The act is the act. It doesn't matter what name you apply to it.
Although very few here actually understand the messages in my posts, it really
was to encourage the use of the term filtering instead of lane splitting. And while I have since been informed of the technical definitions of the two (one of your confirmation posts below, thanks) in my mind even lane splitting is 'filtering' and my reasons for labeling it that are numerous. I won't list them all again as it is my experience that very little of a persons original post is read, and what is read is usually, as a consequence of skipping most of it, is misinterpreted. Sometimes it's due to a lack of comprehension. But that has never, and no doubt never will stop many readers here of grabbing and running with the ball whether it's been deemed foul or not. In any event, like I say, my hope is that this WILL be brought into law in the future, and by labeling it filtering instead of lane splitting, really does help with that direction. You can tell that a few here have no idea how politics and media mass perception works. Suffice it to say, it amazes me how so few riders understand how they continuously shoot themselves in the foot and do or say almost the exact opposite of what would help them. It'd be funny if it wasn't so ironic.
Hopefully speed readers, will read this part..one primary reason I discourage the use of the term lane splitting, whether it is used for filtering or not, is your average grossly incompetent cage driver (including at least one truck driver who posted his inconsiderate and rigid mindset of deliberately NOT driving in a defensive fashion if filtering is encountered, in either this thread or the other one) perceives this
literally. i.e. Their pea-brained inability to reason and interpret things that is merely common sense to many, see the term lane-split, as 50/50. "I ain't gonna give up HALF of my lane to some hooligan biker!" or "My SUV uses up ALL of my lane, and not only will I crush any rider who tries to share it with me, I'll puff my chest out while doing so." (must be a Hummer H1 with trailer towing extended mirrors on it) Or maybe it just looks like it uses up all of his lane as he peers out over the hood. Many a driver has no clue where their corners are in relation to others around them.
Anyway, to most, lane-split they see as giving up half. So that is just one of many reasons I say that using the term filter helps our case to potentially have this allowed in ON. Ok, gonna spell it out for those who I am sure still won't get it...picture this on the news some night...her in the kitchen overhearing Global news as he is watching waiting for dinner.."Haaarold...did I hear that right?? Now they want us to give up HALF of our lane to those darn hooligan bikers?? Just wait'll I call up our local MPP and voice what I think of that nonsense!" and so it goes. When I talk about
helping yourselves, I didn't mean help yourself to filtering at breakneck speed nor even necessarily do it until it
is law.. I am suggesting that you need to understand public perception and know the strategy involved in using the system to achieve what it is you are hoping to accomplish.
When you filter and you piss off other motorists do they even know what your doing is called?
See above if you have the time. It's a waste if you want to counter or debate but not fully understand what is being debated or suggested.
Didn't read the entire topic but...
Isn't
Filtering = All vehicles stopped and you move to the front?
Splitting = Vehicles moving, pass on the same lane while moving.
I am for Filtering but not splitting.
You should though. But nonetheless, I thank you for bringing this up and that Rob was able to confirm it.
Those are the commonly accepted definitions; yes.
Thank you, Rob. As is described above, though, my reasons for making the distinction I elaborated on.
I'll bet all the people against filtering don't live in downtown Toronto. I'm all for it, especially on Queen St. I don't find drivers don't really care, some of them even move to the left to give me more space as I pass them on the right. But I'll extend the courtesy and keep to the left side of the right lane at the lights to allow cars to make right turns, something I don't see every motorcyclist doing since they too can be selfish arseholes.
Yes, many are unfortunately.
So who's charged if i change lanes and some clown on a motorcycle or bicycle for that matter is splitting lanes and runs into me?
Asked..and answered later by awyala I think it was. But it really isn't that hard to determine unless your contempt for the advancement of any rider in traffic that is legally allowed to pass you, upsets your me-first line of thinking and clouds your ability to reason rationally.
If ....if....if...
Filtering doesn't bother me, this attitude does.
You need to realize when you filter your risking a ticket and ending up under a larger vehicle. Im not looking out for filtering bikes in my work truck.
You need to realize that in discussions,
if helps clarify and communicate. I used two of 'em..to do just that, (not 3) keep my points clear and understood so that words put in my mouth later don't have merit, once the poster goes back and sees I covered my bases. I have done this from the very beginning by using caveats like "at 5 - 10 - 10 kph speed differential" IOW's no faster than you could actually fast walk or jog alongside your bike if you had to push it after running out of gas. But
IF you want to ignore that part and read into that I am advocating 50 and 60 kph passes then I can't help you with that. Furthermore, you ignore the fact that my quest has always been to help our chances of it becoming law, not advocate breaking a law if these maneuvers are deemed illegal, and as I have also already stated, ticket potential is already under a constable's constant discretion as are all the laws presently in place. Do I have to even state the obvious...that of course this includes the mood the judge is in also if you are before him. But the fact remains, that in most cases our cops do analyse a riders act and if filtering is made law and the rider is being smart about how he utilizes it, most aren't going to even have to be prone to a judges bad mood or influence of a recent past case.
I filter at jogging pace, not unsafe, and not exceeding the ability to the bike to brake even faster than a bicycle.
No police officer has ever threatened to quote 172 to me. I repeat I do not filter in moving traffic.
Exactly, and I appreciate that you get it. You know what is going to be seen as safe and responsible, as opposed to what is going to be seen as hooliganism. There is a HUGE difference between 3 to 5 mph and what California allows. They allow half the speed limit? No wonder it bites people on the *** there at times and still has some public perception issues..
Its illegal,
people have been convicted for it.
People have been convicted under 172 for it.
You can read the HTA as much as you want and argue till you are blue in the face, but nothing will change the above, and as long as people can get convicted for it, its illegal.
Its really that simple. No lawyering required.
I personally don't think much of it, filtering or splitting. You can do it if you want, it doesn't bother me, just know that you can get a ticket for it, and in some cases a really fat one. I take the same view of people running from the cops.
After reading quite a few of your posts, I've decided that I think you are a prosecutor. If you are a defense attorney, I wouldn't have you in my court. You exhibit shades of black and white and those resultant grey areas spend quite a bit of time not in the rider's court.
No, I think you were very clear that you were trying to encourage the use of a more positive term in the context of advocacy. I don't know how people misunderstood that but as I've come to learn; if they don't understand something the result is that they instantly and vociferously hate it. Welcome to the idiocracy.
I elaborated above.
^ +1
As far as the legality of it, I don't know. But not a single one of the OP's opponents have stated anything that even resembles an intelligent counterpoint. Although I'm not convinced, the OP at least made a proper case with citations that have yet to be factually refuted.
I, for one, don't care whether it's legal or not. I'll do what I choose to do if I feel it's safe and reasonable to do so. At the end of the day, rules mean nothing. It comes down to individual choice. Most of the time that choice is in agreement with the rules but sometimes it's not. When it's not, be prepared to accept the consequences of not following the letter of the law even if you've abided by it's spirit. Those who choose to adhere unquestionably are free to do so as well, the rules were made for them.
Right.
I don't care what you do, I only tell people what the law is. ignore at your own risk.
Next week it'll be the same thread all over again anyway.
Sound's dismissive.. if you're not interested, why torture yourself?
Please note, Bunda broke under the cross, contradicting his earlier statement that all cars he past were signally left. He later admits he could not verify 1 of the cars was signaling left. This was required in his SIGNLE LANE situation, but is not a requirement in a multi LINE situation. By also admitting to having to wiggle his mirrors past one car, he also effectively admits there wasn't enough room, safely, to argue a multi line situation.
What further makes this unsafe was that the intersection was a T junction, meaning that in addition to a single lane, any car not signalling left will then be turning right, and potentially cutting off the filtering bike.
172 was an excessive charge but they made it stick for the above reasons. Filtering has the potential to be done illegally under the HTA, though it can be done legally also, depending on how you do it.
It is both not universally illegal, nor universally legal.
The irony is in asking for help from the biker community is met with such negative attitudes and arrogant ignorance. And where the resources of a lawyer are available, our resident legal expert reluctantly lacks the will or the ability to argue or demonstrate fairly the merrits of filtering. Perhaps he is a prosecutor, and hasn't the ability to defend.
If a biker lawyer cracks on you like this, expect a cop or Justice to give you a hard time. Be ready for the inevitable argument if you filter, legally or otherwise. If there is a wiff of an illegal manouver while filtering, 172 is a risk. But then again 172 gets thrown in your face by cops like bad breath these days. It's practically their catch phrase, and it certainly spooked some members of this forum to the level of severe anal retention.
- So true..
- And I have wondered the same thing..but in his 'defense' (if you like) I think that a person's patience could get tarnished and shortened with the amount of disrespect which is shown on this forum at times. They try to shock and impress with what is assumed exaggeration, but the reality is...it's not all just fluff and BS..unfortunately.
The word is APPROACHING. You miss read even simple text.
You are allowed to pass a slow moving vehicle in the same lane. The slower moving vehicle is obliged to turn out to the right and provide as much room to be passed as is possible, even in a single lane situation. Once again, the issue of passing a TRAVELLING vehicle 30 meters away from a pedestrian crossing is established as safe in the HTA, and NOT universally made illegal.
It is challenging to debate a topic when so often what is said is not comprehended correctly or the comments are based on nothing more than conjecture.
I realize some of my 'bolds' got lost..it timed me out...hopefully I was able to still make my points I referenced.
edit - I think I found some that were missing.
