[dsn_klr650] trip report

[Thomas Keener]

> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 06:46:04 -0700 > From: "Jeff Walker" > Don't cruise in the fast lane! You are much better off all the >way over in the right hand lane (especially since there is nearly always a >shoulder there).

In one of my MSF courses, it was pointed out that statistically, the safest lane on a multi-lane freeway is the number two lane. (The number one lane being the fast lane, of course.) IIRC, the most dangerous lane is the slow lane. TomK

[Karl Raupp]

> In one of my MSF courses, it was pointed out that statistically,

the safest

> lane on a multi-lane freeway is the number two lane. (The number

one lane

> being the fast lane, of course.) IIRC, the most dangerous lane is

the slow

> lane. > > TomK

What is the reasoning behind that logic? I just returned from a trip and was giving this lots of attention since my bike quit on me (ran out of gas) on I-94 Detroit rush hour traffic. If I was in any lane other than the rightmost my chances of injury/accident would have skyrocketed. I like to ride in the lane that has a good shoulder to escape on to. Anything cane happern - run out of gas, flat, chain break, baggage fall off, bug in the eye, etc., and a shoulder is a bonus safety margin for you. Karl

[Thomas Keener]

> Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:16:23 -0700 > From: Sarah Barwig >At 04:33 PM 6/26/00 +0000, Karl Raupp wrote: >>I said": >> > In one of my MSF courses, it was pointed out that statistically, >>the safest >> > lane on a multi-lane freeway is the number two lane. (The number >>one lane >> > being the fast lane, of course.) IIRC, the most dangerous lane is >>the slow >> > lane. >> > >> > TomK >> >>What is the reasoning behind that logic? > >Umm. There ain't no reasoning to statistics. He's quoting # of accidents / >lane. Like, some actual number from the CHP or some such. No real reason >for any car/bike to ever have an accident. They just kinda happen. >

What she said... The logic is the reason _why_ those statistics are true. The slow lane is dangerous because it has much more traffic merging and exiting at different speeds. People are trying to get on and off the freeway, sometimes in the same space. I think the fast lane has more accidents because of the occasional very fast driver running up on someone or an impatient driver tailgating. Personally, I prefer to ride in the fast lane, keeping a close eye on the mirror, and getting out of the way if someone comes up behind me. That policy has failed me only once, and the guy who ran me down that time is still in prison. (I didn't get out of his way fast enough.) TomK

[ephilride@aol.com]

In a message dated 06/26/2000 1:27:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, garagedoor79@... writes:

> The boredom part was all my fault. The plan was to hightail it out > there as quickly as I could. In 2 1/2 days I made it from London, > Ontario to Palisade, Colorado. I was tired, hungry, sore, cold, over > budget, getting wet and lonely. Not fun. In hindsight I should have > asked the list for members to meet up with for talk/rides and at the > very least, paced myself. Even setting up sights to see would have > aleviated the boredom. I-80 through Iowa, Nebraska and I-76 into > Denver has got to be one of the most boring roads ever built to drive > on. I just couldn't get myself back into the right frame of mind to > either continue on to Fred's or hit some mountain roads. >

Glad you had a safe trip. I have never attempted such an ambitious trip. I hate the interstate. Some might frown on trailering, but if I ever get to go to Moab (1500mi one-way), I will most likely carry my rigs on a trailer. Travel and Fun on a motorbike boils down to; is it the destination or the journey that appeals to you. If the destination has mega miles of interstate - the trailer appeals to me. If the topography has ever changing scenery and new places and new faces.... a motorbike is the way to go. Those riders who can due unlimited interstate and single track with equal zeal - they are the blessed ones! Knot - cursed or is it cussed