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 Defining filtering and more

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by rider5, Jun 7, 2011.

  1. To those of you who have already signed the online petition regaring legitimising filtering, many thanks, but unfortunately the real work has yet to begin.

    I was asked why I felt this issue was such a big one for me and why I felt so strongly about it. I thought I'd explain here in case anyones interested.

    The issue here is actually much much bigger than just legitimising a sensible activity. As we speak the future of road transport is being mapped out for the next 50 years by the UN, the WHO and other major players. This plan is being driven by a belief that cities are too congested and that the answer is to move away from traditional single ocupancy modes powered by fossil fuels and move towards low emmision public transport. In short the global warming issue is shaping the future whether we like it or not.

    The facts are that it doesn't matter whether YOU support the GW supporters or denialists, the people who make decisions do. It may be that they want to save the planet, or then again they may just have shares in bus companies - who knows? For us the real issue here is far more urgent and demanding, and here's why.

    Unless we stake our claim right here and right now in the heirarchy of supportable transport modes, the future of motorcycling looks grim. We absolutely have to convince decision makers that we deserve a place on the roads of the future as part of the transport solution. Filtering goes some way to achieving that aim by showing how capacity can be increased at little or no cost. We do not want to be known as the last generation to use motorcycles before they were legislated into irrelevence and obsolesence. This IS our fight and regardless of whether or not you ride on-road. off-road, classics or scooters. It doesn't matter whether you're a member of a patch club or a mini-bike club your voice matters.

    Therefore I urge those who haven't signed to go to


    and sign

    Further I'd like to pose the following:

    If you really really had to define the difference between 'filtering' and 'lane splitting' how would you do it? Try and keep it brief but succinct and I'll try and make notes of each offering.

  2. Thanks for that - I've changed it. Hopefully it works better now.
  3. I think the description in the petition is a sound one. It describes the act of a motorbike moving safely, with a safe speed differential, between slow or stationary vehicular traffic. "Safely" might not need to be well defined as it's not strictly defined in other areas of road law.

    With the speeds low, that means the energies are low and therefore it's fully compliant with vision zero principles. It will encourage riders to move out from the traffic column where they can't be rear ended. - further making them safer.

    Having this fully legitimised will clearly make threatening driver behaviour (blocking progress in a threatening manner) illegal and actionable.

    What is the ANTI filtering case? Filtering seems to have everything going for it, why is it illegal?
  4. I guess its best to work out what these are, so that anyone of us can make solid arguments if challenged.

    I suppose the main ones would be,

    1.Motorcycles run the risk of having doors opened on them.
    2.Motorcyclists will feel the need to escape from between cars at the front of lights and risk running into a red light runner.
    3.It is pushing in.
    4.Pedestrians crossing between cars may be put at risk.
    5.Risk of minor colission such as a motorcyclest breaking a mirror is high.
    6.Motorists may enter stopped traffic at any time without checking between lanes for oncoming motorcyclists.

    As motorcyclist we know none of these arguments hold up because when filtering we all are careful of these scenarios. But these are the arguments that will be used against this.
  5. It's illegal IMO because there hasn't been anything (until now) to legally differentiate it from splitting, and especially higher speed splitting.

    FWIW, I would define filtering as moving past stationary or nearly stationary vehicles at a bike speed less than 25kmh. Bike to remain within legal road boundary.
    (That wouldn't necessarily preclude moving past at a higher speed, but then other (existing?) rules would apply.

    I wouldn't even object if the responsibility for avoiding damage rested wholly with the rider.

    I also think this solution is heavily dependent on a change to the use of advanced stop line boxes. There is a FAR stronger case for their use by PTWs than just for cycles. Let's not get bogged down in cycle lanes right now, FFS.
  6. I'm a fan of the UK's law/definition which says in black and white that motorcycles can filter at speeds of up to 25kph (or was it 20kph? Forgive my untimely mental blank, I don't have time to check. 95% certain it's 25kph). It's in their motorcycle learner handbook. :D
  7. I suppose the strict definition would be filtering is when the traffic is stopped and splitting is when the traffic is moving.

    For the purposes of what I think you are trying to achieve "filtering" would be best described as moving between lanes of traffic where the traffic is moving no faster than 40kmh.

    Although, a case could be made for doing this at higher speeds where the lane is wide enough to accomdate a car and bike travelling in the same direction. What I'm thinking here is that I know quite a few roads where there is a double white line, but in reality there is enough room for a bike to pass the vehicles infront without crossing the centre line.

    I hope that makes sense.
  8. Rule 88 UK Highway Code

    Manoeuvring. You should be aware of what is behind and to the
    sides before manoeuvring. Look behind you; use mirrors if they
    are fitted. When in traffic queues look out for pedestrians crossing
    between vehicles and vehicles emerging from junctions or changing
    lanes. Position yourself so that drivers in front can see you in their
    mirrors. Additionally, when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take
    care and keep your speed low.

    I'm not aware that there is anything in the UK regarding a specific speed, but frankly I'd be happy with something similar.
  9. I cant see many (if any) issues with filtering. You could argue roads aren't designed for it, but the fact the vehicles are stationary negates nearly all of those arguments. Defining liability clearly could prove difficult. Is the bike wrong to hit at car under all circumstances?
  10. My argument on that score would be that only the rider can judge when it is safe to do so, so we cannot expect drivers to pay when we f$%^ up. In other words, if we can't avoid a collision at 25kmh then we haven't got a strong case for filtering in the first place.

    It's a secondary issue, though. I'm not wedded to it.
  11. As well as making filtering LEGAL, it should also be an offence for other motorists to purposely hinder a filtering motorcycle... ie. close a gap
  12. No mate. Part of the purpose of the proposal is to ensure a duty of care that is currently lacking towards us by other road users.
    There is a link in the original thread to the Poms who started out with your rider onus system and it shafted a lot of riders needlessly. Let's not bend over too far to get what by rights we should already have.
  13. OK, I'm convinced by that.
  14. Sweet ;)

    Remember the bastards have been running us over and getting away with it for years. Fuck em.
  15. Top effort Smiledude. Here's my go at attacking the anti filtering case:

    Ok, on the flipside, what are the pro filtering arguments?

    • Here's one for the drivers - one less car in the queue.
    What are others?
  16. Good job. So Rob, you make a lot of statements regarding the risk of rear ending, do you have stats to back this up? How many rear ends result in injuries and fatalities in Australia? Have the states and countries that have legalized filtering seen a reduced number of rear ending accident?
  17. Safety is certainly the main argument we need to use to promote filtering. Another safety feature of filtering I would add to rear ending, is that it's far safer to be riding out side the pack. If we are riding behind vehicles we are more likely to be obscured to the view of on coming traffic turning in front of us, we are at risk of being merged into and we are more likely to be rear ended in a sudden stop situation (this is different to being rear ended whilst stopped). As one of the more vulnerable road user groups I would think that being able to use filtering to remove us from riding near other cars is a valuable tool that needs to be utilized.
  18. Yes - I see this as the probably the 2nd biggest risk along with a car just not doing a headcheck and all of a sudden pulling out from a stationary position. Though, I am assuming people should be going at a speed where they can spot their front wheels turning and either stop in time or accelerate through before the car actually moves. Next one after that I think is another bike pulling across to filter!

    I personally think these are lower risks than sitting stationary waiting to be rear ended or an otherwise invisible target due to being stationary. Of course there are times where sitting with traffic is the only option because no gap etc.