Mike.. I commute EVERY DAY in rush hour traffic from S. Austin to E. 51st St... Traffic gets below 20mph (as in stop, roll forward 2 feet, stop) for a stretch of about 5-10 miles (depending on if I leave work at 5:00 or 5:05).. and my bike doesn't overheat, per se, but my thighs cooking, my left hand cramping, and ME overheating isn't pleasant, either. The only way for me to get around that traffic is to either go through downtown (usually worse) or take the 130 toll road (kinda out of the way, takes the same amt of time as sitting in traffic).

And that's just 35. Mopac is far, far worse.

But that's just my personal take. I see what you're getting at.. But I don't really agree. :)

I don't really care one way or the other about helmet laws, but really if people don't want to wear a helmet, they should have that freedom, and in that I do agree with you.. But I don't really get the vibe that this is the ultimate end game for this bill. I think it was a compromise thrown in to appease the nay-sayers. :idk:

I commute the whole length of Mopac every day, and it moves below 20mph for much of that length during rush hour. It pretty much sucks.

I'm still not buying the "freedom" argument, Mike. First, Texas has a helmet law on the books already. Riders are required to wear helmets. There's just an exception specified that says that a peace officer can't arrest you or give you a ticket for it if you meet specific criteria. It may sound like semantics, but the fact is, riding without a helmet in Texas is against the law. Remove that one exception, and riders can start getting ticketed again. In my mind, compared to that, this lanesplitting thing isn't a slippery slope at all.

Also, by supporting this, nobody is really giving up any freedoms. Conversely, nobody is preserving freedoms by opposing it. If this passes, ol' Sputnik and his crew will be in the same position they are now. They won't be able to lanesplit, and won't get penalized for not wearing a helmet. If they successfully kill it, they're in the same position. What's the big deal?

The truth is that the general public thinks motorcyclists are hooligans. We're daredevils who don't care about safety. If they're going to extend us the courtesy of allowing lanesplitting, I think it's reasonable to help reinforce the image (at least) that many motorcyclists are interested in safe and responsible riding. Like it or not, wearing a helmet is associated with being safe and responsible. It's a reasonable tradeoff in my mind.

Always nice when they reply :)

A!@*&^#!@#

KXAN selected the lane splitting bill as the "Wild Bill of the Week" in their Session 09 program (Sunday mornings) and basically reiterated the pro-car "it's unfair and not safe" viewpoint.

You can thank TMRA for that. If THEY say it's not safe then it won't ever have a chance, even in years to come. If they get the CARS to say it's not safe then they can reposition in the future.

:skep:

I just sent the reporter a message on Twitter, thanking her for the PR and expressing our belief as bikers that the law is safe, etc, etc.

I am totally for lane splitting. In fact I grew up doing it where there are few rules as too what you can and cannot do when splitting like in California. In many 'other' urban countries, motorcycles are relegated to the unused space between cars and I don't see very many accidents in those countries.

If we are to reduce traffic congestion and fuel consumption, more people need to use bikes and they need to encourage people to do so by letting them lane split to the head of the traffic. Some countries actually allow a 10-15 foot space at the light only for motorcycles.

We just need to get used to sharing the road with bikes like the rest of the world.

yep - that is one reason why I probably wouldn't do it here even if it became legal in NY...

sputnick has died, maybe an open door for lanesplitting?

http://galvestondailynews.com/story/159802

haven't read the thread, but you guys dont know what you're missing.........I probably wouldn't even ride if lanesplitting wasn't legal here.