Afaik, there is no legal difference between lane splitting and lane filtering. Could you please explain to me or show me a link to the legal definition and differences between lane splitting and lane filtering? Geez, you have started creating sub categories of filtering in an attempt to show some form of legality. Imo, people like to use the term lane filtering as a way of trying to make lane splitting seem more palatable or more safe. In essence lane splitting/filtering is just riding between two cars while sharing a lane with one of them.
Good point. You are 100% correct. There is ZERO definition of "filtering" or "lane splitting". Neither are mentioned AT ALL in the HTA. These two terms are colloquial definitions used loosely by ourselves and the driving public and as such are subject to various interpretations. The common view is that filtering is low speed passing in the same lane or on the line between lanes of cars generally in stopped traffic or in very slow moving traffic. This is the legally accepted definition is the UK for example. In this way, driving in the parked lane between stopped cars and parked cars can be considered "filtering". In this way, some forms of "filtering" are actually legal. The trouble lies in people not understanding both the lack of legal clarification nor the actual vernacular understanding. "Lane splitting" is riding or passing between cars, on the line, or in their lane, at a pace not considered slowly. Most people would define this as over 20kph. This speed differential is easily enough to get nailed with 172, or 154 as 154 has the "safely" clause in it. One could defend the safey of "filtering" at 12kph between stopped cars, becuase it is considered safe as pecedented in the legality of doing the SAME DAMN THING in the parking lane, even with the added door prize and pedestrian bonus! If this is considered LEGALLY safe, filtering at 12kph at a stopped light is easily defensible! However "filtering" between moving vehicles is universallty, or rather provincially considered unsafe in the eyes of the law, and in this regard, this form of filtering will highly likely be considered illegal. increasing the speed in moving traffic is sure way to break the stunting law, in addition to 154.
Also, if you were to ride between parked cars and slowly moving cars within 30 m of a pedestrian cross walk, this would then be technically illegal. So the limitations to filtering depend on circumstaces and various other "sub-groups" or behaviors as you put it. The trouble with the HTA is that it defines various actions (not specifically filtering) that are illegal in some cases and legal in others. So for example 150 describes when it is legal to pass to the right of a vehicle. 154 describes when it is legal to exit one's lane. 172 describes when too close is too close and when speed differential is too great. All of these actions, from passing to the right, exiting your lane, sharing a lane, speed differential, proximity and so on are all "sub-groups" of the act of filtering.
So "filtering" itself is not specifically addressed, but it's components are and their legality varry. There are circumstances where the "perfect storm" come together and a style or type of "filtering" is entirely legal. Or on the other hand other types of "filtering" can be illegal. Such as the case with Bunda in a single lane situation.
This is why I stress that the act itself is NOT ILLEGAL and that it is a GREY area. But others would simply and wrongly lump the whole action in its entirety into the illegal camp...which is not true.
But for some it is simpler and that's ok. The mistake is to believe it is illegal and then to justify an illegal road rage assualt such as endangering a biker by blocking them, opening your door to harm them (which is EXPLICITLY ILLEGAL: 165 of the HTA) or intimidating them on the road. Road rage is already a problem and the last thing we need is dumb witted absolutism self reighteous road ragers taking it out on us. We also don't need apologetic high horse rider types either, nor do we need law breaking thrill junkies who think anything I said means they can lane split on the highway illegally either.
None of these extremes is what is needed, rather sound moderation in the middle is what I advocate.
. 
