Lane splitting rules in California

[furious_blue_imp]

FWIW, one analogy to lane splitting is well known to drivers in the U.S. and other civilized countries:

A bicycle 'shares' a lane with a car.

That is the bicycle and car are both using a single lane at the same time.
This is in principle no different that 'lane sharing' that involves a motorcycle and a car.

The only difference is that for the most part, the bicycle rider is at the total mercy of the car driver's intentions (or distractions) unlike the motorcyclist that might have an acceleration advantage over a car in the same situation.

[AndyHe_imp]

The Washington State proposed law has not passed yet as it was sent back to committee...

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5623

It is extremely limited in what it allows. Once it passes, I might be able to share the very left hand lane of a state highway so long as I don't go over minimum of 25mph or 10mph over traffic speed.

[Glider_imp]

Lane splitting is good for car/truck drivers by helping to cut down congestion. All drivers should favor it. Like many things it can be done incorrectly/unsafely but that shouldn't prevent widespread use.

[emptysea]

Without taking a position on the issue, lane splitting does NOT reduce congestion for anyone other than the lane splitter.

Now, to take a position on the issue... Lane dividers are there for dividing the lanes. Shocking, I know, but they really are. Riding between lanes gets the rider going where he wants to go faster, but faster is not the goal. Orderly movement is the goal. To the extent that the government can increase the speed of that movement while maintaining order, they will do so. Allowing some vehicles to behave differently than others creates disorder and risk. Sometimes government feels that the benefits of allowing some vehicles special consideration outweighs the risk--buses allowed to ride on the shoulder and trucks having different speed limits are examples. However, lane splitting is (or would be) the only such exception that would effectively allow two vehicles to occupy the same lane at the same time (although bikes are allowed to pair up at traffic signals). I am not convinced that the benefit to riders of riding in another vehicle's lane is an acceptable break in the orderly move,net of vehicles on the highway.

About now, someone is saying to themselves (probably aloud) "No one is saying that bikes should be allowed to ride in a car's lane...we want to SPLIT lanes". Except that you are only "splitting" lanes if your bike is on the lane marker with no part of the bike or rider in or hanging over the lanes on either side. Otherwise you are, by definition, riding in one or the other of the adjacent lanes. "But, that's just a technicality; we are only just barely coming into the adjacent lanes and there's plenty of extra room there." That is true, but it is also true that a driver of a car or truck could make the exact same argument for entering a biker's lane to, for example, move around a bicyclist or a stopped police vehicle. If we're ok with a minor violation of the car's lane, then we need to be ok with the car violating our lanes. I'm not ok with the latter so I don't support the former.

As the late great Patrick Swayze said "This is MY dance space..."

[Randy B]

Without taking a position on the issue, lane splitting does NOT reduce congestion for anyone other than the lane splitter.

Now, to take a position on the issue... Lane dividers are there for dividing the lanes. Shocking, I know, but they really are. Riding between lanes gets the rider going where he wants to go faster, but faster is not the goal. Orderly movement is the goal. To the extent that the government can increase the speed of that movement while maintaining order, they will do so. Allowing some vehicles to behave differently than others creates disorder and risk. Sometimes government feels that the benefits of allowing some vehicles special consideration outweighs the risk--buses allowed to ride on the shoulder and trucks having different speed limits are examples. However, lane splitting is (or would be) the only such exception that would effectively allow two vehicles to occupy the same lane at the same time (although bikes are allowed to pair up at traffic signals). I am not convinced that the benefit to riders of riding in another vehicle's lane is an acceptable break in the orderly move,net of vehicles on the highway.

About now, someone is saying to themselves (probably aloud) "No one is saying that bikes should be allowed to ride in a car's lane...we want to SPLIT lanes". Except that you are only "splitting" lanes if your bike is on the lane marker with no part of the bike or rider in or hanging over the lanes on either side. Otherwise you are, by definition, riding in one or the other of the adjacent lanes. "But, that's just a technicality; we are only just barely coming into the adjacent lanes and there's plenty of extra room there." That is true, but it is also true that a driver of a car or truck could make the exact same argument for entering a biker's lane to, for example, move around a bicyclist or a stopped police vehicle. If we're ok with a minor violation of the car's lane, then we need to be ok with the car violating our lanes. I'm not ok with the latter so I don't support the former.

As the late great Patrick Swayze said "This is MY dance space..."

If everyone that was on a motorcycle and splitting lanes were in line in a car there would be more congestion for everyone, not the the person on the bike.

Also another reason that people push for the ability to split is being rear ended. When at a stop in a line of traffic getting rear ended on a motorcycle is magnitudes more dangerous for a rider than anyone in a cage. Being able to split to the front removes this area of danger for the rider.

[metallyguitarded_imp]

Without taking a position on the issue, lane splitting does NOT reduce congestion for anyone other than the lane splitter.

Now, to take a position on the issue... Lane dividers are there for dividing the lanes. Shocking, I know, but they really are. Riding between lanes gets the rider going where he wants to go faster, but faster is not the goal. Orderly movement is the goal. To the extent that the government can increase the speed of that movement while maintaining order, they will do so. Allowing some vehicles to behave differently than others creates disorder and risk. Sometimes government feels that the benefits of allowing some vehicles special consideration outweighs the risk--buses allowed to ride on the shoulder and trucks having different speed limits are examples. However, lane splitting is (or would be) the only such exception that would effectively allow two vehicles to occupy the same lane at the same time (although bikes are allowed to pair up at traffic signals). I am not convinced that the benefit to riders of riding in another vehicle's lane is an acceptable break in the orderly move,net of vehicles on the highway.

About now, someone is saying to themselves (probably aloud) "No one is saying that bikes should be allowed to ride in a car's lane...we want to SPLIT lanes". Except that you are only "splitting" lanes if your bike is on the lane marker with no part of the bike or rider in or hanging over the lanes on either side. Otherwise you are, by definition, riding in one or the other of the adjacent lanes. "But, that's just a technicality; we are only just barely coming into the adjacent lanes and there's plenty of extra room there." That is true, but it is also true that a driver of a car or truck could make the exact same argument for entering a biker's lane to, for example, move around a bicyclist or a stopped police vehicle. If we're ok with a minor violation of the car's lane, then we need to be ok with the car violating our lanes. I'm not ok with the latter so I don't support the former.

As the late great Patrick Swayze said "This is MY dance space..."

Excellent points and well stated. I love lane splitting.

[emptysea]

I'm ok with lane splitting just like I am ok with speeding and rolling slowly through stop signs, but I don't think any of the should be legal.

[Randy B]

I'm ok with lane splitting just like I am ok with speeding and rolling slowly through stop signs, but I don't think any of the should be legal.

I thought it was an insane practice when I lived in Illinois as well, but when I moved out here all of that changed. I got to see first hand how it works, and works well. I also got to see the total disregard for all other traffic (and themselves) as SOME of them blow passed traffic at really stupid speed deltas. Those are the FEW that make all of us seem like lunatics because those are the ones that people remember seeing, not the MANY that do it in a safe manor.

[emptysea]

How about a mini-lane on the left or right shoulder just for us? Like the bicycle lanes they do some places.

[Cormanus]

Lane splitting became legal in Queensland earlier this year. It is legal only when traffic is moving at less than 30 km/hr. However, on larger roads where there's a shoulder and the lane splitting rule is triggered, it's legal to get onto the shoulder. Feels much safer then riding down the middle.