It's FILTERING, NOT lane splitting!

Rob MacLennan · Jul 9, 2012

spinto said:
They don't. The truck wasn't racing. He is where he's supposed to be....the motorcycle isn't.

If the truck accelerates in order to block the motorcycle, then he is also racing. It doesn't matter if he's where he was supposed to be, as far as the definitions of HTA 172 are concerned. Right or wrong, he'd be screwed.

spinto · Jul 9, 2012

Rob MacLennan said:
If the truck accelerates in order to block the motorcycle, then he is also racing. It doesn't matter if he's where he was supposed to be, as far as the definitions of HTA 172 are concerned. Right or wrong, he'd be screwed.

The truck is where he's allowed to be.....all of the cars that were passed by the bike are upset....the truck pulls away from the light.....the bike challenges the truck for lane space (dumb btw)....bike gets run over....where will the witnesses be?? on the side of the truck who "may" have been racing....and yet unproven at that point or the bike who is clearly not where he is allowed to be??

Rob MacLennan · Jul 9, 2012

spinto said:
The truck is where he's allowed to be.....all of the cars that were passed by the bike are upset....the truck pulls away from the light.....the bike challenges the truck for lane space (dumb btw)....bike gets run over....where will the witnesses be?? on the side of the truck who "may" have been racing....and yet unproven at that point or the bike who is clearly not where he is allowed to be??

I thought that we were talking about the law, not inventing scenarios? I've told you how the law is written.

spinto · Jul 9, 2012

Rob MacLennan said:
I thought that we were talking about the law, not inventing scenarios? I've told you how the law is written.

you claimed he was racing...not me

Rob MacLennan · Jul 9, 2012

spinto said:
you claimed he was racing...not me

No, I defined what he was stated to be doing by using the standards set out under Ont Reg 455/07.

spinto, you really need to take a step back and realize that you're arguing with the people who agree with you, regarding lane splitting.

nesobriquet · Jul 9, 2012

Rob MacLennan said:
If the truck accelerates in order to block the motorcycle, then he is also racing. It doesn't matter if he's where he was supposed to be, as far as the definitions of HTA 172 are concerned. Right or wrong, he'd be screwed.

Furthermore, the truck driver could fall prey to a 172, as per this:

For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, “stunt” includes any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:

8. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,iii. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to drive, without justification, as close as possible to another vehicle, pedestrian or fixed object on or near the highway

But, when I heard that the row of ******** started to lay on their horns (talk about an abuse of what horns are really designed for, IMO, they should have had their horns fed to them. No rational roaduser uses a horn to express frustration when STOPPED, with no threat of someone backing or hitting them due to not being seen) I thought he was going to say that the truck driver went ahead and started to head through a red light due to hearing the horns and interpreting them as an indicator of impatience.

That scene boils down to the old adage: Two wrongs don't make a right. That truck driver poses a FAR greater risk to us as a road user than the rider did.

easy_rider_77 · Jul 9, 2012

If you pass a parked vehicle in the same line, is that considered splitting/filtering??

Rob MacLennan · Jul 9, 2012

easy_rider_77 said:
If you pass a parked vehicle in the same line, is that considered splitting/filtering??

Not if the lane is sufficiently wide to safely accommodate both the parked vehicle and the motorcycle. See OpenGambit's sticky post in the Law and HTA section, regarding R. v. Bunda and lane splitting.

spinto · Jul 9, 2012

Rob MacLennan said:
No, I defined what he was stated to be doing by using the standards set out under Ont Reg 455/07.

spinto, you really need to take a step back and realize that you're arguing with the people who agree with you, regarding lane splitting.

Rob, you need to look more at the rights of the truck. Where we disagree is what the truck is doing. Look back at all of the possible arguments. The truck was in his lane...the bike didn't have a lane. We don't know the circumstances of the obstacles on the road or any other such factors that could have caused the truck to do what he did. Assumptions have been made.

You don't agree with me. Your position is that the bike has more rights to be in the same lane as the truck. It's the truck's lane. It's there for him to use. That's why there are lanes. Where do we agree?

Rob MacLennan · Jul 9, 2012

spinto said:
Rob, you need to look more at the rights of the truck. Where we disagree is what the truck is doing. Look back at all of the possible arguments. The truck was in his lane...the bike didn't have a lane. We don't know the circumstances of the obstacles on the road or any other such factors that could have caused the truck to do what he did. Assumptions have been made.

You don't agree with me. Your position is that the bike has more rights to be in the same lane as the truck. It's the truck's lane. It's there for him to use. That's why there are lanes. Where do we agree?

Not. Even. Close.

Here, let me remind you of the original post.

DJM said:
Not much more to add other than an anecdotal story.

Last weekend I was in my cage waiting in an 8 car line-up on an offramp to turn right. It's a notorious, bottle-necked shopping district so it takes a while to clear the area. A sportbike rider zipped up the right side of us and gets to the stop sign beside a pickup truck. I knew exactly what was going to happen. As people laid on their horns as he went by, the pick up driver accelerated from the stop light and refused to give space. The rider also accelerated by him and the truck drifted closer to the centre line as the rider was forced to pass into incoming traffic.

With those types of drivers out there that 30 seconds gained isn't worth it, at least to me.

My position is that what the motorcycle rider did was illegal. My position is also that because what one person did was illegal, that doesn't imply that what the other person did wasn't also illegal. It isn't about 'rights.'

spinto · Jul 9, 2012

Rob MacLennan said:
Not. Even. Close.

Here, let me remind you of the original post.

My position is that what the motorcycle rider did was illegal. My position is also that because what one person did was illegal, that doesn't imply that what the other person did wasn't also illegal. It isn't about 'rights.'

The truck was in his right to accelerate away from the stop sign as he sees fit as long as he's safe....how is he to know where the motorcycle is going? is he going to lag behind and take a position in the lane or does the bike intend to share the lane with the truck all of the way down the road??

Recently i witnessed a mini van and an SUV going east at Eastern and Logan. The mini van is in the right lane. At the other side of the intersection it merges into one lane....the right lane disappears. The SUV continues at the same rate of speed and the van speeds up to slip infront of the SUV but miscalculates and contacts the SUV on the front bumper....who's fault is it?

Acadian1974 · Jul 9, 2012

Rob MacLennan said:
OpenGambit if you do spend the time on an analysis of R. v. Bunda, I would certainly sticky it in the Law & HTA forum. It would be nice to debunk the constant claims, by some, that splitting and filtering are legal. I wish it was. I'd do it, after a couple of years for drivers to get used to it. It isn't.

Debunk? Perhaps this is a case of one legislative arm not knowing what the other is doing. Several of us are confronted with similar scenarios during licensing on a regular basis, and we simply apply what the MTO prescribes of us. It's pretty straightforward... actually...

Joe250 · Jul 9, 2012

spinto said:
The truck was in his right to accelerate away from the stop sign as he sees fit as long as he's safe....how is he to know where the motorcycle is going? is he going to lag behind and take a position in the lane or does the bike intend to share the lane with the truck all of the way down the road??

Recently i witnessed a mini van and an SUV going east at Eastern and Logan. The mini van is in the right lane. At the other side of the intersection it merges into one lane....the right lane disappears. The SUV continues at the same rate of speed and the van speeds up to slip infront of the SUV but miscalculates and contacts the SUV on the front bumper....who's fault is it?

Wouldn't it be the SUV? Unless there were witnesses of course, isn't anyone hitting the rear of another vehicle automatically at fault unless there is evidence of an unsafe lane change, etc?

RetroGrouch · Jul 9, 2012

Spinto banned? Great, now he has a vendetta. Gotta watch my back when I filter, don't want to get crushed by an SUV.

Monza2112 · Jul 9, 2012

Joe250 said:
Wouldn't it be the SUV? Unless there were witnesses of course, isn't anyone hitting the rear of another vehicle automatically at fault unless there is evidence of an unsafe lane change, etc?

i don't think so...isn't like and unsafe lane change??

awyala · Jul 9, 2012

easy_rider_77 said:
If you pass a parked vehicle in the same line, is that considered splitting/filtering??

It is considered filtering under the vernacular understanding. The HTA doesn't in any instance use the word "filter" or the term "lane splitting". However the HTA DOES explicitly allow this act you have described.

Please also note the vernacular term "filtering" does also include passing between cars in their lane as they are moving at slow speeds as well as completely stopped.

However this aspect of "filtering" is extremely difficult to justify as "safe" considering other clauses in the HTA and is actually illegal (unless to the left in single lane (either direction) traffic).

Though the HTA allows for passing in the same lane in some circumstances, this requires the car being passed to have turned out to either the left or right of the lane, and provide as much room as possible.

I would not suggest that the full meaning of the term "filtering" is legal in Ontario. Additionally passing, whether in the same lane or in an entire lane next to another (approaching) vehicle within 30 m of a pedestrian crossing is also illegal.

I would say passing a moving vehicle in the same lane is extremely limited in application.

HTA references:
Passing in the same lane to the left (slow moving vehicle):
148. (1) Every person in charge of a vehicle on a highway meeting another vehicle shall turn out to the right from the centre of the roadway, allowing the other vehicle one-half of the roadway free. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (1).
Vehicles or equestrians overtaken
(2) Every person in charge of a vehicle or on horseback on a highway who is overtaken by a vehicle or equestrian travelling at a greater speed shall turn out to the right and allow the overtaking vehicle or equestrian to pass. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (2).
Exception
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person in charge of a road service vehicle or a road-building machine or apparatus while the machine or apparatus is engaged in the construction of a highway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (3).
Vehicles meeting bicycles
(4) Every person in charge of a vehicle on a highway meeting a person travelling on a bicycle shall allow the cyclist sufficient room on the roadway to pass. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (4).
Vehicles or equestrians overtaking others
(5) Every person in charge of a vehicle or on horseback on a highway who is overtaking another vehicle or equestrian shall turn out to the left so far as may be necessary to avoid a collision with the vehicle or equestrian overtaken, and the person overtaken is not required to leave more than one-half of the roadway free. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (5).
Bicycles overtaken
(6) Every person on a bicycle or motor assisted bicycle who is overtaken by a vehicle or equestrian travelling at a greater speed shall turn out to the right and allow the vehicle or equestrian to pass and the vehicle or equestrian overtaking shall turn out to the left so far as may be necessary to avoid a collision. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (6).
Driver unable to turn out is to stop
(7) Where one vehicle is met or overtaken by another, if by reason of the weight of the load on either of the vehicles so meeting or on the vehicle so overtaken the driver finds it impracticable to turn out, he or she shall immediately stop, and, if necessary for the safety of the other vehicle and if required so to do, he or she shall assist the person in charge thereof to pass without damage. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (7).
Passing vehicle going in same direction
(8) No person in charge of a vehicle shall pass or attempt to pass another vehicle going in the same direction on a highway unless the roadway,
(a) in front of and to the left of the vehicle to be passed is safely free from approaching traffic; and
(b) to the left of the vehicle passing or attempting to pass is safely free from overtaking traffic. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (8).

Passing within 30 m of a pedestrian crossing:
Pedestrian crossover, duties of driver
140. (1) Subject to subsection (2), when a pedestrian or a person in a wheelchair crossing a roadway within a pedestrian crossover,
(a) is upon the half of the roadway upon which a vehicle or street car is travelling; or
(b) is upon half of the roadway and is approaching the other half of the roadway on which a vehicle or street car is approaching so closely to the pedestrian crossover as to endanger him or her,
the driver of the vehicle or street car shall yield the right of way to the pedestrian or a person in a wheelchair by slowing down or stopping if necessary. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 140 (1).
Where vehicle stopped at pedestrian crossover
(2) When a vehicle or street car is stopped at a pedestrian crossover, the driver of any other vehicle or street car overtaking the stopped vehicle or street car shall bring the vehicle or street car to a full stop before entering the crossover and shall yield the right of way to a pedestrian or a person in a wheelchair,
(a) who is within the crossover upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle or street car is stopped; or
(b) who is within the crossover and is approaching the half of the roadway from the other half of the roadway so closely to the vehicle or street car that he or she is in danger if the vehicle or street car were to proceed. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 140 (2).
Passing moving vehicles within 30 metres of pedestrian crossover
(3) When a vehicle or street car is approaching a pedestrian crossover and is within 30 metres thereof, the driver of any other vehicle or street car approaching from the rear shall not allow the front extremity of his or her vehicle or streetcar to pass beyond the front extremity of the other vehicle or street car. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 140 (3).
Here is why you cannot "filter" between 2 lanes of (even) slow moving traffic (forget about "splitting"):
Passing vehicle going in same direction
148 (8) No person in charge of a vehicle shall pass or attempt to pass another vehicle going in the same direction on a highway unless the roadway,
(a) in front of and to the left of the vehicle to be passed is safely free from approaching traffic; and
(b) to the left of the vehicle passing or attempting to pass is safely free from overtaking traffic. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (8).

If traffic to the left lane of the filtering motorcycle is stopped, then it is not overtaking! But if it is moving the Justice and cop will see it as "overtaking traffic". My advice, if one is willing to risk "filtering" is to slot into an open spot in traffic before the light turns green and traffic begins to move again. Don't get greedy, you don't need to make it all the way to the front of the line. Spot an opening and slot in when you can.

And for those thinking they are entitled to open the door or attempt to block another vehicle:
Opening of doors of motor vehicles
165. No person shall,
(a) open the door of a motor vehicle on a highway without first taking due precautions to ensure that his or her act will not interfere with the movement of or endanger any other person or vehicle; or
(b) leave a door of a motor vehicle on a highway open on the side of the vehicle available to moving traffic for a period of time longer than is necessary to load or unload passengers. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 165.

142. (1) The driver or operator of a vehicle upon a highway
before turning to the left or right at any intersection or into a private road or driveway or from one lane for traffic to another lane for traffic or to leave the roadway shall first see that the movement can be made in safety, and if the operation of any other vehicle may be affected by the movement shall give a signal plainly visible to the driver or operator of the other vehicle of the intention to make the movement. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 142 (1).

jonpurdy · Jul 9, 2012

DJM said:
Not much more to add other than an anecdotal story.

Last weekend I was in my cage waiting in an 8 car line-up on an offramp to turn right. It's a notorious, bottle-necked shopping district so it takes a while to clear the area. A sportbike rider zipped up the right side of us and gets to the stop sign beside a pickup truck. I knew exactly what was going to happen. As people laid on their horns as he went by, the pick up driver accelerated from the stop light and refused to give space. The rider also accelerated by him and the truck drifted closer to the centre line as the rider was forced to pass into incoming traffic.

With those types of drivers out there that 30 seconds gained isn't worth it, at least to me.

My question is how the motorcycle didn't out-accelerate the truck. If you do a move like this you ensure that you get the heck out of the way, haha.

I love when taxis try to out accelerate me when I'm riding in the right lane on Bloor. 0.5 cm of throttle = taxi way back in my mirrors.

LePhillou · Jul 10, 2012

jonpurdy said:
My question is how the motorcycle didn't out-accelerate the truck. If you do a move like this you ensure that you get the heck out of the way, haha.

I love when taxis try to out accelerate me when I'm riding in the right lane on Bloor. 0.5 cm of throttle = taxi way back in my mirrors.

This ^^^

Unless it was somekind of grand cherokee srt8 or cayenne turbo against a 250cc... even then from a dead stop bike wins for AT LEAST the 1st 100 meters

油井緋色 · Jul 10, 2012

Guys, I have an idea:

Instead of arguing with each other, why don't we find some way to make this legal?

Rob MacLennan · Jul 10, 2012

油井緋色;1839369 said:
Guys, I have an idea:

Instead of arguing with each other, why don't we find some way to make this legal?

(Shhhhhhhhhhhh) :lol:

Write to your MPP. Petition Parliament but do it on actual paper, because they don't accept e-petitions. Sign up to the Ontario lane splitting Facebook group, then email the address of it to your MPP, the Premier, and the Minister of Transport. Get thousands of people to also do these things.

It's FILTERING, NOT lane splitting!

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Guest

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member