Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site vger.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!vger!jparnas
From: jparnas@vger.UUCP (John M. Sully)
Newsgroups: net.cycle
Subject: Re: Letter in net.auto
Message-ID: <353@vger.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 25-Feb-86 15:39:36 EST
Article-I.D.: vger.353
Posted: Tue Feb 25 15:39:36 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Feb-86 03:41:11 EST
References: <192@copper.UUCP> <9306@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Distribution: na
Organization: UC Santa Cruz, CIS Dept.
Lines: 29
Summary: lane splitting is actually safer...

In a study done by Prof. Harry Hurt of USC on motorcycling hazards
lane splitting in heavy traffic was found to be a "negative hazard."

This means that the study (done in the late '70's early '80's and at
that time the most extensive study of the hazards facing the motorcyclist)
found that lane splitting ON THE HIGHWAY had a negative correlation with
accidents (vs. not lane splitting).  In fact, if I remember correctly,
the study did not find one accident that could be directly attributed to
lane splitting, while it found several involving riders who were not lane 
splitting.  

Hurt attributed this to the kinds of skills involved in the
two practices.  Lane splitting involves what Hurt referred to as
"path control" in which the most important thing was to keep going in
a straight line, he contrasted this with the more difficult "speed
control" which involves constant, sometimes sudden, adjustment to the
speed of the traffic around you.  

I would add that you are also at the mercy of the bonehead in the 
Caddilac 5 ft. behind your rear wheel when you do not split lanes 
in heavy traffic.

=====================

John M. Sully

BITNET : suzuki@ucscc.BITNET
ARPA   : ucscc!suzuki@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
UUCP   : ...!ucbvax!ucscc!suzuki