Editorial: California legalizing lane splitting is hugely important

The debate has been a long and boisterous one, but after all the battling, the stats finally won out and the state of California is the first in the US to officially make lane-splitting legal. Lane-splitting has always drawn a lot of controversy in America, a country dominated by car drivers who selfishly believe that the roads are theirs and theirs alone.

Even in California, the practice had previously only been allowed because it was not expressly disallowed. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) supported it because it allowed their motor officers to move more freely through the gridlock traffic that burdens the greater LA and San Francisco areas during nearly all hours of the day. Motorcyclists support it because it allows riders the ability to move through traffic and keep air flowing to prevent overheating (mostly of the rider, though some older bikes benefit from it too). Car drivers, however, have long disliked the practice because it requires that they be more attentive about lane position and lane changes. Still, most drivers who have lived in California long enough have grudgingly adapted to it, some better than others.

But by taking it from a tolerated act by virtue of lack of legislation to a totally legal act backed by legislation and with guidelines to be provided by law enforcement, California has changed the game. By making it expressly legal, California is saying that lane-splitting is not just safe enough to be a practice, it is safe enough to be a law. That has long been a major argument used by detractors of lane-splitting to fight its implementation in other states. Many opponents have argued that by allowing one kind of traffic to travel between other traffic, it increases the chances for collisions, even though this has not been backed by the statistics. If anything, it has reduced one of the most common car-motorcycle collisions, which is motorcyclists being hit from behind in slow moving or stopped traffic. When practiced with abundant and appropriate caution, lane-splitting makes motorcyclists safer with little impact on car drivers at all.

By taking the step to make lane-splitting a fully legal act, California is hopefully the first domino to fall in what will eventually be more states allowing the act. Attempts have been made to legalize lane-splitting in states such as Arizona and Oregon, but all were quashed by legislators representing car-centric constituents who are fearful of change. But now that someone else has taken a major leap, hopefully more attempts will be made to bring up lane-splitting legislation and more "trial periods" will be considered as other state legislatures begin to realize the potential safety and traffic relief benefits that lane-splitting can bring.

Editorial: Google's Self Driving Cars show that humans are terrible at following the rules of the road

By Driving_Google_Self-Driving_Car.jpg: Steve
Jurvetson derivative work: Mariordo [CC BY 2.0
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)],
via Wikimedia Commons

While Google's self-driving cars have gotten a fair amount of press recently for accidents they were involved in, one thing that has not been talked about at all is how the self-driving cars are doing a great job of highlighting just how awfully Americans drive. Every accident so far for Google's self-driving car testers on which the technology is being developed has been the result of human error. Whether that was the error of another driver or of the "driver" behind the wheel, each mistake was not the fault of computers controlling the car. In fact, the computers are coded to so strictly follow the laws that it actually got stuck at an intersection with a four way stop because it placed traffic laws and safety above speed and convenience. It followed the rules to the letter when no one else on the road was doing the same. In order to proceed, the programmers had to alter the coding to get the car to be more aggressive and to emulate some of the bad habits of human drivers.

The fact that we, as drivers, are pretty much granted the privilege to drive for a lifetime without so much as a cursory follow-up to make sure that we are still driving safely is a pretty scary reality. Most drivers develop bad habits over time and those habits are reinforced when we regularly get away with them. Oftentimes it takes a major shift in paradigm or a life-altering event to get most drivers to even look at their own driving habits and reconsider just how good they really are at the whole driving thing. That does beg the question, if we have to teach the self-driving cars to drive like us while there are still human drivers around on the roads, will the robot cars continue to drive like us when humans stop driving altogether? Will having a self-driving car really make you safer if you are still surrounded by people who cannot drive?

What if, and stay with me here, instead of changing how the computers will drive, we start to change how we drive? It is time that our driving legislation caught up with the times and instead of just focusing on easily ticketable offenders designed to bring in money, we focus on equally ticketable offenders that require more attentive enforcement, but are intended to improve safety. Instead of spending money on technology from questionable automated enforcement companies, municipalities could use those funds to require retesting every five or ten years and the fees from the retesting could be used to make the process self sustaining. Police officers, instead of spending time sitting behind a radar gun, could be required to know the driving laws and would actually make an effort to enforce things such as reckless driving, failure to stop at stop signs, or distracted driving.

Heck, I will take it one step further and say that perhaps our driving laws should require mandatory training on motorcycles or bicycles as well to boost the awareness of drivers behind the wheel. While not everyone will continue to use it as a means of transport, just the exposure to living on two-wheels could prove a powerful mechanism for delivering the message about how important it is to be attentive and alert when driving.

Whatever the case, we should look at the upcoming revolution of self-driving cars as a blessing in disguise and as an opportunity to reshape how Americans approach the whole idea of driving. New legislation will be required to cover these self-driving cars and using that as a way to get changes made to our current laws might be a ripe opportunity. On top of that, we should thank Google for helping to bring to light just how bad we are behind the wheel. 

News: Legislation Proposed for a Federal Ban on Traffic Enforcement Cameras

Image courtesy of USAToday

I am not yet sure what to make of this, but earlier this month, Ed Perlmutter a legislator from the state of Colorado, proposed legislation to put in place a federal ban on the use of traffic enforcement cameras, including both red light and speed cameras. The motivation comes from the belief that the cameras are not used in the interest of public safety, but rather to fill the coffers of local municipalities to the detriment of the pocketbooks of local drivers. In the city of Denver, traffic enforcement cameras have netted more than $34 million in revenue. Having had my share of experience with these cameras while living in DC, I can certainly attest to the fact that I am no fan, but a full-on federal ban might be a bridge too far.

Editorial: Why do Americans have so much hate for cyclists?

I know better than to read comments on the Internet, but sometimes, I just cannot help myself. I try (I really do) to ignore the hate filled diatribes that permeate the likes of Youtube video comments about cyclists and every effort is made to not even glance at the comments that follow any article that discusses cycling in cities. What is it about cyclists that sparks such vitriol among so many people? Drivers hate us and want to run us over. Pedestrians hate us and want drivers to run us over. Police officers often presume fault when a cyclist is involved in a collision. Even our justice system is stacked against cyclists as killing someone riding a bike is frequently deemed an accident and most cases result in little to no punishment. Why has one group come to draw so much disdain from everyone else?

Editorial: Our drunk driving laws need to change

Image courtesy of the City of Berekeley

It is drilled into us all through our childhood and every driver's ed class goes to extraordinary lengths to demonstrate the potentially catastrophic outcomes of driving while under the influence. We have all seen the photographs of the cars wrapped around trees, crushed on the side of the road, or otherwise destroyed by drunk drivers. We have all seen the videos of the drunkards stumbling through the roadside sobriety test administered by a police officer on the verge of busting out laughing. We have all heard the stories of people needing to blow into a breathalyzer in order to start their car because of prior DUI convictions. And yet, as usual, legislation continues to trail public sentiment and loopholes continue to allow offenders to escape any serious punishment.

Take, for example, the case of Ethan Couch from Texas.

Editorial: Americans have given up on being better drivers

Image courtesy of beaubeen.com

It saddens me to even compose this, but this study by the AAA Foundation seems to point towards more Americans taking bad driving behaviors less seriously that in past years. What worries me the most is not just that we are less aware of how these bad driving behaviors affect other drivers on the road, but the fact that an increasing number of individuals seem to suffer from "do as I say, not as I do" syndrome. The fact that there are so many people who are quick to condemn, but not alter their own behavior just goes to show the ever increasingly selfish streak that our society seems to be developing. I realize that I sound like a ranting, crotchety old man, but it frustrates me to no end because of how often I have recently had run-ins with people who were so inattentive or dangerous behind the wheel that they nearly caused an accident. The worst part is that this is entirely preventable.

Editorial: Dispeling myths about cyclists

In recent months, I have been doing a lot of reading and watching a lot of videos about interactions between cyclists and motorists all over the world. In many instances, there is a lot of loud screaming and foul language, although mostly it comes from the commenters. Worst of all, the screaming and yelling is frequently the result of misunderstanding and myths about the rules of the road and of cyclists. In a, perhaps misguided, attempt to dispel some of the myths, I have chosen three of the most popular myths to try to set the record straight.