"?

The study shows 1163 crashes due to lane splitting but does not show how many crashes that would be prevented. Ie. the number of crashes where motorcycles are rear ended while sitting in traffic. The article is also very one sided and conducted out of Berkeley, so.

I would be against this law. It is bad enough being in roads and freeways in high traffic, but now you would have to watch out for cutting through the traffic.

It's very difficult to use an event that didn't happen as data. For example, how many robberies never happened in 2016 because of the number of CHLs in TX? You come up with that answer and I'll work on the other.

MechAg94 wrote:I generally don't think motorcycles should have any more rights on the road than any other vehicle. I would be curious to see the sources for this idea that it is a help to safety.

Also, as much as I see people jumping between lanes in Houston traffic, I can see this causing more traffic problems in heavy traffic than it solves.

MechAg94 - It's not about having more rights (although as motorcyclists we must watch out more carefully for ourselves since we are not protected by a cage). This lessens traffic for EVERYONE. It doesn't slow car traffic by moving to the front and it eases congestion by taking the number of vehicles out of the line.

seph wrote: Slightly does not cut it for me. Would need to see the data for the number of crashes that this would cause. Got a study to show that?

The info says it reduces crashes, so what do you mean by "number of crashes it would cause"?

JustSomeOldGuy wrote:Yeah, means one more place I have to look out for Squids that are too dumb to look out for themselves......

on another note, many of the Harleys I've seen lately, especially the ones with 'ape hangers' won't FIT between the lanes of traffic. I suspect we'll be getting some new youtube videos out of this one if it passes........

The widest of bikes will fit between cars in the middle of standard lanes. It may look tight from the car, but it's not at all.

PBratton wrote:As a life long biker, I see this to be an incredibly dangerous thing to do.

No offense meant, but that's an opinion and not correct. It's been proven to be safe in multiple studies. It's safer for the biker and increases traffic flow for all.

Note the restrictions on lane splitting. We're not talking about overtaking someone at highway speeds. Overall speed of traffic must be under 20 MPH and speed differential of bike to cars must be less than 5 MPH.

Think stop lights or bumper to bumper freeway and the bike idles by in first with little throttle, if any.

locke_n_load wrote:
Got any studies or links for how lane splitting is safer? Just always seemed like a good way to run into someone (I ride). Thanks!

http://newatlas.com/motorcycle-lane-spl ... rch/34425/

NHTSA:

A motorcycle’s narrow width can allow it to pass between lanes of stopped or slow-moving cars on roadways where the lanes are wide enough to offer an adequate gap. This option can provide an escape route for motorcyclists who would otherwise be trapped or struck from behind. There is evidence (Hurt, 1981) that traveling between lanes of stopped or slow-moving cars (i.e., lane splitting) on multiple-lane roads (such as interstate highways) slightly reduces crash frequency compared with staying within the lane and moving with other traffic.

On a side note, I can't believe I found something I agree w/ Sen. Watson about.