An interesting Rideapart

[Fallout]

Good vid. That seems to be directed at car drivers mostly. I don't think it'll change anyone's opinion though. Car drivers don't dislike it because of safety; they dislike it because we are making more progress than them and they're selfish bar stewards.

Plus they dislike it because it scares them.

It's sudden movement in our peripheral vision, we're still programmed to see that as danger.

For me the stats were most interesting ("where's my pinch of salt?"). The comparison in car v bike fatalities between states allowing filtering and those that didn't were stark. 30% less in Cal than Texas. It certainly reinforces my impression that in countries where motorists are more used to filtering, drivers are far more aware of motorcyclists and therefore its safer. France was a good example of this, in my experience.

[timwilky]

I think most drivers still need to be convinced that not only is it legal but it is also safer for the rider than being stuck in the middle of slow moving traffic.

I think drivers tend not to use their mirrors as much in slow moving traffic as they know what is behind them and that is not going to have changed in the last minute/100 yards etc. so when a bike suddenly goes past them it is the WTF, Where did that come from and assume they must be flying as it wasn't there last time they checked their mirrors.

[Fallout]

If you look carefully the stat is deaths caused by rear end accidents to motorcyclists, not overall deaths. I'm pretty sure filtering is overall far more dangerous than sitting in traffic, but their point that at least while filtering all accidents are within your control is very valid. When the traffic slows down on the motorway suddenly, I am pretty feckin paranoid about whether the car behind has spotted this. Filtering past a few cars at least is the only sensible move in that sitation, fo' sho'!

I thought the stat was all deaths but that in non filtering states 1/3 of deaths were from rear Enders so even with any added filtering deaths it still works out safer.

[Fallout]

That bar chart they throw up has the rear end stat as it's title. Either way, if you don't filter, you're more likely to get rear ended.

Shows the difference between a purposeful law and not so purposeful law. Why not filter? "Because its dangerous? Because it scares/upsets other motorists?" What is the reasoning (in those states)? And death is death. If a knowledgable person says to me you are 30% less likely to die by doing "X" I would consider doing it. So its gotta be a culture thing as, even in countries where filtering is legal, the most likely to get hurt is the cyclist.

[Fallout]

Originally Posted by Runako

the most likely to get hurt is the cyclist.

Yep, but governments do like to protect us from ourselves, though in the states they're talking about you are allowed to carry a licensed gun and don't have to wear a helmet!