Clarification on lane splitting?

[Alex_San]

Sorry mate you lost ALL credibility when you posted these two VERY contradictory statements.

Note I am talking about filtering, not splitting at high speeds.

I simply do not understand how am I showing disrespect to the cagers around me if I am filtering slowly on the DVP when the traffic is completely stalled.

That is NOT filtering that is LANE SPLITTING. Lane splitting need not only be a "high speed" maneuver. Riding between two lanes of traffic on a roadway, where there are NO traffic control devices, (stop sign or traffic light at an intersection), is LANE SPLITTING.

So by your logi of making things "socially acceptable by having large numbers of people doing it" if I get enough people to start stealing from a store then it should "should" by your logic become okay? Sure it is illegal, but if great numbers do it then social should just suck it up?

There are "acceptable" ways of getting a law changed, and then there is the "self entitled" way.., You are advocating the self entitled way, NOT the proper, (socially accepted) way, which is by lobbying the law makers to change the law. Self entitled way is to simply say I believe this law is sh*t and therefore I choose to break it in hopes it will get changed by my illegal behaviour.

So yes you are self entitled, (or at least your acting like you are).

Well, let's see :

Lane splitting is riding a bicycle or motorcycle between rows of vehicles traveling in lanes in the same direction. More narrowly, it refers to overtaking rows of slow or stopped vehicles by traveling between them.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] It is also sometimes called lane sharing, whitelining,[SUP][3][/SUP] filtering, or stripe-riding.[SUP][4][/SUP]
Alternatively, lane splitting has been used to describe moving through traffic that is in motion. It is similar to filtering, or filtering forward, which is used to describe moving through traffic that is stopped.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] When the space used is between two lines of vehicles, this is also known as lane splitting; however, filtering can be accomplished by using space on the outside edge of same-direction traffic as well. There can be significant savings of time by bypassing what otherwise would be obstructions.[SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP]

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

It looks to me like it's not a clear definition. What you are doing is splitting (pun intended) hairs here and ignoring a simple point I was trying to get across.

 

[Baggsy]

I filter and don't get mad when someone tries to move their car to block me. If they move to the left, I simply go to their right and laugh cause I know the guy is fuming...... lol...

Lots of cagers feels entitled. How about those passing lane squatters? Just cause they think they are "fast enough" going 120, they think they have the right to stay there. I don't feel the least bit guilty when all the cars are stuck and I am filtering thru, blame it on the guy that approved closing one lane on finch to repave during RUSH HOUR (no, its not an emergency repair. Its just that they want to repave it...)

O.k. Lets go through your post.

You filter but you don't get mad. But cagers feel entitled, so you are mad.

People aren't fuming. They're feeling pity for your friends and relative, because you're putting your life more into other people's hands than your own.

If the people you're passing are going 120 that's splitting, not filtering, and it's illegal at that speed, even in California I believe.

You blame others for your doing something illegal. "blame it on the guy that approved closing one lane on finch"

So, in summary, you call others self entitled when they're not really, they're just slow and not very good drivers according to your criteria,
but then self entitle yourself to split through them, putting your safety in their hands, even though they're not very good drivers.

You laugh it off when they move over, not realizing how easy it would be to make a simple mistake and ruin your day.

Think how easy it would be to shift a car slightly right or left and force a motorcycle to swerve a couple of feet.
Then think about what might be traveling quickly in those couple of feet.
They person who swerved a little in lane, might have been switching the radio station and not even noticed.
They might keep on driving, leaving you under another vehicle. No one would be the wiser.

Here's a case where a motorcyclist had a full open lane and couldn't pass.

[video=youtube;LreWfR_p__M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LreWfR_p__M[/video]

You're relying on people's skill, who you want to pass, because they lack skill.

All I ask is that you think about what you're doing. By all means keep on doing it, if that is your bent. But think.

 

[Emefef]

Actually if it is a single lane road, NO you can NOT use the right side of the road legally to go straight. Feel free to post the section of the HTA that permits this. You WILL find a section in the HTA that states it is ILLEGAL for two vehicles to occupy the same lane at the same time, (which is what your saying is legal to do). Please come back when you have a proper argument, not one that advocates illegal activities as being legal. That is why it isn't as you did state correctly in the driver's handbook....lol

This is a big part of what a poster used a while ago to prove you COULD split (was it Kiwi?) - that the HTA describes enough room for "lines" of traffic, rather than "lanes". With respect to passing a left turning vehicle, it's allowed if there is room for two LINES of traffic:
Passing to right of vehicle

150. (1) The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle only where the movement can be made in safety and,

(a) the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn or its driver has signalled his or her intention to make a left turn;

(b) is made on a highway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles in each direction; or

(c) is made on a highway designated for the use of one-way traffic only. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 150 (1).

I would argue that "a line of vehicles" is intended to generally describe a roadway wide enough for traffic to continue past the left turning vehicles, not just small vehicles that happen to fit. Presumably, that's the purpose of the section - to keep the traffic flowing while a vehicle waits to turn left (since that vehicle will not likely have the right of way and could be waiting for some time.
The section isn't meant to provide an exception to small vehicles.

I do note, however, that even as subsection (2) prohibits driving off the road, subsection (3) permits use of the shoulder to get around those pesky left turners, and there is no reference to the amount space, or lines of vehicles:
[h=4]Driving off roadway prohibited[/h] (2) No driver of a motor vehicle shall overtake and pass another vehicle by driving off the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 150 (2).
[h=4]Non-application of subs. (2)[/h] (3) Subsection (2) does not apply to,
(a) a motor vehicle overtaking and passing to the right of another vehicle where the shoulder to the right of the roadway is paved and the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn or its driver has signalled his or her intention to make a left turn;





I still can't find the section about occupying the same lane at the same time - that's the same thing that comes up when we talk about sharing, or riding abreast.

 

[Emefef]

....yes, bikes do accelerate faster from the light and can use the space between cars....Are you getting home later because of me?

First - I already addressed the issue of time and you've ignored it but added to it. You MAY accelerate faster than the cars, or you will LIKELY accelerate faster than the cars....or you MAY encourage them to try to out accelerate you. That's not how the system works - it's not based on who is likely to go the fastest. Imagine if that's how we legally determined the right of way at uncontrolled intersections, or if we interpreted yield signs as "depends on who is faster". What about 4 way stops? Who cares who got there first, I'm faster! What about filtering that results in two, three or more bikes all lined up single file between two rows of traffic? All of them are going to out-accelerate the front two cars? So now they're passing near/in an intersection? Or do they filter to the front and cross the limit line to actually get in front of the cars? That would result in an improper stop position and potentially blocking a pedestrian crossover.
You see, it's easy to make an argument that it works when you're only arguing for one bike. "Why shouldn't I be able to do this?" When it applies to everyone, it works out differently.

Or are you being a concerned citizen trying to uphold the law? By that token, I would presume that if tomorrow we'll legalize filtering you'll be completely ok with it?

Next - I explained my position on this, too. What I said was "I think filtering through stopped traffic has some merit, but not now, and not unless it is more socially acceptable."
So no, I would not be COMPLETELY okay with it, because as a safety advocate I think we have lot of work to do prior to it becoming legal - an educational campaign not unlike what they did in Australia. Would I accept that it's legal? Absolutely. Then the discussion about would be more about riding practices and choices - not the law.

 

[hedo2002]

Ah no I am not splitting hairs, (I am going by the legal definition Last time I checked Wikileaks was NOT a dictionary, but rather a compilation of info, (most often by people who have NO idea what they are talking about) as in the case of this so called definition you have attempted to use to support your claim.

The charge one would face for lane filtering as you are trying to describe riding among cars on the DVP is the same as it is for lane splitting. The officer may choose to go with two vehicles occupying the same lane or if you brought out your self entitled argument, he/she "may" choose to go with s172, which would then give you 7 days to consider your future choices while riding the TTC.

Well, let's see :

Lane splitting is riding a bicycle or motorcycle between rows of vehicles traveling in lanes in the same direction. More narrowly, it refers to overtaking rows of slow or stopped vehicles by traveling between them.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] It is also sometimes called lane sharing, whitelining,[SUP][3][/SUP] filtering, or stripe-riding.[SUP][4][/SUP]
Alternatively, lane splitting has been used to describe moving through traffic that is in motion. It is similar to filtering, or filtering forward, which is used to describe moving through traffic that is stopped.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] When the space used is between two lines of vehicles, this is also known as lane splitting; however, filtering can be accomplished by using space on the outside edge of same-direction traffic as well. There can be significant savings of time by bypassing what otherwise would be obstructions.[SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP]

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

It looks to me like it's not a clear definition. What you are doing is splitting (pun intended) hairs here and ignoring a simple point I was trying to get across.

 

[Alex_San]

Ah no I am not splitting hairs, (I am going by the legal definition Last time I checked Wikileaks was NOT a dictionary, but rather a compilation of info, (most often by people who have NO idea what they are talking about) as in the case of this so called definition you have attempted to use to support your claim.

The charge one would face for lane filtering as you are trying to describe riding among cars on the DVP is the same as it is for lane splitting. The officer may choose to go with two vehicles occupying the same lane or if you brought out your self entitled argument, he/she "may" choose to go with s172, which would then give you 7 days to consider your future choices while riding the TTC.

Wikileaks is different than wikipedia, I would get my facts straight if I were you. Looks like the one that has no idea what he's talking about is you.
In any case, I will take wikipedia's word over yours.
I mentioned earlier that I do not split or filter (whatever that means). The fact that a cop can choose hta172 for something like this shows how brilliant that law is.

 

[Emefef]

Wikileaks is different than wikipedia, I would get my facts straight if I were you. Looks like the one that has no idea what he's talking about is you.
In any case, I will take wikipedia's word over yours.
I mentioned earlier that I do not split or filter (whatever that means). The fact that a cop can choose hta172 for something like this shows how brilliant that law is.

Wiki or wiki - now who is splitting hairs? The definition you used is, by the description provided, a compilation of different uses for the terms - neither of which is in the HTA so it's mostly irrelevant.

As for the brilliance of s172 - I can't remember anyone on this forum, including coppers current and former, blindly supporting the law as written. The intent, maybe. The rationale behind it, possibly.....but back to your point - the fact that a cop can choose s172 for something like that isn't a reflection on that law but rather a reflection, as are all of these pointless threads, that there is not a simple and clear definition and law for lane-splitting.

 

[sonyminidiscman]

Actually if it is a single lane road, NO you can NOT use the right side of the road legally to go straight. Feel free to post the section of the HTA that permits this. You WILL find a section in the HTA that states it is ILLEGAL for two vehicles to occupy the same lane at the same time, (which is what your saying is legal to do). Please come back when you have a proper argument, not one that advocates illegal activities as being legal. That is why it isn't as you did state correctly in the driver's handbook....lol

I don't know how you don't know this... its stated everywhere... FYI, I am not "arguing". I am just letting people know some facts. You should know better for being a "site supporter".

This is stated in 2 places:
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/driver/handbook/section2.7.6.shtml
Most passing is done on the left. You may pass on the right on multi-lane or one-way roads and when overtaking a streetcar or a left-turning vehicle.

AND since you asked for the HTA

Passing to right of vehicle - 150.

(1) The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle only where the movement can be made in safety and,

(a) the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn or its driver has signalled his or her intention to make a left turn;

(b) is made on a highway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles in each direction; or

(c) is made on a highway designated for the use of one-way traffic only. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 150 (1).

 

[hedo2002]

I DO indeed know it and you supported my contention without even realizing it. See the first part where it says MULTI LANE??? At no point did I state you couldn't pass on the right of a MULTI lane or a roadway, (as per S150, which you also refer to), a road with sufficient width for two lines of traffic, in EACH direction. I was replying to the posters contention that you could pass on the right of a SINGLE lane roadway.

As for my being a "site supporter" has NO bearing on any post I make it merely means that at some point I made a financial contribution to the owners of the forum to assist with the operating costs of the forum.

I don't know how you don't know this... its stated everywhere... FYI, I am not "arguing". I am just letting people know some facts. You should know better for being a "site supporter".

This is stated in 2 places:
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/driver/handbook/section2.7.6.shtml
Most passing is done on the left. You may pass on the right on multi-lane or one-way roads and when overtaking a streetcar or a left-turning vehicle.

AND since you asked for the HTA

Passing to right of vehicle - 150.

(1) The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle only where the movement can be made in safety and,

(a) the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn or its driver has signalled his or her intention to make a left turn;

(b) is made on a highway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles in each direction; or

(c) is made on a highway designated for the use of one-way traffic only. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 150 (1).

 

[hedo2002]

Well first of all, the difference between Wikipedia, and Wikileaks is not a FACTUAL error, it is a typo, or incorrectly written or a misspeak, (depending upon weather the person using the term is typing/writing or speaking. So, I did indeed "have my facts straight" I merely committed a typo, (I was actually listening to a news story on a Wikileaks item so it was fore front in my mind). I apologize that this typo has caused you such great stress.

The FACT still remains that wikipedia is NOT a credible source and your description of riding between vehicles on the DVP is indeed lane SPLITTING as opposed to filtering. Your more than welcome to take an unreliable source over my word, (after all I have only my experience of having taken courses on the HTA and application of the various sections contained therein, as well as, writing tickets, and testifying in court, as my source). Unfortunately, we have NO idea what "qualifications" the person who wrote the article for wikipedia has.

As for s172, read ANY of my posts on this law and you will see that I have posted publicly many many times, that I am opposed to the law and it's application in most circumstances. As with all sections of the HTA is is written to cover the broadest possible spectrum of circumstances as such it is left open to interpretation, and potential abuse.

Wikileaks is different than wikipedia, I would get my facts straight if I were you. Looks like the one that has no idea what he's talking about is you.
In any case, I will take wikipedia's word over yours.
I mentioned earlier that I do not split or filter (whatever that means). The fact that a cop can choose hta172 for something like this shows how brilliant that law is.

 

[Baggsy]

Well first of all, the difference between Wikipedia, and Wikileaks is not a FACTUAL error, it is a typo, or incorrectly written or a misspeak, (depending upon weather the person using the term is typing/writing or speaking. So, I did indeed "have my facts straight" I merely committed a typo, (I was actually listening to a news story on a Wikileaks item so it was fore front in my mind). I apologize that this typo has caused you such great stress. The FACT still remains that wikipedia is NOT a credible source and your description of riding between vehicles on the DVP is indeed lane SPLITTING as opposed to filtering. Your more than welcome to take an unreliable source over my word, (after all I have only my experience of having taken courses on the HTA and application of the various sections contained therein, as well as, writing tickets, and testifying in court, as my source). Unfortunately, we have NO idea what "qualifications" the person who wrote the article for wikipedia has. As for s172, read ANY of my posts on this law and you will see that I have posted publicly many many times, that I am opposed to the law and it's application in most circumstances. As with all sections of the HTA is is written to cover the broadest possible spectrum of circumstances as such it is left open to interpretation, and potential abuse.

Can't you just go in and fix the Wiki? Although, someone might then go in and change it back to their version afterwards.

 

[sonyminidiscman]

I DO indeed know it and you supported my contention without even realizing it. See the first part where it says MULTI LANE??? At no point did I state you couldn't pass on the right of a MULTI lane or a roadway, (as per S150, which you also refer to), a road with sufficient width for two lines of traffic, in EACH direction. I was replying to the posters contention that you could pass on the right of a SINGLE lane roadway.

As for my being a "site supporter" has NO bearing on any post I make it merely means that at some point I made a financial contribution to the owners of the forum to assist with the operating costs of the forum.

Heres how I am reading the HTA150

The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle - A bike is considered a motor vehicle right? Me as the rider is considered as the driver?

a road with sufficient width for two lines of traffic - road wide enough for 2 lines of traffic, does that mean 2 LANES or 2 lines... like side by side? I am reading it as 2 lines, regardless of number of lanes.

Lets use this street view as an example.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.783...4!1sYo270oZ42HJHrG9WZ6gbxA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Very often, there are many cars waiting for that left turn, which blocks people from going straight. Lets just imagine for a second, there are 50 bikes all trying to make that left turn, and I am the one bike thats going straight. This rode has sufficient with for 2 bikes, so I can legally pass all 50 bikes on the right and go on my way right? Now switch the 50 bikes into 50 cars. same idea no?

 

[Emefef]

Heres how I am reading the HTA150

The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle - A bike is considered a motor vehicle right? Me as the rider is considered as the driver?

a road with sufficient width for two lines of traffic - road wide enough for 2 lines of traffic, does that mean 2 LANES or 2 lines... like side by side? I am reading it as 2 lines, regardless of number of lanes.

Lets use this street view as an example.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.783...4!1sYo270oZ42HJHrG9WZ6gbxA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Very often, there are many cars waiting for that left turn, which blocks people from going straight. Lets just imagine for a second, there are 50 bikes all trying to make that left turn, and I am the one bike thats going straight. This rode has sufficient with for 2 bikes, so I can legally pass all 50 bikes on the right and go on my way right? Now switch the 50 bikes into 50 cars. same idea no?

As I said only a couple of posts ago, the "two lines" vs "two lanes" may be significant - and it also says "traffic", not vehicles. The implication to me is that there has to be room for for everyone, not just the smallest vehicle. In other words, if there's room for all the traffic to go past, it's okay. If there's room for a bike to squeeze past but not the vehicle behind it, I don't believe that what's intended by this section. Ironically, if you were to look further to subsections 2 and 3 about using the shoulder (as I posted just a few posts above) those may support your point better than what you're using.

 

[sonyminidiscman]

As I said only a couple of posts ago, the "two lines" vs "two lanes" may be significant - and it also says "traffic", not vehicles. The implication to me is that there has to be room for for everyone, not just the smallest vehicle. In other words, if there's room for all the traffic to go past, it's okay. If there's room for a bike to squeeze past but not the vehicle behind it, I don't believe that what's intended by this section. Ironically, if you were to look further to subsections 2 and 3 about using the shoulder (as I posted just a few posts above) those may support your point better than what you're using.

Ok, well... I don't know... I'll just have to keep doing what I am doing because I simply can't wait while a giant space is open to me when I am on a bike....... maybe one day, I'll post in this section when I get a ticket because of this lol...

 

[Baggsy]

The thing is that lines includes lines of motorcycles, cars and trucks. There is no motorcycle lane, and a motorcycle is given an entire lane in traffic, not half of one. Imagine if the rule was that motorcycles had to ride in one side of the lane or other, so that cars could split them, saving on congestion.

 

[jcbarnar]

Wow Baggsy, this thread is done, just stop. What's your problem? Have you ever been in traffic on a motorcycle?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[Motorcycle Mike]

I know all of you love arguing so much, but if you are actually a rider you should be all for filtering because it is safer.

If you get rear ended driving a car, most likely you'll be fine... maybe a sore neck. If you get rear ended riding a bike, you will likely be seriously injured or dead. With the ever increasing amount of distracted drivers out there now, and police seemingly hardly ever addressing it, we should all be filtering up just to save our own *****.

Case in point: https://gfycat.com/NewCoordinatedGalapagossealion

 

[Baggsy]

Yes I've been in traffic on a motorcycle.
I used to commute downtown daily from the west end.
I've been on the Gardiner/QEW downtown to Burlington during rush hour, spent 10 minutes in a store, then taking a different route home to avoid the traffic.

But for the most part, I prefer to avoid traffic, rather than use it as a source of mobile pylons. What's your point?

If spitting or filtering ever becomes legal, then I may try it, although I don't think I'm self important enough to filter.
(Never had someone filter who didn't hold me up, despite the many shouts to the contrary here).
I'm not against splitting in and of itself, but against doing unexpected things, especially when they are illegal.

I don't see filtering as a panacea for getting in accidents, in fact the studies I've seen, show that you're more likely to rear end or sideswipe someone when doing so.

Anyways, I like to ride a little differently than most I see, and that's worked at keeping me safe so far.

 

[Motorcycle Mike]

I stay out of traffic as well, however sometimes it is unavoidable.

Three times in my 24 years of riding on the street has it been necessary to filter up between cars to avoid being rear ended (was watching mirrors).
In one of those three cases the car that would have hit me actually hit the car that was in front of me. I would have been sandwiched.

Filtering makes sense and should be legal everywhere and it has nothing to do with being 'more important' but everything to do with being more vulnerable and likely to killed on these distracted driver roads.

 

[bikepike]

Filter all you want when traffic is stopped, don't filter when traffic is moving steady 40+ because drivers in the GTA are complete morons. Every time I see a cop sitting in a parking lot (at least 6 so far) I stop and ask their opinion on filtering. It's illegal even though no where does it specifically say it's not, but the odds of being ticketed are slim to none when filtering through stopped traffic. No need for stupid continuous arguments