Lane-splitting submission

Hi all,

Comments about the draft road rules need to be in by 20 Jan. I just sent
mine, here is the text for anyone who wants to butcher it,

Brett

I have been a motorcyclist for 30 years and am a long term motorcycle
commuter and I am writing to express my concern about section 4.34 of the
Amendment Package. I am concerned about the negative impact that New Rule
151A will have on motorcycling in Australia and its impact in particular on
my daily travel, the anti-motorcycle bias displayed in the wording of the
package and the apparent lack of research undertaken in the framing of this
rule.

As urban traffic congestion continues to increase motorcycles and motor
scooters have become a growing section of the transport spectrum. If used in
a way that takes advantage of their characteristics of small size,
manoeuvrability and quick acceleration motorcycles are an efficient form of
personal transport that can reduce fuel consumption, traffic congestion,
road wear, and parking congestion. Some jurisdictions such as the
Netherlands have already legalised lane-splitting or filtering through
stationary and slow moving traffic, others such as Britain where
lane-splitting has never been specifically illegal are acknowledging
lane-splitting as a legitimate aid in the fight to reduce urban traffic
congestion.[ii]

New Rule 151A is intended to ban lane-splitting, ostensibly as a safety
measure, but really in order 'to impose the same behaviour on motor bike
riders as is already the case with other motor vehicles during the process
of overtaking.'[iii] The rule fails to take into consideration the special
characteristics of the motorcycle and if enforced would negate the benefits
of these characteristics.

Like many others I commute by motorcycle because I like riding but mostly
because commuting by motorcycle is cheaper and much faster than commuting by
car. I work 12 hour shifts and do not want to spend another three hours
each work day in travel time. Because I lane-split my travel time is
consistent regardless of the traffic congestion and is about half the time I
take in my car. Rather than causing 'minimal time delays'[iv] the rule
change will force commuting motorcyclists to conform to the stop-start
characteristics of urban car travel.

This new rule will cause increased congestion as riders are forced sit in
the traffic mimicking the behaviour of the cars around them or revert to the
comfort of their air-conditioned car with its increased fuel usage. Many
riders will choose to ignore the rule in the knowledge that they will be
very unlucky to be booked. Those who obey will have their exposure to risk
increased as their travel time increases.

The use of the emotive and inaccurate phrases 'cult belief' and 'an
inherently dangerous practice' highlights the anti-motorcycle bias of the
drafters. If the drafters had researched the issue they would have found
that rather than being 'inherently dangerous' lane-splitting has positive
safety benefits. Ellis states that the Hurt Report found that 'there was an
improved margin for safety for motorcycles when filtering' [v] In particular
lane-splitting reduces the likelihood of the rider being rear-ended which is
a major cause of traffic accidents, for example, almost a quarter of all
Queensland traffic accidents in 2002 were rear end collisions.[vi] The
VicRoads Oxford Systematics report finds that 'no examples have yet been
located where such filtering has yet been the cause of an accident.'[vii]
Victoria Police and NSW Ambulance motorcyclists acknowledge that
lane-splitting is an effective and safe method of moving through congested
traffic.[viii]

New Rule 151A will have the opposite effect to its stated aim and will
actually increase the danger that riders experience. Lane-splitting at low
speed is not unsafe and should be encouraged as an aid to reducing traffic
congestion. Lane-splitting at a dangerous speed is already covered by
Dangerous Driving rules. New Rule 151A should be scrapped and replaced with
a rule explicitly legalising the practice.





Ellis, T. MRA Submission to The Inquiry into managing Transport
Congestion Victoria 2006,Available at: http://www.mra.org.au, p 2.
[ii] Department for Transport, The Governments Motorcycling Strategy, Feb
2005. Available at
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_035439.pdf,
pp 5, 13.
[iii] Australian Road Rules Amendment Package 2005 Draft RIS p 17
[iv] ARRAP 2005 p 17
[v] Ellis, p 3.
[vi] Ellis, p 3.
[vii] Oxford Systematics, Motorcycle Transport - powered two wheelers in
Victoria, VicRoads, 2000, Available at:
http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/vrpdf/trum/oxford2000vol1_1f.pdf, p 51.
[viii] Oxford, p 33.

 

Brett,

Standing to appause your work. I share precisely your sentiments and add
that I feel much safer being able to get to the front of the lights queue
and be out on my own after the green change. This is also a. what I was
taught (perhaps unofficially) at HART and b. what countless police have said
to me over the years on this very question.

Thanks for posting this Brett and I'm sure your efforts are appreciated by
all of us, certainly by yours truly.

Cheers,
Dave E

 

Dave E wrote:

Absolutely. Ten points.

 

Thanks I thought about putting in some stuff about that but decided two
pages was long enough, any longer and the safety guru's attention may waver


Brett

 

Well written.

I have also submitted comments that because the new rule explicitly
requires motor bikes to move into an adjacent lane or line of traffic
when overtaking other vehicles this places riders at higher risk of
injury and causes increased travel time as the following scenarios
demonstrate.

Scenario 1.
Motor bike is to overtake another vehicle stopped but not parked in the
lane. An example is a stopped vehicle waiting to perform a turn.
Current behaviour: Select the safest option to overtake within the lane
of the stopped vehicle, adjacent lane, or line of traffic.
Rule 151A behaviour: If it is legal and safe to overtake using an
adjacent lane or line of traffic overtake the vehicle. If it is
illegal or unsafe to overtake using an adjacent lane or line of
traffic, stop behind the vehicle until the other vehicle either parks,
exits the lane, it becomes safe to overtake using an adjacent lane or
line of traffic, or the vehicle resumes travel.
Risk impact of Rule 151A: In situations it is less risky to overtake
within the same lane of the other vehicle than the other options, the
motor bike must use the riskier option such as an oncoming line of
traffic. In situations it is safe to overtake within the lane of the
other vehicle, but illegal or unsafe to move into an adjacent lane or
line of traffic, the motor bike must stop, both delaying the motorbike
and increasing the risk of a rear end collision. Other vehicle types
commonly use the option to overtake safely within the same lane as the
other vehicle and will not expect the motor bike to behave according to
Rule 151A.

Scenario 2.
Motor bike is to overtake another vehicle that has moved over within
the lane to allow other vehicle to overtake. An example is a slow
vehicle travelling on a two lane road, moves over to allow other
vehicles to overtake without using the oncoming line of traffic..
Current behaviour: Select the safest option to overtake within the lane
of the vehicle, or oncoming line of traffic.
Rule 151A behaviour: If it is legal and safe to overtake using an
oncoming line of traffic overtake the vehicle. If it is illegal or
unsafe to overtake using an oncoming line of traffic, remain behind
the vehicle until it becomes safe and legal to overtake using an
oncoming line of traffic.
Risk impact of Rule 151A: In situations it is less risky to overtake
within the same lane of the other vehicle than the other options, the
motor bike must use the riskier option such as an oncoming line of
traffic. In situations it is safe to overtake within the lane of the
other vehicle, but illegal or unsafe to move into an adjacent lane or
line of traffic, the motor bike must remain behind the other vehicle,
both delaying the motorbike and increasing the risk of a rear end
collision. Other vehicle types commonly use the option to overtake
safely within the same lane as the other vehicle and will not expect
the motor bike to behave according to Rule 151A.

In summary, Rule 151A will force motor bikes to behave differently from
other vehicle types, and increase their risk of injury and travel
times. The practise of unsafe overtaking of other vehicles within the
same lane by a motor bike is already covered in Rules 140 (No
overtaking unless safe to do so) and Rule 144 (Keeping a safe distance
when overtaking).

 

I'd say this would be the primary reason why lane splitting is being phased
out. As more and more motorcycles/scooters attempt to lane split due to
their rising popularity, there is only limited room up front. I've seen this
congestion quite a few times in peak hour traffic where you have 6 or more
motorcycles trying to squeeze in front. I've seen the results and its not
good. Its only going to get worse.

The advantages of motorcycling will be a victim of its own popularity.

 

advanced stop lines would fix that.

Brett

 

Be careful what you wish for....you might just get it. :-|

Certainly, in Sydney, a system using advanced stop lines for Motorcycles
and scooters, and, obviously, retarded stop lines for cars, would cause
too much in the way of rear-end accidents.

The silly car drivers pay money to have a GPS which tells them if the
light they are approaching has a red-light camera.

What does that tell you about their intentions to stop if it doesn't?

regards,
CrazyCam

 

****, That's really scary!

Theo

 

I'm quite sure that is not the reason why they are purchased.

An whats with the "silly car drivers" business? Are we somehow superior
beings because we are motorcyclists? Yes, there are plenty of "silly" car
drivers about. There is also no shortage of "silly" motorcyclists either. I
help scrape them off the road almost daily We are all road users and
carry responsibilities. There seems to be a growing trend in the "eliteness
mentaility" among us.

I suggest its purely and simply we like to *think* we are somehow cast from
a different mold, but we ain't, I'm sorry to report

 

As a member of both groups (silly car and bike rider...oops...drop the
silly)....

I see more silly actions performed by car drivers than bike riders (silly
defined as any of dangerous, stupid, inattentive, reckless, inconsiderate,
"oops", rude, aggressive...that'll do).

Yes, there are more cars (defined to include...car, taxi, 4WD, ute, 4WD,
taxi, taxi, 4wd) than bikes so, statistically, until there are more bikes
than cars and the anecdotal observation of bike to car silliness ratio
switches....

....Crazycam's tag of silly <insert vehicle> driver remains valid.

Apart from the above, silly car drivers are inherently less-focussed on
roadcraft than motorcycle riders...
distractions abound such as ...radio, makeup/teethpicking sessions, eating,
smoking, chatting to fellow passengers, chatting on phone, chatting to the
radio despatcher, juggling the street directory on the knees, juggling cup
of coffee and croissant, juggling partner's rudey bits (eeewwwww!), etc
etc...

None of the above distractions are terribly capably reproduced on a
motorcycle.

alx

 

In a lot of parts of NZ they have cycle lanes which are probably about a
metre wide and also extend a couple of metres beyond the stop lines at
intersections. These things are tarsealed green like our red bus lanes so
stand out like dog's balls to all and sundry.
Something like that would certainley make life easier for us (oh and the
bicycle crowd too

 

Great idea.

 

Y'know, another thing about having a motorcycle specific law regarding
lanesplitting is that currently there are at least 2 laws that already
apply to all vehicles. Thus, if a car commits the same offense, they
get the same punishment.

Seems they want to be able to nail motorcycles harder than cars when
they do things that motorcycles are inherently better at doing.
<scratches head> looks kinda bassackwards from where I'm riding.

 

Some cop or traffic rulemaker or lawyer or judge (or more than one) got
really pissed off when passed on the inside by a motorcycle and is/are
doing all they can to make sure they aren't allowed to do it again.

That's my guess.

Same mentality as banning chewing gum altogether in Singapore because
some government person sat on chewing gum in the train.

 

Their green is our red? No wonder they have problems at traffic lights.

Theo

 

Nor a waiver that says they aren't all silly.

Of course, but people on BMWs think they are 'more' superior.

Theo

 

The whole business of over-legislation in response to a high road toll
is totally out of context with the reasons for the toll in the first
place. It is obvious that the toll will increase in relation to the
amount of vehicles currently using the road. But why does this warrant
the increase in stupid legislation? Banning lane splitting while
stationary is probably one of the more demented things to put into
legislation, but there are other f#%ked up rulings that have passed
with no propper studies into their impact.

Things like the 40km/h zones which change according to the time of day,
and (supposedly?) during school holidays. Do we all have to memorise,
or keep a book stating the holiday schedule - and what if I didn't know
the time?? Either make it 40 constantly, or not at all, but don't
fluctuate a speed limit for F#$k's sake.

What about 110km/h zones as opposed to 100km/h zones.... has anyone
travelled north up the Princess hwy lately from Melbourne to Sale? -
who is deciding that 100km/h is safe in one section, but not the other
- is it a knee jerk reaction to an incident on that section to revert
an existing 110km/h zone back to a 100 zone? Of course it is. The road
traffic authorities seem to believe that they can make the road toll go
down, while stamping the registration of hundreds of thousands of new
drivers every year. It just doesn't work like that. The more drivers,
the bigger toll. Its not that hard to work out. Unfortunately, there is
a sever lack of smart authority to actually make things safer.

The authorities of our roads could help motorcycle riders to be safer
by enforcing the following things with much greater emphasis than they
currently do:

- Booking people that sit in the R/H lane traveling slower that the
left lane.
- Booking drivers for not indicating when they change lanes
- Booking trucks from not securing their load, or over-filling their
trailer.
- Fining any vehicle leaking oil onto the road.
- Fining councils that do not warn road users or clean up
oil/gravel/pot holes, or shitty tarmac.
- Educating drivers (particularly towing caravans and trailers) to not
sit in the right hand side of a two-way section of highway.
- Educating drivers to not sit in traffic one foot away from the next
car beside them to allow for lane splitting at stationary or slow
speeds.

My 2c.
G.

 

Constant 40kph around schools are a stupid idea. There are kids around
schools for about 1-1.5 hours per day. For the other 22-22.5 hours they
are not. Schools immediately around should be 60 zones... every other
street in the suburb should be 40kph.

Nev..

 

You're right. Most people on BMWs think we're most superior.

-----sharks