I appreciate any comments, suggestions, and questions.Lane Sharing
The whole area of lane sharing/splitting can be confusing, particularly in terms of when/where it's legal, safe and appropriate. This writeup attempts to explain the concepts and issues as simply and clearly as possible.
Basic definitions.
Various people use the following terms in various ways, sometimes interchangeably. I've tried to sort it out by what most people mean most of the time.
Lane-sharing: (or sharing lanes). The practice of traveling far enough over to one side or another of a lane to leave room for the driver of another vehicle to also use part of that same lane (to be overtaken, or to share side-by-side at the same speed), or the practice of using unused space in a lane to overtake slower traffic using another part of that lane. Motorcyclists sometimes share lanes not side-by-side, but in a staggered fashion - one ahead and over laterally from the other. Dozens of bicyclists sometimes share one lane by riding in tight packs behaving like a single unit, similar to a flock of birds.
Lane-straddling: Operating a vehicle on or near a lane stripe that separates two lanes such that the vehicle is encroaching at least some into both of the adjacent lanes separated by the stripe.
Lane-splitting: The practice of sharing lanes by riding a bicycle or motorcycle between two lines of traffic. Note that passing a line of congested traffic on the outside is not "lane-splitting", because the cyclist is not between two lines of traffic.
Whitelining: Using lane-straddling in order to lane-split.
Controlling the lane: Cycling in a lane position that precludes others (particularly drivers of cars and other 4-wheeled vehicles) from using adjacent space within the same lane at the same time. Commonly referred to as taking the lane. If a cyclist is controlling the lane then he is not lane-sharing (and vice-versa).
Filtering forward: Using lane-sharing (either on the outside or lane-splitting) to overtake slow or stopped traffic.Some observations that stem from these definitions:
Lane-splitting comes in two basic varieties:
Whitelining -- splitting the two lanes at or near the white lane stripe: riding on or near enough to the stripe to be encroaching into both lanes at once;
Without whitelining -- splitting the two lanes far enough over from the white lane stripe to not be encroaching into the adjacent lane: riding in a lane in the space between the lane stripe and vehicles in the same lane, but not encroaching over the center of the lane stripe into the adjacent lane.
Lane-sharing without lane-splitting is lane-sharing on the outside (using space to the right of the rightmost lane).
Curbhugging is extremely generous (to a fault) lane-sharing on the outside. Usually it refers to riding so far to the right that safety is unnecessarily compromised for one reason or another.
In the context of motorcycling, lane-sharing is almost always used to refer to filtering forward while lane-splitting, so these three terms, along with whitelining, are often used interchangeably in that context. For example:Often called lane-splitting, white-lining, or filtering, lanesharing is the practice by motorcyclists of moving between stopped or slow moving traffic during times of congestion and between lanes of vehicles, traveling in the same direction. http://laneshare.org/index.htmlBut for bicyclists, who are often moving slower than other traffic, lane-splitting is not necessarily done in order to be filtering forward, and lane-sharing is not necessarily whitelining (could be sharing on the outside, or splitting without straddling lanes), filtering forward (in fact usually the bicyclist is being overtaken), or lane-splitting (between lines of traffic)Legal issues
Language in laws like California's CVC 21658 (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21658.htm) seem to make lane-splitting illegal, if you read it with lane-splitting in mind:
21658. (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.However, what this law is clearly intending to prohibit is lane-straddling by drivers of normal-width vehicles, in order to prevent one driver from occupying two lanes simultaneously. Clearly a whitelining cyclist cannot do that. If the intent was to prohibit lane-splitting, then why would they prohibit lane-splitting of the whitelining variety, but not lane-splitting of the without whitelining variety? Since they are clearly not prohibiting lane-splitting of the without whitelining variety, it seems reasonable to assume that there is no intent in 21658 to prohibit any kind of lane-splitting.
Safety issues
Just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's safe. Both varieties of lane-splitting, as well as lane-sharing on the outside, have various hazards. When traffic is stopped, riding in door zones is always hazardous, on either side. It can be the safe and reasonable thing to do when done carefully. If the reasonable safety of lane-splitting or lane-sharing is in doubt in a given situation, don't do it.
I appreciate any comments, suggestions, and questions.
Lane-sharing: Traveling fully within a lane, but alongside another vehicle in that same lane. The other vehicle may be lane-sharing or lane-straddling.to:
Lane-sharing: Traveling fully within a lane, but far enough over to one side or another to leave room for another vehicle to travel alongside in that same lane. When another vehicle is present alongside it may be lane-sharing or lane-straddling, and may be moving faster, slower or at the same speed (traveling alongside another vehicle moving at the same speed is generally considered dangerous, whether it's the same or an adjacent lane).02/02/08: Added controlling the lane definitions; expanded on curbhugging.
02/04/08: Updated definitions of lane-sharing and lane-splitting; added whitelining and filtering forward, etc. See post #36 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6108938&postcount=36) for details.
02/05/08: Updated lane-sharing again. See post #40 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6112408&postcount=40)for details.
02/05/08: Expanded the observation about the varieties of lane-splitting.
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
Curbhugging is extremely generous lane-sharing on the outside.
StrangeWill
This thread is the biggest waste of bits and bytes ever.
Shouldn't you be riding?
How about: Riding in traffic is hazardous, so is leaving the house.
Bekologist
extremely generous? :roflmao: who makes that determination? You, helmet? :roflmao: what about blatant curb hugging of low speed lanes too narrow to share?
StrangeWill
IMHO: He's like those self-proclaimed "experts" you see that rant on and on about what the rest of the established scientific community has already established false... except he's just on a bike.
msincredible
In Europe it's called filtering.
wheel
what about sharing the lane to the left?
In construction zones this is very common.
Helmet Head
what about sharing the lane to the left?
Sharing the lane to the left of what?
JRA
The whole area of lane sharing/splitting can be confusing, particularly in terms of when/where it's legal, safe and appropriate. This writeup attempts to explain the concepts and issues as simply and clearly as possible.
You crack me up! You take a gray area of the law and attempt to reduce it to black and white by stating falsehoods as if they are fact and claiming that nonsense is obvious.
Your original post is so full of horse hockey I don't even know where to begin.
Mark me down as disagreeing with virtually everything you say.
Since I don't have the time to detail every point of disagreement, allow me to cherry-pick.
If the intent was to prohibit lane-splitting, then why would they prohibit lane-splitting of the lane-straddling variety, but not lane-splitting of the lane-sharing variety?
Because it's redundant to prohibit things that are already prohibited. I know it goes against VC-ist dogma but, as a general rule, lane-sharing is prohibited in all 50 states (with a few, explicitly stated, exceptions, such as two bicycles in the same lane)-- even in California where the CHP has said that it doesn't care what the law is, it isn't going to enforce a ban on lane-sharing unless it feels like it.
I hate to burst your bubble, but the VC-ist dogma that says that lane sharing is "vehicular" is a gigantic load of cow chips- the "WOLs are better than bike lanes" crowd notwithstanding.
Bekologist
WOLs are ambiguous. If I'm 11 feet over in a 18 foot lane, am I bicycling too far left for lane sharing?
jcm
How about the practice of Hair-splitting?
I just stay out of the way and never seem to piss anyone off. Well, just once, when I was taking the lane.
joejack951
Because it's redundant to prohibit things that are already prohibited. I know it goes against VC-ist dogma but, as a general rule, lane-sharing is prohibited in all 50 states (with a few, explicitly stated, exceptions, such as two bicycles in the same lane)-- even in California where the CHP has said that it doesn't care what the law is, it isn't going to enforce a ban on lane-sharing unless it feels like it.
I completely disagree. Why wouldn't all slow moving vehicle laws simply say that the slow moving vehicle must use the rightmost lane available for through traffic? What's the purpose of the "as far right as practicable" language if not to allow for lane sharing?
Helmet Head
Because it's redundant to prohibit things that are already prohibited. I know it goes against VC-ist dogma but, as a general rule, lane-sharing is prohibited in all 50 states (with a few, explicitly stated, exceptions, such as two bicycles in the same lane)-- even in California where the CHP has said that it doesn't care what the law is, it isn't going to enforce a ban on lane-sharing unless it feels like it.
I hate to burst your bubble, but the VC-ist dogma that says that lane sharing is "vehicular" is a gigantic load of cow chips- the "WOLs are better than bike lanes" crowd notwithstanding.
This thead has nothing to do with WOLs or bike lanes.
Anyway, from the CHP website:
Can motorcycle riders "split" lanes and ride between other vehicles?
Lane splitting by motorcycles is permissible but must be done in a safe and prudent manner.
http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html
I don't see the CHP saying it doesn't care what the law is.
Helmet Head
WOLs are ambiguous. If I'm 11 feet over in a 18 foot lane, am I bicycling too far left for lane sharing?
Again, this thread has nothing to do with WOLs.
Anyway, the WOL is not ambiguous - your position 11 feet over (from the lane stripe on your left, I'm assuming) is what is ambiguous (with respect to whether you're sharing or controlling the lane). Would anyone ride a motorcycle in that position, especially relatively slowly to other traffic? Note that if the 18 foot lane had a 5' wide bike lane, at 11' over you'd be 2' to the left of the BL stripe, which would be 13' over.
If you want to be clearly sharing, then 11 feet over is probably a bit too far left. If you want to be controlling, 11 feet over is too far right.
Make sense?
Bekologist
no.
Helmet Head
Because it's redundant to prohibit things that are already prohibited. I know it goes against VC-ist dogma but, as a general rule, lane-sharing is prohibited in all 50 states (with a few, explicitly stated, exceptions, such as two bicycles in the same lane)-- even in California where the CHP has said that it doesn't care what the law is, it isn't going to enforce a ban on lane-sharing unless it feels like it.
I hate to burst your bubble, but the VC-ist dogma that says that lane sharing is "vehicular" is a gigantic load of cow chips- the "WOLs are better than bike lanes" crowd notwithstanding.
If it were true that "lane-sharing is prohibited in all 50 states ", California, the UVC and most states would not have laws that refer to lane sharing. But they do. For example:
For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm
The obvious implication is that a lane that is wider than a "substandard width lane" is wide enough" for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane." And legally.
A bicycle and a vehicle traveling side by side within the lane is lane-sharing, by definition, given the way I defined it the way I did in the OP:
Lane-sharing: Traveling fully within a lane, but alongside another vehicle in that same lane.
Now, if you want to define lane-sharing some other way, and say that is illegal, fine. But then you need to tell us how you are defining lane-sharing.
San Rensho
Ok, your definition of lane straddling means nothing to me, at best its redundant, its what you do when you split lanes/filtering.
Lane splitting/filtering, which is passing cars by going between two lines of cars, regardless of its legality, is something I will do in very slow traffic, but realizing that it does carry a relative amount of risk over just taking the lane and flowing with traffic, I do it very cautiously.
Your definition of lane sharing is extremely dangerous and I avoid it at all costs. Its an invitation to get right hooked or left hooked by a car. Whenever a car comes right next to me, I take immediate evasive action to either get in front of or behind the car.
Helmet Head
Ok, your definition of lane straddling means nothing to me, at best its redundant, its what you do when you split lanes/filtering.
It's redundant because you don't recognize lane-splitting that is accomplished without straddling two lanes, it seems.
Consider an 11 foot lane adjacent to a 16 foot lane, with traffic stopped in both lanes near the right side of their respective lanes. That leaves a wide enough space to the left of the right line of cars, but to the right of the stripe dividing the two lanes, for motorcyclists and cyclists to use to filter forward. That would be lane-splitting without lane-straddling.
Lane splitting/filtering, which is passing cars by going between two lines of cars, regardless of its legality, is something I will do in very slow traffic, but realizing that it does carry a relative amount of risk over just taking the lane and flowing with traffic, I do it very cautiously.
Your definition of lane sharing is extremely dangerous and I avoid it at all costs. Its an invitation to get right hooked or left hooked by a car. Whenever a car comes right next to me, I take immediate evasive action to either get in front of or behind the car.
One example of lane-sharing, as I defined it, is what is required by law whenever a driver of a slow moving vehicle, a right-turning driver, is required to operate "as close as practicable to the right", or when a bicyclist is required to ride "as close as practicable to the right" that is wide enough" in an outside lane that is wide enough "for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane."
San Rensho
One example of lane-sharing, as I defined it, is what is required by law whenever a driver of a slow moving vehicle, a right-turning driver, is required to operate "as close as practicable to the right", or when a bicyclist is required to ride "as close as practicable to the right" that is wide enough" in an outside lane that is wide enough "for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane."
No, your definition of lane sharing is:
Lane-sharing: Traveling fully within a lane, but alongside another vehicle in that same lane. The other vehicle may be lane-sharing or lane-straddling.
And my point is riding alongside another vehicle is always one of the most dangerous things you can do on a bike.
joejack951
No, your definition of lane sharing is:
Lane-sharing: Traveling fully within a lane, but alongside another vehicle in that same lane. The other vehicle may be lane-sharing or lane-straddling.
And my point is riding alongside another vehicle is always one of the most dangerous things you can do on a bike.
In HH's examle, he's talking about a slow moving vehicle being alongside a faster moving vehicle. In order to be slow moving, the vehicle alongside must therefore be passing the slower vehicle. The alongside part only happens temporarily which greatly reduces the potential danger. Of course, I'm referring only to between intersections with that statement. At intersections, I would agree that it's not generally safe to be in a lane sharing position regardless of relative speeds.
Helmet Head
No, your definition of lane sharing is:
Lane-sharing: Traveling fully within a lane, but alongside another vehicle in that same lane. The other vehicle may be lane-sharing or lane-straddling.
And my point is riding alongside another vehicle is always one of the most dangerous things you can do on a bike.
Oh! I absolutely agree and realize now your point. Yes, if you're lane-sharing while moving at the same speed as the other, that's dangerous. I was taking that for granted and only thinking about lane-sharing when one is moving faster than the other and in the process of overtaking. After all, this was all written in the context of lane-splitting which is usually done when the cars are stopped. But whether they're moving at the same speed or not, it's still lane-sharing.
Anyway, I'll try to clean up the OP a bit on this point. Thanks.
Edit: This lead to the following change in the OP:
02/02/08 Changed lane-sharing definition from:
Lane-sharing: Traveling fully within a lane, but alongside another vehicle in that same lane. The other vehicle may be lane-sharing or lane-straddling.to:
Lane-sharing: Traveling fully within a lane, but far enough over to one side or another to leave room for another vehicle to travel alongside in that same lane. When another vehicle is present alongside it may be lane-sharing or lane-straddling, and may be moving faster, slower or at the same speed (traveling alongside another vehicle moving at the same speed is generally considered dangerous, whether it's the same or an adjacent lane).Better?
Helmet Head
In HH's examle, he's talking about a slow moving vehicle being alongside a faster moving vehicle. In order to be slow moving, the vehicle alongside must therefore be passing the slower vehicle. The alongside part only happens temporarily which greatly reduces the potential danger. Of course, I'm referring only to between intersections with that statement. At intersections, I would agree that it's not generally safe to be in a lane sharing position regardless of relative speeds.
Exactly.
Helmet Head
In Europe it's called filtering.
My understanding is that "filtering" is not restricted to lane-splitting, but can be done by lane-sharing on the outside as well.
I've added a definition for filtering forward to the OP.
Please let me know whether what I wrote is consistent with your understanding. Thanks.
Helmet Head
I've also added definitions for controlling the lane and expanded on curbhugging.
urban_assault
Hey HH. You should write a book about cycling in traffic.
Helmet Head
Hey HH. You should write a book about cycling in traffic.
Thanks but I don't think I know enough or write well enough, at least not yet.
But part of what I do here is work on that.
Look at how confusing my description of "lane sharing" was. San Rensho (understandably in retrospect) thought my initial definition presumed riding along at the same speed.
urban_assault
Thanks but I don't think I know enough or write well enough, at least not yet.
But part of what I do here is work on that.
Look at how confusing my description of "lane sharing" was. San Rensho (understandably in retrospect) thought my initial definition presumed riding along at the same speed.
Keep working on it. You will get it right one day. ;)
Allister
Thanks but I don't think I know enough or write well enough, at least not yet.
Nor, apparently, do you have the ability to pick up on irony.
But part of what I do here is work on that.
Aren't we the frikken lucky ones. :rolleyes:
Look at how confusing my description of "lane sharing" was. San Rensho (understandably in retrospect) thought my initial definition presumed riding along at the same speed.
I certainly can't see any point to your post.
JRA
http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html
I don't see the CHP saying it doesn't care what the law is.
So, if you don't see it on that page, the CHP never said it? Your logic is flawless. :rolleyes: You crack me up.
I was paraphrasing what I read on a CHP page a long time ago. Since it was long ago and I don't have a link, I bow to your unquestionable knowledge of everthing the CHP has ever said and concede the point. It's not important anyway.
I see in a post (to which you replied) on the chainguard list the suggestion that the California legislature has given the CHP the authority to make traffic regulations. This surprises me (although I have no reason to not believe it). If it is true, then the weight I give to statements made by the CHP changes and I'd like to revise my previous statement and say that lane-sharing is, in general, illegal in all states except California (and not in all 50 states, as I previously claimed). If the CHP has such authority, then lane-sharing is indeed legal in California.
If you think that lane-sharing (or lane-splitting or whitelining or whatever you call it) is not illegal in every state except for California (at least for motorcycles), then you disagree with a lot of motorcyclist websites. All the websites I've read agree on that (although there seems to be some disagreement on whether it's legal in California).
Just a couple of quotes:
From Laneshare.org (which describes itself as "a grass-roots collaborative effort by motorcyclists and motorcycle safety professionals to promote lanesharing")- Lanesharing is not legal in the US, but it is allowed or tolerated in parts of the country, notably California.
Laneshare.org also says, "Misconceptions are rampant about lanesharing..." (and they haven't even seen the horse hockey HH has posted in this thread).
On its California page, Laneshare.org says, "The practice of lane-sharing has been allowed for decades. Yet, contrary to popular belief, there is no California statute permitting the practice."
From the Ducati Monster FAQ (http://www.ducatimonster.org/faq/faq_lanesplit.html): "Lane splitting" in almost all states, except for California, is prohibited by law."
So, at least in the case of motorcylists, lane-sharing is apparently illegal everywhere in the US except in California where it seems to be legal (although it may be considered reckless at the discretion of a law enforcement officer).
Even outside of California, prohibitions on lane-sharing are often not enforced.
Lane-splitting comes in two basic varieties:I've not seen anyone besides you make this distinction. It seems to be a Sergism, a disticntion that serves no purpose other than to "prove" a wacky HH theory-- in this case a wild HH fantasy about what the CA legislature "obviously" intended.
JRA
I completely disagree. Why wouldn't all slow moving vehicle laws simply say that the slow moving vehicle must use the rightmost lane available for through traffic? What's the purpose of the "as far right as practicable" language if not to allow for lane sharing?
You either missed or chose to ignore the part where I said, "as a general rule" and my statement that, "there are exceptions."
But you bring up a good point. When it comes to lane-sharing, bicyclists are a notable exception (actually the major exception I was thinkng of). While it's possible that it's illegal for a motorist to share a lane with any other vehicle (sharing a lane with a motorcycle is explictly prohibited in some states, for example), a motorist not only can share a lane with a bicyclist, a bicyclist is actually required to share in some cases. One of the few times that sharing a lane is clearly legal is when it involves a bicycle-- to be more specific, a bicycle in a lane of sufficient width to be shared (whatever width that is).
The unique status (or, rather, lack thereof) of bicyclists concerns me and is why I can't get enthusiastic about lanes that are so wide that bicyclists are prohibited from taking the lane. This may reinforce the notion that bicyclists have no choice and must share. I'm not aware of any vehicle drivers besides bicyclists that are ever required to share a lane (drivers of other slow moving vehicles--maybe--although width might be an issue and I don't know that the requirement to share is as clearly stated as it is for bicyclists).
The purpose of the "as far right as practicable" language is the same as the purpose of a WOL: to allow motorists to pass bicyclists, in the immortal words of that great promoter of WOLs (not to mention urban sprawl), John Forester, "without delay."
JRA
This thead has nothing to do with WOLs or bike lanes.That statement is ironic coming from you considering your long history of hijacking threads with freaky 'foaming at the mouth' anti-bike lane rants (although you don't seem to have done this a whole lot lately).
Lane-sharing has a lot to do with WOLs. The functionality of WOLs requires lane-sharing.
If WOLs reinforce the notion that bicyclists must lane-share, then they might add to confusion about what bicyclists' rights are.
I've read a good deal of pro-WOL propaganda and I'm not at all convinced that WOLs are any less in conflict with basic traffic principles than well-designed BLs are. I'm also not convinced that WOLs are any less confusing than well-designed BLs are.
I have doubts about the "vehicularity" of lane-splitting (or whatever they're calling it these days).
They paint lines on the road for a reason.
Helmet Head
So, if you don't see it on that page, the CHP never said it? Your logic is flawless. :rolleyes: You crack me up.
No, it means I don't see it on that page. Concluding that that means the CHP never said it is your logic, not mine.
I was paraphrasing what I read on a CHP page a long time ago. Since it was long ago and I don't have a link, I bow to your unquestionable knowledge of everthing the CHP has ever said and concede the point.
Again that would be conceding your point contradicting your own earlier point, and has nothing to do with what I said, which was merely an observation about a CHP page I found related to this point.
It's not important anyway.
As a CA resident, it's important to me to know whether it's true that the CHP doesn't care what the law is.
... the suggestion that the California legislature has given the CHP the authority to make traffic regulations. This surprises me (although I have no reason to not believe it).
It surprises me too, and until I see some kind of citation for it, I'm going to assume it's not true.
If it is true, then the weight I give to statements made by the CHP changes and I'd like to revise my previous statement and say that lane-sharing is, in general, illegal in all states except California (and not in all 50 states, as I previously claimed). If the CHP has such authority, then lane-sharing is indeed legal in California.
The reason lane-splitting and lane-sharing are legal in California is not because the CHP has such authority. They just happen to confirm what I believe to be a reasonable interpretation of the law, and the legislative intent.
If you think that lane-sharing (or lane-splitting or whitelining or whatever you call it) is not illegal in every state except for California (at least for motorcycles), then you disagree with a lot of motorcyclist websites. All the websites I've read agree on that (although there seems to be some disagreement on whether it's legal in California).
Every motorcyclist website I've seen that says lane-sharing is legal only in CA is using lane-sharing and lane-splitting synonymously - as near as I can tell. They mean lane-splitting (per the definitions in the OP) when they're referring to lane-sharing. Given that understanding, I don't disagree.
Just a couple of quotes:
From Laneshare.org (which describes itself as "a grass-roots collaborative effort by motorcyclists and motorcycle safety professionals to promote lanesharing")- Lanesharing is not legal in the US, but it is allowed or tolerated in parts of the country, notably California.
Indeed, laneshare.org is quite clear that they are talking specifically about lane-splitting (per my OP) and not lane-sharing (per my OP):
"lanesharing is the practice by motorcyclists of moving between stopped or slow moving traffic during times of congestion and between lanes of vehicles, traveling in the same direction. "
This is what I mean by lane-splitting in the OP: "Riding a bicycle or motorcycle between lanes of traffic.".
In the bicycling community, sharing lanes rarely refers to that. I believe the definition for lane-sharing I provide in the OP is more consistent with usage within the cycling community: "Traveling fully within a lane, but far enough over to one side or another to leave room for another vehicle to travel alongside in that same lane."
This, by the way, is from the California drivers manual:
Allow the motorcycle a full lane width. Although it is not illegal to share lanes with motorcycles, it is unsafe.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs55thru57.htm
In this context I think "share lanes" is clearly more in line with my definition than that used by laneshare.org, which is very specific about it involving overtaking slow/stopped lines of cars by riding in between them.
Laneshare.org also says, "Misconceptions are rampant about lanesharing..." (and they haven't even seen the horse hockey HH has posted in this thread).
On its California page, Laneshare.org says, "The practice of lane-sharing has been allowed for decades. Yet, contrary to popular belief, there is no California statute permitting the practice."
I totally agree, again, given their very specific definition of "lane-sharing" that they, to their credit, make quite clearly on their home page, which is clearly the same behavior as what I defined as "lane-splitting" in the OP.
From the Ducati Monster FAQ (http://www.ducatimonster.org/faq/faq_lanesplit.html): "Lane splitting" in almost all states, except for California, is prohibited by law."
So, at least in the case of motorcylists, lane-sharing is apparently illegal everywhere in the US except in California where it seems to be legal (although it may be considered reckless at the discretion of a law enforcement officer).
Even outside of California, prohibitions on lane-sharing are often not enforced.
I've not seen anyone besides you make this distinction. It seems to be a Sergism, a disticntion that serves no purpose other than to "prove" a wacky HH theory-- in this case a wild HH fantasy about what the CA legislature "obviously" intended.
How do you reconcile the language of 21658, "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", with the consensus, with which you apparently agree, that lane-splitting is not illegal in California?
As to the need to make the distinction, your references make my point. If lane-splitting/lane-sharing is used to mean the same thing: "moving between stopped or slow moving traffic during times of congestion and between lanes of vehicles", then what do you call the practice of a bicyclist (or slow motorcyclist, or driver of any slow moving vehicle for that matter) purposefully traveling far enough over in a lane so that faster drivers can overtake him safely without leaving the lane, or while only encroaching partially into the adjacent lane? If you call that lane-splitting too, then how can you claim that lane-splitting is illegal in all states, unless you're also claiming that that kind of overtaking of slow-moving vehicles is illegal in those states too. Are you?
Helmet Head
That statement is ironic coming from you considering your long history of hijacking threads with freaky 'foaming at the mouth' anti-bike lane rants (although you don't seem to have done this a whole lot lately).
Lane-sharing has a lot to do with WOLs. The functionality of WOLs requires lane-sharing.
If WOLs reinforce the notion that bicyclists must lane-share, then they might add to confusion about what bicyclists' rights are.
I've read a good deal of pro-WOL propaganda and I'm not at all convinced that WOLs are any less in conflict with basic traffic principles than well-designed BLs are. I'm also not convinced that WOLs are any less confusing than well-designed BLs are.
I have doubts about the "vehicularity" of lane-splitting (or whatever they're calling it these days).
They paint lines on the road for a reason.
Point taken. I think I will add WOL and discussion of lane width to the OP.
Helmet Head
You either missed or chose to ignore the part where I said, "as a general rule" and my statement that, "there are exceptions."
But you bring up a good point. When it comes to lane-sharing, bicyclists are a notable exception (actually the major exception I was thinkng of). While it's possible that it's illegal for a motorist to share a lane with any other vehicle (sharing a lane with a motorcycle is explicitly prohibited in some states, for example), a motorist not only can share a lane with a bicyclist, a bicyclist is actually required to share in some cases. One of the few times that sharing a lane is clearly legal is when it involves a bicycle-- to be more specific, a bicycle in a lane of sufficient width to be shared (whatever width that is).
As far as I know the driver of any slow-moving vehicle is required to share lanes in most states, at least on roads without multiple lanes in the given direction. For example, here is the law in California:
... any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb.
http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21654.htm
Also, per CVC 21650 (f), drivers of all slow moving vehicles are allowed to move partially if not totally, off the road into the shoulder in order to allow faster traffic to pass, implying that they are allowed to share the lane they are moving out of:
21650. Upon all highways, a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway, except as follows:
...
(f) When the vehicle is necessarily traveling so slowly as to impede the normal movement of traffic, that portion of the highway adjacent to the right edge of the roadway may be utilized temporarily when in a condition permitting safe operation.
http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21650.htm
Considering bicyclists are also never required to move into a shoulder, they are not really an exception in how they are treated by the law as compared to drivers of slow moving vehicles, except on roads with multiple lanes (in which they are still required to keep right in the rightmost lane, but drivers of slow moving vehicles are only required to keep to the rightmost lane). They're just assumed to be drivers of slow moving vehicles most of the time, and narrow enough to share lanes, and required to behave accordingly. Most of these "bicyclists must share" laws have exceptions for the requirements to share lanes when the cyclist happens to be moving the same speed as other traffic.
Helmet Head
Given that I'm usually advocating for one thing or another, i guess I can't blame any of you for assuming this thread is about that too. But I'm just trying to nail down some definitions. Every field of human activity I can think of has its own jargon... from engineering to medicine, from law practice to ballet, from sailing to skiing... they all have their expressions and terminology. In each field, the more precise the definitions of the particular terms used in the jargon, the clearer the meaning of statements using those terms. For example, the difference between what scientists mean by "theory" and the layman definition of "theory" leads to a lot of misunderstand about the Theory of Evolution (many laymen thinking it's "just" a "theory" and not based in the mountain of scientific facts that it is based on).
The activity of traffic cycling is not quite there. What particular terms we use, they are not commonly understood to mean the same thing, as the discussions in this thread have illustrated.
Never-the-less, my goal is to keep whacking at the OP until I develop these definitions and achieve near consensus about them. What i seek to do is define them not how I think they should be defined, but how I understand most people use them when talking about traffic cycling. That's why I seek input from all of you. If there is something in the OP that defines something differently from how you thinks others tend to use it, please let me know.
With that in mind, I announce two more updates.
First, lane-splitting. What I currently have is this:
Lane-splitting: Riding a bicycle or motorcycle between lanes of traffic.
I'm going to make a relatively minor update:
Lane-splitting: The practice of sharing lanes by riding a bicycle or motorcycle between lines of traffic. Note that passing a line of congested traffic on the outside is not "lane-splitting", because the cyclist is not between two lines of traffic.
I think this is closer to what most people mean when they refer to lane-splitting, and is consistent with the intended usage on the motorcycling websites. If you disagree, let me know. Also, given that lanes are adjacent (at the center of the stripe that divides them) - there is no space between "lanes", but there is space between lines of traffic.
But I also want to expand on my definition of lane-sharing, which I believe is currently too restrictive compared to how it is commonly used:
Lane-sharing: Traveling fully within a lane, but far enough over to one side or another to leave room for another vehicle to travel alongside in that same lane. When another vehicle is present alongside it may be lane-sharing or lane-straddling, and may be moving faster, slower or at the same speed (traveling alongside another vehicle moving at the same speed is generally considered dangerous, whether it's the same or an adjacent lane).
I think I had the CVC 21202 definition of what makes a lane shareable in mind when I wrote this, and that's why I restricted it to being "fully within a lane". But really there is no need for this restriction. Indeed, if you're riding on a shoulder stripe you're sharing the lane to your left, even though you are not fully in it. And a lane-splitter who is whitelining is simultaneously sharing both lanes. So here is the updated version of lane-sharing:
Lane-sharing: (or sharing-lanes) The practice of traveling far enough over to one side or another of a lane to leave room for another vehicle to overtake in that same lane, or the practice of using unused space in a lane to overtake slower traffic in that lane.
I think that's much cleaner and more consistent with what people are talking about when they refer to sharing lanes.
I'm also adding the following definitions:
Whitelining: Using lane-straddling in order to lane-split.
Filtering forward: Using lane-sharing (either on the outside or lane-splitting) to overtake slow or stopped traffic.EDIT: Now I remember why I defined lane-sharing the way that I did... so that I could distinguish lane Lane-splitting while lane-straddling from lane-splitting while lane-sharing. So I'm changing the latter to lane-splitting without lane-straddling.
Helmet Head
I just added this to explain why the terminology is not as simple and interchangeable in bicycle traffic cycling as it is in motorcycling:
In the context of motorcycling, lane-sharing is almost always used to refer to filtering forward while lane-splitting, so these three terms, along with whitelining, are often used interchangeably in that context. For example:Often called lane-splitting, white-lining, or filtering, lanesharing is the practice by motorcyclists of moving between stopped or slow moving traffic during times of congestion and between lanes of vehicles, traveling in the same direction. http://laneshare.org/index.htmlBut for bicyclists, who are often moving slower than other traffic, lane-splitting is not necessarily done in order to be filtering forward, and lane-sharing is not necessarily whitelining (could be sharing on the outside, or splitting without straddling lanes), filtering forward (in fact usually the bicyclist is being overtaken), or lane-splitting (between lines of traffic)
Allister
Given that I'm usually advocating for one thing or another, i guess I can't blame any of you for assuming this thread is about that too. But I'm just trying to nail down some definitions. ...
Never-the-less, my goal is to keep whacking at the OP until I develop these definitions and achieve near consensus about them. What i seek to do is define them not how I think they should be defined, but how I understand most people use them when talking about traffic cycling. That's why I seek input from all of you. If there is something in the OP that defines something differently from how you thinks others tend to use it, please let me know.
Why do you think we even need consensus? Seems like an unrealistic goal in this place. It's only you that thinks it's important to 'nail down definitions', apparently based on the kooky idea that you can learn cycling from a book.
Helmet Head
Why do you think we even need consensus? Seems like an unrealistic goal in this place. It's only you that thinks it's important to 'nail down definitions', apparently based on the kooky idea that you can learn cycling from a book.
I never said you can learn cycling from a book. You can't, just like you can't learn computer programming (or just about anything else) from a book. But that doesn't mean we can't write about cycling (or programming) and can't learn things about cycling (and programming) by reading and writing. And that doesn't mean we can't write about it to share ideas and thoughts about it. That's how we can leverage knowledge and pass it on without having to be with each other physically to do it.
But once we decide to communicate about any human activity (be it cycling, programming, or anything other activity) in language, we almost always have to invent new terms, a jargon, to communicate clearly, effectively and unambiguously.
But if you have a need to deride my attempts to do so, go for it.
Helmet Head
I also want to expand on my definition of lane-sharing, which I believe is currently too restrictive compared to how it is commonly used:
Lane-sharing: Traveling fully within a lane, but far enough over to one side or another to leave room for another vehicle to travel alongside in that same lane. When another vehicle is present alongside it may be lane-sharing or lane-straddling, and may be moving faster, slower or at the same speed (traveling alongside another vehicle moving at the same speed is generally considered dangerous, whether it's the same or an adjacent lane).
But I think I had the CVC 21202 definition of what makes a lane shareable in mind when I wrote this, and that's why I restricted it to being "fully within a lane". But really there is no need for this restriction. Indeed, if you're riding on a shoulder stripe you're sharing the lane to your left, even though you are not fully in it. And a lane-splitter who is whitelining is simultaneously sharing both lanes. So here is the updated version of lane-sharing:
Lane-sharing: (or sharing-lanes) The practice of traveling far enough over to one side or another of a lane to leave room for another vehicle to overtake in that same lane, or the practice of using unused space in a lane to overtake slower traffic in that lane.
I think that's much cleaner and more consistent with what people are talking about when they refer to sharing lanes.
After sleeping on it, I realize I cut out too much. Taking the "traveling fully within the lane" part out makes sense, because sharing lanes does not necessarily mean doing that, but excluding side-by-side sharing while moving at the same speed is not right either. After all, two (or more) cyclists can share a lane riding side-by-side, as can two motorcyclists. So, here's the latest revision:
Lane-sharing: (or sharing lanes) The practice of traveling far enough over to one side or another of a lane to leave room for the driver of another vehicle to also use part of that same lane (to be overtaken, or to share side-by-side at the same speed), or the practice of using unused space in a lane to overtake slower traffic using another part of that lane. Motorcyclists sometimes share lanes not side-by-side, but in a staggered fashion - one ahead and over laterally from the other. Dozens of bicyclists sometimes share one lane by riding in tight packs behaving like a single unit, similar to a flock of birds.
Helmet Head
Basic definitions.
Various people use the following terms in various ways, sometimes interchangeably. I've tried to sort it out by what most people mean most of the time.
Lane-sharing: (or sharing lanes). The practice of traveling far enough over to one side or another of a lane to leave room for the driver of another vehicle to also use part of that same lane (to be overtaken, or to share side-by-side at the same speed), or the practice of using unused space in a lane to overtake slower traffic using another part of that lane. Motorcyclists sometimes share lanes not side-by-side, but in a staggered fashion - one ahead and over laterally from the other. Dozens of bicyclists sometimes share one lane by riding in tight packs behaving like a single unit, similar to a flock of birds.
Lane-straddling: Operating a vehicle on or near a lane stripe that separates two lanes such that the vehicle is encroaching at least some into both of the adjacent lanes separated by the stripe.
Lane-splitting: The practice of sharing lanes by riding a bicycle or motorcycle between two lines of traffic. Note that passing a line of congested traffic on the outside is not "lane-splitting", because the cyclist is not between two lines of traffic.
Whitelining: Using lane-straddling in order to lane-split.
Controlling the lane: Cycling in a lane position that precludes others (particularly drivers of cars and other 4-wheeled vehicles) from using adjacent space within the same lane at the same time. Commonly referred to as taking the lane. If a cyclist is controlling the lane then he is not lane-sharing (and vice-versa).
Filtering forward: Using lane-sharing (either on the outside or lane-splitting) to overtake slow or stopped traffic.
Okay, here is where we are with the Basic Definitions now.
If you think any of these definitions are inconsistent with common usage, please let me know. An example of usage that is inconsistent with any of these definitions would be helpful. Thanks.
Of course, what's important here is not the terminology, but the concepts associated with each of the terms; to understand them, to distinguish among them, and to be able to know when to use which one. But having each concept clearly defined, and distinct term associated with each, facilitates this process, particularly with respect to being able to discuss the concepts with each other, but also in how clearly we are able to think about them. Again, jargon is valuable in traffic cycling for the same reasons it is valuable in any other field.
RomSpaceKnight
In Ontario it is legal to pass on right hand side as long as it is safe to do so. Meaning if you don't get hit your ok. Rural highways mean that you must pass on right shoulder of road anyone turning left. This law allows cyclists to share lane all the way to the front of line.