Lane splitting/filtering: the legal and commonsense answers

[Maha]

I thought the "Grey area" was the actual legality of lane splitting ... ???

No the ''Grey area'' is where the paint has been chipped off by a passing biker....

[swbarnett]

Anyway I have a question to those who do split - how often is there any damage, and what level of damage?

My one and only piece of damage was to my pannier. I don't think the bottom of the flat-bed truck even noticed (although there may have been some of my plastic left on it, maybe I should've stopped and cleaned it off?). Other than that I've clipped a mirror a couple of times at very slow speed.

If a rider has been splitting for a while this sort of thing shouldn't happen regularly. If if does they need to go back to the drawing board and figure out what they're doing wrong.

[Coyote]

I was lane splitting next to some cheese graters, a year ago now. I stopped for an intersection (it was slow going ahead, I liked to let people out and onto the road), and a ute I had just passed hit the horn hard and flipped me off as he went through the intersection. He didn't like me stopping for someone else I guess.

As I caught up to him, he deliberately moved across and squeezed me toward the barrier. My elbow was against his door, my right handlebar grazing the top of the cheese graters. I gassed it and I put my let hand up into his mirror. All I could hear was a loud smack and the tinkling of glass.

I didn't wear that colour jacket again...

[Madness]

I think the real issue is damage. If you clip and don't damage (same as if someone bumps into me and I'm not injured) all good. If you break the damned thing off that's a whole different issue. Just as, if someone bumps into me (intentionally or otherwise) and I'm injured as a result then once more it's a whole lot of a bigger deal.

I disagree. That probably doesn't suprise you though, eh?

The bumping into people (person on person) is an interesting comparison to draw and one I've considered myself recenty. I came to the conclusion that for me it's an irrelevant comparison for the simple fact that pedestrians aren't expected to walk within marked lanes. Even supermarkets allow multiple shoppers to walk down a single aisle, even in opposing directions and often whilst pushing a badly handling trolley with snotty-nosed kids in tow. There is no temporary "ownership" of a supermarket aisle or footpath and as such it pays to keep your eyes open and your wits about you when walking in such areas and I think most of us will do this automatically because in this uncontrolled situation it's fair & reasonable to expect shit to happen occasionally.

When a vehicle is occupying a marked lane (usually when lane splitting occurs) that vehicle has the right to occupy that lane without the need to fear other motorists using that lane at the same time. Most motorists (in Auckland anyway) seem to tolerate bikers splitting, effectively sharing the lane temporarily as the biker squeezes past, many will even move over to make room. As a regular user of both SH1 and SH16 in peak Auckland traffic I'm accustomed to bikers splitting past me and I'm happy to share the lane I'm lawfully occupying with them, providing they don't hit my vehicle. For me the damage inflicted (or lack thereof) has little, if anything to do with it. Lane splitting is bending the rules of the road and if you're going to bend those rules you'd better be sure you're capable of doing so without causing me, or others any damage, annoyance or distress.

It's a matter of respecting other peoples property, space and rights to travel unimpeded provided they are following the rules.

Just for the meatheads out there; I'm not anti-splitting, I'm just suggesting that you do so without hitting other vehicles, regardless of wether damage is inflicted or not, or don't do it at all. Quite simple I would have thought.

[swbarnett]

how do you feel about someone scratching your bike when they park their scooter beside it?

If it results in any damage then I, for one, would expect them to rectify the situation. If none resulted then as you were.

[swbarnett]

So what gives you the right to decide if damaging other peoples property at any level is ok or not?

I don't believe that he said that any level of damage was OK. Just, by implication, that if it's not visible then there is no damage.

[swbarnett]

The reality is that there is no way of knowing what degree of damage may have been done without stopping and going back and looking.

Unless you're going slow enough in the first place. Mirrors touch - check for damage as theirs passes your torso. You could also pull into a slower lane and let them catch up.

[Madness]

I've hit one or two mirros splitting and I've never seen the damage because I've been going past. But judging by the amount my mirrors moved, and how un-tight they are, I doubt it could cause any damage whatsoever.

Next time you're splitting and a car moves across to impede your travel, or worse, you should consider it karma because that's exactly what it will be.

[Ocean1]

When a vehicle is occupying a marked lane (usually when lane splitting occurs) that vehicle has the right to occupy that lane

As far to the left as is practical.

In which case there'd be somewhat fewer problems with the splitting thing.

[FJRider]

Just, by implication, that if it's not visible then there is no damage.

By the same implication .... if nobody saw it ... it didn't happen ... right .. ??

[Katman]

Unless you're going slow enough in the first place. Mirrors touch - check for damage as theirs passes your torso. You could also pull into a slower lane and let them catch up.

That might be possible at walking pace.

Anything much over that and you're not going to have any opportunity of checking the mirror out as you go past.

[swbarnett]

I disagree. That probably doesn't suprise you though, eh?

The bumping into people (person on person) is an interesting comparison to draw and one I've considered myself recenty. I came to the conclusion that for me it's an irrelevant comparison for the simple fact that pedestrians aren't expected to walk within marked lanes. Even supermarkets allow multiple shoppers to walk down a single aisle, even in opposing directions and often whilst pushing a badly handling trolley with snotty-nosed kids in tow. There is no temporary "ownership" of a supermarket aisle or footpath and as such it pays to keep your eyes open and your wits about you when walking in such areas and I think most of us will do this automatically because in this uncontrolled situation it's fair & reasonable to expect shit to happen occasionally.

When a vehicle is occupying a marked lane (usually when lane splitting occurs) that vehicle has the right to occupy that lane without the need to fear other motorists using that lane at the same time.

Lane sharing is legal in NZ. If the lane is wide enough then two cars are legally allowed to travel side by side. A car is also allowed to overtake another vehicle (including bikes) using the same lane. This makes the comparison perfectly legit.

[swbarnett]

By the same implication .... if nobody saw it ... it didn't happen ... right .. ??

Only if there's no physical evidence either.

[Katman]

As far to the left as is practical.

Within a marked lane?

Do you just make this shit up?

[swbarnett]

That might be possible at walking pace.

Anything much over that and you're not going to have any opportunity of checking the mirror out as you go past.

Indeed, I wasn't doing much more than what I needed to stay upright.