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

I just started reading the thread What "Exactly" is VC? and realize "VC" is the way I have always cycled in traffic (at least up until reading JoeyBike's Red Light Running Tutorial Video. :) )

joejack951 said not to do lane-splitting, in order to ride VC. Somebody else said it's illegal in some states.

What is "lane splitting" ?

Thanks.

Driving between two traffic lanes - with traffic on either side - most commonly done when traffic is slower, but can also be done when it is faster too.
It is illegal in most US states, maybe all except CA? It is legal in several other countries.
Al

Oh you mean riding on the double-yellow line atop two-lane two-way paved roads? I do that all the time when there's no traffic. It's the smoothest part of the road.

I should have said that splitting is almost always considered to be done between two same direction lanes.

Al

Oh, I see. Thanks, Al.

well, you can definetly split on the yellow stripes as well.

well, you can definetly split on the yellow stripes as well.

Thats fine with me as inclusive in the definition. But in my mind that is more like overtaking, especially if any part of you or bike is on the wrong way side, but yeah so is spitting between same direction lanes.

Al

joejack951 said not to do lane-splitting, in order to ride VC. Somebody else said it's illegal in some states.

Can you dig up the quote where I said that?

Driving between two traffic lanes - with traffic on either side - most commonly done when traffic is slower, but can also be done when it is faster too.
It is illegal in most US states, maybe all except CA? It is legal in several other countries.
Al

According to the wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_splitting)


Allowed in

* Austria
* Belgium
* Brasil
* Croatia
* Estonia — legal while keeping off medians and indicating before the maneuver
* France
* Greece
* Italy
* Japan
* Netherlands
* Norway
* Portugal
* Spain
* South Africa
* Sweden
* United Kingdom[5]
* United States — only in California[6][7]

I myself am in los angeles, california, and frequently lane-split in gridlock. I imagine people do this everywhere on bicycles and narrow scooters, regardless of legality. A bicycle lane-splitting through gridlock isn't very easy to stop and ticket.

Lane splitting is legal in DC and I will assert that it is legal in any state that allows motorists and cyclists to share the same lane to accommodate faster moving traffic (cars are not always the faster vehicle) YMV in court with this little tidbit. (If cars can ride the line to pass a cyclist then why can't we do the same?)

Laws that apply specifically to motorcycles do not apply to bicycles. As far as I can tell, all the lane-splitting laws people have talked about in this thread are for motorcycles. I don't recall ever seeing a law applying to bicycles that makes lane-splitting illegal.

The consensis of the motorcycle websites is that for motorcycles, lane-splitting is illegal in all states except, perhaps, California (California law is not entirely clear, despite claims by some that it is. What is clear is that the CHP has said that they will not ticket motorcyclists for lane-splitting as long as it is done in a safe and prudent manner).

For bicycles, it's unclear whether lane-splitting is legal or illegal.

It is clear that the laws for bicycles regarding lane-sharing are different from the laws for motorcycles. Some states have laws which specifically prohibit a motor vechicle that is not a motorcycle from sharing a lane with a motorcycle. In contrast, sharing a lane with a bicycle is not only not prohibited but, in some instances, bicyclists are legally required to share a lane (by the so-called "ride right" rules).

Can someone cite a law applying to bicycles (as opposed to motorcycles) that specifically prohibits lane-splitting?

If cars can pass me in the same lane, I figure I can do the same.

If cars can pass me in the same lane, I figure I can do the same.

Hey ... I was expecting to see that video of you splitting lanes. You can't miss an opportunity like this.

Here's our law prohibiting Lane Splitting:
(e) No person shall operate a motorcycle between lanes of moving or stationary vehicles
headed in the same direction, nor shall any person drive a motorcycle abreast of or overtake or
pass another vehicle within the same traffic lane, except that motorcycles may, with the consent of
both drivers, be operated not more than two abreast in a single traffic lane.

It's only in our motorcycle section.

Here's our law that allows vehicles to "share" a traffic lane:
Subd. 4. Passing on the right. The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass upon the right
of another vehicle only upon the following conditions:
(2) upon a street or highway with unobstructed pavement not occupied by parked vehicles of
sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles in each direction;

Under the passing on the right section. Most every lane allows for "unobstructed pavement not occupied by parked vehicles of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles in each direction" when one of the vehicles is a bicycle.

The important distinction is that Lane Splitting and Passing on the Right are two different things.

Scot

Hey ... I was expecting to see that video of you splitting lanes. You can't miss an opportunity like this.

I wouldn't want to be accused of shameless self-promotion. ;)

But, since you mentioned it, take your pick (http://www.youtube.com/user/captainunderpants200)

I wouldn't want to be accused of shameless self-promotion. ;)

But, since you mentioned it, take your pick (http://www.youtube.com/user/captainunderpants200)

Just watched One Broken Down Truck - Part 1. Sweet.

Do you think you passed 1000 cars? I love the cars that have green lights but can not proceed because of all the traffic stuck at the next light fill the whole road ahead of them.

Great control of that recumbent too. Are those feet or knees that bob into the frame as you pedal?

Ya know...you could be alienating all those motorists with your lane-splitting. Making it hard on all the rest of us!

HAHA....just kidding! You know I'm lovin' the vid. Going back for more too.

Do you think you passed 1000 cars? I love the cars that have green lights but can not proceed because of all the traffic stuck at the next light fill the whole road ahead of them.

At least 1000. Never counted them.

That traffic density also means it makes not a jot of difference if I run any red lights too. ;) The gaps in traffic you take advantage of simply don't exist.


Great control of that recumbent too. Are those feet or knees that bob into the frame as you pedal?

Feet.


Ya know...you could be alienating all those motorists with your lane-splitting. Making it hard on all the rest of us!

Probably (http://blogs.brisbanetimes.com.au/bluntinstrument/archives/2007/10/has_is_it_ever.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1)

That traffic density also means it makes not a jot of difference if I run any red lights too. ;) The gaps in traffic you take advantage of simply don't exist.

Of course. Every day, every hour - intersections are like living organisms that change characteristics. You have to take them as they come that moment. Believe me, there are red lights where I must stop too.

I bet allister didn't mean red lights you need to stop at because you can't run the red becasue of cross traffic, joey,

but traffic dense enough there's no gap effect provided running a red by bicyclists afraid of traffic.

Generally speaking, when dealing with congested urban traffic, lane splitting either between two lanes of traffic or on the double yellow approaching lights and moving in front of all stopped traffic gets a bicyclist most visible and in 'best' position while still adhering to most traffic laws.

Cars 'share' lanes with me all the time, I 'share' -split- lanes with them all the time. quid pro quo in a way.

While I'm certain that there are people who find lane-splitting such an outrageous proposition that they'd wish to ban it... but living in Cali I've never heard of a single incidence of a cyclist being ticketed simply for lane-splitting (and they give out BUIs around here). It's pretty well accepted and expected in this area, much as motorcyclists do it. Unfortunately, you run some risk of getting doored (better to run up the driver-side than the passenger-side door I think) and you also run risk of getting hooked or all variety of nasty end results. Summarily... I've never seen anybody doing this at higher speeds... and I know I wouldn't, though I will overtake cars that are going relatively fast. It's just a bad idea to lane-split with this little margin-of-error going at anything much faster than a walk.

Probably (http://blogs.brisbanetimes.com.au/bluntinstrument/archives/2007/10/has_is_it_ever.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1)

Interesting... familiar comments all, but the language use is different... and a bit fun. IE "And don't forget the ******s and wankettes..." etc. etc.

Oh and this is simply classic: "The difference between them and other road uses is; they don't pay to use the roads through registration." Again, the same old drivel.

"You reckon there would be so many if they had to pay rego and CTP?" I wonder if he recons that "rego and CTP) for the weight and vehicle class of "bicycle" might be a mere pittance?

Oh well, like I said, same old stuff, slightly different language... ah, it never ceases does it?

While I'm certain that there are people who find lane-splitting such an outrageous proposition that they'd wish to ban it... but living in Cali I've never heard of a single incidence of a cyclist being ticketed simply for lane-splitting (and they give out BUIs around here). It's pretty well accepted and expected in this area, much as motorcyclists do it. Unfortunately, you run some risk of getting doored (better to run up the driver-side than the passenger-side door I think) and you also run risk of getting hooked or all variety of nasty end results. Summarily... I've never seen anybody doing this at higher speeds... and I know I wouldn't, though I will overtake cars that are going relatively fast. It's just a bad idea to lane-split with this little margin-of-error going at anything much faster than a walk.

I do it at full speed. Just have to watch out for opening taxi doors when traffic is completely stopped.

Anyone that drives like that shouldn't be surprised when someone opens a car door just before they hit that door. An American a**hole will do it just out of spite. As a biker and a cyclist I know for a fact that only a dope on dope idiot would drive between two lanes of cars. I have seen drivers close the gap between lanes to stop or slow a rider. But, hey, if ya wanna, it's YOUR Death wsh and not mine!

Yo maroon: Ever think that cars and trucks do more damage to a roadway which needs to be repaired at the cost of motorists? Wonder how much damage a 25 pound bike does to the roadway when comepared to a multi ton vehicle? Pull your finger out!

Legal in Tx and CA.
I have split lanes on bicycles and motorcycles.
Some lady in LA just about got me when she moved toward me for No Reason on the highway.
In Tx I split lanes at stop lights.
Just take out life insurance before you start.

As a biker and a cyclist I know for a fact that only a dope on dope idiot would drive between two lanes of cars. I have seen drivers close the gap between lanes to stop or slow a rider. But, hey, if ya wanna, it's YOUR Death wsh and not mine!


I teach motorcycling with a 25 yr CHP motor officer vet and he states very clearly that he has never rolled on a motorcycle accident as a result of lane splitting but has rolled countless times for motorcycles getting rear ended. 45 years of full time riding has taught me that I'm far safer between cars when doing so under control with proper speeds than sitting behind cars, especially in rubber banding traffic.

On a bicycle, I only do it when traffic is completely stopped, for unlike a motorcycle, I have very limited options available to me to respond in an evasive way with my bicycle due to its weak brakes, poor swerving ability and my bicycle motor's lack of rapid acceleration.:(

Land splitting is called 'filtering' in Britain, and possibly also Europe.
But it's mostly for motorcycles. Since I ride motorcycles, I do it all the time, to a limited extent.
In California it is illegal to open your door into traffic. Opening your door when you know a bike or motorcycle is coming is not an accident. You could be taken to jail for assault and battery.
dc

What is "lane splitting" ?

In the context of commercial vehicles, lane splitting is done to control two lanes to prevent other road users from moving into an unsafe area next to your vehicle. It's legal in certain cases where a commercial vehicle requires two lanes for safe travel. It can appear that the bus is being piggy, but there usually is a very good reason. One example is an area where the lanes are too narrow to fit an 8 1/2 foot wide bus. Another example would be a sharp right turn. When driving a bus, I'll split the lane so I can make the right turn without having to go into the oncoming lane around the corner.

The lesson to cyclists is to not slip into that pocket. Cars won't typically go there since there is not enough room. On the other hand, I've had many cyclists dart into my right turn pocket to pass me on the right even though I've been splitting the lane for half a block and have my right turn signal on. Scares the crap out of me every time it happens.

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!

Lane splitting/sharing is nuts. Everyone new to California freaks out when they find out it's legal here.

Most motorcyclists I see only do it when traffic is pretty much stopped (they could still get doored or such) which isn't too crazy, but sometimes you see folks zipping between the cars at 60 or 70 mph. That's just a death-wish.

(they could still get doored or such) .

Doored vs rear ended? I'll take my chances with the doors, thank you very much:D

In Ca. does lane splitting ever occur when traffic is stopped at a stop sign or red light? Is it allowed when traffic is stopped, or only when traffic is supposed to be moving, with green light, etc., but isn't because of grid-lock? Also are you allowed to lane split between traffic that is supposed to be moving and traffic parked on the side of the roadway?

How do you keep from clipping the mirrors of vehicles, especially large trucks? Sure most vehicles have the folding mirrors, but not all and not larger commercial trucks. One smack into those and you're done for.

For those of you who lane split while traffic is moving (slow), do you find that people tend to notice you at all? If they do notice, do they move to give you more room?

I think the best/safest way to lanesplit is at stop lights, a sort of "jump to the head of the class" type thing. When cars are stopped on either side, I don't mind it too much. People that change lanes without signaling or looking for a biker make me hesitant to split lanes in moving traffic.

i think i should get helmet before i attempt this stuff.

For those of you who lane split while traffic is moving (slow), do you find that people tend to notice you at all? If they do notice, do they move to give you more room?

I have done it and they seem to notice and sometimes move over a little. I guess in LA people are used to seeing motorcycles doing it and aren't surprised when you show up next to them.

What if you're splitting the lane and a motorcycle comes up behind you? I know, take the lane.

Lane splitting is legal in DC and I will assert that it is legal in any state that allows motorists and cyclists to share the same lane to accommodate faster moving traffic (cars are not always the faster vehicle) YMV in court with this little tidbit. (If cars can ride the line to pass a cyclist then why can't we do the same?)
Ah, no. Your mileage, using this in court, would be zero. They are, quite clearly, different.

"Lane splitting" is moving between two (or more) same-direction lanes (making a effective third, narrow, lane of traffic). The thing that is missing in bicycles sharing the lane is two additional traffic lanes.

The "lane sharing" involves cyclists is an overtaking/passing situation. Most states (all?) allow vehicles to overtake very-slow vehicles and require very-slow vehicles to keep to the right.

Note that "riding abreast" might be technically "lane splitting" but there are typically laws that address this explicitly (either allowing it or disallowing it).

====================


For bicycles, it's unclear whether lane-splitting is legal or illegal.
On roadways, bicycles are required to follow the laws for all vehicles unless there is an explicit exception made.

If it's illegal for other vehicles, it's illegal for bicycles. If it's legal for a specific class of vehicles that clearly excludes bicycles (eg, motorcycles), it's illegal for bicycles. (Whether or not you'd actually get a ticket for it is another question.)

(The one exception (that I know of) to the "if it's illegal for other vehicles" is riding a bicycle on the shoulder. In some states, bicycles are legally allowed to ride on the shoulder, but in most states, it appears that this is just understood to be legal! Other vehicles are not allowed to travel in the shoulder.)

I have done it and they seem to notice and sometimes move over a little. I guess in LA people are used to seeing motorcycles doing it and aren't surprised when you show up next to them.

I think on Hollywood blvd they almost expect tons of bikes and motocycles to be splitting lanes.

Ah, no. Your mileage, using this in court, would be zero. They are, quite clearly, different.

"Lane splitting" is moving between two (or more) same-direction lanes (making a effective third, narrow, lane of traffic). The thing that is missing in bicycles sharing the lane is two additional traffic lanes.

The "lane sharing" involves cyclists is an overtaking/passing situation. Most states (all?) allow vehicles to overtake very-slow vehicles and require very-slow vehicles to keep to the right.

Hmm, lets see if I got this straight, lane splitting effective adds one more travel lane while lane sharing only adds one more travel lane and therefore they are completely different concepts. :twitchy:

If a motorist passes a slow cyclist by adjusting his lateral position to be on a lane stripe this is called lane sharing, but if a cyclist passes a slow motorist by riding the stripe this is called lane splitting. Two completely different concepts as outlined by law, whoops no legal distinction for lane splitting in most states. Again the law allows for lane sharing of bicyclists and motorists and for the faster vehicle (no distinction on if it is the bike or the car) to pass on the left and the number of same directional lanes does not enter into law. As long as we are legally allowed to pass slower vehicles to their left with no specific outlawing of lane sharing or lane splitting it can be argued as legal and no amount of made up non legal terminology will change that.

This is an interesting read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_splitting

Until there is a law that there can only be one vehicle per lane side by side including cyclists, lane sharing/lane splitting by cyclists can be argued as legal.

You also seem to imply that it is illegal for a motorist and a cyclist to travel at the same speed and side by side in a WOL. So who gets the ticket, the motorist or the cyclist? Does the motorist get a ticket for starting to pass and not finishing the pass? Or does the cyclist get a ticket for facilitating an incomplete pass? Or are you making my point that faster cycling traffic can pass slower cars on the left?

[Note: legality does not imply safety.]


Note that "riding abreast" might be technically "lane splitting" but there are typically laws that address this explicitly (either allowing it or disallowing it).

:roflmao2: Epic fail of not following your own made up definitions.

Hmm, lets see if I got this straight, lane splitting effective adds one more travel lane while lane sharing only adds one more travel lane and therefore they are completely different concepts. :twitchy:

You are putting words in my mouth. I did not say "completely".


This is an interesting read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_splitting

Quite. The first sentence is an especially interesting read.

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

This is clearly not the same thing as a bicycle sharing a lane in the FRAP situation. It's clearly different!

In Texas, "lane splitting" is different than what is allowed for bicycles and it's more limited and it's restricted explicitly to motorcycles!

http://www.statesurge.com/bills/451626-sb-506-texas

As far as can tell, "lane splitting" is the term used legally for what is described in wikipedia. Calling it "lane sharing" appears to be much less common (and confusing).

http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html


Until there is a law that there can only be one vehicle per lane side by side including cyclists, lane sharing/lane splitting by cyclists can be argued as legal.
Such laws are common (if not universal). Bicycles are explicit exceptions. "Lane splitting", in those states that it's legal, is another exception.

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/811.370.html


whoops no legal distinction for lane splitting in most states.
Either "lane splitting" is allowed explicitly or it is disallowed by the laws that require vehicles to travel within lanes. Bicycles are allowed explicitly (by FRAP laws) to "lane share" (a phrase that, as far as I can tell, isn't used legally).


You also seem to imply that it is illegal for a motorist and a cyclist to travel at the same speed and side by side in a WOL.
I wasn't trying to imply that. As far as I know, no state law prohibits that.


:roflmao2: Epic fail of not following your own made up definitions.
My definition is the one you referenced!

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

The following indicates that the legalities of lane splitting is complicated for motorcyclists.

http://www.whybike.com/motorcycle164.htm

You are putting words in my mouth. I did not say "completely".



Quite. The first sentence is an especially interesting read.

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

This is clearly not the same thing as a bicycle sharing a lane in the FRAP situation. It's clearly different!

Quite. The second sentence is an especially interesting read.

It is also sometimes called lane sharing...
It's clearly different!
:roflmao2:


In Texas, "lane splitting" is different than what is allowed for bicycles and it's more limited and it's restricted explicitly to motorcycles!

http://www.statesurge.com/bills/451626-sb-506-texas

As far as can tell, "lane splitting" is the term used legally for what is described in wikipedia. Calling it "lane sharing" appears to be much less common (and confusing).

http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html


Such laws are common (if not universal). Bicycles are explicit exceptions. "Lane splitting", in those states that it's legal, is another exception.

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/811.370.html


Either "lane splitting" is allowed explicitly or it is disallowed by the laws that require vehicles to travel within lanes. Bicycles are allowed explicitly (by FRAP laws) to "lane share" (a phrase that, as far as I can tell, isn't used legally).


I wasn't trying to imply that. As far as I know, no state law prohibits that.


My definition is the one you referenced!

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

The following indicates that the legalities of lane splitting is complicated for motorcyclists.

http://www.whybike.com/motorcycle164.htm

I really appreciate this conversation as it never was my contention that lane splitting is slam dunk legal and there are arguments on both sides. Bringing up motorcycles helps the case when motorcycles are allowed to split lanes and really does nothing when they are not allowed to split lanes as motorcycles are not required by law to share lanes like bicycles.

As far as the restriction to drive within lanes; the word drive applies only to motor vehicles and not cyclists. Driving on the shoulder is generally prohibited while riding on the shoulder is allowed.

Lastly riding abreast is sharing a lane not splitting a lane by your definitions. That is you can ride two abreast on only one lane same direction of traffic and you do not ride the stripe between lanes of same direction of traffic. But that is sort of my point the terms lane sharing and lane splitting are often used interchangeably which makes trying to make them unique concepts rather difficult.

Quite. The second sentence is an especially interesting read.
Not so much! The first sentence is the definition. The second sentence merely indicates some synonyms.

"Lane splitting is riding a bicycle or motorcycle between lanes in the same direction as traffic. It is also sometimes called lane sharing, whitelining,[1] filtering, or stripe-riding.[2] Lane splitting usually refers to moving at a greater speed than traffic, in response to a traffic slowdown,[3][4] a form of filtering forward."

"Lane sharing" has multiple meanings. That is, the term "lane sharing" is ambiguous. Note that the "lane splitting" laws use the term "lane splitting" and not "lane sharing" (as far as I can determine).

MahiMahi are sometimes called "dolphins". That doesn't make them porpoises!


As far as the restriction to drive within lanes; the word drive applies only to motor vehicles and not cyclists.
That would probably depend on the particular state law. In NJ, cyclists are "drivers".

http://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=281276262&Depth=2&depth=2&expandheadings=on&headingswithhits=on&hitsperheading=on&infobase=statutes.nfo&record={E075**&softpage=Doc_Frame_PG42

Bicycles have the same duties as other vehicles unless there is an exception made for them. The FRAP laws provide such an exception. "Riding abreast" laws provide another. The "drive within lane" laws preclude "lane splitting" unless there is an exception made for it.

""Driver" means the rider or driver of a horse, bicycle or motorcycle or the driver or operator of a motor vehicle, unless otherwise specified."

Driving on the shoulder is generally prohibited while riding on the shoulder is allowed.
The "riding on the shoulder" thing appears to be an legal oddity.
"Traveling" in the shoulder is often what is not allowed. In some states (eg, NY), bicycles are explicitly allowed to travel on the shoulder. In many other states (it seems), it not explicitly mentioned. This means it's technically illegal, in these states, to ride on the shoulder because without an explicit exception bicycles have the same duties as other vehicles! But clearly, in practice, riding on the shoulder is legal. The fact that some state laws mention it explicitly indicates that something is otherwise missing from the traffic law.


it never was my contention that lane splitting is slam dunk legal and there are arguments on both sides.
You were pretty definite about it though you waffle a bit with the YMV. Note that your statement is based on there being a difference between "lane splitting" and "lane sharings"!

Lane splitting is legal in DC and I will assert that it is legal in any state that allows motorists and cyclists to share the same lane to accommodate faster moving traffic (cars are not always the faster vehicle) YMV in court with this little tidbit. (If cars can ride the line to pass a cyclist then why can't we do the same?)


Lastly riding abreast is sharing a lane not splitting a lane by your definitions. That is you can ride two abreast on only one lane same direction of traffic and you do not ride the stripe between lanes of same direction of traffic.
"Riding abreast" is "lane sharing" (of some sort) but typically there are laws that specifically address riding bicycles abreast.


But that is sort of my point the terms lane sharing and lane splitting are often used interchangeably which makes trying to make them unique concepts rather difficult.
The term "lane spitting" has legal standing (it's used in laws) and it has a specific legal meaning (which happens to match the definition wikipedia uses).

"Lane sharing" appears to have no standard meaning! It's possible that "lane splitting" is a type of "lane sharing" but bicycles are not "lane splitting" by riding FRAP.

Not so much. The first sentence is the definition. The second sentence indicates synonyms.

"Lane sharing" has multiple meanings. That is, the term "lane sharing" is ambiguous. Note that the "lane splitting" laws use the term "lane splitting" and not "lane sharing" (as far as I can determine).

"Lane splitting is riding a bicycle or motorcycle between lanes in the same direction as traffic. It is also sometimes called lane sharing, whitelining,[1] filtering, or stripe-riding.[2] Lane splitting usually refers to moving at a greater speed than traffic, in response to a traffic slowdown,[3][4] a form of filtering forward."

MahiMahi are sometimes called "dolphins". That doesn't make them porpoises!

Synonyms: Two words that can be interchanged in a context are said to be synonymous relative to that context.

Re: MahiMahi are sometimes called "dolphins". That doesn't make them porpoises!
That doesn't make dolphins porpoises either. :twitchy: Boy am I confused.


Incorrect. Bicycles have the same duties as other vehicles unless there is an exception made for them. The FRAP laws provide such an exception. "Riding abreast" laws provide another.

:roflmao2: FYI MD law:
§ 21-1202 Traffic laws apply to bicycles and motor scooters.
Every person operating a bicycle or a motor scooter in a public bicycle area has all the rights granted to and is subject to all the duties required of the driver of a vehicle by this title, including the duties set forth in § 21-504 of this title, except:
(1) As otherwise provided in this subtitle; and
(2) For those provisions of this title that by their very nature cannot apply.

So by your interpretation cyclists also have this duty:
(a) Vehicles generally.- If a motor vehicle is traveling on a downgrade, the driver of the motor vehicle may not coast with the gears or transmission in neutral.

By your arguments motorists have to be in one lane and cannot straddle lanes in order to pass a cyclist or a group of cyclists. My point is if this is allowed for motorists then it is allowed for cyclists as well.


You were pretty definite about it since you didn't qualify your statement at all!


YMV in court with this little tidbit.

The term "lane spitting" has legal standing (it's used in laws) and it has a specific legal meaning (which happens to match the definition wikipedia uses).

"Lane sharing" appears to have no standard meaning! It's possible that "lane splitting" is a type of "lane sharing" but bicycles are not "lane splitting" by riding FRAP.

You edited your post while I was writing but I'll respond to this bit. If your state uses the term "lane spitting" then yes it has legal standing but to bring another states terms to your state is a hard argument to make in court. The FRAP law requires/allows cyclists to share lanes with cars, you seem to be making the point for me that lane splitting is a type of lane sharing which is legally allowed (unless your state prohibits it specifically.)

Synonyms: Two words that can be interchanged in a context are said to be synonymous relative to that context.
"Lane splitting" appears to have a specific definition. "Lane sharing" does not. "Lane sharing" is ambigous because it means a lot of things in addition to "lane splitting"!

I was incorrect: the TX law does not use the term "lane splitting". What the law describes does match wikipedia's definition of "lane spitting".


"The operator of a motorcycle may operate the motorcycle for a safe distance between lanes of traffic moving in the same direction during periods of traffic congestion"



If your state uses the term "lane spitting" then yes it has legal standing but to bring another states terms to your state is a hard argument to make in court.

I'd say not merely "hard" but "impossible"!


The FRAP law requires/allows cyclists to share lanes with cars, you seem to be making the point for me that lane splitting is a type of lane sharing which is legally allowed (unless your state prohibits it specifically.)

The states don't have to prohibit it specifically. They have to allow it specifically!

The base laws of states do prohibit "lane sharing" and "lane splitting" with the "traveling/driving within the lane" laws. "Lane splitting" is only legal in those states that have a law that provides for the exception to the "traveling/driving within the lane" law. Note that the "lane splitting" laws are specific to motorcycles.

The FRAP law allows "lane sharing" (of some sort) as an exception to the "traveling/driving within the lane" law and is specific to bicycles.


So by your interpretation cyclists also have this duty:
(a) Vehicles generally.- If a motor vehicle is traveling on a downgrade, the driver of the motor vehicle may not coast with the gears or transmission in neutral.
Does MD define a bicycle as a "motor vehicle"? This defines a requirement for a particular subclass of vehicles with motors.


By your arguments motorists have to be in one lane and cannot straddle lanes in order to pass a cyclist or a group of cyclists. My point is if this is allowed for motorists then it is allowed for cyclists as well.
No, I'm only talking about "lane splitting". The state laws have fairly detailed laws about how to pass and how to pass slow vehicles and bicycles. Anyway, passing isn't "lane splitting"

======================

The following uses "lane splitting" and "lane sharing" to refer to different things.

http://accident-law.freeadvice.com/accident-law/motorcycle-helmut-laws.htm




Lane Splitting
Lane splitting is a driving maneuver commonly practiced by motorcycle riders to move between lanes of slow moving or stopped cars on congested roads.
Lane splitting is only legal in California. The California Highway Patrol (http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html)says, “Lane splitting by motorcycles is permissible but must be done in a safe and prudent manner.” California lacks specific guidelines as to what is a safe and prudent manner. Two factors used to determine whether squeezing past traffic was done in a safe and prudent manner are the speed of the motorcycle and the speed of the surrounding traffic. Lane sharing on the other hand, where two motorcycles occupy the same lane, is legal in a majority of states.

======================

It looks like CA doesn't have a "lane splitting" law or a "lane sharing" law.

The following, too, treats them as different things.

http://home.ama-cycle.org/amaccess/laws/result.asp?state=TX

Anyway, passing isn't "lane splitting"

Ah now we are getting somewhere... maybe. :p So how is lane splitting or filtering to the front not passing?

Ah now we are getting somewhere... maybe. :p So how is lane splitting or filtering to the front not passing?

"lane splitting" (defined as traveling between two lanes of same direction traffic) is a sort of passing but it isn't the passing that the traffic laws are addressing since it is, by default, illegal. (In CA, it appears to be not enforced. In TX, there is a law making an exception for it.)

"lane splitting" (defined as traveling between two lanes of same direction traffic) is a sort of passing but it isn't the passing that the traffic laws are addressing since it is, by default, illegal. (In CA, it appears to be not enforced. In TX, there is a law making an exception for it.)

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.

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."

i'd like to illuminate john forester's descriptive of lane splitting -

"riding like a road sneak!" but to him it's in the context of NOT taking the lane when performing left turns and lane changes on high speed, high volume multi laned roadways.... a mightily diminutive, and distinctly UNvehicular, way to ride a bike IMO in the presence of faster moving traffic, but i digress...