Bicycles and lane splitting by cages | GTAMotorcycle.com

Bicycles and lane splitting by cages

N

nobbie48

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Saw this yesterday
Pedal bike rider doing his thing, riding on the roads, not sidewalk and he's in the right track, right lane where he should be. A M/C would be in the left track.
A cager passes him slipping into the left lane.
Another cager crosses the cente line to pass the first cager.
In essence the first cager was lane splitting with the bike. Is this legal?
The second cager needs an attitude adjustment as you don't drive on the wrong side of the road piggy backing on someone else's mistake.
As the roads become more confused with vehicle types this sort of thing is going to become far more common. Pedal bike, e-bike, moped, mini scooter, electric motorcycles, mobility scooters. Let's all share the road. Mind you, not all of the aforementioned need licences, pay taxes, or need insurance.
 
What the first driver did was legal, just like passing a bicycle. Second driver definately has issues.
 
Slower vehicles must turn out to the right, in order to permit other vehicles to pass. This is essentially what the bicycle was doing. The first car passed, making use of this. He really should have moved into another lane, if possible to do so when passing, but isn't likely to catch any grief, from police, for trying to give the cyclist a safe margin.

If I understand your description then what the second driver did was patently unsafe, and indicative of the dangerously selfish attitudes exhibited by all sorts of motorists in this Province, these days.
 
I thought that the prevailing view was that solid lines mean nothing? Was there an overpass or other obstruction? Was there oncoming traffic?

I've had trucks pull into my lane (oncoming) to get down the road to make a left turn, forcing me off the road. But going left around something isn't necessarily bad, and the person moving around the bike may have made an unsafe lane change. There isn't enough information to judge here.
 
Baggsy said:
I thought that the prevailing view was that solid lines mean nothing? Was there an overpass or other obstruction? Was there oncoming traffic?

I've had trucks pull into my lane (oncoming) to get down the road to make a left turn, forcing me off the road. But going left around something isn't necessarily bad, and the person moving around the bike may have made an unsafe lane change. There isn't enough information to judge here.
Click to expand...

Lines don't mean NOTHING, they simply aren't a regulatory device for purposes of passing.
 
Baggsy said:
I thought that the prevailing view was that solid lines mean nothing? Was there an overpass or other obstruction? Was there oncoming traffic?

I've had trucks pull into my lane (oncoming) to get down the road to make a left turn, forcing me off the road. But going left around something isn't necessarily bad, and the person moving around the bike may have made an unsafe lane change. There isn't enough information to judge here.
Click to expand...

The first cager infringed on the second cagers lane and the second cager infringed on an empty on coming lane. No damage or heavy braking just bad attitude from both cagers. Cyclist did nothing wrong IMO.

My OP was to the effect that some forms of lane splitting exist where one or more of the vehicles don't have motors.
 
Last edited:
nobbie48 said:
The first cager infringed on the second cagers lane and the second cager infringed on an empty on coming lane. No damage or heavy braking just bad attitude from both cagers. Cyclist did nothing wrong IMO.
Click to expand...
Unless the second car was already alongside or immediately behind the first car, how did the first car "infringe" on that second car's space?

Use of the roads is supposed to be a cooperative, not competitive, exercise. If the second car was correctly reading the road situation ahead, he or she should ideally have anticipated that the first car would shift left to give the bicycle rider more space, and provided the necessary room for that to occur even if it meant easing up on speed for the few moments it took.
 
nobbie48 said:
The first cager infringed on the second cagers lane and the second cager infringed on an empty on coming lane. No damage or heavy braking just bad attitude from both cagers. Cyclist did nothing wrong IMO.

My OP was to the effect that some forms of lane splitting exist where one or more of the vehicles don't have motors.
Click to expand...

Your original description seems to indicate that the lane was clear, to the side of car #1 when he was passing the cyclist, and he was then overtaken by car #2. He could have taken the WHOLE lane, instead of just quickly swerving around the cyclist in a safe manner, so the driver in car #2 behaved like an impatient and selfish moron.
 
nobbie48 said:
Saw this yesterday
Pedal bike rider doing his thing, riding on the roads, not sidewalk and he's in the right track, right lane where he should be. A M/C would be in the left track.
A cager passes him slipping into the left lane.
Another cager crosses the cente line to pass the first cager.
In essence the first cager was lane splitting with the bike. Is this legal?
The second cager needs an attitude adjustment as you don't drive on the wrong side of the road piggy backing on someone else's mistake.
As the roads become more confused with vehicle types this sort of thing is going to become far more common. Pedal bike, e-bike, moped, mini scooter, electric motorcycles, mobility scooters. Let's all share the road. Mind you, not all of the aforementioned need licences, pay taxes, or need insurance.
Click to expand...

Both are legal as long as it is safe. First car was sharing a lane with a bike, who is a slower moving vehicle who has turned out to the right. Second car is making a pass and entering oncoming traffic. As long as the line was yellow and not white, and oncoming was clear of traffic, his move was also legal.
 
Last edited:
alaywa said:
Caaaaaaaaarte blanche!
Click to expand...

Lines, of whatever colour, are generally indicative of other factors (hills, intersections, etc.), that DO affect your ability to do certain things, under law. Generally, but not necessarily. Signs are a regulatory device.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Lines, of whatever colour, are generally indicative of other factors (hills, intersections, etc.), that DO affect your ability to do certain things, under law. Generally, but not necessarily. Signs are a regulatory device.
Click to expand...

It used to be, but then when traffic increased they started extending the lines to make us safer.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Lines, of whatever colour, are generally indicative of other factors (hills, intersections, etc.), that DO affect your ability to do certain things, under law. Generally, but not necessarily. Signs are a regulatory device.
Click to expand...

Some laws have legal enforcment do they not? Like that fat white line you must not cross when stopping at an intersection? or dashed white lines that indicate it is legal to change lanes vs solid white lines? Do solid white lanes between lanes come with a law against changing lanes?

The UK loved their lines....I'm paranoid about them....each one had a meaning and an associated fine! Zig zags, single and double yellows, single and double reds.....oooooweeeee had my head spinning.
 
If you couldn't pass cyclists in the right-hand lane, no one would get anywhere. IMO, cyclists ride on the shoulder of a 1-1/2 right-hand lane and if it is safe to do so, it should be OK to pass without crossing a solid line or change lanes.
 
promac said:
If you couldn't pass cyclists in the right-hand lane, no one would get anywhere. IMO, cyclists ride on the shoulder of a 1-1/2 right-hand lane and if it is safe to do so, it should be OK to pass without crossing a solid line or change lanes.
Click to expand...

Well, that sort of depends on the road. Some have a bit of paved strip to the right if the shoulder white line, and others have no line or paved "extra" at all. Some lanes are generously wide, and some skimp with a 10 foot width. Some pavement is smooth edge to edge, and others may have broken asphalt at the edge where the bicycles are supposed to ride. When that's the case, bicycles are entitled to move away from the right side of the lane and take the entire lane if needed.

In any case, I prefer to give bicycles a wide berth whenever possible, for my comfort and safety, and also for the bicyclist. An extra few feet could be priceless if either I or the bicyclist have an unexpected "event" that moves either of us closer to each other than anticipated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom