Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

N/A | National California: Motorcyce lane-splitting rules

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by stu_h, Feb 8, 2013.

  1. #1 stu_h, Feb 8, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2013

    Sorry for the wall of text , click link at bottom for article.

    • Like Like x 9
  2. Why is it so hard for our governments to do this?
    • Like Like x 1
  3. It requires intelligence.
    • Like Like x 6
  4. That said... the ol califoriniay seems to have started moving again now that Arnie's out of the palace and back on the movies
  5. Good start.....

    If they can do this in the PC - ecoMENTALIST world of Cali and La-La-land then there is hope yet.....

    NB** the "safe" split eluded to in the article is backwards for Aus.......the "safe" split would be to the right, not the left.....
  6. He......be back?
  7. 35mph or 50kph is very generous.
  8. Shouldn't be now, they just have to convert mph to kmh, swap the sides of the road (preferred lane) then copy and paste.

    Perhaps a certain premier needing to prove he is doing things in order to retain his job could be convinced that this should be done...
    • Like Like x 1
  9. But that would probably require a reasoned argument from a motorcycle lobby group. Do we have a lobby group anywhere in this country that is capable of doing this?
    • Like Like x 1
  10. NSW is getting a filtering trial, so yes.

    NSW riders can help by becoming a individual supporter of the NSWMCC and you get discounts.

  11. Don't look at the local yokels up here ... they're still living in the 70s ... pretty much a horror movie :whistle:
  12. Filtering has been a practice in California for many many years. Last year CHP's and rider groups undertook a survey to understand the attitudes that existed regarding splitting and whether drivers understood its legality. These guidelines are one of the outputs of that process.

    It's worth noting that the rest of the U.S. doesn't allow filtering, but if you look at this excellent paper, you have to ask why?

  13. Excellent! Thanks stu.
  14. One major difference between here and Cali is that their lanes are often much wider than ours, so there is more room for filtering.
  15. The California Dept of Transportation advise their lanes can vary in width however they are generally about 12' per lane (3.7m) and decrease to 9' (2.7 m) lanes where traffic capacity decreases.

    Current Australian guidelines recommend traffic lane widths of 3.5m as standard.

    Our roads are therefore comparable.

    • Like Like x 3
  16. :applause: ^^^^ Hahaha Justus you are amazing....
  17. So you are saying that relatively speaking we have just as many wide(er) roads as California does.

    If that is what you are saying, how do you know that?
  18. US exit ramps would mostly be on the RH side. Is that the reason they recommend choosing the LH corridor?
  19. No mate, I am not talking about the number of wide roads in comparison. That is unknown and irrelevant.

    In effect I'm saying that:

    (a) the guidelines as per OP is suitable for this country, in addition to Europe which have even narrower roads & acknowledge similar guidelines, and

    (b), that any notion the width of our lanes (as per Australian guidelines) invalidates the implementation of those guidelines, to any degree, is not warranted

    FWIW, I lived on Sunbeam Drive, Glendale 90065 for 12 months, 15 minutes drive from the heart of Los Angeles.

  20. Hardly.

    It's common here and comparable to practice around the world. E.g. a UK training article recommends not filtering in traffic going >20mph and not going >20mph faster than the traffic (i.e. max 40mph or ~60km/h). Known as the 20:20 rule.
    Been posted several times before.