|
Don't split on the right, no one expects you to be there. You're gonna get taken out.
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 07:35 |
|
|
Shoot if I was stuck in bad traffic like that I'd just go on the bike lane
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Split all the time in all situations. Even the bike lane, as long as you give cyclists plenty of room.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Bike lane, bus lane, breakdown lane, I don't give a gently caress. But gently caress painted medians forever, that poo poo's dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Yeah, echoing "split wherever". Path of least resistance, find your way through. The whole premise is that there isn't an expressly marked place for your bike to go, but there is plenty of room all over for your bike to go. Be safe, and always be ready for someone to put their car where you intended to put your bike, and you will be fine(ish). Honestly, I worry more about picking up a nail when splitting than anything else. edit: My ninjette is so refreshingly small and light that I have to stop myself from going up on the sidewalk. Don't go on pedestrian walkways.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
nsaP posted:Shoot if I was stuck in bad traffic like that I'd just go on the bike lane Same.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Coydog posted:Honestly, I worry more about picking up a nail when splitting than anything else. This. I'd spend a lot more time in the far left (like the little mini breakdown lane next to the median or jersey barriers) in highway traffic if I hadn't gotten so many flats doing it. So many is two but that's still plenty for me. But then the trade off is going between lanes and on the east coast people aren't thinking about bikes splitting so I worry one of these days I'm going to get creamed by some guy who thinks changing lanes if going to make any difference.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Is it legal for me to split in the bike lane?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
I don't follow you...
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
nsaP posted:I don't follow you... I mean in California, if a cop sees me splitting on the right side of a one lane road in such a way that I am partially or mostly in a bike lane will I get a ticket.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
He'll be in the traffic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
nsaP posted:He'll be in the traffic.  again
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
nsaP posted:He'll be in the traffic. Haha, there is a video (if I could find it) of someone splitting on the right up an onramp to a california highway and almost getting taken out by a cop who didn't see him. BlackMK4 fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Jul 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Knifegrab posted:Is it legal for me to split in the bike lane? No, But I would hang over into the bike lane while keeping my wheels on the road side of the markings, proceeding slowly and cautiously, in case someone dives for the bike lane/parking spot. I do this relatively often in the city. Be polite to the bicyclists (throw a quick wave or whatever) cause you're sorta invading in their space.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Of course now we live in THE FUTURE he'd not have needed that stick (which he kept), as he'd have had a cell phone, which means he'd have also had a selfie stick to put his helmet on. This situation is why I use a Spot whenever I ride out of cell phone range. There's a lot of situations in CO where a crash is going to put you somewhere where you're not visible from the road, and dying of a broken leg or some poo poo doesn't sound too fun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Ultimately if you're in two minds about splitting you should watch this educational film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q29inP2m3do
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Ultimately if you're in two minds about splitting you should watch this educational film: The narrator is Pierre Camembert. Pierre is the French form of the name Peter. Peter is often used as slang for a man's reproductive organ, much like Dick or Johnson. Camembert is a type of cheese. Our narrator is Dick Cheese. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Z3n posted:No, But I would hang over into the bike lane while keeping my wheels on the road side of the markings, proceeding slowly and cautiously, in case someone dives for the bike lane/parking spot. I do this relatively often in the city. Be polite to the bicyclists (throw a quick wave or whatever) cause you're sorta invading in their space. I know cops have their own set of rules when it comes to the road but motorcycle cops routinely drive in the bike lanes around my house in the city when traffic gets backed up enough, and I've seen plenty of people (including myself) go into the bike lane near a police officer without attracting any attention. But yes, be super polite to bicyclists when you do it (and in general!) drive slow and watch out for getting doored.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Chichevache posted:The narrator is Pierre Camembert. Pierre is the French form of the name Peter. Peter is often used as slang for a man's reproductive organ, much like Dick or Johnson. Camembert is a type of cheese. I don't think that's his real name. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Took my SMC for my first off-road ride yesterday on a forest track. It still has pure street tires on it, but I had fun. After a while of broken road it turned into really sandy dirt, which was fine for a few hundred feet until I noticed just how sandy it was and started thinking about it, at which point I started worrying and using the brakes, washing out the rear. Loads of fun, but I need to get some dual-sport tires for this thing so I can take it wherever and have fun doing anything. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Knifegrab posted:I mean in California, if a cop sees me splitting on the right side of a one lane road in such a way that I am partially or mostly in a bike lane will I get a ticket. Dunno what kind of bike you have, but when this was the case for me while I was on the WR250, I'd just go up a driveway, continue on the sidewalk until the corner and make my turn from there (assuming it was gridlock). The way I think of it, california, especially LA where I live, has seen way worse than what I'm capable of, so I don't worry about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
So my bike is still in breakin for a few more hundred miles. My manual says for these early miles to not push the engine past 3500 RPM. How serious is this requirement? Should I never try to get it above that? SHould I just not leave it above that RPM for many minutes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Knifegrab posted:So my bike is still in breakin for a few more hundred miles. My manual says for these early miles to not push the engine past 3500 RPM. How serious is this requirement? Should I never try to get it above that? SHould I just not leave it above that RPM for many minutes? Just don't go on a 200 mile highway trip at the same rpm the whole time
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Knifegrab posted:So my bike is still in breakin for a few more hundred miles. My manual says for these early miles to not push the engine past 3500 RPM. How serious is this requirement? Should I never try to get it above that? SHould I just not leave it above that RPM for many minutes? It's not - let the bike get nicely warmed up and use all the RPMs. Try not to hold it at the same RPM for an extended period of time (more than 15 seconds or so).
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
The running-in technique I was told by an engine builder (for cars admittedly) was to avoid sitting at constant RPM and avoid using more than 2/3rd's throttle or 2/3rd's of the available revs. It seems to work well enough.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Let it engine brake too. Rumors floating around that Hero bought EBR. Guess it's time to save for that super duke. clutchpuck fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Jul 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Z3n posted:It's not - let the bike get nicely warmed up and use all the RPMs. Try not to hold it at the same RPM for an extended period of time (more than 15 seconds or so). Also try and throw some hills into the mix too, the important thing is to let the engine see a variety of different load conditions. As long as you're not an idiot, it's always better to err on the side of too much load/use than too little, just don't go bouncing it off the rev limiter. (If the roads around your area are genuinely that boring, a highway run-in will work, but will leave the engine a bit tight (i.e. probably not making full power). Won't destroy it though, just won't quite get it to perfection. Conversely a too-aggressive run-in will leave it burning oil and losing power because it's blowing precious combustion gases past the piston, but you've generally got more allowance on the aggressive side than the boring one)
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 10:01
|
|
|
Throwing this in here because I wrote a whole bunch of words, why not! Here's the BARF thread if you wanna touch the vomit: http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=482373 From the recent video of me having a fun encounter as I merged into the split: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aKyg8TYceI ontherearwheel;9117486 posted:It's harder to hit a moving target....brings up something I call exposure time. Settle in folks, this became a big one. TL;DR: Splitting at higher speed reduces your exposure time to individual high risk cars while multiplying the number of high risk cars you experience and reduces your ability to detect those cars, preemptively avoid them, and also reduces the possibility you can dodge them after they have entered your path of travel. As lane splitting is ultimately about avoiding the single, critical accident moment, not about the risks on a per car basis, even if you can mitigate the individual car risks by going faster (which you don't), it's a bad strategy in the long run because you will not be able to mitigate the accident. What you're missing here is that the rider who splits at high speed relies on everyone else to not get in their way. If I hadn't been looking out for that rider as I came into the split, cautious because my visibility was impaired, he would have asspacked me with nowhere to go and no effective out because he was moving too fast to dodge or move around me. Also, in this case, you're not the target, you're the arrow. They're determining the target, you're determining if you can avoid it. Exposure is only one small component of risk. First of all, exposure risk is determined on a per car basis, not a timeframe. Each car you pass in the split comes with a chance of getting hit. Secondly, exposure risk is moderated by how effectively you can avoid the move a car might make. Splitting slower gives you more time to observe the behavior of cars in front of you, and identify, preempt, and react more effectively. Essentially, the risks of splitting break down as follows:
If you split quickly, per car exposure goes up, as you pass more cars per mile traveled in the split. If you split quickly, you get less time to scan and identify high risk cars and fewer options on modification of your speed/path to avoid them. If you're moving faster, you have less reaction time, and fewer overall options for reactive moves, increasing your risk. Out of these 3 categories that encompass risk related to cars while splitting, all three of them see increases in risk or a reduction in ability to mitigate risk the faster you go. In a targeted situation it can be worth it to trade a loss of agility and scan time for speed (ie, splitting past 2 high risk cars quickly), but continued high speed splitting use increases risk with each car you pass, so you want to minimize it to situations where you are positive that the path you are on is correct, which is impossible when you're not establishing the risk on a per car basis for each car you pass. And to preempt the "all cars are high risk!", well, the guy you see glance in his mirrors and move over onto the shoulder for you is significantly lower risk than the guy who is swerving back and forth in his lane while staring at his phone. All cars are high consequence if they connect with you, but not all cars are high risk. For example, there's an angle where you can see people in their side view mirrors as you approach if they're correctly adjusted. And if they're not correctly adjusted, that's valuable information too. You lose out on all of this information to help you identify high risk cars and drivers if you approach too quickly. On mitigation of an immediate bad move, there are some moves that have a high difficulty on mitigating - a blind, aggressive, no look lane change is pretty hard to dodge - you're moving with the car into the space they want to occupy, which is a very high risk/high reward move that becomes more risky the faster you go. However, the majority of moves are not like that, they're just normal lane changes where the driver didn't notice you, and slower speeds are more time to react, and allows for more mitigation potnetial(brakes vs. swerve, horn, potential for driver to notice you). To close: Lane splitting is not about winning the battle with each individual car you pass. It's a matter of winning the war with every car you pass. Reduction of individual car risk by some amount is meaningless if on the long run that means you're going to lose that single, critical battle. It's a sliding scale - as speed goes up, number of cars that you expose yourself to goes up, ability to identify sketchy situations goes down, ability to preemptively react goes to almost zero, ability to react after the fact goes way down, and long term risk skyrockets as you have no mitigations available to the inevitable (this is, incidentally, backed up by the studies). If you slow down, number of cars you expose yourself to drops, ability to identify sketchy situations goes up, ability to react goes up, and your overall risk goes way down. Lane splitting is about getting it right every time. You need to balance the risk of each pass against the reward of time you get back by doing it. Incidentally, all of this applies to motorcycling (or any risky activity) in a large scale as well - proper identification of the risks, mitigation through preparation or gear, and mitigation through reactions, paired against the reward of the activity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Lane splitting anything past stopped gridlock traffic is retarded and from watching videos (and going to LA), it looks like loving Mad Max over there. IMHO it should only be legal for stopped traffic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
revmoo posted:Lane splitting anything past stopped gridlock traffic is retarded and from watching videos (and going to LA), it looks like loving Mad Max over there. IMHO it should only be legal for stopped traffic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
But isn't a car that's stopped much more predictable than one that's already moving at speed?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
revmoo posted:But isn't a car that's stopped much more predictable than one that's already moving at speed? Yup. In stopped traffic if someone wants to change lanes you'll see their wheel turn before they move. If that's not enough time for you to mitigate it, you're going too fast. Honestly the 30km faster limit here in Australia makes a lot of sense in this regard, you'll always have plenty of time to react if you keep around that speed differential. If the differential is twice that, you have half the time and your options start looking grim. When splitting I find just having a constant flow to be much faster than trying to go fast between certain points. I also feel safer splitting than pretty much any kind of street riding, you can mitigate risks a lot more than usual.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
revmoo posted:But isn't a car that's stopped much more predictable than one that's already moving at speed? You're running the gauntlet, basically. Two rows of obnoxious fucks all on the verge of flinging a door open or inching over just to be spiteful. It's something I once considered apocryphal, as I'd only experienced mild forms of it, but YouTube away.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
It sounds like there's lane splitting, going in between the lanes at speed, and there's filtering, going in between the lanes when traffic is stopped. Neither are legal here but you can do a little bit of the former in the guise of passing cars/changing lanes, but I've never been able to filter and it's what I'd like to do. It seems pretty safe to me because you'd be talking about feathering the clutch to creep along in first gear and slowly move up through the ranks of stopped and hemmed cars. Really if someone opens a door on you at that speed you're not even going to get hurt aside from whatever consequence there is of falling off the bike/you getting furious as the idiot and starting a fight in the middle of the road like a drat high schooler. I really wish we could filter here; assuming you go slowly past stopped cars, don't try it on lights that were red when you got there (so that you don't end up lanesplitting on moving traffic when the light changes before you're at the front), and you keep your eyes open and your fingers on the front brake, it doesn't seem any more dangerous than putting around a busy parking lot - sort of risky but nothing absurd. All bikers here want to get rid of the helmet law, poo poo, keep the helmet law and get me lane filtering.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
Daily experience leads me to believe that cars moving at low speed are much safer and easier to split than cars that are standing still. There's always more room to slip through and the cars are almost never directly side by side, whereas when they're stopped it often leads to a situation where two retards with poor lane positioning will line up next to eachother and block you.Barnsy posted:Yup. In stopped traffic if someone wants to change lanes you'll see their wheel turn before they move. If that's not enough time for you to mitigate it, you're going too fast. Honestly the 30km faster limit here in Australia makes a lot of sense in this regard, you'll always have plenty of time to react if you keep around that speed differential. If the differential is twice that, you have half the time and your options start looking grim. Yeah this. I feel much safer splitting between two rows of cars than I do riding around at relatively high speeds in moderate to heavy traffic. You're just riding through a tunnel and all you have to do is watch for the cunts who think changing lane with lightning speed swerves whilst doing 20km/h is totally cool and great and awesome and not an enormous fuckhead thing to do. As if they're going to magically unlock the secret to not being in traffic by changing lanes every two minutes in gridlock.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
Went on a trip to scout out a leg of a trip that may be iffy, MT Hwy 38 over Skalkaho Pass Lots of blind corners, extremely limited sight lines, sheer drops and unpaved surface for most of it's length. Took a pic looking East from the falls;  Yes, that's a school bus.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 07:40
|
|
|
revmoo posted:But isn't a car that's stopped much more predictable than one that's already moving at speed? Most of the time you're splitting in CA (typically on the freeway), cars aren't actually stopped. They're moving at about 3-10mph, depending, accordianing in and out. And it's safer when traffic is moving consistently at a reasonable speed across all lanes, as people don't try and lane jump. The worst is when the left lane is moving fast and the second left lane isn't moving or vice versa because people line jump trying to get whereever they are going a few seconds faster. Overall a bunch of studies were done and lane splitting at less than 50mph traffic and under a 15mph delta is no more dangerous than normal riding of a motorcycle. I typically split around 5-10mph, although got in a little quicker for a bit after that guy blew by me because I was a bit thrown off/annoyed. Plus, riding in the wake of another rider is nice - car drivers tend to be on double alert then (ie, barely sentient).
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 08:08
|
|
|
This stuff seems to be pretty amazing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPM8OR6W6WE Apparently it's not available to consumers, perhaps it's nasty. Seems otherwise like it would work for waterproofing gear.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Ola posted:This stuff seems to be pretty amazing. The problem with all the hydrophobic coatings is that they tend to be not breathable at all, so it's like wearing a bin bag. Also most of them have some fatal flaw like breaking down in UV, breaking down when flexed, or being really stupidly toxic. Of course the real drawback with them is the same as all waterproof gear - nylon and other textiles are already more than waterproof enough for bike use, it's the seams and closures that are the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 07:35 |
|
|
gently caress waterproofing gear, treat the bike with it. No corroded bolts or rusty frame bits ever again...  Barring of course all the problems gdt just listed. But still, being able to come in from the pouring rain and park up a near perfectly dry bike would be amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 21:06
|
|
