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 editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:02, 23 October 2016 editDennis Bratland (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users61,245 edits →"between lanes"???: point-by-point on these five citations← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:17, 15 December 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,945,228 editsm →top: Category:Articles with conflicting quality ratings: -Start, keep CTag: AWB 
(56 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProject Civil engineering}}
{{WikiProject Motorcycling|importance=Mid}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}}
|maxarchivesize = 75K |maxarchivesize = 75K
|counter = 3 |counter = 4
|minthreadsleft = 6 |minthreadsleft = 6
|algo = old(90d) |algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Lane splitting/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Lane splitting/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{talk header}}
{{Motorcycling|class=C|importance=Mid}}
{{On OOMandM}}

{{WikiProject Civil engineering|class=start}}

== California Dominates this article and is repeated so much ==

California Dominates this article and is repeated so much. I think almost every section talks about California. I think it can be hedged and sentences can be condensed some.--] (]) 10:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
:Blame the sources. And blame reality. California dominates any English-language discussion of lane splitting. The world is divided into places that have never heard of lane splitting and never talk about it, places that take it for granted and never talk about it, and places that have it but obsess over it (California and Australia). We could write a different article that ignored the copious California sources and magnified the importance of the few other sources we have, but that would be original research and POV pushing to distort what we have to create a false impression of balance. --] (]) 14:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
::I was also referring to the repetition of information. It says it one place and then it goes and says it again. Read the entire article and see. And That second motorcyclist is out of frame.--] (]) 17:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
:::*The first mention of California mentions lack of comparison between California and the other US states with regard to safety research.
:::*The second mention is about indirect research in the FARS database, again comparing California with other states because, obviously, California is the one state with the difference under discussion.
:::*The third mention is about the Hurt Report, which, for whatever reasons, happened to have been conducted entirely within California.
:::*The fourth mention is about responsibility and liability, saying that there is no carte blance to lanesplit in California. It must be done "safely".
:::*Fifth is a more in-depth discussion of what safety means. In the US context, all of the safety guidance comes from California. The UK Roadcraft manual is mentioned. More sources from other countries would be welcome, but I don't have those sources. Anyone who has sources here would certainly be able to improve the article. That's not an argument to arbitrarily delete mention of California.
:::*Sixth we have an in-depth discussion of legality in the US and Australia.
:::Sorry, but I don't see the redundancy. I need some help if anyone can point out specifically what is redundant. Note that ] says that every fact in the intro should be repeated in the body text.<P><s>If t</s>The second motorcyclist is not outside the frame. The frame is the border of the image; if he were outside the frame, we couldn't see him at all. It's true he is not in the center of the image, but so what? The fact that he is harder to spot than the other one is relevant to the subject of lane splitting safety. --] (]) 19:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
::::It seems to be equally a case of poor writing and bad prose. Esp that section on '''Is it Legal'''. Hence the information is not just an expansion but a direct repeat. Anyway It is up to you, I am passing by and making a critical observation on how it could be improved. Some welcome that others do not. --] (]) 21:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::What is bad or poor? Can you clarify? Have you changed your mind about it being repetitive? I'll delete the repetitive sections but I can't identify them. I'll rewrite the bad prose but I don't know what is bad about it. Previously I've heard others criticize this article because they detect a kind of irrationality around the subject of lane splitting, but the legal status of lane splitting in the US and some countries is in fact not very rational. Sometimes reality is bizarre.<P>Anyway, your opinions are welcome but please understand that unclear criticism isn't likely to result in any action. --] (]) 03:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
:Unclear to you, let us be clear about this. More editors with some understanding of[REDACTED] is better than one determining the fate of this article.--] (]) 17:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

== Please direct me to where On Wiki it says I cannot add other countries. ==

You know it starts to become a problem when editors appear to ] articles. Misplaced Pages is liberal enough that I do not have to abide by what you and one other person decide for an article. It does not a. Bring Worldview into it B. Totally ruins the purpose of this article Which is titled lane splitting. That means where ever in the world lane splitting is mentioned and discussed it applies. I see a pattern with your editing and I think it is a problem. Again these articles are developed not by one person or two, its not a bike club with one rule set back in the 80's that anyone has to follow. Unless that logic sits with Misplaced Pages policy please do not police these articles. By all ] standards I could start creating a region by region box of the legality of lane splitting per RS. That is my right as an editor. I hope you are aware of your limits over this page?--] (]) 17:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
:First, this is not my talk page. When you send personal messages on article talk pages without even mentioning who the "you" is that you're addressing, it creates all sorts of confusion. How are other editors supposed to know who you're addressing? If you want to make specific complaints about me ] is not the appropraite venue. Go to my talk page or an appropriate notice board if you want to talk about me personally.<P>Second, the table showing the legality of lane splitting in every jurisdiction has been discussed many, many times. Scroll up and read. It even went to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. The problem is that the sources you allude to don't exist. You can start to cite a few countries, then you run out of gas and we're left with a list that will never be reliable because nobody seems to be able to find good sources for every single country. As you'll see from the previous discussions, ] is the policy page that says why we don't want the legal status of lane splitting for every country. Encyclopedias are not drivers manuals. Encyclopedias are not legal guides. They aren't traveler's guides.<P>There '''is''' a at WikiVoyage for just such a travel guide. WikiVoyage is specifically designed to give someone thinking about riding a motorcycle in different countries exactly the kind of reference information they need. It's not an encyclopedia, it's a travel guide. Finish fleshing that article out and move it to the main namespace and all is well. Most of the hard part is already done. --] (]) 19:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

== Kind of a mess ==

Issues, briefly: 0) Lede appears to contain OR on bicycle lane splitting. 1) Section headers: Safety is listed again under safety section. 2) Research: the UC Berkeley study needs to be summarized. 3) "Hough has not gone on record...": is impossible to cite a negative. — ] (]) 20:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
:I don't know what to do about the bicycle stuff. It was a compromise with {{User|Born2cycle}} who wants to argue that bicycles are identical to motor vehicles, and therefore should be treated in the same breath as motorcycle lane splitting, based on the ] movement whose popularity peaked a decade or two ago. I'd still rather discuss bicycles elsewhere, given that none of our sources treat them as the same subject.<P>The Hurt Report supports lane splitting should no longer be treated as credible; we should probably delete it. Nobody can point out where in the Hurt Report it says this. I guess it's notable that some people believe the Hurt Report says it, but that's more of a popular misconception than a lane splitting fact. I agree we should remove the part about Hough not going on record about new laws.<P>I would expect that since we now do have a new report on lane splitting, that will be followed by pro and con opinion arguments published by recognized authorities. That means we can directly attribute whatever arguments they make, which is a much easier article for us to write. Currently we are awkwardly trying to state the pro and con facts without appearing to argue either side. --] (]) 20:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

== Difference US <--> developing world ==

Currently, the article talks about the situation in the US and the situation in the "developing world".
This is a pretty harsh take on "everything but the US is inferior and is thus the developing world". There REALLY should be made a clear distinction here.
Theres places like Japan which sure isn't "the developing world" but has many 2-wheeled vehicles. Same goes for Europe, UAE and many more. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:What is harsh? Can you point out where it says "everything but the US is inferior"? You're asking for a clear distinction between what and what else? What would you like to say about Japan and Europe and the UAE? --] (]) 14:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


== Reverted addition of country-by-country legal status ==
== External links modified ==


This article is not supposed to be a travel guide or a driver's manual. We're not trying to tell the reader what they can and can't do in ever jurisdiction. ] in an appropriate article that tells you whether you can lane split, have to wear a helmet, carry passengers, etc, in each country. That's not the role of an encyclopedia. This was discussed extensively above, and once again, the reasons we go into detail about Australia and California are because they are instructive examples. They illustrate the social confusion of lane splitting. The should not be broken apart into separate sections, one for each country. That's what WikiVoage is for. This is about a broader survey of the concept of lane splitting. --] (]) 02:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,


I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . You may add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/4D7DF98C-5350-4D04-A0549A3A0F4632D7/catID/C2B5FF79-6DD8-4FD5-85351429C56DCFFD/104/199/255/ART/


== Legal status in the European Union ==
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
The article says:
''In most of the European Union lane splitting is legal, and in a number of countries, such as France, Italy, Spain or Netherlands, it's even expected.''
I don't know about the other countries but in the Netherlands it is illegal. It is just not enforced by most policeofficers (a few actually do!). If you get an accident you are always guilty and insurance might not cover it. I highly suggest editing this. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:Just want to say i'm pretty sure its the same in Germany, and the citation linking to the German ADAC website even says as much. i suggest editing this to reflect what it actually says in the link. ] (]) 12:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}


::ok i just add one extra detail to my comment above... its forbidden in germany but only transitively, not directly. The lanesplitting itself is not illegal, but its illegal to overtake any vehicle without giving the other vehicle enough room, e.g. having a 1m gap between you and the vehicle, and in the case of lane-splitting the gap is almost by definition not big enough for that, therefore a finable offence ] (]) 13:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 09:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


== "between lanes"??? == == Legal Status ==


US Lane Splitting Map caption - could clarify "pending" status for Utah (blue). What are the differences between Black/Red and Orange/Yellow? ] (]) 15:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
The intro defines "lane splitting" as "riding ... between roadway lanes of vehicles".


:Just want to note that lane splitting is legal in Minnesota now ] (]) 20:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I know this is based on the NHTSA glossary definition ("Passing between lanes of stopped or slower-moving vehicles on a motorcycle" ), but it's non-sensical.


== Why revert this? ==
There is no space between lanes. Where one lane ends, the next adjacent one begins. There is no space between them. Lanes are demarcated by stripes, and the center of the stripe is actually where one lane ends and the other begins. The concept of "between lanes" is meaningless, by definition.


{{U|Dennis Bratland}}, why this ? Seems appropriate and properly sourced. In the future, please explain reverts in the edit summary; thanks. --] ] 21:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
The phrase "lanes of vehicles" does not make sense either. Each lane can be said to have ''line'' of vehicles in it, and one may ride between those ''lines'' of vehicles, but "lane of vehicles" is also meaningless.
:I , the first time. It's a single-purpose account where a guy adds citespam to articles to cite his own graduate thesis. In Spanish. Which describes some stuff in a computer model. A hypothetical computer model. --] (]) 21:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


== Contradictory and inaccurate info regarding California law ==
Instead of ''lines'' of vehicles you can also say ''rows'' of vehicles. In fact, that is the language used by the new law in California. I suggest we follow suit, and will update the article accordingly.


In the second paragraph of the section titled "Legal Status", the following is stated:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB51
"In the United States, bills to legalize lane splitting have been introduced in state legislatures around the US over the last twenty years but none had been enacted until California's legislature passed such a bill in August, 2016. Effective January 1, 2017, section 21658.1 was added to the California Vehicle Code and defines lane splitting, which is now explicitly legal in California."


In the fifth paragraph of the same section the following is stated:
--] ] 06:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
"The new law established a definition of lane splitting, while making no mention of whether, or under what circumstances, it is allowed, or not allowed."


Besides being sloppy (having California law being discussed in spaced apart paragraphs), it is contradictory. The fifth paragraph is much more accurate. A quick reading of the bill shows that it most certainly did not make lane splitting "explicitly legal."
:I agree that "rows of vehicles" seems to be a better option. Though I note that "lanes of vehicles" is not nonsensical when one interprets it as it was originally written. That was simply that vehicles needn't follow lane demarcations to form lines of cars, as if in a lane. A lane is merely a path or road. Nevertheless, I ''think'' this is probably an improvement so good change. -- ] (]) 22:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
] (]) 18:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
::There's no need to be this pedantic. The rest of the world has no trouble understanding the world choice of our sources. If this article shifts to some contrived terminology not found in our sources , we create confusion where none existed. ] (]) 22:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
:::It's not pedantic at all, and it is sourced, to the language used in an actual current law. --] ] 19:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
::::Can you cite it please? I found about six that said "between lanes of traffic". This whole objection is original research. Trying to invent your own imaginary controversies like this is far beyond the scope of Misplaced Pages. We follow our soures, not leading them in new directions or uncovering new problems. If it's so nonsensical, how come every single source uses this "between lanes" phrase? If you can actually cite a source that says it's nonsensical, we could stick a short mention of it deep down near the bottom of the article. But even that is really a violation of ]. --] (]) 20:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
::::OK, I think you mean . You're basing this on the literal text of a new law in California, which gives the definition "between rows of stopped or moving vehicles in the same lane". This is a misuse of primary sources as explained in ]. This part of the ] policy says do not use primary source, e.g. a legal code, to draw conclusions beyond the most obvious facts. You're using primary source to draw the original conclusion that the phrasing used by all the secondary sources is flawed or confusing. Your primary source doesn't claim any such thing, no other sources say "between lanes of traffic/vehicles" is flawed or confusing. That's totally made up. The NOR policy is that we should rely on secondary sources to explain what laws mean. We have at least one secondary source cited that explains this particular law is a "legislative non sequitur". Not only is it a primary source, but an expert interpretation is that it's not even a coherent or meaningful primary source. Even without that, the policy is that secondary sources overrules any literal parroting of a primary source. We write Misplaced Pages in plain English, not legalese, or legal ].<P>The English grammar error behind this whole faux "confusion" is the difference between a ''traffic lane'' and a ''lane of traffic''. A traffic lane is, pedantically, the paved surface bounded on either side by stripes. To a literalist, there is no space between where one lane ends and the next begins. This ignores the fact that natural language is driven by common sense rather than formal logic. But the real problem is that the phrasing used by all the secondary sources is "between ''lanes of vehicles''" or "between ''lanes of traffic''". A lane of traffic is the occupants of the traffic lane. There is space between the vehicles occupying the traffic lane.<P>I really wish we didn't have to discuss things like this. Just follow the sources. You don't have to fix things that nobody has told you are broken. --] (]) 21:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
:::::Can I cite it please? Original research? Are you serious? Citing sources is now original research? Imaginary controversies? Text in actual legal language is "fringe"? The only controversy is the one you're creating. IT'S CITED IN THE FIRST COMMENT OF THIS SECTION. <p>Oh, now you found it, and are objecting to a phrase because it is found in a primary (legal) source? Seriously? Anyway, how many secondary sources would you like?
:::::# "If you’re wondering what lane-splitting is, it’s '''riding a motorbike between rows of vehicles''' travelling in lanes in the same direction."
:::::# "It also defines lane splitting as “driving a motorcycle … that has two wheels in contact with the ground, '''between rows of stopped or moving vehicles''' in the same lane including on both divided and undivided streets, roads, or highways. ”"
:::::# "New Jersey's state driver's manual warns bikers against "lane sharing" with another vehicle and specifically says "do not ride in between '''rows of stopped vehicles'''."
:::::# "Motorcycles would be authorized to be driven between rows of stopped or slowed vehicles in the same direction if the speed of traffic is 30 mph or less. However, motorcycles could be driven no more than 10 mph in excess of the speed of traffic."
:::::# "Most car drivers and other non-driving folk might become very nervous when '''lane splitting''' is brought into discussion, and most of these angry guys will mention those “low fliers” speeding '''between rows of cars''' and of whom many end up dead." (that's from 2012, by the way)
::::: Do you always make baseless accusations? --] ]
::::::Here is the basis:
::::::#You're giving citations of sources which literally quote the the text of AB 51, in order to explain AB 51. Except the first and last links, which are ESL bloggers who plagiarized the law's text instead of admitting it's a quote. I think you googled the phrase without reading the context.
::::::#Instead of addressing the misuse of primary sources, these supposed citations beg the question.
::::::#You have not cited any sources to support your claim that the language is confusing.
::::::#You have not addressed the blunder "no space between lanes" . If you're going to be this literal and pedantic, then acknowledge that these sources don't literally say there's space between lanes, they say there's space between lanes of traffic.
::::::#Finally, please address the multiple sources that say AB 51 is hardly authoritiative, but rather is an odd piece of legislative ] meant to serve a specific, unique, local political purpose found only in California. --] (]) 22:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
:::::::# You complain about a primary source (as if that even mattered in a situation about whether a given wording is appropriate or not), I provide a multitude of secondary sources, and you complain because some of them are quintessential secondary sources (they rely on the primary source).
:::::::# None beg the question. Any one of the five meets the hurdle you previously set. Even if you throw out a couple per your dubious reasoning, you still have the others. And please explain how an article from 2012 can be based on a 2016 law? You're a piece of work.
:::::::# My claim that the language is confusing is my opinion and I explained why, above. Your opinions is it's better to rely on semantic shifting around the meaning of "lane". I'd rather avoid the language altogether, and at least {{U|CáliKewlKid}} agrees. You're on your own. I'm not claiming consensus, but my position is certainly closer to consensus than yours.
:::::::# More semantic confusion. Again, I say avoid it.
:::::::# Sources say AB 51 is not authoritative? What sources? They say it's not authoritative about what? Give me something to address and I'll address it. Anyway, there are other sources that use the phrase, so even if some sources opined that AB 51 was not considered authoritative about something, as if that mattered (it doesn't), it's moot.
:::::::--] ] 23:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


:Yes. Articles are sometimes made out of date by new developments. Someone updated part of the article without updating the rest. Changing the tense of the earlier version to match the changes in the law should be an easy correction to make. --] (]) 19:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
:::::::By the way, of the 5 sources I listed above, only the 2nd and 3rd refer to the California law or related bill, and of those two, one of them (landlinemag) refers to laws in five states, and the 'rows of ... vehicles" reference is not specific to California language. That means 4 out of the 5 in the list are not relying on the primary source to which you object. --] ] 00:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
::::::::OK, we can go through this source by source. You have cited 5 very weak, very inferior sources. You're ignoring a very large number of more authoritative sources, that have used the common phrasing for many years. If this phrasing were confusing or contradictory, why did all these writers, and their editors, and their readers, have no problem with it? Before I list these sources and quotations one by one, please delete your RfC. It's a terrible idea. Dragging in large numbers of editors to involve themselves in this petty wording dispute is annoying and disruptive. Nobody else cares. You are very well aware how much this irritates the wider community. I've avoided dealing with you on this article because I know you will stonewall on petty items, but this writing is so bad that I have to say something now. But that doesn't mean I want to see lots of others caught up in it. No, RfC, OK? I'll show you a very large number of quotes who have used this common phrasing, and that will be an opportunity to end this without creating drama. At least wait a couple days before immediately sounding the RfC alarm bell.<P>You know what it says at ]: ''"Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt to working out their disputes before seeking help from others."'' You have not made a reasonable attempt. You haven't even seen the citations I alluded to. How can you say you made a good faith effort when you're too impatient to look at the citations? --] (]) 00:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
*I've requested speedy close of the RfC below at ]. An RfC is premature and disruptive, and the guidelines ask editors to make an effort to resolve it before staring an RfC. --] (]) 01:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


Nothing I mentioned was regarding out of date information; it was regarding information that was always inaccurate. The solution is not to change tenses; it is to remove the incorrect information entirely. ] (]) 20:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
*Three sources that explain ''why AB51 is an odd duck'' i.e. not authoritative:
**{{Citation |magazine=] |last=Deitzler |first=Harry |date= September 2016 |page= 43 |title= Motorcycle Justice }}
**{{Citation |title=The California Lane-Splitting Bill, AB 51, Has Passed the Senate |url= http://www.sportrider.com/california-lane-splitting-bill-ab-51-has-passed-senate |magazine=Sport Rider |date= August 4, 2016 |accessdate=October 21, 2016 }}
**{{Citation |first= Sean |last=MacDonald |title= California's Lane-Splitting Bill Passes State Senate Vote; AB 51 is one step closer to becoming law |date= August 4, 2016 |url= http://www.cycleworld.com/californias-lane-splitting-bill-passes-state-senate-vote |accessdate=October 21, 2016 }}


I removed the section cited above for the reasons mentioned. ] (]) 11:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
*Sources that use variations of "between lanes of traffic/cars/vehicles", showing no problem with the idea that space exists "between lanes":
**Proficient Motorcycling: The Ultimate Guide to Riding Well. David L. Hough. Bow Tie. 2000. p. 233. "Riding the white line between traffic lanes is a subject journalists tend to avoid." p. 237 "zipping between the lanes at a speed much faster than traffic"
**Mastering the Ride: More Proficient Motorcycling, 2nd Edition. David L. Hough. 2012. p. 79 "A motorcyclist in Southern California rides between lanes of traffic on the busy freeway during rush hour…"
**Effective Cycling. John Forester. MIT Press, 1992, 2012. p. 198. "Ride between the traffic lane and the parking lane, and when you reach a place where there are no parked cars". p. 393 "Don't overtake between lanes of moving traffic."
**How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim. Joseph Matthews 2015. p. 41. "…it means squeezing between lanes, passing the cars in stop-and-go traffic on each side."
**Ride Hard, Ride Smart. Pat Hahn. 2004. p. 105. "There is also usually a decent amount of room between lanes to use if you need it."
**The Total Motorcycling Manual (Cycle World). Mark Lindemann. Ben Spies. 2013. 100 "Lane splitting, lane sharing, traffic filtering, white-lining — whatever you call the practice, it's one of the huge advantages motorcycles offer over cars in traffic. Basically, it's about riding between lanes of slow or stopped traffic."
** Safe Riding; Staying Alive on Your Motorcycle. Mitch Williamson. Everest House. 1980 p. 72 "Riding between lanes; What about riding the dash line between lanes of traffic going in your same direction? ...California went on record saying between-lanes riding by a cyclist would not get him arrested."
**How to Ride a Motorcycle. Pat Hahn. Motorbooks. 2005. p. 14 "Lane splitting: in states that allow it, riding between lanes of slow or stopped traffic, easing congestion on crowded highways."
**Hahn, Pat (2012), Motorcyclist's Legal Handbook: How to Handle Legal Situations from the Mundane to the Insane, MotorBooks International. p. 75 "Riding between lanes of traffic is not legal anywhere, including California. However, it is tolerated in California..."
**The Complete Idiot's Guide to Motorcycles. Motorcyclist Magazine, ‎Darwin Holmstrom, ‎Simon Green. 2008. p. 184 "In some American states and most European countries, it is legal for a motorcycle to ride between lanes of traffic. This is known as splitting lanes or filtering"
**Cyclecraft: the complete guide to safe and enjoyable cycling for adults and children. John Franklin. The Stationery Office. 2007 . p. 162. "On multi-lane roads its safer to pass between lanes, riding the lane line"
**Art of Cycling: Staying Safe on Urban Streets. Robert Hurst. Rowman & Littlefield. 2014. p. 100 "Filtering… riding between lanes of jammed traffic"
**Born to Be Wild: The Rise of the American Motorcyclist.Randy D. McBee. 2015. p. 65 "Motorcyclists were known for riding between lanes of cars (lane splitting) when stopped at a traffic jam"
**Bicycling Magazine's Complete Book of Road Cycling Skills: Your Guide to Riding Faster, Stronger, Longer, and Safer. Ed Pavelka. Rodale. 1998. p. 84. "In some states it is not legal for a cyclist to pass on the right or ride between lanes of traffic."
**Street smarts: Bicycling's traffic survival guide. John S. Allen. 1988. p. 36 "in some states and cities it's not legal for a bicyclist to pass on the right or ride between lanes of traffic."
**Popular Mechanics. Apr 1970. Vol. 133, No. 4. p. 216. "It takes considerably less time if you streak along illegally between lanes of traffic even when cars are moving at or near the speed limit. In my book, doing that's an abuse of the freedom a motorcycle gives you."
** Collin Woodard. Road and Track. Aug 8, 2016 "Lane splitting, where a motorcyclist rides between lanes of traffic, has been common in California for years"
**Cycle World Magazine.Jan 1979. Vol. 18, No. 11. p. 2. "the narrowness of the engine also makes riding between lanes of a traffic jam (in states where its legal) less nerve-wracking."
** Charles Fleming. LA Times.. July 30, 2014. "The sometimes controversial act of lane-splitting, in which riders use the space between lanes when traffic is slow or has stopped, is legal in California"
**American Motorcyclist. Feb 1989. Vol. 43, No. 2. p. 24. "Steinberger remembers when it was common for couriers to split lanes through traffic to get to the head of..."
**The official DSA theory test for car drivers and the official… Driving Standards Agency.
**2010. "Look out for cyclists and motorcyclists travelling between lanes of traffic."<P>Note that we have experts like John Forester, David Hough, Pat Hahn, Motorcycling Magazine, Bicycling Magazine, Cycle World, and more, who find this phrase "riding between lanes of traffic/cars/vehicles" a better choice than the stilted legal language found in some vehicle codes. This is a classic example of secondary sources guiding us and primary sources misleading.<P>How can so many of the best sources say there is space "between lanes" and yet not one single person outside Misplaced Pages has ever said it doesn't make sense? Why hasn't anybody said "lanes of vehicles" or "lanes of traffic" doesn't make sense? It's a made-up problem, original research. ] (]) 03:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


== Suggeat removing references to the Hurt report ==
* There is a whole other problem making "between rows of vehicles" confusing. It explains why writers and editors overwhelmingly prefer "between lanes of traffic/vehicles". The word ''row'' raises ambiguities over which direction is meant. ] vs ] vs ] vs ] vs ] . Theater rows run perpendicular to the direction the audience is facing; if drivers were analogous, a row of cars in traffic shoulder-to-shoulder, or abreast, would run perpendicular the direction of travel. Given that pedestrians, bicyclists and sometimes motorcycles do in fact cut perpendicularly between vehicles stopped in traffic, it is easy to think that is what "riding between rows of vehicles" means. Vehicles, people, or things moving in a line are often called a "column", and when they are, "rows" are at a right angle to that. In video graphics, mathematics, and spreadsheets, rows are at right angles to columns. In motor and horse racing, rows are perpendicular to the direction of movement. ] is "the position on the front row of the starting grid nearest to the inside of the first bend". In ], row is also at right angles to the forward-back direction. It's not consistent: rows, columns, lines, ranks and files can all sometimes be used either direction, though you'd forgive anyone for assuming that street traffic followed the same conventions as motor racing, or that racing terms come from traffic. In reality, it's a confusing mess, because in spite of all this, a "row" can also be a lane. Evidence? . Whenever you hear "row" in an unfamiliar context, you need someone to give further explanation as to what they mean by "row"; it's not obvious which direction it goes.<P>], however, is not ambiguous. It is never used except to mean in the direction of travel, never perpendicular to it. The meaning is obvious with no further information needed. --] (]) 17:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
:: The reason I started the rfc below is because it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you about this.
::*Back in August, I made a simple suggestion, provided my reasoning, and another editor concurred. I made the change.
::*Then, in October, you arrived. Without discussion, and with a comment using dismissive language that revealed you obviously did not even read the discussion on the talk page, you reverted.
::*After your revert you made your first comment, asking for a citation even though one was provided in my original post just above your comment.
::*Then, apparently finally reading the reasoning to which you were responding, you added a second comment objecting to the citation as being a primary source.
::*So I provided five examples of secondary sources.
::*Then you conjured an objection based on claiming these secondary sources were literal quotes of the primary source.
::*So I pointed out that was true for only one out of the five.
::*Then you objected that these sources are "very weak, very inferior", as if I ever argued they weren't. So what? You asked for secondary sources; they are secondary sources.
::*Your most recent post takes up acres of discussion space listing references supporting a point that I essentially acknowledged in my original post, certainly not one that refutes anything I've argued or presented.
::So, I'm done with your ], ], trolling over such a minor wording change. We need another set of eyes here, not more feeding of anyone's illness. --] ] 17:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


Nowhere in the actual Hurt report findings does it describe the effect of lane splitting. Later interviews with Hurt suggests there is no evidence for lane splitting. The original evidence that suggested the Hurt report supported lane splitting is from an interview with Harry Hurt that misattribute his opinion and the actual report's findings.
* I'd like to be able to discuss this without any further personal attacks. Perhaps Born2Ccyle will make another attempt to participate in this discussion without name-calling and defamatory accusations. I'm aware he would like to discuss his five citations in detail, so here we go. It's a very, very long read, but a point-by-point explanation was requested.
**The Middle Ground is a news blog in Singapore. Li Shan Teo blogs about a wide variety of subjects, and is not known as a motorcyclist or expert on motorcycling. Or transport. There is that this writer is not a native speaker of English and has a limited understanding of English idiom: "It’s an age-old advice", " designed to absorb the impact of collision to the brain", "minor scraps and lacerations ", "By wearing proper close-toed footwear and long-sleeved shirts, it could significantly reduce or prevent injuries", "Be prepared to pull the brakes". Teo's choice to closely paraphrase the California legal code, " it’s riding a motorbike between rows of vehicles travelling in lanes in the same direction." is a poor example to follow.
**]'s begins with "It's a common sight on California roadways: Motorcycles '''speeding between lanes of cars''' to get ahead of traffic." Carpenter is an professional journalists and motorcycling expert. She chose the phrase "between lanes of cars" for her lead because she obviously thought it communicated the idea well. This contradicts the original claim that the phrase is meaningless or does not make sense. Later in her piece, Carpenter is telling the reader specifically what AB51 does, which is to provide a definition of lane splitting, and Carpenter quotes AB51. So our secondary source, a skilled writer and subject expert, takes the primary source, which says, "between rows of stopped or moving vehicles" and she provides a clearer, plain English interpretation, i.e. "between lanes of cars". The NOR policy says at ] that "Misplaced Pages articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources" because "because it is easy to misuse" primary sources, so we must "refer to reliable secondary sources" to interpret them.
**The by commuting reporter Larry Higgs at ]. Higgs does exactly the same thing as Carpenter. He opens with his own word choice, "riding in between lanes of moving or stopped traffic on a busy highway", to best communicate to readers what the subject is. The question in this Q&A is also phrased "ride in between lanes of traffic". In part of his answer, Higgs provides a direct quote of the NJ drives manual: ""do not ride in between rows of stopped vehicles." Here we have a second professional writer and subject matter expert who contradicts the claim that "between lanes of" is meaningless or senseless. Like Carpenter, Higgs demonstrates that he things this phrasing is a clearer plain English interpretation of official legalese. Higgs that uses the phrase "between lanes" three times.
** is ], by Keith Goble, state legislative editor. For the third time, the writer leads with "One example is motorcyclists who ride between lanes of freeway traffic to bypass congestion." Meaningless? Makes no sense? Not according to this writer. Goble then turns to the specific subject of AB51, and closely paraphrases that California bill: "between rows of stopped or slowed vehicles in the same direction if the speed of traffic", before moving on to bills in four other states. Another example showing that "between rows" is not the preferred or general terminology, but it is used only when describing a specific legal code.
** Last, we have at ]. Tibu is Romanian, another non-native English writer. Nothing wrong with that, but ESL writers should not be role models for our word choices. Tibu is a rider who has many blog posts about motorcycling. In his awkward language, he first writes, "If need be, lane splitting could be defined as operating a motorcycle between two adjacent lanes of traffic on a public road." While I don't think this is an example of clear writing, what we have is our ''fourth'' writer, cited by Born2Cycle, that ''does not'' think "between lanes of traffic" is meaningless or senseless. Like the others, Tibu leads with this phrasing. He follows with this, "Lane splitting is a maneuver used by motorcyclists to overtake other vehicles especially in heavy traffic, by literally passing between two rows of cars, often riding exactly over the separation lines, be they white or yellow, single or double, continuous or not." Again, poor writing, and quite confusing. Nobody else claims lane splitting means crossing over ''double yellow lines'', i.e., into oncoming traffic. The next thing Tibu does is take a third whack at defining lane splitting: "Splitting refers to riding between two traffic lanes, whereas sharing means to overtake a vehicle by passing beside it within the space of the lane both vehicles are in." Again, a writer who does not think "between two traffic lanes" is meaningless or makes no sense. The rest of Tibu's post devolves into more repetition, wild speculation, and confused writing. Given how problematic this one is, and that it's clearly not standard English, should we be paying any attention at all to it? And if we do trust Tibu here, then he actually contradicts Born2Cycle's assertions, along with three of his previous citations.<P>There are weak, inferior citations in support of this "between rows" phrasing; in fact, they can be seen as evidence against referring this phrase. We have better, more respected writers, like Forrester, Hough, Hahn, Deitzler, Holmstrom, etc. who provide stronger guidance.<P>We still have zero evidence that anyone thinks "between lanes" is meaningless or makes no sense. Only an editor's original research. --] (]) 20:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


Plus the whole research section is a mess because of it. We are claiming the Hurt report supports lanensplitting but it is followed by evidence that it doesn't... it not even debatable. ] (]) 11:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
== RFC: looking for outside opinions on dispute about wording ==


== Merge? ==
{{rfc|soc|rfcid=30492B1}}
The discussion section above this one and the related edits on the article history are about whether "lane splitting" should be defined in the article as
* Riding between lanes of traffic, or
* Riding between rows of vehicles.


As a follow up from a recent AFD at ] (closed as keep)… it was noted that many of the sources that discuss that topic conflate it with this one (ie they use the terms interchangeably). Which raises the question: are the two topics distinct ''enough'' for separate articles or should the two articles be merged?
Please review the section above, the cited sources, the related edits and weigh in on how you thing this should be resolved. Thanks. --] ] 23:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at ], please respond there. ] (]) 15:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:17, 15 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lane splitting article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconCivil engineering
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
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMotorcycling Mid‑importance
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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:



 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Reverted addition of country-by-country legal status

This article is not supposed to be a travel guide or a driver's manual. We're not trying to tell the reader what they can and can't do in ever jurisdiction. WikiVoyage covers this in an appropriate article that tells you whether you can lane split, have to wear a helmet, carry passengers, etc, in each country. That's not the role of an encyclopedia. This was discussed extensively above, and once again, the reasons we go into detail about Australia and California are because they are instructive examples. They illustrate the social confusion of lane splitting. The should not be broken apart into separate sections, one for each country. That's what WikiVoage is for. This is about a broader survey of the concept of lane splitting. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


Legal status in the European Union

The article says: In most of the European Union lane splitting is legal, and in a number of countries, such as France, Italy, Spain or Netherlands, it's even expected. I don't know about the other countries but in the Netherlands it is illegal. It is just not enforced by most policeofficers (a few actually do!). If you get an accident you are always guilty and insurance might not cover it. I highly suggest editing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.158.114.46 (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Just want to say i'm pretty sure its the same in Germany, and the citation linking to the German ADAC website even says as much. i suggest editing this to reflect what it actually says in the link. 2A02:3038:6E0:8044:B057:6D04:803:A716 (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
ok i just add one extra detail to my comment above... its forbidden in germany but only transitively, not directly. The lanesplitting itself is not illegal, but its illegal to overtake any vehicle without giving the other vehicle enough room, e.g. having a 1m gap between you and the vehicle, and in the case of lane-splitting the gap is almost by definition not big enough for that, therefore a finable offence 2A02:3038:6E0:8044:B057:6D04:803:A716 (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Legal Status

US Lane Splitting Map caption - could clarify "pending" status for Utah (blue). What are the differences between Black/Red and Orange/Yellow? SquashEngineer (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Just want to note that lane splitting is legal in Minnesota now 156.98.26.129 (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Why revert this?

Dennis Bratland, why this revert? Seems appropriate and properly sourced. In the future, please explain reverts in the edit summary; thanks. --В²C ☎ 21:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I did explain, the first time. It's a single-purpose account where a guy adds citespam to articles to cite his own graduate thesis. In Spanish. Which describes some stuff in a computer model. A hypothetical computer model. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Contradictory and inaccurate info regarding California law

In the second paragraph of the section titled "Legal Status", the following is stated: "In the United States, bills to legalize lane splitting have been introduced in state legislatures around the US over the last twenty years but none had been enacted until California's legislature passed such a bill in August, 2016. Effective January 1, 2017, section 21658.1 was added to the California Vehicle Code and defines lane splitting, which is now explicitly legal in California."

In the fifth paragraph of the same section the following is stated: "The new law established a definition of lane splitting, while making no mention of whether, or under what circumstances, it is allowed, or not allowed."

Besides being sloppy (having California law being discussed in spaced apart paragraphs), it is contradictory. The fifth paragraph is much more accurate. A quick reading of the bill shows that it most certainly did not make lane splitting "explicitly legal." Xray88 (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Articles are sometimes made out of date by new developments. Someone updated part of the article without updating the rest. Changing the tense of the earlier version to match the changes in the law should be an easy correction to make. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Nothing I mentioned was regarding out of date information; it was regarding information that was always inaccurate. The solution is not to change tenses; it is to remove the incorrect information entirely. 96.242.30.7 (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I removed the section cited above for the reasons mentioned. Xray88 (talk) 11:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Suggeat removing references to the Hurt report

Nowhere in the actual Hurt report findings does it describe the effect of lane splitting. Later interviews with Hurt suggests there is no evidence for lane splitting. The original evidence that suggested the Hurt report supported lane splitting is from an interview with Harry Hurt that misattribute his opinion and the actual report's findings.

Plus the whole research section is a mess because of it. We are claiming the Hurt report supports lanensplitting but it is followed by evidence that it doesn't... it not even debatable. 2600:4040:2DF2:6800:C6D:C2A3:A5D5:CBB4 (talk) 11:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Merge?

As a follow up from a recent AFD at Lane sharing (closed as keep)… it was noted that many of the sources that discuss that topic conflate it with this one (ie they use the terms interchangeably). Which raises the question: are the two topics distinct enough for separate articles or should the two articles be merged? I have started a discussion at Talk:Lane sharing, please respond there. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Lane splitting: Difference between revisions Add topic