Talk:Lane splitting/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Lane-splitting Opening Paragraph

As mentioned, above, I've located resources that I think help better define the term. Considering past contentions, though, I'm proceeding cautiously. Nevertheless, there's been no response to my comments above so I'll go ahead and put out a proposal and see if that generates any comments before making the adjustment. The current opening reads:

Lane splitting is riding a bicycle or motorcycle between lanes in the same direction as traffic. It is also sometimes called lane sharing, whitelining, filtering, or stripe-riding. Lane splitting usually refers to moving at a greater speed than traffic, in response to a traffic slowdown, a form of filtering forward.

I'm proposing the following:

Lane splitting refers to a vehicle moving between lanes of vehicles that are proceeding in the same direction. More narrowly, it refers to passing stopped or slower moving traffic between lanes at a speed greater than surrounding traffic.. It is also sometimes called lane sharing, whitelining, filtering, or stripe-riding. Alternatively, lane splitting has been used to describe moving through traffic that is in motion while filtering is used to describe moving through traffic that is stopped.

• A few notes. I wanted to get away from naming all types of vehicles that might be capable of lane-splitting as that might include scooters, mopeds, dirt-bikes, motorcycles, ox-carts, bicycles, etc. -- broadly, the definition seems dependent on the act, not the type of vehicle (though I admit, most of the discussion and safety analysis revolves around motorcycles or powered two-wheel vehicles, as referred to in MAIDS).
• I also came up with the idea of listing the "more narrowly" from the article on atheism where they note multiple definitions for a single term.
• It's not perfect, by any stretch, because I'm not sure someone unfamiliar with the term would have a clear picture (which is the ideal goal) but I think it is broader and more specific than the current first paragraph. Look forward to remarks, otherwise, we can try it out and always undo. :D

-- CáliKewlKid (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like a reasonable change, and I support you adding it. Although I still think the two articles should be merged. In the UK, filtering describes all of the above activities as well as riding past a line of stationary traffic by placing yourself on the opposite (oncoming) carriageway. i.e. filtering is simply how bike riders get past slow or stationary cars - wherever they place themselves. A single article talking about these main modes - riding between lines of stationary traffic, riding between lines of slow traffic, and riding past lines of slow/stationary traffic, would serve Wikipedia readers much better than two separate articles chock-full of pedantry and hair-splitting. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay biker gangs (and others too), I made the edit but I still don't particularly like it and it has to do with the picture and the top-hat saying it's too much of a US perspective in the article.

1. How do you lane split in a place where there are no apparent lanes? The picture shows vehicles squeezing through vehicles but in their culture I think that's just called "driving". I don't see any marked lanes... So
2. Without marked lanes, how do you call it lane-splitting?
3. Lane splitting has legal implications in the United States, if not elsewhere. (It is against the law in most states for vehicles to straddle a lane (colloquially "Pac-Manning" [1][2])
4. User:Biker Biker made an excellent point about what serves the readership better, two separate articles full of pedantry and hair-splitting or one.
5. Nevertheless, how do I reconcile this problem: "In the US lane-splitting means driving in between lanes." That's it. I have friends who've received tickets for "splitting the lane" or "lane splitting" -- that is they were driving on the dashed line (in a car). Whether it's a motorcycle, a car, a truck, a space shuttle, a bicycle, if there are marked lanes and you are between them, you are splitting the lane. But we cannot use that definition here because in this article lane-splitting has to include filtering, which can be done without marked lanes (as is demonstrated in that picture).

In short, I'm unsure how to reconcile the difference -- but I hope in expressing the problem some editor may be able to provide suggestions. -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Lane Splitting in Thailand and image in Wiki entry

Is Lane Splitting legal in Thailand or not? The entry has an image of Lane Splitting in Bangkok but Thailand isn't in the list of countries where lane Splitting is legal. It seems odd having that image (even though it is a good one) if Lane Splitting is illegal in Thailand and Thailand is therefore not in the list. 124.184.163.172 (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Read the entry on Australia. There is a difference between how people behave and how the laws may say they ought to behave. There's no reason to say anything about Thailand unless there is a good source to back it up. The picture is just a picture. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I find that a rather lazy attitude. This should be a definitive resource and no country should be excluded just because you somehow don;t think it is important or lack the effort to do some research. If the research is done you would find a rather unique situation in Thailand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.163.172 (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Which one of us is lazy? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Lane splitting is only allowed between 2 motorbikes in Turkey

lane splitting between automobiles and motobikes are forbidden in Turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.144.255.211 (talk) 09:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Study showing lane splitting decreases commute times for cars, lowers emissions

Why commuting by motorcycle is good for everyone, Kevin Ash at the Telegraph. I don't know of this study has been analyzed by others besides the authors, Transport & Mobility Leuven. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ultra narrow cars

I'm not sure ultra narrow cars belong anywhere in this article, but they definitlely don't deserve mention in the lead. They are not a thing that actually exists, or is widely practiced. This article is about a worldwide traffic phenomenon. Ultra narrow cars are $108,000 toys owned by celebrities. Are they even street legal anywhere? Source says the "Tango doesn't really work for LA." What does that mean?

See WP:UNDUE and WP:CRYSTAL. The BMW C1 failed because it couldn't be driven as if it was a car, meaning the rider needed a motorcycle license and had to wear a helmet. Any indication that ultra narrow cars, even if street legal, don't have the same problem? The point of these things is that you don't have to be a motorcyclist to take advantage of lane splitting, but is that legally a fact? Or just a future hope?

Get some good facts from good sources, and maybe it's worth mentioning. To me it's vapor ware, and not encyclopedic. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I just reverted the claim that four wheel vehicles lane split. Source? The cited source [3] says "on a motorcycle" meaning a two wheeled vehicle. Please provide a citation saying lane splitting is actually practiced by four wheeled vehicles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Response to Ultra narrow cars post

The lane splitting lead doesn't need to specify number of wheels. The Top Gear article clearly states the four wheeled ultra-narrow car it is reviewing is lane splitting. Therefore, I propose leaving "two-wheeled vehicles" out of the lead or adding "and ultra-narrow cars" if "two-wheeled vehicles" stays in the lead.

The source of your lane splitting definition is the motor cycle safety foundation. Unlike the Top Gear article I cite, it is not a neutral source and therefore is not in line with Wikipedia's core content policies.

Ultra-narrow cars are not vaporware. For example, please view the following video produced by a Chinese production company which interviews the inventor of the Tango as well as owners who drive the Tango on a daily basis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmp-Hii3F8o

The Tango "not working in LA" statement was the author's overall feeling about the car, but in no way does it suggest that Tangos do not lane split.

No law prohibits ultra-narrow car lane splitting. Please provide a source where ultra-narrow car lane splitting is illegal. Mickeysimple (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The lead does need to say two wheeled vehicle because that's what the sources tell us -- motorcycles and bicycles. this link is published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Motorcycle Safety Foundation logo is there because they assisted the NHTSA. Not that anyone has ever given reason to question the neutrality of the MSF on something like this anyway. We know that one motorcycle taxi service in LA could not use three-wheeled Can-Am Spyders cause they could not lane split; see Motorcycle taxi#United States. Read the citations.

Again, the Top Gear article specifically says the Tango "doesn't work for LA." The YouTube video gives no evidence that they are not just testing, or that they are not driving illegally. What jurisdiction is that, anyway? We also know that the CHP specifically says that only motorcycles are allowed to lane split in California.[4] You have provided no sources which tell us that lane sharing or lane splitting by four wheel vehicles is actually practiced anywhere, or that it's legal. The fact that they only known owners are a pair of billionaires and a wealthy actor is sufficient evidence that this is an extreme fringe vehicle, at best. It's a prototype of an idea that has no evidence of being in normal use. SEe WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:CRYSTAL

WP:BURDEN says the onus is on you to provide sources that this is real, not vaporware, and that it is a normal practice, and' that it's legal. What if someone came along and said you could lane split on horseback and told me it belonged in the article until I found a citation saying it was illegal? It' doesn't work that way. Besides, the citations are here, on the talk page and in the footnotes. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

2nd Response to Ultra narrow cars post

I’ll respond to each point sentence by sentence except in respect to “legality” which I address toward the end of this post.

When the author of the article writes doesn’t work for LA, he writes in the same way a movie critic writes “the movie doesn’t work”. For instance, here’s a link to a very recent movie review that uses the phrase “doesn’t work” in it’s title: http://www.torontosun.com/2012/07/12/donovans-collaborator-doesnt-work.

In this case, the movie critic is not saying “the movie doesn’t fit in the projector and therefore can’t be viewed." The reviewer means, as an overall entity, it’s not “her cup of tea”. As he writes: It's tough to buy. The experience here is more akin to watching a play, complete with unnatural acting, low affect characters and a claustrophobic setting. This is Donovan's directorial debut; you can see the potential, but it just doesn't work.”

Regardless of whether the author of the Top Gear article wants to buy a Tango (he does not) he clearly does describe the Tango as lane splitting. Further, if it were a lane splitting “test”, he most certainly would have described it as a test. (See "Legality" below).

Your description of Tango owners being billionaires and movie stars makes no difference as to whether Tangos lane split or not. A “yacht” is still a “boat” and could be included as a type of “boat” that “floats” even though only very few people own a “yacht”. Also, a Rolls Royce is still a car that drives, and The Dodge Tomahawk V10 Superbike is still a motorcycle that can lane split and sometimes (not always) does.

In the context of asserting that ultra-narrow cars driving between lanes as considered lane splitting, I am currently giving reason to challenge the neutrality of the MSF. The link you provide links to the quote: “Lane splitting: Passing between lanes of stopped of slower-moving vehicles on a motor cycle.” It does not mention bicycles in the sentence, yet we all agree that bicycles lane split. Therefore, in the context of your assertion of providing all-encompassing 3rd party evidence, it is not neutral.

You write that Can-Am Spyders “could not lane split”. Please elaborate. Was the body of the vehicle too wide to lane split? Or do you mean, it isn’t legal? Please see “Legality" below.

Regarding “practice (of lane splitting)” vs. “ability (to lane split”) for some reason “two-wheeled vehicle” links to a Wiki page titled :”Two-wheeler” which currently includes the following list of vehicles: dandy horse, bicycle, cab or hansom, motorcycle, Segway PT, and a hand-truck. Some of the vehicles have “the ability” to lane split. Some people “practice” lane splitting with the vehicles, and sometimes some of the vehicles “legally” lane split. However, none of the vehicles fit in all of the categories all of the time.

Describing ultra-narrow cars with the term “extreme fringe vehicle” is a false correlation to the WP:FRINGE, link provided.

WP:FRINGE states three core content policies – neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability. The Top Gear article certainly is a neutral point of view, is not original research, and is verifiable.

You write – “It's a prototype of an idea that has no evidence of being in normal use.” Of course, the third party articles and videos cited show ultra-narrow cars are in normal use.

You also provide links. I differ with your interpretation of the links as to whether ultra-narrow cars lane split.

WP:UNDUE

...has to do with neutrality, naming, article structure, due and undue weight, giving equal validity, good research, balance, an impartial tone, point of view forks, making necessary assumptions, and controversial subjects.

Neutrality – the Top Gear article is a neutral reviewer of the ultra-narrow Tango

Naming – the Top Gear article describes/names the Tango as “lane splitting” “page 2: referring to the Tango, the author writes “the thing's designer, builder and marketer is demonstrating the 39in-wide EV’s ability to split lanes like a motorcycle."

Article Structure – my submission for additional text was not as a paragraph into itself but an attempt to integrate it with the narrative. To me, it’s clear that the “two wheel” term in the lead is inaccurate because of the link and the fact that the ultra-narrow Tango does, indeed, lane split, therefore using the additional “and ultra-narrow cars” with a link to the Top Gear article is apropos. If it is deemed best to add the ultra-narrow car as a “also see” comment, then, clearly, the two wheel term must be removed because it is contradictory.

Giving Equal Validity – the link discusses giving equal validity to fringe theories. Ultra-narrow cars are real and often behave in the practice of lane splitting. It is not a theory like “flat earth” but a fact like “a Mercedes can drive in reverse”.

Good Research - the Top Gear article and the Chinese video are excellent researchers of this topic. Also see: http://on.aol.com/video/translogic-46--tango-ev-517141691 Indeed, as the host Bradley Hasemeyer says in introducing the Tango he states “Today we’re in Spokane Washington checking out the lane splitting, hair raising Tango”.

Balance - Yes, almost all lane splitting vehicles have two-wheels, but clearly ultra-narrow cars with four wheels are vehicles which lane split. The Top Gear article describes ultra-narrow cars lane splitting and the Chinese video shows ultra-narrow cars lane splitting. No one is suggesting that ultra-narrow cars deserve “equal attention” as bicycles or motorcycles, but they clearly deserve some attention. By reading the Top Gear article and seeing the videos, I believe the vast majority of lane splitting adherents would include ultra-narrow cars as vehicles which lane split in this article.

Impartial Tone - there’s no partiality with the term including “and ultra-narrow vehicles” in the lead. It simply is a fact that ultra-narrow vehicles lane split.

Point of View Forks – keeping the fact that ultra-narrow cars lane split in the lane splitting article avoids point of view forks. Making necessary assumptions – there is no assumption that ultra-narrow cars lane split. Simply, it is a fact that they do lane split.

Controversial Subjects – the ability to lane split is not controversial. Indeed, it can be easily recognized. There is no controversy in describing ultra-narrow cars driving between lanes of slow or stopped vehicles as lane splitting.

WP:CRYSTAL

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball leads with the phrase “unverifiable”. Clearly, as evidenced again, by the Top Gear the article and the video link, four-wheeled ultra-narrow cars have the ability and do lane split. Continuing, regarding the next phrase “own opinions or analyses”, this is not a single opinion, but it is the observations from journalists writing stories and/or videotaping the act of ultra-narrow cars lane splitting.

Advertising – yes, not linking the “ultra-narrow car” link to the www.commutercars.com website is a good practice.

“Extrapolation, speculation, and future history: the article and video(s) describe what has been achieved by ultra-narrow cars, not what is expected.

There are ultra-narrow cars that can't be included as current “lane splitters”. For instance, Lit Motor’s C-1. It’s narrow enough to lane split but currently is too slow to “actually” lane split. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdmgDgcZfvY That being said, of course, not all bicycles or motorcycles are equipped to lane split, too.

WP:BURDEN

Anything Challenged: I supplied a link to the Top Gear article, the Chinese video and, now, Translogic video as well.

Burden of Evidence: I provided citations.

Reliable Source: “Top Gear” and “Translogic” are reliable third party sources. These are not self-published sources.

Real: The Tango clearly exists and it lane splits.

Vaporware:

Here’s a link to the Tango appearing in a motion picture coming attraction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiFqT5-6JQg .

As Rick Woodbury writes at www.commutercars.com.

"What a pleasant surprise to see the Tango in the opening scene of this trailer for the upcoming movie Robot & Frank. In September Looper is due to come out, starring Bruce Willis, Joseph Gordon Levitt, and Emily Blank. It has 4 Tangos in it."

Horseback riding as lane splitting: I agree with much of the lead including – “lane splitting refers to a ‘vehicle’.”

Legality:

I believe lane splitting with a Tango in California is legal. Jay Leno interviewed Rick Woodbury for his "Jay Leno's Garage" internet series.

At 3:56 in the video Leno says “The cool thing is that you can lane split in these things. Is it legal?” To which Woodbury replies, “As of the day before yesterday, 63 police officers have told me it’s legal. It’s unanimous so far.” Leno replies “Okay. If you fit in the space you’re okay”.

http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/collections/electric/tango-electric/index.shtml#item=107842

Further, lane splitting is illegal in 49 states but we still recognize what lane splitting is in states where it is illegal. Much of the article about lane splitting is about how it is or isn’t legal in different parts of the world. Regardless, I’m sure all readers would agree that if a motorcycle driving between two lanes of stalled or stopped traffic in California is to be referred as "lane splitting", it would still be "lane splitting" if it were doing the same practice in Montana, even though it would illegal in that state.

A few dancers were arrested at a monument in Washington and were given a citation for it. That doesn’t mean they weren’t “dancing” just because it was deemed illegal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWeF6lwg4aY From the Neutral point of view/FAQ

Avoiding constant disputes:

“How can this dispute be fairly characterized?”

If I had to characterize this disagreement, I believe it comes down to this:

For inclusion: There is substantial 3rd party evidence that four wheeled ultra-narrow cars demonstrate and actively lane split in California and elsewhere in the world.

Against inclusion: There are too few four wheeled ultra-narrow cars lane splitting on the roads today

Per WP, Consensus is not always possible, but it should be our goal.

Mickeysimple (talk) 09:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You're scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to find sources. You've written ten times more words here on the talk page than is contained all your sources put together. Please to not put this back in the article until you find sources which tell is it is in common usage and it's legal. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I don't object to a sentence somewhere down in the body of the article that only says that ultra narrow cars exist, at least as prototypes, and that they are intended to take advantage of lane splitting. I object to putting it in the lead, and to the unsourced claims about it being legal or in general practice. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

TLDR, but yes, a very tiny mention of limited-production three and four wheelers might be appropriate in the body of the article. It's pointless to mention specific vehicles or laws in specific states/countries. Same would be true about mentioning unicycles or the U3X. tedder (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Until there are substantive sources that show lane splitting by ultra narrow cars is commonplace, then fringe stuff like this has no place in the article. Tedder does have a good point thought because I do lane-split frequently on my unicycle and my son does it on his skateboard. Plus I've seen my neighbour's rollerskating dog do it more than once. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

California Office of Traffic Safety survey on lane splitting

[5] "An OTS spokesman told us [Consumer Reports] that California is the only state in which there is no law concerning lane splitting." They asked motorcyclists how much they lane split, at what speeds, have they had an accident, and so on. Survey Results: [6],[7], [8] --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I apparently missed this when it was originally released (just saw the PDF press release now [9]). In any case, it's the first time I've seen a state agency unambiguously state lane splitting is legal. I'm going to try to gingerly add the 53% awareness and legality to the section on Legality, since the current paragraph states it's a grey zone. I'll leave that statement just add more. CáliKewlKid (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

new rules for lane-splitting in california

New guidelines from the CHP: [10] -- it is "not illegal" in CA, and there are new guidelines for safety as of Jan. 2013. The article should be updated -- phoebe / (talk to me) 22:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The article currently cites two official California sources that say lane splitting is allowed.[11][12] These go back a few years at least; I'd have to check the Wayback machine. What is new is the official advice on how to lane split. Since the point of this article is not to give advice on how to ride your motorcycle, it's not really relevant. The reason California and Australia are discussed at all is they are well documented examples of how legal ambiguity has lead to the practice becoming accepted, in California, or barely tolerated, in Australia.

Previous versions of this article tried to give advice on riding in every country, but that's unencyclopedic how-to advice (WP:NOTHOWTO) and it was almost all unsourced. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Another citation in the latest print edition of Cycle World for the rules clarification: John L. Stein (July 2013), "California lane splitting gets its first official guidelines", Cycle World: 40 . Don't see this on the CW web site yet. Brianhe (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding because we probably shouldn't keep discussing it here until the DRN discussion is resolved. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Lane splitting".The discussion is about the topic Lane splitting. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Table of local laws removed again

First, see WP:NOTHOWTO. Wikipedia articles are not "instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a 'how-to' style owner's manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise)." If you want to know how to legally ride your motorcycle, you need to consult your local laws, not an encyclopedia.

There was a comprehensive list of lane splitting laws in previous versions of this article, but it was entirely unsourced for years and years. We finally got rid of it because no sources appeared to be forthcoming, and it was not necessary for a good article. The only reason mention of some jurisdictions is included, in particular California and Australia, is that we have sources which have given them extraordinary attention due to the legal confusion over lane splitting. Not because the article is supposed to be your legal advisory, but because the broader social questions have been covered and discussed by expert sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTHOWTO is not even sort of applicable here. Excluding information because someone might use it to decide how to do something would eliminate pretty much the entirety of pretty much every article. Furthermore, there are plenty of articles which list the laws of states/countries in table form--speed limits, ages of consent, abortion, legal drinking age, etc, etc. Rracecarr (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is there a need to list all 49 states which don't allow lane splitting when we have multiple high quality sources that say there is only one state that allows it? What is the point of telling readers that it's not allowed in Ontario when the only source you have is a forum post that is specifically disallowed by WP:SPS? This is the first time I've ever seen a Wikipedia Administrator cite an open forum as a source. Your citation for Quecec is a direct citation of the legal code, which is a primary source. The problem with that is that law codes are subject to interpretation, and we should be especially aware of that pitfall with lane splitting because we know that if you were to merely read the California or Australia traffic code you'd have to conclude lane splitting is not allowed. The reality is much more nuanced. Hence the need for the explanations from secondary sources. Then we come to Taiwan: more forum posts?! In Chinese?

If we eliminate the badly sourced entries, and the utterly pointless and redundant list of US states, what's left? Nothing. And then we have the whole rest of the world, for which we have exactly the same sourcing issues, multiplied by some 200+ nations, not counting sub-jurisdictions. And for what? What purpose is served here? Should an encyclopedia list ever single jurisdiction that allows right turn on red?

This is nothing other than how-to advice, and you're putting the content ahead of your sourcing. Sources first, then write. Sourcing on this fuzzy legal issue is too weak for Wikipedia. It's the same reason we don't want articles giving you a green light to deduct your home mortgage interest from your state income tax. It's far too subtle and subject to interpretation, and not why encyclopedias exist. I realize articles like Speed limits by country exist, but they set a bad precedent, and we should not be here making it worse. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

A brand new sortable table with more and more references added is intended for worldwide legality. Please also note that even if lane splitting is meant to be illegal per traffic law per se somewhere, necessity defense may apply in a few cases that I am adding gradually in footnotes.--Jusjih (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Almost all of that makes good sense. I'm still perplexed by the supposed relevance of WP:NOTHOWTO. The guideline is there to discourage things like: to set your home page in Chrome, follow these steps: 1) click on the icon in the upper right corner; 2) .... It is emphatically not there to justify removing material because it could be used to decide how to do something. The state-by-state table does seem unnecessary though if the situation is essentially the same in 49 states. Rracecarr (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is this list there except to tell riders where to lane split and where not? AND you're adding footnotes to give riders "defenses" if they get cited for lane splitting? This is obviously how-to advice. It's obviously legal advice. And why the 50 state list? And why so many poorly sourced entries? Badly sourced material should be removed immediately. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, you might well be right about removing the list, but for your own sake, drop the how-to argument. It's obviously silly, and weakens your position. First, even if you're right that most people who are interested in this information are riders trying to decide how to behave, that does not make it how-to advice--deciding how to do something is perhaps the most common reason to seek information, and removing any information that could be or is used in this way would entirely gut the encyclopedia; second, you have no way of knowing who might want this information and why--so even if the how-to policy was much broader than it actually is, you still couldn't use it to justify removal. Rracecarr (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

If I could see any point to a comprehensive list other than legal advice, I'd accept it's not how-to advice. Somebody tell me what the purpose is, if not how-to.

And yes, the sourcing problem is also a sufficient reason to delete it. Quoting the legal code might be an acceptable source for some things, but here you end up citing one state that has precisely the same legal code as California, which, if you are to rely on what you cited, means you either have to say lane splitting is illegal in California, or legal in those states with the same laws. Since you can't source it to the law code, you must cite a secondary source. And secondary sources don't exist for almost all jurisdictions in the US and around the world. Wikipedia articles must contain what the sources have given us, not what we wish we had good sources for. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Seeing you being so impatient, I just tagged under construction and will add even more official ref's in some more days. More failed bills trying to legalize lane splitting are also added to Arizona and Nevada, as referencing them under safety section is hard to read. Then 49 US states cannot be considered all the same.--Jusjih (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Failed bills? Failed bills to legalize lane splitting. If they're failed, or pending, then they're not law. This is excessively US-centric. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be globally balanced. To me it looks like you want this to be an article about US lane splitting activism.

I don't see how an under construction tag solves anything. Why not put this on a work page out of the article space, awaiting sources for the other 200 countries in the world to balance it out? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this new table was added but I am startled by it for a number of reasons:

1. It seems unnecessary. It is accepted by all reputable sources that the only place it is legal to lane-split in the United States is California. I've never seen any source that says otherwise.
2. Why a table when a simple statement would do? -- "No other states but California authorize lane splitting."
3. It appears to be legal advice & original research. Some state laws are explicit in their ban but others seem to rely on case law or police interpretation of the law. Directly citing the law without providing context or a legal analysis is suspect to me. (e.g. laws are written in the negative - a list of what cannot be done; it can be inferred that "no mention" of lane splitting means it is 'not' banned - obviously it is more complicated than this)
4. If you still wanted a table, why not do the opposite. Organize not by state but by "rule."
5. Unnecessarily burdensome to this article -- a list of "No's" is hardly helpful -- why not just another article or list? In fact, it looks like the AMA already has a State-by-State analysis - it would seem far more honest and encyclopedic to link to their State-by-State listing than simply copy their information ( http://www.americanmotorcyclist.com/Rights/State-Laws.aspx )

Finally, I think this is useful information, it is good information, the citations are nice but that it doesn't belong in a general article about lane splitting, especially when it appears to be interpreting the law and just copying another source. Even if such a table was acceptable under Wikipedia's rules I'd prefer a table of "rule: states with this rule" instead of this unnecessarily long list of "Nopes." Ultimately, it just seems better to link to the source provider directly than try to copy them. My 2¢ -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Reasons for removal of list

I removed the country-by-country list again because there is no consensus to keep it. The reasons to remove it are:

• Listing all 50 states is pointless. Please give a justification.
• The sources cited are direct citations of the legal code. This violates WP:PSTS -- this is an instance of misusing primary sources. Lane splitting in particular is a legal gray area requiring interpretation to understand. Hence the need for secondary sources.
• There is no reason to think we will have good sources for more than one or two countries, let alone 200. This table is going to be a permastub. Get sources first, create content second.
• The claim that the Necessity defense applies has no sources. The fact that it's even brought up bolsters the case that this is how-to advice, specifically, legal advice.

I'd like to request again that the other editors involved here use the talk page to come to an agreement as to what this article should say, rather than edit warring. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with the removal of the table. It's excessive information and serves little purpose, and I think Dennis Bratland summarized it well. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Move table to WikiVoyage

One solution: Move the table to WikiVoyage. For example, the US travel article has a section on motorcycle riding and brings up lane splitting. The style is informal, original research is encouraged and the goal is to help the traveler. A motorcycle tourist would benefit from such a list of countries, with advice on lane splitting in various places, so the how-to aspect is a perfect fit. David Hough's Proficient Motorcycling has extensive advice on lane splitting for newcomers to places where its allowed, as does RideApart. {{Wikivoyage}} could be added here linking to the new article over there. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• I started a workpage at Wikivoyage, to go under the Transportation topic, comparable to Cycling and Driving. I'm going to merge in the lane splitting table, add a helmet law column, and maybe a few other things. I can make some colored country/state graphs to enhance the table. I have several books on motorycle touring I can used give general advice. After that a country-by-country breakdown could be added. And so on. Please feel free to help. I'll move the workpage to the article namespace once it's minimally acceptable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Hello, Lane splitting. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Lane splitting law in the US. Thank you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

California Dominates this article and is repeated so much

California Dominates this article and is repeated so much. I think almost every section talks about California. I think it can be hedged and sentences can be condensed some.--Inayity (talk) 10:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Blame the sources. And blame reality. California dominates any English-language discussion of lane splitting. The world is divided into places that have never heard of lane splitting and never talk about it, places that take it for granted and never talk about it, and places that have it but obsess over it (California and Australia). We could write a different article that ignored the copious California sources and magnified the importance of the few other sources we have, but that would be original research and POV pushing to distort what we have to create a false impression of balance. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I was also referring to the repetition of information. It says it one place and then it goes and says it again. Read the entire article and see. And That second motorcyclist is out of frame.--Inayity (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• The first mention of California mentions lack of comparison between California and the other US states with regard to safety research.
• The second mention is about indirect research in the FARS database, again comparing California with other states because, obviously, California is the one state with the difference under discussion.
• The third mention is about the Hurt Report, which, for whatever reasons, happened to have been conducted entirely within California.
• The fourth mention is about responsibility and liability, saying that there is no carte blance to lanesplit in California. It must be done "safely".
• Fifth is a more in-depth discussion of what safety means. In the US context, all of the safety guidance comes from California. The UK Roadcraft manual is mentioned. More sources from other countries would be welcome, but I don't have those sources. Anyone who has sources here would certainly be able to improve the article. That's not an argument to arbitrarily delete mention of California.
• Sixth we have an in-depth discussion of legality in the US and Australia.

Sorry, but I don't see the redundancy. I need some help if anyone can point out specifically what is redundant. Note that MOS:LEDE says that every fact in the intro should be repeated in the body text.

If tThe second motorcyclist is not outside the frame. The frame is the border of the image; if he were outside the frame, we couldn't see him at all. It's true he is not in the center of the image, but so what? The fact that he is harder to spot than the other one is relevant to the subject of lane splitting safety. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be equally a case of poor writing and bad prose. Esp that section on Is it Legal. Hence the information is not just an expansion but a direct repeat. Anyway It is up to you, I am passing by and making a critical observation on how it could be improved. Some welcome that others do not. --Inayity (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

What is bad or poor? Can you clarify? Have you changed your mind about it being repetitive? I'll delete the repetitive sections but I can't identify them. I'll rewrite the bad prose but I don't know what is bad about it. Previously I've heard others criticize this article because they detect a kind of irrationality around the subject of lane splitting, but the legal status of lane splitting in the US and some countries is in fact not very rational. Sometimes reality is bizarre.

Anyway, your opinions are welcome but please understand that unclear criticism isn't likely to result in any action. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Unclear to you, let us be clear about this. More editors with some understanding of wikipedia is better than one determining the fate of this article.--Inayity (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Please direct me to where On Wiki it says I cannot add other countries.

You know it starts to become a problem when editors appear to WP:OWN articles. Wikipedia is liberal enough that I do not have to abide by what you and one other person decide for an article. It does not a. Bring Worldview into it B. Totally ruins the purpose of this article Which is titled lane splitting. That means where ever in the world lane splitting is mentioned and discussed it applies. I see a pattern with your editing and I think it is a problem. Again these articles are developed not by one person or two, its not a bike club with one rule set back in the 80's that anyone has to follow. Unless that logic sits with Wikipedia policy please do not police these articles. By all WP:DEV standards I could start creating a region by region box of the legality of lane splitting per RS. That is my right as an editor. I hope you are aware of your limits over this page?--Inayity (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

First, this is not my talk page. When you send personal messages on article talk pages without even mentioning who the "you" is that you're addressing, it creates all sorts of confusion. How are other editors supposed to know who you're addressing? If you want to make specific complaints about me Talk:Lane splitting is not the appropraite venue. Go to my talk page or an appropriate notice board if you want to talk about me personally.

Second, the table showing the legality of lane splitting in every jurisdiction has been discussed many, many times. Scroll up and read. It even went to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. The problem is that the sources you allude to don't exist. You can start to cite a few countries, then you run out of gas and we're left with a list that will never be reliable because nobody seems to be able to find good sources for every single country. As you'll see from the previous discussions, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is the policy page that says why we don't want the legal status of lane splitting for every country. Encyclopedias are not drivers manuals. Encyclopedias are not legal guides. They aren't traveler's guides.

There is a good draft article at WikiVoyage for just such a travel guide. WikiVoyage is specifically designed to give someone thinking about riding a motorcycle in different countries exactly the kind of reference information they need. It's not an encyclopedia, it's a travel guide. Finish fleshing that article out and move it to the main namespace and all is well. Most of the hard part is already done. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Kind of a mess

Issues, briefly: 0) Lede appears to contain OR on bicycle lane splitting. 1) Section headers: Safety is listed again under safety section. 2) Research: the UC Berkeley study needs to be summarized. 3) "Hough has not gone on record...": is impossible to cite a negative. — Brianhe (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what to do about the bicycle stuff. It was a compromise with Born2cycle (talk · contribs) who wants to argue that bicycles are identical to motor vehicles, and therefore should be treated in the same breath as motorcycle lane splitting, based on the vehicular cycling movement whose popularity peaked a decade or two ago. I'd still rather discuss bicycles elsewhere, given that none of our sources treat them as the same subject.

The Hurt Report supports lane splitting should no longer be treated as credible; we should probably delete it. Nobody can point out where in the Hurt Report it says this. I guess it's notable that some people believe the Hurt Report says it, but that's more of a popular misconception than a lane splitting fact. I agree we should remove the part about Hough not going on record about new laws.

I would expect that since we now do have a new report on lane splitting, that will be followed by pro and con opinion arguments published by recognized authorities. That means we can directly attribute whatever arguments they make, which is a much easier article for us to write. Currently we are awkwardly trying to state the pro and con facts without appearing to argue either side. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Difference US <--> developing world

Currently, the article talks about the situation in the US and the situation in the "developing world". This is a pretty harsh take on "everything but the US is inferior and is thus the developing world". There REALLY should be made a clear distinction here. Theres places like Japan which sure isn't "the developing world" but has many 2-wheeled vehicles. Same goes for Europe, UAE and many more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.217.40.222 (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

What is harsh? Can you point out where it says "everything but the US is inferior"? You're asking for a clear distinction between what and what else? What would you like to say about Japan and Europe and the UAE? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lane splitting. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/4D7DF98C-5350-4D04-A0549A3A0F4632D7/catID/C2B5FF79-6DD8-4FD5-85351429C56DCFFD/104/199/255/ART/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)