Lane splitting crackdown in Wellington?

[Tricia1000]

I read the statement of approval conditions for Cbta 6R and 6F, it says that you will be penalised is you split/filter when it's unsafe, but not penalised for carrying out the manoeuvre. Which means it is an approved manoeuvre as far as nzta are concerned.
I split for several years when commuting, and would acknowledge bike cops as I went by. I never got stopped. My rules for doing so were that I would remain in second gear, 1,000 cc bike (speed=being able to stop within the distance that I can see is clear). If I needed to change to 3rd gear, it was time to slip back into the traffic flow.
However, I would often see bikes doing 70kmh or more, and they don't have a HOPE of stopping if someone changes lanes in front of them. Those are the riders that get pulled, and injured also, and give us all a bad name.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[swbarnett]

I would often see bikes doing 70kmh or more, and they don't have a HOPE of stopping if someone changes lanes in front of them.
If you're talking about a speed differential of 70 or more then I would agree. I have split at 100 and had someone change lanes on me without indicating. Because my speed differential low enough (about 30 or so) I had no problem whatsoever controlling the situation.

[Swoop]

If you're talking about a speed differential of 70 or more then I would agree. I have split at 100 and had someone change lanes on me without indicating. Because my speed differential low enough (about 30 or so) I had no problem whatsoever controlling the situation.

She's not talking about a "differential" but splitting at 70kmh (presumably the traffic is much slower?).
If you are splitting at 100kmh shouldn't your username be changed to Skidmark?

[swbarnett]

She's not talking about a "differential" but splitting at 70kmh (presumably the traffic is much slower?).
Then the statement is meaningless. It's the speed differential that's important. Not the actual speed.


If you are splitting at 100kmh shouldn't your username be changed to Skidmark?
Not at all. I make a habit of keeping my eyes open and I know when to slow down. Too often people assume that if one says they travel at x kph that they mean continuously with no regard for the circumstances.

[R650R]

70kmh or more, and they don't have a HOPE of stopping if someone changes lanes in front of them.

stopping is irrelevant, in fact stopping in multi lane traffic when everyone else is not thinking about atopping is prob more dangerous than splitting.
You only need to be able to AVOID colliding with an imminent threat.
Christ if you had to be able to stop for someone changing lanes in front of you then trucks wouldn't be allowed to go anywhere......

I used to lane split at speeds a bit above 1 dollar and three cents.... you get a feel for it, not saying its 100% safe but do something often enough and you get a feel for what can be safely accomplished.
Just like overtaking in a large truck without an overtaking lane, its entirely leagally and safely doable in the right circumstances with right driver even if averga ejoe car driver that only uses passing lanes is aghast at the idea....

[Akzle]

Which is an excelent point and illustrates perfectly the obsurdity of charging ACC by type of vehicle (or any other demarcation). Take if out of the general tax take and all these arguments disappear.

*absurdity

[swbarnett]

*absurdity
Fixed. Along with a couple of other spelling errors. The one time I don't spell check...

[rastuscat]

Just a wee recap on the law on this.

Our law doesn't use the words "lane splitting" or "filtering". There's no law for it, or against it.

What we have is the law on passing, both on the left, and on the right.

The guts of it is contained in the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, in sections 2.6 to 2.11

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM302188.html

Note that on each occasion the rule says you can legally overtake on the left or on the right, it goes on to say this



2.6 General requirements about passing other vehicles
(1)
A driver must not pass or attempt to pass another vehicle moving in the same direction unless—
(a)
the movement can be made with safety; and
(b)
the movement is made with due consideration for other users of the road; and
(c)
sufficient clear road is visible to the driver for the passing movement to be completed without impeding or being likely to impede any possible opposing traffic; and
(d)
until the passing movement is completed, the driver has a clear view of the road and any traffic on the road for at least 100 m in the direction in which the driver is travelling.
(2)
Subclause (1)(c) and (d) does not apply if the passing vehicle and the vehicle being passed are in different lanes and are, throughout the passing movement, either on a one-way road or on the same side of the centre line.
(3)
A driver must not, when passing another vehicle moving in the same direction, move into the line of passage of that vehicle until the manoeuvre can be made safely and without impeding the movement of that other vehicle.
Compare: SR 1976/227 r 8(3), (4)

I'm sure that everyone ever ticketed for lane splitting would argue that what they were doing is safe, but the officer issuing the ticket would argue that what they were doing wasn't safe. Most of those tickets would be for "Overtaking In An Unsafe Manner"

The concept of safety is subjective. Most folk would argue that riding to Akaroa like Valentino Rossi is unsafe. But the rider who has done it 200 times would argue to the contrary.

Back to lane splitting. The opinion that counts is that of the JP hearing the case of the defended ticket. If the officer gives evidence of what they saw and the JP looks over their glasses at you and sucks air in through their teeth, I'd bet they don't think it was safe either.

Standing arguing with the cop at the roadside is likely to be as fruitful as disputing a penalty already awarded at the World Cup final.

Most lane splitting I've seen while in a private capacity has been what I consider to be safe. Some has been legal and safe, some illegal and safe.

But some has been just plain dumb. I agree with those who mentioned speed differential as the issue, not speed itself. However, the higher the absolute speed, the greater the chance of even a small differential ending in tears, if used unsafely.

I must stop thinking about these things.

[Akzle]

Just a wee recap on the law on this.

Our law doesn't use the words "lane splitting" or "filtering". There's no law for it, or against it.

What we have is the law on passing, both on the left, and on the right.

The guts of it is contained in the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, in sections 2.6 to 2.11

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM302188.html

Note that on each occasion the rule says you can legally overtake on the left or on the right, it goes on to say this



2.6 General requirements about passing other vehicles
(1)
A driver must not pass or attempt to pass another vehicle moving in the same direction unless—
(a)
the movement can be made with safety; and
(b)
the movement is made with due consideration for other users of the road; and
(c)
sufficient clear road is visible to the driver for the passing movement to be completed without impeding or being likely to impede any possible opposing traffic; and
(d)
until the passing movement is completed, the driver has a clear view of the road and any traffic on the road for at least 100 m in the direction in which the driver is travelling.
(2)
Subclause (1)(c) and (d) does not apply if the passing vehicle and the vehicle being passed are in different lanes and are, throughout the passing movement, either on a one-way road or on the same side of the centre line.
(3)
A driver must not, when passing another vehicle moving in the same direction, move into the line of passage of that vehicle until the manoeuvre can be made safely and without impeding the movement of that other vehicle.
Compare: SR 1976/227 r 8(3), (4)

I'm sure that everyone ever ticketed for lane splitting would argue that what they were doing is safe, but the officer issuing the ticket would argue that what they were doing wasn't safe. Most of those tickets would be for "Overtaking In An Unsafe Manner"

The concept of safety is subjective. Most folk would argue that riding to Akaroa like Valentino Rossi is unsafe. But the rider who has done it 200 times would argue to the contrary.

Back to lane splitting. The opinion that counts is that of the JP hearing the case of the defended ticket. If the officer gives evidence of what they saw and the JP looks over their glasses at you and sucks air in through their teeth, I'd bet they don't think it was safe either.

Standing arguing with the cop at the roadside is likely to be as fruitful as disputing a penalty already awarded at the World Cup final.

Most lane splitting I've seen while in a private capacity has been what I consider to be safe. Some has been legal and safe, some illegal and safe.

But some has been just plain dumb. I agree with those who mentioned speed differential as the issue, not speed itself. However, the higher the absolute speed, the greater the chance of even a small differential ending in tears, if used unsafely.

I must stop thinking about these things.

* legislation