Today, I’d like to talk about one of the most contentious topics in motorcycling: lane splitting.
For a long time, I avoided the subject altogether. As a new rider, I felt that learning to ride was enough of a challenge; it didn’t make sense to add lane splitting to the mix. Not to mention, soon after learning to ride I began to work from home, so I was rarely on the road during rush hour.
But then, I moved to Oregon, where lane splitting bills have been introduced and failed many times in the past few years, and I began to see lane splitting (more specifically, filtering) in a new light.
After talking to a motorcycle cop who was pretty sure Oregon would approve lane splitting soon, I decided it was time to educate myself. Should lane splitting be legal? What research has been done on the effects of lane splitting? And, more importantly, what should a rider do to protect herself on the road, regardless of legality?
As I delved into the research, though, I began to feel uneasy. I wanted lane filtering to be a good thing, but the research was scant, complicated arguments devolved into suppositions on both sides, and the evidence I did find was subject to a range of interpretations.
At the same time, I was making my way through Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, and it occurred to me that the lane splitting debate was a quintessential example of his model for our moral decision making process.
So today, I’d like to walk through lane splitting as a case study in moral decision-making. Hopefully, by taking the time to understand how we arrived at this messy situation, we’ll make room for something everyone can appreciate: a compromise.
My Beliefs on Lane Filtering
But first, so I’m not misunderstood, I’d like to make one thing absolutely clear: I believe lane filtering should be legal. These terms aren’t clearly defined, so let me clarify that when I say “lane filtering,” I mean riders should be allowed to move through slow or stopped traffic (on the highway or at lights) using the “white line” space.
My reason is this: lane filtering allows motorcyclists to choose where they should be in slow or stopped traffic. When used responsibly, lane filtering can help make motorcyclists less vulnerable to the traffic around them.
Now, I’d like everyone to suspend their personal agendas and pretend with me for awhile. Pretend you’re an alien from a distant galaxy, or that you’re a researcher from thousands of years in the future. Either way, your goal is to understand one simple question: What’s the big deal with the lane splitting debate?
Which Way is Your Elephant Going?
The mind is divided, like a rider on an elephant, and the rider’s job is to serve the elephant.”
– Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind
One of Jonathan Haidt’s most popular ideas is his metaphor for the two “systems” of thinking: the rider and the elephant.
For centuries now, philosophers and then psychologists have discussed a “dual process” method of thinking, in which decisions are made using two “systems” in the mind.
In the early 2000s, psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky conducted experiments to demonstrate the difference between “effortless intuition” and “deliberate reasoning.” Kahneman’s 2011 book, Thinking, Fast and Slow delved deeper into this idea, and demonstrated how our minds use both intuitive and rational “processes” to arrive at decisions.
The concept of the “rider and the elephant” is Haidt’s version of these systems, where the elephant represents intuitive thought, and the rider represents rational thought. His point is that the rider is usually in control of the elephant, but if the elephant doesn’t want to do something, the rider will have a difficult time getting it to change its mind.
Haidt first introduced this metaphor in his 2006 book, The Happiness Hypothesis, which I have cited before. But in The Righteous Mind, he adds to the metaphor, saying that when the elephant has strong moral feelings, the rider acts less like an agent of logic, and more like “a politician searching for votes”:
You can see the rider serving the elephant when people are morally dumbfounded. They have strong gut feelings about what is right and wrong, and they struggle to construct post hoc justifications for those feelings. Even when the servant (reasoning) comes back empty-handed, the master (intuition) doesn’t change his judgment.”
According to Haidt, this is why people will cling to strongly held beliefs even in the face of crushing evidence. You may have changed the game for the rider, but have you convinced the elephant?
What’s so emotional about lane-splitting?
Anyone who has spent even 10 minutes in bumper-to-bumper traffic knows how frustrating it is. We can all agree, traffic sucks.
Several studies have linked longer commutes to lower levels of happiness. According to Haidt, “Even after years of commuting, those whose commutes are traffic-filled still arrive at work with higher levels of stress hormones.”
And for motorcyclists, traffic especially sucks. We’re exposed to the elements, air-cooled bikes run hotter and hotter, and being on and off the controls puts serious strain on the wrists — especially riders on sport bikes and cafe racers.
After just a few minutes on a motorcycle in slow traffic, that white-line space starts to look quite inviting.
On the flip side, you don’t have to be a psychologist to see how watching a rider squeeze between lanes while you’re just barely inching along can exacerbate a driver’s already high road rage.
In my opinion, it is exactly this feeling that provides the initial gut-reaction upon which the entire lane splitting debate is founded. Motorcyclists see a solution to their traffic woes, drivers see a rider “cheating,” and from the start our arguments are on incredibly uneven footing.
Not to mention, traffic safety is tied up in important and valid concerns of harm, for both parties. Motorcyclists see drivers on their phone constantly, and are afraid of being rear-ended by a forgetful driver. Drivers see wild sport bike riders zipping through traffic at high speeds, and are afraid of witnessing — or worse, being involved in — a deadly accident.
Because riders and drivers see the situation so differently, we will have a hard time reaching a compromise until each group learns to see past their root emotional concerns.
Unfortunately, most of the arguments put forth by both lane splitting advocates and opponents are not only embroiled in these intuitive concerns, but the evidence used to support the arguments is constantly subject to rebuttal and refutation. As Haidt writes, “science is a smorgasbord, and google will guide you to the study that’s right for you.”
Learn to solve for the common goal
To resolve this situation, our elephants are going to have to accept that this debate is not black or white. Asking “is lane splitting safe?” or “should lane splitting be legal?” sets us up for the wrong answer to begin with. You can’t incontrovertibly say that all lane splitting is unsafe, or all lane splitting should be legal.
Instead, the question should be, “How can we make our roads safer and better for all road users, both motorcyclists and drivers?” Because that’s really what we all want: a better and safer road for everyone.
Reframing the question this way can help us see circumstances we may have overlooked. For example, the New South Wales Centre for Road Safety solved their lane filtering debate by creating an 8-week trial period in which they allowed lane filtering in a certain area. They set up reporting stations and collected data, and in the end they found that lane filtering was, indeed, safe when used responsibly, and it became legal.
But, interestingly, their report found that the population at greatest risk from lane filtering was pedestrians. They saw that lane-filtering motorcyclists would use lanes too close to the sidewalk, or ride into crosswalks, putting pedestrians at risk.
This led them to set the speed limit for lane-filterers at 30 km/h (18 mph), which would give the average pedestrian a 90% chance of surviving the crash. They also made it illegal to use the side of the road by the sidewalk for lane-filtering, among other regulations.
This finding was striking to me, because I have yet to hear anyone in the US even mention pedestrians in our lane filtering debate. Maybe in the US lane filtering is more about highways than cities, but certainly filtering at city intersections may pose a risk to pedestrians here, too.
To me, the absence of pedestrians from our debate is more evidence of the tunnel-vision we develop in these morally-charged arguments. Because we choose our sides and set up camp so quickly, we have a hard time seeing beyond the two arguing opponents. We have to remember that no decision is made in a vacuum.
Uncovering the compromise
So, the answer to my question of whether or not lane splitting should be legal turns out to be a solid “it depends.” There is no one type of lane-splitting — certain types put more road users at risk — but that doesn’t mean we can’t allow the behaviors that help make riders safer on the road.
To arrive at this compromise, though, we can’t keep asking the same dead-end question. Every time we ask “is lane splitting safe?” and expect a straightforward yes or no, we push each side deeper into their own camps, buckling down to defend their position.
As Haidt demonstrates, when we debate in this way, our brains naturally shift the goal from “what is the right thing to do?” to “how can I win this argument?” We can’t help it, it’s human nature. Switching back to the pursuit of a common goal will require conscious effort, on both sides.
Can we do it?
In a time when we are all so deeply entrenched in our metaphorical camps, it seems impossible that we’ll be able to abandon them for something as relatively trivial as lane splitting. But maybe, if we can find a way to compromise on this, we’ll set the stage for much-needed compromise on a larger scale.
After all, if you want to make big changes, you have to start small.
Just spent the weekend running off a belly full of (too much) good food; and now you’ve got me full of all this good decision-making and morality stuff. Going to need another nap. ?
Tough to clear one’s mind, as you asked, on preconceived notions on lane-splitting / filtering, so it’s fortuitous that my initial premise was/is your conclusion: “It depends.”
Even if it were legal here in Maryland, I wouldn’t be likely to do it (so you & J would have to wait for me if we ever got the chance to ride together anywhere else); but as someone who was rear-ended while in my car, by a teen on her cell phone, I can CLEARLY see the utility of the act in stopped traffic assuming all other conditions are optimal (spacing between cars / spacing between crosswalks / space for pedestrians / attentiveness of drivers AND riders / et cetera).
I know of a guy in the ‘90s who – to get both experiences out of his system – tried lane-splitting (allegedly) in Florida, where it’s illegal; and (allegedly) rode up to 120 mph on an empty stretch of I-95. He survived both endeavors and would not do either again, especially the latter unless on a track; but he wanted to be able to speak from experience when he addressed which side of the aisle he fell.
I (err, he) was also a bicycle messenger in NYC in his teenage years, so he kind of made a living lane-splitting/filtering in a pretty dangerous arena; but that was with a bicycle … “usually” a lot less costly to damage/wreck one of those than a motorcycle. The ROI to split/filter isn’t there for me. Then again, I also only ride to work on casual Fridays, so I’m not fighting commuter traffic on a motorcycle five days a week.
Again, even if it were legal here in Maryland, conditions are frequently suboptimal to do it. I could prattle on about all the threats to splitting/filtering that I have seen; but it wouldn’t sway anybody who’s already a protagonist of the act (kind of like how I can’t convince riders that they should all wear full helmets). So, I’ll leave it at, “It’s simply not my cup of tea” and not all that big a deal.
That’s my segue into your writing on Haidt’s work: I found his “Rider Elephant” concept (assuming I understood it correctly) more applicable to my time as a messenger than as a motorcycle rider. When I’m in bumper-to-bumper traffic, splitting/filtering doesn’t enter my mind (regardless of the legality of the issue), especially considering where I live and the behavior of the people who drive here; but when I was a teenager trying to make it to West 72nd from Chelsea, in NYC, the “Elephant” was definitely driving that bus: Won’t get a dime if the package isn’t on time. ?
Splitting/Filtering could work and could be safe in certain areas/situations; but IMHO there would need to be a fundamental shift in behavior and awareness from drivers and riders alike. Again, just my opinion. That and $2 could get you a tall coffee at Starbucks. ?
Can’t believe you made my tryptophan/carbohydrate-addled brain do all this thinking. ?
Ride On, and Write On, because you’re Right On!
Sounds like you had a fantastic Thanksgiving! Thank you, as usual, for your thoughtful and well-reasoned comments 🙂 If I implied that I do or would lane split in most cases, that is totally the wrong impression!
If lane splitting were legal in Oregon, it’s likely I would do exactly what the NSW council found was safe: only when traffic is stopped, and only at speeds less than 18 mph. My personal thoughts were really not what I was holding up for debate here — more the idea that we shouldn’t let our own opinions, like whether we would or wouldn’t do something, blind us from seeing the compromise at the middle of a contentious debate. My conservative/individual liberty background may be showing here, but I think if we know what responsible lane splitting looks like, we shouldn’t make it *all* illegal. But of course if you don’t think it’s safe, it doesn’t matter whether it’s legal or not, you don’t have to do it. And those who stick to their comfort level should be applauded, since it’s so easy to be swayed by the opinions of others.
Not to mention, I am actually a relatively slow rider, though that’s changing a bit now that I have the FZ-07. J is much faster, but I always lead to set the pace so, don’t worry, I’m sure you could keep up just fine 😉
Maybe I didn’t explain this clearly enough, but the elephant/rider dichotomy is something that happens on a subconscious level, so we can’t usually tell that we’re doing it. It’s like how people with brain injuries that keep them from feeling emotions have trouble picking out what clothes they want to wear — these little emotional “flashes” of pleasure or displeasure help us make thousands of tiny decisions throughout the day, and most of the time we don’t realize it’s happening.
So, it’s highly likely that your emotional need to get the package delivered on time was definitely the driving force in your decision to filter/split on a bicycle, but a tiny flash of displeasure is likely also behind your decision to sit in traffic — to your “elephant” it feels better than even considering splitting, so your “rider” happily comes up with reasons to support your decision. Haidt’s assertion is that an intuitive emotional “leaning” is behind most all the decisions we make (especially when they have to do with a moral value like harm, fairness, equality, etc), and we only reason to try to support that emotional leaning — quite like and probably very closely intertwined with confirmation bias.
If you’re at all interested in this, I highly recommend both of Haidt’s books. The Happiness Hypothesis is a bit of a lighter read but still incredibly insightful 🙂
Also, I also “know” some one who lane-split on a Harley in standstill LA rush hour traffic. It was not as scary as she thought it would be, especially because drivers moved over to give her space 😉 That’s all to say, I definitely agree that driver education is also an important component in this shift.
Thanks again, Ohene! I always enjoy hearing your perspective. Take care!!
I agree with your approach to this hotly debated issue and side with allowing lane splitting under the conditions you describe, but I would not do it myself. Why? I have sat in lanes of stopped traffic and on more than one occasion I have seen drivers open their car door to spill out of a cup of whatever they were drinking or actually get out of the car to take a suit jacket off or even try and see if by standing on their tip toes they could see what is holding up traffic (other than a rush hour stoppage). And those drivers may not check their mirrors before opening that door – hence a motorcyclist will have a problem (as well as the driver of the car). I have also witnessed cars turn a bit towards a stopped traffic lane next to them to see if they could see the cause of the stoppage. But for those who want to ride between lanes – may they do so safely! Thanks for the well thought through article and pointing out the pedestrian issue which I never thought of. Ride safely and Happy Holidays!
Thank you so much, Gary! I’m kind of in the same camp — if lane splitting became legal here, I’m not sure I’d actually do it. But, I don’t think that’s reason enough to be illegal. I’m glad you liked the article, and thank you for sharing your thoughts! Keep the rubber side down and have a happy new year 😀
Duuuuuude,
Saw the pic of you on the FZ-07; but I didn’t know that was YOUR FZ-07! Congrats! Love that bike! It was my #2 or 3 (can’t remember) choice behind my Ducati. That’s a great ride.
Listen, 3rd Grade was hard for me. I also cheated on a test (allegedly), with the text book in-hand, in high school and still got D on it. ? You may have explained Haidt’s work well; and I probably just misinterpreted what you wrote – as I misinterpreted that you lane-spit, which I wasn’t intentionally debating BTW … merely stating why I don’t/wouldn’t.
And yes, I did get that the elephant/rider dichotomy is something that happens on a subconscious level, so we can’t usually tell that we’re doing it; but I may have confused the role of the rider / elephant (again 3rd Grade). ?
Yes, my splitting/filtering as a bike-messenger was definitely driven by the need to get paid and eat. ?
Hehe no worries, Ohene! I didn’t take it as debate, I was more stating it for anyone else who might have thought the same thing. As I said, I think some versions of lane splitting are responsible and safe, but I also respect and support a rider’s decision to ride their own ride. More people should be like you 🙂
And as far as the psychology stuff, I’m still working through all of this myself! Haha. There’s a lot here, so much that people spend their whole lives studying it. Maybe someday I’ll be one of them 🙂
And yes! The FZ-07 is mine! In the end it came down to price, but I really hadn’t heard anything but glowing reviews for the model. Sometime next month I’ll post a full article about my decision to get a modern bike, in addition to my custom build and project hahaha. What can I say? I like bikes 😉
Lane “filtering“ at less than 30km/h is legal here in the state of Victoria also, which is a recent change.
But. That never stopped a good chunk of riders filtering or splitting prior to the change in regulation. Myself included.
My logic is as follows:
1) I don’t ride a motorcycle to remain stuck in traffic. Thy gap will be split whenever possible, at 30km/h or whatever speed I deem appropriate as a “normal” risk-taking motorcyclist.
2) I WILL be filtering in stationary traffic to prevent being collected from the rear. Additionally, I willl engage in stop light drag races to stay well in front of the traffic behind me.
It’s also a good reason to build skinny custom bikes ?
Cheers
Matt
Matt —
Thanks for sharing your perspective! Yeah, there will *always* be people who do it regardless, and I hope there will be people who do the reverse — i.e. never lane split even if it’s legal because they are uncomfortable with it. Whether you’re on a motorcycle, scooter or bicycle, being on an exposed, two-wheeled vehicle in four-wheel traffic will always be risky, and it’s up to each rider to determine their level of comfort.
The only time I’ve ever lane split was on a Fat Boy in California (where it’s legal), so I can appreciate the virtue of skinny bikes! 🙂
Take care!
starting from the assumption that I live in a country where filtering or lane splitting is illegal, and even if practically everyone does. I can say with sincerity that I had never put the discussion on this plane, and with the bike by the mechanic it was a pleasant quarter of an hour reading your blog. like many, I think that if in some situations it can be safer for motorcyclists on the one hand, on the other hand it puts us in serious danger, this is what I say from my personal experience as I have avoided accidents but is almost seeing death in face. From my point of view it could be legal, but at the expense of our motorcyclists, that is, we should be deciding whether to do so consciously assessing our ability to drive. this implies the ability of the individual to self-discern. then conscious of himself.
Matteo —
Thanks for your comment! I’m so glad you enjoyed the post. I agree, making lane splitting legal puts the burden of risk on the motorcyclist rather than on the driver — but I think many motorcyclists would say they prefer it that way haha.
I didn’t mention it outright in my article, but I think the issue of “who do you trust more?” is central to this debate, too. Riders don’t trust drivers, and drivers don’t trust riders, so who should the law give more trust to? IMO, it should be the population that carries the greatest risk — motorcyclists have more to lose, so they should be the ones we give more trust to (within reason, of course).
Thanks again for your comment and for reading!! Ride safe out there 🙂
Thank you, Keep the wave alive.
Hey Loryn, I just stumbled on your blog today while reading about riding in the snow (story about Sean; really good by the way).
I’ve been debating about blogging about lane splitting. It’s been quite the topic on a lot of mainstream moto-media sites lately, but frankly I feel like they’re poking with a stick and running away. You’ve done a really awesome job looking at it from an objective perspective, covering both sides of the argument, and still choosing a position (or both positions…). While I would love to write about it… after reading this, I’m not sure I could do it justice.
Subscribed… looking forward to hearing more; Cheers!
Drew — thank you so much for reading, and for your comment! Admittedly, I did kind of choose both positions, but doesn’t the truth most often lie somewhere in between two extremes? 🙂
I completely agree with your observation about mainstream sites, that’s part of the reason I wanted to write this. After reading your open letter to the AMA, I have no doubt that you would do this subject justice, and have another valuable perspective to add. Not to mention, the more people who talk about contentious topics in this way, the more likely we are to effect change.
Thanks again for reading and for subscribing, I really appreciate it 🙂
I have the Berkeley lane-splitting study bookmarked, along with all of the 2015 NHTSA statistics for both cars and bikes, I just need time to sift through it all and formulate an argumentative essay. I am for lane splitting; I believe motorcyclists deserve the choice, and ultimately drivers will reap the benefits of less traffic. As motorcyclists I think we should embrace it, mostly because it reflects the advantages of motorcycles over cars, and we need to broadcast those advantages because we are, unfortunately, a dying breed. In the congested urban areas, I’m amazed bikes and scooters are not being bought up in droves. I simply cannot fathom why people want to sit in traffic jams in the city. Dayton is small, yet I was still stuck in a massive delay on the on-ramp today because of the rain (I’m still curious why I’m less intimidated by the rain on a bike than many are in a car… foolhardy perhaps?). Silliness…
The Berkeley study is pretty interesting! Of course, as the authors said, it’s not definitive… but what is? I think the NSW strategy speaks volumes, and I wish more areas would follow suit.
As someone who rode a scooter for a year and a half in the heart of Dallas, TX, I have to agree it’s a mystery that more people don’t ride scooters! In the city, it’s by far the best way to get around. But yeah, I guess some people can’t handle change… or rain 😉
It’s all about the speed differential. Keep it to 10 mph or less and you’ll be fine. Don’t ever stop with the traffic when on a multi lane freeway, ride slightly faster than the flow in the far left lane. I have 40 years of riding and 10 years law enforcement motor officer, and the worst thing you can do is put along in the right or middle lanes and stop at the back end of stopped traffic.