lane splitting and cagers honking

[topendz]

Forum Sponsor

I hear you Rob. By the way statistically there is no data that says lane splitting is dangerous or causes an increase in motorcycle accidents in those countries that allow it, that is why it continues to be allowed. Here is a different kettle of fish I admit because Canadian drivers in generally do not have the word courteous in the their volcabulary. I'm also well aware how to take advantage of my narrow width. I've been riding for over 30 years, was a motorcycle courier in London for a couple of years back in the 80s and have been riding downtown Toronto for the last 20 years. I'm just saying act responsibility, assess the risk and be courteous, other than that do what your comfortable doing.

As someone said on here who cares what others think of you as you can't control how others perseve you. You are doing absolutely no harm to anyone by moving to the front of the line if you can do so safely without impeded anyone else... who gives a rats *** because it annoys someone else... people are easily annoyed these days.

Some laws have apparently fallen by the wayside. Police no longer seem to ticket for blocking the fast lane, failing to signal, etc.. The failing to signal thing is a very good reason not to split, by the way.

There are ways, other than lane splitting, to take advantage of a bike's narrow width. There are downtown lanes that are too narrow for a car to use, as where vehicles are parked along the roadside for example, where a bike can legally advance through traffic if the rider is cautious. Smaller size and greater acceleration allow riders to take advantage of openings in traffic, that a car driver never could.

See my video, above. There have been something like 5 separate incidents for me over the last 3 years, on that ramp, in which I've nearly been clipped by splitting bikes. I'm not on my high horse about it. Far from it. What I am, is about damned ready to swing a wrecking bar at the next rider who puts my safety at risk.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

I hear you Rob. By the way statistically there is no data that says lane splitting is dangerous or causes an increase in motorcycle accidents in those countries that allow it, that is why it continues to be allowed. Here is a different kettle of fish I admit because Canadian drivers in generally do not have the word courteous in the their volcabulary. I'm also well aware how to take advantage of my narrow width. I've been riding for over 30 years, was a motorcycle courier in London for a couple of years back in the 80s and have been riding downtown Toronto for the last 20 years. I'm just saying act responsibility, assess the risk and be courteous, other than that do what your comfortable doing.

As someone said on here who cares what others think of you as you can't control how others perseve you. You are doing absolutely no harm to anyone by moving to the front of the line if you can do so safely without impeded anyone else... who gives a rats *** because it annoys someone else... people are easily annoyed these days.

See my previous post, regarding lane splitting *responsibly*. My experiences, in the GTA, have almost always been with those who do so irresponsibly.

Simon, the difference between those areas that permit splitting and filtering, and those that don't, is that those that do have done so for a very long time. Some simply do so not because it's legal, but rather because so many people do it as to make enforcement impossible. I would be interested in seeing some collision statistics for an area that has just started doing so, from both before and after it was permitted. As I have said before it would be nice for it to be legal, and I would applaud responsible splitting and filtering being made so, but you wouldn't find me doing it for at least the first two years, after it became legal. Let others become the statistics.

Canadian drivers used to be courteous. In fact they still are, when you get away from major population centres. Unfortunately though, around Toronto, everyone has taken on a "me first" attitude, that pervades far more than simply driving etiquette.

 

[awyala]

Don't change your tune, you said lane splitting isn't illegal without qualification, that is completely false. I want to know the university you went to so I can tell everyone I know not to send their kids there.

What? Go have a look through the thread! When I say it is NOT illegal I don't need to provide qualification, as in I don't need to flip the whole HTA over to you and shake it down to prove there is NO law explicitly saying it is illegal. Proving a negative is impossible. However my challenge was to another poster to prove it is explicitly illegal. Secondly I made the point of proving a specifically spelled out type of filtering is illegal, citing speed and certain characteristics. I also mentioned what laws, often cited are inapplicable in that instance also! Then I went on to address them as they were raised by other posters and went through the details, down to the use of the semi colon FFS!

Before you open the can of worms of what education I have, educate yourself with the last 6 pages, or have your children fill you in.

 

[Cat13]

Sorry but I would rather be behind the van in the video than be looking at a Cat imprint on the side of the van.

Guys this is just Darwin at work.... Clearing up the gene pool for our children.

 

[mindactivated]

People in Canada, or more accurately in the GTA are very selfish individuals. Filtering and lane splitting won't be allowed here because "OH NO HE'S GETTING AHEAD OF ME WHILE I'M SITTING IN TRAFFIC, THAT'S NOT FAIR!!!". This is the true reason why it's not allowed here. Just look at the whole parking thing that was brought up in council last week, people really hate it when your choice in life gives you an advantage.

You know, as someone who's commuted in the GTA using all modes: pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist, motorist (car), TTC subways, streetcars, buses, GO trains, GO buses - each method extensively at one point or another, I think that the heart of commuting needs to be a more cohesive unit that puts ego aside.

 

[mindactivated]

People in Canada, or more accurately in the GTA are very selfish individuals. Filtering and lane splitting won't be allowed here because "OH NO HE'S GETTING AHEAD OF ME WHILE I'M SITTING IN TRAFFIC, THAT'S NOT FAIR!!!". This is the true reason why it's not allowed here. Just look at the whole parking thing that was brought up in council last week, people really hate it when your choice in life gives you an advantage.

You know, as someone who's commuted in the GTA using all modes: pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist, motorist (car), TTC subways, streetcars, buses, GO trains, GO buses - each method extensively at one point or another, I think that the heart of commuting needs to be a more cohesive unit that puts ego aside.

That being said, I personally would not be the harbinger of change and do it while it's illegal, nor would I advise it since it's not expected and not accepted and at one point or another you'll have some crazy road rager who will decide to take matters in their own hands to "teach you a lesson".

 

[awyala]

Except that it's not the same thing. Generally speaking I get off my bike, push the 'walk' button, then wait for the light to change in such cases. If there's no 'walk' button I wait for a reasonable amount of time and treat the light as malfunctioning, at which point it's effectively a 4-way stop. Reasonable provision for such exists, under the law. Should I have to argue it in court, which I might well have to, I have law and precedent to fall back on.

Exactly...provisions. By the way, getting off your bike and leaving it at the light to push the walk button could also be an offence, so I hear. I could be wrong though. But as you point out there are circumstances where all of a sudden, going through a red can be acceptable. My point is absoltism is not the correct attitude to take, and as the HTA does not fully address the matter of "filtering", again citing my example I made earlier, you must surely be able to admit there are "provisions" or in this case lack of explicit clear laws forbidding all instances of the act of filtering, regarless of speed, care, space, whatever. This I find strange that all these posters spout off one liners or some instance they had once in their life involving a mirror.

If you want to recommend no one filter that is one thing, but to say it is entirely and completely illegal in all its forms, well that's not correct, especially when you then go on to say there are provisions for proceeding through a solid red light.

It's like getting coffee at Tim's by walking up to a free cashier who has just become free, instead of joining the line who are waiting for a cashier to be free. There are times when you can and do delay people, by lane splitting, because they must be more cautious in order to avoid hitting you.

Then there are the times when traffic begins to move, when the light changes, and you're still splitting between traffic. Do you take a spot between moving traffic in a lane, delaying the person in front of whom you're 'butting'? Do you continue along the line, which is patently unsafe?

And, finally, the 'line' is not another 'lane.'

a few points there. 1 The new cashier waves people over, and there is a rush of several people from various lines. First come first serve. simple. People at the head of existing lines dont chance a potential loss in time so they stay. People at the end of other lines take then chance and pour into the open chasier line. You snooze you lose. You want to legislate that too?

If a car leaves an open space large enough for another vehicle to safely enter, this is acceptable in all passing conditions to enter. It is absurd to think I cannot enter an available space between cars as the light turns green. That would be like saying if there is a space between the car in the lane next to me, I cannot enter it as I would now be in front of him on the highway. That's nuts! There are times when a space is available, a car enters and the car behind taps on their brakes to create an even greater buffer. Does that mean a bud took place? So now unless there are 8 car lengths in front of any car, such that the trailing car will never have to touch their brakes, we cannot pass or enter a lane? On top of that, if you filter into an available spot, very quickly the motorcycle is able to leave that spot and get to the head of the pack and clear off, if not in regular traffic, then at the next light. So your instance that it is a clear bud is not the case.

And lastly, yes you are right, and that is my point, is it not another lane, but it is another LINE which is available when there is sufficient space, which entitles who to use it! It doesn't have to be another lane! You can pass to the right if there is sufficient space for multi LINE of vehicles. Multi LANES are NOT required. I don't need a 3rd in between LANE to filter, the space that creates a LINE of vehicles (mine...the bike) is sufficient under the law....as it is in the parking LANE which is occupied by CARS which still provides room for a LINE of vehicles in addition to the CARS already in it. Might a remind you the danger of the door prize is many times greater, as are pedestrians walking out from between parked cars, yet this is LEGAL!!!!!! In stopped red light traffic the chances of an opened door or pedestrians wondering out between the 2 lanes is markedly reduced, so the issue of safety is moot. Tell that to a cop and watch their eyes roll up into their brains to think it through! It baffles them all and has them scrambling for their little pocket HTA book. I have seen it happen many times already. Filtering past parked cars with sufficient space is EXPLICITLY LEGAL yet every cop acknowledges that it is much more dangerous than filtering at a stopped red light. By the way it may also be seen as budding, by the road raging less informed.

 

[awyala]

That being said, I personally would not be the harbinger of change and do it while it's illegal, nor would I advise it since it's not expected and not accepted and at one point or another you'll have some crazy road rager who will decide to take matters in their own hands to "teach you a lesson".

Some good cautious points here.

1) Filtering, legally and properly is an advanced skill, so no one should just jump into it.
2) Lane splitting where legal carries increased risk and is an even more advanced skill. Here it is illegal, but different from "filtering". Often people confuse the two. Often those with no actual experience with the 2, having never driven in jurisdictions which allow it. Many people here in this forum are speaking from limited or abstract experience.
3) Anything you do on a bike is an increased danger or risk from driving a cage. Get to grips with that fact before you delude yourself into thinking Darwin hand picked you over other riders.
4) Other riders are the vand guard of legal filtering and as Rob hinted at, making it more acceptable....like jay walking, not signalling and a slew of other broken laws no one loses any sleep over.
5) If one doesn't want to filter then don't, if you do and can do it safely (and I mean that relatively for all those bikers who think they are "safe" cause I know a whole lot of mothers who would kick you right off a bike if they could), then by all means filter within the boundaries of the existing laws.
6) In terms of crazy road ragers...I filter every damn day. I get honked at maybe once every 2 weeks. I usually smile and wave, or have a quick word at the lights. It's never a big deal. Just tell them it is a grey area and move on. Most drivers have never even cracked the spine of the HTA, or clicked the web link. Just inform them, time permitting. And lastly road rage happens not because we are all at fault bikers, it happens because the road rager is a mentally weak spazz....so you would rather cater to that weak minded culture? So be it, cater to and join them and flame on posts too. There are times when there is no need to provoke, even if one is correct in their position...you may just be out gunned and in a weaker position. I understand that point. But guys seriously, getting honked at occassionally is NOT ROAD RAGE....you wont be mowed down before you reach your door step for filtering. Stop being such drama queens.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Exactly...provisions. By the way, getting off your bike and leaving it at the light to push the walk button could also be an offence, so I hear. I could be wrong though. But as you point out there are circumstances where all of a sudden, going through a red can be acceptable. My point is absoltism is not the correct attitude to take, and as the HTA does not fully address the matter of "filtering", again citing my example I made earlier, you must surely be able to admit there are "provisions" or in this case lack of explicit clear laws forbidding all instances of the act of filtering, regarless of speed, care, space, whatever. This I find strange that all these posters spout off one liners or some instance they had once in their life involving a mirror.

If you want to recommend no one filter that is one thing, but to say it is entirely and completely illegal in all its forms, well that's not correct, especially when you then go on to say there are provisions for proceeding through a solid red light.

Except that the courts have ruled on what you're talking about.

a few points there. 1 The new cashier waves people over, and there is a rush of several people from various lines. First come first serve. simple. People at the head of existing lines dont chance a potential loss in time so they stay. People at the end of other lines take then chance and pour into the open chasier line. You snooze you lose. You want to legislate that too?

Except at Tim Horton's, there's one "lane." Filtering is effectively pushing your way through that one "lane", to get to that just freed-up cashier. Just because there's "space", that doesn't make it "legal."

If a car leaves an open space large enough for another vehicle to safely enter, this is acceptable in all passing conditions to enter. It is absurd to think I cannot enter an available space between cars as the light turns green. That would be like saying if there is a space between the car in the lane next to me, I cannot enter it as I would now be in front of him on the highway. That's nuts! There are times when a space is available, a car enters and the car behind taps on their brakes to create an even greater buffer. Does that mean a bud took place? So now unless there are 8 car lengths in front of any car, such that the trailing car will never have to touch their brakes, we cannot pass or enter a lane? On top of that, if you filter into an available spot, very quickly the motorcycle is able to leave that spot and get to the head of the pack and clear off, if not in regular traffic, then at the next light. So your instance that it is a clear bud is not the case.

And that is patently untrue. As I said, test your theory in court.

And lastly, yes you are right, and that is my point, is it not another lane, but it is another LINE which is available when there is sufficient space, which entitles who to use it! It doesn't have to be another lane! You can pass to the right if there is sufficient space for multi LINE of vehicles. Multi LANES are NOT required. I don't need a 3rd in between LANE to filter, the space that creates a LINE of vehicles (mine...the bike) is sufficient under the law....as it is in the parking LANE which is occupied by CARS which still provides room for a LINE of vehicles in addition to the CARS already in it. Might a remind you the danger of the door prize is many times greater, as are pedestrians walking out from between parked cars, yet this is LEGAL!!!!!! In stopped red light traffic the chances of an opened door or pedestrians wondering out between the 2 lanes is markedly reduced, so the issue of safety is moot. Tell that to a cop and watch their eyes roll up into their brains to think it through! It baffles them all and has them scrambling for their little pocket HTA book. I have seen it happen many times already. Filtering past parked cars with sufficient space is EXPLICITLY LEGAL yet every cop acknowledges that it is much more dangerous than filtering at a stopped red light. By the way it may also be seen as budding, by the road raging less informed.

The courts have ruled that there is insufficient space for another "line." I suggest that you consult The Attorney General of Ontario, before continuing to comment otherwise.

 

[awyala]

Except that the courts have ruled on what you're talking about.



Except at Tim Horton's, there's one "lane." Filtering is effectively pushing your way through that one "lane", to get to that just freed-up cashier. Just because there's "space", that doesn't make it "legal."



And that is patently untrue. As I said, test your theory in court.



The courts have ruled that there is insufficient space for another "line." I suggest that you consult The Attorney General of Ontario, before continuing to comment otherwise.

yep courts have ruled...meaning precedent has taken place, cases have been argued and decisions have been made. That's the lagal process we have as our right. Thanks.

Tims is a loose example, call it Walmart, MacDonalds, or whatever, either way it isn't a ticket system and no one is calling our number at the damn passport office / red light. There is a degree of informality to it, unlike a ticket system. If space is available then it is no sin or crime to use it. And Tim's has multiple lines and multiple cashiers. Some Tims have ropes or bars for their lines. Each Tims is different hence why the Tims analagy is a loose one and has many different varient interpretations, hence my point of not being absolutionists and using your analytical brain to gauge each situation rather than blanket statements of legality when it is not explicitly states as such in the HTA.

As you say test my theory, which I do. No argument there. The recent rulling on 154 that cops must prove the act is unsafe is a recent rulling in that direction with implications to legal filtering. The often misunderstood 154 had cops believing that "not driving in a market lane" was illegal, but this is patently now not correct, but rather they must prove it was done in an unsafe manner, not that it was merely done. Again this highlights both our common ground of setting precedent and challenging misinterpretations of grey areas of the law. Your point is taken and the van guard are looking after the matter thank you. Glad to see we have your "support".

And again yes courts have ruled. You must live in a black and white world where unless a court has specifically allowed you to do something or ruled on minor technicallities you simple don't do it. Where a court has not explicitly stated in all its permutations that something is legal, I wonder what you do in those instances? Has a court rulled which side of the bed is legal to get up from? Sheesh, you better hold your breath until they rule on that matter.

The fact is, the type of filtering I provided as an example HAS NOT BEEN RULED ON, and until it has been and explicitly stated or covered in the HTA I will do it. It is available to me, precicely because it has not been made UNAVAILABLE. I am not waiting on a ruling for it to be declared legal. By default of it not being illegal it IS LEGAL. I admit it is an area of confusion and "grey", and I admit different people have different views, hence the conflict, and I accept the associated "theory testing" as you put it. If you don't then fine, but until it is EXPLICITLY ILLEGAL in the HTA your view is just a perspective not law, despite how many other may share your perspective.

There was also a time when going to topless was illegal for women and legal for men, now it is legal for women to expose their breasts in public, despite the view of the vast majority that this is not socially acceptable, though still more so acceptable for men. This grey area was challenged and clarified. The limit was set. Us men can't hang our balls out in public, but I'm sure some members of the public can lobby that one fiercely, for certain parades for example. With regard to filtering and this thread, the OP speaks of honking, and despite it's legal status we will still have honking and still have even riders who are disgusted by it and feel it is socially unacceptable, you included it seems.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

yep courts have ruled...meaning precedent has taken place, cases have been argued and decisions have been made. That's the lagal process we have as our right. Thanks.

Tims is a loose example, call it Walmart, MacDonalds, or whatever, either way it isn't a ticket system and no one is calling our number at the damn passport office / red light. There is a degree of informality to it, unlike a ticket system. If space is available then it is no sin or crime to use it. And Tim's has multiple lines and multiple cashiers. Some Tims have ropes or bars for their lines. Each Tims is different hence why the Tims analagy is a loose one and has many different varient interpretations, hence my point of not being absolutionists and using your analytical brain to gauge each situation rather than blanket statements of legality when it is not explicitly states as such in the HTA.

As you say test my theory, which I do. No argument there. The recent rulling on 154 that cops must prove the act is unsafe is a recent rulling in that direction with implications to legal filtering. The often misunderstood 154 had cops believing that "not driving in a market lane" was illegal, but this is patently now not correct, but rather they must prove it was done in an unsafe manner, not that it was merely done. Again this highlights both our common ground of setting precedent and challenging misinterpretations of grey areas of the law. Your point is taken and the van guard are looking after the matter thank you. Glad to see we have your "support".

And again yes courts have ruled. You must live in a black and white world where unless a court has specifically allowed you to do something or ruled on minor technicallities you simple don't do it. Where a court has not explicitly stated in all its permutations that something is legal, I wonder what you do in those instances? Has a court rulled which side of the bed is legal to get up from? Sheesh, you better hold your breath until they rule on that matter.

Tims is a reasonable example, given the precedent and that there is one (or several) recognized legitimate paths, to a single goal (getting through the intersection). Quite simply put you claim that lane splitting isn't illegal stating that several different laws cannot be applied to it, which is patently untrue based on case law, so you are so very, very wrong.

 

[awyala]

Tims is a reasonable example, given the precedent and that there is one (or several) recognized legitimate paths, to a single goal (getting through the intersection). Quite simply put you claim that lane splitting isn't illegal stating that several different laws cannot be applied to it, which is patently untrue based on case law, so you are so very, very wrong.

No I claim that the form of filtering I provided is NOT ILLEGAL which is true. Some forms of filtering, such as passing at low speed near an intersection is quite illegal as 140 of the HTA addresses. You systematically keep doing the same thing over and over again; it really is quite astonishing. You simply lump all behaviors as one and the same thing and call it illegal. Filtering has different forms, and is distinct also from lane splitting. You need to recognize that simple fact. Once you do, and are able to see that filtering at a red light in stopped traffic at a "safe" responsive speed is actually possible, then maybe you can see how the various overlapping laws don't actually cover this example I have stated REPEATEDLY. You probaly don't know how to, or never have filtered and thus don't understand the nuances of the act. I seriously question your judgement on such an issue when you display such a lack of understanding for the behavior, where you insist on lumping all permutations together as synomomous with "lane splitting". For those that know how to, and have experience with filtering in all its forms, with lane splitting, and with riding in different varied legal and physical conditions, they may have a better chance at understanding it.

You have already vollied the various HTA laws you feel are applicable, from 150, to 154 to even 172, having forgetten to raise 130, 140, 158, and 165 also. And within those laws the details of which lack sufficient coverage of some forms of filtering. If however the HTA EXPLICITLY defined and stated it is illegal to LANE SPLIT OR FILTER than that would settle the matter conclussively for all. But as you know, this has not been ruled upon in such a fashion. You rely on a patch work or quilt of non specific language and rulings to cover an act which has not been properly addressed by the law. The UK had a similar issue, and when it was forced to rule on the SPECIFIC ISSUE OF FILTERING in 2006 due to widespread filtering and 2 landmark insurance cases dating back to the 1970s and 90s, eventually the ruling came back IN FAVOUR OF LANE SPLITTING stating that if an accident occurs while splitting it should be seen by insurance as 50/50 rather than previously as 100% rider error. Astonishing that that could happen eh? Given the supposedly universal view that it is 100% rider error and we are all nutbags just asking for it? Well, as you know very well, when a grey area exists and the public push the boundaries and laws become lax, often a behavior specific review occurs or the law becomes ignored (like dragging a dead horse through Toronto on Yonge St. on a Sunday)....In the UK that act was reviewed and funny enough, human beings with functioning brains seemed to rule in favour of it, people who have been dealing with increased polution, population density and increased costs of driving and vehicle operation. Funny thing that! We must all be crazy! Budding at Tims is the only way to view this thing, and that is an absolute view, also, according to you....IT CAN ONLY BE SEEN AS BUDDING AT TIMS. I'm sure you think it is illegal also.

I wonder what you would think of me riding my (dead mechanical) horse on Yonge St. on Sunday...I bet you feel that law covers that too. Or maybe I should test that theory.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

No I claim that the form of filtering I provided is NOT ILLEGAL which is true. Some forms of filtering, such as passing at low speed near an intersection is quite illegal as 140 of the HTA addresses. You systematically keep doing the same thing over and over again; it really is quite astonishing. You simply lump all behaviors as one and the same thing and call it illegal. Filtering has different forms, and is distinct also from lane splitting. You need to recognize that simple fact. Once you do, and are able to see that filtering at a red light in stopped traffic at a "safe" responsive speed is actually possible, then maybe you can see how the various overlapping laws don't actually cover this example I have stated REPEATEDLY. You probaly don't know how to, or never have filtered and thus don't understand the nuances of the act. I seriously question your judgement on such an issue when you display such a lack of understanding for the behavior, where you insist on lumping all permutations together as synomomous with "lane splitting". For those that know how to, and have experience with filtering in all its forms, with lane splitting, and with riding in different varied legal and physical conditions, they may have a better chance at understanding it.

And you are wrong, as I keep telling you, but you simply won't accept it. As such, this will be my final post on the matter. In Califonia splitting and filtering are not illegal because there is no law, that specifically states such, and case law that supports that. In Ontario splitting and filtering are illegal because there is law that speaks on the matter, and case law that supports that interpretation of law.

 

[oldrider]

When I'm in my pickup and a bike squeezes up beside me it makes me very nervous sometimes. Try to remember that when I look in the mirror and see some guy on a bike 1/2 an inch away from my paintjob, I have no idea if you are a veteran expert rider or some kid with an M1 and 8hrs experience. The fact that some people are willing to risk damaging my property to save a minute or two really pisses me off. If you've got PLENTY of room, I say go for it, none of my business.

 

[awyala]

And you are wrong, as I keep telling you, but you simply won't accept it. As such, this will be my final post on the matter. In Califonia splitting and filtering are not illegal because there is no law, that specifically states such, and case law that supports that. In Ontario splitting and filtering are illegal because there is law that speaks on the matter, and case law that supports that interpretation of law.

FFS what laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaw?!?! There is noooooooooooooooo such law that addressing the terms "lane splitting" or "filtering". All the laws you mention address certain actions which when cobbled together do cover the act of lane splitting, but NOT ALL FORMS OF FILTERING! Sheesh man! There are some forms of "Filtering" that are not covered by the HTA. You must not understand what filtering is.

 

[mindactivated]

............

...Filtering past parked cars with sufficient space is EXPLICITLY LEGAL yet every cop acknowledges that it is much more dangerous than filtering at a stopped red light. By the way it may also be seen as budding, by the road raging less informed.

One time (at band camp) I was in the right lane in the left tire track riding below speed limit at a cautious pace while traffic was literally stopped. This was on Kingston Road from Queen heading north all the way to Main St (during a Queen Street East festival).

I filtered in that way all the way at a slow pace, passed a cop which resulted in nothing, and then at one point this lady tried to block me, but I stopped in time, and then just went around her. I had a passenger with me and this is the selfish attitude that disturbs me. So even in these cases you still get righteous idiots who feel they need to block you, even when you don't affect their commute one single bit.

 

[awyala]

When I'm in my pickup and a bike squeezes up beside me it makes me very nervous sometimes. Try to remember that when I look in the mirror and see some guy on a bike 1/2 an inch away from my paintjob, I have no idea if you are a veteran expert rider or some kid with an M1 and 8hrs experience. The fact that some people are willing to risk damaging my property to save a minute or two really pisses me off. If you've got PLENTY of room, I say go for it, none of my business.

I see the sense in this. It is a good point. I also would compare it to a shopping cart being pushed around near my bike or car. Care needs to be taken and there should be an understanding of the culture around these activities. Perhaps a friendly wave, or folding in your mirrors or not going all the way to the front when safe space is not available, but tucking into an available gap between bumpers. Filtering can be done safely and courteously and within the law (in some cases). All parties can have their cake and eat it too. However irrational or ignorant road rage is not a reason to kow tow. Nor is the misconception of what is fair.

In fact I get more people who see me coming in the mirror and make space than I get honked at. In these cases I make a special point of slowing down almost to a stop to nod in appreciation. I also get more smiling faces and thumbs up than honks also. I do get the odd car who creeps at the front a little, and I used to be paranoid and think they were just ******, but it turns out it is mostly taxis with Auto trannies and light feet who aren't even bothered or acknowledge my presence.

And I know your truck may be precious and I know they are surprisingly costly, but down town you would be surpised how many beamers and benzes simply don't care when you are right up next to them, given a healthy safe space.

The culture is definately changing and aside from a few rare spazzes, hard as$es and cops (who I find often know a short hand version of the law and generally have an issue with bikers in general...more "organ doner" and "do you know how many accident scenes I have been too" than I care for, there is becoming a greater acceptance for the practicallity of motorized two wheel transport and its associated advantages (inclussive of filtering). More people are riding into the colder months, or using it for a viable commuting vehicle, that much is clear. But there is still the left over legacy of teens on R1s after getting their M or M1 at age 16, late night 3am 300kph QEW rips, and so on. There is even a fair share of back woods twisty road ditch binners...quite a few every year.

But in general the culture is becoming more accepting and more aware of biking as a mainstream commuting alternative. Along with that comes filtering and an ease in bike related road rage. And as I said in an earlier post, depending on the location of town and familiarity, filtering and honking vary as a response. Down town, I have filtered in front of cops and 99% of the time they don't bother or care. North of Eglinton, West of Kipling, (I never go east, sorry) it begins to become less tollerated; Mississauga is not very receptive to filtering at all, despite much much wider roads and very clear spaces to filter. The road rage out there and the cops are more extreme on this matter. North of Steeles is pretty in the middle I find.

 

[elton_t]

I realize not many people will be reading the long replies including myself.

 

[awyala]

I realize not many people will be reading the long replies including myself.

The issue is not so clear cut so short responses range from "I do it" to "It's illegal". If you want the short version, take your pick. If you want to read the long version you may pick up on the subtleties. That being said I have a long wind complex. My apologies. Those who know me, buy ear muffs or just leave their helmets on.

 

[OpenGambit]

What? Go have a look through the thread! When I say it is NOT illegal I don't need to provide qualification, as in I don't need to flip the whole HTA over to you and shake it down to prove there is NO law explicitly saying it is illegal. Proving a negative is impossible. However my challenge was to another poster to prove it is explicitly illegal. Secondly I made the point of proving a specifically spelled out type of filtering is illegal, citing speed and certain characteristics. I also mentioned what laws, often cited are inapplicable in that instance also! Then I went on to address them as they were raised by other posters and went through the details, down to the use of the semi colon FFS!

Before you open the can of worms of what education I have, educate yourself with the last 6 pages, or have your children fill you in.

I am happy to have the education dick size comparison. Start a new thread on it. go.

You are wrong, people have been sucessfully charged and convicted of lane splitting and filtering, Until you (or anyone else)stands in front of the Ontario Court of Appeal and win on the legal point, you are wrong.

Forum Sponsor