Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

N/A | National [US] Another paper promoting the safety benefits of Filtering

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by robsalvv, Jul 26, 2011.

  1. http://www.ridetowork.org/files/doc...bf87c1b14-RTW_7_25_2011_main&utm_medium=email

    Have a look at the linked paper. In amongst it's five pages, it demonstrates rear end collisions (both bike into back of car, and car into bike) avoidance benefits from filtering and talks a bit about the merging impact that most naysayers claim will kill/injure filterers.



    Worth a read, even a cursory one.

     
     Top
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Figure 2, compares motorcyclist rear-end collision fatalities for several US states.
    Rear end crash death.
     
     Top
  3. Research? Facts? Logical thinking?

    It has no chance with the government here.
     
     Top
  4. "In comparison with other countries around the globe, the US is the only
    industrialized nation that does not commonly allow traffic-filtering or lane-sharing for
    motorcycle riders"

    Well…
     
     Top
  5. Good evidence there Rob.
     
     Top
  6. Just dropped the author a quick note with the correction and to thank him for the paper.
     
     Top
  7. Just giving it a read now, from the graph I presume Arizona does not allow filtering (& Cali does) ?
     
     Top
  8. AZ like the other 49 states specifically ban it. From what I have read it is more policed in the southern states. When I rode across the USA last year I didn't see splitting at all, but I stayed out of the cities. I was on a goldwing so didnt do it myself except often at highway speeds people would move over onto the verge to let you split (more than here)

    Edit: I saw it in CA.
     
     Top
  9. That was a good read. Thanks Rob.
     
     Top
  10. Great paper, I wish we had this last week to submit to the inquiry.

    Thanks for sharing.
     
     Top
  11. ^^ I was thinking that. Hopefully the same points were made.
     
     Top
  12. I did mention reduction in rear enders but having a paper like this lends credibility to the argument and this author explains it much better than I can.

    I might shoot the RSC an email asking if they will still accept documents.


    EDIT: Wow, that was a fast response, only took 17 minutes to get back to me! They basically said that they have received a large amount of papers, and they asked for the title and the author. Hopefully more motorcyclists weighed in rather than people who want us off the road.

    I sent details and a link to the paper.

    EDIT: Got another email, this paper has been forwarded to the research officer. Sweet.
     
     Top
    • Like Like x 3
  13. Top work TGM. Minstrels shall write songs about you, men will want to be you, and women will want you to be the father of their babies.
     
     Top
  14. ...if I get my laptop working safely again, I'll be helping write something for the VMC which has a deferred due date... and you can be sure the above paper will be in the appendix.

    Good work TGM
     
     Top
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Good work mate! I'm absolutely paranoid about being hit by a car from behind, hopefully filtering becomes legal
     
     Top
  16. Great - I only hope the Victorian "nanny state" can fend off legislation to restrict such safety techniques.

    From the article:

    - Let the relatively soft (crumple zone equipped) cage be your buffer to absorb the impulse energy from an impact +1

    Reiterate quote 1, also outlining that force not to the normal (perpendicular) is actually resolved via two vectors not one - thereby reducing the overall energy of the impulse - simply put, less energy (damage) imparted +2

    Thanks for the post Rob (y)
     
     Top
  17. That was hilarious.

    Thanks guys, but really all it took was a couple of emails.
     
     Top
  18. Hmm. I'm not sure, actually.

    Maybe I'm still half asleep but the paper seemed to come down to 'California has slightly less bike fatalities in a few different scenarios; California also has slightly more lax lane-sharing rules and unquantified more common practicing of lane sharing', therefore "It could be argued that the lower California percentage is attributable to the practice of lane-sharing."

    And then a brief chat about sideswipes vs full impact.

    I think there's room to add considerably more weight to the argument put forward by the paper - given the vagueness of the California vs USA data, it would have been useful to grab a few other sources of data to cross-compare the accident and fatality rates to see if they show a similar trend in lanesharing vs not-lanesharing, or at least a methodical attempt to remove confounding factors from the California vs USA data.

    It's still an interesting observation re: California vs USA data, though. :)
     
     Top
  19. USA results include outliers that have very small motorcycle populations, or the weather only allows for riding during certain parts of the year, or have very low/easy traffic conditions. The fact that California can match that is the point of that comparison, being that California is one of the busiest states (traffic wise) with tough conditions and one of the biggest MC populations.

    I agree tho that if you wanted to use this as a full argument on it's own, it could probably have some more information added in for completeness.
     
     Top