Bad, Bad Motorcyclist
Mary Shafer
section titled "2 Die in Crash as They Flee Motorcyclist" with a
picture of their Accord wrapped around a tree.
"A Reseda couple terrorized by a motorcyclist during a traffic
dispute on Victory Blvd died Thursday when they tried to escape him
and smashed their car into a tree, Los Angeles police said.
"Martin Joseph Ruthman, the motorcyclist who kicked the car's door and
shouted obscenities at its occupants as they tried to avoid him, sped
away from the 10:45 a.m. crash near Yolanda Ave. in Reseda, but was
apprehended later at his Sherman Oaks repair shop, according to
Detective Rick Swanston.
"Ruthman, 33, of Reseda was being held without bail on suspicion of
murder. His wife, Sandra, 27, and friend Dolores Glickman, 49, of
Granada Hills, both of whom were riding their own motorcycles with
Ruthman, were questioned and released.
"The dead couple, a 45-year-old man and his 52-year-old wife, were not
identified pending notification of relatives. Both died immediately
after their Honda Accord slammed braodside into a tree on the south
side of the street.
"According to witnesses and police, the dispute began about two miles
west of the crash site, near Winnetka Ave. Ruthman and the car were
traveling east on Victory Blvd, and witnesses said Ruthman swerved
across traffic lanes to prevent the car behind him from passing.
"When the car passed him, Ruthman became enraged, Swanston said. He
gunned the engine of his Harley Davidson and pulled alongside the car,
kicking the passenger door and screaming angrily at the couple, who
accelerated to about 50 m.p.h. in an attempt to escape, witnesses
said.
"`It was like a chase,' said Eitan Janai, 40, of Calabasas, who
watched the incident unfurl in his rear-view mirror.
"Another witness, Gary Morgan, 21, of Van Nuys said that when Ruthman
swerved in front of the car, the driver appeared to brake and turn to
the right. The car began skidding sideways and then jumped the curb,
scraped along a brick wall and hit the tree.
"Ruthman looked over his shoulder at the wreck and roared off along
Victory Blvd., Morgan said. `He just flew by me,' Morgan said.
"Police traced the license plates on one of the three motorcycles and
later found Ruthman and the two women at Hi-Tech Automotive Services,
Ruthman's Woodman Ave. motorcycle repair shop."
--
Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
sha...@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA
"There's no kill like a guns kill." LCDR "Hoser" Satrapa, gunnery instructor
"A kill is a kill." Anonymous
Jim Brooking
to me that the driver of the cage was as bad a driver as the biker
was a rider. (Did that make sense? 8^)
There was no reason for the driver to hit his brakes hard enough to
cause wheel lockup. Why didn't the driver slow down and let the bikers
go? Was the driver trying to be aggressive, too?
Most accidents involve fault from all persons involved. This was one
of them.
Not a flame... Just an observation. 8^)
--
ji...@access.digex.com | (Cage) 1991 323se ZCP-710 | I recommend we open
Clarksburg, MD | (Bike) 1986 GSXR750 (just sold) | fire. -Worf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
expoooooooooooooosuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaahhhhhh! -Fripp
Robert Chambers
Brooking) says:
>
>While I don't condone the actions of the "bad motorcyclist", it seems
>to me that the driver of the cage was as bad a driver as the biker
>was a rider. (Did that make sense? 8^)
No not really? since when is trying to pass someone in traffic grounds
to have your car door kicked in?
>There was no reason for the driver to hit his brakes hard enough to
>cause wheel lockup. Why didn't the driver slow down and let the bikers
>go? Was the driver trying to be aggressive, too?
Perhaps a little rambunctious with the brakes there.. but think about
it.. I don't care who, If I'm driving along and someone gets enraged
that I passed them (lets assume that its not single lane traffic etc)
and they got mad at me and kicked MY CAR which would cause a dent in
an otherwise pristine body.. I wouldn't speed up to get out of the way,
I would swerve over and nail the mother fucker. Then I would stop,
Then I would back over the asshole and make sure he was dead.
( Insert enough (:-) in there..... )
Other road users are NOT responsible for dishing out punishment for
perceived road misuse, thats what the cops are for (In an ideal world)
The minute you take the law into your own hands, you're asking for
the same treatment in return.
>Most accidents involve fault from all persons involved. This was one
>of them.
True, but I don't think a bad attitude like this, which ended up with
two people dead is gonna do much for OUR image is it?
>Not a flame... Just an observation. 8^)
>ji...@access.digex.com | (Cage) 1991 323se ZCP-710 | I recommend we open
Robert
DoD 191
George Grenley
Mary.)
I'm not sure we've heard the whole story, namely, whetther the car people did
something stupid. Yeah, I saw the bit where witnesses said they didn't see
anything, but witnesses aren't very perceptive, and if they're cagers they
wouldn't be likely to spot it anyway. We _know_ these people are basically
half-blind, after all.
I fight back when cars cut me off. I've opened people's car doors while
on the fwy - boy does it get a surprised look 8-) . I've done nastier
things too, which I won't get into here.
Still, it is a bit extreme that two people - one of whom was innocent (the
passenger) - had to die. Two burning questions:
1. Were they wearing seatbelts?
2. Should we have a helmet law for cagers?
George
Mary Shafer
Here's more on this, from Saturday's L A Times Metro/Valley Section:
Cyclist Was Unaware of Fatal Crash, Wife Says
Her version contradicts other accounts. Victims are identified as
Mark and Rowena Gold
[Picture of cyclist, longish fluffy hair, beard, moustache with
caption: Marty Ruthman, shown in 1991, was arrested in Thursday
crash.]
"The wife of a motorcyclist accused of causing the death of a Reseda
couple in a traffic crash defended her husband Friday, saying he
kicked the couple's car door only after the auto almost hit him while
squeezing past him on the right.
"Sandra Ruthman, 27, said her husband, Mark, 33, had no notion when he
rode away that the car then crashed into a tree. Other witnesses
dispute her version, saying the motorcyclist appeared to look directly
at the crash.
"Police identified the dead couple Friday as Mark and Rowena Gold or
Reseda. Mark Gold, 45, was an electrical engineer on disability leave
from Hughes Aircraft Corp. and Rowena, 52, was a housewife, according
to their daughter, Lisa, 19.
"Marty Ruthman was arrested Thursday on suspicion of murder for
allegedly causing the fatal crash by kicking the couple's Honda Accord
as it sped east on Victory Blvd. in Reseda at about 50 m.p.h. The
driver of the car lost control and crashed into a tree, killing both
occupants.
"Ruthman was being held at the West Valley Police Station until
Monday, when police said they will ask the district attorney's office
to file charges. Though Rothman was arrested on suspicion of murder,
it is up t the district attorney to decide whether to file the murder
charges, police said.
"The Golds' daughter said she was shocked to learn Thursday that her
parents had died.
"`A friend called me and just blurted out: `Lisa, your parents are
dead.'' she said Friday at her parents' townhouse on Reseda Blvd.
"`I thought she had a screw loose or something.'
"She said she had moved back home with her mother and stepfather in
January after living with a boyfriend. She said they had been married
for six years and enjoyed traveling and taking long walks.
"Police said Mark Gold was driving his wife home from a dental
appointment in Woodland Hills when he became involved in the traffic
dispute with Ruthman.
"Police and other motorists who witnessed the Golds' deaths said the
dispute began when Mark Gold tried to pass Ruthman, who was riding
three abreast with his wife and a friend, Delores Glickman, 49.
"Sandra Ruthman said in an interview that the three Harley-Davidsons
were taking up both eastbound lanes---she and Glickman on the left,
her husband on the right. They were traveling only 30 m.p.h. because
it was the first time she had ridden on a public street, Sandra
Ruthman said.
"Sandra Ruthman said the car's driver forced his way past by driving
partially on the right shoulder of the road, coming so dangerously
close that her husband was almost knocked off his cycle.
"She acknowledged that Marty Ruthman became angry, caught up to the
car and kicked the door three times, yelling at the occupants, then
rode ahead. But she said that the auto driver did not lose control
until her husband was more than a block ahead of the car.
"She contradicted other witnesses, who said Marty Rothman appeared to
have clearly seen Gold's car crash into a tree near Yolanda Ave., then
sped away.
"`It all happened so fast,' Sandra Ruthman said at her husband's auto
repair shop in Sherman Oaks. `Marty didn't know what happened.'
"Unaware there was an accident, she said, he continued on to the shop.
"However, several witnesses told reporters that Marty Ruthman must
have seen the accident before riding away. Gary Morgan, 21, of Van
Nuys said in an interview that Ruthman swerved in front of the car,
causing the driver to brake and veer to the right. Th car skidded
over the curb, scraped along a brick wall and hit the tree, he said.
"Detective Rick Swanston said witnesses agreed that the car passed
Ruthman on the right. But he said the witnesses also said that
Ruthman looked over his shoulder and appeared to see the crash before
he sped off.
"Ruthman, a longtime motorcyclist, is a member of the Van Nuys Harley
Owner's Group. He has been the sole owner of his automobile repair
shop on Woodman Ave. for more than five years. Before that, he was
part-owner of the shop, said Paul Wilson, one of Ruthman's mechanics.
"Wilson described his boss as an experienced motorcycle rider.
"`I would not call him a reckless driver,' he said. `He has never
come unglued.'
"Wilson said he has received three anonymous telephone calls from
people threatening to blow up the shop because of the accusation
against Rothman, but also several calls from friends offering money
for Rothman's bail."
Mary Shafer
limit in the other posting since I was quoting.
In article <SHAFER.92M...@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov> sha...@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
"Sandra Ruthman, 27, said her husband, Mark, 33, had no notion when he
^^^^
That's Marty, of course. Mark's the dead driver.
rode away that the car then crashed into a tree. Other witnesses
dispute her version, saying the motorcyclist appeared to look directly
at the crash.
[Much eliminated--you've read it already, right? I didn't go to all
that trouble for you to just blow it off!]
"Sandra Ruthman said in an interview that the three Harley-Davidsons
were taking up both eastbound lanes---she and Glickman on the left,
her husband on the right. They were traveling only 30 m.p.h. because
it was the first time she had ridden on a public street, Sandra
Ruthman said.
Does anyone know the speed limit there? I'm quite sure it's at least
35 mph and may well be more like 45 mph. After all, Gold wrapped it
around the tree at about 50 mph.
Mary Shafer
Motorcyclist Charged in Crash Deaths
Canoga Park man faces manslaughter counts in accident that killed
Reseda couple
"A Canoga Park motorcyclist was charged Monday with felony
manslaughter in the deaths of a Reseda couple with whom he allegedly
had a traffic dispute.
"Police initially held Martin J. Ruthman, 33, on suspicion of murder
in the Thursday crash that killed Mark and Rowena Gold on Victory
Blvd. in Reseda.
"The Golds died immediately when their Honda Accord swerved to avoid
Ruthman's motorcycle, then jumped the curb and hit a tree, police said.
"Investigators said witnesses reported that immediately before the
crash, Ruthman, angry that the driver, Mark Gold, 45, had passed him
on the right, pulled alongside the car and kicked at the passenger
side door and shouted angrily at the couple.
"Deputy Dist. Atty. Robert P. Imerman said Monday that interviews with
witnesses indicated that Ruthman's alleged kicking of the car's door
`was not what caused the car to go out of control.'
"But he said swerving in front of the Golds' car `showed gross
disregard for their safety, and we therefore feel vehicular
manslaughter is the correct charge.'
"Ruthman's attorney, Mitchell W. Egers, welcomed the decision not to
file murder charges but insisted his client was innocent of all
charges and `wasn't even involved in the accident.'
"Ruthman, apprehended by police at his Sherman Oaks motorcycle repair
shop shortly after the incident, is scheduled to be arraigned on April
8 in Van Nuys Municipal Court. His bail was set at $15,000 during a
brief appearance in court Monday.
"He is charged with two counts of felony vehicular manslaughter and
one felony count of leaving the scene of an accident.
"If convicted of all three of the counts, Ruthman could be imprisoned
for 8 years and 8 months, Imerman said."
PAH...@psuvm.psu.edu
numbers/letters, and proceeded to the nearest police station. The damage to
the door is insignificant to what happened.
I have been attacked by cagers who swerve over to try to block me from LEGALLY
passing them. Since I anticipate this, I am ready to counter act. It is times
like this when I wish I had my .357 Magnum.
My one friend was nearly run of the road SEVERAL times by a fucking lowlife
pile of shit truck driver. The traffic on I-80 was blocked, and he was lane
splitting around 15 mph. Everytime he tried to pass the truck, the dickhead
would try to RUN HIM OFF THE ROAD !! What an asshole.
I guess that most cagers have a hard time dealing with people who pass them on
bikes.
Has anyone else had similar problems??
*******************************************************************************
* Peter Howard * " If the speed limit is 55 mph, why does my *
* DoD# 0924 * does my speedometer go to 160 ? " *
* 1985 Ninja 600 *************************************************
* EMAIL: PAH...@PSUVM.PSU.EDU * " Slower traffic keep right." *
*******************************************************************************
��������������
Should be printed on all currency (#2)...
edward.w.mcfarland
>I have just a few words to say. The couple should have taken down the plate
>numbers/letters, and proceeded to the nearest police station. The damage to
>the door is insignificant to what happened.
>
>I have been attacked by cagers who swerve over to try to block me from LEGALLY
>passing them. Since I anticipate this, I am ready to counter act. It is times
>like this when I wish I had my .357 Magnum.
>
>My one friend was nearly run of the road SEVERAL times by a fucking lowlife
>pile of shit truck driver. The traffic on I-80 was blocked, and he was lane
>splitting around 15 mph. Everytime he tried to pass the truck, the dickhead
>would try to RUN HIM OFF THE ROAD !! What an asshole.
>
>I guess that most cagers have a hard time dealing with people who pass them on
>bikes.
>
>Has anyone else had similar problems??
Yes, and I got him back... a moral victory anyway... it was bumper to bumper,
stop and go (mostly stopped) and another cyclist decided to lead the parade
of bikes down the not-wide-enough-for-cager left of left lane road area on the
Tappan Zee bridge. A hot summer day cager decided just before I got beside him
to swerve left and stop the train... his windows were open and as I was able to
squeeze beside him he yelled "where are YOU going" -HOME I said. Cager says *&$#
*&@! etc. with his wife and wide eyed kids pleading with him to cut the shit.
I lingered a few seconds beside him and said "YOU'RE JUST JEALOUS!" His wife
smiled and I took off.
Soooo satisfying
>*******************************************************************************
>* Peter Howard * " If the speed limit is 55 mph, why does my *
>* DoD# 0924 * does my speedometer go to 160 ? " *
>* 1985 Ninja 600 *************************************************
>* EMAIL: PAH...@PSUVM.PSU.EDU * " Slower traffic keep right." *
>*******************************************************************************
>
> Should be printed on all currency (#2)...
Ed McFarland We make history the old-fashioned
e...@mvuzr.att.com way, we revise it!
Almost anyone can be on TV, I prove it nightly.
-David Letterman
Dances with Drums
>Motorcyclist Charged in Crash Deaths
>
>Ruthman's motorcycle, then jumped the curb and hit a tree, police said.
>
>witnesses indicated that Ruthman's alleged kicking of the car's door
>`was not what caused the car to go out of control.'
>
>"But he said swerving in front of the Golds' car `showed gross
>disregard for their safety, and we therefore feel vehicular
>manslaughter is the correct charge.'
Hmmm. But if a motorcyclist swerves to avoid a car and loses
control, does the car driver get charged with manslaughter? Haven't
ever heard of that happnening, yet you know car drivers are often
brainlessly at fault.
-wat-
--
*** Dances with Drums ***
*** DoD #0492 Steed: Kawasaki '80 750LTD ***
Noemi Berry
>(Much deleted about bike-car incident - Thanks for the _complete_ post, Mary.)
yes, thank you!
>I'm not sure we've heard the whole story, namely, whether the car people did
>something stupid. Yeah, I saw the bit where witnesses said they didn't see
>anything, but witnesses aren't very perceptive, and if they're cagers they
>wouldn't be likely to spot it anyway. We _know_ these people are basically
>half-blind, after all.
true, witness' accounts are not always (ever?) reliable. however,
given enough corroboration, you have to go with what you have.
some of the witnesses were pedestrians, incidentally -- doesn't
make them any less aware than drivers, but gives them a different
perspective.
>I fight back when cars cut me off. I've opened people's car doors while
>on the fwy - boy does it get a surprised look 8-).
[flame on]
<insert much-hashed multitude of reasons this is stupid>
[flame off]
>Two burning questions:
>1. Were they wearing seatbelts?
>2. Should we have a helmet law for cagers?
OK, i know that a picture from a newscast is no proof, and there
is no way of knowing for sure which conditions would have made the
accident nonfatal. that said, that car was WRAPPED around that
tree -- the occupants were not killed from being thrown around
inside the car; it looked like the car closed in around them.
it did not appear to be an accident where seatbelts or helmets
would have helped.
though there is always stupidness on both sides, it sounds to
me like the stupidness was heavily weighted on the side of the
door-kicking biker.
noemi
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
no...@cs.ucla.edu KotSBL '82 kawasaki kz305csr dod #443
2210 miles to ride until NM (Next Motorcycle)
reduce traffic: increase your speed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Stone
[tales of EvilBiker(tm) killing InnocentCarDrivers deleted]
Hmmm, this whole story is beginning to sound like another
"Bonfire of the Vanities." Having recently devoured this
Tom Wolfe novel, I can't help but notice the similarities.
In "Bonfire of the Vanities," a wealthy Park Avenue socialite
hits a poor black teenager from the Bronx and then leaves the
scene of the accident. Even though the circumstances of the
incident are very complex, all the press can see is "Rich Snob
Kills Disadvantaged Youth" and the ensuing media circus goes
nuclear.
While I in no way condone what the bike rider did, it's clear
that there is probably more to this incident than meets the
eye. We all know the rage we feel when a car endangers our very
existence with a stupid maneuver, and while few of us (I hope)
would resort to the action taken by this Rocket Scientologist,
we can guess what lead to his anger.
On the other hand, it really doesn't matter. The main thing that
bothers me about this story is that if it had been another car
that had caused the fatal accident, this incident would have rated
no more than a minor news item. Because it was an EvilBiker,
however, the story neatly reinforces the public prejudice, and
so the media is going to play it like a banjo. And the public
will lap it up. And our image will take another broadside.
Before we all jump on the media-constructed bandwagon and condemn
the EvilBiker for ruining our image, we should reflect on the fact
that said image is already firmly fixed in the public mind, and gets
further cemented at every opportunity by the media. Wolfe compares
the press to fruit flys, and that seems quite appropriate here. We
can only watch as they circle around the dead meat and zip in for
the occasional bite.
Phil Stone (ph...@eos.arc.nasa.gov | ...ames!eos!phil)
'83 R80ST DoD #95 "Motorcycles OK"
Mary Shafer
OK, i know that a picture from a newscast is no proof, and there
is no way of knowing for sure which conditions would have made the
accident nonfatal. that said, that car was WRAPPED around that
tree -- the occupants were not killed from being thrown around
inside the car; it looked like the car closed in around them.
it did not appear to be an accident where seatbelts or helmets
would have helped.
It looked like the tree was growing out of the middle of the car. The
sides had wrapped completely around the tree.
though there is always stupidness on both sides, it sounds to
me like the stupidness was heavily weighted on the side of the
door-kicking biker.
I seem to remember other posters complaining about people who drive
too slow in the left lane and the three motorcyclists were going
_thirty_ and were three abreast, blocking both lanes. It's hard for
me to blame the guy for getting impatient with this rolling road
block. So he passes on the right and then the biker abandons the
poor little my-first-time-on-the-public-roads wife to pass the car
on the right and kick and scream. Then he pulls in front of the
car who brakes to not hit him. And then he watches the car slide
into the tree and then zooms on to work, still without the wife.
Duck aka D. Harper
? On the other hand, it really doesn't matter. The main thing that
? bothers me about this story is that if it had been another car
? that had caused the fatal accident, this incident would have rated
? no more than a minor news item. Because it was an EvilBiker,
? however, the story neatly reinforces the public prejudice, and
? so the media is going to play it like a banjo. And the public
? will lap it up. And our image will take another broadside.
?
? Before we all jump on the media-constructed bandwagon and condemn
? the EvilBiker for ruining our image, we should reflect on the fact
? that said image is already firmly fixed in the public mind, and gets
? further cemented at every opportunity by the media. Wolfe compares
? the press to fruit flys, and that seems quite appropriate here. We
? can only watch as they circle around the dead meat and zip in for
? the occasional bite.
?
? Phil Stone (ph...@eos.arc.nasa.gov | ...ames!eos!phil)
? '83 R80ST DoD #95 "Motorcycles OK"
Agreed. And I think we as bikers, be it a Squid-mobile, Hog, Cruser, or
Dirt Bike, need to stop taking this quietly and stewing when an
EvilBiker does throw our public image in our face...I think it is time
to pratice random acts of kindness...well, maybe not so random. I
challange each and every reader out there to keep your eyes open next
time you ride for someone who you can help. If you don't find one, keep
looking. Most times it will take a few minutes of your time, but the
person you helped will remember it for a long time. And, if we get
enough of us to do it, then maybe a few less people will call for the
banning of our rides.
Just a suggestion,
Don
(try to flame me. :-)
--
Until The Great Atom Smasher comes to get me, this is the kind of molecule
I have to be. -Kurt Vonnegut
Don Harper, DHa...@uh.edu, Academic Consulting Services, University of Houston
DoD#0520, '82 GS550LZ
Ivan D. Reid
>I have just a few words to say. The couple should have taken down the plate
>numbers/letters, and proceeded to the nearest police station. The damage to
>the door is insignificant to what happened.
>
>I have been attacked by cagers who swerve over to try to block me from LEGALLY
>passing them. Since I anticipate this, I am ready to counter act. It is times
>like this when I wish I had my .357 Magnum.
>
>My one friend was nearly run of the road SEVERAL times by a fucking lowlife
>pile of shit truck driver. The traffic on I-80 was blocked, and he was lane
>splitting around 15 mph. Everytime he tried to pass the truck, the dickhead
>would try to RUN HIM OFF THE ROAD !! What an asshole.
>
>I guess that most cagers have a hard time dealing with people who pass them on
>bikes.
>
>Has anyone else had similar problems??
or popping little pills. It was between Goulburn and Canberra; I forget
exactly when and which bike. Every time a vehicle tried to pass, he would
pull over to the right and run them off the road. A couple of cars got by
with all wheels in the dirt, but I figured that wasn't an option for me. I
tried a couple of times, but he came over on me too, so I waited for a clear
stretch and dropped back behind him and gunned it, popping out into the right
lane when I was very close. I managed to catch him sufficiently by surprise
that I still had a couple of feet of bitumen left by the time I got past (at
maybe 80 or 90 mph). Unfortunately, it was then too near to the only town on
the road with a cop-shop to get an officer out in time to stop him. I sure
hope he had no passengers!
Ivan Reid, Paul Scherrer Institute, CH. iv...@cvax.psi.ch
GSX600F, RG250WD. DoD #484
TKPO...@bluemoon.profs.tek.com
sha...@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes
I seem to remember other posters complaining about people who drive
too slow in the left lane and the three motorcyclists were going
_thirty_ and were three abreast, blocking both lanes. It's hard for
me to blame the guy for getting impatient with this rolling road
block. So he passes on the right and then the biker abandons the
poor little my-first-time-on-the-public-roads wife to pass the car
on the right and kick and scream. Then he pulls in front of the
car who brakes to not hit him. And then he watches the car slide
into the tree and then zooms on to work, still without the wife.
Excellent point. Sounds to me like the honda folks were doing the
exact same thing we moto people do when there is a log jam. And
the harley dude reacted the same why the cagers react, got pissed
because someone tried to go about their merry way.
--Terry Powell tkpo...@bluemoon.profs.tek.com
Dances with Drums
I needed to go down to Santa Cruz this week, so decided I should
pass the DMV test so I would be legal on the highways.
Went in yesturday morning w/o an appointment. They sent me back
for my proof of insurance. Came back with that and got in line for the
test. Wasn't in line 1 minute when they came out to do the cyclist in
front of me who had been waiting for about 20 minutes. They told me to
follow him and they would do both of us, him first.
Well, after watching him -- he was on a BMW that had its idle so
low and so smooth, it almost sounded electric. The DMV testors commented
on how he had probably tuned it down for the test -- but that BMW's
were good bikes for the test, as they handled well. *whatever*. Well
it did handle well, and this guy was *smooth*. So smooth I was
sorely tempted to tell the testors I would be back another day...Sheesh.
Well I stayed anyway. First they had me point out various bits
of equipment on the cycle. Um, lessee, where's the brakes...where's the
clutch, throttle, turn signals, choke, kill switch...simple things.
Second test was the serpentine, where I went around the dots, then
into the tiny cirle twice -- take my pick on the way to go through it --
I figured if I entered on one side, I would end up doing the circle
counter clockwise -- something said this was a good direction for me. Anyway
after exiting the circle, do the serpentine on the way back out. Did that,
but wasn't nearly as smooth as the guy before...might have even strayed
outside the lines by little bits...not sure
Third test was going up the straight lines, do the circle twice, then
back down -- again, my pick on direction. I picked the same direction.
I caught my glove a bit on the throttle coming out of the circle and
the engine reved high, but it didn't affect much since I had my other hand
clutching madly. The testor later told me he thought I was going to do
a wheeley (If I stayed in the lines, would I still have passed?). Anyway,
bike wiggled a bit coming back out the second straight line (after the
revving incident), but *mostly* stayed in the lines :-)..
The fourth test he had me go to the end of the lot and wanted to see how
I shifted through 2-3 gears, and then stop in the circle. That was the
easiest part.
That was it. I passed. I didn't think I was perfect, but it apparently
it were good enough! :-)
George Grenley
>>Yeah, I saw the bit where witnesses said they didn't see
>>anything, but witnesses aren't very perceptive, and if they're cagers they
>>wouldn't be likely to spot it anyway. We _know_ these people are basically
>>half-blind, after all.
>
>true, witness' accounts are not always (ever?) reliable. however,
>given enough corroboration, you have to go with what you have.
>some of the witnesses were pedestrians, incidentally -- doesn't
>make them any less aware than drivers, but gives them a different
>perspective.
Not sure I can agree with this. 100 blind people don't see better than
1 blind person, etc. Also, the pedestrians (pedestrians? in _LA_??? 8-) )
were most likely car people, certainly no likely bike people.
>>Two burning questions:
>>1. Were they wearing seatbelts?
>>2. Should we have a helmet law for cagers?
>OK, i know that a picture from a newscast is no proof, and there
>is no way of knowing for sure which conditions would have made the
>accident nonfatal. that said, that car was WRAPPED around that
>tree -- the occupants were not killed from being thrown around
>inside the car; it looked like the car closed in around them.
>it did not appear to be an accident where seatbelts or helmets
>would have helped.
So how fast were they going? What was the speed limit? I seem to recall
a post mentioning the speed limit is around 40 mph. Seatbelts are supposed
to protect you in all kinds of accidents - hence the admonishment to wear
them in cars with airbags. So we've got _two_ fatalities because a
Honda Accord (not a tiny car) slid into a tree sideways at 40 mph?
Somebody call Ralph Nader.
Cheers!
George
Dana H. Myers
>
> "Sandra Ruthman said in an interview that the three Harley-Davidsons
> were taking up both eastbound lanes---she and Glickman on the left,
> her husband on the right. They were traveling only 30 m.p.h. because
> it was the first time she had ridden on a public street, Sandra
> Ruthman said.
>
>Does anyone know the speed limit there? I'm quite sure it's at least
>35 mph and may well be more like 45 mph. After all, Gold wrapped it
>around the tree at about 50 mph.
"There" is Victory Blvd. in Reseda. I've always recalled the posted
limits along Victory being on the low side; I'm fairly certain the limit
there is 35 MPH, and I'm certain it isn't over 40 MPH . No one drives that
slowly, mind you; the average speed there is maybe 45 MPH.
I certainly don't condone Marty Ruthman's action; I've always felt
that vandalising over vehicles is ethically wrong, even if they did cut
you off. What Ruthman appears to have done is wrong, but it isn't
manslaughter. It is vandalism, that is all. It also sounds like Sandra
Ruthman and Glickman should have been in the right lane, since they
were the slower traffic. It seems that the couple in the Honda was
traveling at a speed unsafe for conditions; certainly it cannot be
shown that force of the kicks from Ruthman could have forced the
vehicle off of the road.
--
* Dana H. Myers KK6JQ | Views expressed here are *
* (213) 337-5136 | mine and do not necessarily *
* da...@locus.com DoD #466 | reflect those of my employer *
* "Dammit Bones, spare me the lecture and give me the shot!" *
Jim Brooking
ME: (Jim)
>>
>>While I don't condone the actions of the "bad motorcyclist", it seems
>>to me that the driver of the cage was as bad a driver as the biker
>>was a rider. (Did that make sense? 8^)
>
>No not really? since when is trying to pass someone in traffic grounds
>to have your car door kicked in?
No no no. I meant "do the semantics make sense", not the logic. 8^)
Neh. Passing isn't grounds to have your door kicked in. If it were,
I wouldn't have any doors. 8^) ('course: cage drivers can't kick.)
Someone later made a logically similar statement to mine: That it basically
takes an idiot to trash his car in that sort of a situation. Compound
that idiocy with the motorcyclist's, and you get a "situation".
>
>>There was no reason for the driver to hit his brakes hard enough to
>>cause wheel lockup. Why didn't the driver slow down and let the bikers
>>go? Was the driver trying to be aggressive, too?
>
>Perhaps a little rambunctious with the brakes there.. but think about
>it.. I don't care who, If I'm driving along and someone gets enraged
>that I passed them (lets assume that its not single lane traffic etc)
>and they got mad at me and kicked MY CAR which would cause a dent in
>an otherwise pristine body.. I wouldn't speed up to get out of the way,
>I would swerve over and nail the mother fucker. Then I would stop,
>Then I would back over the asshole and make sure he was dead.
>
>( Insert enough (:-) in there..... )
Oh, I agree! Brother biker or not, he's going to die. >8^)
>
>Other road users are NOT responsible for dishing out punishment for
>perceived road misuse, thats what the cops are for (In an ideal world)
>
Hey, you just said you'd hit him & back over him. ?? (I know: you
were kidding.)
>The minute you take the law into your own hands, you're asking for
>the same treatment in return.
If everybody thought this way, there wouldn't be left lane bandits.
Wouldn't it be great? 8^)
>
>>Most accidents involve fault from all persons involved. This was one
>>of them.
>
>True, but I don't think a bad attitude like this, which ended up with
>two people dead is gonna do much for OUR image is it?
Nope. The biker needs some attitude adjustment. Agreed.
cheers
Jim Brooking
>the EvilBiker for ruining our image, we should reflect on the fact
>that said image is already firmly fixed in the public mind, and gets
I see a lot of this... "Everybody thinks we're big bad bikers"
I don't see that attitude coming from cages around here (the D.C.
metro area). I've never been in a hairy situation, nor have I been
stopped by police.
The one time I've had to deal with police when on-bike was when
I witnessed a couple of cages connect heavily at an intersection.
NOBODY stopped to help. 'Cept me. Just rode the GSX up onto the
sidewalk and dismounted. The police came (a cycle cop!) and I
gave him the pertinent information. He was friendly and polite.
So what's the deal? Am I the exception rather than the rule?
I wouldn't say I ride like "somebody's grandfather". Speed limits,
to me, are laughable. I just ride safe.
Chuck Karish
(George Grenley) writes:
>So how fast were they going? What was the speed limit? I seem to recall
>a post mentioning the speed limit is around 40 mph. Seatbelts are supposed
>to protect you in all kinds of accidents - hence the admonishment to wear
>them in cars with airbags.
The combination of seatbelts plus airbags offers more
protection than either does alone.
Seatbelts don't protect too well against side impacts,
because the obstacle or the car door is right there next to
you. You hit something solid before the stretching of the
seat belt can decelerate you at a surviveable rate.
>So we've got _two_ fatalities because a
>Honda Accord (not a tiny car) slid into a tree sideways at 40 mph?
Side impacts at 35 to 40 MPH are often fatal. A common
cause of death is a ruptured aorta: the inertia of the
victim's heart tears it loose when the rest of the chest is
decelerated too abruptly.
Chuck Karish kar...@mindcraft.com
Mindcraft, Inc. (415) 323-9000
Alan Marr
Chuck Karish writes:
The combination of seatbelts plus airbags offers more protection
than either does alone.
Marginally more and only in frontal impacts and only on the primary
impact. Airbags obscure vision at the critical moment, blow the arms
away from the steering wheel, and shock the driver because of their
explosive nature. They cost lots of money and use complicated
technology. Still, now that the law requires so-called "passive"
restraints, I would choose airbags over "automatic" seatbelts, unless I
could legally substitute an ignition interlock on a regular seatbelt.
Seatbelts don't protect too well against side impacts, because the
obstacle or the car door is right there next to you. You hit
something solid before the stretching of the seat belt can
decelerate you at a surviveable rate.
Whereas airbags offer zero protection on side impacts.
Alan.
Diana Boyd
>
> I seem to remember other posters complaining about people who drive
> too slow in the left lane and the three motorcyclists were going
> _thirty_ and were three abreast, blocking both lanes. It's hard for
> me to blame the guy for getting impatient with this rolling road
> block. So he passes on the right and then the biker abandons the
> poor little my-first-time-on-the-public-roads wife to pass the car
> on the right and kick and scream. Then he pulls in front of the
> car who brakes to not hit him. And then he watches the car slide
> into the tree and then zooms on to work, still without the wife.
What I don't understand, if these 3 bikes were riding 3 abreast, they were
taking up 2 lanes as Mary says above, right? Then this guy passes on the right.
Now, how did he do that? He'd have to be IN THE SAME LANE as one of the bikes.
Right there I think he's a jerk. We've all been held up by slow moving
vehicles, and if we make a stupid/illegal move, we're responsible.
I also think the guy on the bike is a jerk for getting so pissed he kicks the
car. But I can understand getting pissed because someone threatens a loved one
more than I can understand getting pissed because someone is blocking a lane.
Don't we always try to educate ourselves and be smart on the road to make up
for stupid drivers? I think this is a case of two stupid people colliding.
But I can't see charging the guy with murder! Jeez, no matter what, he was IN
FRONT of the car, the driver of the car should have acted more responsibly and
thought "Jeez, that guy on that bike is nuts, I better slow down and get away
from him." Much more boring response.
Of course, I wasn't there, I'm sure I don't have all the facts.
You know, I was in a very similar incident when I started riding. I was at the
end of a pack of harleys and this van kept trying to cut me off, getting really
close. I really got panicky, I didn't know what to do, I didn't want to get
separated from the pack, now that I have more experience I see that I should
have moved away from the group. My ex noticed and tryed to get between us, the
van swerved at him and he smacked the driver's side mirror with his fist and
knocked it off, then rode along with the guy, yelling at him to take the next
exit so he could pound the shit out of him.
It all happened so fast, my ex was FURIOUS, and then I was furious at HIM for
reacting so drastically. What a mess. The trials of learning to ride.
Luckily the van backed off and nothing came of it.
Diana
DIANA BOYD "If you think that you can or you think that you can't,
Evo Woman you are probably correct" -- Author Unknown
Ed Green - Pixel Cruncher
>
>I see a lot of this... "Everybody thinks we're big bad bikers"
>
>I don't see that attitude coming from cages around here (the D.C.
>metro area). I've never been in a hairy situation, nor have I been
>stopped by police.
It's there. I've not experienced anyone acting like I, personally, am
a "big bad biker," although I have been in both hairy situations with
cages and been stopped by police. The people in the cages were just
assholes, and the cops were polite and professional (and efficient :^(
The image Phil refers to is very real, and it is, for the most part,
impersonal. This is the root of the surprize I see in people when I
mention I ride. They somehow don't expect it, their image of a "biker"
doesn't fit the reality of handsome, erudite, me. :^)
They have an image, born of cheap hollywood flicks and cemented by the
media, of bikers as either all Hells Angels types or reckless Evil
Kenevil types. It's a natural tendency, like thinking everybody that
drives a pickup truck listens to country music, or all computer
professionals are nerds.
The media *does* reenforce this image, by carefully covering every
gruesome motorcycle accident (hey, death and mayhem sells, particularly
if you can get that coveted shot of the mangled forks and front wheel
spinning over a blood stained roadway), or going for the "human
interest" angle (hey, look, these *bikers* are gathering toys for poor
children! Gosh, imagine that! Boggles the mind!)
Every time we wave to kids, or stop for pedistrians, we force people to
think of us as *persons* instead of "bikers." We make people
conciously realize what should be obvious: steriotypes are stupid, and
bikers are humans. We also dupe them a little more into thinking their
little girls are safe to play with tennis balls by the road.
---
Ed Green, former Ninjaite |I was drinking last night with a biker,
Ed.G...@East.Sun.COM |and I showed him a picture of you. I said,
DoD #0111 (919)460-8302 |"Go on, get to know her, you'll like her!"
(The Grateful Dead) --> |It seemed like the least I could do...
Ed Green - Pixel Cruncher
>
>But I can't see charging the guy with murder! Jeez, no matter what, he was IN
>FRONT of the car
Diana is the first one to look at the physical evidence.
The reason police accident reports have a little diagram of a car for
the cop to shade in damaged areas is that this is the primary evidence
used by a judge to determine fault. If the front half of your car hits
the back half of another car, it is going to be damned hard for you to
claim, "he pulled out right in front of me, I couldn't stop." If the
front of your car hits the front of the other car, it is up to him to
explain why he violated your right of way. Remember that a fundimental
tenant of traffic law is that one is legally assumed to be in control
of one's vehicle at all times. This responsiblity can only be
outweighed by gross neglegence on the part of another, which it is
one's responsibility to prove.
The DA is claiming the biker's swerve in front of the car caused it to
go out of control (he already admitted the kicking didn't cause the
accident, therefore it is irrelevant). It is going to be damned hard
for him to prove that a) the biker did indeed deliberately swerve in
front of the car, b) this act constituted contribulatory neglegence,
and c) that this was such gross neglegence that it outweighs the
cager's responsibility to maintain control of his vehicle. As far as
the fleeing from an accident charge, the biker was not involved in an
accident. Even if it is proven he caused it, it remains to be proven
he was even aware of it.
The DA's either posturing to get a stiffer plea bargan, he's running
for office and wants a tough image, or he's under political pressure
because of public sympathy for the victims of this obvioulsy deranged
killer biker. Or maybe he just likes losing.
David Robinson
>The DA's either posturing to get a stiffer plea bargan, he's running
>for office and wants a tough image, or he's under political pressure
>because of public sympathy for the victims of this obvioulsy deranged
>killer biker. Or maybe he just likes losing.
I believe the DA (Ira Reiner) is up for re-election this year and is
facing some serious competition. He is definately concious of his
public image as shown by his grandstanding over the case where the
judge gave a 2nd degree murder suspect probation only.
I personally think he wants a plea bargin, the press that the case
has been given is relatively minor so not much of a factor.
-David
--
David Robinson da...@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov
Disclaimer: No one listens to me anyway! GS500E DoD #480
"An addiction is a drag" - Dennis Hopper
"A tisket, a tasket, a condom or a casket" - Dr. Carl Bell
Jonathan E. Quist
>What I don't understand, if these 3 bikes were riding 3 abreast, they were
>taking up 2 lanes as Mary says above, right? Then this guy passes on the right.
>Now, how did he do that? He'd have to be IN THE SAME LANE as one of the bikes.
>Right there I think he's a jerk. We've all been held up by slow moving
>vehicles, and if we make a stupid/illegal move, we're responsible.
Uh, this isn't a two lane goat path, it's a 4-lane road. The 3 riders
were deliberately blocking both lanes.
>I also think the guy on the bike is a jerk for getting so pissed he kicks the
>car. But I can understand getting pissed because someone threatens a loved one
Uh, no, the wife-who-didn't-know-how-to-ride-so-what-the-hell-was-she-doing-
on-a-public-road-?- was in the other lane, away from the car.
>But I can't see charging the guy with murder! Jeez, no matter what, he was IN
>FRONT of the car,
He swerved in front of the car, the driver apparently tried to avoid
hitting the rider, and lost control as a result.
>the driver of the car should have acted more responsibly and
>thought "Jeez, that guy on that bike is nuts, I better slow down and get away
>from him." Much more boring response.
Slow down and get away from him?
Okay.
--
Jonathan E. Quist INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation
j...@i88.isc.com Naperville, IL
'71 CL450-K4 "Gleep" - "Worth the Obsession"
DoD #094 "I'm not mad; just terribly, terribly hurt." HDM #007
paul.m.smith
>What I don't understand, if these 3 bikes were riding 3 abreast, they were
>taking up 2 lanes as Mary says above, right? Then this guy passes on the right.
>Now, how did he do that? He'd have to be IN THE SAME LANE as one of the bikes.
>Right there I think he's a jerk. We've all been held up by slow moving
>vehicles, and if we make a stupid/illegal move, we're responsible.
Isn't "lane-sharing", aka "lane-splitting", OK in California? Or is it
only OK for _bikes_ to lane-share? We seem to have a bit of a double
standard, huh? It's OK for bikes to squeeze between slow-moving cars,
but not OK for a car to pass 3 bikes taking up 2 lanes at something less
than the speed limit? I'm not condoning or condemning anyone's actions
here, nor am I wanting to start the lane-splitting war again. I get upset
if a car passes me in my lane, but I don't ride in California where bikes
routinely ride in the same lanes with cars. Just something to think about.
--
Paul Smith
Carl D. Lovejoy
< LA law type lawyer speak deleted>
Are you sure your are not a lawyer, Ed?
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Carl"Toy Monger"Lovejoy | Follow Men's Eyes as They Look to the Sky |
|ASTM @ Mellon Institute | The Shifting Shafts of Shinning |
| '86 VFR 750 | Weave the Fabric of Their Dreams |
| Go Cagiva & Eddie #7 | NEIL PEART |
| DoD#1941 AMA#606194 | |
| cl...@andrew.cmu.edu | Happiness is a 100 mph sweeper and a new RUSH CD |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| KING ARTHUR : I seek the Holy Grail. Have you a 900SS |
| DUMB FROG: We a already gota one, You Silly Person!!! It's a very niiice!!|
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Bill Brooks
>
>I see a lot of this... "Everybody thinks we're big bad bikers"
>
>I don't see that attitude coming from cages around here (the D.C.
>metro area). I've never been in a hairy situation, nor have I been
>stopped by police.
>
>
Same impressions for me (also a DC area rider). I live in VA (No, not the
Veteran's Administration!) which takes a fairly conservation view of motos
(they won't even let us on the HOV lanes). But even with what would seem
a, uh, inhospitable legal environment, I've never been hassled by, ah, law
enforcement types -- even when I got pulled once on bike. (Several unreason-
able tickets in cage though :^)
I think bikers just keep a lower profile around here. We don't bother anyone
and they don't bother us (in general, of course. Your mileage may vary).
--
Bill Brooks wbr...@ads.com (703)243-1611
Advanced Decision Systems, a division of Booz-Allen & Hamilton.
DoD# --- HA! I never conform to DoD standards!
FZR600 Rider, Mac Hacker, X-Men fan, Llama trainer wannabe, ex-chop suey fighter
Noemi Berry
> What's so impressive? No sane person is going to open a car door
>in front of one. I'm sure the confidence factor helps.
It is not a question of sanity. CHP are good at it because they do
it all the time. Except for the [IMO rare] case where someone is
prepared to deliberately open a door in front of an oncoming
motorcycle, realizes it's a CHP, and aborts said plan, the CHP biker is
in just as much danger as everyone else. The CHPs (and other
lane splitters) are usually upon car drivers without the drivers
realizing they're there, and that is where a large part of the
danger is. The CHP undoubtably get more respect once the drivers
realize who they are, but frequently this could be too late
to make a substantial difference in safety.
counter opinions, flames, etc welcome: i am no expert -- these
statements are based on about 2 months (not much) of lane-splitting
experience in LA (does "quality" count over "quantity" here?? :-) )
noemi
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
no...@cs.ucla.edu KotSBL '82 kawasaki kz305csr dod #443
1708 miles to ride until NM (Next Motorcycle)
Ed Green - Pixel Cruncher
>
>Are you sure your are not a lawyer, Ed?
Hold on, let me check my bank account....
Nope. Definately an engineer!
Phil Stone
>In article <1992Mar18.2...@informix.com> db...@informix.com writes:
>>taking up 2 lanes as Mary says above, right? Then this guy passes on the right.
>>Now, how did he do that? He'd have to be IN THE SAME LANE as one of the bikes.
>proper when initiated by the biker.
>
> Chuck Karish kar...@mindcraft.com
Et tu, Chuck? This is the third time (in the recent discussion only)
that I've heard this specious argument. A bike can safely overtake a
car in the same lane in most conditions because there is room to do
so. In only one special case can a car overtake a bike in the same
lane, and that is if, and only if, the bike is crowding the extreme
edge of the lane, i.e., in the same position it would be in if it were
lane-splitting. If the bike is not in that position, and it is highly
unlikely that it would be, then the car cannot overtake the bike safely.
Ed Green mentioned moving over to allow a car to lane-split; this polite
maneuver is required to make a car-initiated lane-split safe.
It is a bogus comparison to equate safe lane-splitting with cars trying
to force their way through a bike's lane.
Phil Stone (ph...@eos.arc.nasa.gov | ...ames!eos!phil)
Mark Joseph Andy
This whole subject is ridiculous. The biker was out of bounds,
agreed. He shouldn't have been part of a group that was blocking the
road, he shouldn't have gotten so pissed at the car driver, and he
shouldn't have swerved in front of the guy.
In addition, the car driver's a fucking idiot also. He could've
waited an extra minute or so to get by and he sure as hell shouldn't
have lost it and wrapped it around a tree (at *50* mph. Yup, get me
one o' them Honda's :-). You would've thought that if he'd had enough
balls to force his way past 3 Harley riders blocking the road, he
would've had enough balls to just smuck the mc rider and not loose it.
In any event, this is "yet another situation where all participants
were stupid and once again affirms my belief in the ability of the
media to blow up any situation".
Mark
| Mark J. Andy WERA NV #813 DoD #813 |
| ma...@andrew.cmu.edu AMA/CCS AM #811 AMA #700560 |
| Co-founder/Rider, Team RISC and Two Geeks Racing |
| '82 Seca 650 (street), '85 RZ350 (track), '78 KM100 (commute-in-snow) |
| I want RZ350 parts like steering damper, fork brace, exhaust, etc... |
Ed Green - Pixel Cruncher
>
>Isn't "lane-sharing", aka "lane-splitting", OK in California? Or is it
>only OK for _bikes_ to lane-share? We seem to have a bit of a double
>standard, huh?
I don't think so. Lane sharing is not *illegal*, which means it is
legal, depending on the opinion of the cop at hand. Passing on the
right is definately *illegal*, if the passee is not turning left, and
if there is not sufficient room on the right for a lane of vehicles.
The cage LEFT THE ROAD to pass the bikes, so I think we can safely
assume there was not room to legally pass on the right.
>It's OK for bikes to squeeze between slow-moving cars,
>but not OK for a car to pass 3 bikes taking up 2 lanes at something less
>than the speed limit?
Not at all. On many occasions, I have been enjoying a nice leisurely
cruise up Skyline, when some yuppie in a high performance sports cage
obviously wants to enjoty the twisties more. On a straight section,
but still double yellow, I move obviously and deliberately to the right
edge of the road, and they pass me, within the lane, legally, and
safely. No problem.
Note that for three bikers to ride abreast safely, requires one damned
big breast! I mean, requires the full two lanes. It was one of them's
first ride, so I can see why they might choose not to ride in formation,
so they can talk and grin at each other. Perhaps they were so wrapped
up in the experience they didn't notice the cager. Perhaps they did,
and they were just assholes. Doesn't matter.
The cage had no business going off the road to pass them illegally.
The biker had no business kicking the cage. The biker had no business
swerving in front of the cage. The cager had no business driving
beyond his ability to control his cage. The tree had no business
growing there.
What I want to know is, what does the wife think of motorcycling, after
such an interesting introduction to the sport? You must admit, it
would be tough to top this one at your typical biker bench-racing
session.
George Grenley
>In article <1992Mar20.0...@cirrus.com> gre...@cirrus.com (George Grenley) writes:
>>It's illegal in California (and most other places) to pass on the right unless
>>the vehicle you are passing is waiting to turn left.i
>Nit time. In 1991 it most certainly WAS LEGAL to pass on the right. I
>haven't been able to get a copy of the 1992 vehicle code yet, but I
>don't think this law was changed this year. Sections 21754,21755 are the
>key. I don't have the exact wording but:
>You are prohibited from passing on the right unless one of the
>following applies:
>
>- The passed vehicle is about to turn left (note that you can't drive
>onto the unpaved shoulder of the road); OR
>
>- the street or road is wide enough to accommodate two lanes of traffic
>(that need not be marked off in a business or residence district), not
>counting widening of the paved area at intersections; OR
>
>- You're on a one-way street or a divided highway.
Thank you for making my point. The motorcyclist was in the right lane. So,
condition #1 you quote does not apply; he was not turning left.
Condition #2 does not apply. The street _is_ wide enough, but the biker's
in the _right_ lane. Sure, if there's a car in the left lane, you can
pass on the right. But if the car's in the right lane, you can't squeeze
by in the gutter.
Duck aka D. Harper
? the vehicle you are passing is waiting to turn left.
?
JFYI - In Texas it is legal to pass on the right as long as it is paved.
It is, however, illegal to drive on the shoulder. Go figure. :-)
Don
Chuck Karish
(Phil Stone) writes:
>Et tu, Chuck? This is the third time (in the recent discussion only)
>that I've heard this specious argument. A bike can safely overtake a
>car in the same lane in most conditions because there is room to do
>so. In only one special case can a car overtake a bike in the same
>lane, and that is if, and only if, the bike is crowding the extreme
>edge of the lane, i.e., in the same position it would be in if it were
>lane-splitting.
Depends on the car and on the width of the lane as well as
on the position of the bike in the lane.
In this case it's pretty clear that the car driver was not
overtaking safely.
My response was not to the description of the incident, but
to Diana's unqualified statement that the driver was at
fault because he was in the same lane with the bike.
And no, I don't expect Diana to talk like a lawyer when
she posts and yes, I do feel silly picking at this point.
Lissa Shoun
>
>It's illegal in California (and most other places) to pass on the right unless
Nit time. In 1991 it most certainly WAS LEGAL to pass on the right. I
haven't been able to get a copy of the 1992 vehicle code yet, but I
don't think this law was changed this year. Sections 21754,21755 are the
key. I don't have the exact wording but:
You are prohibited from passing on the right unless one of the
following applies:
- The passed vehicle is about to turn left (note that you can't drive
onto the unpaved shoulder of the road); OR
- the street or road is wide enough to accommodate two lanes of traffic
(that need not be marked off in a business or residence district), not
counting widening of the paved area at intersections; OR
- You're on a one-way street or a divided highway.
Shucks, if it were illegal to pass on the right unless the passed
vehicle were turning left, then it wouldn't be legal to zip along
between two lanes of car traffic, would it? And I do that all the
time and I wouldn't *dream* of ever doing anything illegal.
Lissa
sh...@netcom.com
Chuck Karish
>taking up 2 lanes as Mary says above, right? Then this guy passes on the right.
>Now, how did he do that? He'd have to be IN THE SAME LANE as one of the bikes.
proper when initiated by the biker.
George Grenley
>In article <1992Mar18.2...@informix.com> db...@informix.com writes:
>>What I don't understand, if these 3 bikes were riding 3 abreast, they were
>>taking up 2 lanes as Mary says above, right? Then this guy passes on the right.
>>Now, how did he do that? He'd have to be IN THE SAME LANE as one of the bikes.
>On the shoulder, like it said in one of the articles.
It's illegal in California (and most other places) to pass on the right unless
the vehicle you are passing is waiting to turn left.
>>Right there I think he's a jerk. We've all been held up by slow moving
>>vehicles, and if we make a stupid/illegal move, we're responsible.
>
>Uh, this isn't a two lane goat path, it's a 4-lane road. The 3 riders
>were deliberately blocking both lanes.
Not true. There were two riders abreast in the left lane, proceeding at
a reasonable rate of speed (30mph). This is legal. There was one rider
in the right lane, proceeding at a reasonable rate of speed. This too
is legal. There is no evidence that they were attempting to block both
lanes. Furthermore, since it is a city street, not a freeway, the
riders in the left lane were not obligated to pull into the left lane.
For all we know, they may have been in the left lane because they were
planning to turn left soon.
>>I also think the guy on the bike is a jerk for getting so pissed he kicks the
>>car. But I can understand getting pissed because someone threatens a loved one
>Uh, no, the wife-who-didn't-know-how-to-ride-so-what-the-hell-was-she-doing-
>on-a-public-road-?- was in the other lane, away from the car.
Again, the facts in evidence here do not support this assumption. The wife
was a beginning rider. _EVERYBODY_ has a first time on the street. Does
this mean she's a fair target?
>
>>But I can't see charging the guy with murder! Jeez, no matter what, he was IN
>>FRONT of the car,
>
>He swerved in front of the car, the driver apparently tried to avoid
>hitting the rider, and lost control as a result.
The basic speed law requires all drivers to drive at a speed such that they
can stop orr control their vehicles within the safe assured clear distance
ahead. In slick, wet conditions, or a night, you are permitted/required to
drive at a speed slow enough you can stop in time. Yes, there's some
allowance for another drivers deliberate attempt to make you hit him, but
generally if _you_ hit the other guy, it's your fault unless you can _prove_
he set it up deliberately.
On a related point, if the car guy did such an abrupt lane change that he
lost control and crashed, either he was going a lot faster than the posted
speed limit (35 mph according to another post) or Honda Accords are among the
truly bad handling cars of the world.
Given that the guy wrapped the car around a tree so hard he killed not only the
person on the side of the car near the tree but also the person on the other
side of the car, he must have been going a lot faster than 35 mph. Not
surprising; let's face it, we all go 45-50 on most big 4 lane urban arterial
roads.
>>the driver of the car should have acted more responsibly and
>>thought "Jeez, that guy on that bike is nuts, I better slow down and get away
>>from him." Much more boring response.
>
>Slow down and get away from him?
Yeah. Stop even. Nail the brakes and let the assh*ole disappear on down the
road. But given the apparent speed the car guy must have been going, I think
he was trying to catch the bike, or at least keep up, and he blew it.
George
Ed Green - Pixel Cruncher
> I've only spent a little time in Ca., but don't those little white
>reflector bumps get to be a nuisance when you do this? They seemed to
>be on all the roads, even the freeways.
Yep.
I love the way Rachel described them, "for people who drive
by Braille!"
Wm. L. Ranck
>In article <1992Mar19.1...@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> psm...@cbnewsj.cb.
att.com (paul.m.smith) writes:
>>Isn't "lane-sharing", aka "lane-splitting", OK in California? Or is it
>There is no law in California prohibiting a motorcycle and a car
>from sharing the same lane. I have looked through the vechicle code
>and talked to CHP officers to confirm this. In rush hour it is
>considered standard behavior by motorcyclists, at least in Socal it is.
>The MSF beginning course instructor said that he went to the local
>CHP station and discussed this issue. (With his MSF hat on he said
>he cannot condone it, but personally he does it every day)
I've only spent a little time in Ca., but don't those little white
reflector bumps get to be a nuisance when you do this? They seemed to
be on all the roads, even the freeways.
>P.S. Ever try to follow a CHP lane splitting? Impressive!
What's so impressive? No sane person is going to open a car door
in front of one. I'm sure the confidence factor helps.
*************************************************************************
* Bill Ranck DoD #0496 RA...@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU *
* '87 XV535 Virago '73 Norton Commando '73 Honda 350-4 *
* (it gets me there) (it's a classic) (it's hard to explain)*
*************************************************************************
paul.m.smith
>In article 10...@cbnewsj.cb.att.com, psm...@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (paul.m.smith) writes:
>>
>>Isn't "lane-sharing", aka "lane-splitting", OK in California? Or is it
>>only OK for _bikes_ to lane-share? We seem to have a bit of a double
>>standard, huh?
>
>I don't think so. Lane sharing is not *illegal*, which means it is
>legal, depending on the opinion of the cop at hand. Passing on the
>right is definately *illegal*, if the passee is not turning left, and
Yea, right after I posted that, I thought about it some more. I don't
remember all the fine points of lane-splitting, and what is generally
allowed (not that it hasn't been beaten to death enough here), but
I'm sure passing on the right is not OK. I wonder if things would have
been much different if the 2 women had been in the right lane, the guy
in the left, and the car passed on the left? Do you suppose the biker
would have considered that to be OK? I must have missed the part about
the car going onto the shoulder -- I thought they squeezed by in the
right lane.
>if there is not sufficient room on the right for a lane of vehicles.
>The cage LEFT THE ROAD to pass the bikes, so I think we can safely
>assume there was not room to legally pass on the right.
>>It's OK for bikes to squeeze between slow-moving cars,
>>but not OK for a car to pass 3 bikes taking up 2 lanes at something less
>>than the speed limit?
>Not at all. On many occasions, I have been enjoying a nice leisurely
>cruise up Skyline, when some yuppie in a high performance sports cage
>obviously wants to enjoty the twisties more. On a straight section,
>but still double yellow, I move obviously and deliberately to the right
>edge of the road, and they pass me, within the lane, legally, and
>safely. No problem.
I've not ridden in California, but when driving there, I have not noticed
that riders that are splitting lanes wait for any kind of acknowledgement
or invitation from car drivers before passing. Is it reasonable that
a slower rider should expect that from a someone in a car? Again, let
me say that I get really upset when a car passes me in _my_ lane. I
would have a tough time riding in California. I don't know that I would
be willing to let cars share lanes with me in exchange for being able to
share lanes with them.
>Note that for three bikers to ride abreast safely, requires one damned
>big breast! I mean, requires the full two lanes. It was one of them's
It sure would be nice to have all the facts. I don't envision them taking
up 2 _full_ lanes. I picture the 2 women in the left lane, and the guy
in the left part of the right lane, perhaps leaving enough room that the
driver thought he could squeeze past.
>first ride, so I can see why they might choose not to ride in formation,
>so they can talk and grin at each other. Perhaps they were so wrapped
>up in the experience they didn't notice the cager. Perhaps they did,
>and they were just assholes. Doesn't matter.
>
>The cage had no business going off the road to pass them illegally.
>The biker had no business kicking the cage. The biker had no business
>swerving in front of the cage. The cager had no business driving
>beyond his ability to control his cage. The tree had no business
>growing there.
There definitely was enough stupidity to go around. Too bad people
ended up dead and charged with murder as a result. The worst part for
me is that I can imagine myself getting upset enough to consider kicking
someone's door in if they passed in my lane. Unfortunately for the victims
of this incident, but fortunately for me, their example will probably
ensure that I will never seriously consider doing it.
>What I want to know is, what does the wife think of motorcycling, after
>such an interesting introduction to the sport? You must admit, it
>would be tough to top this one at your typical biker bench-racing
>session.
I wonder how they all feel about this... Remorseful? Just sorry that
they are in trouble because of it? Proud that the stupid cagers got
what they deserved? I'm not sure it's something I'd want to talk about.
--
Paul Smith
Ken Murphy
: In article <1992Mar17.1...@eos.arc.nasa.gov> ph...@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Phil Stone) writes:
: >
: >Before we all jump on the media-constructed bandwagon and condemn
: >the EvilBiker for ruining our image, we should reflect on the fact
: I see a lot of this... "Everybody thinks we're big bad bikers"
: So what's the deal? Am I the exception rather than the rule?
I've had some friendly encounters on my scoot (dirt) , but they tend
to be the exception rather than the rule.
O Ken Murphy aka ke...@array.com President RMEC
<M> MerfMan DoD #0479 '92 KTM 250 EX/C Member COHVCO
_/ \_ Race Now Party Later Racing Team AMA 406077
Disclaimer: _I_ don't believe what I said, why should you?
David Robinson
>Isn't "lane-sharing", aka "lane-splitting", OK in California? Or is it
>only OK for _bikes_ to lane-share? We seem to have a bit of a double
>standard, huh? It's OK for bikes to squeeze between slow-moving cars,
>but not OK for a car to pass 3 bikes taking up 2 lanes at something less
>than the speed limit? I'm not condoning or condemning anyone's actions
>here, nor am I wanting to start the lane-splitting war again. I get upset
>if a car passes me in my lane, but I don't ride in California where bikes
>routinely ride in the same lanes with cars. Just something to think about.
There is no law in California prohibiting a motorcycle and a car
from sharing the same lane. I have looked through the vechicle code
and talked to CHP officers to confirm this. In rush hour it is
considered standard behavior by motorcyclists, at least in Socal it is.
The MSF beginning course instructor said that he went to the local
CHP station and discussed this issue. (With his MSF hat on he said
he cannot condone it, but personally he does it every day) The CHP
clearly stated that lane sharing is not illegal, but if an
officer sees you "lane splitting" or "white-lining" he can write
you up for any of the following:
-unsafe pass to the left
-unsafe pass to the right
-unsafe speed (going too fast for the flow)
-not signaling a lang change
-reckless driving
-anything else he can find
Most of which will stick in a traffic court. Their rough guidelines
for "safe" is no more than 5-10mph over the flow of traffic, and
the flow of traffic less than 35-40mph. He said they actually
encourage it in rush hour!
-David
P.S. Ever try to follow a CHP lane splitting? Impressive!
Ed Green - Pixel Cruncher
>
>You are prohibited from passing on the right unless one of the
>following applies:
>
>(that need not be marked off in a business or residence district), not
>counting widening of the paved area at intersections; OR
I don't remember the intersection exclusion, but anyway, this is
something I always wondered about: If the street is wide enough to
accommodate a car and a motorcycle, it seems reasonable to assume it
could accommodate a lane of cars and a lane of motorcycles, thus two
lanes of traffic. However, I have read here of people who were
ticketed for lane sharing on the right, and the cops told them it was
only legal between lanes, not to the right of one lane. It seems to
depend on the interpretation of "two lanes of traffic" meaning two
lanes of cages (its probable intent), or "two lanes of anything defined
as a vehicle in the VC (its literal meaning)."
>Shucks, if it were illegal to pass on the right unless the passed
>vehicle were turning left, then it wouldn't be legal to zip along
>between two lanes of car traffic, would it?
Sure, as long as you are to the right of the dotted line, you are
passing cages in the right lane, on their left, legally.
Mike Fester
>>
>But I can't see charging the guy with murder! Jeez, no matter what, he was IN
>FRONT of the car, the driver of the car should have acted more responsibly and
>thought "Jeez, that guy on that bike is nuts, I better slow down and get away
>from him." Much more boring response.
>
all, as I found out when two guys chased a friend of mine, chasing or
threatening anyone from any motor vehicle is considered assault with a deadly
weapon in California. Second, the biker was lucky the guy in the Honda actually
heeded the brakelights; if the biker actually kicked the doors of the Honda,
the driver could have smacked the bike from the rear and stated (post mortem)
"Gee officer, this crazy biker came after me, then got right in front of me and
slammed on his brakes; there was just NOTHING I could do". Third, the biker
could have filed a criminal complaint against the guy in the Honda if he really
felt the Honda threatened him or his friend, he could have filed a complaint
with the police. And finally, as a hot tempered acquintance of mine found out,
sometimes old people carry guns. (my friend is fine; just a slight permanent
limp).
Mike
--
Disclaimer
These opiini^H^H damn! ^H^H ^Q ^[ .... :w :q :wq :wq! ^d X exit X Q ^C ^?
:quitbye CtrlAltDel ~~q :~q logout save/quit :!QUIT ^[zz ^[ZZZZZZ ^H ^@ ^L ^[c ^# ^E ^X ^I ^T ? help helpquit ^D ^d ^C ^c help exit ?Quit ?q
Laird P. Broadfield
>Where in the Vehicle Code does it say you can't pass someone on the right?
>Are you talking about something more specific than you're saying? If you
>are splitting/sharing between two lanes of traffic, then you are passing
>some of this traffic on the right. This is not illegal in California.
Errrrrm. Think this through. If the traffic on the 1 lane (leftmost) is
doing 55, the splitter is in the leftmost portion of the 2 lane, doing 50,
and the other traffic in the 2 lane (to the right of the splitter) is
doing 45, then no one is passing on the right. (Use a picture on a piece
of paper and some paperclips or pen caps to represent vehicles if you're
still having trouble with this.) (Speeds changed to protect the innocent.)
Above said, it is my *recollection* (VC is at home) that passing on the
right *is* a violation, in so many words. The bit that makes "splitting"
lawful is that you must do so in the left portion of the lane, without
crossing the stripe. Don't forget to signal if you cross the stripe.
--
Laird P. Broadfield lai...@crash.cts.com ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
Hi! I'm a shareware signature! Send $5 if you use me, send $10 for manual!
George Wu
>
> There is no law in California prohibiting a motorcycle and a car
> from sharing the same lane. I have looked through the vechicle code
> and talked to CHP officers to confirm this. In rush hour it is
> considered standard behavior by motorcyclists, at least in Socal it is.
>
> The MSF beginning course instructor said that he went to the local
> CHP station and discussed this issue. (With his MSF hat on he said
> he cannot condone it, but personally he does it every day) The CHP
> clearly stated that lane sharing is not illegal, but if an
> officer sees you "lane splitting" or "white-lining" he can write
> you up for any of the following:
> -unsafe pass to the left
> -unsafe pass to the right
> -unsafe speed (going too fast for the flow)
> -not signaling a lang change
> -reckless driving
> -anything else he can find
> Most of which will stick in a traffic court. Their rough guidelines
> for "safe" is no more than 5-10mph over the flow of traffic, and
> the flow of traffic less than 35-40mph. He said they actually
> encourage it in rush hour!
As I hear it, Santa Clara County based CHP make it standard policy
to ticket lane splitters. It's up to the officer's discretion, and down
that way, they always use said discretion. :-(
George
PS: Yes, I know, not the lane splitting discussion again!!!!
George Wu
> In article <1992Mar19.2...@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> da...@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (David Robinson) writes:
>
> I've only spent a little time in Ca., but don't those little white
> reflector bumps get to be a nuisance when you do this? They seemed to
> be on all the roads, even the freeways.
There's almost always room to one or both sides to avoid the bumps.
Usually, one car gives you more room than the other.
> >P.S. Ever try to follow a CHP lane splitting? Impressive!
> What's so impressive? No sane person is going to open a car door
> in front of one. I'm sure the confidence factor helps.
I've seen doors open to discard trash, spit out a chaw, and any
number of other reasons. I've even seen people long stopped get out to
stretch their legs. That's not to mention those quick dodges some people
make to other lanes.
In my book, lane splitting violates the #1 motorcyclist's rule:
never trust the other guy. With cars so close, you simply can't. Me, I
figure I'll just have to take the chance, 'cause I just can't bear to
sit still when I could be getting somewhere.
George
John Hamilton
GW> As I hear it, Santa Clara County based CHP make it standard policy
GW> to ticket lane splitters. It's up to the officer's discretion, and down
GW> that way, they always use said discretion. :-(
I have split on Central Expressway right under the nose of a CHP and he
didn't even blink. Thats right in the heart of Santa Clara County. I have
heard the city cops are worse, though. I split all the time, sooner or
later I'll do it right past a city cop and find out.
John
--- GoldED 2.32.B0212+
--
John Hamilton uucp: uts.amdahl.com!kennel!john
DoD #0327 ToT #11 internet: jo...@f8.n143.z1.fidonet.org
ZX-11 From Hell. arpa: jo...@kennel.FIDONET.ORG
She said, "Its either me or that ZX-11!" Too bad, I'll miss her.
Jay Cena
g...@nujoizey.tcs.com (George Wu) writes:
>
> As I hear it, Santa Clara County based CHP make it standard policy
>
>
>PS: Yes, I know, not the lane splitting discussion again!!!!
>
Its not so much the CHP in Santa Clara County they have a liberal
policy for lane splitting. Its the locals Santa Clara Police that
have very strict rules about lane splitting and are generally tough
on motorcyclist. This is my understanding from experience, and has
been corroborated by more then one CHP.
let the splitter beware
anyone can cite you, its all up them!
Jay Cena
dod#90
88 V-MAX
Jim Brewer
>In <1992Mar23....@tcsi.com> br...@spike.tcs.com (Brad Whitaker) writes:
>
>Above said, it is my *recollection* (VC is at home) that passing on the
>right *is* a violation, in so many words. The bit that makes "splitting"
>lawful is that you must do so in the left portion of the lane, without
>crossing the stripe.
Nope (*new* VC is here :-). Look up Sections 21754 and 21755.
Jim Brewer
> Me, I
>figure I'll just have to take the chance, 'cause I just can't bear to
>sit still when I could be getting somewhere.
Sitting still also violates the acronym stamped right on top of
my valve covers. DOHC .. Don't Over Heat Cylinders .. right??
Jim Brewer
>Monday March 23 1992, George Wu writes to All:
>
> GW> As I hear it, Santa Clara County based CHP make it standard policy
> GW> to ticket lane splitters. It's up to the officer's discretion, and down
> GW> that way, they always use said discretion. :-(
>
>I have split on Central Expressway right under the nose of a CHP and he
>didn't even blink. Thats right in the heart of Santa Clara County. I have
>heard the city cops are worse, though. I split all the time, sooner or
>later I'll do it right past a city cop and find out.
Last year my roommate beat a lane splitting ticket in San Jose Municipal
Court. It took a number of months. He was refunded his bail in full
and the case was dismissed.
The case number might serve as a precident for someone.
David Robinson
> Last year my roommate beat a lane splitting ticket in San Jose Municipal
>Court. It took a number of months. He was refunded his bail in full
>and the case was dismissed.
>
> The case number might serve as a precident for someone.
Unfortunately you cannot set a "precident" in traffic court. I am
no lawyer but it was explained in terms of the level of the court
and the fact that tickets are infractions.
Michael G. Lohmeyer
>
> GW> As I hear it, Santa Clara County based CHP make it standard policy
> GW> to ticket lane splitters. It's up to the officer's discretion, and down
> GW> that way, they always use said discretion. :-(
>
>I have split on Central Expressway right under the nose of a CHP and he
>didn't even blink. Thats right in the heart of Santa Clara County. I have
>heard the city cops are worse, though. I split all the time, sooner or
>later I'll do it right past a city cop and find out.
My news feed has been loosing alot of messages lately (like almost all
of them), so if this posting is ridiculously redundant, forgive me.
As many of you know, there is no law in California that specifically
allows or disallows lane splitting. The discretion of the police officer
is based on the fact that there are a couple laws that can be applied to
nab you for lane splitting if the cop wants to use them. I don't remember
what the laws are but what I am saying is based on what my instructor from
the California motorcycle street riding safty course said (I assume that he
knew what he was talking about). He said that basically, the interpretation
of the legality of lane splitting is potentially different with each
police organization you run into. For example, if you plan to lane split
in Palo Alto, you should ask the Palo Alto police what their policy is, or
just take the chance that they don't care. The instructor also said that he
has asked most all of the local and state police organizations in the
South Bay area and all of them said they don't ticket for lane splitting
except for Sunnyvale. He could never get a straight answer from Sunnyvale
(at least I think he said Sunnyvale, it might have been Mountain Veiw).
Of course, if you do lane splitting dangerously, you will probably get a
ticket for it so use your best judgement and be careful.
One last comment. Of all the organizations that the instructor called,
the CHP was one of them (he also has some friends that work for the CHP).
He said the CHP does not ticket for lane splitting (again, unless you do
it dangerously). I have also seen CHP motorcycle cops lane split during
rush hour on 101 in moving traffic. They weren't trying to get anywhere
for a particularly important reason, they were just moving along, so it
wasn't for an emergency situation.
Mike
Diana Boyd
>
> Okay.
Yes, slow down, exactly.
Recently I had a weirdo in a VW bug move into my lane at a red light. He was
RIGHT next to me, his window was open and I said "What the $**# are you
doing?!?" He totally ignored me, continued to stare straight ahead, really
strange. The light changed and I took off, left him in the dust, only to hit
another red light and have him do the same thing, inch up REAL close to me. I
realized I couldn't get away from him by going fast and be able to stay on that
road, so I moved to the right (there were two lanes) and waved the other
traffic past me. He was really holding other cars up who were beeping. He
finally got tired of it and took off.
Diana
DIANA BOYD "If you think that you can or you think that you can't,
Evo Woman you are probably correct" -- Author Unknown
Ed Green - Pixel Cruncher
>
> In my book, lane splitting violates the #1 motorcyclist's rule:
>never trust the other guy. With cars so close, you simply can't. Me, I
>figure I'll just have to take the chance, 'cause I just can't bear to
>sit still when I could be getting somewhere.
The way I do it, rule #1 is never violated. With a high active
concentration on the cages immediately ahead, the brake covered, and
down in a sufficiently low gear, I leave nothing to "trust."
Brad Whitaker
> In <1992Mar23....@tcsi.com> br...@spike.tcs.com (Brad Whitaker) writes:
>
> >Where in the Vehicle Code does it say you can't pass someone on the right?
> >Are you talking about something more specific than you're saying? If you
> >are splitting/sharing between two lanes of traffic, then you are passing
> >some of this traffic on the right. This is not illegal in California.
>
> Errrrrm. Think this through. If the traffic on the 1 lane (leftmost) is
> doing 55, the splitter is in the leftmost portion of the 2 lane, doing 50,
> and the other traffic in the 2 lane (to the right of the splitter) is
> doing 45, then no one is passing on the right. (Use a picture on a piece
> of paper and some paperclips or pen caps to represent vehicles if you're
> still having trouble with this.) (Speeds changed to protect the innocent.)
You describe an unusual, though valid, example of lane splitting. As interesting
as it may be, this example doesn't support the notion that passing on the right
is illegal. How about if we choose a more common example and say: "If you are
splitting/sharing between two lanes of _stopped_ traffic, then you are passing
some of this traffic on the right. This is not illegal in California."
> Above said, it is my *recollection* (VC is at home) that passing on the
> right *is* a violation, in so many words.
Someone else has posted excerpts of the VC indicating that passing on the
right is _almost_ always legal in California.
> The bit that makes "splitting" lawful is that you must do so in the left
> portion of the lane, without crossing the stripe.
Hogwash. (And no, I'm not talking about cleaning someone's Harley.)
> Don't forget to signal if you cross the stripe.
Good idea.
____
Brad Whitaker Teknekron Communications Systems Berkeley, CA USA
br...@tcs.com (510)649-3815 DoD #1000 '81 CX500 (for sale)
"Ride to Work, Work to Ride... Ride back Home" '87 CBR1000 (for fun!)
Ed Green - Pixel Cruncher
>>
>> Errrrrm. Think this through. If the traffic on the 1 lane (leftmost) is
>> doing 55, the splitter is in the leftmost portion of the 2 lane, doing 50,
>> and the other traffic in the 2 lane (to the right of the splitter) is
>> doing 45, then no one is passing on the right. (Use a picture on a piece
>> of paper and some paperclips or pen caps to represent vehicles if you're
>> still having trouble with this.) (Speeds changed to protect the innocent.)
Reality check: You split lanes ANYWHERE in CA, in view of a cop, at 50
mph, and I GUARANTEE you will get a ticket, and quite possibly go to
jail. Half all the speeds in this example, and it is a valid case of legal
lane sharing.
james.j.dutton
Any # will do just fine.
So kind of you.
Dan Sorenson
(james.j.dutton) writes:
<sigh!> If only it were that easy... Why to I get the same
feeling towards this poster as I do towards the pheasants living in the
road ditches right before they're burned in the spring?
<Daniel R. Sorenson Dod #1066 |If Iowa State University agreed with me >
<z1...@exnet.iastate.edu <- work |I'd make $90K/yr. They don't, I don't. >
<vik...@iastate.edu <- play |"I am *not* goofing off. I am driving >
< myself mercilessly in the pursuit of relaxation." -- T. Weeds >