Originally Posted by
Helmet Head
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.
Originally Posted by
Helmet Head
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.