Collisions Per Lane

[Marcoose]

Does anybody have a link/study/statistics on the number or percentage of collisions per each lane (#1, #2, #3, #4...?) on multi-lane highways/motorways? Regardless of type of vehicle. I'm curious to see the distribution, which lane(s) has/have the most collisions.

(Neither a web or BARF search came up with something easy to digest.)

 

[DataDan]

Lane position would be identified in the crash narrative, of course, but it is not in the summary data published for California crashes. Don't know about other states.

There are exceptions, probably not of interest. A crash on an on/off-ramp would be distinguished from a mainline crash. And a crash where one vehicle crossed the centerline could be identified.

 

[Pking]

It would be interesting to see if there was data, but from the crashes I've seen on multi-lane roads, most of them start in a particular lane, but winded up affecting the other lanes afterwards. Even more so when more vehicles are in mix.

 

[Marcoose]

Lane position would be identified in the crash narrative, of course, but it is not in the summary data published for California crashes.

That's a pity.

most of them start in a particular lane

Yeah. I'd like to see where most crashes begin.

 

[TheRobSJ]

While I’m sure we all know that #1 is the safest lane to be in on the freeway, I’d bet that if lanes were tracked for this stuff it’d probably be lane 1/2 because isn’t there where most riders split?

 

[dravnx]

My gut feeling is that the #1 lane has the least collision but the severest damage. The furthest R/H lane would have the most collisions because that is where everyone is mixing it up but the speeds are much slower so the least amount of damage.

 

[budman]

Interesting question.

Like most (I think) I ride the gaps in the three left lanes spending the most time in 1 or 2.

 

[Marcoose]

While I’m sure we all know that #1 is the safest lane to be in on the freeway...

Data? (Because I think it’s more anecdote than data. Drivers stay to the right in continental Europe and Canada, and nobody claims the #1 lane is the safest. Whereas in America, loads of people do. So data, please?)

 

[Randy B]

Data? (Because I think it’s more anecdote than data. Drivers stay to the right in continental Europe and Canada, and nobody claims the #1 lane is the safest. Whereas in America, loads of people do. So data, please?)

There is a ton of data if you would like to search through it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=saf...rome..69i57.6090j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[TheRobSJ]

Data? (Because I think it’s more anecdote than data. Drivers stay to the right in continental Europe and Canada, and nobody claims the #1 lane is the safest. Whereas in America, loads of people do. So data, please?)

I was told that when I took MSF a long time ago, which is why I figured most riders know this. Made sense to me. Every other lane you have to watch for people merging from either side of you. If you’re in #1, they can only come at you from the right. Sure there’s exceptions where a carpool lane merges in from the left. But for the most part, you’re safe from at least one side. And sometimes you have a decent shoulder to escape to in case someone does try to merge into you from the right.

 

[Marcoose]

There is a ton of data if you would like to search through it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=saf...rome..69i57.6090j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Lolz. Of course I've googled, it's in the OP, and it's mostly stories, anecdotes, conjuncture, and little to no data.

I was told that when I took MSF a long time ago, which is why I figured most riders know this. Made sense to me. Every other lane you have to watch for people merging from either side of you. If you’re in #1, they can only come at you from the right. Sure there’s exceptions where a carpool lane merges in from the left. But for the most part, you’re safe from at least one side. And sometimes you have a decent shoulder to escape to in case someone does try to merge into you from the right.

Alright. #1, my query is for all vehicles. #2, stuff we hear/learn may or may not be founded in data, or science. My grandparents used to say I could hurt my eyes from watching too much TV. You know, it 'made sense'. Let's see if somebody has a link for us.

 

[Schnellbandit]

I was told that when I took MSF a long time ago, which is why I figured most riders know this. Made sense to me. Every other lane you have to watch for people merging from either side of you. If you’re in #1, they can only come at you from the right. Sure there’s exceptions where a carpool lane merges in from the left. But for the most part, you’re safe from at least one side. And sometimes you have a decent shoulder to escape to in case someone does try to merge into you from the right.

Drunk drivers going down the highways the wrong way are known to drive in lane #1 so they hit you head on. It happens plenty of times although not so much on our commuter freeways here. Back a while ago when driver training was provided in schools students were taught not to drive in lane #1 and I'm pretty sure that still today those going to traffic school for tickets are informed that lane #1 is the passing lane, #2 is the fast lane and #3 is the slow and trucker lane.

In some states you're expected and required to stay out of lane #1 unless you are passing, they have signs posted to this effect. I don't know their traffic collision rates to compare. In many other states there isn't the me first at all costs attitude either (at least in the midwest and somewhat east), only here have I seen other drivers speed up just to keep someone from merging lane to lane as if that extra vehicle length is going to make a difference. Elsewhere drivers also tend to change lanes to move over if the police are parked or there is a stopped vehicle alongside the roads while here is seems to be chance to play chicken.

If you split between lane #1 and #2 you can get it from both sides just as in any other lane.

Then there are divided by barrier multiple lane roads and those not divided. Riding down a multiple lane non-barrier divided road doesn't seem the safest lane to be in, everyone else is coming at you head-on except for the me-first drivers who have their heads down.

 

[seralat]

Let's assume we could actually find this data, wouldn't we need it to be defined by miles driven in each lane?

Anecdotally--that is by my personal observation--motorcycle riders tend to concentrate their riding in certain lanes (e.g. lane 1 or whatever the right-most lane is), so it would seem likely that most accidents would happen in those lanes just by virtue of the fact more riders are doing more miles in those lanes.

 

[dravnx]

I just spoke with a CHP moto officer and I asked him which lane had the most accidents. He said that he really didn't know but his impression is that they are evenly distributed.

 

[Marcoose]

Let's assume we could actually find this data, wouldn't we need it to be defined by miles driven in each lane?

Not really, Tal. I don't see it as a weighted average thing. The collisions happen where they happen. (If I'm told the highest percentage of shark bites happen in X beach, I wouldn't care to weight by the number of swimmers. A shark bite is a shark bite. But that's just me.)

 

[seralat]

Not really, Tal. I don't see it as a weighted average thing. The collisions happen where they happen. (If I'm told the highest percentage of shark bites happen in X beach, I wouldn't care to weight by the number of swimmers. A shark bite is a shark bite. But that's just me.)

I'm no statistician, but those two situations don't seem as different to me as one might think. If motos ride 100 miles in Lane 1 for every mile they ride in another lane, we'd expect to see more accidents in Lane 1 than other lanes because there are more opportunities for accidents in Lane 1.

Given a steady number of sharks of equal aggression across a number of different beaches, more swimmers at one beach would suggest a higher likelihood of a shark/swimmer encounter than at a beach where there are far fewer swimmers.

It would be a different situation if Lane 1 car drivers were just generally more dangerous than drivers in other lanes, or if sharks at beach X were just more aggressive than at other beaches.

 

[Junkie]

Not really, Tal. I don't see it as a weighted average thing. The collisions happen where they happen. (If I'm told the highest percentage of shark bites happen in X beach, I wouldn't care to weight by the number of swimmers. A shark bite is a shark bite. But that's just me.)

in that case when you're on foot, you should stay out of crosswalks. most collisions with pedestrians are in crosswalks.

 

[mosquito]

^^ And never go home, where most accidents do happen?

 

[Marcoose]

If motos ride 100 miles in Lane 1 for every mile they ride in another lane...

My original query was, still is, for all vehicles. I'd like to know if one lane is more prone to collisions than the others. It's a simple question. (You want coffee next month, don't you? )

in that case when you're on foot, you should stay out of crosswalks. most collisions with pedestrians are in crosswalks.

Or ... since most cases of lethal choking are a result of eating, one should avoid eating at all cost. You've just solved one of America's biggest problems; obesity. Bravo! (Now, how about we let people put forth some data without interjecting clever conclusions?)

 

[Junkie]

My original query was, still is, for all vehicles. I'd like to know if one lane is more prone to collisions than the others. It's a simple question. (You want coffee next month, don't you? )

Or ... since most cases of lethal choking are a result of eating, one should avoid eating at all cost. You've just solved one of America's biggest problems; obesity. Bravo! (Now, how about we let people put forth some data without interjecting clever conclusions?)

except that it's possible to avoid crosswalks. it isn't possible to avoid eating.

with zero idea of lane use stats, collision stats are meaningless