Talk:Lane splitting

California Office of Traffic Safety survey on lane splitting

[23] "An OTS spokesman told us [Consumer Reports] that California is the only state in which there is no law concerning lane splitting." They asked motorcyclists how much they lane split, at what speeds, have they had an accident, and so on. Survey Results: [24],[25], [26] --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I apparently missed this when it was originally released (just saw the PDF press release now [27]). In any case, it's the first time I've seen a state agency unambiguously state lane splitting is legal. I'm going to try to gingerly add the 53% awareness and legality to the section on Legality, since the current paragraph states it's a grey zone. I'll leave that statement just add more. CáliKewlKid (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Lane splitting is only allowed between 2 motorbikes in Turkey

lane splitting between automobiles and motobikes are forbidden in Turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.144.255.211 (talk) 09:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Study showing lane splitting decreases commute times for cars, lowers emissions

Why commuting by motorcycle is good for everyone, Kevin Ash at the Telegraph. I don't know of this study has been analyzed by others besides the authors, Transport & Mobility Leuven. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ultra narrow cars

I'm not sure ultra narrow cars belong anywhere in this article, but they definitlely don't deserve mention in the lead. They are not a thing that actually exists, or is widely practiced. This article is about a worldwide traffic phenomenon. Ultra narrow cars are $108,000 toys owned by celebrities. Are they even street legal anywhere? Source says the "Tango doesn't really work for LA." What does that mean?

See WP:UNDUE and WP:CRYSTAL. The BMW C1 failed because it couldn't be driven as if it was a car, meaning the rider needed a motorcycle license and had to wear a helmet. Any indication that ultra narrow cars, even if street legal, don't have the same problem? The point of these things is that you don't have to be a motorcyclist to take advantage of lane splitting, but is that legally a fact? Or just a future hope?

Get some good facts from good sources, and maybe it's worth mentioning. To me it's vapor ware, and not encyclopedic. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I just reverted the claim that four wheel vehicles lane split. Source? The cited source [28] says "on a motorcycle" meaning a two wheeled vehicle. Please provide a citation saying lane splitting is actually practiced by four wheeled vehicles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Response to Ultra narrow cars post

The lane splitting lead doesn't need to specify number of wheels. The Top Gear article clearly states the four wheeled ultra-narrow car it is reviewing is lane splitting. Therefore, I propose leaving "two-wheeled vehicles" out of the lead or adding "and ultra-narrow cars" if "two-wheeled vehicles" stays in the lead.

The source of your lane splitting definition is the motor cycle safety foundation. Unlike the Top Gear article I cite, it is not a neutral source and therefore is not in line with Wikipedia's core content policies.

Ultra-narrow cars are not vaporware. For example, please view the following video produced by a Chinese production company which interviews the inventor of the Tango as well as owners who drive the Tango on a daily basis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmp-Hii3F8o

The Tango "not working in LA" statement was the author's overall feeling about the car, but in no way does it suggest that Tangos do not lane split.

No law prohibits ultra-narrow car lane splitting. Please provide a source where ultra-narrow car lane splitting is illegal. Mickeysimple (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The lead does need to say two wheeled vehicle because that's what the sources tell us -- motorcycles and bicycles. this link is published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Motorcycle Safety Foundation logo is there because they assisted the NHTSA. Not that anyone has ever given reason to question the neutrality of the MSF on something like this anyway. We know that one motorcycle taxi service in LA could not use three-wheeled Can-Am Spyders cause they could not lane split; see Motorcycle taxi#United States. Read the citations.

Again, the Top Gear article specifically says the Tango "doesn't work for LA." The YouTube video gives no evidence that they are not just testing, or that they are not driving illegally. What jurisdiction is that, anyway? We also know that the CHP specifically says that only motorcycles are allowed to lane split in California.[29] You have provided no sources which tell us that lane sharing or lane splitting by four wheel vehicles is actually practiced anywhere, or that it's legal. The fact that they only known owners are a pair of billionaires and a wealthy actor is sufficient evidence that this is an extreme fringe vehicle, at best. It's a prototype of an idea that has no evidence of being in normal use. SEe WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:CRYSTAL

WP:BURDEN says the onus is on you to provide sources that this is real, not vaporware, and that it is a normal practice, and' that it's legal. What if someone came along and said you could lane split on horseback and told me it belonged in the article until I found a citation saying it was illegal? It' doesn't work that way. Besides, the citations are here, on the talk page and in the footnotes. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

2nd Response to Ultra narrow cars post

I’ll respond to each point sentence by sentence except in respect to “legality” which I address toward the end of this post.

When the author of the article writes doesn’t work for LA, he writes in the same way a movie critic writes “the movie doesn’t work”. For instance, here’s a link to a very recent movie review that uses the phrase “doesn’t work” in it’s title: http://www.torontosun.com/2012/07/12/donovans-collaborator-doesnt-work.

In this case, the movie critic is not saying “the movie doesn’t fit in the projector and therefore can’t be viewed." The reviewer means, as an overall entity, it’s not “her cup of tea”. As he writes: It's tough to buy. The experience here is more akin to watching a play, complete with unnatural acting, low affect characters and a claustrophobic setting. This is Donovan's directorial debut; you can see the potential, but it just doesn't work.”

Regardless of whether the author of the Top Gear article wants to buy a Tango (he does not) he clearly does describe the Tango as lane splitting. Further, if it were a lane splitting “test”, he most certainly would have described it as a test. (See "Legality" below).

Your description of Tango owners being billionaires and movie stars makes no difference as to whether Tangos lane split or not. A “yacht” is still a “boat” and could be included as a type of “boat” that “floats” even though only very few people own a “yacht”. Also, a Rolls Royce is still a car that drives, and The Dodge Tomahawk V10 Superbike is still a motorcycle that can lane split and sometimes (not always) does.

In the context of asserting that ultra-narrow cars driving between lanes as considered lane splitting, I am currently giving reason to challenge the neutrality of the MSF. The link you provide links to the quote: “Lane splitting: Passing between lanes of stopped of slower-moving vehicles on a motor cycle.” It does not mention bicycles in the sentence, yet we all agree that bicycles lane split. Therefore, in the context of your assertion of providing all-encompassing 3rd party evidence, it is not neutral.

You write that Can-Am Spyders “could not lane split”. Please elaborate. Was the body of the vehicle too wide to lane split? Or do you mean, it isn’t legal? Please see “Legality" below.

Regarding “practice (of lane splitting)” vs. “ability (to lane split”) for some reason “two-wheeled vehicle” links to a Wiki page titled :”Two-wheeler” which currently includes the following list of vehicles: dandy horse, bicycle, cab or hansom, motorcycle, Segway PT, and a hand-truck. Some of the vehicles have “the ability” to lane split. Some people “practice” lane splitting with the vehicles, and sometimes some of the vehicles “legally” lane split. However, none of the vehicles fit in all of the categories all of the time.

Describing ultra-narrow cars with the term “extreme fringe vehicle” is a false correlation to the WP:FRINGE, link provided.

WP:FRINGE states three core content policies – neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability. The Top Gear article certainly is a neutral point of view, is not original research, and is verifiable.

You write – “It's a prototype of an idea that has no evidence of being in normal use.” Of course, the third party articles and videos cited show ultra-narrow cars are in normal use.

You also provide links. I differ with your interpretation of the links as to whether ultra-narrow cars lane split.

WP:UNDUE

...has to do with neutrality, naming, article structure, due and undue weight, giving equal validity, good research, balance, an impartial tone, point of view forks, making necessary assumptions, and controversial subjects.

Neutrality – the Top Gear article is a neutral reviewer of the ultra-narrow Tango

Naming – the Top Gear article describes/names the Tango as “lane splitting” “page 2: referring to the Tango, the author writes “the thing's designer, builder and marketer is demonstrating the 39in-wide EV’s ability to split lanes like a motorcycle."

Article Structure – my submission for additional text was not as a paragraph into itself but an attempt to integrate it with the narrative. To me, it’s clear that the “two wheel” term in the lead is inaccurate because of the link and the fact that the ultra-narrow Tango does, indeed, lane split, therefore using the additional “and ultra-narrow cars” with a link to the Top Gear article is apropos. If it is deemed best to add the ultra-narrow car as a “also see” comment, then, clearly, the two wheel term must be removed because it is contradictory.

Giving Equal Validity – the link discusses giving equal validity to fringe theories. Ultra-narrow cars are real and often behave in the practice of lane splitting. It is not a theory like “flat earth” but a fact like “a Mercedes can drive in reverse”.

Good Research - the Top Gear article and the Chinese video are excellent researchers of this topic. Also see: http://on.aol.com/video/translogic-46--tango-ev-517141691 Indeed, as the host Bradley Hasemeyer says in introducing the Tango he states “Today we’re in Spokane Washington checking out the lane splitting, hair raising Tango”.

Balance - Yes, almost all lane splitting vehicles have two-wheels, but clearly ultra-narrow cars with four wheels are vehicles which lane split. The Top Gear article describes ultra-narrow cars lane splitting and the Chinese video shows ultra-narrow cars lane splitting. No one is suggesting that ultra-narrow cars deserve “equal attention” as bicycles or motorcycles, but they clearly deserve some attention. By reading the Top Gear article and seeing the videos, I believe the vast majority of lane splitting adherents would include ultra-narrow cars as vehicles which lane split in this article.

Impartial Tone - there’s no partiality with the term including “and ultra-narrow vehicles” in the lead. It simply is a fact that ultra-narrow vehicles lane split.

Point of View Forks – keeping the fact that ultra-narrow cars lane split in the lane splitting article avoids point of view forks. Making necessary assumptions – there is no assumption that ultra-narrow cars lane split. Simply, it is a fact that they do lane split.

Controversial Subjects – the ability to lane split is not controversial. Indeed, it can be easily recognized. There is no controversy in describing ultra-narrow cars driving between lanes of slow or stopped vehicles as lane splitting.

WP:CRYSTAL

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball leads with the phrase “unverifiable”. Clearly, as evidenced again, by the Top Gear the article and the video link, four-wheeled ultra-narrow cars have the ability and do lane split. Continuing, regarding the next phrase “own opinions or analyses”, this is not a single opinion, but it is the observations from journalists writing stories and/or videotaping the act of ultra-narrow cars lane splitting.

Advertising – yes, not linking the “ultra-narrow car” link to the www.commutercars.com website is a good practice.

“Extrapolation, speculation, and future history: the article and video(s) describe what has been achieved by ultra-narrow cars, not what is expected.

There are ultra-narrow cars that can't be included as current “lane splitters”. For instance, Lit Motor’s C-1. It’s narrow enough to lane split but currently is too slow to “actually” lane split. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdmgDgcZfvY That being said, of course, not all bicycles or motorcycles are equipped to lane split, too.

WP:BURDEN

Anything Challenged: I supplied a link to the Top Gear article, the Chinese video and, now, Translogic video as well.

Burden of Evidence: I provided citations.

Reliable Source: “Top Gear” and “Translogic” are reliable third party sources. These are not self-published sources.

Real: The Tango clearly exists and it lane splits.

Vaporware:

Here’s a link to the Tango appearing in a motion picture coming attraction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiFqT5-6JQg .

As Rick Woodbury writes at www.commutercars.com.

"What a pleasant surprise to see the Tango in the opening scene of this trailer for the upcoming movie Robot & Frank. In September Looper is due to come out, starring Bruce Willis, Joseph Gordon Levitt, and Emily Blank. It has 4 Tangos in it."

Horseback riding as lane splitting: I agree with much of the lead including – “lane splitting refers to a ‘vehicle’.”

Legality:

I believe lane splitting with a Tango in California is legal. Jay Leno interviewed Rick Woodbury for his "Jay Leno's Garage" internet series.

At 3:56 in the video Leno says “The cool thing is that you can lane split in these things. Is it legal?” To which Woodbury replies, “As of the day before yesterday, 63 police officers have told me it’s legal. It’s unanimous so far.” Leno replies “Okay. If you fit in the space you’re okay”.

http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/collections/electric/tango-electric/index.shtml#item=107842

Further, lane splitting is illegal in 49 states but we still recognize what lane splitting is in states where it is illegal. Much of the article about lane splitting is about how it is or isn’t legal in different parts of the world. Regardless, I’m sure all readers would agree that if a motorcycle driving between two lanes of stalled or stopped traffic in California is to be referred as "lane splitting", it would still be "lane splitting" if it were doing the same practice in Montana, even though it would illegal in that state.

A few dancers were arrested at a monument in Washington and were given a citation for it. That doesn’t mean they weren’t “dancing” just because it was deemed illegal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWeF6lwg4aY From the Neutral point of view/FAQ

Avoiding constant disputes:

“How can this dispute be fairly characterized?”

If I had to characterize this disagreement, I believe it comes down to this:

For inclusion: There is substantial 3rd party evidence that four wheeled ultra-narrow cars demonstrate and actively lane split in California and elsewhere in the world.

Against inclusion: There are too few four wheeled ultra-narrow cars lane splitting on the roads today

Per WP, Consensus is not always possible, but it should be our goal.

Mickeysimple (talk) 09:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You're scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to find sources. You've written ten times more words here on the talk page than is contained all your sources put together. Please to not put this back in the article until you find sources which tell is it is in common usage and it's legal. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I don't object to a sentence somewhere down in the body of the article that only says that ultra narrow cars exist, at least as prototypes, and that they are intended to take advantage of lane splitting. I object to putting it in the lead, and to the unsourced claims about it being legal or in general practice. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

TLDR, but yes, a very tiny mention of limited-production three and four wheelers might be appropriate in the body of the article. It's pointless to mention specific vehicles or laws in specific states/countries. Same would be true about mentioning unicycles or the U3X. tedder (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Until there are substantive sources that show lane splitting by ultra narrow cars is commonplace, then fringe stuff like this has no place in the article. Tedder does have a good point thought because I do lane-split frequently on my unicycle and my son does it on his skateboard. Plus I've seen my neighbour's rollerskating dog do it more than once. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

new rules for lane-splitting in california

New guidelines from the CHP: [30] -- it is "not illegal" in CA, and there are new guidelines for safety as of Jan. 2013. The article should be updated -- phoebe / (talk to me) 22:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The article currently cites two official California sources that say lane splitting is allowed.[31][32] These go back a few years at least; I'd have to check the Wayback machine. What is new is the official advice on how to lane split. Since the point of this article is not to give advice on how to ride your motorcycle, it's not really relevant. The reason California and Australia are discussed at all is they are well documented examples of how legal ambiguity has lead to the practice becoming accepted, in California, or barely tolerated, in Australia.

Previous versions of this article tried to give advice on riding in every country, but that's unencyclopedic how-to advice (WP:NOTHOWTO) and it was almost all unsourced. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Another citation in the latest print edition of Cycle World for the rules clarification: John L. Stein (July 2013), "California lane splitting gets its first official guidelines", Cycle World: 40 . Don't see this on the CW web site yet. Brianhe (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Table of local laws removed again

First, see WP:NOTHOWTO. Wikipedia articles are not "instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a 'how-to' style owner's manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise)." If you want to know how to legally ride your motorcycle, you need to consult your local laws, not an encyclopedia.

There was a comprehensive list of lane splitting laws in previous versions of this article, but it was entirely unsourced for years and years. We finally got rid of it because no sources appeared to be forthcoming, and it was not necessary for a good article. The only reason mention of some jurisdictions is included, in particular California and Australia, is that we have sources which have given them extraordinary attention due to the legal confusion over lane splitting. Not because the article is supposed to be your legal advisory, but because the broader social questions have been covered and discussed by expert sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTHOWTO is not even sort of applicable here. Excluding information because someone might use it to decide how to do something would eliminate pretty much the entirety of pretty much every article. Furthermore, there are plenty of articles which list the laws of states/countries in table form--speed limits, ages of consent, abortion, legal drinking age, etc, etc. Rracecarr (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is there a need to list all 49 states which don't allow lane splitting when we have multiple high quality sources that say there is only one state that allows it? What is the point of telling readers that it's not allowed in Ontario when the only source you have is a forum post that is specifically disallowed by WP:SPS? This is the first time I've ever seen a Wikipedia Administrator cite an open forum as a source. Your citation for Quecec is a direct citation of the legal code, which is a primary source. The problem with that is that law codes are subject to interpretation, and we should be especially aware of that pitfall with lane splitting because we know that if you were to merely read the California or Australia traffic code you'd have to conclude lane splitting is not allowed. The reality is much more nuanced. Hence the need for the explanations from secondary sources. Then we come to Taiwan: more forum posts?! In Chinese?

If we eliminate the badly sourced entries, and the utterly pointless and redundant list of US states, what's left? Nothing. And then we have the whole rest of the world, for which we have exactly the same sourcing issues, multiplied by some 200+ nations, not counting sub-jurisdictions. And for what? What purpose is served here? Should an encyclopedia list ever single jurisdiction that allows right turn on red?

This is nothing other than how-to advice, and you're putting the content ahead of your sourcing. Sources first, then write. Sourcing on this fuzzy legal issue is too weak for Wikipedia. It's the same reason we don't want articles giving you a green light to deduct your home mortgage interest from your state income tax. It's far too subtle and subject to interpretation, and not why encyclopedias exist. I realize articles like Speed limits by country exist, but they set a bad precedent, and we should not be here making it worse. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

A brand new sortable table with more and more references added is intended for worldwide legality. Please also note that even if lane splitting is meant to be illegal per traffic law per se somewhere, necessity defense may apply in a few cases that I am adding gradually in footnotes.--Jusjih (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Almost all of that makes good sense. I'm still perplexed by the supposed relevance of WP:NOTHOWTO. The guideline is there to discourage things like: to set your home page in Chrome, follow these steps: 1) click on the icon in the upper right corner; 2) .... It is emphatically not there to justify removing material because it could be used to decide how to do something. The state-by-state table does seem unnecessary though if the situation is essentially the same in 49 states. Rracecarr (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is this list there except to tell riders where to lane split and where not? AND you're adding footnotes to give riders "defenses" if they get cited for lane splitting? This is obviously how-to advice. It's obviously legal advice. And why the 50 state list? And why so many poorly sourced entries? Badly sourced material should be removed immediately. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, you might well be right about removing the list, but for your own sake, drop the how-to argument. It's obviously silly, and weakens your position. First, even if you're right that most people who are interested in this information are riders trying to decide how to behave, that does not make it how-to advice--deciding how to do something is perhaps the most common reason to seek information, and removing any information that could be or is used in this way would entirely gut the encyclopedia; second, you have no way of knowing who might want this information and why--so even if the how-to policy was much broader than it actually is, you still couldn't use it to justify removal. Rracecarr (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

If I could see any point to a comprehensive list other than legal advice, I'd accept it's not how-to advice. Somebody tell me what the purpose is, if not how-to.

And yes, the sourcing problem is also a sufficient reason to delete it. Quoting the legal code might be an acceptable source for some things, but here you end up citing one state that has precisely the same legal code as California, which, if you are to rely on what you cited, means you either have to say lane splitting is illegal in California, or legal in those states with the same laws. Since you can't source it to the law code, you must cite a secondary source. And secondary sources don't exist for almost all jurisdictions in the US and around the world. Wikipedia articles must contain what the sources have given us, not what we wish we had good sources for. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Seeing you being so impatient, I just tagged under construction and will add even more official ref's in some more days. More failed bills trying to legalize lane splitting are also added to Arizona and Nevada, as referencing them under safety section is hard to read. Then 49 US states cannot be considered all the same.--Jusjih (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)