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.

Lane Split, or use the Bicycle Lane?

Discussion in 'General Motorcycling Discussion' started by dan, Jul 30, 2005.

  1. In a lot of road situations, you'll arrive up traffic banked up for miles and decide to split it. Many a time there will be two options - between two rows of cars, or the nice wide, marked, clear and under-used bicycle lane. Putting aside legalities and the lack of common sense shown by governments in not allowing motorcycles in the bike lane, or even to lanesplit:

    - Which do you do?
    - Which do you feel is safer?
    - Which do you feel is less likely to get you booked?
  2. Not so much the bicyle lane but i do use the turning lane to get to the front if i cant make it down the centre . Having a bird makes it that much harder if they are close together . My last option is to fold my mirrors in but i'll use any method to get to the front . Would i get booked for it? damn right i would but it's a chance i take. If there was a bike lane i would definitly use it tho.
  3. Until recently, I would do either - whichever gives me a better run past the traffic
    I personally think that they both carry just as much risk. Other vechicles can turn left or right.

    Passing on the left or using the bike lane is much more likely to get you booked. In the last 2 months I have been pulled over twice for passing on the left (once involved a bike lane, and the other was for going around 2 stationary cars on the left when they were wating at the lights). Both times I was cautioned and given a brief lecture on the dangers of passing on the left.

    Although I agreed throuroughly with the officer, I still believe that there are times when passing on the left is no more dangerous than passing on the right.
  4. Interestingly, QLD introduced a rule which allows passing left around stationary cars, when safe to do so. It sounds a bit too much like common sense to me, so I doubt other states will follow suit.
  5. I often use what used to be known as the "Honda Highway" Given that riding down the left shoulder means that I only have cars on one side of me rather than both, it's a no-brainer. Yesterday afternoon coming home from school the traffic was banked up for about a kilometre at the Albion Park roundabout, so I just scuttled into the left lane, ducked off onto the shoulder and got to the roundabout before most of them. I awlays go slow, about 40k's so I have plenty of safety margin and I always thank the driver who lets me in at the head of the queue.
  6. i'm a cyclist too so something just twigs in my brain and tells me to just split like normal. its not that its really that dangerous if you do it at a reasonable speed, i just dont like getting in their way for some reason :? i think i've become way too nice a driver/rider in my old (23 :LOL: ) age....
  7. Hey RC are you a principle at one of the Albio Park Primary Schools??? If so did you get a guy from WIRES come to remove a Red belly black snake from the school quite a few months ago??? I went to both schools because the first one i went to was the wrong one. If you are one of the principles at either school then i have met you before.
  8. Until I get pulled over and lectured/fined for it, I go wherever there's the most room. Which, zipping through the city, is usually on the left.
  9. Nope, night, I'm just a humble casual relief teacher, but I was on my way home from Albion Park Primary and the pricipal there is a really nce guy. I do quite a bit of work there .
  10. I spilt like normal until there is a change in the rules about bike lanes safer from a fine point of view.
  11. Why not pass on the left?

    Someone will know that answer to this, but why does the law not allow passing on the left (except in the Qld case as Dan {Hi Dan} mentions?)
    I can only think of two reasons, and both of them seem weak in the context of this thread.
    One would be the concern that someone would open a door and get out of a car. Given that we are talking about moving traffic, this is very unlikely sceanrio
    Two would be the danger of being squished if the car decided to turn left into a driveway or street. This is more likely, but still we are talking about low speed traffic, and a reasonably aware rider should be able to deal with either of these two (unusual) situations, especially if, as should be, he/she is expecting THE POSSIBILITY.
    So why the law, and the obviously heavy-handed enforcement of it when other more serious offences go unremarked?
  12. Re: Why not pass on the left?

    I think it is a reasonable law compared to some; a lot of accidents are caused by cars turning left into (motor & pedal bikes) going past on the left. I think maybe changing the rule to something like no overtaking in front of a street opening or something could lower the risk... but then there's driveways etc. Then again, we all know there's nothing stopping some people turning left from the right lane, is there? :roll:
  13. ...and, from Dan's post, what does "when safe to do so", really mean???
    We have similar signs when roads are being re-surfaced "new work, do not overtake unless safe to do so"
    The road might well be a place where there are double unbroken lines; does this mean that until the lines are re-drawn it IS safe, but after they are drawn it's not??
    And if push comes to shove, and I overtake and a cop pulls me up, who's definition of "safe to do so" is going to prevail?? (answers in a sealed envelope please, and no looking at the person's work next to you!)
  14. It's actually something I'd like to see more of.. (I think someone intelligent snuck the rule in and was promptly fired upon it's publication :LOL: )

    "When safe to do so" is what motoring is all about.
    It puts the onus on the law to demonstrate that our actions where not safe in the situation, rather than assuming that the action is unsafe in every single case. It also implies that the enforcing officer must witness (or conclude from the scene of an accident) that the action was unsafe. It means that the same police can leave alone a rider carefully and slowly passing a snarl.

    I really hope we get more sensible laws like this. They are not open and shut revenue raisers, but keeps the burden of proof squarely at the feet of the law where it should be, rather than the presumtion of guilt that we endure on the roads today.
  15. I think going forward technology will play a part. Police should be required to give video evidence of misdemeanours, rather than "my word is my rock" testemonies. This way a court can see the behaviour and it can be argued if it was unsafe. As I said, under the current system you are pretty much assumed guilty.

    As for clogging up the courts, police will only bring cases that are genuinely unsafe, not Joe Blow doing 70 in a 60 zone at 3am, or passing to the left of a traffic snarl with no danger of anyone turning left. It also means the officer will look very dumb if he fishtails out of his radar hideyhole and hits 160kph in pursuit of someone doing 120kph on the freeway
  16. So does this tie in with the civil disobedience thing that we were discussing the other day?

    If all of us who get booked for minor msidemeanours choose to have our case heard in court instead of meekly coughing up the fine and losing the points, would it eventually result in prosecution of minor offences being handled more sensibly?
  17. I think a better justice can be served if safety can be argued rather than assumed. People will sometimes digress to the worst case scenario, where the court system is clogged up with traffic charges, wasting time and money etc. Well, were already living the worst scenario the other way around, where we are all presumed guilty, and machines can process our misdemeanours with no asessment of safety, just by measuring speed. I know which one I'd rather have, and it's somewhere in the middle.
  18. Agreed
    The presumption of innocence is being ignored more and more.