My Lane Splitting rule submission #1

(Note: If you're going to make a submission, pull your finger out, they're
due in by tomorrow... big)

I'm writing in regards to the proposal in section 4.34 of the ARR
Amendments.

I'm concerned about reasoning behind the need for this proposed new rule.

The proposal opens by saying 'It is a common practice for motor bike riders
to "split lanes"', but further on in the Costs section it says 'it is not
possible to estimate how many motor bike riders currently split lanes'.
While the second statement shows the first is only an assumption, it's also
clearly wrong. There are many ways one could use to come up with a
supportable estimate of how many riders split lanes. The RTA in NSW run a
large network of traffic monitoring cameras, a study of these cameras could
easily be organised to provide a good estimate. The resources required to
conduct such a study would be well worthwhile investing before passing laws
based only on assumptions.

The proposal mentions Australian Road Rule rule 140, but then confuses the
safety of an overtaking maneuver with whether or not a rider 'moves
completely into an adjacent lane'. Rule 140 says 'A driver must not
overtake a vehicle unless ... the driver can safely overtake the vehicle.',
so if an overtaking maneuver in the same lane is unsafe, then its already
covered by rule 140, and if its not covered by rule 140, then by definition
it is safe.

The proposal then goes on to say that splitting lanes is an inherently
dangerous practice, but in the in next paragraph contradicts itself by
saying 'If it is safe, a motorbike may pass another motorbike in the same
lane.' The proposal clearly recognises that there are some situations where
a motorcycle can safely pass another motorcycle in the same lane, without
considering that there are times where a motorcycle can safely overtake a
car in the same lane.

The proposal fails to identify a problem that is not already dealt with by
existing rules. The justification for this new rule is based on a
contradiction, a failure to take into account existing rules, an
assumption, and an admission of the proposals authors inability to think of
a way to test that assumption. The implications of this lack of rigour on
the proposals assessments of the impacts, costs, and benefits are not
comforting.

I'm particularly dubious about the claimed benefits of this proposed new
rule.

There are no safety benefits attributable to this proposed rule that are
not already completely gained by Rule 140. There can be no additional
reduction in crash risk or road trauma gained by this rule, since there can
be neither crashes nor road trauma if riders overtake safely, as already
required. If there is a safety issue (and the proposal has not identified
one), then enforcement of rule 140 will solve it. If there is no safety
issue, then there's no possible safety benefit from this new rule.

The only remaining benefit claimed by the proposal is that it will achieve
'a cohesive set of rules'. Adding 'special case' rules for motorcycles will
actually reduce the 'cohesion of the rules', especially since the new rule
proposal is so badly worded that it seems to intend to make fairly common
situations different for motorcycles and cars - does it really intend, for
example, to make it illegal for a motorcycle to pass a slow moving garbage
truck on an un-lane-marked street where rule 133 and 140 explicitly allow
other vehicles to do so?

Since the basis for proposing this new rule is completely unfounded, and
the claimed benefits cannot possibly be achieved, its clear the proposal is
entirely without merit.

regards,

Iain Chalmers

 

Good submission Ian..

"cohesive" rules...


Do the Rule Changes contemplate also banning cars from overtaking
motorcycles in the same lane?

Is this situation covered already?

 

Existing rules #133 and 139 explicitly allow that.

big

 

So why can a CAR overtake a motorcycle but a MOTORCYCLE cannot overtake a
CAR?

 

Because the people who make the rules drive cars.

Theo

 

bugga! No one told me this before! Selling the bike tomorrow.

 

Iain,
I haven't read much of this thread but I read your #1 and #2 submissions
today at work and I have to say fucking "bravo"! You nailed it!
Well done sir.

 

The VACC have also now kicked into the debate in support of
motorcyclists. http://tinyurl.com/a8r95

 

Well, it's a well-reasoned paper and it's good that they've done it but
will reason help? A stated aim of the proposal (in ADDITION to reducing
accidents) is:

" The benefits are to achieve a cohesive set of rules that reflect
community needs and expectations, which will assist in reducing road
trauma. "

In this context "road trauma" can only mean the jealousy experienced by
car drivers stuck in queues when a motorcycle filters past them, or the
fear or panic induced in an inattentive driver when a lane-splitting
rider appears from nowhere. Accordingly, we aren't dealing with reason
here, and being reasonable, logical and factual won't help. Being
emotional won't help either, of course.

What will help is organising political muscle. Write to your MP (both
Federal and State), and bug the spots off Brendan Nelson (he rides a
bike and Defence is pretty high up the Cabinet tree). I know road
safety is a State rather than Commonwealth responsibility, but the
Commonwealth still carries a big funding stick.

And we might need to be careful with our rhetoric about lane splitting
too. It is OBVIOUSLY more dangerous than filtering, so disputing that
simply makes motorcycle riders look like they are oblivious to the
perceptions of other road users, which doesn't help anything. I'd be
inclined to hammer the traffic virtues of lane filtering, and let the
lane splitting branch die with the rest of the tree.


Cheers

Andrew

<--- Remove The NO and SPAM When Replying --->

 

I dunno about this one. I've seen some cars swerve violently when they
catch sight of a motorcycle in the wing mirror, which in itself could be
a safety hazard if the car crosses too far to the opposite side of the
lane. Not to mention if there was a bike splitting the opposite side;
the gap does close quickly at times, as I've found.
That said, the most motorcycle-friendly road users IMHO appears to be
the truck drivers. Quite a few go out of their way to make room.
However, I'm not sure as to if this is out of courtesy or fear of "road
trauma".
When it comes down to it, I can't see splitting being more dangerous
than a fast-moving, lane-cutting P-plater in a car in heavy traffic[1].

- sanbar

--
[1] Why, just today there was this fast-moving, lane-cutting P-plater in
heavy traffic that wanted to borrow the road space I was in. Isn't that
a coincidence ...
1985 BMW K100RT|2004 Honda NT650V Deauville
http://antifsck.dyndns.org

 

Well, I gave them my two cents worth. It hasn't appeared yet but may be
they check them for appropriate content first (yes, I have registered).
If and when it does appear it will be No 199, so we've got until 4
February to get more in.

Cheers

Andrew

<--- Remove The NO and SPAM When Replying --->

 

sanbar wrote:

<---snip--->

Yes, you're right, particularly if the lane splitting riders are a posse
of young men on Harleys. Car drivers can be erratic enough without the
additional hazard of loud noises.

I wasn't really trying to defend lane splitting, I just took offence at
the deceitful way the aims of the the proposed changes were stated. If
the traffic is moving at 20kph or less then it's filtering, not
splitting, in my view. Lane splitting at speed is much more dangerous
than filtering. You may be right that it's no more dangerous than a
"fast-moving, lane cutting P-plater in a car in heavy traffic", but
everyone knows he's an idiot racing towards an accident. Where does
that leave lane splitting?

 

In aus.motorcycles on Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:47:54 GMT

be more than that - there's at least 3 I know of - including the MCC
one - that are not on that list.

Zebee

 

FWIW, mine's in, but not yet on the list.
- sanbar

 

Why ?

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX

 

Cause the cars are moving.
Much easier for a moving vehicle to do something erratic and unexpected
than a stopped one.
Clem
(Puts forth 10c and gets 8c change)

 

You got a bargain there...
But please stop with this LOGICAL thinking in here, its scarey.

 

Good to see we agree... but the lane splitting risk is not presented by
the stopped traffic either side of the 'motorcycle lane'. The greater
risk is presented not from those cars which you can observe for signs of
impending or unexpected behaviours (and you're constantly scanning the
cars ahead for that), but from those you cannot observe, i.e. vehicles
which are turning across the path of the traffic into or out of
driveways or side streets which present a T-boning risk to the lane
splitter. The faster moving the traffic, the lower this risk becomes.

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX

 

Yes I agree that these types of crashes are quite common among
inexperienced riders (and drivers). They are quite simple to see and avoid
once you know to look for them though.
Clem

 

Lane splitting accidents are common? I can't agree with that.

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX