maddyfish

What are the groups thoughts on lane splitting? At long lines of cars at stop lights, stop signs, and in moving traffic.

Winter76

I don't feel comfortable doing it when traffic is moving, only when when cars are at stops lights. It could be I'm just not expierienced enough but mostly I don't think it's safe.

SonataInFSharp

Lane splitting or filtering? They are different things. It sounds like you are talking about filtering.

It depends on the situation for me. If there is enough room that the cars won't have to go out of their way to pass me once they start up, then I will filter (i.e. room for me, 3 feet in between, and them).

If there isn't enough room and they have to change lanes to pass, then it is completely rude to filter, as they were there first, after all. It is even more rude if they had to go out of their way to pass you once and then you filter past them at the next light, and then they have to pass you AGAIN.

But, like everything else, it is completely dependent on the exact situation at the exact moment and can change each and every time even at the same place.

wheel

I examine how many light cycles there will be before I reach the stop light, and how easily the traffic will be able to pass me once I have passed them.


The key here is not to block traffic you passed unless you can be as fast as traffic or provide a passing area.

Helmet Head

It seems like many people interchange the terms lane splitting, lane sharing, filtering and the related concepts in many different ways.

What do they mean to you?

To me, lane splitting is riding on or near the stripe between two normal traffic lanes such that part of you is in each of the two lanes.

Lane sharing is riding along the side of a lane, but without encroaching into an adjacent lane, such that you and another vehicle can fit entirely within the lane side-by-side.

Filtering forward is using either lane splitting or lane sharing or a bike lane to pass congested slower traffic.

What do they mean to you?

BLIZZ

That is exactly how I see it as well.
I have not filtered forward even when others I am riding with do. It puts the others having to wait on me to catch up, but more and more are starting to stay in possition with me.

Helmet Head

Me too, except often I find that by staying in position with the cars, when the light turns green, the filterers get stuck dealing with right turners or something while those of us in the lane get to draft and pass them very quickly.

cooker

I filter but I don't impede cars I've passed. It would be ridiculous not to filter when there are 50 cars waiting at a light and I have a clear path to the front; but it would be provocative to then "take the lane" and hold the traffic down to my speed. However I will sometimes move in front of someone signalling a right turn, so they have room to turn behind me. Either that, or I will hang back one or two spaces at the light. so I'm not interfering with the first one or two cars turning, and I will make sure the cars nearest me don't right hook me.

RobertHurst

I think a lot of people feel that way, but the truth is that it is more dangerous to split lanes between solid lines of cars when traffic is not moving. That is because stopped traffic introduces the additional hazards of doors and pedestrians, and even motor traffic crossing at right angles, hitting gaps in the lines. Lines of very congested traffic _in motion_ comprise a relatively stable, benign situation that can be carved at will by confident riders with relatively little risk.

Let's not pretend this expedient behavior is 'vehicular,' however.

Robert

Helmet Head

I agree. This is how motorcyclists lane split in CA traffic all the time.
The only thing you have to watch out for is that a moving car can change lanes quicker than a stopped car, so beware of sudden gaps that car drivers could suddenly "jump" into.

It is according to the CHP, and that works for me. No pretending required. Just because it's technically illegal here or there is immaterial to whether something is "vehicular" or not (if something is illegal universally, like running red lights, then, yeah, that is not vehicular).

RobertHurst

What specifically is the basis for your calling lane-splitting, between two lines of vehicles, 'vehicular cycling?'

To most reasonable people, I would hazard to guess, this would seem to be a pretty outlandish claim.

R.

Helmet Head

Most reasonable people have never heard of "vehicular cycling", much less have a clue about what it means, or whether this or that constitutes "vehicular cycling".

If you're talking about the people who have heard of "vehicular cycling", and have some idea of what it means to them, and are reasonable, they might not see it right away.

For people who have an in-depth understanding of "vehicular cycling", including the "arguable" father of coining the term and what it means, it's pretty clear, since VC is understood to stem from the underlying general principles and rules of the road that do not preclude lane-splitting by drivers of vehicles narrow enough to do it safely. That's the basis.

Further, "lanes" are understood to be a general artifact of vehicular traffic, and not necessarily demarcated with stripes. Some streets have no stripes, for example, and yet have an (unmarked) lane in each direction. Modern demarcated lanes are designed assuming roadways are primarily used by vehicles in the 5-8' wide range. Many assumptions about proper "vehicular" lane usage therefore are made regarding how drivers of such vehicles use these lanes. But for drivers of narrow vehicles (motorcycles and bikes), these assumptions do not apply. Marked lanes can, for example, often be safely divided dymically into two unmarked lanes to be shared by motorcyclists riding side-by-side. There is nothing non-vehicular about that, it's just utilizing the advantages of narrow width vehicles. Similarly, on the other extreme, drivers of extra wide vehicles sometimes need to straddle two marked lanes and use them as a single lane. That's vehicular too.

So, to really understand "vehicular cycling" with respect to lanes, the prejudices about normal usage of marked lanes by drivers of standard width vehicles need to be cast aside. In particular, the "one vehicle per lane" rule does not necessarily apply, especially for drivers of extra-narrow vehicles, and the rules against straddling multiple lanes, designed to preclude drivers of normal width vehicles from simultaneously occupying two lanes, do not apply to drivers of narrow vehicles either.

That is the basis for recognizing lane-splitting, when safe and reasonable, to be part of "vehicular cycling".

wheel

A/C V/C D/C L/C

wow,

Nothing makes sense to me.
I call it driving in an auto scale.
Sharing a lane with 45mph traffic,
WOL to ROTL continues WOL.
3 lines of vehicles parked for hours waiting.
A Bike lane on the road crosses the train tracks ends up on the sidewalk.

RobertHurst

Pretty clear...Pretty deep is what it is.

Here's HH just a month or two ago explaining why lane-splitting is 'definitely not vehicular-cycling.' He said he thought the reasons for this were obvious.

You seemed to feel strongly about this at the time. Alas, you missed your chance to start your own VC-ist sect, to battle the dark forces of the lane-splitting JF sect for all eternity, and chose instead to fall in/on line, and pretend like you never had those heathen thoughts at all. That was an eerily religious conversion you had.

R.

I-Like-To-Bike

AKA: a Vehicular Epiphany.

Helmet Head

Jeez, Robert. I was wondering if you would dig that up, then decided you wouldn't stoop that low. Sadly, I was wrong.

My opinion on this question has evolved, as you know. Only in the field of politics is enlightenment and evolving opinion considered to be a negative (called "flip-flopping").

My opinion used to be based on the assumption that the purpose of laws such as CVC 21658 is to keep same direction traffic from hitting each other side to side by requiring everyone to remain fully within one marked lane or another.

Since then I've been convinced that the real purpose of these laws is keep one driver from simultaneously occupying two lanes. I had not considered that before, and now find it compelling.

I reserve the right to change my opinion again. For example, perhaps someone will present evidence that I was right about 21658 (and similar laws) in the first place. But, at least for now, that is my opinion, for the reasons cited.

LittleBigMan

+1.

Be predictable. The more motorists can predict what you are going to do next, the more cooperation you'll get from them. Beyond that, follow your best instinct according to the situation. I try to take my place in traffic with the other vehicles, but I'm also flexible enough to vary the plan if I think it's safe, such turning into a driveway to let a large line of cars pass (courtesy,) or filtering past a long line of cars at a stop sign (another form of courtesy, this time in my favor.)

Helmet Head

I'm all for being predictable, but how can you be predictable to someone who doesn't know you're there, which is pretty much the case when you're filtering forward?

cooker

"Stoop that low!!!" He pointed out that you are inconsistent in arguments you make here with a lot of apparent conviction and seeming authority; he didn't reveal your secret perversions.

cooker

So if I pass on the right of the impeded flow of cars in an outside lane (filtering) I'm not vehicular, because they don't know I'm there, but if I pass on the right of the impeded flow of cars in the inside lane (ie. lane splitting) that's vehicular cycling because the California Highway Patrol don't object?

Helmet Head

He was present for all the posts that caused me to change my position. He knew the reason for my earlier and later position.

There was no inconsistency in arguments.

There was a change in premise that resulted from learning new information. It was all in the open. Nothing secret or perverse about it.

Helmet Head

Whether passing on the right is "VC" or not is arguably a gray area, nor is it important.

What is important is to understand the potential dangers of passing on the right, and lane slitting, and to keep those in mind while engaging in either. And understanding VC principles is helpful in doing this.

mmerner

probably not safe, riding close to two lanes of cars versus one. but I do it anyways.

donnamb 

It's legal where I live.

Doug5150

I will split/filter at intersections when there's long lines of cars, just to get to the right-hand edge of whatever lane I need. This isn't legal in my state, but it's fastest and safest way to bicycle through the situation.

I don't really have any opportunities to split with moving traffic, where I live traffic isn't that bad yet.
~