Can we legalize lane filtering yet?

[Roomie]

Forum Sponsor

For those that are promoting filtering as a safer action (avoiding collision from rear) than not filtering, how about promoting better/driving riding skills which will reduce the number of collisions from rear for everyone not just motorcyclists? Also will reduce collisions in turns, at an angle, during lane changes etc. Better driving/riding will decrease the number of collisions by a much greater rate than lane filtering ever could.

Common sense isn't welcome around here. You'll upset the **** the police crowd who think the road is their personal pathway to do as they see fit. People need to learn to pay attention while on the road. The excuse of not wanting to get hit from behind is sad. It's called being aware of your surroundings. Novel concept I know

 

[Daakuryu]

Common sense isn't welcome around here. You'll upset the **** the police crowd who think the road is their personal pathway to do as they see fit. People need to learn to pay attention while on the road. The excuse of not wanting to get hit from behind is sad. It's called being aware of your surroundings. Novel concept I know

Tell that to the guy in the video posted at the beginning of this thread, who had literally a second worth of warning before he went flying.

No matter how aware you may be of your surroundings if someone else is not you will get hit. Stop pretending otherwise

Let me guess, you also support lowering the speed limits so jaywalkers don't get killed when they run in front of vehicles?

 

[trebororr]

Tell that to the guy in the video posted at the beginning of this thread, who had literally a second worth of warning before he went flying.

No matter how aware you may be of your surroundings if someone else is not you will get hit. Stop pretending otherwise

Let me guess, you also support lowering the speed limits so jaywalkers don't get killed when they run in front of vehicles?

Instead of working on existing problems which is drivers not paying attention and secondly penalties for injuring others currently being a joke, you want to add to the already complex driving environment and expect less injuries rather than more injuries.

It's too easy to get a driver's license in Ontario and too difficult to lose it; that is the problem that must be worked on before even thinking about legal lane filtering.

 

[Roomie]

Tell that to the guy in the video posted at the beginning of this thread, who had literally a second worth of warning before he went flying.

No matter how aware you may be of your surroundings if someone else is not you will get hit. Stop pretending otherwise

Let me guess, you also support lowering the speed limits so jaywalkers don't get killed when they run in front of vehicles?

The speed limits should absolutely be higher on 400 series highways and lowering residential zones is just dumb. Neither has anything to do with splitting.

I've had close calls before from behind me. I pay attention and leave myself a way out. It might not always work as you point out but I've never been hit from behind car or bike since I've been driving. How many times do you see bikes stopped in traffic too close to the car in front or with the rider off in la la land not paying attention? I've seen many. Driver awareness from everyone is something that needs to be focused on. Maybe then splitting.

 

[Daakuryu]

The speed limits should absolutely be higher on 400 series highways and lowering residential zones is just dumb. Neither has anything to do with splitting.

I've had close calls before from behind me. I pay attention and leave myself a way out. It might not always work as you point out but I've never been hit from behind car or bike since I've been driving. How many times do you see bikes stopped in traffic too close to the car in front or with the rider off in la la land not paying attention? I've seen many. Driver awareness from everyone is something that needs to be focused on. Maybe then splitting.

Driver awareness is never going to be fixed though. But other places around the world still allow filtering and it's being considered for legalization even more, there are 4 states introducing bills to legalize filtering in the U.S. right now.

Queensland legalized it in February of this year, New South Wales did it in 2014 after realizing people were doing it anyway and after doing some trials.

All those places have distracted drivers too, you see plenty of videos of people being idiots out there around the world with riders and drivers having to be careful around said idiots.

Why can't we at the very least have talks open, establish potential guidelines like maximum speed and differential speed allowed, license level allowed personally I'd be fine if it were full M only and I don't even have my full M yet; How do you tell? do like the Brits and Aussies who have the license level as a tag on the license plate. Then have trial runs like NSW did?

People are doing it anyway, it's been said here already and I've seen people do it myself.

No of course not... Lets just sit on our ***** and not change anything because some people are morons, lets not look at the studies that show there are indeed safety and environmental benefits, because some people are morons.

 

[Alex_San]

Driver awareness is never going to be fixed though. But other places around the world still allow filtering and it's being considered for legalization even more, there are 4 states introducing bills to legalize filtering in the U.S. right now.

Queensland legalized it in February of this year, New South Wales did it in 2014 after realizing people were doing it anyway and after doing some trials.

All those places have distracted drivers too, you see plenty of videos of people being idiots out there around the world with riders and drivers having to be careful around said idiots.

Why can't we at the very least have talks open, establish potential guidelines like maximum speed and differential speed allowed, license level allowed personally I'd be fine if it were full M only and I don't even have my full M yet; How do you tell? do like the Brits and Aussies who have the license level as a tag on the license plate. Then have trial runs like NSW did?

People are doing it anyway, it's been said here already and I've seen people do it myself.

No of course not... Lets just sit on our ***** and not change anything because some people are morons, lets not look at the studies that show there are indeed safety and environmental benefits, because some people are morons.

Because this is a nanny state and we will always be reduced to the lowest common denominator. Common sense does not work here. What you're saying makes way too much sense to ever be considered.

 

[Ugur Dinch]

I can't tell you how many crashes are not reported. I'm going by video evidence.

From where I sit the idea of splitting to avoid being hit from behind is much like the concept of not wearing a seatbelt so that you don't get injured by the seatbelt; odds are somewhat slim. I say that as someone who has been hit from behind.

I think that it would be far better if the people who simply want to somewhat selfishly make their way in traffic faster, using the single track nature of their vehicles, would simply come out and say so. They seem to be in the majority and at least it would be an honest statement.

Once again, %99 of the overall motorcycle community filter (world), while %1 don't. Are we more likely to see videos of lane splitting incidents, or more likely to see rear-ending incidents ? How do you take these videos as evidence to anything ?

Also, the argument for lane splitting is not only for avoiding rear-ending collisions, but also help ease traffic congestion, reduce oil consumption, and overall carbon footprint.

And let's assume that the majority of the riders selfishly want lane splitting only to reduce their own travel times. So what ? Their improper(!) reasoning works for the whole community, and more importantly for the environment.

 

[Ugur Dinch]

Common sense isn't welcome around here. You'll upset the **** the police crowd who think the road is their personal pathway to do as they see fit. People need to learn to pay attention while on the road. The excuse of not wanting to get hit from behind is sad. It's called being aware of your surroundings. Novel concept I know

Dude, I drive an SUV. Let me know your license plate and location, and we can run a (controlled environment) experiment and continue here after.

Promised results, %100.

Ask me how I know.

http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforum/showthread.php?171088-Got-rear-ended
http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforum/showthread.php?173794-Got-rear-ended-2-0
http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforum/showthread.php?179566-Got-rear-ended-v2-1

 

[hedo2002]

I just don't get it. Those who "claim" lane splitting will reduce rear end collisions, due to inattentive cagers. This places ALL the onus on the cager to be attentive. As Roomie stated if a rider leaves proper space between them and the vehicle in front, AND THE RIDER IS ATTENTIVE then there should be no rear end collision as the rider would see the vehicle behind isn't slowing and take their escape route to avoid the collision. Both of these principals, (leave space and have an escape route, are covered in the MTO motorcycle book). If a rider can't recognize that a vehicle approaching isn't slowing then they shouldn't be lane splitting either as they must have an issue with depth perception etc. So they rider should be EQUALLY at fault for the collision as the cager as they too should be attentive.

As for the videos of lane splitting collisions the majority the bikes are traveling at ridiculous speed differential to the surrounding vehicles. It would be ludicrous to write a law which states the bike must not exceed more than say a 30 km speed differential, that would be UNENFORCEABLE. How is the cop supposed to gauge it, not like he can get a radar reading on surrounding vehicles and the bike at the same time. Even IF they could determine it, how do they pursue the offender. So that suggestion is mere fodder in an attempt to gain support. The rear end collision videos don't show if the rider was attentive or not as most of the cameras are bar mounted and don't show what the rider is doing pre collision.

Having said this I was rear ended last June by another bike. I was being attentive but the bike was weaving in and out of lanes and came into my lane at approx 100 km/h a mere 2 car lengths. So I had no time to react, (BUT I did have enough room from the vehicle in front that I was to keep my bike up and not rear end that vehicle), so yes there are still going to be some unavoidable collisions but these are likely to make up a very very tiny percentage of collisions.

 

[Alex_San]

Yes, let's ignore all the studies that show the clear benefits of filtering/lane splitting, and let's just go with what "we think might happen", we're the smartest, let's ignore the rest of the world.
As was already said, it's not all about being rear ended. Yes, you have to pay attention all the time, but one time you don't and you're a sandwich. Game over.
Think of the traffic flow, environmental benefits, etc...
We can't stop progress because some people are stupid and can't adapt...

 

[Ugur Dinch]

I just don't get it. Those who "claim" lane splitting will reduce rear end collisions, due to inattentive cagers. This places ALL the onus on the cager to be attentive. As Roomie stated if a rider leaves proper space between them and the vehicle in front, AND THE RIDER IS ATTENTIVE then there should be no rear end collision as the rider would see the vehicle behind isn't slowing and take their escape route to avoid the collision. Both of these principals, (leave space and have an escape route, are covered in the MTO motorcycle book). If a rider can't recognize that a vehicle approaching isn't slowing then they shouldn't be lane splitting either as they must have an issue with depth perception etc. So they rider should be EQUALLY at fault for the collision as the cager as they too should be attentive.

As for the videos of lane splitting collisions the majority the bikes are traveling at ridiculous speed differential to the surrounding vehicles. It would be ludicrous to write a law which states the bike must not exceed more than say a 30 km speed differential, that would be UNENFORCEABLE. How is the cop supposed to gauge it, not like he can get a radar reading on surrounding vehicles and the bike at the same time. Even IF they could determine it, how do they pursue the offender. So that suggestion is mere fodder in an attempt to gain support. The rear end collision videos don't show if the rider was attentive or not as most of the cameras are bar mounted and don't show what the rider is doing pre collision.

Having said this I was rear ended last June by another bike. I was being attentive but the bike was weaving in and out of lanes and came into my lane at approx 100 km/h a mere 2 car lengths. So I had no time to react, (BUT I did have enough room from the vehicle in front that I was to keep my bike up and not rear end that vehicle), so yes there are still going to be some unavoidable collisions but these are likely to make up a very very tiny percentage of collisions.

So you were attentive, but you got rear-ended and hospitalized, but the conclusion is what Roomie said (pay attention and not get rear-ended).

That makes sense...

 

[hedo2002]

So you were attentive, but you got rear-ended and hospitalized, but the conclusion is what Roomie said (pay attention and not get rear-ended).

That makes sense...

Not sure where I said I was hospitalized. I stayed up on my bike the other biker was hospitalized as his foot got run over after his get off left him laying on the highway and the vehicle he was trying to whip around nailed him.

I stated I was being attentive, but tell me how you would be able to see a sport bike two lanes over whipping in and out of lanes, and lane splitting, (as related by a witness to the police). He was cutitng across three lanes on the 401 so he could get "one car ahead"

Also look at the description the bike was traveling at approx 100 km/h, (accident investigator placed his speed at 80 km/h at impact), and he entered my lane approx 30 FEET from my bike. Now you are a better man then me if you could have reacted in time to move your bike in the millisecond it took him to impact me. Which is why I admit in a very very small percentage of collisions even an attentive rider will be unable to avoid a collision. But then those FACTS wouldn't support your argument so they are unimportant and should be ignored, (which is why you failed to highlight that portion of my post).

RIF = Reading Is Fundamental

Perhaps you should read the entire post and not cherry pick what fits your agenda.

 

[Ugur Dinch]

Not sure where I said I was hospitalized. I stayed up on my bike the other biker was hospitalized as his foot got run over after his get off left him laying on the highway and the vehicle he was trying to whip around nailed him.

I stated I was being attentive, but tell me how you would be able to see a sport bike two lanes over whipping in and out of lanes, and lane splitting, (as related by a witness to the police). He was cutitng across three lanes on the 401 so he could get "one car ahead"

Also look at the description the bike was traveling at approx 100 km/h, (accident investigator placed his speed at 80 km/h at impact), and he entered my lane approx 30 FEET from my bike. Now you are a better man then me if you could have reacted in time to move your bike in the millisecond it took him to impact me. Which is why I admit in a very very small percentage of collisions even an attentive rider will be unable to avoid a collision. But then those FACTS wouldn't support your argument so they are unimportant and should be ignored, (which is why you failed to highlight that portion of my post).

RIF = Reading Is Fundamental

Perhaps you should read the entire post and not cherry pick what fits your agenda.

I read the entire post. The reason I didn't highlight some is because they are irrelevant.

I went through not 1 but 3 rear-ending incidents, and didn't ever get into detail as much as you did, because the details are just so irrelevant. Regardless of relevant speeds, rear-ender's driving styles, etc., in the very end of it all, despite paying attention, you (and I) got rear-ended.

(sometimes) "..even an attentive rider will be unable to avoid a collision."

Very simple concept, yet some people on this forum argue against it.

 

[Daakuryu]

I just don't get it. Those who "claim" lane splitting will reduce rear end collisions, due to inattentive cagers. This places ALL the onus on the cager to be attentive. As Roomie stated if a rider leaves proper space between them and the vehicle in front, AND THE RIDER IS ATTENTIVE then there should be no rear end collision as the rider would see the vehicle behind isn't slowing and take their escape route to avoid the collision. Both of these principals, (leave space and have an escape route, are covered in the MTO motorcycle book). If a rider can't recognize that a vehicle approaching isn't slowing then they shouldn't be lane splitting either as they must have an issue with depth perception etc. So they rider should be EQUALLY at fault for the collision as the cager as they too should be attentive.

Attentive or not it takes a second for a rear collision to happen and it does not necessarily have to be the guy right behind you that is the source. Did you look at the vid linked at the beginning of this thread, the crash came from 4 cars behind and there was no chance for a reaction, by the time you hear the screech of tires the guy is already flying and he had plenty of space between him and the car in front and he was paying attention. Traffic had begun to move and he was about to start moving himself.

Also, a driver is not responsible if someone slams into his rear, that's a no fault because all he can do is take the hit even if he sees it coming. While yes we have the opportunity to get out of the way shifting the responsibility to us without giving us a way to legally just not be in that situation to begin with is ridiculous.

Think about it, the answer to avoiding a crash if you see one coming is to lane filter anyway but now you have to do it as a snap decision to a potential collision you might not even be aware of because the collision might not be between you and the SUV behind you, it might be the other SUV behind that.

As for the videos of lane splitting collisions the majority the bikes are traveling at ridiculous speed differential to the surrounding vehicles. It would be ludicrous to write a law which states the bike must not exceed more than say a 30 km speed differential, that would be UNENFORCEABLE. How is the cop supposed to gauge it, not like he can get a radar reading on surrounding vehicles and the bike at the same time. Even IF they could determine it, how do they pursue the offender. So that suggestion is mere fodder in an attempt to gain support.

These are the guidelines established by NSW

What is lane filtering?

Lane filtering is when a motorcycle rider moves alongside vehicles that have either stopped or are moving slowly (less than 30 km/h).
What motorcyclists need to know about safe lane filtering

• Motorcycle lane filtering laws now apply in NSW, with strict conditions
• Motorcyclists must only lane filter when travelling less than 30 km/h
• Motorcyclists can lane filter through stationary and slow moving traffic
• Motorcyclists caught moving between traffic at over 30km/h face heavy fines and three demerit points under a new offence called ‘lane splitting’
• It will be illegal for motorcyclists to lane filter:
  • next to the kerb
  • next to parked vehicles
  • in school zones
• Motorcyclists should always look out for pedestrians and cyclists
• Motorcyclists should not lane filter around heavy vehicles and buses
• Only fully licensed motorcyclists are allowed to lane filter
• Motorcyclists must only lane filter when it’s safe
• Motorcyclists must comply with all existing road rules when lane filtering. This includes stopping before the stop line at a red traffic light or stop sign, never in front or over

Queensland is following similar guidelines.

All the bills in the 4 states considering allowing filtering also have a 35mph max traffic speed / 10mph differential.

These guidelines were put together with by the transit authorities with the help of law enforcement in the areas where it was established/is planned. That alone should tell you it's enforceable.

 

[Alex_San]

Now, we can't we all get behind such a law? It makes perfect sense. It will improve traffic flow, cut on emissions, more people will take on riding, everyone will benefit. Yes, there will be idiots, but they are idiots anyway, filtering will not change that. We're crying like babies that we're stuck in traffic, yet we fail to observe simple changes like this that make a lot of difference.
I guess there's no profit in it.

 

[alangolding25]

I do not think it is a good idea. Cars do not see bikes as it is when we are in our own lanes let alone moving between them.
[video=youtube;_GH8D2EqDZs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GH8D2EqDZs[/video]

I agree that cars a lot of the times don't see bikes. However the majority of accidents in the video above look like its the fault of the idiot rider themselves and their poor riding decisions.
Lane splitting when traffic is at a standstill (or just about) is relatively safe. Lane splitting when traffic is going 50-60kph the risks of getting hit are a lot greater.

 

[TheNakedGun]

I just don't get it. Those who "claim" lane splitting will reduce rear end collisions, due to inattentive cagers. This places ALL the onus on the cager to be attentive. As Roomie stated if a rider leaves proper space between them and the vehicle in front, AND THE RIDER IS ATTENTIVE then there should be no rear end collision as the rider would see the vehicle behind isn't slowing and take their escape route to avoid the collision. Both of these principals, (leave space and have an escape route, are covered in the MTO motorcycle book). If a rider can't recognize that a vehicle approaching isn't slowing then they shouldn't be lane splitting either as they must have an issue with depth perception etc. So they rider should be EQUALLY at fault for the collision as the cager as they too should be attentive.

"As for the videos of lane splitting collisions the majority the bikes are traveling at ridiculous speed differential to the surrounding vehicles. It would be ludicrous to write a law which states the bike must not exceed more than say a 30 km speed differential, that would be UNENFORCEABLE. How is the cop supposed to gauge it, not like he can get a radar reading on surrounding vehicles and the bike at the same time. Even IF they could determine it, how do they pursue the offender. So that suggestion is mere fodder in an attempt to gain support. The rear end collision videos don't show if the rider was attentive or not as most of the cameras are bar mounted and don't show what the rider is doing pre collision.

Having said this I was rear ended last June by another bike. I was being attentive but the bike was weaving in and out of lanes and came into my lane at approx 100 km/h a mere 2 car lengths. So I had no time to react, (BUT I did have enough room from the vehicle in front that I was to keep my bike up and not rear end that vehicle), so yes there are still going to be some unavoidable collisions but these are likely to make up a very very tiny percentage of collisions.

I see what you mean, and I agree completely that a rider should always be looking out for these types of things. Where I really disagree with you is to say that lane filtering shouldn't be allowed for this reason. If a mechanism for a serious accident can be eliminated shouldn't it be eliminated? (ie. If a rider can not be exposed to the possibility of being rear ended by not being at the back of a line of traffic then there is one less way for them to be killed.) I don't know about you but I'm 100% in support of having one less possible way to die. Sure filtering would introduce the possibility of falling sideways onto

a car in traffic or hitting an open door, but as long as those types of accidents are at low speed it won't be lethal. I'm not in favor of splitting lanes at high speed

.

***To sum it up I think everyone would be ok with seeing more property damage to cars if it meant less personal injury and death!***

 

[muay_thai_dan]

do you even filter....?

 

[PLau]

Yes to filtering at low speeds, no to lane splitting at higher speeds.

 

[prillerFan]

I'd be okay for filtering at Automatic Signalized Intersections displaying a red light only. In this case traffic is completely stopped and if done safely the chance of getting into some collision with another motorist is quite low. Lane splitting pretty well only ever ends in disaster when your luck runs out. Both would require an investment in general motorist education ($$), but lane splitting would take a lot more.

Every single motorcycle crash compilation video I watch shows a majority of accidents stemming from lane splitting. Surely there are ways to do it safely and reduce chances, but splitting just exposes you to more risk. Both filtering and splitting laws would definitely lead to revised (increased) insurance rates.

Here's a question for on the highways though (in places where lane splitting is legal) - why do motorcyclists never use either shoulder of the highway to get through traffic jams and such? Aside from an obvious answer of debris (which is not always the case) any other reason?

This again? "splitting" and "filtering" are the same thing.

Don't go faster than 30kph in stopped traffic and most cars I find don't mind. Just don't be a dick. And yes it's safer. Much safer.

Forum Sponsor