|
|
|
lane splitting
- Thread starter Daylindafung
- Start date
Just because there is no specific charge with the words "lane splitting" in it, that in no way implies that it is not illegal. It is. That is unequivocal. That you can be charged for it under a number of different laws works against your claim; not for it.
You can be charged under HTA 172 if the officer decides you're too close to the edge of your lane. You can literally be charged for anything or nothing, solely at the discretion of an officer. Is driving then illegal?
Laws exist to define what is illegal, not to define what is legal. The intention of HTA 172 is to stop road racers, the intention of improper passing laws is to ensure there's safe space, but that law is written for a car; safe space for a motorcycle is much less.
So much of the HTA is written with "unless the driver determines it can be done safely", that it really comes down to safety. Any charge is due to a lack of understanding; a 2 meter gap on a stopped freeway is safe for a motorcycle no matter how to slice it.
martin900cc
Well-known member
Lane spitting should be legalized,
It doesn't matter who you are,where you come from or which God you believe in...if you are motorcyclists, You are my Brother.
It doesn't matter who you are,where you come from or which God you believe in...if you are motorcyclists, You are my Brother.
And your point is.....? You said that lane splitting isn't illegal. That is patently untrue. In California, lane splitting isn't illegal because there is no specific law that can be used to prosecute someone who is doing it in a safe manner. That is not the case in Ontario, as it can be prosecuted under a variety of different laws, no matter how it is done.
Iceman
Well-known member
JollyGreenGiant
Well-known member
I do both lane-splitting & filtering, yes it's dangerous and comes with a risk. However, I try my best to do it as little as I can to minimize the posing danger.
That's not true at all. Unsafe passing, failing to remain in lane, all those exist in California law too. The key is that all charges in both California and Ontario are discretionary, based on outside factors.
Highway Traffic Act and the California Vehicle Code are completely different. In California they have specific laws that protect motorcyclists while they're lane-splitting. Insurance liability also shifts to the cars, and not the bike.
Intentionally blocking or impeding a motorcyclist in a way that could cause harm to the rider is illegal (CVC 22400).
Opening a vehicle door to impede a motorcycle is illegal (CVC 22517).
Intentionally blocking or impeding a motorcyclist in a way that could cause harm to the rider is illegal (CVC 22400).
Opening a vehicle door to impede a motorcycle is illegal (CVC 22517).
kyle911
Well-known member
I admit I do it, with in reason. Mostly between moving traffic and parked cars. If i see a line of parked cars ending and there is a car moving on the other side I'll wait till I'm past the gap between parked cars to pass. Therefore if the driver isn't checking mirrors and wants to turn right they have space to without hitting me. Also I NEVER do it in moving 2 lane traffic.
ashkan
Banned
I would never lanesplit (while cars are moving) but lane filtering (at red lights) has crossed my mind a few times as its much less dangerous (if at all).
When you live/work downtown and it take 5 minutes to get through a single block. Its a huge difference and the only risk associated is the ticket really. Also many major downtown streets have bike lanes which come in very handy. Although its cyclists lane so they habe the right of the way so be mindful of them.
But as many have mentioned, they are illegal and could land you in hot waters if youre caught.
When you live/work downtown and it take 5 minutes to get through a single block. Its a huge difference and the only risk associated is the ticket really. Also many major downtown streets have bike lanes which come in very handy. Although its cyclists lane so they habe the right of the way so be mindful of them.
But as many have mentioned, they are illegal and could land you in hot waters if youre caught.
Sure, those laws exist, by those names. They aren't. however, the same laws. Saying that the 'unsafe passing' law in California is the same as the 'unsafe passing' law in Ontario, is like saying that California basic insurance coverage is the same as basic insurance coverage in Ontario. In other words, it isn't.
FLSTC
Well-known member
And how do you feel if another rider passes you in your lane...
Different ball game. The more vulnerable one should have the power to make the decision as in a collision, the more vulnerable one will be the one at risk.
So it makes more sense for the vulnerable one to be making that decision (whether or not to take the risk) instead of the most protected one to impose that decision on the more vulnerable one.
re: riders filtering through, as long as ive seen them i dont mind. I've had it happen to me a few times already.
So it makes more sense for the vulnerable one to be making that decision (whether or not to take the risk) instead of the most protected one to impose that decision on the more vulnerable one.
re: riders filtering through, as long as ive seen them i dont mind. I've had it happen to me a few times already.
So then by that logic bicyclist should have the ultimate right of way, (of regular road users) but also pedestrians would have a much larger right of way. So the rider gets to "impose" their will on a cager, and the cager is just supposed to "take it". This is the type of self entitled thinking that gets riders into trouble.
Just because a rider is more "vulnerable" than me when I am in my cage does not give them justification to invade my lane. Who says as a cager I don't feel "vulnerable". The rider would be no more vulnerable if they weren't doing something unexpected and illegal, (weather it be splitting or filtering).
I chuckle that if the rider decides it is a "decision", but if the cager decides, then it is "being imposed"...
So who gets to make the "decision" when it is two riders and one rider feels it is ok to invade my lane? They are presumably both equally vulnerable...
Just because a rider is more "vulnerable" than me when I am in my cage does not give them justification to invade my lane. Who says as a cager I don't feel "vulnerable". The rider would be no more vulnerable if they weren't doing something unexpected and illegal, (weather it be splitting or filtering).
I chuckle that if the rider decides it is a "decision", but if the cager decides, then it is "being imposed"...
So who gets to make the "decision" when it is two riders and one rider feels it is ok to invade my lane? They are presumably both equally vulnerable...
Last edited:
I totally get your stand point...but if we take example on other jurisdictions where its implemented or common practice around the world, im pretty sure that logically, that's how it works, its not really a self-entitlement kinda deal. Most cases of motorcycles splitting/filtering are in situations where the car can't do much but the rider has enough space to actually do something.
Like someone had once described it, motorcycles splitting is like those express lanes vs regular lanes at a grocery store. Cars dont fit the "12 items or under" item requirement and can't take those lanes, but the motorcycles do; so not only do they get to go faster through the lines but also are out of the other cars' way. So yes it would be up to the motorcycle to decide whether they can enter the "12 items of under lane" as they fit the requirement/size to be in it or can choose the regular lane if they want to do so.
When a moto is in between lanes, they're in a space where the car is not expected to be driving except for lane changes, therefore whether the bike is there or not, car is not in that space 98% of the time and usually will be sensibly driving in a straight line using up both tire tracks not needing to move or change their straight line as the bike passes them outside of those tires tracks.
Now when a car gets INTO the same lane as a motorcycle while the motorcycle is in one of the tire tracks, they're often times forcing the motorcycle to change their path in their own lane or restrict that other tire track and that's where i see that there's a problem.
In my eyes, it's all good until a person actually has to make an adjustment on either side (braking because of a cut off, pushing moto or bicycle into the shoulder) To a certain extent, if the moto, cyclist, scooter, etc doesn't have to make adjustments, i don't see what is wrong with a car splitting it, in a jurisdiction where splitting/filtering is accepted obviously
And yes, pedestrians have right of way in a lot of situations according to "law" and best practices taught to drivers (aka intersections, stop sign crossings, even new laws have recently been enacted to provide them safe passage etc) and cyclists...well they pretty much impose their right of way and split everywhere they can in the GTA i find and i don't see anyone being arrested.
Let me know what you think of that
NTGUILTY
Member
Correct. There is a different between "lane splitting" being illegal, and the act of lane splitting/filtering covered under HTA.
Does not mention that it is illegal: http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/handbook/motorcycles/section4-5-13.shtml
But of course, you can still be charged under the HTA.
in traffic i've had a couple people pull up beside me because they saw the space and decided that i can ride beside them. since then, in heavy amounts of traffic, i'll filter (while traffic is stopped and the bike is starting to heat up). most people don't even have their head up. and most are distracted. once i see the brake lights turning off, i'll merge and stay near the centre of the two lanes to make sure i can squeeze between 2 cars in case someone from behind doesn't stop.
i've had a rider pass me in my lane at slower speeds. didn't bother me. i knew he was there and what he was doing. he slowly pulled up beside me and then sped up as he passed me. if he rode beside me it'd be a different story.
That link is merely to an MTO driver advisory page it is not meant to point out if the riders actions are legal or illegal. Yes I agree there is no specific charge for lane splitting, there is however a law which clearly states two vehicles can not occupy the same lane at the same time, which yes one is doing while lane splitting. s172 also covers driving too close to another vehicle, simple case to prove for an officer in court.
Again, if getting home .3 seconds faster by filtering or splitting is worth the potential consequences then feel free to do so, but i highly doubt any of the proponents of lane splittign or filtering would come on here and post... Guess what I got pulled over for splitting which I was doing therefore, I am not even contesting the charge, as I knew it was illegal to do so, and I will gladly pay the ticket, and accept the increased insurance premiums...
Again, if getting home .3 seconds faster by filtering or splitting is worth the potential consequences then feel free to do so, but i highly doubt any of the proponents of lane splittign or filtering would come on here and post... Guess what I got pulled over for splitting which I was doing therefore, I am not even contesting the charge, as I knew it was illegal to do so, and I will gladly pay the ticket, and accept the increased insurance premiums...
|
|
|
|
|