Misplaced Pages

Talk:Lane splitting: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:49, 13 May 2009 editDennis Bratland (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users61,245 editsm →Motorcycles and Bicycles: changed "Their problem is in a traffic jam getting rear ended <s>in</s>,"← Previous edit Revision as of 17:38, 13 May 2009 edit undoBorn2cycle (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,496 edits →Motorcycles and Bicycles: vehicular cycling is the lawNext edit →
Line 244: Line 244:


::Currently these two articles are awkward to write and confusing to read.--] (]) 16:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC) ::Currently these two articles are awkward to write and confusing to read.--] (]) 16:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

:::] is not a social-political movement, it's the law. It's only a social-political movement in so far as making this fact better known. --] (]) 17:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:38, 13 May 2009

WikiProject iconMotorcycling Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorcycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorcycling on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MotorcyclingWikipedia:WikiProject MotorcyclingTemplate:WikiProject MotorcyclingMotorcycling
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:



 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconCivil engineering Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCivil engineering
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Early comments

The list of places where lane splitting is allowed is not complete, but it is all I have time to confirm right now. I will make a more comprehensive list when I have time. Monkeythumpa 06:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Good article. A state-by-state list for the USA would be useful. (Mike - who can lane split at home in the UK!) --Cheesy Mike 09:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
As Far as I know and have been able to find, lane splitting is only legal in California. Texas put the law up for a vote in their senate and it failed. I am going to remove Texas from the list. Feel free to restate it if you find contrary evidence. I ahve heard it is not illegal in Puerto Rico, but I have also been unable to verify this. Monkeythumpa 22:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction about Texas.--Cheesy Mike 23:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a live bill 2009 under consideration in Texas: "SB 506". Texas Legislature Online, Legislative Session: 81(R). Retrieved 2009-04-28.. Can keep an eye on that page to see if it makes it through the House and the Gov signs it. Google says laws have been proposed in various other states in the last several years, but none passed. Dbratland (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It is also legal in The Netherlands. Although there is no specific law that allows it, the law that forbids it has been removed in 1991. There is even a running goverment-campaign for it to "educate" car and motorcycle drivers about the rules. See here for details (site in Dutch). Chakothee 09:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please source your references when adding countries where lane splitting is legal. Also is this really a Civil engineering article? Monkeythumpa 21:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Lane splitting is not legal in Australia

From http://www.ntc.gov.au/DocView.aspx?page=A02312403400450020

The National Transport Commission (NTC) has referred the proposed new Australian Road Rule (ARR) 151A back to the Australian Road Rules Maintenance Group to fully address issues raised by stakeholders during the public consultation process. The NTC emphasises that this does indicate any change in policy direction.

Rule 151A attempted to clarify the intent of several existing road rules, which prohibit the practice of motorcycle lane-splitting or lane-filtering. The proposed rule would more explicitly require motorcycles to move into an adjacent lane or line of traffic when overtaking other vehicles and pass at a safe distance.

In excess of 800 submissions (excluding duplicated submissions) were received, which primarily oppose the recommendation. The NTC notes that there is a wide misperception among the motorcycling community that lane-splitting and/or lane-filtering is legal. Motorcycle riders still have a responsibility to comply with existing road rules (outlined below).

� drivers/riders on a multi-lane road must travel entirely within a single lane (ARR 146)

� drivers/riders must travel within a single line of traffic on a road without marked lanes (ARR 146)

� drivers/riders are required to pass at a safe distance (ARR 144)

� drivers/riders are prohibited from overtaking on the left on a multi-lane road, unless the vehicle can be safely overtaken by moving into a marked lane (ARR 141)

� drivers/riders on a multi-lane road must not move from one marked lane into another marked lane by crossing a continuous line separating the lanes (ARR 147)

� drivers/riders approaching or at traffic lights showing a red traffic light must stop, if there is a stop line at or near the lights - as near as practicable to, but before reaching the stop line (ARR 56)

� drivers/riders at an intersection or marked foot crossing with a red traffic light must not enter the intersection or marked foot crossing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.245.213.176 (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

This poster is wrong. Rule 151A was withdrawn in May 2006 and lane splitting remains legal in Australia. I am reinstating the Australia entry.

--Cheesy Mike 22:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That poster was correct.

151A never actually entered legislation. It was proposed, but it was not enacted at any point in time.

In any case, please note this quote from that article:

The NTC notes that there is a wide misperception among the motorcycling community that lane-splitting and/or lane-filtering is legal. Cheesy Mike, you have displayed this same misconception. The fact is, unfortunately, lane splitting and lane filtering are illegal per the Australian Road Rules.

Regardless of whether 151A is in force, the other rules mentioned in the aforementioned article still apply, and they still forbid lane splitting.

May I ask which Australian Commonwealth or State legislation specifically permits lane splitting while traffic is stationary? Nothing to this effect appears in law from New South Wales, or the Australian Road Rules. Australian Road Rules (ARRs) apply nationwide, and they overrule state and territory specific legislation.

A further reference, from http://www.ipe.nt.gov.au/haveyoursay/roadrules/RIS_ARR20060502.pdf, page 72:

The majority of submissions oppose the amendment proposed, albeit most submissions oppose lane splitting (faster moving) but favour lane filtering (slower moving or stationary). Having considered the comments, there is a considerable lack of knowledge that lane splitting and lane filtering is already illegal under normal circumstances. In undertaking these manoeuvres most motorbike riders commit offences such as failing to signal (Rule 46), overtaking on the left (rule 141), failing to keep a safe distance (rule 144), failing to drive within a single marked lane (rule 146) and crossing continuous lane lines (rule 147). In addition, many motorbike riders who ‘filter’ through stopped traffic on the approach to intersections to be ahead of other vehicles, cross stop lines and enter onto marked foot crossings in breach of rules 56 and 59. While these are separate offences they tend to be related to lane filtering.

We have the same laws mentioned above in California and while it can be difficult, it is possible to follow those laws and still be able to laneshare legally. Generally a behavior is legal until a law specifically names it as prohibited. Monkeythumpa 17:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitions

Here is the current first line of the article:

Lane splitting (also called lane sharing, whitelining, or filtering) is the practice of operating a vehicle, most commonly a motorcycle, in the unused space to the left or right of moving or stationary vehicles. It may be legal or illegal, depending on local laws.

I have some questions and comments about this.

1) Is passing on the outside of the outside lane lane splitting? I thought lane splitting always refers to riding BETWEEN two lines of same direction traffic. In other words, I don't think lane splitting and lane sharing mean the same thing (though they are related): lane splitting is a form of lane sharing. If you're lane sharing between two lines of same-direction traffic, then you're lane splitting. If you're lane sharing on the outside of a line of traffic, then you're just lane sharing.

There are many lane sharing practices that do not involve lane splitting, including two motorcyclists riding side-by-side in a lane, a right turning motorist moving over towards the curb in a wide lane to make room in the same lane, sharing it with through motorists overtaking him on his left, a tractor driver pulling partially over into the shoulder to allow faster traffic to pass, within the shared lane, etc. Again, while lane splitting is a form of lane sharing, they are not one and the same.

2) I don't think filtering has the same meaning as lane splitting either. Filtering usually if not alway implies filtering forward - using lane sharing (not necessarily lane splitting) specifically in order to pass lines of slow or stopped congested traffic. But a bicyclist, in particular, could be lane splitting while he is being passed by traffic on both sides. I think it's fair to say that filtering always means lane sharing in order to pass slow or stopped traffic, but lane splitting does not necessarily mean that. Lane splitting is one way to accomplish filtering, but not the only way.

3) whitelining is a form of lane splitting, but, again, not exactly the same thing. Whitelining means, literally, riding on the white stripe dividing two adjacent lanes. Now, that is lane splitting, but you can also be lane-splitting without whitelining (imagine two lanes with traffic biased in both lanes to the right side - the lane splitter would be using the unused space to the right of the stripe, and not actually riding on the stripe - he might not be encroaching into the adjacent lane at all). These distinctions should be clarified.

4) Does lane-splitting refer to splitting one lane into two, or does it mean splitting two lanes, usually but not always along the dividing lane stripe? I think it's the latter. In any case, the article should clarify this one way or the other.

5) "Most commonly by a motorcycle" is arguable. It's commonly done by bicyclists too. How about... replacing "most commonly by a motorcycle", with "by a motorcyclist or bicyclist" to produce:

Lane splitting is the practice of operating a motorcycle or bicycle in the unused space ...

I'll see what discussion results from this. Hopefully we can come to a consensus about how best to address these issues and answer these questions in the article. --Unflappable (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Legality of CA Lane-Splitting

The quote and statement removed may seemingly have been related but they were not. First, it did not state outright the act of riding between vehicles (commonly known as lane-splitting) is in violation of that law. It stated vehicles should attempt to remain, whenever possible, in a single lane. The citation is simply out of context without court rulings to support it. Since the statement did not state without ambiguity that lane-splitting as defined here is illegal and there were no court rulings cited I'm not a lawyer and it does the reader a diservice to interpret the law for them, they should be able to on their own OR given the full context. Once I removed the statement that stated "it is illegal in California" I could see no reason for the quote to be included. - 71.106.243.215 (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Picture needed

Would help 14:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.181.158.116 (talk)

Texas

I removed Texas from the list, as it is under discussion, not a law yet. It's been under discussion in other states (and in Texas) in the past without passing, so I removed it per WP:CRYSTAL. tedder (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article seems to be written by someone with an axe to grind. The links and quotes are almost all from pro-lane-splitting activists. Given that efforts to legalize it in various US states keep failing, there must be opposition. The legislators who keep voting against it must have their reasons. The section called "Safety" only mentions some risks in places where it is already legal, without a single point raised against legalizing it. One of the most obvious points is the possible increased danger from confusion during the transition period after it is legalized. How will drivers react to the change? Will they panic the first time they see motorcycles lane splitting, especially if unaware of the change in the law. How long will it take riders to learn to lane-split safely? That's just off the top of my head. This article needs more research in order to present both sides of the ongoing debate, and to bring to light why it has remained illegal in all but one of the US states for decades.Dbratland (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Citations for possible use to help balance article

  • Mathews, J.L., How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim (6th ed.), ISBN 1413305199, 9781413305197, Even in California, it is legal only if done safely. And "safely" is always very much a judgment call. The mere fact that an accident happened while a rider was lane splitting is very strong evidence that it wasn't safe to do so. ... If you've been involved in an accident you will have a hard job convincing an insurance adjuster that the accident was not completely your fault. {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Unknown parameter |Pages= ignored (|pages= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |Year= ignored (|year= suggested) (help)
  • How to live well without owning a car, p. 108, ISBN 1580087574, 9781580087575, Some motorcyclists think lane sharing is dangerous; others say it is one of the safest ways to ride. This debate will certainly contiue, but for now just know that lane sharing is definitely not a tactic for beginning riders. There are safe lane-sharing methods and unsafe ones, so it may be something to look into once you have a few years of experience, and only if it's legal in your state. {{citation}}: |first= missing |last= (help); Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); External link in |author-link= (help); Unknown parameter |Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |Year= ignored (|year= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |ast= ignored (help)
  • Vanderbilt, Tom (February 25th, 2009). "Lane Splitting". How We Drive. Archived from the original on 25 Apr 2009 10:21:24 GMT. Retrieved 2009-04-29. On the other hand, there have been times when I've been absolutely startled by a motorcyclist unexpectedly passing me. This raises the question of the "attentional set": If we don't usually expect motorcycles to be there, will we not see them as we change lanes, or if we unintentionally "drift" a bit? (for the biker, the added problem is the people who don't signal before changing). {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |archivedate= (help)
  • Kim, Ray (February 22, 2006), Lane Splitting: Time Saver or Insanity?, archived from the original on 27 Mar 2009 04:38:22 GMT., retrieved 2009-04-29, For: * It saves time for the rider. * It's better than sitting in traffic, waiting to get rear-ended. * If riders are splitting lanes instead of taking a space in traffic, everyone moves faster. Against: * It's too dangerous. * Car drivers resent it. * Cars get damaged by careless riders. * Is getting rear-ended worse than getting knocked off your bike while splitting lanes? {{citation}}: Check date values in: |archivedate= (help)
  • Friedman. "Lane Splitting: Tear Along Dotted Line". Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009. Retrieved 2009-04-29. If one lane is slowing more than the other,the likelihood of a lane-jumper increases. If the lane next to the one you are using is going faster, entering the lane-splitting zone may put you in the path or an overtaking car that isn't expecting it. I like to wait until both lanes are moving at similar speeds {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |archivedate= (help); Unknown parameter |firs= ignored (help)

I'll work these into the article when I can, unless someone else gets to it first.--Dbratland (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


  • US NHSTA only says study
    • United States. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Motorcycle Safety Foundation (2000), National agenda for motorcycle safety, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, There is evidence (Hurt, 1981) that traveling between lanes of stopped or slow-moving cars (i.e., lane splitting) on multiple-lane roads (such as interstate highways) slightly reduces crash frequency compared with staying within the lane and moving with other traffic. Although lane splitting is allowed in just a few areas of the United States, notably California, it appears to be worthy of further study because it offers a means of reducing congestion in addition to possible safety benefits. It is widely used in many other countries.
  • Time to learn to lane split, unfamiliarity:
    • Parks, Lee (2003), Total control: high performance street riding techniques, MotorBooks/MBI Publishing Company, p. 45, ISBN 0760314039, 9780760314036, 'When I moved to California in 1992, I remember being terrified of this 'lane splitting.' I thought of cars as enemies and had several close calls that left me feeling pretty scared. But, in time, I began to change my attitude toward the traffic, and I started thinking of it as more a dodging game. Now I rarely have close calls, and when I do, I don't freak out and panic. {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
    • Preston, Dave (2004), Motorcycle 101, p. 95, ISBN 0974742007, 9780974742007, In California it's legal to 'split' lanes on a motorcycle, which means you can ride in the lane between the lanes when traffic is slowed to a virtual halt. This seems insane to those of us who live in Seattle, and in many other areas, but then the California Highway Patrol 'CHiPS' officers are REQUIRED to park their bikes and await a car pick-up when it rains, so clearly some different sets of priorities are at work! {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Unknown parameter |publisheer= ignored (help)
  • Confusion about lane splitting.
    • Grava, Sigurd (2003), Urban Transportation Systems: Choices for Communities, McGraw-Hill Professional, p. 123, ISBN 0071384170, 9780071384179, This is a very complex field with specific details worked out (and largely enforced) in European cities, but it is doubtful that many people know exactly what the official requirements are on American roads and streets, and whether too many care. For example, under what circumstances is lane-splitting or filtering permitted, and how much separation is to be maintained between different types of vehicles, when is overtaking allowed, and what exact environmental safeguards are to be maintained, etc.? To find the answers, traffic manuals of the different states would have to be studied in some detail. {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
  • Not enough motorcycles to affect congestion
    • Grava, Sigurd (2003), Urban Transportation Systems: Choices for Communities, McGraw-Hill Professional, pp. 123–124, ISBN 0071384170, 9780071384179, Since it cannot be expected that there will be large volumes of motorcycles or scooters at any time on any segment of the street network in American communities, it is not a matter of attempting to determine throughput capacities, but rather an issue of incorporating these machines into regular motor vehicle volumes without disruption of flow patters or endangering any of the riders. Nor does this call for special control programs beyond a full observance and enforcement of standard traffic regulations. It is not really possible, no matter how hard one may wish to try, to define and defend a significant role for motorcycles in regular urban transportation. {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

--Dbratland (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Draft is up on my user page

I put a draft of the revsion I'm doing over on the lower half of my user page. I think I've more or less got the anti-lane splitting material in the shape I like it, but now I feel like the pro-lane splitting citations look weak. I've run across a number of sources that would bolster the case, so I will work them in, and try to to a better job of merging the previous version with this one.--Dbratland (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

One comment, for now...
The Glowacz quote does not support the claim (last sentence in opening paragraph of the draft), "For bicycles, is generally legal, ..." While it is true that in some states motorcyclists are specifically prohibited from engaging in lane splitting, implying that it is legal for bicyclists (and car drivers too, in the rare but not non-existent lane that happens to be wide enough), in other states it is illegal for any driver, including cyclists with the same rights and responsibilities as drivers, to lane split (meaning to pass slower traffic by riding between lines of traffic).
It is not illegal for motorcyclists, or even car drivers and truck drivers, to share lanes with faster traffic the way bicyclists often do - by moving "as far right as practicable" in the lane, allowing faster traffic to use the remainder of the lane to pass them. But "lane splitting" is generally not used to refer to that practice, and, again, it is legal for everyone, regardless of the type of vehicle. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I will be sure and add more citations for my statements about bicycle lane splitting being generally legal, and that lane splitting for them is encouraged. Honestly, though, I have no idea where the idea comes from that it is legal for motor vehicles to share lanes in the same way bicycles do. I remember I just posted quotations from the drivers manuals for a number of states, plus NHSTA guidelines, saying clearly that motor vehicles may not do that. However, if I'm able to locate, or if anyone can give me, any citations to support for this statement, I will definitely include it. If it is true, it should be easy to find where it says so in the motor vehicle code, drivers manual, or online law enforcement FAQ.--Dbratland (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
You posted something that says drivers of slower motor vehicles may not move aside in their lane to allow faster traffic to pass, which is the way bicyclists normally share lanes (which is not usually referred to as lane-splitting, by the way - still waiting for a citation for that)? Where? Have you never been on mountain roads with trucks moving aside to facilitate overtaking, or roads with tractors moving aside to allow cars to pass? In fact, most states have laws that require drivers of all slow moving vehicles (not just bicycles) to do that. For example, CVC 21654 from California: "any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven ... as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb". --Born2cycle (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Dbratland, your Preston citation above essentially defines lane splitting as "ride in the lane between the lanes when traffic is slowed to a virtual halt". With that in mind, you say that for bicyclists "lane splitting generally legal, and that lane splitting for them is encouraged" Really? You have citations that indicate that that behavior, outside of California (in which lane splitting for motorcyclists is also not illegal), is legal for bicyclists? I have seen none.
You have citations that indicate riding a bicycle in the lane between the lanes when traffic is slowed to a virtual halt is encouraged? Sure, it's "encouraged", or at least defended, by some bicyclists, but it's encouraged, or at least defended, by some motorcyclists too, and you can easily find equivalent citations for both. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Reading the draft. I must say it looks very good, I saw one typo (double "and") but it's your page so I left it as is. I like it much better than the current edition. Some minor points, some more relevant than others, though I'm not sure how to enumerate them here (in terms of formatting them nicely). 1) Draft Quote: "Another consideration is that lane splitting, even where legal, can possibly leave the rider legally responsible, as 'even in California, it is legal only if done safely,' and 'the mere fact that an accident happened while a rider was lane splitting is very strong evidence that it wasn't safe to do so.' " -- Both quotes are actually from (How to Win...) and the second quote is not complete, it omits "on that occasion". The full quote is "Even in California, it is legal only if done safely. And 'safely' is always very much a judgment call. The mere fact that an accident happened while a rider was lane splitting is very strong evidence that on that occasion it wasn't safe to do so." 2) The actual quote from reference seems like a prudent addition to that paragraph, it is "Lane splitting by motorcycles is permissible but must be done in a safe and prudent manner." You may infer from their statement it can be done in a safe and prudent manner. 3) While discussing the subject to the fullest it may be worth noting that Colorado Law specifically forbids lane splitting (excepting riding two abreast) but exempts police officers in performance of their official duty from lane-splitting restrictions (creating the logical inferences that either the State of Colorado is providing a legal avenue for inherently unsafe maneuvers or that they find the activity can be accomplished safely in certain circumstances) CRS 42-4-1503. Operating motorcycles on roadways laned for traffic. In conclusion, I think you should put your version up and we let the editing begin. Thanks. BossAnders (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. I only delayed because I felt I had moved it too far to the anti-lane splitting POV, but that's fixable.--Dbratland (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A source on two-abreast motorcycling

Motorcycle News (USA), May 2009, page 6, "Virginia Motorcyclist Bill Defeated". Quote: "Currently, two abreast riding, which is legal in 48 states, is considered reckless in Virginia.." tedder (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Two-abreast riding, where two motorcyclists are riding side-by-side in the same lane, is a form of lane sharing that is not lane splitting. That would be a useful citation in that article. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Nope, I wasn't trying to say it is lane splitting. Just that it's a good reference for the rewrite. tedder (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Does that article mention the bill number or something that would allow us to verify what this bill said and that it was defeated online? I can't find anything. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it was "HB1870, passed in the House of Delegates on February 5.. An amended version of the bill passed the Senate .. on February 24, but was revisited by the Senate one day later and defeated 22-17." tedder (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Lane Splitting in Brasil

Guys, I believe the person who added Brasil to the list of places where lane splitting is allowed may have been mislead by the information that, in the City of São Paulo, Capital of the State of São Paulo, there are two expressways that allow lane splitting. In any other place around the country, as far as I know, there is no such thing... Motorcycles can use the corridors between the lanes, at their own risk, but this is not a rule. Riders cannot claim this right, if you know what I mean...

Our Transportation Code, which dates back to 1998, had an article that would prohibit motorcycles from using the corridors, but this article was rejected by the former President, Mr. Fernando Henrique Cardoso. There is a proposition running in the Congress, which aims to reinstate this article, under the excuse that this would reduce the number of accidents with motorcycles (obviously, none of our congressmen has ever rode a motorcycle in their lives, but they hate when they are stuck in traffic and we pass by their windows...)

In any way, I believe that Brasil should not be in the list, but I'll wait for someone else's opinion before removing it. --Sudias (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Since the burden of proof is in your favor (ie it's necessary to provide sources to prove something, not to provide sources to disprove something), I'm happy with it being removed. tedder (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
In this case, since something is legal unless it is illegal, the burden should be on the claim that lane splitting is illegal, by citing the law that makes it illegal. To illustrate, consider that you can't cite anything to support the claim that chewing gum while motorcycling is legal.
I don't think it's reasonable to require having a reliable source state something does not exist (a law prohibiting lane splitting) for every traffic jurisdiction in the world. For example, the only reason lane splitting is legal in California is because there is no law that makes it illegal. Only because it's a controversial topic is there anything to cite about it. In other places (perhaps Brasil?) there might be nothing to cite. But if it is illegal, that law that makes it illegal can be cited. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
If you're going to take that approach, the article should instead cite places were it is illegal (noting that the list is incomplete), rather than listing those where it is not. - 67.39.251.254 (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Why? Either it is illegal, or it's legal. If it's not illegal, then it's legal. Why not list it either way? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

To Do List

Elaborate and cite what FARS is

Find more records of laws proposed

There are many more attempts to legalize lane splitting than the ones I listed. There was also at least one failed bill to prohibit lane splitting in California in the last 15 years. In particular, the testimony given during the hearings on these bills is a verifiable source of what the various attitudes and arguments are.

Find citations for each jurisdiction where it is legal

Find where/how/why the NHSTA/MSF, among others, think the Hurt Report backs lane splitting

This data is all online, as is the Hurt Report. I don't understand what their line of reasoning is to support that there are fewer rear-end accidents in California due to lane splitting. Similarly, the MAIDS data is online. Couldn't you compare the accident rates in Germany and the other countries and show some variation?

Was ist los Deutschland?

Germany is the only major country in Europe that doesn't permit lane splitting. Why? Is there a movement there to legalize it? Do riders there lane split anyway? Are Europeans riding through Germany confused?

Possibly add bullet points summarizing both the pro and con arguments

I prefer not having Misplaced Pages supply ready-made talking points for pro- or anti- partisans, and rather let them read the conflicting data in the article and think for themselves which side, if any, they choose, and making up their own arguments using the information given.

There are multiple positions possible:

  1. Change the law to prohibit lane splitting where it is currently allowed.
  2. Don't change any laws.
  3. Change the laws in places like Australia to legalize what everyone is doing anyway.
  4. Change the laws to permit lane splitting in places where it is now prohibited

Orthogonal to this is the question of should I lane split? Some choose not to even when legal. And finally, some lane split at any traffic speed, and at any speed greater than the traffic is moving. Others observe limits as to how slow the traffic must be moving before they will lane split, and the move back into a lane when it speeds up to some threshold. And then there is the maximum amount, 5 to 20 mph or more, that the rider chooses to pass the traffic while between lanes.

So if you wanted to make up a set of bullet points, first you'd need to pick which of these arguments you were going to support and sort the points appropriately. --Dbratland (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the way the article is written right now implies that the law must state it is legal for it be acceptable. This isn't how law works. Law defines restrictions (you can't do this, you must do it this way). If there is no law prohibiting it, then it is legal (on a very basic level). -- That said, I think there is too little data to allow for reasonable bulleted positions. The article needn't present positions, merely present data and allow readers to take their own position. Correct? BossAnders (talk) 08:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
If there is no law prohibiting it, then it is legal Apparently not. I tried to provide citations for this in the 'Jurisdictions' section, but I can see I need to add more information. Some states, unlike Colorado, have the same vague laws as California. Vehicle codes nationwide in the US are often copy-pasted from the same sources, at least historically. Yet all of these states, save California, defaulted to prohibiting lane splitting, not allowing it merely because it wasn't spelled out. It was apparently rather a fluke that California went the other way. Part of this is because the language usually includes fuzzy terms like "safely" or "prudently" and that allows police and courts to interpret it to mean it is never safe or prudent to be on the white line.
But you raise a good point, as have others. I will provide further citations to clarify this if someone else doesn't beat me to it.--Dbratland (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Motorcycles and Bicycles

There's been some edits already on the bicycle portions so I'll strike up a conversation and then go edit ;) Seems fair. So here's my very specific problem: Bicycle and Motorcycle laws are very distinct in Colorado (the jurisdiction I happen to be most familiar with). There is a section on motorcycles and there is a section on bicycles. For example, Lane Sharing is mentioned in the Bicycle section (it's forbidden except for a very specifically set of circumstances) and it specifically states you must stay on the farther right side of a lane. It could be construed as prohibiting lane-splitting by bicycles (you should see the laws on how to turn left are ridiculous -- they really want to discourage biking in Colorado).

So, this just happens to be the jurisdiction I know. I think it is misleading to say "bicycle laws" follow "motorcycle laws" on lane-splitting when, in fact, I can cite a contrary law and the citation currently used only applies to California. Not a resounding expert opinion or research on the legality across the United States, let alone the world. So I'm going to edit it to be more ambigious (which seems wrong to me but better than the current listing).

In truth, I think we might need to divide the article into motorcycles section and bicycles section (or make mention of bicycles separately). In fact, if we go with the most generic definition of "splitting a lane" then shouldn't it cover all vehicles? Clearly motorcycles are the most visible lane-splitters but cars can lane split (and be ticketed in California for failing to remain in the lane or in Colorado for (I think) reckless driving). BossAnders (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Colorado Law on bicycles . I am not a lawyer but Colorado law states (like most states) that bikes are vehicles. Colorado law also states that vehicles may not lane split and the courts have interpreted that to mean "lane splitting" -- So, basically, it's against the law for bikes to lane split in Colorado. On link see the text of the law but especially the 2nd annotation on a car "stradling the lane divider" -- On the other hand, a lawyer might argue that it's foolish to consider bikes like cars, that the lane provision doesn't apply especially because motorcycles were specifically forbidden but bikes were left out. -- Legal quagmire. BossAnders (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I very much favor separating the motorcycle and bicycle lane splitting articles, while treating the terms lane splitting/whitelining/filtering forward/stripe-riding as near-synonyms. The differences in terminology don't matter nearly as much as what you're riding. This was discussed at Talk:Filtering forward#Disambiguation with motorcycle lane splitting and hairsplitting of terminology. There seems to be a social-political movement which seeks to define bicycles as identical to other vehicles in all things, called Vehicular cycling, and that's fine, but I don't think Misplaced Pages needs to reflect that point of view. Rather, separating the two topics makes the articles much more clear, and more relevant to the reader.
For example, I my wordy title "Jurisdictions where motorcycle lane splitting is permitted" was changed to "Jurisdictions where permitted" but in truth, the current situation requires every statement to be qualified to say whether you're talking about motorcycles or bicycles. It's awkward, and it doesn't serve the reader because you're either interested as a motorcyclist or a bicyclist. Those who are approaching this from an interest in equating the two should be directed to Vehicular cycling and Segregated cycle facilities which address those special issues.
I would argue that the question of cars lane splitting lacks notability. It isn't something people worry about. Motorcycle lane splitting is a hot topic. Bicycle lane splitting is fraught with questions too, but they are totally different questions than motorcycle lane splitting. Bicycles have the quandary of riding in the door zone or slowing traffic if they take the lane; motorcycles don't have that problem. Their problem is in a traffic jam getting rear ended, engines overheating on some types of motorcycles, and just the desire to exploit their small size to escape congestion. There is no movement in the US to change lane splitting laws with regard to bicycling. Motorcycle lane splitting law is near the top of the agenda of many motorcycling activists and pressure groups. Apples and oranges.
I don't know if consensus can be reached on this. Perhaps a compromise would be to put bicycles and motorcycles in separate sections of the same two articles, Lane splitting and Filtering forward. Once that happened, I think perhaps it would start to seem logical to merge the motorcycle parts of the two articles and the bicycle parts of the two articles. It would also make the transition easier.
Currently these two articles are awkward to write and confusing to read.--Dbratland (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Vehicular cycling is not a social-political movement, it's the law. It's only a social-political movement in so far as making this fact better known. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Lane splitting: Difference between revisions Add topic