Should Lane Splitting Be Allowed?

[Muchacho]

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.

or maybe it would just be simpler to not allow lane sharing for more than 50m when the light changes and a rider is lane filtering (let's not use splitting because of the negative connotation).

[ddusseld]

I really don't see the difference. The action is the same whether or not the traffic is moving. If traffic is stop and go on the highway would your definition be splitting or filtering? I'm not arguing against splitting I just think that people are using semantics in attempt to make the same action have two different names...

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.

[Muchacho]

I really don't see the difference. The action is the same whether or not the traffic is moving. If traffic is stop and go on the highway would your definition be splitting or filtering? I'm not arguing against splitting I just think that people are using semantics in attempt to make the same action have two different names...

Yes, we are trying to give them names that have positive connotations.

[Zoltar]

No. Ever been driving in a country where bikers lane split and been in a car? I was just in Brasil and its nuts, Our rental car was hit twice by stupid 125cc bikers who were in a hurry to go where? Aside from the fact they would be near inches from your car at least 20km over my speed, I would always b checking my blind spots, Once they clipped the driver door as we were turning left and signalling. So I vote no, never! Safety is not this way!

[Muchacho]

No. Ever been driving in a country where bikers lane split and been in a car? I was just in Brasil and its nuts, Our rental car was hit twice by stupid 125cc bikers who were in a hurry to go where? Aside from the fact they would be near inches from your car at least 20km over my speed, I would always b checking my blind spots, Once they clipped the driver door as we were turning left and signalling. So I vote no, never! Safety is not this way!

No one is talking about lane splitting, specially at speed.

We are talking about lane filtering when cars are at a dead stop or during rush hour traffic.

[Rob MacLennan]

No one is talking about lane splitting, specially at speed.

We are talking about lane filtering when cars are at a dead stop or during rush hour traffic.

Actually I thought that we were talking about both, and the title of the thread says "lane splitting."

[Muchacho]

Actually I thought that we were talking about both, and the title of the thread says "lane splitting."

That is true. However, careful reading of the development of the thread will show that there is consensus on lane filtering.

I am a newb and I can't change the title of the thread.

[Rob MacLennan]

That is true. However, careful reading of the development of the thread will show that there is consensus on lane filtering.

I am a newb and I can't change the title of the thread.

I don't know which is potentially more dangerous to the rider; splitting or filtering. Most collisions occur in intersections, so jumping the gun to beat cars through is risky. The dangers of splitting through moving traffic are obvious.

Though I think that they are different things, I also don't think that you can consider one without the other.

[johnp]

I don't know which is potentially more dangerous to the rider; splitting or filtering. Most collisions occur in intersections, so jumping the gun to beat cars through is risky. The dangers of splitting through moving traffic are obvious.

Though I think that they are different things, I also don't think that you can consider one without the other.

They are very different indeed. I am probably the suckiest biker you'll ever see. I usually take longer to get my armour/gear on than to get where I am going. I have to nap after getting dressed. I feel pretty safe filtering and you couldn't pay me to lane split - so I know they are different.

Now you can have filtering without the jumping gun part. So you can filter safely or dangerously, just like most things & you could have the law specify the safe way. Agreed you have to consider filtering & splitting both, but mostly in terms of carefully distinguishing between them, e.g. if you're writing the law.

Now, does this forum have anything to do with lobbying to change laws -just curious?

[Muchacho]

Now, does this forum have anything to do with lobbying to change laws -just curious?

If anyone can tell me who to contact, I'll get started.

[ddusseld]

I don't think it is possible to wear more gear then me..

I believe that you differentiate splitting and filtering based on traffic movement. Why would you feel safe when traffic is not moving vs feeling unsafe when traffic is moving? I've done both and find it equally unsafe but very convenient.

They are very different indeed. I am probably the suckiest biker you'll ever see. I usually take longer to get my armour/gear on than to get where I am going. I have to nap after getting dressed. I feel pretty safe filtering and you couldn't pay me to lane split - so I know they are different.

Now you can have filtering without the jumping gun part. So you can filter safely or dangerously, just like most things & you could have the law specify the safe way. Agreed you have to consider filtering & splitting both, but mostly in terms of carefully distinguishing between them, e.g. if you're writing the law.

Now, does this forum have anything to do with lobbying to change laws -just curious?

[Duster929]

I always love this debate because we end up talking about what laws should be passed, how it will be handled, administered, defined, etc. It sounds as if we've come up with this strange new concept ad we've got to develop a whole legislative and enforcement framework around it because it's so brand new.

I've got some news folks. We're reinventing the wheel with these debates. We wouldn't be the first to allow filtering/splitting. In fact, we'd be just about the last. Almost every other jurisdiction with motor vehicles allows this practice, and the vast majority of them have much less developed legislation, and less well-trained law enforcement officers, than we have here. I know, it's shocking. Why is it that we North Americans always think we have to come up with all the answers, when the rest of the world has already tried and tested solutions to the problems we're looking at. There is data and sample legislation on filtering/splitting available from developed and developing nations on every continent of this great blue earth of ours. If we wanted to allow it, it wouldn't exactly be new or revolutionary, and we wouldn't have to invent much.

--- D

[Muchacho]

I always love this debate because we end up talking about what laws should be passed, how it will be handled, administered, defined, etc. It sounds as if we've come up with this strange new concept ad we've got to develop a whole legislative and enforcement framework around it because it's so brand new.

I've got some news folks. We're reinventing the wheel with these debates. We wouldn't be the first to allow filtering/splitting. In fact, we'd be just about the last. Almost every other jurisdiction with motor vehicles allows this practice, and the vast majority of them have much less developed legislation, and less well-trained law enforcement officers, than we have here. I know, it's shocking. Why is it that we North Americans always think we have to come up with all the answers, when the rest of the world has already tried and tested solutions to the problems we're looking at. There is data and sample legislation on filtering/splitting available from developed and developing nations on every continent of this great blue earth of ours. If we wanted to allow it, it wouldn't exactly be new or revolutionary, and we wouldn't have to invent much.

--- D

So who do we talk to if we want to implement this in Toronto.

[johnp]

I don't think it is possible to wear more gear then me..
............... Why would you feel safe when traffic is not moving vs feeling unsafe when traffic is moving? ...............

When the cars are stopped dead I pretty much am the only one that can cause an accident. When the cars are moving, the cars can also cause an accident.

I'm sure, even in a car, you've had someone in the lane beside you drift over. Now that's not a lot of fun if you happen to be lane-splitting between the cars at the time. And then you have weird lane changes, etc. ... all the stuff that happens when cars are moving.

OK OK so maybe you wear as much gear but I'll bet I'm slower at getting ready.

[Rob MacLennan]

I always love this debate because we end up talking about what laws should be passed, how it will be handled, administered, defined, etc. It sounds as if we've come up with this strange new concept ad we've got to develop a whole legislative and enforcement framework around it because it's so brand new.

I've got some news folks. We're reinventing the wheel with these debates. We wouldn't be the first to allow filtering/splitting. In fact, we'd be just about the last. Almost every other jurisdiction with motor vehicles allows this practice, and the vast majority of them have much less developed legislation, and less well-trained law enforcement officers, than we have here. I know, it's shocking. Why is it that we North Americans always think we have to come up with all the answers, when the rest of the world has already tried and tested solutions to the problems we're looking at. There is data and sample legislation on filtering/splitting available from developed and developing nations on every continent of this great blue earth of ours. If we wanted to allow it, it wouldn't exactly be new or revolutionary, and we wouldn't have to invent much.

--- D

In some areas splitting is actually illegal, but the requisite laws are unenforced. In others it isn't that it's illegal, it's that it isn't specifically illegal. California fits the latter type.

[ddusseld]

You are assuming you can get to the front of any line you are "filtering" through before the cars start moving? In my experience this is not always the case. You end up then "splitting" and trying to find a place to ease into. Again to me all semantics but based on other responses I'm the only one who feels this way...

When the cars are stopped dead I pretty much am the only one that can cause an accident. When the cars are moving, the cars can also cause an accident.

I'm sure, even in a car, you've had someone in the lane beside you drift over. Now that's not a lot of fun if you happen to be lane-splitting between the cars at the time. And then you have weird lane changes, etc. ... all the stuff that happens when cars are moving.

OK OK so maybe you wear as much gear but I'll bet I'm slower at getting ready.

[Rob MacLennan]

You are assuming you can get to the front of any line you are "filtering" through before the cars start moving? In my experience this is not always the case. You end up then "splitting" and trying to find a place to ease into. Again to me all semantics but based on other responses I'm the only one who feels this way...

No, you aren't.

[Muchacho]

No, you aren't.

I think it would be a good start to setup as was discussed earlier:

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.

or maybe it would just be simpler to not allow lane sharing for more than 50m when the light changes and a rider is lane filtering (let's not use splitting because of the negative connotation).

[Duster929]

In some areas splitting is actually illegal, but the requisite laws are unenforced. In others it isn't that it's illegal, it's that it isn't specifically illegal. California fits the latter type.

Correct. But in the vast majority of places it is neither of these. It is simply legal. Even encouraged.

In those jurisdictions dangerous lane splitting / filtering is captured by simple dangerous driving laws, which would apply to driving a vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to other people, whether you are in your lane or on the dotted line.

--- D

[Muchacho]

I got this information from a friend:
http://londonbikers.com/news/4c649f4...3-a4542efb2a7e
http://www.visordown.com/articles/vi...dity/2092.html
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/londonbuslanes/



TRANSPORT FOR LONDON, a british state-funded research body, looked into the idea of allowing bikes to use bus lanes. They found that it was safe and eased congestion. The Greater London Council didn't like that result though, and sent it back for TFL to reconsider. TFL reconsidered, then said, yes, bikes really are safe in bus lanes and ease congestion.

The Greater London Council has still refused to publish the full report.