Vehicular Cycling (VC) - What is "lane-splitting" ?

So its like driving on "wrong side of the road" (defined as traveling in the lane of opposing traffic) but since it is, by default, illegal to travel on the wrong side of the road, passing in that manner must also illegal, that is if your logic is correct, but there seems to be something missing here.
That isn't "my logic". The thing that is "missing" in the "lane splitting" case is a law that allows it as an exception to the typical "stay in lane" laws.

Clearly, by default, it is illegal to drive (travel) on the wrong side of the road. There are laws that allow passing as an exception.


Your argument rests on this "fact": "it is, by default, illegal" which is not universally true. In fact looking up "lane splitting" in the UVC (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/bike/resourceguide/dldirections.html) I get "No topics found."
It violates the typical "stay in lane" laws. There are typically no laws that provide any exceptions to this (ie, "lane splitting" laws are not typical). You could look up all sorts of things that would yield "no topics found" and they would not necessarily be "legal".

Keep in mind that bicycles have to follow the same laws as other vehicles unless there is a law providing an exception for them.

That isn't "my logic". The thing that is "missing" in the "lane splitting" case is a law that allows it as an exception to the typical "stay in lane" laws.

Clearly, by default, it is illegal to drive (travel) on the wrong side of the road. There are laws that allow passing as an exception.


It violates the typical "stay in lane" laws. There are typically no laws that provide any exceptions to this (ie, "lane splitting" laws are not typical). You could look up all sorts of things that would yield "no topics found" and they would not necessarily be "legal".

Keep in mind that bicycles have to follow the same laws as other vehicles unless there is a law providing an exception for them.

I comment on "stay in lane" laws. UVC 11-309a "A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane .... " The function of this law is not safety, but functionality. A side of the roadway that is divided into two (or more) lanes is intended to be used by vehicles able to overtake others on that same side of the roadway. This increases both road capacity and traffic efficiency. If a driver hogged two lanes by driving down the lane line, then the utility of the two-lane configuration would be destroyed. That's the only importance of that part of the statute.

There are laws that allow passing as an exception.


Any person operating a bicycle or a moped upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:

1. When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.


unless there is a law providing an exception for them


For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane [i.e. Lane Splitting is an exception for a bicycle.]

:innocent:

I comment on "stay in lane" laws. UVC 11-309a "A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane .... " The function of this law is not safety, but functionality. A side of the roadway that is divided into two (or more) lanes is intended to be used by vehicles able to overtake others on that same side of the roadway. This increases both road capacity and traffic efficiency. If a driver hogged two lanes by driving down the lane line, then the utility of the two-lane configuration would be destroyed. That's the only importance of that part of the statute.
Regardless of the purpose (and safety is one of the purposes), "lane splitting" (see definition below) is illegal by that law.


Originally Posted by UVC § 11-1205(a) Position on roadway For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane isn't "lane splitting".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_splitting


Lane splitting is riding a bicycle or motorcycle between lanes in the same direction as traffic.

(That is the definition you referenced.)

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/21/lane-splitting-should-it-be-legal/

Bolding added.


There is a nice discussion (http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/03/18/lane-splitting-in-california-for-or-against/) going on over at AutoblogGreen regarding the act of lane splitting (http://www.laneshare.org/index.html), which is when a motorcycle rides the dotted line in-between lanes. Lane splitting is a common practice in much of Europe, but here in the States it's only legal in California. Golden State law dictates that a motorcycle is only allowed to split lanes when traffic is moving very slowly or stopped and "must be done in a safe and prudent manner."


http://articles.directorym.com/Motorcycle_Accidents_Lane_Splitting_New_York_NY-r935172-New_York_NY.html


While most states do not recognize lane splitting as a legal maneuver, they also do not specifically prohibit it. However, police and the courts often interpret lane splitting as unlawful. One state, California, does specifically permit lane splitting, but only if it is done in a "safe and prudent" manner. Of course, the definition of "safe and prudent" is very much up to interpretation by police officers and judges.

(Note that the fact that it isn't specifically prohibited doesn't mean it's legal. Wearing a bag over your head while driving isn't specifically prohibited either.)

I can't find a reference to a California law that explicitly allows it. TX, now, has a law that specifically allows it (which would be a silly law if it was legal without the law!).

This is the definition you referenced. Bolding added.


There is a nice discussion going on over at AutoblogGreen regarding the act of lane splitting, which is when a motorcycle rides the dotted line in-between lanes. Lane splitting is a common practice in much of Europe, but here in the States it's only legal in California. Golden State law dictates that a motorcycle is only allowed to split lanes when traffic is moving very slowly or stopped and "must be done in a safe and prudent manner."


So your logic is as follows:
Bicycles must follow the same laws as motor vehicles
Motor vehicles can't ride on bike trails
Therefore bicycles cannot ride on bike trails.

So your logic is as follows:
Bicycles must follow the same laws as motor vehicles
Motor vehicles can't ride on bike trails
Therefore bicycles cannot ride on bike trails.
This, again, isn't "my" logic. It's your specious and silly attempt to put words in my mouth. Why do you keep doing that when it is clear that it is false?

If they are truely "bike trails", then bikes are legal on them. Otherwise, they would not be "bike trails".


There is a nice discussion going on over at AutoblogGreen regarding the act of lane splitting, which is when a motorcycle rides the dotted line in-between lanes. Lane splitting is a common practice in much of Europe, but here in the States it's only legal in California. Golden State law dictates that a motorcycle is only allowed to split lanes when traffic is moving very slowly or stopped and "must be done in a safe and prudent manner."
Are you really surprised that a discussion about a motocycle-specific law doesn't happen to talk about bicycles?

Anyway, the fact (according to the quote) that there is a law that allows "lane splitting" by motorcycles (specifically/explicitly) proves that it is illegal by default (in California)! (Note that I haven't been able to find the California law that allows it.)

Anyway, it's this that defines "lane splitting": "rides the dotted line in-between lanes".

It looks like your problem is that I'm not very smart.

a la njkayaker: If one can truely "share the road with bikes side by side in the same lane", then bikes are legal to share the lane with cars. Otherwise, there would not be "Share the road with bikes".


Are you really surprised that a discussion about a motocycle [sic]-specific law doesn't happen to talk about bicycle [specific allowance]?

no

It is legal. just like ride 2 abreast.

This is lane-splitting...
...and crazy if you ask me...
Lane-Splitting (http://www.digave.com/videos/mxhwy-digave_com.mpg)

I ride a motorcycle in the Bay Area and we like to call it lane-sharing... Sounds nicer.
It's definitely not the safest thing to do, but with common sense, it's no worse than normal risks in cycling or riding a motorcycle. I try to avoid it near freeway transitions as well as on most surface streets as there is more lane changing going on.
Ride on, be safe!


You are dangerous if you lane-split... *sigh*

I cannot believe it is legal in California; that's because I live in Florida, since it's illegal there. It makes me feel better saying this, but I don't want to offend motorcyclists with what I said.

You are dangerous if you lane-split... *sigh*

I cannot believe it is legal in California; that's because I live in Florida, since it's illegal there. It makes me feel better saying this, but I don't want to offend motorcyclists with what I said.

Legal in Texas. No problem on motorcycles or bicycles.

I nominate this post for most anal argument seen by myself, today, on this forum.