Jump to content

Talk:Lane splitting/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Early comments

The list of places where lane splitting is allowed is not complete, but it is all I have time to confirm right now. I will make a more comprehensive list when I have time. Monkeythumpa 06:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Good article. A state-by-state list for the USA would be useful. (Mike - who can lane split at home in the UK!) --Cheesy Mike 09:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
As Far as I know and have been able to find, lane splitting is only legal in California. Texas put the law up for a vote in their senate and it failed. I am going to remove Texas from the list. Feel free to restate it if you find contrary evidence. I ahve heard it is not illegal in Puerto Rico, but I have also been unable to verify this. Monkeythumpa 22:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction about Texas.--Cheesy Mike 23:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a live bill 2009 under consideration in Texas: "SB 506". Texas Legislature Online, Legislative Session: 81(R). Retrieved 2009-04-28.. Can keep an eye on that page to see if it makes it through the House and the Gov signs it. Google says laws have been proposed in various other states in the last several years, but none passed. Dbratland (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It is also legal in The Netherlands. Although there is no specific law that allows it, the law that forbids it has been removed in 1991. There is even a running goverment-campaign for it to "educate" car and motorcycle drivers about the rules. See here for details (site in Dutch). Chakothee 09:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please source your references when adding countries where lane splitting is legal. Also is this really a Civil engineering article? Monkeythumpa 21:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

From http://www.ntc.gov.au/DocView.aspx?page=A02312403400450020

The National Transport Commission (NTC) has referred the proposed new Australian Road Rule (ARR) 151A back to the Australian Road Rules Maintenance Group to fully address issues raised by stakeholders during the public consultation process. The NTC emphasises that this does indicate any change in policy direction.

Rule 151A attempted to clarify the intent of several existing road rules, which prohibit the practice of motorcycle lane-splitting or lane-filtering. The proposed rule would more explicitly require motorcycles to move into an adjacent lane or line of traffic when overtaking other vehicles and pass at a safe distance.

In excess of 800 submissions (excluding duplicated submissions) were received, which primarily oppose the recommendation. The NTC notes that there is a wide misperception among the motorcycling community that lane-splitting and/or lane-filtering is legal. Motorcycle riders still have a responsibility to comply with existing road rules (outlined below).

� drivers/riders on a multi-lane road must travel entirely within a single lane (ARR 146)

� drivers/riders must travel within a single line of traffic on a road without marked lanes (ARR 146)

� drivers/riders are required to pass at a safe distance (ARR 144)

� drivers/riders are prohibited from overtaking on the left on a multi-lane road, unless the vehicle can be safely overtaken by moving into a marked lane (ARR 141)

� drivers/riders on a multi-lane road must not move from one marked lane into another marked lane by crossing a continuous line separating the lanes (ARR 147)

� drivers/riders approaching or at traffic lights showing a red traffic light must stop, if there is a stop line at or near the lights - as near as practicable to, but before reaching the stop line (ARR 56)

� drivers/riders at an intersection or marked foot crossing with a red traffic light must not enter the intersection or marked foot crossing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.245.213.176 (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

This poster is wrong. Rule 151A was withdrawn in May 2006 and lane splitting remains legal in Australia. [1][2] I am reinstating the Australia entry.

--Cheesy Mike 22:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That poster was correct.

151A never actually entered legislation. It was proposed, but it was not enacted at any point in time.

In any case, please note this quote from that article:

The NTC notes that there is a wide misperception among the motorcycling community that lane-splitting and/or lane-filtering is legal. Cheesy Mike, you have displayed this same misconception. The fact is, unfortunately, lane splitting and lane filtering are illegal per the Australian Road Rules.

Regardless of whether 151A is in force, the other rules mentioned in the aforementioned article still apply, and they still forbid lane splitting.

May I ask which Australian Commonwealth or State legislation specifically permits lane splitting while traffic is stationary? Nothing to this effect appears in law from New South Wales, or the Australian Road Rules. Australian Road Rules (ARRs) apply nationwide, and they overrule state and territory specific legislation.

A further reference, from http://www.ipe.nt.gov.au/haveyoursay/roadrules/RIS_ARR20060502.pdf, page 72:

The majority of submissions oppose the amendment proposed, albeit most submissions oppose lane splitting (faster moving) but favour lane filtering (slower moving or stationary). Having considered the comments, there is a considerable lack of knowledge that lane splitting and lane filtering is already illegal under normal circumstances. In undertaking these manoeuvres most motorbike riders commit offences such as failing to signal (Rule 46), overtaking on the left (rule 141), failing to keep a safe distance (rule 144), failing to drive within a single marked lane (rule 146) and crossing continuous lane lines (rule 147). In addition, many motorbike riders who ‘filter’ through stopped traffic on the approach to intersections to be ahead of other vehicles, cross stop lines and enter onto marked foot crossings in breach of rules 56 and 59. While these are separate offences they tend to be related to lane filtering.

We have the same laws mentioned above in California and while it can be difficult, it is possible to follow those laws and still be able to laneshare legally. Generally a behavior is legal until a law specifically names it as prohibited. Monkeythumpa 17:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitions

Here is the current first line of the article:

Lane splitting (also called lane sharing, whitelining, or filtering) is the practice of operating a vehicle, most commonly a motorcycle, in the unused space to the left or right of moving or stationary vehicles. It may be legal or illegal, depending on local laws.

I have some questions and comments about this.

1) Is passing on the outside of the outside lane lane splitting? I thought lane splitting always refers to riding BETWEEN two lines of same direction traffic. In other words, I don't think lane splitting and lane sharing mean the same thing (though they are related): lane splitting is a form of lane sharing. If you're lane sharing between two lines of same-direction traffic, then you're lane splitting. If you're lane sharing on the outside of a line of traffic, then you're just lane sharing.

There are many lane sharing practices that do not involve lane splitting, including two motorcyclists riding side-by-side in a lane, a right turning motorist moving over towards the curb in a wide lane to make room in the same lane, sharing it with through motorists overtaking him on his left, a tractor driver pulling partially over into the shoulder to allow faster traffic to pass, within the shared lane, etc. Again, while lane splitting is a form of lane sharing, they are not one and the same.

2) I don't think filtering has the same meaning as lane splitting either. Filtering usually if not alway implies filtering forward - using lane sharing (not necessarily lane splitting) specifically in order to pass lines of slow or stopped congested traffic. But a bicyclist, in particular, could be lane splitting while he is being passed by traffic on both sides. I think it's fair to say that filtering always means lane sharing in order to pass slow or stopped traffic, but lane splitting does not necessarily mean that. Lane splitting is one way to accomplish filtering, but not the only way.

3) whitelining is a form of lane splitting, but, again, not exactly the same thing. Whitelining means, literally, riding on the white stripe dividing two adjacent lanes. Now, that is lane splitting, but you can also be lane-splitting without whitelining (imagine two lanes with traffic biased in both lanes to the right side - the lane splitter would be using the unused space to the right of the stripe, and not actually riding on the stripe - he might not be encroaching into the adjacent lane at all). These distinctions should be clarified.

4) Does lane-splitting refer to splitting one lane into two, or does it mean splitting two lanes, usually but not always along the dividing lane stripe? I think it's the latter. In any case, the article should clarify this one way or the other.

5) "Most commonly by a motorcycle" is arguable. It's commonly done by bicyclists too. How about... replacing "most commonly by a motorcycle", with "by a motorcyclist or bicyclist" to produce:

Lane splitting is the practice of operating a motorcycle or bicycle in the unused space ...

I'll see what discussion results from this. Hopefully we can come to a consensus about how best to address these issues and answer these questions in the article. --Unflappable (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Legality of CA Lane-Splitting

The quote and statement removed may seemingly have been related but they were not. First, it did not state outright the act of riding between vehicles (commonly known as lane-splitting) is in violation of that law. It stated vehicles should attempt to remain, whenever possible, in a single lane. The citation is simply out of context without court rulings to support it. Since the statement did not state without ambiguity that lane-splitting as defined here is illegal and there were no court rulings cited I'm not a lawyer and it does the reader a diservice to interpret the law for them, they should be able to on their own OR given the full context. Once I removed the statement that stated "it is illegal in California" I could see no reason for the quote to be included. - 71.106.243.215 (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Picture needed

Would help 14:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.181.158.116 (talk)

Texas

I removed Texas from the list, as it is under discussion, not a law yet. It's been under discussion in other states (and in Texas) in the past without passing, so I removed it per WP:CRYSTAL. tedder (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article seems to be written by someone with an axe to grind. The links and quotes are almost all from pro-lane-splitting activists. Given that efforts to legalize it in various US states keep failing, there must be opposition. The legislators who keep voting against it must have their reasons. The section called "Safety" only mentions some risks in places where it is already legal, without a single point raised against legalizing it. One of the most obvious points is the possible increased danger from confusion during the transition period after it is legalized. How will drivers react to the change? Will they panic the first time they see motorcycles lane splitting, especially if unaware of the change in the law. How long will it take riders to learn to lane-split safely? That's just off the top of my head. This article needs more research in order to present both sides of the ongoing debate, and to bring to light why it has remained illegal in all but one of the US states for decades.Dbratland (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Citations for possible use to help balance article

A source on two-abreast motorcycling

Motorcycle News (USA), May 2009, page 6, "Virginia Motorcyclist Bill Defeated". Quote: "Currently, two abreast riding, which is legal in 48 states, is considered reckless in Virginia.." tedder (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Two-abreast riding, where two motorcyclists are riding side-by-side in the same lane, is a form of lane sharing that is not lane splitting. That would be a useful citation in that article. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Nope, I wasn't trying to say it is lane splitting. Just that it's a good reference for the rewrite. tedder (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Does that article mention the bill number or something that would allow us to verify what this bill said and that it was defeated online? I can't find anything. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it was "HB1870, passed in the House of Delegates on February 5.. An amended version of the bill passed the Senate .. on February 24, but was revisited by the Senate one day later and defeated 22-17." tedder (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Lane Splitting in Brasil

Guys, I believe the person who added Brasil to the list of places where lane splitting is allowed may have been mislead by the information that, in the City of São Paulo, Capital of the State of São Paulo, there are two expressways that allow lane splitting. In any other place around the country, as far as I know, there is no such thing... Motorcycles can use the corridors between the lanes, at their own risk, but this is not a rule. Riders cannot claim this right, if you know what I mean...

Our Transportation Code, which dates back to 1998, had an article that would prohibit motorcycles from using the corridors, but this article was rejected by the former President, Mr. Fernando Henrique Cardoso. There is a proposition running in the Congress, which aims to reinstate this article, under the excuse that this would reduce the number of accidents with motorcycles (obviously, none of our congressmen has ever rode a motorcycle in their lives, but they hate when they are stuck in traffic and we pass by their windows...)

In any way, I believe that Brasil should not be in the list, but I'll wait for someone else's opinion before removing it. --Sudias (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Since the burden of proof is in your favor (ie it's necessary to provide sources to prove something, not to provide sources to disprove something), I'm happy with it being removed. tedder (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
In this case, since something is legal unless it is illegal, the burden should be on the claim that lane splitting is illegal, by citing the law that makes it illegal. To illustrate, consider that you can't cite anything to support the claim that chewing gum while motorcycling is legal.
I don't think it's reasonable to require having a reliable source state something does not exist (a law prohibiting lane splitting) for every traffic jurisdiction in the world. For example, the only reason lane splitting is legal in California is because there is no law that makes it illegal. Only because it's a controversial topic is there anything to cite about it. In other places (perhaps Brasil?) there might be nothing to cite. But if it is illegal, that law that makes it illegal can be cited. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
If you're going to take that approach, the article should instead cite places were it is illegal (noting that the list is incomplete), rather than listing those where it is not. - 67.39.251.254 (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Why? Either it is illegal, or it's legal. If it's not illegal, then it's legal. Why not list it either way? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

To Do List

Elaborate and cite what FARS is

Find more records of laws proposed

There are many more attempts to legalize lane splitting than the ones I listed. There was also at least one failed bill to prohibit lane splitting in California in the last 15 years. In particular, the testimony given during the hearings on these bills is a verifiable source of what the various attitudes and arguments are.

Find where/how/why the NHSTA/MSF, among others, think the Hurt Report backs lane splitting

This data is all online, as is the Hurt Report. I don't understand what their line of reasoning is to support that there are fewer rear-end accidents in California due to lane splitting. Similarly, the MAIDS data is online. Couldn't you compare the accident rates in Germany and the other countries and show some variation?

Was ist los Deutschland?

Germany is the only major country in Europe that doesn't permit lane splitting. Why? Is there a movement there to legalize it? Do riders there lane split anyway? Are Europeans riding through Germany confused?

I spoke to a native German today and learned that, like Australia, everyone on a motor bike casually lane-splits without a second thought, with no regard for whether it is legal or not. Every once in a while car drivers get annoyed by it and try to do something to stop it, but mostly it is ignored by the public and the authorities. I'm going to try to get confirmation and sources.
This calls into question the claims regarding why the MAIDS report didn't address lane splitting. Now that we have two countries -- Australia and Germany -- where the law is one thing and normal behavior is something else, we have all the more reason to go beyond merely quoting the traffic code. You need to describe what people actually do and what law enforcement does about it, if they do anything at all.--Dbratland (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
What the law says and what people do are two different things. You just have to be clear about which one you're talking about when. If you're writing about what is legal, then say that. If you're writing about what is done (by riders as well as law enforcement) regardless of what the law says, then say that.
By the way, I was reminded of our discussion while reading Traffic (by Tom Vanderbilt) today. In it he writes about an internet venture of his where he inquired on ask.metafilter.com about whether late or early merging was better. He writes, "I was startled by the torrent of responses, and how quickly they came. ... For the most part, people were not citing traffic laws or actual evidence but their own personal sense of what was right." (pp 4-5) That last part -- not citing traffic laws or actual evidence but their own personal sense of what was right -- reminded me of you. Citing traffic law does not tell the whole story, but is an important aspect of it, and should not be dismissed. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly add bullet points summarizing both the pro and con arguments

I prefer not having Wikipedia supply ready-made talking points for pro- or anti- partisans, and rather let them read the conflicting data in the article and think for themselves which side, if any, they choose, and making up their own arguments using the information given.

There are multiple positions possible:

  1. Change the law to prohibit lane splitting where it is currently allowed.
  2. Don't change any laws.
  3. Change the laws in places like Australia to legalize what everyone is doing anyway.
  4. Change the laws to permit lane splitting in places where it is now prohibited

Orthogonal to this is the question of should I lane split? Some choose not to even when legal. And finally, some lane split at any traffic speed, and at any speed greater than the traffic is moving. Others observe limits as to how slow the traffic must be moving before they will lane split, and the move back into a lane when it speeds up to some threshold. And then there is the maximum amount, 5 to 20 mph or more, that the rider chooses to pass the traffic while between lanes.

So if you wanted to make up a set of bullet points, first you'd need to pick which of these arguments you were going to support and sort the points appropriately. --Dbratland (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the way the article is written right now implies that the law must state it is legal for it be acceptable. This isn't how law works. Law defines restrictions (you can't do this, you must do it this way). If there is no law prohibiting it, then it is legal (on a very basic level). -- That said, I think there is too little data to allow for reasonable bulleted positions. The article needn't present positions, merely present data and allow readers to take their own position. Correct? BossAnders (talk) 08:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
If there is no law prohibiting it, then it is legal Apparently not. I tried to provide citations for this in the 'Jurisdictions' section, but I can see I need to add more information. Some states, unlike Colorado, have the same vague laws as California. Vehicle codes nationwide in the US are often copy-pasted from the same sources, at least historically. Yet all of these states, save California, defaulted to prohibiting lane splitting, not allowing it merely because it wasn't spelled out. It was apparently rather a fluke that California went the other way. Part of this is because the language usually includes fuzzy terms like "safely" or "prudently" and that allows police and courts to interpret it to mean it is never safe or prudent to be on the white line.
But you raise a good point, as have others. I will provide further citations to clarify this if someone else doesn't beat me to it.--Dbratland (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Excellent points. It isn't cut and dry though those jurisdictions which don't specifically ban it could find themselves being challenged if they are simply using a 'reckless driving' charge. That's neither here nor there, though. As for California's interpretation of the law, I think the fact they conducted hearings about banning the practice strongly implies that it was legal under the interpretation of the laws at the time. There was no "went the other way" -- they would have always been the other way.
I guess my concern here is us defining it as "legal" vs "illegal" when, in fact, it seems much more ambiguous. Especially in states where there is no specific prohibition against lane-splitting by motorcycles. While I wouldn't want to research the laws of every state in the US (and specifically case law), I think it does a disservice to state unequivocally that the act is illegal when we really don't know that without research. For example, I feel comfortable declaring it totally illegal in Colorado unless your a cop. -- BossAnders (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I went and looked and it appears someone HAS done the researched: http://www.amadirectlink.com/legisltn/laws.asp BossAnders (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
That reference is a great find! Confirms my point that the reason lane splitting is legal in California is simply because it's not illegal. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to scan and upload pages 214 and 215 of Proficient Motorcycling but I'm not allowed so I'll try to give a more detailed paraphrase than I have before.
1. The California Basic Speed Law says, " No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property." California Code 22350. Hough explains that an officer may, in their judgement "cite you for riding at a faster speed than surrounding traffic if in his judgment you weren't being prudent." Risking hitting their mirrors as you ride by could be endangering their persons or property
2. California Code 21658:

Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, the following rules apply: (a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until such movement can be made with reasonable safety. (b) Official signs may be erected directing slow-moving traffic to use a designated lane or allocating specified lanes to traffic moving in the same direction, and drivers of vehicles shall obey the directions of the traffic device.

Hough's take on this is that "it gives the officer a judgment call over whether he thinks you've moved out of one lane 'with reasonable safety.' Changing lanes too often would be easy to construe as not using 'reasonable safety.'
3. California Code 22107 "Turning Movements and Required Signals. No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement. " Hough's interpretation is: "In other words, in traffic you are required to signal before moving out of one lane, and your signal (in the form of either a hand signal or a turn signal lamp) 'shall be given continuously during the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning.' California Code 22108 Hough says, "Of course, signaling doesn't make sense when splitting traffic, but Officer Ollie could cite you for failure to signal or for making more than one 'lane change' within 100 feet.
Hough visited the a CHP office and spoke with two different officers, and got two different versions as to what the law meant, based on their opinions as to what "safe and prudent" were.
If you take the law literally, lane splitting is illegal in California. You can't possibly lane split without crossing over the line repeatedly because you must avoid getting too close to cars on one side and then the other. If you try stick to only one side you're going to get creamed. Thus it isn't safe.
Obviously, custom in California dictates otherwise. But the reason is NOT "simply because it's not illegal." The reason is actually unknown. You'd have to be psychic to know what was in the minds of hundreds of judges and officers over many years who contributed to the collective tradition that is in operation today.
Here is an extreme example: In Montana, one of the 49 states where you can't lane split on a motorcycle, lane splitting is Not referenced in Administrative Code or Statutes. According to you, lane splitting ought to be allowed there, but it's not. Why is that? Idaho? Same deal. And New Mexico and Oklahoma and Mississippi and I hope you're getting the picture.
The theory that in the absence of a specific law, the maneuver is allowed has been repeatedly demonstrated to be false.
We should move (a very condensed version of) this material into the article soon, so as to clarify better why one particular state allows it for but others don't.--Dbratland (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Nice try, but you're arguing against a straw man. The question has never been is "Is lane splitting legal even when it's not safe?" Of course laws like the basic speed law (22350) allow police to cite motorcyclists who are riding unsafely (whether they are lane splitting or not). No surprise there. Similarly, driving 40 in a 55 might be illegal in some conditions (like dense fog). So what?
The question has always been, "Is lane splitting legal when it's safe?" And the answer to that question in California is Yes, because there is no law that makes safe lane splitting illegal. Now, as far as Hough's take on 21658, that's how I used to interpret it too, until a legal expert explained to me that laws must be interpreted in context, not literally. You have to consider legislative intent when you interpret laws. In this case, the "shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane" wording in 21658 is obviously intended to prevent a driver of a vehicle from taking up two lanes at once, which has nothing to do with lane splitting. As far as the "shall not be moved from the lane until such movement can be made with reasonable safety", that just establishes, in case of conflict, that anyone already traveling in a lane has right of way over anyone moving into that lane, and so also has nothing to do with safe lane splitting. And using 22107 like Hough suggests would also be ignoring legislative intent. Of course a cop can cite you with that anyway. Police can cite you with anything they want. The question is whether it will hold up in court (especially appeals court), and whether there is any actual case history of that happening.
In a similar vein, I'd be interested in learning what specific laws motorcyclists are cited with violating (when lane splitting) in states like Idaho and Montana where supposedly lane splitting is not explicitly illegal, but is still considered prohibited by law, and whether such citations have withstood challenge in appeals. Do you have any references for this? Are there rulings in those states that have found lane splitting to be inherently unsafe?
Remember, "the law" is not just what's written in the statutes, but it's also case law (which is arguably more important, because it guides us on how to interpret the statutes), and especially the judicial record of relevant decisions made in appeals courts.
The theory that in the absence of a specific law, the maneuver is allowed, has not been demonstrated to be false even once, much less repeatedly. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I can see we're reaching a point where we need to draw the line between constructive editing for the purpose of making Wikipedia articles better, and being disruptive, for what purpose I can't fathom.--Dbratland (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm surprised and disappointed. You did not seem like someone who would rather resort to this type of nonsense rather than concede a well-made point. Concession does not mean you have to lose face. Just because all of the arguments supporting your position have been refuted does not mean you have to dodge the inevitable by abandoning the assumption of good faith and pleading disruption. Working these issues out on talk pages by objectively applying reason and logic as best as we can is how we achieve some of the most constructive editing in Wikipedia, even when we're originally mistaken in some of our assumptions. I wish you well in life. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Motorcycles and Bicycles

There's been some edits already on the bicycle portions so I'll strike up a conversation and then go edit ;) Seems fair. So here's my very specific problem: Bicycle and Motorcycle laws are very distinct in Colorado (the jurisdiction I happen to be most familiar with). There is a section on motorcycles and there is a section on bicycles. For example, Lane Sharing is mentioned in the Bicycle section (it's forbidden except for a very specifically set of circumstances) and it specifically states you must stay on the farther right side of a lane. It could be construed as prohibiting lane-splitting by bicycles (you should see the laws on how to turn left are ridiculous -- they really want to discourage biking in Colorado).

So, this just happens to be the jurisdiction I know. I think it is misleading to say "bicycle laws" follow "motorcycle laws" on lane-splitting when, in fact, I can cite a contrary law and the citation currently used only applies to California. Not a resounding expert opinion or research on the legality across the United States, let alone the world. So I'm going to edit it to be more ambigious (which seems wrong to me but better than the current listing).

In truth, I think we might need to divide the article into motorcycles section and bicycles section (or make mention of bicycles separately). In fact, if we go with the most generic definition of "splitting a lane" then shouldn't it cover all vehicles? Clearly motorcycles are the most visible lane-splitters but cars can lane split (and be ticketed in California for failing to remain in the lane or in Colorado for (I think) reckless driving). BossAnders (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Colorado Law on bicycles [3] . I am not a lawyer but Colorado law states (like most states) that bikes are vehicles. Colorado law also states that vehicles may not lane split and the courts have interpreted that to mean "lane splitting" -- So, basically, it's against the law for bikes to lane split in Colorado. [4] On link see the text of the law but especially the 2nd annotation on a car "stradling the lane divider" -- On the other hand, a lawyer might argue that it's foolish to consider bikes like cars, that the lane provision doesn't apply especially because motorcycles were specifically forbidden but bikes were left out. -- Legal quagmire. BossAnders (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I very much favor separating the motorcycle and bicycle lane splitting articles, while treating the terms lane splitting/whitelining/filtering forward/stripe-riding as near-synonyms. The differences in terminology don't matter nearly as much as what you're riding. This was discussed at Talk:Filtering forward#Disambiguation with motorcycle lane splitting and hairsplitting of terminology. There seems to be a social-political movement which seeks to define bicycles as identical to other vehicles in all things, called Vehicular cycling, and that's fine, but I don't think Wikipedia needs to reflect that point of view. Rather, separating the two topics makes the articles much more clear, and more relevant to the reader.
For example, I my wordy title "Jurisdictions where motorcycle lane splitting is permitted" was changed to "Jurisdictions where permitted" but in truth, the current situation requires every statement to be qualified to say whether you're talking about motorcycles or bicycles. It's awkward, and it doesn't serve the reader because you're either interested as a motorcyclist or a bicyclist. Those who are approaching this from an interest in equating the two should be directed to Vehicular cycling and Segregated cycle facilities which address those special issues.
I would argue that the question of cars lane splitting lacks notability. It isn't something people worry about. Motorcycle lane splitting is a hot topic. Bicycle lane splitting is fraught with questions too, but they are totally different questions than motorcycle lane splitting. Bicycles have the quandary of riding in the door zone or slowing traffic if they take the lane; motorcycles don't have that problem. Their problem is in a traffic jam getting rear ended, engines overheating on some types of motorcycles, and just the desire to exploit their small size to escape congestion. There is no movement in the US to change lane splitting laws with regard to bicycling. Motorcycle lane splitting law is near the top of the agenda of many motorcycling activists and pressure groups. Apples and oranges.
I don't know if consensus can be reached on this. Perhaps a compromise would be to put bicycles and motorcycles in separate sections of the same two articles, Lane splitting and Filtering forward. Once that happened, I think perhaps it would start to seem logical to merge the motorcycle parts of the two articles and the bicycle parts of the two articles. It would also make the transition easier.
Currently these two articles are awkward to write and confusing to read.--Dbratland (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Vehicular cycling is not a social-political movement, it's the law. It's only a social-political movement in so far as making this fact better known. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Then why is the Vehicular Cycling material so self-referential? Why don't mainstream sources verify their way of interpreting the law? If this is a fact, it should be easy to find citations that say so. Instead, what I've seen are either a) Quotes from a VC advocate, or b) Quotes of the text of a law plus the VC interpretation of what that law means. Why don't courts, police, and the public interpret the law the same way as VC advocates?--Dbratland (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
What specific interpretation are you talking about it? What law(s) do you believe is (are) interpreted differently by VC advocates than by others? In most cases the issue appears to be a lack of awareness about the existence of the law, even by police and judges, not a different interpretation of the law. This is all explained in depth by Bob Mionske (not really a VC advocate, FWIW) in his book "Bicycling & The Law". --Born2cycle (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
In most cases the issue appears to be a lack of awareness about the existence of the law, even by police and judges. Thank you. This statement illustrates my point better than anything I could have said. VC is a movement which is at odds with legal precedent and police agency policy. And the general public's understanding of what a bicycle is. It is not mainstream.
It is not the role of Wikipedia to tell police and judges they are wrong about what the law means, nor give legal advice to readers: "police will cite you for this and judges will find you guilty but that's OK because Wikipedia says our interpretation of the law is correct, not theirs. Good luck!"
The California and Australia situations are examples of how the real world works. You have the text of the legal code, and you have law enforcement policy, and you have legal precedent, and the policy of the transport agencies, and then you have the public's perception and normal behavior and expectations. All of these things define mainstream legality. The VC movement's legal opinions about traffic code alone are not the whole story. If you could show significant support for this interpretation among law enforcement, government and judges, that would put you on par with the Australian situation, but you would still have the general public to contend with. Yet the VC movement doesn't even have the support of the authorities to back it up.
Therefore, VC, while notable, lacks acceptance. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Notability versus acceptance "Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere."--Dbratland (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
When I said "In most cases" above, I meant "in most cases" where there are conflicts between bicyclists and law enforcement, not "in most cases" where bicyclists ride, etc. By and large, with very few exceptions, the rights of vehicular cyclists all over the country to act as vehicle drivers is recognized. I've never been stopped by police when riding vehicularly, though I was once told by an officer to "get in the bike lane", but they backed off when I pointed out that was a shoulder, not a bike lane. The experience of other vehicular cyclists with whom I communicate is reported to be similar.
VC is a movement which is at odds with legal precedent and police agency policy. That is not true. While there are cases in which some police make errors, in more cases than not reason and the law sides with bicyclists, particularly in any cases that get to the appeal level. Of course, you hear about the exceptions because that's what ends up in court. But the law ultimately agrees with VC. And it is the job of Wikipedia to reflect that. Again, I refer you to Bob Mionske's work as the main reference on this topic.
[VC is a movement which is at odds with] ... the general public's understanding of what a bicycle is. I'll give you that one. But the majority of the general (American) public accepts the "validity" of creationism too. Of course, Wikipedia does not reflect that. It is not the job of Wikipedia to reflect the superstitions and baseless beliefs of the general public.
"police will cite you for this and judges will find you guilty but that's OK because Wikipedia says our interpretation of the law is correct. That statement reflects a common misconception held by the general public. What specifically are you thinking about, by the way?
Yet the VC movement doesn't even have the support of the authorities to back it up. I'm sorry, but you really don't know what you're talking about. While there are certainly ignorant police officers here and there, and even a few judges, they are in the minority. Thankfully. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
By the way, here is a list of states whose relevant authorities have adopted John S. Allen's Street Smarts vehicular cycling booklet because it is consistent with the law. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Idaho, Arizona. Each is the equivalent of a driver's handbook for bicyclists. If these aren't examples of authorities backing up vehicular cycling, I have no idea what you're thinking or talking about. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, all the activist stuff is going over my head. Simply put, car =/= bike =/= motorcycle =/= truck. They are not equal to eachother and there are practical examples of that. Just speaking from a broad practical viewpoint. In the law, for example, Colorado, Bikes and Motorcycles have their own special sections governing their proper usage. Just based on that simple and observable fact, I think it makes sense to have sections for motorcycles vs. bicycles with the header section defining what lane-splitting is as broadly as possible. BossAnders (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, certain types of vehicles "have their own special sections governing their proper usage", but they are very limited in scope as compared to the general sections that apply to drivers of all types of vehicles, and bicycles. All of the rules of the road, with very few exceptions, apply equally to all drivers of vehicles. One can argue that there are no exceptions, it's just that some rules are not applicable when operating certain types of vehicles. What I cannot understand is how lane-splitting is any different depending on whether the engine of a given cycle is a mechanical motor or organic (human), much less sufficiently different to warrant having separated sections.
Also, while the vehicles in your list are not equal, the legal rights and responsibilities of their respective drivers are, and that's what matters in the eyes of the law. The type of vehicle you're operating has very little, practically nothing, to do with which rules you follow. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
A few differences between bicycles and motor vehicles (in most jurisdictions): Bicycles can use the sidewalk, and sidewalk parking and bike racks, and motor vehicles must yield to bicycles in a pedestrian crosswalk. Motorcycles can't park on the sidewalk, and are allowed to take an entire car space at parking meters, which bicycles aren't allowed to do. Bicycles do not require insurance; cars and usually motorcycles do. Bicycles don't require title, registration, and license plates. Bicycle riders don't require a license or endorsement. Motor vehicles do, and risk having their vehicle impounded if they don't have one. Bicycles aren't allowed on the interstate. Cars and motorcycles can. Motorists who rack up enough violations face the prospect of losing their drivers license, and having their insurance canceled. Bicyclists only have to worry about paying traffic fines, and the not inconsiderable question of extreme physical danger from motor vehicles, typically wearing only a fraction of the protective gear motorcyclists use, and typically lacking in the headlights, taillights and turn signals that the law requires motor vehicles to have. When you drive a car, or ride a motorcycle, you need to think about the chance that you could easily kill another person. Bicyclists primarily have only to worry about themselves. Apples and oranges.
These are not trivial differences. Pretty generalizations that bicycles and motor vehicles share the same "rights and responsibilities" are very nice, but when you get down to how the law works, and how real people carry on their activities, they are much different. Everyday common sense says they are different.
It violates common sense, and creates WP articles that are confusing to read and awkward to write, and the purpose of it, as far as I can tell, is to promote a minority theory not accepted by the mainstream.
It has been proposed to either separate bicycles into their own section of these articles, or their own articles. Do you have a better suggestion for how to organize this material, for the benefit of those who have to write it and especially to help the reader understand it?--Dbratland (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC
Dbratland, almost all of the differences you cite above between legal treatment of bikes and motor vehicles are not trivial in some contexts, but with respect to the vehicular rules of the road -- which is what matters here -- they are irrelevant. I mean, the fact that bicyclists are allowed to ride bikes on sidewalks in some areas (in most areas bike riding on sidewalks in business districts is not allowed), has no relevance to the rules that must be obeyed on the road. It is true that motorists must yield to bicyclists who are riding in accordance with the pedestrian rules in crosswalks; but bicyclists riding in accordance with the vehicular rules on the roads must yield to them too.
You misrepresent the point I'm making when you say, "generalizations that bicycles and motor vehicles share the same "rights and responsibilities" - bikes and motor vehicles don't have rights and responsibilities to share, people do. It's bicyclists riding bikes on the road that share the same rights and responsibilities (with respect to how they are supposed to behave) with drivers of vehicles. And, by the way, same with people riding horses. The rules of the road were invented and applied to bicyclists and horse riders before motor vehicles were even invented. When you get down to how the law works with respect to the rules of the road, the differences between treatment of bicyclists and drivers of motor vehicles are trivial. To illustrate, try running a red light while on your bike in front of a police officer and see how it goes. This is not a minority theory not accepted by the mainstream. This is the only theory accepted by any authority on the topic of bicyclist legal rights.
I honestly don't understand the problem you seem to perceive is there. Lane splitting is lane splitting. In some places it's legal, in others it's not. In some places whether it's legal or not depends on whether on is operating a motorcycle. I don't see how that fact requires separate sections, much less separate articles on essentially the same topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I think these two articles might help sort out these disputes. It is not enough to quote the legal code and claim it supports your point of view. The legal code is a primary source and Wikipedia needs secondary or tertiary sources.
In other words, you could mention what the law code says, but that's a primary source, and you must have a secondary source to provide the interpretation. A reliable secondary source, such as a lawyer, police representative, judge, legal scholar, or other expert, to provide a secondary source interpretation of the legal code. One sentence of the legal code could bet totally contradicted by some important precedent, or superseded by a different section of the code. You have to be a legal expert to really know for sure if the law means what the code seems to say.
Opinions from the Vehicular cycling point of view are valid and deserve to be mentioned in an appropriate context, but they need to meet the usual Wikipedia criteria for notability, mainstream acceptance, peer review, and so on, as applicable.
If reliable, authoritative secondary sources don't agree on the meaning of the law, the encyclopedic thing is to report that disagreement and leave it at that. Unresolved questions of legal interpretation cannot be settled by an encyclopedia.--Dbratland (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with all of the above. Not sure where you think it applies, however. A small fraction of the citations I've recently added are direct citations of the law, but only in cases where I don't know of any conflicts with respect to what they mean (if you do, please let me know, and cite them). The majority of the citations are from reliable, authoritative secondary sources on the topic for which there are no reliable, authoritative sources that disagree, AFAIK. Again, if you can find any authoritative sources which disagree with any of the sources I've cited, please let me know. Otherwise you're just claiming that they're out there presumably because you believe they are, but I suggest that if you actually look into this topic you will find that the reliable, authorities are in agreement with respect to bicyclists having the same rights and responsibilities on the road as do drivers of vehicles. And that's all that vehicular cycling is. The fact that many, perhaps the majority, of non-authorities are ignorant of this, and how that distorts "common sense", should be irrelevant to encyclopedia editors. By the way, Bob Mionske, one of these reliable authoritative secondary sources, is a lawyer and author of the book "Bicycling & The Law". John Forester and John S. Allen have written books and testified in court as legal experts on these topics. Allen's pamphlets are endorsed by a handful of state authorities. If these guys are not reliable, secondary sources, then nobody is.
It would be very helpful if you addressed your concerns about specifics actually in the article (text and citations), rather than to your general impression of what is said. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Born2Cycle, excellent points. We all have the same duties and responsibilities while driving. We are in agreement, nevertheless, motorcycles are the ones specifically forbidden in law from lane splitting (where it is forbidden), not bikes. This coupled with the many examples that Dbratland provides indicates clearly and unquestionably that they are different. If not in the eyes of the law, in the eyes of the encylopedia. There are so separate under many different perspectives (physical, legal, usage) that the question now should be how to provide information clearly, I do not think bicycles should be excluded from the article. -- BossAnders (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree bicyclists should not be excluded from the article. I think the word "cyclist" and "cycle" should be used whenever possible (meaning bicyclist or motorcyclists, bicycle or motorcycle, respectively), and only where the distinction matters should it be made. We should be able to do that without complicating the article, especially as much as splitting lane-splitting into lane-splitting for bicyclists and lane-splitting for motorcyclists would complicate matters, and create unnecessary duplication. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Born2cycle, correct me if I'm wrong, but what you appear to be saying, after all this, is that you are unwilling to compromise at all. You're still saying that lane splitting behavior is same, the law is the same, and there should be two articles, Lane splitting and Filtering forward, and each of these two articles should cover both motorcycles and bicycles at the same time. You're not even willing to have them in two different sections of the same article, is that right?--Dbratland (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't put it that way. And putting it that way ignores much of what I said. But, ultimately, yes, I'm saying I don't see any reason to combine the two articles, or to split either topic into sections that deal with bicyclists and motorcyclists separately. I'm not saying those reasons don't exist. I'm saying I have not seen anyone say what those reasons are. Several supposed reasons have been suggested, but I believe I have explained why each is not actually a reason to do what is proposed. Have I not? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
After reviewing the articles, I suppose it would be okay to merge filtering forward into lane-splitting, for the reason that the two practices have more in common than not, and redirect it here, as long as the subtle but significant distinction is clearly explained in the intro. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Excellent! I call that progress.--Dbratland (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
To be clear, I still wish my primary reservation would be addressed. While in some contexts lane splitting and filtering forward are synonymous, in others they are not. For example, if a low power motor scooter is ridden on the white line between a lane that is becoming a freeway onramp, and the adjacent lane, while being passed in both lanes, that's splitting lanes, but not filtering forward. And when an emergency vehicle is driven in the shoulder to pass stopped traffic, that's filtering forward, but not lane splitting. I think it's important to distinguish these practices, even though when a motorcyclist is lane splitting in order to pass slower traffic he is also filtering forward. I believe the best way to make the distinction clear is to describe both practices independently in separate articles, but perhaps it could be done effectively in one article. I'm open to that possibility, but skeptical. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I'm even more lost now. I consider lane-splitting and filtering-forward to be different concepts. And even more confusing, explicit laws on lane-splitting specifically apply to motorcycles not bicycles. They are only equivalent in defining the term, not establishing whether it is legal or illegal in jurisdictions. Your argument seems to imply that wherever a motorcycle can't lane-split, bicycles can't either!? -- BossAnders (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
They're the same in that if you are interested in learning about lane splitting, you need to know about filtering forward, and vice versa. Whether you're a motorcyclist, bicyclist, or even a car driver. If you're doing research on filtering forward, you can't help but be doing research on lane splitting as well. That's why I think it's an improvement to merge the articles.
Establishing whether or not it is legal is a big issue, and the current article dwells on that at great length, but it isn't the only thing that should be in the article. There is the question of whether it is a good idea even if you don't risk getting a ticket, with different perspectives on that question depending on whether you're on a bicycle or motorcycle. There is the practice of illegal lane splitting, widespread in Australia, but seen everywhere to some extent.
There are also social or perception questions, like whether motorcyclists are somehow getting away with something or are being unfair to drivers when they escape from traffic jams by lane splitting. Or whether bicyclists are somehow being unfair to drivers if they don't lane split -- if they choose to take the lane instead of letting cars pass. There's the case where a bicycle filters forward at red lights, then the same cars pass the bike when it turns green, repeatedly. Is that unsafe and should the bike or cars do something differently? And so on.
I still think bicycles and motorcycles should be treated separately, but by merging Lane splitting and Filtering forward, I anticipate that either we will come up with a coherent way to cover the two at once, or else we will find it is unworkable and so have to split motorcycles and bicycles into separate sections or separate articles. But that remains to be seen.--Dbratland (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Since, I may be wrong on my concepts of filtering vs splitting and bike vs motorcycle I went overseas. The Official Highway Code of the United Kingdom: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070332 . A few insights: 1) Bicycle riders are consistently referred to as simply "cyclists"[5]. Likewise, Motorcycle riders are referred to as "motorcyclists" [6]. 2) As far as lane-splitting and filtering, I can't tell whether it is synonmous or not. The quote comes from [7] - Rule 88 - "Additionally, when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low."
Focusing on a worldwide view, it's rather US-centric to use cyclist as a term that applies to both. (and worse, confusing to anyone from the UK as it will give them a false impression) -- BossAnders (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Good point. I had not realized that. Well, that makes it a bit more challenging, but far from impossible, to deal with both elegantly. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

|<------------------------------ <-------- reset indent
I'm going to assume BossAnders' statement about considering "lane-splitting and filtering-forward to be different concepts" is not an endorsement for merging the two articles. I'm reluctant, at best. Certainly consensus cannot be claimed to be in favor of the idea at this point.

Putting aside legal ramifications for a moment, lane-splitting can be done to:

a) filter forward,
b) lane share in order to allow faster traffic to pass, or
c) lane share in order to travel side-by-side with another cyclist.

Both motorcyclists and bicyclists do all three, though only motorcyclists on low powered motorcycles typically do (b). It would be an NPOV violating mistake to always ascribe the (c) meaning to bicyclists - bicyclists engage in the (a) and (b) types of lane splitting as well.

I don't know if it's correct to say that lane-splitting is illegal only where laws prohibit the behavior for motorcyclists, and therefore always only applies to motorcyclists. I do know, however, that that is at least sometimes the case (like in Nebraska). It would probably be useful to have a reference to the specific laws that make lane-splitting illegal in each of the 49 states where it is allegedly illegal. That would be a content improvement much more important than how the content is organized.

There are social perceptions to cover, but it might be difficult to find good sources for that material. However, there are plenty of sources to support the notion that the safety issues and concerns associated with using lane splitting to filter forward apply equally to bicyclists.

I still don't understand the grounds for wanting to treat bicyclists and motorcyclists separately. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I've defused if not completely refuted every supposed reason cited so far. Lacking rational objective grounds to separate the treatments, but doing it anyway, would be an NPOV violation. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe I've defused if not completely refuted every supposed reason cited so far. Not at all. I haven't tried to respond to every one of your points because I want to avoid bickering, but in short, I haven't found your arguments on this convincing. In particular, the claims that the law treats motorcycles and bicycles the same is based wholly, from what I can tell, on selective quoting of the traffic code in one or two US jurisdictions. The traffic code is a primary source, and Wikipedia relies on secondary sources to provide the interpretation of primary sources.
Our competing interpretation of the legal code are beside the point, which is good since we aren't lawyers, and even if we were it would be original research. What we need are secondary sources to show that there is widespread acceptance of a particular interpretation of the law. The lack of secondary sources to support the view that bicycles split lanes as motorcycles do goes hand in hand with it not being a mainstream idea. Show me mainstream secondary sources that verify your interpretation of the law, and which say that this is common in many jurisdictions.
And where are the secondary sources to show that having the topics of motorcycles an bicycles merged is consistent with common sense, and the usual practice of other encyclopedias, or similar publications? Wikipedia should not be the sole venue that merges the two; Wikipedia should be consistent with common practice.
Those are two of the prime reasons I'm unconvinced: I'm not swayed by unsupported interpretations of the legal code, an I haven't seen evidence that merging the two is the usual way of organizing the topics.
But I don't want to argue it to death and I'm willing to accept that we don't have consensus on that issue. I think consensus is possible on merging Lane splitting with Filtering forward so I'd rather focus on that.--Dbratland (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Dbratland, I can provide as many secondary sources as you'd like agreeing that the law essentially treats bicyclists the same as drivers of vehicles. You can't fine one, not one reliable authoritative source that says otherwise. Not one! Why are we even discussing this?
Do you know what the Uniform Vehicle Code is? Many states are influenced by it, and it states,
"11-1202.Traffic laws apply to persons on bicycles and other human powered vehicles
Every person propelling a vehicle by human power or riding a bicycle shall have all of the rights and all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under chapters 10 and 11, except as to special regulations in this article and except as to those provisions which by their nature can have no application." link.
You can't produce not even one source (not even one!!!), primary or secondary, that indicates bicyclists are treated significantly differently (with respect to rules of the road) from drivers in any state. Again, this issue is a non-starter. As Bob Mionske famously concluded in his book, “Gaining the right to the road was the cycling cause of the late nineteenth century; securing that right will be the cycling cause of the early twenty-first century.” There is no question (by anyone familiar with topic) on this point. No question. You know, this issue is so well-known, that whenever there is a slight deviation from it, it causes much consternation. For example, Idaho is the only state which allows bicyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs, and red lights as if they are flashing red (like a stop sign). That is the one single significant difference where bicyclists are treated differently. The stop sign thing was voted on in Oregon this year, but it failed. That Idaho exception stands out because it is such a big exception. But even in Idaho, all the other rules of the road continue to apply equally to bicyclists as they do to motorists. If you can't accept this, then we really need to figure out what it's going to take to convince you, because I really don't think you can make an objective contribution to this question without being more informed on this point, and not relying so much on your biased impressions. One source to back up any of what you are challenging about what I'm saying. Just one source. That's all I ask. Or the acknowledgment that you can't fine one, not even one, and I'm right. Is one source really asking for too much? I mean, you can hardly discount the countless sources I produce supporting my position, while you can't even produce one supporting yours. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Sir, you've said it very well. With respect to the rules of the road, you are absolutely correct, but here we must respect more than that. I will not, cannot and have not argued that bicycles are drivers and vehicles subject to the rules and regulations of the road as all other drivers are. The single point I'm making (at this point) is that cyclists and motorcyclists are different and should not be synonymous in this article (as they aren't elsewhere in Wikipedia). As that is the focus of this talk section, I'll stay on that until we reach a consensus. Are motorcycles and bicycles different from an encyclopedic standpoint? -- BossAnders (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, motorcycles and bicycles are different, that's why we have separate articles for those topics. But lane-splitting is lane-splitting. There are variations of lane-splitting, and they should all be discussed. Some variations are more or less likely to be used depending on whether the given vehicle is wide or narrow, or has a high or low power source, but these are difference in degree, not differences in kind. And yes, if a two-wheeler has a motor, then the operator might be subject to some different legal restrictions than if it does not have a motor, and that should be covered too. I am still curious to know whether lane-splitting is legally prohibited anywhere in a way that does not single out motorcyclists. That is, I don't think we can say with certainty that lane-splitting for bicyclists is always legal. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, accepting that motorcycles and bicycles are different please provide one source that mentions lane-splitting and bicycles that does not involve interpretation of law but is a Wikipedia-acceptable source. --BossAnders (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


You're asking me for secondary sources to verify that bicyclists don't need a bicycling license? How can they have the same responsibilities as drivers when they aren't responsible for providing identification, passing a test, and keeping their license in good standing? The fact that bicyclists don't need a license is a huge, glaring difference, and it puts to the lie any claim that they share the same duties.
The lack of headlights, blinkers, brake lights and tail lights is another huge, physically obvious difference. Then there's insurance. And the Interstates. And sidewalk parking. I listed all these things and many more before. I'm only trying to make clear that there are lots of very important reasons why bicycles are a whole other ball of wax. To address the two subjects separately on Wikipedia has no bearing on whether or not bicyclists' rights are in danger.
I should also mention that the Uniform Vehicle Code is a primary, not secondary source, which is one of the reasons I remain unconvinced that these claims of radical equality are the truth. Yes, everyone agrees that bicycle riders have equal rights, in an abstract sense, but when you get down to the mechanics of making the traffic system work, bicycles are not the same as motor vehicles.
But like I said, I don't think there is going to be consensus on that so I'm willing to drop it. All I'm hoping for now is to merge Lane splitting and Filtering forward.
BossAnders is right that we need to be focused on what is encyclopedic. I think a careful re-reading of Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources and Wikipedia:Evaluating sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources would be helpful. If we can focus on what is encyclopedic, and what organizational structure is most useful to the reader.--Dbratland (talk) 05:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Please take a look at Rules of the road, my friend. You're not even following my point, but that doesn't stop you from disagreeing with it. Licensing, insurance and equipment requirements are not rules of the road (which are not "abstract", by the way), much less the vehicular rules of the road that we're talking about (again, those rules of the road that apply to drivers of vehicles, as opposed to those that apply to pedestrians). So, no, I'm not asking for a source to verify that bicyclists don't need a driver's license. And I never said the UVC was a secondary source. The numerous citations from books and websites I've used in the articles we're discussing are secondary sources, all of which support my position. I'm still waiting for you to cite one source, of any kind, to support your supposed disagreement with my position (which you obviously still don't understand since you're talking about irrelevant-to-our-disagreement differences in legal treatment that having nothing to do with rules of the road).
I agree we need to be encyclopedic, and that means using information that is supported by reliable authoritative sources. So I'm asking for just one reliable authoritative source that disagrees with anything I've actually said. Is that really too much? Apparently. So, until you quote my exact words for anything I've said (and I've said plenty, and any of it is fair game), and find a (just one!) reliable/authoritative source that disagrees with what I meant, in context, we have nothing else to discuss, because until you honestly try to do that, I don't think you (much less me) will understand what you think you're disagreeing with. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Dbratland, as the parallel discussions are hard for me to follow. I'm going to suggest the merging topic be handled as it says Wikipedia:Merging, I think it is controversial but would love to invite other readers on the topic to discuss it. I'll let you start that ball rolling and hopefully we can come to a consensus in this section on how to handle bicycles and motorcycles. --BossAnders (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm with you. After this, I have nothing further to say on the other question.--Dbratland (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


The first thing I notice about Rules of the road is that, and I quote, "This article has multiple issues. ...It needs additional references or sources for verification... It relies largely or entirely upon a single source... It may contain original research or unverifiable claims... It may not present a worldwide view of the subject... Tagged since October 2008." An unfootnoted paragraph that only says these rules usually apply to all users does not even disprove that there are exceptions for bicycles, let alone prove that Wikipedia should present material on motorcycle lane splitting to a bicyclist interested in bicycle lane splitting, or vice versa. In case you're wondering why it doesn't sway me.
One of the keys to what we disagree about is that this isn't merely a discussion between legal scholars as to the fine points of the law. It isn't just a question of what the rules of the road say. To me what matters is the sum total of all the factors that make up the everyday world that people experience. The case with Australia is one of the most dramatic, but I could offer the everyday examples we all see: It's almost a shock to see a bicyclist actually wait at a red light, unless there are cars blocking the intersection or a police officer right there. I think one of the reasons behind that behavior is that bicyclists are never required to learn the rules to begin with, and don't have to worry about ever losing their license, or having their insurance rates increase. And law enforcement doesn't make it a priority because this kind of bicyclist is only endangering their own life. In Seattle there have been some short-term enforcement efforts, like writing a ticket to every single bicyclist who blows through a particular stop sign, but a day later everyone goes back to the way things were. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to try to correct any of this, or even to decide what is correct. Wikipedia should only go so far as to present a picture of what reliable secondary sources have to say about issues that are notable according to reliable secondary sources. The near total lack of public interest into the fine points of whether or not bicycle lane splitting is technically legal or not legal is an example.
Remember, in many states, lane splitting by motorcycles isn't explicitly outlawed, but the police consider it to be "unsafe" according to the usual and customary standards they apply. And those standards arise out of things like what they've always enforced in the past and what drivers expect.
It's very clear that none of these points mean much to you. If you can quote a law that says motor vehicles and bicycles have the "same rights and responsibilities" that's all you need and you intend to use Wikipedia to bring the "truth" to the unenlightened. You're not describing the way the world is; you're prescribing how it is supposed to be. I do not think we are going to reach consensus on that so we should drop it. I'm not going to discuss it any further. Instead, we should focus on the question of merging Lane splitting and Filtering forward. You should be happy that you win by default. As BossAnders says, we should be going about this as described in Wikipedia:Merging.--Dbratland (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I have had it with your soliloquies, Dbratland. I agree with much of what you say. None of this comes even close to addressing anything I've actually said, much less providing any sources for establishing disagreement with anything I've said. See below in my reply to BossAnders for how one might uses quotes from reliable authoritative secondary sources to establish foundation for what is being claimed.
You tell me you're not "swayed" by rules of the road. I didn't suggest you read it in order to be swayed. I wanted you to read it to understand that licensing, insuring and equipment requirements are not considered rules of the road, and are irrelevant to our discussion. Another way to obtain that understanding is to read the "rules of the road" section of your own state's vehicle code, and note that that section says nothing about licensing, insuring or equipment requirements. Or, you can google for "rules of the road". Whatever works for you; just please stop pointing out the obvious and irrelevant. Even though bicyclists are not required to have licenses, they can and are still cited for violating the rules of the road, the same rules of the road that all drivers of vehicles must follow (except for a few minor vehicle-type specific exceptions). Again, if you disagree with any of this, please provide at least one source that supports your disagreement.
You claim that "one of the keys to what we disagree about is that this isn't merely a discussion between legal scholars as to the fine points of the law.". Correct me if I'm wrong, but this statement implies that in my view this is "merely a discussion between legal scholars as to the fine points of the law." If so, that claim is simply false, for that is not my view at all. Once again you're claiming disagreement in an area where I can see none. You add, "To me what matters is the sum total of all the factors that make up the everyday world that people experience", as if that doesn't matter to me. Anyway, that's stated so vaguely it's virtually a meaningless statement. Of course all the relevant factors, taken together, matter. The key is to be clear on what the issues is, so that we can sift out the relevant from the irrelevant factors. If, for example, we're discussing a legal question, then only legal factors do matter.
You state that it is your opinion that bicyclists stop so rarely at stop lights, that it's "almost a shock" to see one do it. I'm sorry, but I fail to see the relevance of what does or does not shock you personally to any of this. I see bicyclists stop at red lights multiple times each way on my commute, and I'm never shocked by it. But that personal experience of mine is just as irrelevant as is yours. Remember: reliable secondary sources, not personal opinion supposedly justified as being a factor that makes "up the everyday world that people (meaning Dbratland apparently) experience".
Whether bicyclists are required to learn the rules or not is, in practice, irrelevant, because the vast majority of bicyclists on the road do have driver's licenses and so were required to learn the rules. Just because someone is on a bicycle does not mean the driver's license in his wallet does not exist, or the knowledge required to be shown exists to obtain that license disappears. That bicyclists are not taught to follow the rules is also not true, because most if not all states include that information in the information required to obtain a driver's license. That children who don't have driver's license are so much more likely to be in a crash only reinforces the value of knowing and following the rules of the road for drivers when bicycling on roads.
I agree some of the finer points of the traffic law are not sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia. But the fact that bicyclists are required to follow the same rules of the road as are drivers of vehicles is hardly a fine point of the law.
You also share the following personal opinion, without basis: "You're not describing the way the world is; you're prescribing how it is supposed to be." Can you give any examples, even one example, of anything I actually wrote (please use my actual words), that you believe is describing the way the world is supposed to be, rather than how it is? Or, better yet, how about a reliable secondary source that says that? If not, please stop making such baseless claims. It's really not conducive to productive discourse. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Heylo, this is a worthy debate, but alas this isn't the forum. I think everyone accepts that motorcycles and bicycles are different -- this is a consensus. That is really what I was seeking. How we implement this consensus may bring about another debate. With that in mind, I'm going to try to adjust the intro to the article to reflect that "lane-splitting is lane-splitting" and that "motorcycles and bicycles are different". -- BossAnders (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Something simply being true ("motorcycles and bicycles are different") is not sufficient reason to put it in an article - it must also be relevant. In the Matthews citation below lane-splitting is discussed as it applies to both motorcyclists and bicyclists, without noting the obvious (that motorcycles and bicycles are different), presumably because doing so would be as confusing as my now noting that the capital of Louisiana is Baton Rouge. If you put it in there, you're implying that the difference is significant to the topic being discussed (lane splitting). Unless you can find at least one (hopefully more) reliable authoritative source that agrees with your personal bias on this point, please do not put it, or imply it, in the article. Let's respect NPOV. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, missed this part of your response. The consensus I was trying to reach was in treatment (not adding a statement). Motorcycles and bicycles being different implies that all information related to them may not be the same. Neutrality is fantastic, confusion is unacceptable. For example, the intro section provides information on "legality" by stating motorcycle or bicycle explicitly because "motorcycles and bicycles are different". The vehicle type must be stated or it will be confusing. For example, many jurisdictions where lane-splitting is prohibited only specify motorcycles. We must clarify that information in the article only applies to motorcycles, bicycles or both. Suggestions? --BossAnders (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
See my edits to intro. --Born2cycle (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) BossAnders, earlier today (above) you asked me to "provide one source that mentions lane-splitting and bicycles that does not involve interpretation of law but is a Wikipedia-acceptable source." In the book, The Art of Urban Cycling (a book about bicycling in urban environments), Robert Hurst writes, on p. 95:

"Regardless of the laws in your community, you will occasionally find yourself sneaking up front -- the incurable nature of the urban cyclist, taking advantage of an undeniably skinny machine. In the parlance of cycle-commuters, this is known as "filtering."

In a footnote for "filtering" Hurst expounds:

"The term is also used to describe the act of riding between lanes in jammed traffic".

Of course you recognize that this footnote is an example of usage in which "filtering" is synonymous with the concept associated with the term "lane-splitting" ("the act of riding between lanes").

On p. 29 of the book "How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim", J. L. Matthews notes:

"Many motorcyclists, and a few bicyclists, engage in the driving maneuver known as "lane splitting". Done mostly in traffic jams, it means squeezing a bike between lanes, stopping the cars in stop-and-go traffic on both sides.

You asked for one, I provided two. Is that good enough for you? I think the Matthews quote is particularly good at addressing your concern, since the target audience of most sources is either bicylists or motorcyclists, but not both, while Matthews' audience is much more general - anyone who has an injury claim. Notably, he talks about lane-splitting without distinguishing between how it applies to motorcyclists or bicyclists, beyond noting that motorcyclists do it more frequently, supporting my contention that it's a difference in degree, not in kind (which would warrant separate treatment). --Born2cycle (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent sources! I agree with your assertion, hopefully my rewrite of the intro is acceptable given your sources. If we want to go back to explicitly stating bicycle or motorcycle, that seems reasonable (but what about unicycles, horses, scooters, skateboards? - I do prefer the broad). Motorcycle vs. Bicycle may still need to be handled differently when it comes to the legal assertions (as motorcycles are specifically addressed whereas bicycles may receive no comment). -- BossAnders (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Riders of unicycles, scooters and skateboards are not considered to have the rights and responsibilities of drivers of vehicles (the way bicyclists have) in any jurisdiction, so far as I know. You have a point with horse riders, who could theoretically split lanes, but there we have something that truly is too rare to be notable. So I think mentioning motorcyclists and bicyclists explicitly makes sense. I think some points have to be made about the legal distinctions between bicyclists and motorcyclists with respect to lane splitting. We need more research (not original research - research of existing sources) to ascertain where lane splitting prohibitions only apply to motorcyclists. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Freeways and traffic signal approaches

It seems to me that lane-splitting on freeways, particularly in slow-moving rather than stopped traffic, is significantly different from lane-splitting through stopped traffic at an approach to a red traffic signal. Does anyone know if in jurisdictions where lane-splitting is illegal, whether the prohibition applies in both or only one of these contexts? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Under Lane splitting#Legal status User:Born2cycle has inserted and re-inserted the sentence: "Whether such a citation will hold up to a challenge in court depends on the particular situation." This seems intended to cast doubt on the illegality of motorcycle lane splitting in the several US states where it is known to be prohibited, though not because of a specific statute on lane splitting. If it is merely a banal observation that all traffic citations may be challenged in court based on the particular situation, it does not need to be said in this article. Or else why not say this when mentioning every single traffic rule? That would be absurd. This sentence should be removed unless it can be verified that any reliable sources think lane splitting citations in these states are in particular open to legal challenge.

Please do not continue to drag on debate over this by arguing over minutiae. Do you or don't you have reliable sources to justify your agenda here? If you do not have support for this claim, simply remove it from the article until it can be verified.--Dbratland (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You ask, why not say this when mentioning every single traffic rule?. Because every single other "traffic rule" has a specific law that clearly spells out the rule (disagree? then, name some "traffic rule" for which there is no specific law that states it). We're talking here about jurisdictions which specifically do not have laws that clearly state that lane splitting is illegal. This is a very special and unique case. If someone is lane splitting in, say, Montana or Idaho, what are they going to be cited with? Every ticket has a box where the officer needs to write the number of the vehicle code section allegedly being violated. What do they put in that box for lane splitting citations in states where lane splitting is not explicitly prohibited in the vehicle code? Is there any evidence that such citations hold up in court, or that motorcyclists are even cited for lane splitting in these states? Unless you can provide sources, the statement should stay, because it reflects the truth, at least with respect to what we've been able to gather here. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The motorcyclist will be cited under any one of several generic statues that requires you to drive safely, prudently, not to endanger others, and not to disrupt traffic flow. Examples of this type of law for California have already been cited. The evidence that citations for lane splitting hold up in court in Idaho, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Mississippi is that reliable sources have repeatedly shown us it is only legal in California. Nobody besides you, here on Wikipedia is suggesting motorcyclists are allowed to lane split in these states. Nobody besides you is suggesting they have a ready-made legal defense if they are cited. The burden of proof does not lie anywhere but on you: You inserted a claim into a Wikipedia article, and that claim demands verification.
Repeatedly demanding that other editors look up obscure references to counter your theories is disruptive.
I think you should review the article Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, and consider that you are promoting original research. Why does no one besides you support your claim? You are too passionate about the politics of bicycling and you are preventing other editors from creating a neutral, informative article that covers the important issues of this topic. I believe your behavior constitutes disruptive editing and requires intervention. Please step away from this article, and please refrain from adding any more assertions to the article if you are unable to cite sources for them.--Dbratland (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Can we please stick to the issues and WP:AGF? Whatever you believe my biases are, you're wrong and you should focus on the issues. This current discussion has nothing to do with bicycling.
What evidence is there to support your claim that challenges to citations in these states generally hold up in court? What evidence is there that such citations have even been seriously challenged? How can one cite a source for the claim that whether a given citation will hold up in court depends on the circumstances? Since we have no evidence indicating such challenges will hold up, that statement has basis.
You also claim, reliable sources have repeatedly shown us it is only legal in California. Really? Can you cite even one reliable source that shows us lane splitting is only legal in California? Hint, a reliable source saying, without basis, that lane splitting is legal only in California is showing us nothing other than that is that source's opinion, which is sufficient to substantiate something like, "some who have researched the issue legality issue in the U.S. believe lane splitting is only legal in California", but that's about it. Remember, many of these sources also wrongly claim that lane splitting is explicitly legal in California, implying that there is a law that says it is legal. The reliability of such loosy goosy interpretations of the law need to be considered accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." I have supplied citations for the opinions authoritative, respected individuals who have the approval of their peers in their fields. This meets Wikipedia criteria for secondary sources. You have supplied nothing but your own opinions. Who besides you says there is a ready legal defense for lane splitting in Idaho, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Mississippi? Who besides you questions that it is illegal in those states? Why are you the only person with this point of view? --Dbratland (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh please, I'm not the only person with this view. Please stop making this personal. Here's one source for you. "[Lane splitting] is legal in California and other states", Tom Vanderbilt, authoritative author of Traffic, in Lane Splitting.
Now, does that mean we can say that lane splitting is legal in states other than California? Why not? We have a source! The reason of course is because Tom Vanderbilt saying it does not make it true. Similarly, every Tom, Dick and Harry sharing their unsubstantiated opinion that lane splitting is legal only in California is just as unreliable. As far as I can tell, that's just a widespread legend. We need references of authoritative sources who at least claim to have done the research, and explain the case law that substantiates the illegality of lane splitting in at least one of these states in which lane splitting is not explicitly banned by statute. Without that, it's accurate to say that whether a given citation issued for lane splitting in such a state will hold up in court is unknown, and depends on the circumstances.
To illustrate this point, I'll give you a similar example. All jurisdictions allow treating a non-operational traffic signal as if it's a stop sign. Nowadays, most at leave have battery backup and flash red when the power goes out, but older ones still might go completely out. But here's the thing. What if the sensor fails to detect the vehicle? This is more likely for a bicyclist or a motorcyclist than for a car driver, but it can happen. Does that make the traffic signal "nonoperational"? Does it mean it can be treated as a stop sign? Most people say yes, but the fact of the matter is that there is no case law establishing this. We simply don't know if it's legal to treat a traffic signal that fails to detect us as non-operational, and as a stop sign. For someone who cannot trigger a sensor, treats the light as a stop sign, and is cited for running a red light, it's unknown whether that citation will hold up in a court challenge.
Similarly, if someone is cited for, say, "reckless driving" simply for engaging in lane splitting in a state in which lane splitting is not explicitly banned by statute, we simply don't know whether that citation will hold up in a court challenge. If the case law actually does exist, we should reference it and note what it establishes. But if I'm right and it's not there, then what's wrong with pointing this out? I think it's much worse to declare that lane splitting is illegal in states like Idaho and Montana, without anything but lay opinions (that contradict each other) to back it up. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Do we know that lane splitting is legal in California? Do we have a reliable source to that effect? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes. It's sourced from a reliable, verifiable secondary source in the article, #42 right now. There is also this great source noted above that lists for each state whether lane splitting is explicitly illegal by statute. Several states besides California have no laws that explicitly prohibit lane splitting. The issue is about what happens if you lane split in those states. Even in California you can get cited for lane splitting if you do it unsafely (by being cited for reckless driving, unsafe speed, etc.). But what if you safely lane split in Montana or Idaho? Will they cite you for reckless driving, or what? And what happens if you challenge that citation in court? Who knows? We have no sources that tell us, probably because nobody knows. That's why I added the statement that I did... "Whether such a citation will hold up to a challenge in court depends on the particular situation.". Dbratland wants to delete it because it's not sourced. That seems backwards to me. How can I source the absence of knowledge? And without it we're implying that lane splitting is definitely illegal in those states, no matter how safely you do it. As far as I can tell, that's misleading. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. I suppose an official opinion by the CHP that it's legal (not that it's legal for them), together with the secondary source provides evidence. However, the DMV web site (and drivers handbook) says:
Motorcycles may travel faster than traffic during congested road conditions and can travel in the unused space between two lines of moving or stationary vehicles, which is commonly called “lane splitting.”
Oddly enough, that source says "can" not "may", which is what would be expected if the writers thought it was legal. It, therefore, is another secondary source suggesting it is not legal. The actual vehicle code seems silent, except for bicycles. (Again, that would be OR if we were to place it in the article, but we are allowed to check that the primary sources are properly reported by the secondary sources, and decide which sources to include.) As an aside, I got a warning in 1993 for turning left on a bicycle exactly as representing in the handbook, suggesting that individual officers may not be aware of the law. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I paraphrased David L. Hough's explanation here from Proficient Motorcycling, but you can read the entire thing (temporarily) here and here. I think Hough does a very good job shedding light on a confusing question.
It is true that the law is not clear, and it's true that each officer can interpret the law his own way, and that regardless, you've always got a chance in court. However, California as a whole has been somewhat consistent in allowing lane splitting, and the other 49 states have been somewhat consistent to very consistent the other way against lane splitting, even those with no special law for lane splitting.
Australia sheds some light on this -- see the footnotes in the article. My German friend has been helpful in finding this source Motorrad Wiki StVO. His translation and interpretation is:

it's not explicitly prohibited (as in the US the regulations sometimes seem to miss certain points and you have to use common sense), but as the official regulations demand, the driver has to leave a sufficient distance to the vehicles that he is passing, omission is punishable by fine. But...the federal German courts see riding between the lanes as "passing on the right", which is -in Germany- not allowed and, if a cop stops you, you'll pay for that act a fine of 50 Euros. Accidents in the event leave you as one of the causing parties. So, there's no law concerning lane splitting, but doing so you violate a different one and as for the distance you have to keep to the cars you pass there is another one that regulates this particular matter.

He tells me that Germans go ahead and lane split anyway, as if they were in France or Italy, and the police are too busy to do anything. And 50 Euros isn't a fortune. I'd love to find more sources to verify all this so I can add it to the article.
So while in California, you could be cited for crossing the line too often, or speeding, though the norm is not to cite you, in Germany you could be cited for passing on the right or being too close to other vehicles, although the norm is not to cite you. While in Oklahoma or New Mexico, I have no idea what they will cite you for -- reckless driving or failure to signal perhaps -- but the norm IS to cite you.--Dbratland (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Arthur, indeed, police, and even judges, are notorious for being ignorant about how traffic law applies to bicyclists. Most people who bicycle regularly have had, like you, encounters with police not knowing what they were talking about. That's all I was trying to convey when I wrote, "the issue appears to be a lack of awareness about the existence of the law, even by police and judges, not a different interpretation of the law", a quote that Dbratland used in the ANI, apparently to show how unreasonable I am.
And yes, the CHP web site is quite clear on this point: "Lane splitting is permissible if done in a safe and prudent manner". The vehicle code is silent on the question, and with respect to bicyclists too. But in general, if it's not illegal it's legal, so the fact that the vehicle code is silent on the topic is significant.
DMV handbooks, by the way, are not reliable sources for determining what the law is, except maybe when they explicitly say what the law is. Even then, they often present abridged versions of what the actual law states, and often miss important details and exceptions. Handbooks are not limited to spelling out the law, and are full of defensive driving advice that goes way beyond what the law states. I, for one, prefer to read the vehicle code directly.
It's quite a stretch to interpret the use of "can" instead of "may" in that context to imply that lane splitting is not legal, especially in a document whose purpose is not to simply convey what the law is. Besides, in the motorcycle section of the driver's handbook it states rather clearly: "Although it is not illegal to share lanes with motorcycles, it is unsafe." link. And you say that would be another source indicating lane splitting is not legal in California. What is the first source? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I sent some emails out to the states that don't have specific laws on lane splitting, such as Oklahoma, Idaho and so on. The first reply arrived from the New Mexico Department of Public Safety:

    66-7-322 and 66-7-325 Turning Movements and required signals prohibit Lane Splitting.
    If a vehicle lane splits they could also be cited for Careless Driving 66-8-114 states a vehicle must drive with due regard for the rights and safety of others.
    Additionally 66-7-317 Roadways laned for traffic prohibits lane splitting. Anyone of these statutes prohibits lane splitting. I hope this answers your question.
    Have a good weekend!
    Peter Olson
    DPS Communication Director
    www.dps.nm.org

You can read the NM codes he cites here. His answer is consistent with what we already knew about how this worked in California; NM, like most every state, comes down on the opposite side from Calif. in their traditional interpretation. The other states of course have the same laws and so you can guess what they're going to say. Even without this, we can rest on WP's policy against weasel words and remove the vague hints that lane splitting might not be illegal in states other than Calif.
I'm aware I can't cite this email, but you can email them yourself if you like. The real emphasis should be on removing weasel words and unverified innuendo from the article and this email only underscores why. --Dbratland (talk) 03:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Now I have an email reply from Tom Vanderbilt, whose blog entry [8] was cited as a source that lane splitting is legal in "California and other states." Vanderbilt says, "actually i think i had a brain freeze there and meant to say other "places..." like the UK... as you suggest, and from what i've seen, only in cali is it legal."--Dbratland (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
That's getting closer, Dbratland, but we're not quite there yet. I agree the article should not imply something that is not true. But unless we can produce reliable sources that clearly establish that lane splitting is illegal in the ambiguous states, saying the answer is unknown is true. And some bureaucrat offering hypothetical examples of what laws an officer might cite a lane-splitting motorcyclists with does not amount to case law that establishes it is actually illegal. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe your comment is another example of WP:DISRUPT. Do you honestly believe the burden of proof lies with anyone but you on this? My complaints to the admins are more than a disagreement over WP:V. With respect to this subject, you have continually tried to make others jump through hoops for you. Once again, I must ask you to please stop this, and confine yourself to constructive participation, or else leave it alone and work on something else.--Dbratland (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Where am I asking you or anyone else to do anything, Dbratland, much less asking you to "jump through hoops"? I'm just stating a fact... if the references aren't there to support a statement one way or another, then it's fair and responsible to say the issue is not resolved. If you choose to interpret that as a demand on others to find references supporting the view that you think the article needs to reflect, that's on you, not on me. You seem to seek conflict where none exists. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Email from Oklahoma Department of Public Safety:

    Thank you for inquiring about lane splitting in Oklahoma.
    Lane splitting is not permitted nor practiced in Oklahoma and could be interpreted as careless or reckless driving. You could be cited for improper lane use. Under T47 11-309.1. Passing a vehicle within the same lane. You must drive entirely within a single lane.
    Also if passing a vehicle on the right. Passing on the right is only permissible when the vehicle being passed is stopped making a left turn. T47 11-304
    Unless something changes and a law is passed which specifically states "lane splitting is allowed" I would suggest not to engage in this driving practice.
    Thank you

    --Dbratland (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
So your reference for establishing that lane splitting is illegal in Oklahoma is the personal opinion of an anonymous bureaucrat expressed by email? Or am I missing something? Yeah, we know that a lane splitter could be cited for improper lane use or reckless driving even in California. How does that make Oklahoma different? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If you have a source saying lane splitting it's legal in Oklahoma, please by all means, cite it. I only have a problem with citing those who (thorough error or ignorance) hint that there are "other states" that might allow it, yet won't specify which states. I think the reason your sources use weasel words like that is that they simply haven't made the effort to check the other 49 states, and are afraid of looking foolish, so they hem and haw and mumble. Regardless, it's not good enough for WP. If someone published that you can lane split in OK or NM or ID or MS, then you've got an opinion we can quote, if notable. If someone other than you thinks the lack of a specific law in OK or NM or ID or MS is good enough to let you lane split, cite them. But otherwise? Leave it out of the article.

    If you disagree with the "anonymous bureaucrats" (aka reliable sources -- who do you think wrote the CHP FAQ you cited, or those bicycling pamphlets you cited? Clumsy bureaucrats, my friend), send them an email SHowell@dps.state.ok.us [9], and tell them why they're so wrong. I'd be amused to read their reply. --Dbratland (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying I disagree with your bureaucrat (please stop looking for conflict where none exists). At any rate, my opinion is immaterial here. I'm just asking if the source for establishing that lane splitting in OK is an email. Apparently, it is. I still see no reason to conclude that lane splitting is always illegal in OK, like it is in states which explicitly ban it. Please don't take that to mean that I believe it is legal (again, what I believe doesn't matter anyway). But my main question is posted in the new section I just added at the bottom of this talk page. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Email reply from Idaho State Police:

    My name is Chris Schenck, and I am the patrol Lieutenant in Region One based in Coeur d’ Alene. In reference to your question of “lane splitting”, it is illegal to do this maneuver in the State of Idaho. Although there may not be a law specifically addressing it, a person could be cited for the following;

    I.C. 49-637 clearly addresses lanes designated for travel, making this driving illegal.

    I.C. 49-632 & 633 are both designed for passing. Both address passing must be made under safe conditions. Anytime vehicles are lane to lane, a passing maneuver would not be deemed safe.

    I.C. 49-1401 would be inclusive as it would be disregarding others safety.

    I hope this helps answer your question.

    Chris Schenck, Lieutenant
    Region One Patrol
    Idaho State Police
    Coeur d’ Alene, Idaho

    Justia [10] is one place you can read the codes he mentions.--Dbratland (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but this source seems to assume "lane splitting" refers only to passing moving traffic, and, not, for example, passing traffic stopped for a red light in order to get to the front. This source also seems to conflate lane splitting with whitelining, assuming that if you're splitting lanes you must be riding on the stripe. What if the lanes are wide enough, and the cycle narrow enough, for the motorcyclist to pass without encroaching across the stripe into the adjacent lane? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Types of lane sharing:

Born2cycle (talk · contribs) wrote, above:

Putting aside legal ramifications for a moment, lane-splitting can be done to:
a) filter forward,
b) lane share in order to allow faster traffic to pass, or
c) lane share in order to travel side-by-side with another cyclist.

If the distinction is made in the article, it should be pointed out that (c) is unquestionably illegal even in California, even though frequently done both by bicyclists and motorcyclists. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Arthur, what makes you think (c) is "unquestionably illegal" in California for motorcyclists, much less for bicyclists? As far as I can tell, in the rare extremely wide lane that makes it physically possible, it's even legal for a car to travel side-by-side with another car. Put another way, what vehicle code section do you believe is violated by side-by-side travel?
In fact, bicyclists are only required to keep right by CVC 21202 when the traffic lane is wide enough "for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane" (not to mention a whole host of other exceptions that cannot be present, including your "when preparing for a left turn", in order for the "keep right" restriction to apply). --Born2cycle (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lane_splitting/Archive_1&oldid=1055447667"