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.

QLD Lane splitting may be confirmed?

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by benjamin78au, Dec 12, 2011.

  1.  Top
  2. Yep, that's been the way the national guidelines have been written for a while now. Victoria adopted it a couple of years ago, and AFAIK Qld and NSW already had their legislation written that way.

    So there are plenty of situations where you can filter to the left, but what it doesn't explicitly allow is filtering along the dividing line on a multi lane road.

    Credit also to the Qld government for making this this clear explanation available online.
     
     Top
  3. well yeah....of the 3 examples only one of them was on a multi lane road the rest were done within a single (that just happens to be wide enough for 2 cars
     
     Top
  4. IF there is a single white line marking the edge of the lane, and you cross that you get done for failing to ride in a mark lane. If you filter down the centre of 2 lanes, make sure you indicate depending on what lane you are in, as you could be overtaking on the right or the left. No indicator and you get done. I just indicate as if I am overtaking on the left, no doubt one day I will get pinged for this too.
     
     Top
  5. That's a nice tip TRA!
     
     Top
  6. I think as said before, if you stay within the lane then you would technically be able to travel legally to the front of the lights in stationary traffic. However if you move over the line i reckon you would get done.

    And its not always easy to stay in the one lane depending on the positioning of the vehicles ahead.
     
     Top
  7. It's not EVER possible in my opinion. Car drivers place themselves all over the lane.

    If you look at the summary

    I've highlighted the red part and that implies that lane filtering is fine (traffic stopped at the lights).
     
     Top
  8. You, and any rational person might think so.

    The problem is there are magistrates out there who have decided that stationary traffic isn't stationary:

    https://netrider.net.au/forums/showthread.php?p=2110441#post2110441
    ](*,)
     
     Top
  9. This is why it's important to (eventually) get a legislated acknowledgement that filtering is acceptable. It only takes one vindictive official to bend current laws to get you.
     
     Top
    • Like Like x 1
  10. I got a warning yesterday morning for filtering on the left of stationary traffic down Royal Parade. The police SUV i overtook said I took too long to merge back into traffic once it got moving again.

    It was all a reasonable conversation, however we continued to differ on the point of when a merger should occur. My argument was that i should occur when it was safe to do so, their argument was immediately.

    I'm hoping i don't get a surprise in the mail.
     
     Top
  11. Points of difference aside it sounds like at least you ran into a decent one.

    Speaking of points of difference...
    I had a mate get a ticket once because the copper thought he took too long to put his front wheel back on the deck. The cop thought half way across the intersection would have been appropriate and that half-way though 3rd gear was not.
     
     Top
  12. haha... classic.
     
     Top
  13. That's really significant. Official acknowledgement that passing stationary traffic on the left is legal.
    They were right technically (IMO) but let common sense prevail.
     
     Top
  14. I'd so take that to court if you did get a surprise. The magistrate would tear the copper a new one for being an idiot. How can you merge back when it's not safe to do so????? :roll:
     
     Top
  15. From the queensland road rules:
    http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/T/TrantOpRURR09.pdf
    Stationary cars qualify as obstructions.. right? :)
     
     Top
  16. Because he, and his colleague, would argue that they never said such a thing. And being both infallible and beyond reproach, who'd argue with them?
     
     Top
  17. There's truth in that. lol
     
     Top
  18. I think my cynicism has finally caught up with my age.
     
     Top
  19.  Top
  20. May pay to check the definitions for meaning of "obstruction" ?
     
     Top