It's FILTERING, NOT lane splitting! | GTAMotorcycle.com

It's FILTERING, NOT lane splitting!

nesobriquet

Well-known member
In an, admittedly perhaps, overly optimistic (especially for GTA) hope for riding in Ontario, I urge EVERYONE to use the termFILTERING!Why not help ourselves? If we use the term lane splitting, do you guys not see that that particular term is not helping our case?...certainly not in the way that FILTERING has the potential to, due to not being perceived as nearly a controversial term.
Spread the word.....it's
FILTERING.
For the love of all modes of transport on 2 wheels, let's help ourselves by pro-actively, from this day forward, NOT using the term lane-splitting.

And on the subject of filtering, any perception of my advocating such a practice, should consider that speed differentials should be respected and that filtering speeds should be done at speeds just high enough that you can idle in 1st gear with the clutch out. And furthermore, recognize and respect that in some circumstances, full clutch engagement may not be possible, not only with certain bikes, but more so with some traffic congestion that is encountered. The idea is that we manage it SAFELY, and also portray that restraint to other motorists around us.

It's a given that not all motorists will be ok with it because of human nature being what it is, but by respectfully being extra smart about it, there will be quite a large percentage of other road users that wouldn't object.

Remember..it's filtering..

- ^ everything above has not been edited.

edit or clarification if you like - ok, I decided in an effort to reduce potential confusion or give new riders/drivers the wrong impression, I acknowledge that filtering and lane spitting is presently illegal. My purpose in posting is an attempt to show to others who would vote to have that law relaxed, that there are good ways and poor ways of achieving that uphill battle.

Also, initially I considered lane-splitting a type of filtering, but it has since been clarified that apparently most people think of filtering when other traffic is stopped at a light and they move to the front of the line if there is enough room to not endanger mirrors etc helping to alleviate traffic congestion, and is a known safer environment/position for a rider to be in than potentially sandwiched between two impatient drivers colliding between the next set of lights.

I have elaborated further my stand on posting this thread and the best way to get the message out there, in a few places throughout the thread. If you care, read it from the start. Basically though I indicate that both should be allowed, stoplight filtering first to get cages a bit more used to the idea, then intro filtering as a means to share a right lane/part shoulder on the move also, but adhere to strictly enforced low speed differentials. Only in that way can filtering be relatively safe. Of course we can't idiot-proof the world..the rest of us are outnumbered.
 
Last edited:
It's only filtering if you filter in your lane instead of weaving in and out of cars to the front, which seems to be more common. That and a lot of cagers get waaaaaay bent out of shape about it. A couple days ago I had a guy on an older R6 filter properly all the way out in front of me, nbd for me but the woman next to me actually rolled down her window and screamed at him until the light went green, then promptly cut me off to tailgate him.

People are crazy out there. Not to mention that filtering is in a legal grey area in that it's not illegal, but not strictly legal either.
 
Either way you define it, it's a practice you can be pulled over for. Pretty important to make that point clear to new riders. It might make sense to you and to a lot of people but if it's cloudy in the eyes of the law just be aware that you could end up with a bad day for doing it.

Now my two cents.....I'd do it if I thought drivers might be aware of it and accepting of the practice but sadly they aren't. My brother recently got knocked off his bike by a tool in a car in the uk who wasn't looking, my brother was filtering in a country where this is accepted practice. Now think about your average Ontario driver.....do you really want to risk becoming a hood ornament of some texting teenager for the sake of getting home 5 minutes earlier?
 
It's only filtering if you filter in your lane instead of weaving in and out of cars to the front, which seems to be more common. That and a lot of cagers get waaaaaay bent out of shape about it. A couple days ago I had a guy on an older R6 filter properly all the way out in front of me, nbd for me but the woman next to me actually rolled down her window and screamed at him until the light went green, then promptly cut me off to tailgate him.

People are crazy out there. Not to mention that filtering is in a legal grey area in that it's not illegal, but not strictly legal either.

Filtering involves passing a car while in their lane, How is that not illegal?
 
Filtering involves passing a car while in their lane, How is that not illegal?

There's a long drawn out post on here by alaywa (I'm looking for it) that explains why it's not illegal in the eyes of the courts (can still get pulled over and ticketed though).
 
Why don't you just call it what everyone else does? being an ARSEHOLE
 

It's a given that not all motorists will be ok with it because of human nature being what it is, but by respectfully being extra smart about it, there will be quite a large percentage of other road users that wouldn't object.

Remember..it's filtering..

You're either pregnant or not.

OP have you ever even ridden in the GTA before?
 
There's a long drawn out post on here by alaywa (I'm looking for it) that explains why it's not illegal in the eyes of the courts (can still get pulled over and ticketed though).

Not illegal but you can get a ticket for it....so whats that called?

Check out the rules in ontario about passing.
 
Not illegal but you can get a ticket for it....so whats that called?

Check out the rules in ontario about passing.

The ticket wouldn't have the words "Lane, splitting, or filtering" anywhere on it. Ergo, legal grey area.

Wall O' Text:

Originally Posted by HTA Where highway divided into lanes
154. (1) Where a highway has been divided into clearly marked lanes for traffic,
(a) a vehicle shall be driven as nearly as may be practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety;
(b) in the case of a highway that is divided into three lanes, a vehicle shall not be driven in the centre lane except when overtaking and passing another vehicle where the roadway is clearly visible and the centre lane is clear of traffic within a reasonable safe distance, or in preparation for a left turn, or where the centre lane is at the time designated for the use of traffic moving in the direction in which the vehicle is proceeding and official signs are erected to indicate the designation;
(c) any lane may be designated for slowly moving traffic, traffic moving in a particular direction or classes or types of vehicles and, despite section 141, where a lane is so designated and official signs indicating the designation are erected, every driver shall obey the instructions on the official signs. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 154 (1).
Exception
(2) Where safety is not jeopardized, clauses (1) (b) and (c) do not apply to road service vehicles and clause (1) (c) does not apply to road-building machines or apparatus while engaged in the construction of a highway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 154 (2).




Section 154 in general refers to any highway (any road) divided into lanes, i.e. not a single lane. Section b) then further clarifies an instance of 3 lanes. But prior to section b) this clarification is not made, and the section thus far deals with "lanes" plural (i.e. 2 or more)


So in this case sub section a) is a general application to 2 or more lanes with regard to passing.


It states "a vehicle shall be driven as nearly as may be practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety;"


Meaning that normally, prior to a pass a vehicle shall be as nearly as may be practicable entirely within a single lane. Which means one cannot normally drive in 2 lanes at the same time if it is practicably possible to drive in 1 lane (entirely). But when making a pass this is of course not possible, so in this instance, only when the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety. Then a driver can leave being entirely in a single lane, to take up 2 lanes, then to move over to another single lane. This is basically stating how to pass and how to ordinarily drive when not in a passing state (i.e. entirely in a single lane where practicable). This clause allows for non practicable situations, as of course there are circumstances where vehicle may take up 2 lanes or share lanes, which go on to be further addressed through out the HTA.


The issue of passing to the right of a vehicle is addressed here (not in section 154):


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).






The reason why I now refer to this section is because when I called the traffic enforcement office to ask them to point out the law in which lane splitting was illegal, they first refused and told me if I had managed to find out where the HTA is on the net, then I could find the law myself. I later explained the a cop only gave me a warning and said it was illegal to drive on the line, but that I could not find such a law. The traffic enforcement officer then explained to me that it isnt only that, it was that it was also illegal to pass to the right of a vehicle that wasn't signalling left. So then I figured for sure it was illegal to pass in the slow lane or if I was filtering. Now in the UK passing in the slow lane is called "undertaking" and is in fact illegal, so I figured what this officer had now told me in Ontario was plausible and that there was clear rules here which meant I could not pass between cars, cause obviously 1 set of cars would be to my left!


But then I looked closely at this section he quoted and it is in fact NOT ILLEGAL to "undertake" in Ontario! That one can pass in the slow lane to the right of a vehicle, even if that vehicle is not signalling for a left turn, as long as it is (b) is made on a highway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles in each direction;


Not even lanes!!! just "sufficient width for 2 or more lines of vehicles"!!!!


As long as I judge that there is room for me and 2 cars (1 on either side), then it is in fact legal to pass to the right of (and in this case between) cars!!!!


In any event, each person may read the HTA slightly differently with respect to lane splitting or filtering because it is not in any way clear or explicit about the act of lane splitting or filtering! In this case it is not illegal and all 3 cops that have stopped me have been unable to argue my contention.


I keep a copy of the relevant clauses in my phone, so if they misquote to me as they have in the past, I am able to rebut them correctly and argue the finer points of the clauses. So far no tickets! I never yell, I never act annoyed, I simply speak to them calmly and state my points with respect and seek their clarification because "I can't seem to find such a law, can you help me find it and understand officer?" As I put it. So far non have been able to explain why and how lane splitting is illegal other than reverting to the issue of safety.


And if you revise the 2 clauses I have referred to you will see "safety" is a judgment call on the part of the driver and is subject to the circumstances of each particular instance. If a judge or officer can be convinced you are mature, respectful, informed, and safe rider, then most of their pre-conceived notions of a SS rider can be put to rest.


When I refer to laws in the UK for example I only do so to point out that the idea of safety is not universal when it comes to filtering, and that most of the world sees it differently. Thus in the absence of a clear ban on lane splitting by name and description in the HTA, and when reverting to judgement calls on safety, one (i.e. a cop) has to take into consideration my notion of safety as well, for I had made a judgment call of some sort to engage in filtering. If I have 8 years of safe experience with lane splitting, and a teenage M2 Canadian SS rider has no experience with it, also gets pulled over, the cop must consider that these 2 separate suspects have different circumstances....for one it was a "safe" action, while for the other with no experience with it, it was "unsafe".


My other issue with an unmarked car chasing down a motorbike is that said unmarked cop car is more dangerous than the biker she was chasing down (me); for I was not speeding while she was to catch me, and even if I was, I am less of a risk to pedestrians (due to my mass and size) at speed, than a speeding 2 ton Chevy Lumina with poorer stopping power and much much more mass and inertia. Cops will argue that it is safe for them to initiate a chase due to their training and general awareness of the laws, blah blah....but then we encounter the matter of relative safety and judgment calls on taking certain actions with one's motorized vehicle. This is where my experience with UK driving situations is relevant and cannot be dismissed out of hand because "this is Ontario" or "this isn't the UK". That arguement would only hold true if there was an explicit law forbidding the act of lane splitting or filtering regardless of safety judgment calls.


Sorry for being so long winded.
 
The ticket wouldn't have the words "Lane, splitting, or filtering" anywhere on it. Ergo, legal grey area.

Wall O' Text:

How is that a legal grey area?
According to our HTA lane splitting or filtering doesn't exist. The act you refer to as lane splitting or filtering is illegal in ontario.

Why is this so hard to understand?
 
How is that a legal grey area?
According to our HTA lane splitting or filtering doesn't exist. The act you refer to as lane splitting or filtering is illegal in ontario.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Well, I've cited from the HTA how technically it's legal to pass in the same lane/on the right of the left lane, can you please cite where it's expressly illegal to do so? The ticket would 99% be an "Improper Pass" which is false.

All you're doing is saying "NO NO IT'S ILLEGAL!!!!" how about some HTA quoting.
 
The ticket wouldn't have the words "Lane, splitting, or filtering" anywhere on it. Ergo, legal grey area.

Wall O' Text:

I recommend that you forget about that wall of text as it was written by someone who thinks that just because the exact words don't appear in a statute, the thing that he wants to do isn't illegal.
 
WTF is the difference, its still illegal.

I guess I should have mentioned that by using a different term for it, the long term intention was a hope that it may be made legal in the future. Every little bit helps. Who would have predicted that an ON city with its head as far up its *** as TO would ever allow free parking for bikes?

I really can't emphasis enough though, that speed differentials has to be respected and I would support a law that heavily penalized offenders. And in case I have to spell it out...offenders would easily be anyone doing more than 10 - 15 or so kph past stationary vehicles. Even 5-10 kph helps get air into my rad and saves a lot of premature engine wear and accelerated oil breakdown. IMO, bikes are not as well designed to manage the heat of stop n go as well as cars are. This is especially true of air cooled bikes.

Anyway, I fully expect there will be no small number of naysayers voicing their opinion against my post. And we know that a certain percentage of them probably don't even ride. And others will exhibit opinions that shoot themselves in the foot and we can't help those who resist helping themselves.

Finally, of course, filtering in the extreme would involve numerous lane changes or weaving around others. Again, help yourselves by not abusing and drawing negative attention if it was allowed in future and increase the odds that it won't be repealed due to that very type of abuse. A law officer's discretion is in play every day with the laws we have. If filtering was made legal, nothing would change in that respect. If you make poor choices, expect the potential to be penalized.
 
I guess I should have mentioned that by using a different term for it, the long term intention was a hope that it may be made legal in the future. Every little bit helps. Who would have predicted that an ON city with its head as far up its *** as TO would ever allow free parking for bikes?

I really can't emphasis enough though, that speed differentials has to be respected and I would support a law that heavily penalized offenders. And in case I have to spell it out...offenders would easily be anyone doing more than 10 - 15 or so kph past stationary vehicles. Even 5-10 kph helps get air into my rad and saves a lot of premature engine wear and accelerated oil breakdown. IMO, bikes are not as well designed to manage the heat of stop n go as well as cars are. This is especially true of air cooled bikes.

Anyway, I fully expect there will be no small number of naysayers voicing their opinion against my post. And we know that a certain percentage of them probably don't even ride. And others will exhibit opinions that shoot themselves in the foot and we can't help those who resist helping themselves.

Finally, of course, filtering in the extreme would involve numerous lane changes or weaving around others. Again, help yourselves by not abusing and drawing negative attention if it was allowed in future and increase the odds that it won't be repealed due to that very type of abuse. A law officer's discretion is in play every day with the laws we have. If filtering was made legal, nothing would change in that respect. If you make poor choices, expect the potential to be penalized.

When you filter and you piss off other motorists do they even know what your doing is called?
 
Well, I've cited from the HTA how technically it's legal to pass in the same lane/on the right of the left lane, can you please cite where it's expressly illegal to do so? The ticket would 99% be an "Improper Pass" which is false.

All you're doing is saying "NO NO IT'S ILLEGAL!!!!" how about some HTA quoting.

Can you state where you see it is legal to pass in the same lane?
 
HTML:
There's a long drawn out post on here by alaywa (I'm looking for it) that explains why it's not illegal in the eyes of the courts (can still get pulled over and ticketed though).

And he was wrong. it doesn't matter how long the post is. There should be a sticky about this.
 
Last edited:
If you call it "environmentally responsible use of rubber resources" you're allowed to wheelie all the time.
 

Back
Top Bottom