Lane splitting/filtering: the legal and commonsense answers

[PrincessBandit]

Everybody has their own idea of what is safe and what is unsafe; much depends on individual skill and road nous.
I've never had a problem with other vehicles deliberately blocking my way ahead, in fact the rare uncomfortable moments for me have been from other riders splitting behind me at speed.

As for riders who feel the desperate need to split or filter when traffic is OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG doing only 70 - 80 kph on the motorway, meh it's their business to mop up any bo-bo's they make. I just make sure I'm not in the firing line.

[James Deuce]

you would find this thread less boring if you stopped reading it...



Stupid phone / tapatalk, apologies in advance.

it keeps hassling me on tapatalk!!

[Big Dog]

it keeps hassling me on tapatalk!!

You can unsubscribe.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Hawk]

hope this isn't posted else where

from Ride Forever web site with support from NZ Police and NZTA. So I guess if you are pulled for lane splitting and you are within these guidelines, " sorry officer but according these guideline released by NZ Police and NZTA ..................." have a printed copy with you. It may save you a ticket.

[rastuscat]

hope this isn't posted else where

from Ride Forever web site with support from NZ Police and NZTA. So I guess if you are pulled for lane splitting and you are within these guidelines, " sorry officer but according these guideline released by NZ Police and NZTA ..................." have a printed copy with you. It may save you a ticket.

Dear Lord.

Here we go again. There's no such thing as lane splitting in the legislation. No such thing as filtering either. We choose to use those terms, but they aren't mentioned in the law.

The section of law that deals with those things is the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, Rules 2.6 to 2.11.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regul...DLM302188.html

Have a read. They make things fairly clear.

[Ender EnZed]

I suspect he was intending to link this document.

[swbarnett]

Dear Lord.

Here we go again.

Did you bother do go look at the Ride Forever web site before you decided to mouth off?

I suggest you have a look at the link in the post above and come back with your thoughts when you're more informed about the guidelines mentioned.

[Gremlin]

Did you bother do go look at the Ride Forever web site before you decided to mouth off?

I suggest you have a look at the link in the post above and come back with your thoughts when you're more informed about the guidelines mentioned.

You missed the point. A nice document that is anything but the legislation is worth fuck all when defending a ticket, or arguing a point. Yes, that document is referencing legislation, and saying what it means... but it's not legislation.

[swbarnett]

You missed the point.

I don't think so. The point of the post is that the whole legal quagmire surrounding "lane-splitting" has been clarified. RC replied to it in a manner that is flippant and implies that he's commenting without even having read the document.

A nice document that is anything but the legislation is worth fuck all when defending a ticket, or arguing a point. Yes, that document is referencing legislation, and saying what it means... but it's not legislation.

Agreed. But when it's endorsed by both NZTA and the NZ Police it has more weight than all the discussion on here combined. It may not be legislation in and of itself but it certainly does clarify which legislation applies to what is colloquially called lane-splitting.

No, just like the road code, this document won't help in court. But the legislation it points to will (assuming you're on the right side of it).

[russd7]

I don't think so. The point of the post is that the whole legal quagmire surrounding "lane-splitting" has been clarified. RC replied to it in a manner that is flippant and implies that he's commenting without even having read the document.


Agreed. But when it's endorsed by both NZTA and the NZ Police it has more weight than all the discussion on here combined. It may not be legislation in and of itself but it certainly does clarify which legislation applies to what is colloquially called lane-splitting.

No, just like the road code, this document won't help in court. But the legislation it points to will (assuming you're on the right side of it).

2.6General requirements about passing other vehicles
"(b)the movement is made with due consideration for other users of the road; "


kinda ambiguous and open to interpretation really, it could well be argued that lane splitting is not in due consideration of other road users.

[Ocean1]

2.6General requirements about passing other vehicles
"(b)the movement is made with due consideration for other users of the road; "


kinda ambiguous and open to interpretation really, it could well be argued that lane splitting is not in due consideration of other road users.

Sure it is. I consider them to be losers in the morning race to work.

[swbarnett]

2.6General requirements about passing other vehicles
"(b)the movement is made with due consideration for other users of the road; "


kinda ambiguous and open to interpretation really, it could well be argued that lane splitting is not in due consideration of other road users.

Fair point.

I hate laws like this. What it really says is that the legislators were to lazy to come up with a reasoned definition of exactly what this means.

[Jase H]

2.6General requirements about passing other vehicles
"(b)the movement is made with due consideration for other users of the road; "


kinda ambiguous and open to interpretation really, it could well be argued that lane splitting is not in due consideration of other road users.

It could also be argued that you could lane split provided you gave consideration to other road users and didn't put them out.

As you said - ambiguous. Can be argued either way.

From what I'm seeing so far, as long as:

• You don't put anyone else out;
• You give to anyone who wants to move lanes or is turning;
• Traffic is congested (can be ambiguous - define "congested");
• You keep to the speed limit;
• You go no more than 50m (I read this in one of the legistations);

It's Ok to lane split.

A little subjective, which may explain why some cops are Ok with it and some aren't.

And, for anything I've got wrong/ anybody doesn't agree with, cue the "constructive criticism".

[Wayne N]

2.6General requirements about passing other vehicles
"(b)the movement is made with due consideration for other users of the road; "


kinda ambiguous and open to interpretation really, it could well be argued that lane splitting is not in due consideration of other road users.

My first post to the forums here. I'm a kiwi who has been living and riding in the UK for the past 15 years. It is certainly not ambiguous over here:

Rule 88 of the Highway Code (2015) under rules for motorcyclists states…‘Additionally, when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low'

Rule 151 advises car drivers in slow moving traffic to ‘be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side’

And, Rule 211 states: 'It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are coming up from behind, coming out of junctions, at roundabouts, overtaking you or filtering
through traffic. Always look out for them before you emerge from a junction; they could be approaching faster than you think. When turning right across a line of slow moving
or stationary traffic, look out for cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic you are crossing. Be especially careful when turning, and when changing direction or lane. Be sure to check mirrors and blind spots carefully.'


Unfortunately it is not so clear if there is an accident (or RTC as they like to call them over here). In almost all cases partial fault or contributory negligence by the motorcyclist will be argued by the other vehicles insurance company. It is a lottery who will 'win' and it is very seldom that 100% blame is apportioned to the other vehicle driver

Is it not possible to get something similar to the UK Highway Code written into the NZ Highway Code? At least it would make the filtering question less ambiguous .....

[Gremlin]

Is it not possible to get something similar to the UK Highway Code written into the NZ Highway Code? At least it would make the filtering question less ambiguous .....

I think general consensus is careful what you wish for. They could easily go the other way and make it illegal.