Australia and New Zealand · Public discussion

Lane splitting

Started by cfsmtb · · Last activity · 65 posts · 4,050 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Australia and New Zealand
Published
23 January 2006
Last activity
28 January 2006
Original author
cfsmtb
Posts
65
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
4,050
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 65
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Read this on ABC Melb site, haven't quite got through all the msg board comments yet to read of any reference to cyclists.

    Now some of *us* lane split too, so is this proposed Victoria legislation relevant to cyclists? Could it be enforced against cyclists, as we are legally road users?

    *Ponder*

    Lane splitting! Splitting hairs?
    http://www.abc.net.au/melbourne/stories/s1549432.htm
    Monday, 16 January 2006. Reporter: Florenz Ronn

    The government is planning to legislate against ‘lane splitting’, which is basically when a motorbike passes between two cars in the same direction, to get to a bit of clear road. Another one is ‘lane filtering’, when the traffic is stationary at a set of lights and the motorcyclist passes slowly between them.

    Alex Money, Media Communications Officer for Victorian Motorcyclist Union, explained to 774’s Penny Johnston during the Safe Driving segment, that the law says that if you pass another vehicle on the inside of the same lane, to the left of the vehicle, it’s illegal. You can’t really ‘lane split’ without breaking the law. And so it’s been illegal for that reason.

    Late in 2005, the National Transport Commission (NTC) released a draft Regulatory Impact Statement for a package of Australian Road Rules Amendments. The proposals primarily clarify the intent of existing rules and reinforce current practices. One new rule is proposed to address the practice of ‘lane-splitting’ by motorcyclists. It attempts to clarify the intent of existing Road Rules, which require motorcycles to pass other vehicles at a safe distance and drive within a single marked lane or line of traffic.

    "The new rule explicitly requires motorcycles to move into an adjacent lane or line of traffic when overtaking other vehicles and pass at a safe distance," said NTC Chief Executive Tony Wilson. "The change is expected to reduce the crash risk for motorcycle riders and improve safety for all road users."

    Motorcyclists are up in arms about this. They don’t want the change; they feel it’s a deprivation of their freedom, of their rights, and their privileges. "We do it because we can, however, the government acts on facts and figures and statistics. And statistics show that, in manoeuvring and over taking crashes, and this includes u-turns, parking, the whole bit, 21% of fatalities are caused by that, i.e. manoeuvring accidents. And so, I guess, the onus is on us as motorcyclists, not to be ratbags out there, to do things properly, and we should be doing that. It’s the small percentage of people that we see, that you see in the traffic, that give us a bad name," says Alex Money.

    Do listeners think the government has got it right by telling motorcyclists that they shouldn’t lane split? Tim from Reservoir is both, a motorcyclist and car driver. "I’ve done both for more than 15 years and I think that the discussion is very valid in that we need to take responsibility for our safety as motorcyclists, and that lane splitting is an increased risk activity. Obviously, doing 70k passed stopped traffic is stupid, but if I’m sitting in a position where I feel vulnerable, I may well do something that could be perceived, by a non-rider, as dangerous, to get myself out of what I see potentially as a more dangerous situation."

    Rick in Daylesford says that lane filtering has got to happen at the traffic lights. A lot of rear end accidents can happen at traffic lights, when cars bump the bikes. Bill from Flowerdale agrees: "You get cars bunched up, you go between them and then you get out in front of them and you get away from the cars, which is the safest place to be on a bike." Penny from Korumburra, called with the female perspective: "I’m 54, been riding for about 15 years, love it, and I’d just like to say that lane splitting and lane filtering are just so essential for motor cyclists out there. I know it’s been raised several times already, but that little bit of space, probably has saved my life so many times."

    The Motorcycle Riders Association of Australia (MRAA) also called upon the NTC to withdraw their recommendation to ban lane splitting by motorcycles. It claims that some of the anti-lane filtering approach by regulators appears to stem from an attitude that motorcyclists should "wait their turn" and "be treated like other traffic". The MRAA maintains that to make this accepted practice illegal would not only increase congestion but also reduce the safety of motorcyclists.

    To demonstrate the impact, that making Lane Splitting explicitly illegal and a ban more easily enforceable, the MRAA will conduct a Ride to Rule – Congestion Awareness Ride on Wednesday, January 25, 2006. The purpose of this Awareness Ride will be to demonstrate just how much extra congestion will be created, if Lane Splitting is not legalised. During this ride, riders will proceed at normal traffic speeds but will explicitly ride in a manner that the proposed rules require. Congestion Awareness Ride starts at the Springvale Road entrance to the Eastern Freeway, commencing at 8am.

    The NTC’s Chief Executive Tony Wilson said the NTC acknowledged motorcyclists’ concerns regarding lane splitting and encouraged their participation in the public consultation process. "We will listen to, and consider seriously, comments from all parties – including motorcycle groups and riders – before submitting final recommendations to Ministers for approval," he said.

  2. cfsmtb said:

    Read this on ABC Melb site, haven't quite got through all the msg board
    comments yet to read of any reference to cyclists.

    Now some of *us* lane split too, so is this proposed Victoria
    legislation relevant to cyclists? Could it be enforced against
    cyclists, as we are legally road users?

    Hard to see why not?
    Yeah I have read a lot about this. THe first of probably many protests
    will be on the eastern freeway on wed. Stealth Kat and I will be there.

    Its a big deal cos we think and the studys show that filtering is not
    only safe but much safer than the alternative. And this legislation
    will slow motorcycle comutes down amazingly. (for most long commutes a
    motorcycle is wayyyyy the quickest method) Many countries are
    specifically bringing in legislation to specifically allow it. Yet here
    in Oz some brains trust that probably couldnt even tell you where the
    back brake on a motorcyle was wants to ban it. ANd all the support
    comes from the sort of loser that doesnt see why anyone should get thru
    traffic faster than them. Its the last bit that should trouble cyclists.

    Motorcylists have been taken on before and not proved to be a soft
    target but we rolled over for the $50 levy. Maybe they think we have
    gone soft. Maybe we have. We will soon find out I think

    Funnily enough the people concerned were saying they had no submissions
    against the proposed laws at the same time that many people on news
    groupes were saying that they had posted such submission.

    I didnt mention this here before cos its not that relevent to cyclists
    but then again maybe it is. You were talking about getting a licence?

    Dave

  3. http://www2b.abc.net.au/tmb/Client/Message.aspx?b=10&m=398&ps=20&dm=2

    for some comments.. one of which is mine 🙂

    Dave

  4. cfsmtb said:


    Alex Money, Media Communications Officer for Victorian Motorcyclist
    Union, explained to 774’s Penny Johnston during the Safe Driving
    segment, that the law says that if you pass another vehicle on the
    inside of the same lane, to the left of the vehicle, it’s illegal. You
    can’t really ‘lane split’ without breaking the law. And so it’s been
    illegal for that reason.

    Not true, and have a successful insurance battle and many hours in Melb
    Uni Law library to back it up.

    Passing on the left of stationary traffic is legal. Passing on the right
    of traffic (stationary or moving) is legal; this includes passign within
    a lane. So lane splitting in stationary traffic is always legal
    regardless of your position in the lane, whereas lane splitting of
    moving traffic is only legal if you are within the same lane as the
    vehicle on your left (regardless of what is happening int he lane to
    your right), ie. passing it on the right.

    DaveB

  5. Kathy aka Dave said:

    back brake on a motorcyle was wants to ban it. ANd all the support
    comes from the sort of loser that doesnt see why anyone should get thru
    traffic faster than them.

    Yep, you hit the nail on the head there. It's the same reason they hate
    cyclists. Sold on a dream of freedom in the new car and discovering
    they've been sold well short.

    DaveB

  6. cfsmtb said:

    Read this on ABC Melb site, haven't quite got through all the msg board
    comments yet to read of any reference to cyclists.

    Now some of *us* lane split too, so is this proposed Victoria
    legislation relevant to cyclists? Could it be enforced against
    cyclists, as we are legally road users?

    I have already sent my submission to the NTC on this. It went along the
    lines of "how can you make it illegal for a motorcycle to pass a car in
    the same lane, and call it a safety measure, and still have it legal for
    a car to pass a bicycle in the same lane?" I went on to say that I had
    no desire to stop cars passing cyclists in the same lane, just that the
    argument for stopping motorcycles had no grounds.

    Brian

  7. In article <[email hidden]>, Kathy <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Now some of *us* lane split too, so is this proposed Victoria
    legislation relevant to cyclists? Could it be enforced against
    cyclists, as we are legally road users?

    Hard to see why not?

    There's one huge "why not": if lane splitting was banned for cyclists,
    every time a car wanted to pass us, it would be *obliged* to move across
    to the next lane.

    --
    Shane Stanley

  8. Shane Stanley said:

    In article <[email hidden]>, Kathy <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Now some of *us* lane split too, so is this proposed Victoria
    legislation relevant to cyclists? Could it be enforced against
    cyclists, as we are legally road users?

    Hard to see why not?

    There's one huge "why not": if lane splitting was banned for cyclists,
    every time a car wanted to pass us, it would be *obliged* to move across
    to the next lane.


    Nope. Under the proposed legislation overtaking in the same lane will
    be totally legal for cars.

    No reason why that shouldnt extend to cyclists at some point. As I
    understand it currently it will specifically refer to motorcyclists.

    Dave

  9. cfsmtb said:


    Read this on ABC Melb site, haven't quite got through all the msg board
    comments yet to read of any reference to cyclists.

    Now some of *us* lane split too, so is this proposed Victoria
    legislation relevant to cyclists? Could it be enforced against
    cyclists, as we are legally road users?

    *Ponder*


    <snip>

    fantastic.

    so all those car drivers parked on the freeway, looking enviously out at
    the motorcyclists, have finally put their foot down and complained about
    a far more sensible mode of transport.

    Tam

  10. On 2006-01-23, Shane Stanley (aka Bruce)
    was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>, Kathy <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Now some of *us* lane split too, so is this proposed Victoria
    legislation relevant to cyclists? Could it be enforced against
    cyclists, as we are legally road users?

    Hard to see why not?

    There's one huge "why not": if lane splitting was banned for cyclists,
    every time a car wanted to pass us, it would be *obliged* to move across
    to the next lane.

    What's the chances it would be enforced in this case though?

    OTOH, wide kerbside lanes would serve no useful function anymore -- if
    there are parked cars, a cyclist couldn't pass within the same lane,
    and the cyclist wouldn't be allowed to pass or be passed by any cars
    in the same lane.

    OTOOH, those stupid bike lanes just outside the door zone would still
    be legal, since they are an actual lane.

    --
    TimC
    My dog is worried about the economy because Alpo is up to 99 cents a can.
    Thats almost $7.00 in dog money. -Joe Weinstein in ARK

  11. Shane Stanley said:

    There's one huge "why not": if lane splitting was banned for cyclists,
    every time a car wanted to pass us, it would be *obliged* to move
    across to the next lane.

    No, whilst the proposed law specifically forces two wheeled vehicles to move
    to another lane to pass a car, a car is allowed to pass a two-wheeled
    vehicle without moving wholly to another lane. We can't have the same rules
    for cars, now, can we?

    Theo

  12. Wait until they find out that some of us are having pretty good sex too
    🙂

  13. I mean of course that they will have to ban that. Can't have anyone
    having more fun than them can we.

    (Sorry; the quote didnt quote)

  14. percrime said:

    I mean of course that they will have to ban that. Can't have anyone having more fun than them can we.

    (Sorry; the quote didnt quote)

    Can't be having any of that, might lead to fcuking standing up.

  15. percrime said:


    Wait until they find out that some of us are having pretty good sex too
    🙂

    ROFLMAO

    Amen to that.

    Tam

  16. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Theo Bekkers said:

    whilst the proposed law specifically forces two wheeled vehicles to move
    to another lane to pass a car, a car is allowed to pass a two-wheeled
    vehicle without moving wholly to another lane

    Oh dear...

    --
    Shane Stanley

  17. On 2006-01-23, percrime (aka Bruce)
    was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

    Quoted message said:


    Shane Stanley said:

    In article <[email hidden]>, Kathy <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    > Now some of *us* lane split too, so is this proposed Victoria
    > legislation relevant to cyclists? Could it be enforced against
    > cyclists, as we are legally road users?

    Hard to see why not?

    There's one huge "why not": if lane splitting was banned for cyclists,
    every time a car wanted to pass us, it would be *obliged* to move across
    to the next lane.


    Nope. Under the proposed legislation overtaking in the same lane will
    be totally legal for cars.

    I think I'm going back through this thread to find out where to make
    submissions.

    I will be requesting that for the same safety reasons quoted to make
    lane splitting illegal, it /must/ be made illegal to overtake bicycles
    within the same lane, for exactly the same safety reasons. Do do
    anything otherwise will just point out that the law is intended to
    make two wheel transport wait their "turn", and that the legislation
    is /not/ being introduced for the reasons of safety.

    --
    TimC
    A mouse is a device used to focus xterms.

  18. Go for it Tim. Try aus.cycling or netrider.net.au I can probably find
    the submission address if I look for it.
    Dont forget that most motorcyclists are either cyclists or at least
    sympathetic. The skill sets to stay alive are similiar.

    Dave

  19. On 2006-01-23, percrime (aka Bruce)
    was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

    Quoted message said:

    Go for it Tim. Try aus.cycling or netrider.net.au I can probably find
    the submission address if I look for it.

    [censored]:
    http://www.ntc.gov.au/NewsDetail.aspx?page=A0240030550000002000164

    You can download the draft RIS from the NTC website at <link>Recent
    Reports Issued for Comment</link>. Comments are welcomed before
    January 20, 2006.

    Pity they didn't let us know a few days ago.

    --
    TimC
    No, the best way to prepare is to write programs, and to study great
    programs that other people have written. In my case, I went to the garbage
    cans at the Computer Science Center and I fished out listings of their
    operating system. -- Bill Gates

  20. TimC said:

    On 2006-01-23, percrime (aka Bruce)
    was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

    Quoted message said:
    Shane Stanley said:

    In article <[email hidden]>, Kathy <[email hidden]>
    wrote:

    >> Now some of *us* lane split too, so is this proposed Victoria
    >> legislation relevant to cyclists? Could it be enforced against
    >> cyclists, as we are legally road users?
    > Hard to see why not?
    There's one huge "why not": if lane splitting was banned for cyclists,
    every time a car wanted to pass us, it would be *obliged* to move across
    to the next lane.


    Nope. Under the proposed legislation overtaking in the same lane will
    be totally legal for cars.

    I think I'm going back through this thread to find out where to make
    submissions.

    You can register on the web site (ntc.gov.au) and post comments there or
    just email "Greg Deimos" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    I will be requesting that for the same safety reasons quoted to make
    lane splitting illegal, it /must/ be made illegal to overtake bicycles
    within the same lane, for exactly the same safety reasons. Do do
    anything otherwise will just point out that the law is intended to
    make two wheel transport wait their "turn", and that the legislation
    is /not/ being introduced for the reasons of safety.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.