Should Lane Splitting Be Allowed?

[Muchacho]

Here is a recap:

The California Law, where lane splitting is allowed on highways:

"Lane splitting by motorcycles is permissible under California law but must done in a safe and prudent manner." The text used to also include "The motorcycle should be traveling no more than 10 mph faster than surrounding traffic (without exceeding the speed limit) and not come close enough to that traffic to cause a collision."

Should it be allowed anywhere? Most car drivers will say no, but what do bikers say?

For safety concerns, here is some more information:

Safety

Proponents state that the practice relieves congestion by removing commuters from cars and gets them to utilize the unused lanes between the cars. Nonetheless, opponents criticize the maneuver, questioning the danger it poses to other vehicles and the motorcyclist.

The Hurt Report, published in 1981 and based on accident data gathered in the 1970's, concluded that lane splitting reduces rear end crashes and improves motorcycle safety.[1] FARS data from the United States Department of Transportation shows that rear end collisions with motorcycles are 30% lower in California (the only US state where it is legal) than in Florida or Texas, states with similar riding seasons and populations.[2]

The Oxford Systematics report commissioned by VicRoads, the traffic regulating authority in Victoria, Australia, found that for motorcycles filtering through stationary traffic "No examples have yet been located where such filtering has been the cause of an incident."[3]
“ Lane splitting is more than a congestion reducer or a convenience for the road denizens who are willing to accept and manage more risk by motorcycling. It is a tool that can literally save a biker's life, especially in situations where they're being tailgated, crowded, or flat-out ignored by others. „

—Tim Kreitz, moto-journalist & MSF riding instructor

In the United Kingdom, Motorcycle Roadcraft, the police riding manual is explicit about the advantages of filtering but also states that "The advantages of filtering along or between stopped or slow moving traffic have to be weighed against the disadvantages of increased vulnerability while filtering".[4] The manual goes on to offer advice about things to watch out for and anticipate while filtering.

http://www.whybike.com/blog/index.php?p=147
http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/NR/rd...000vol1_1f.pdf
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...30/MN87097.DTL
http://www.survivalskills.clara.net/..._skills_20.htm
http://www.whybike.com/motorcycle274.htm

[bruzer_boy]

is this going to be like a monthly topic or what? this has been beat to death.

[Rob MacLennan]

While I doubt that it will ever come to pass I think that it should be permitted everywhere, based on criteria set to insure rider safety. Things like no splitting at more than 15 Kmh over the speed of surrounding traffic and when traffic is moving at less than 25 kmh, for instance.

[Rob MacLennan]

is this going to be like a monthly topic or what? this has been beat to death.

Certain hot-button topics will be revisited repeatedly. It's simply the way of things.

[Muchacho]

Couldn't we try on the following logic:

"FARS data from the United States Department of Transportation shows that rear end collisions with motorcycles are 30% lower in California (the only US state where it is legal) than in Florida or Texas, states with similar riding seasons and populations."

"What is the data for SIDE collisions?" is the first question that comes to mind.

I plead a case for highway HOV lane use by motorcycles, citing US and European information, and was told that it was determined to not be the right path for Ontario regardless of how it works elsewhere.

Do you mean side collisions or is SIDE the name of a report?

"No examples have yet been located where [filtering through stationary traffic] has been the cause of an incident."
The Oxford Systematics Report

I was talking about collisions in which the rider is broadsided, as by a vehicle making a lane change. It happens frequently enough when lane splitting isn't a factor, that I can't believe the rate if incidence would be less when splitting/filtering is being used.

The HURT report did not find an increase rate of incidence of side impact accidents. The Oxford Systematics Report says that in places where it is legal to lane split, it does not make a difference in increasing the incidence of this type of accident.

You have to remember that I do not mean turning the space between cars into a highway for motorcycles. I think it should be done like the California law says:

"Lane splitting by motorcycles is permissible under California law but must done in a safe and prudent manner." The text used to also include "The motorcycle should be traveling no more than 10 mph faster than surrounding traffic (without exceeding the speed limit) and not come close enough to that traffic to cause a collision."

[Muchacho]

is this going to be like a monthly topic or what? this has been beat to death.

Sorry, I did not know. I'm the new guy.

[Rob MacLennan]

The HURT report did not find an increase rate of incidence of side impact accidents. The Oxford Systematics Report says that in places where it is legal to lane split, it does not make a difference in increasing the incidence of this type of accident.

You have to remember that I do not mean turning the space between cars into a highway for motorcycles. I think it should be done like the California law says:

"Lane splitting by motorcycles is permissible under California law but must done in a safe and prudent manner." The text used to also include "The motorcycle should be traveling no more than 10 mph faster than surrounding traffic (without exceeding the speed limit) and not come close enough to that traffic to cause a collision."

You have to realize that people have been lane splitting in California since condors were pterodactyls. It's expected; accepted practise. If you change law in a jurisdiction, then it takes time before people become used to it. There almost certainly would be a higher incidence of side collisions and the Hurt Report couldn't deal with that issue.

[Muchacho]

You have to realize that people have been lane splitting in California since condors were pterodactyls. It's expected; accepted practise. If you change law in a jurisdiction, then it takes time before people become used to it. There almost certainly would be a higher incidence of side collisions and the Hurt Report couldn't deal with that issue.

Do you mean more incidence of getting pinched (if you are going 10km/h faster than rush hour traffic) or do you mean getting hit from the side because you are going 10km/h faster than sorrounding traffic AND you go to the front of the line at and intersection AND you continue through the intersection AND you don't look to the sides?

[Rob MacLennan]

Do you mean more incidence of getting pinched (if you are going 10km/h faster than rush hour traffic) or do you mean getting hit from the side because you are going 10km/h faster than sorrounding traffic AND you go to the front of the line at and intersection AND you continue through the intersection AND you don't look to the sides?

I mean people making lane changes right over you, because they don't expect you to be there. People don't shoulder check as it is, in Southern Ontario.

[johnp]

I vote for 'filtering only' i.e. through stopped traffic only, for a few years till it's normal and proven safe.

Then, some years later, as suggested above, 'lane splitting' only through very slow traffice.

[Duster929]

Ah, this old chestnut. I doubt people will get too worked up about this issue while the weather's so crappy. But still, I'm always up for a lively debate.

The first and most important thing to do is to draw a very clear distinction between lane splitting and filtering. As long as we keep calling the two things by the same name we will make no progress.

Filtering is moving up through a line of stopped or stop-and-go traffic.

Lane splitting is riding the dotted line to split two lanes of moving traffic.

I think the first should be made legal everywhere, with some qualifiers such as "prudent" or "reasonable" or "safe". I think that the latter should remain illegal for the time being because it is too open to abuse and I don't think offers the overwhelming benefits without the increased risk that the former does. There are plenty of jurisdictions (actually, almost all jurisdictions) where filtering is a tried, tested, and safe practice, so there is plenty of precedent and data available.

--- D

[Metastable]

I think it should be made legal with a strong public awareness strategy. How many times do you hear of people getting nailed from behind during stop and go traffic or at intersections? If you are at the front of the intersection, there is more room to get out of the way and less chance a collision at the back will affect a rider at the front. Plus when done correctly, it really does take a big traffic load off the roads.

Aside from making it easier to get around, it should be done for safety reasons. However, you do have to let Joe Public know about it, because otherwise you will get self-centered morons trying to cut motorcycles off.

[Muchacho]

You are right, only filtering as you defined it should be allowed.

Rob and I were discussing whether there is an increase in the incidence of accidents when lane splitting occurs, however, we should shift that line of discussion to address filtering.

[Muchacho]

I think it should be made legal with a strong public awareness strategy. How many times do you hear of people getting nailed from behind during stop and go traffic or at intersections? If you are at the front of the intersection, there is more room to get out of the way and less chance a collision at the back will affect a rider at the front. Plus when done correctly, it really does take a big traffic load off the roads.

Aside from making it easier to get around, it should be done for safety reasons. However, you do have to let Joe Public know about it, because otherwise you will get self-centered morons trying to cut motorcycles off.

You will probably get people cutting motorcycles off regardless of the public awareness. Sometimes it is not done on purpose, but merely because some driver looks in the right mirror and sees a light, as he stares, he moves into your lane.

If filtering was allowed and it included wording prudent/reasonable/safe then it would be up to the comfort level of the rider performing the procedure.

[ddusseld]

To me there is no difference between filtering and lane splitting. You are doing the exact same thing, sharing a lane with other traffic. I'll refer to it as lane splitting. This should be legal. The problem with the law using wording such as "safe" or "prudent" is that this will be open to interpretation of the police and the riders. I think you have to define something along the line of no more then 15-20kph over the speed of the existing traffic and always at less then the speed limit.

Ah, this old chestnut. I doubt people will get too worked up about this issue while the weather's so crappy. But still, I'm always up for a lively debate.

The first and most important thing to do is to draw a very clear distinction between lane splitting and filtering. As long as we keep calling the two things by the same name we will make no progress.

Filtering is moving up through a line of stopped or stop-and-go traffic.

Lane splitting is riding the dotted line to split two lanes of moving traffic.

I think the first should be made legal everywhere, with some qualifiers such as "prudent" or "reasonable" or "safe". I think that the latter should remain illegal for the time being because it is too open to abuse and I don't think offers the overwhelming benefits without the increased risk that the former does. There are plenty of jurisdictions (actually, almost all jurisdictions) where filtering is a tried, tested, and safe practice, so there is plenty of precedent and data available.

--- D

[Muchacho]

To me there is no difference between filtering and lane splitting. You are doing the exact same thing, sharing a lane with other traffic.

You are right, they mean the exact same thing. However, I think that we should change your vocabulary and use the term "lane filtering" because it has a positive connotation.

I think that when politicians hear lane splitting, they get images of Ghostrider splitting lanes @ 300km/h.

[johnp]

To me there is no difference between filtering and lane splitting. You are doing the exact same thing, sharing a lane with other traffic. I'll refer to it as lane splitting. This should be legal. The problem with the law using wording such as "safe" or "prudent" is that this will be open to interpretation of the police and the riders. I think you have to define something along the line of no more then 15-20kph over the speed of the existing traffic and always at less then the speed limit.

There's a big difference between filtering (through stopped traffic) and lane splitting (traffic is moving).

- it's easy to tell when the traffic is stopped, both for you & the police
- if the traffic is dead stopped there is no risk of accidents frm lane changes.
- if the traffic is moving then all parties (rider & police) have to estimate the various speeds under which it's legal or not.

So filtering is way easier to identify for everybody involved and way safer.

Yay filtering. Nay lane splitting.

[Rob MacLennan]

There's a big difference between filtering (through stopped traffic) and lane splitting (traffic is moving).

- it's easy to tell when the traffic is stopped, both for you & the police
- if the traffic is dead stopped there is no risk of accidents frm lane changes.
- if the traffic is moving then all parties (rider & police) have to estimate the various speeds under which it's legal or not.

So filtering is way easier to identify for everybody involved and way safer.

Yay filtering. Nay lane splitting.

You're right that it's easier to tell what's going on when other traffic is stopped an that there's a difference between filtering and splitting, but what happens if you're filtering when the light changes? Suddenly you're splitting.

You can't permit one, without the other.

[Muchacho]

You're right that it's easier to tell what's going on when other traffic is stopped an that there's a difference between filtering and splitting, but what happens if you're filtering when the light changes? Suddenly you're splitting.

You can't permit one, without the other.

I do filtering all the time. You may have noticed that when the light turns green at the front of the line, it takes a long time for that to register further back.

So what I do, is that when the light turns green, I quickly get into proper lane position. There is more than enough time to do it and even though the light is green, cars are still not moving.

[johnp]

You're right that it's easier to tell what's going on when other traffic is stopped an that there's a difference between filtering and splitting, but what happens if you're filtering when the light changes? Suddenly you're splitting.

You can't permit one, without the other.

Good point. I think filtering and splitting are quite different but there are these 'transitions' that need to be addressed. Another example is how do you get from filtering back into a lane - esp. when everybody is dead stopped? What are the rules for that? And there will be other issues too e.g. dealing with responsibility for opening doors, pedestrians etc.

I think you could permit filtering without splitting but you have to provide for all these edges. If you can take care of these problems, such as the one you raised, you can make an argument for legalizing filtering without trying to make an argument for legalizing lane splitting. The latter has a lot of problems; filtering as we agree is a lot easier.

So for example, it may be the rider's responsibility to immediately nose in front of a car as soon as a light changes, and the car driver is required by law to let the bike rider in. To continue this example, the bike rider should then never be splitting.

... or .... I don't know maybe there's some existing laws that cover all this somewhere. I mean laws on filtering not laws on lane splitting of which there's been plenty of examples.