3 ms·

> An automobile that 'lane-splits' to pass a bicyclist isn't moving between two other automobiles They are moving between traffic in the next lane and the cycl

by u801e 4y ago

> An automobile that 'lane-splits' to pass a bicyclist isn't moving between two other automobiles They are moving between traffic in the next lane and the cyclist. Lanes simply don't have room for an automobile and half of another one. > When you discuss a two-wheel vehicle and talk about lane-splitting you are talking about moving in the middle of two lanes between automobiles, essentially claiming a middle third lane that's not marked. From a legal perspective, the driver of the two wheeled vehicle is not keeping their vehicle as nearly as practicable within a single lane. While I personally agree with lane splitting for single track vehicles like pedal and motorcyclists, the law says otherwise in most states in the US. But I don't agree with lane splitting for dual track vehicles because drivers of those types of vehicles don't have a precise idea of their extent, which makes it more likly they may end up colliding with a vehicle in the next lane when they lane split, compared to the driver of a single track vehicle.

lsaferite 4y ago
> They are moving between traffic in the next lane and the cyclist. Lanes simply don't have room for an automobile and half of another one. No, they are blocking the next lane. Lanes are sized to hold a single automobile. Half of an automobile will clearly block another automobile from filling that space. This is not lane-splitting. When a bicyclist rides between two automobiles in adjacent lanes, that is lane-splitting. An automobile that does what you characterized as lane-splitting is simply performing a passing maneuver. Legally speaking, at least in FL, you don't even have to fully move over to a passing lane when passing a bicycle, you simply need to ensure 3ft of clearance. Again, not lane-splitting, passing. My "half-assed passing maneuver" statement is just my personal opinion that you should perform a normal passing maneuver and go totally into the other lane for the safety of the bicyclist, even if it's not legally required. > I personally agree with lane splitting for single track vehicles like pedal and motorcyclists I find any lane-splitting, legal or not, to be incredibly foolish. The level of risk taken on when you feel the need to purposefully put yourself between two very large moving metal objects that have unpredictable behaviour and very little safety clearance is just too high. As evidenced in this thread already, riding a two-wheeled vehicle in automobile traffic is already risky enough, why the hell would you want to increase that risk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_splitting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_splitting
- u801e 4y ago
  > No, they are blocking the next lane. Lanes are sized to hold a single automobile. Half of an automobile will clearly block another automobile from filling that space. This is not lane-splitting. According to the Wikipedia article you cited about lane splitting, they define it as: >> Lane splitting is riding a bicycle or motorcycle between lanes or rows of slow moving or stopped traffic moving in the same direction. A cyclist riding close to the edge of the lane and a motorist in the adjacent lanes form 2 lanes or rows of traffic. Another motorist attempting to go between those two lanes or rows of traffic is lane splitting because their vehicle is between two lanes of traffic. Whether or not they partially block the lane as they pass doesn't change the fact that that's what it is. Both a motorcyclist and a pedalcyclist are wider than their tire width, so they are partially in both lanes when lane splitting, and they would block both lanes if they're attempting to go between two tractor-trailers for example. > Legally speaking, at least in FL, you don't even have to fully move over to a passing lane when passing a bicycle, you simply need to ensure 3ft of clearance. Traffic law pertaining to passing, what side of the road to drive on, and where to position one's vehicle when preparing for a turn were written for roads that don't have marked lanes for traffic. There also another law[1] that lists additional requirements for drivers on roads with marked lanes for traffic. One of those requirements is to remain as nearly as practicable within a single lane. Straddling the lane line while passing does not meet that requirement. So while the minimum safe distance/3 ft distance requirement applies on roads without marked lanes, it does not supercede the requirement to keep one's vehicle within a single lane. So, unless it's possible to leave 3 feet of distance between one's vehicle and a cyclist while remaining entirely within the same lane, one has to change lanes to pass in order to comply with the single lane requirement imposed by 316.089. [1] http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.089.html http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Displ...

by u801e 4y ago

lsaferite 4y ago

> They are moving between traffic in the next lane and the cyclist. Lanes simply don't have room for an automobile and half of another one. No, they are blocking the next lane. Lanes are sized to hold a single automobile. Half of an automobile will clearly block another automobile from filling that space. This is not lane-splitting. When a bicyclist rides between two automobiles in adjacent lanes, that is lane-splitting. An automobile that does what you characterized as lane-splitting is simply performing a passing maneuver. Legally speaking, at least in FL, you don't even have to fully move over to a passing lane when passing a bicycle, you simply need to ensure 3ft of clearance. Again, not lane-splitting, passing. My "half-assed passing maneuver" statement is just my personal opinion that you should perform a normal passing maneuver and go totally into the other lane for the safety of the bicyclist, even if it's not legally required. > I personally agree with lane splitting for single track vehicles like pedal and motorcyclists I find any lane-splitting, legal or not, to be incredibly foolish. The level of risk taken on when you feel the need to purposefully put yourself between two very large moving metal objects that have unpredictable behaviour and very little safety clearance is just too high. As evidenced in this thread already, riding a two-wheeled vehicle in automobile traffic is already risky enough, why the hell would you want to increase that risk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_splitting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_splitting

u801e 4y ago
> No, they are blocking the next lane. Lanes are sized to hold a single automobile. Half of an automobile will clearly block another automobile from filling that space. This is not lane-splitting. According to the Wikipedia article you cited about lane splitting, they define it as: >> Lane splitting is riding a bicycle or motorcycle between lanes or rows of slow moving or stopped traffic moving in the same direction. A cyclist riding close to the edge of the lane and a motorist in the adjacent lanes form 2 lanes or rows of traffic. Another motorist attempting to go between those two lanes or rows of traffic is lane splitting because their vehicle is between two lanes of traffic. Whether or not they partially block the lane as they pass doesn't change the fact that that's what it is. Both a motorcyclist and a pedalcyclist are wider than their tire width, so they are partially in both lanes when lane splitting, and they would block both lanes if they're attempting to go between two tractor-trailers for example. > Legally speaking, at least in FL, you don't even have to fully move over to a passing lane when passing a bicycle, you simply need to ensure 3ft of clearance. Traffic law pertaining to passing, what side of the road to drive on, and where to position one's vehicle when preparing for a turn were written for roads that don't have marked lanes for traffic. There also another law[1] that lists additional requirements for drivers on roads with marked lanes for traffic. One of those requirements is to remain as nearly as practicable within a single lane. Straddling the lane line while passing does not meet that requirement. So while the minimum safe distance/3 ft distance requirement applies on roads without marked lanes, it does not supercede the requirement to keep one's vehicle within a single lane. So, unless it's possible to leave 3 feet of distance between one's vehicle and a cyclist while remaining entirely within the same lane, one has to change lanes to pass in order to comply with the single lane requirement imposed by 316.089. [1] http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.089.html http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Displ...