Lanesharing

Current & proposed legislation and political happenings that affect the two-wheeled community

Lanesharing

Postby Jillian » Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:06 am

Legalizing lanesharing, or filtering, would be a huge step towards motorcycle safety in NY. But it's a tough sell - car and truck drivers are scared of it, citizens think it would be a lawless free-for-all. But studies suggest that it reduces rider injuries (from being rear-ended in stop & go traffic) by giving motos an 'exit' and separate space, as well as reducing congestion and naughty emissions.

Apparently filtering isn't legal in France, but from my experience it's well tolerated - or was, till the French police started a crackdown last month. The Fédération Française des Motards en Colère (French Federation of Angry Bikers) staged a peaceful protest in support of lanesharing that involved handing flyers to car drivers explaining how filtering is safer and 'greener.' Pretty cool! 8-)
Image

Article here:
http://ukfrancebikers.com/2011/03/27/a- ... filtering/
Image
President, NYMSTF
http://www.nymstf.org
User avatar
Jillian
 
Posts: 575
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 12:28 pm
Location: New York, NY (Yorkville)

Re: Lanesharing

Postby Andrea » Fri May 13, 2011 8:39 am

I think one other benefit of lane sharing would be increased awareness of motorcycles by other drivers. It may be a little indirect but when motorcycles and scooters travel between lanes of larger vehicles they call attention to themselves. They become more visible. It's much easier to see things that are moving against the background than moving along with the general flow. In fact I think it's that heightened visibility that annoys other drivers. It intrudes on their otherwise hypnotic stare and says "hey, wake up! You're not the only ones on the road!" It means they have to be more attentive and look out for motorcycles. And that makes us more visible.
Andrea
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:34 pm

Re: Lanesharing

Postby Cheryl S » Fri May 13, 2011 9:27 am

That's a great point, Andrea. Unfortunately,I'm not sure we can use it with good effect with the general driving public. They hate it when anyone calls attention to their laziness in an unflattering way, but it certainly makes sense.

Jillian, do you know which study proved that lanesharing reduces the threat to riders of getting hit from behind? Was it the MAIDS study?
Cheryl S
Cheryl S
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:52 pm

Re: Lanesharing

Postby Jillian » Tue May 17, 2011 11:57 am

Cheryl S wrote:Jillian, do you know which study proved that lanesharing reduces the threat to riders of getting hit from behind? Was it the MAIDS study?


It wasn't the MAIDS study, as I haven't sifted through that one. There was a recent one in Oregon I think which I may have posted in another thread. I'll try to dig it up.
Image
President, NYMSTF
http://www.nymstf.org
User avatar
Jillian
 
Posts: 575
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 12:28 pm
Location: New York, NY (Yorkville)

Re: Lanesharing

Postby Cheryl S » Tue Aug 02, 2011 4:19 pm

What we've been looking for:

To: Motorcycle and Scooter Riders
Date: 07/25/11
Subject: New Paper about MC & Scooter Lane Sharing
Motorcycle and Scooter lane sharing and traffic filtering is widely practiced (and formally permitted or tacitly tolerated) in most of the world because it is a natural way to increase road-space utilization and personal mobility efficiency. Linked here is an important new five page paper by San Francisco-based transportation safety specialist (and rider) Steve Guderian. It succinctly grounds the assertion that lane sharing and filtering lowers accident rates which cause rider deaths and injuries.
The significant safety benefits of lane sharing and filtering have long been intuitively known by experienced riders. But getting non-riding political leaders -- and the American public -- to accept this has been impossible (except in California).
Shifting economic, social and cultural factors are providing new opportunities for riders to advocate change. For example, to reduce urban congestion, save energy and lower accident rates any municipal government could legalize lane sharing and filtering on all of the local roads and streets within it's boundaries. Wouldn’t that be nice in your city?
We hope you'll download and read this helpful new paper on lane sharing and filtering. Additional resources for advocates are available at www.ridetowork.org, including an Oregon State study of Lane Sharing.
Lane sharing enhances rider safety (.pdf)
Oregon state study on Lane Sharing (.pdf)
Ride to Work Day, a 501 c4 nonprofit organization, can be reached at:
POB 1072, Proctor, Minnesota, 55810 USA
http://www.ridetowork.org
218 722 9806
Christine Holt cholt@ridetowork.org
Andy Goldfine agoldfine@ridetowork.org
Ride to Work Day Mission Statement:
To advocate and support the use of motorcycles and scooters for transportation, and to provide information about transportation riding to the public.
Affiliated Ride to Work Day Countries:
Canada, Germany, Philippines, England, France, Israel, Turkey, Ecuador, United States, and many others.
Newsletter:
Sample issues of 'The Daily Rider' newsletter are available for download at:
http://www.ridetowork.org/daily-rider
History:
A brief history of Ride to Work Day is available for viewing at:
http://www.ridetowork.org/ride-to-work-day-history
Fact Sheet:
A transportation motorcycling fact sheet is available at:
http://www.ridetowork.org/transportation-fact-sheet
RTW Day Photos and Artwork:
Motorcycle commuting photos, ads, posters, banners, photos, illustrations and other artwork is available for view and download at: http://www.ridetowork.org/signs-posters ... aganda-art
Cheryl S
Cheryl S
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:52 pm

Re: Lanesharing

Postby Jusjih » Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:58 am

Hurt Report by Professor Harry Hurt is well known for supporting lane sharing in the USA. While I would like to see some legalized motorcycle lane sharing, I already lane-share on my non-motorized bicycle while not legally forbidden. However, I would never want to lane-share next to any moving vehicle no matter how slow.

When checking http://abateny.org/nybills.html I see no bill to try legalizing motorcycle lane sharing, but I consider Assembly Bill A03227 too bad by worsening the blanket motorcycle lane sharing ban. We should oppose it firmly.

I am claiming at my https://sites.google.com/site/jusjih/motorcycles that blanket motorcycle lane sharing ban without regard to how fast everyone is going should be considered unconstitutional, because it treats someone lane-sharing at 5 mph next to stopped vehicles as "equally guilty" as someone lane-sharing at 65 mph between others at 55 mph. Therefore, if the State Legislature does nothing, I am suggesting judicial venue when someone has the legal standing to claim Section 1252 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law unconstitutional.
JJ
https://sites.google.com/site/jusjih/motorcycles#lsm
alerts.motorists.org/nma-email-newsletter-issue-96

DISCLAIMER: This post does not necessarily reflect the formal opinions of my participating organizations.
Jusjih
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 8:32 am
Location: Long Island, New York, USA

Re: Lanesharing

Postby vesparado » Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:25 pm

Dan Sciannameo
http://www.avgny.com
User avatar
vesparado
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 4:41 pm

any engineers on the board?

Postby governmentdocuments » Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:55 pm

The Passenger Car Unit values of motorcycles at the beginning of a green period and in a saturation flow

I think the gist of this is that motorcycles do not congest traffic flow as much as other vehicles.
An argument could be made for funding under Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality - which is in the billions.

http://pubsindex.trb.org/orderform.html
Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting 2010 Paper #10-2819Abstract:

PCU (Passenger Car Unit) values are used in traffic management and transportation planning to calculate the flow volume in mixed traffic. However, the impact of motorcycles on road capacity is difficult to measure due to their ability to undertake both lane-based and non-lane-based movements. This study employed an agent-based simulation model to measure the flow volume of mixed traffic and estimated the PCUs of motorcycles in congested flow. The influences of several conditioning variables such as the number of lanes, the width of lanes, the proportion of motorcycles and the speeds of passenger cars are analyzed. The results indicate that the often used PCU value of 0.5 in transportation planning is inappropriate in some traffic conditions. This study suggested the PCUs of motorcycles in congested flow to be 0.40, 0.55 and 0.75 when the speeds of passenger cars are ranging from 10 to 20, 20 to 30, and 30 to 40 km/hr respectively.


http://pubsindex.trb.org/orderform.html

Source Data:
Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting 2010 Paper #10-1762Abstract:

Understanding peak period travel is vital for transportation finance initiatives, congestion mitigation, and air quality policies among other important policy and planning programs. Historically, the peak period was considered the domain of work travel. Commuting is still predominantly a weekday activity, tied to the morning and evening hours, and has traditionally defined peak travel demand. Over the last four decades the number of work trips grew as the population of workers grew. But by the early 80’s the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) showed that the number of non-work trips were growing faster than work trips. By the early 90’s the concept of trip chaining during a work tour was commonly used to allow more complex commutes to be recognized as work travel by including stops for incidental purposes during the commute. Even beyond the growth in trip chaining, non-work travel continues to grow faster than work travel, and it is growing during the peak periods. As the authors look forward to initiatives that aspire to smooth travel demand across time periods, one question that is difficult to answer is ‘How much of peak period travel is really mandatory?’ This research utilizes the NHTS data chained trip files (2001 are the most recent available, but this analysis can be updated in late fall with the 2008 NHTS) to categorize peak weekday vehicle travel into Mandatory travel; including work and school trips with typically more rigid schedules and fixed destinations; and Flexible travel; such as getting a meal and going to the gym that may be less rigid in time or destination choice. The concept of a work tour is used to include incidental non-work stops into the commute and therefore the ‘Mandatory’ category. The trips classified as ‘Flexible’ are trips wholly separate from the commute tour. This research concludes that using very stringent definitions of Mandatory travel (for instance, not including trips for medical purposes) nearly 75 percent of am peak vehicle trips are for ‘Mandatory’ purposes. In contrast, only 34 percent of PM peak vehicle trips are ‘Mandatory’. Importantly, we find that the mean income of peak travelers is slightly lower than the average for all travelers. Workers with the least flexible schedules, such as people in sales and service occupations, are more likely to be commuting during the peak. Part-time workers and workers in households with children are more likely to make ‘Flexible’ trips during the peak, and many (38 percent) of the workers making Flexible trips during peak go to work at another time, indicating schedule constraints on their Flexible travel.
User avatar
governmentdocuments
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:04 pm

Re: any engineers on the board?

Postby Cheryl S » Tue Nov 08, 2011 4:12 am

governmentdocuments wrote:The Passenger Car Unit values of motorcycles at the beginning of a green period and in a saturation flow

I think the gist of this is that motorcycles do not congest traffic flow as much as other vehicles.
An argument could be made for funding under Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality - which is in the billions.

http://pubsindex.trb.org/orderform.html
Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting 2010 Paper #10-2819Abstract:

PCU (Passenger Car Unit) values are used in traffic management and transportation planning to calculate the flow volume in mixed traffic. However, the impact of motorcycles on road capacity is difficult to measure due to their ability to undertake both lane-based and non-lane-based movements. This study employed an agent-based simulation model to measure the flow volume of mixed traffic and estimated the PCUs of motorcycles in congested flow. The influences of several conditioning variables such as the number of lanes, the width of lanes, the proportion of motorcycles and the speeds of passenger cars are analyzed. The results indicate that the often used PCU value of 0.5 in transportation planning is inappropriate in some traffic conditions. This study suggested the PCUs of motorcycles in congested flow to be 0.40, 0.55 and 0.75 when the speeds of passenger cars are ranging from 10 to 20, 20 to 30, and 30 to 40 km/hr respectively.


http://pubsindex.trb.org/orderform.html

Source Data:
Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting 2010 Paper #10-1762Abstract:

Understanding peak period travel is vital for transportation finance initiatives, congestion mitigation, and air quality policies among other important policy and planning programs. Historically, the peak period was considered the domain of work travel. Commuting is still predominantly a weekday activity, tied to the morning and evening hours, and has traditionally defined peak travel demand. Over the last four decades the number of work trips grew as the population of workers grew. But by the early 80’s the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) showed that the number of non-work trips were growing faster than work trips. By the early 90’s the concept of trip chaining during a work tour was commonly used to allow more complex commutes to be recognized as work travel by including stops for incidental purposes during the commute. Even beyond the growth in trip chaining, non-work travel continues to grow faster than work travel, and it is growing during the peak periods. As the authors look forward to initiatives that aspire to smooth travel demand across time periods, one question that is difficult to answer is ‘How much of peak period travel is really mandatory?’ This research utilizes the NHTS data chained trip files (2001 are the most recent available, but this analysis can be updated in late fall with the 2008 NHTS) to categorize peak weekday vehicle travel into Mandatory travel; including work and school trips with typically more rigid schedules and fixed destinations; and Flexible travel; such as getting a meal and going to the gym that may be less rigid in time or destination choice. The concept of a work tour is used to include incidental non-work stops into the commute and therefore the ‘Mandatory’ category. The trips classified as ‘Flexible’ are trips wholly separate from the commute tour. This research concludes that using very stringent definitions of Mandatory travel (for instance, not including trips for medical purposes) nearly 75 percent of am peak vehicle trips are for ‘Mandatory’ purposes. In contrast, only 34 percent of PM peak vehicle trips are ‘Mandatory’. Importantly, we find that the mean income of peak travelers is slightly lower than the average for all travelers. Workers with the least flexible schedules, such as people in sales and service occupations, are more likely to be commuting during the peak. Part-time workers and workers in households with children are more likely to make ‘Flexible’ trips during the peak, and many (38 percent) of the workers making Flexible trips during peak go to work at another time, indicating schedule constraints on their Flexible travel.


This is a federal program? If so, would we be eligible even though our focus is strictly on NY?
Cheryl S
Cheryl S
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:52 pm

Re: any engineers on the board?

Postby Jillian » Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:02 am

Cheryl S wrote:This is a federal program? If so, would we be eligible even though our focus is strictly on NY?


I think what GovtDocs posted is abstracts of articles written by the Transportation Research Board in 2010. So, yes, they're federal, but there isn't a program of sorts to join up on.
Image
President, NYMSTF
http://www.nymstf.org
User avatar
Jillian
 
Posts: 575
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 12:28 pm
Location: New York, NY (Yorkville)

Next

Return to Legislation & Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron