Lane splitting/filtering: the legal and commonsense answers

[swbarnett]

Thanks, I thought both were illegal here.

From what I've gathered (backed up by bits of legislation that have been posted). Filtering past stationary traffic is legal. Lane-splitting is legal as long as you stay fully within the lane of the vehicle on your left (good luck with that).

[MarkH]

What they're talking about is filtering, not lane splitting. Filtering (past stationary traffic) is already legal here.

Are you sure that is what they are talking about?

Road Policing Assistant Commissioner Doug Fryer says the bikes will be used in areas with high volumes of traffic where they will be able to filter through slow and stationary vehicles.

Or are you just assuming everyone uses the term the same way that you do?

[swbarnett]

Are you sure that is what they are talking about?

Well, I was. When this was made legal for the first time in Aus everything I read talked about filtering to the front of the queue at intersections.

Or are you just assuming everyone uses the term the same way that you do?

I actually wasn't clear what the term meant until I read the info provided as mentioned above.

Having looked at the the actual rules it's no absolutely clear but the definition of filtering below from the NSW transport web site does suggest it is what I'm talking about.

"Lane filtering is when a motorcycle rider moves alongside vehicles that have either stopped or are moving slowly (less than 30 km/h)".

The video that is above this also seems to support this.

[Moise]

There is nothing in the Vic rules that requires the traffic to be stationary. But the motorcycle can't travel at more then 30 km/h. Quite how the police could measure that speed is beyond me, but it would be pretty obvious if it was well above 30.

Someone else can read the rules for the other states!

[J.A.W.]

There is nothing in the Vic rules that requires the traffic to be stationary. But the motorcycle can't travel at more then 30 km/h. Quite how the police could measure that speed is beyond me, but it would be pretty obvious if it was well above 30.

Someone else can read the rules for the other states!

Actually the Vic rules provide for overtaking on the left of a vehicle in the same lane - to be in stationary traffic only ( unless the car is slowing & making a right turn).

[Daffyd]

Interesting that they've introduced lane filtering through stationary traffic to apprehend speeding motorists. Sitting still too fast perhaps?

[cheshirecat]

He spoke about filtering, but I'd assume he meant lane-splitting as passing stationary traffic should be legal, although it might be hard to argue the difference on a motorway unless it is at a city-wide standstill. (He also mentioned something about it taking him 18 months to get certified for filtering, which I assume means passing moving traffic as a motorbike cop?)

I was despatch rider in London for a few years and there was a phrase for newbies "gone by lunchtime". You don't get paid for having an accident and lanesplitting/filtering is an essential skill, especially 10/12 hours a day 5 days a week winter and summer. One could figure out which car was about to turn right 100 meters ahead before or if they used their indicators. If you want to live it's not a question of going fast, rather keeping moving and getting to the front at lights.

[Tazz]

One could figure out which car was about to turn right 100 meters ahead before or if they used their indicators.

This is inevitably coming.

[GrayWolf]

Well, I was. When this was made legal for the first time in Aus everything I read talked about filtering to the front of the queue at intersections.


I actually wasn't clear what the term meant until I read the info provided as mentioned above.

Having looked at the the actual rules it's no absolutely clear but the definition of filtering below from the NSW transport web site does suggest it is what I'm talking about.


The video that is above this also seems to support this.

NOT above 30kph. THAT, RIGHT THERE, is the reason we get friggin hammered for lane splitting, I lost count ??????? ago, how often i see bikes cutting through, lane splitting, on the Hutt Motorway when traffic is doing 70-80kph anyway. I'd be pulling them over and dishing out a 'toll' for stupidity as well.

[swbarnett]

NOT above 30kph. THAT, RIGHT THERE, is the reason we get friggin hammered for lane splitting, I lost count ??????? ago, how often i see bikes cutting through, lane splitting, on the Hutt Motorway when traffic is doing 70-80kph anyway. I'd be pulling them over and dishing out a 'toll' for stupidity as well.

What's important is the speed differential. Splitting 70kph traffic at 100kph done properly is just as safe as splitting stationary traffic at 30kph¹. For the same reason it's possible to play table tennis in a moving train².



¹Safer in fact as you're not likely to get car doors opening at 70kph.

²As long as the train is moving smoothly at a constant speed.

[Mike.Gayner]

Same reason I don't panic that my Air New Zealand fettuccine is travelling at 900km/h as I'm shovelling it into my mouth.

[Runty]

Same reason I don't panic that my Air New Zealand fettuccine is travelling at 900km/h as I'm shovelling it into my mouth.

I'd only panic if that same fettuccine was doing 900km/h when its exiting from my arse

Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk

[5ive]

I'd only panic if that same fettuccine was doing 900km/h when its exiting from my arse

Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk

I'd only panic if you were the person serving it to him.

[Big Dog]

NOT above 30kph. THAT, RIGHT THERE, is the reason we get friggin hammered for lane splitting, I lost count ??????? ago, how often i see bikes cutting through, lane splitting, on the Hutt Motorway when traffic is doing 70-80kph anyway. I'd be pulling them over and dishing out a 'toll' for stupidity as well.

That didn't stop the dude in very new looking gear on a very new looking bike who had clearly taken Sons of Anarchy as gospel from lane splitting past us as we sat on 100 (GPS speed) on Sunday.

Abject terror in his eyes, wobble in his ride and a lack of wear on his leather indicate that I may not be being too quick to judge.

In truth if we hadn't moved left he would have hit us. Ditto another car to the right.
Safe? No. Lucky? Yes.

Sent via tapatalk.

[GrayWolf]

What's important is the speed differential. Splitting 70kph traffic at 100kph done properly is just as safe as splitting stationary traffic at 30kph¹. For the same reason it's possible to play table tennis in a moving train².



¹Safer in fact as you're not likely to get car doors opening at 70kph.

²As long as the train is moving smoothly at a constant speed.

I disagree with that, and know tim {UK Popo instructor} did as well..... rule of 'thumb' we were given, agreed 10-15mph [ 20km] speed differential, but oncetraffic reached 30mph/50km, dont lane split.
Rational?? Once traffic is 'moving' at a reasonablespeed, motorists are likely'to be 'less observant'?? in side mirrors, and more importantly, if they decide to lane dive, the car reacts to steering input so much faster it is unlikely YOU will have time to react. So No, I'd never advocate lane splitting above what I was told by a man I'd consider 'expert'.