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.

[NSW] To split or not to split

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by ZX_Ninja, Jul 26, 2010.

  1. Howdy all,

    So I sent an email to the RTA, asking about Lane splitting / filtering. There has been alot of talk and opinion about this and I wanted to see what the RTA had to say ... here is it:

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thank you for your email.

    Sharing lanes or "lane splitting" is allowed where 2 motorcycles are riding side by side within the one lane. There's no provision for lane splitting between other vehicles such as a car and motorcycle.

    Please use the below link to the legislation website for information regarding Riding a motor bike or bicycle alongside more than 1 other rider (Rule 151):

    http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/viewtop/inforce/subordleg+179+2008+fn+0+N
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For those who don't want to click on the link, rule 151 says the following:

    151 Riding a motor bike or bicycle alongside more than 1 other rider

    (1) The rider of a motor bike or bicycle must not ride on a road that is not a multi-lane road alongside more than 1 other rider, unless subrule (3) applies to the rider.

    Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.

    Note. Bicycle, motor bike and multi-lane road are defined in the Dictionary, and rider is defined in rule 17.

    (2) The rider of a motor bike or bicycle must not ride in a marked lane alongside more than 1 other rider in the marked lane, unless subrule (3) applies to the rider.

    Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.

    Note. Marked lane is defined in the Dictionary.

    (3) The rider of a motor bike or bicycle may ride alongside more than 1 other rider if the rider is:

    (a) overtaking the other riders, or

    (b) permitted to do so under another law of this jurisdiction.

    Note. Overtake is defined in the Dictionary.

    (4) If the rider of a motor bike or bicycle is riding on a road that is not a multi-lane road alongside another rider, or in a marked lane alongside another rider in the marked lane, the rider must ride not over 1.5 metres from the other rider.

    Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.

    (5) In this rule:

    road does not include a road related area, but includes a bicycle path, shared path and any shoulder of the road.

    Note. Bicycle path is defined in rule 239, road related area is defined in rule 13, shared path is defined in rule 242, and shoulder is defined in rule 12.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Anyhow, that's the official RTA answer /discuss.


     
     Top
  2. Re: To split or not to split

    Interesting. So you could technically filter past a line of bikes, but defintely not past a line of cars.

    I've only ever filtered to the front of traffic lights, and on the freeway past/through long lines of stopped/slowly moving congestion. Anyone do any different?

    - boingk
     
     Top
  3. Re: To split or not to split

    I've read that three times and I can't see where it mentions this.

    This rule only seems to be about motorcycle and bicycles sharing a lane.

    151 has nothing to do with cars.
     
     Top
  4. Re: To split or not to split

    At the end of the day, is
    the same as
    ??

    Or should there be an explicit statement like this for clarification:
    ??
     
     Top
  5. Re: To split or not to split

    "There is no provision . . . " tells me they had a look and they couldn't find where is it specifically illegal either.

    Yes, making it specifically legal would prevent this type of mis-information and increase safety through driver awareness.

    I believe it to be the single biggest issue we face for general acceptance.
     
     Top
  6. Re: To split or not to split

    Whoever sent that has no flipping idea, no surprise. It's not relevant.
    RR 151 deals with riders riding two abreast!

    Lane Splitting or Filtering is NOT illegal in itself.
    What the plod use is (normally) rr 141 (No overtaking to the left of a vehicle) or rr 140 (No overtaking unless safe to do so).
    Then you have to prove them wrong. These are "catch all offences". The ones you use when you don't have a "real" offence.
     
     Top
  7. Re: To split or not to split

    hmm,

    readin that, Rule 151 has nothing to do with lane splitting.

    Also seems rules have changed for pushbikes, where you used to be able to ride two abreast. Plus I know for pushbikes you are allowed to filter as it is legal to pass a car on the left and some other special rules (that car drivers don't know about and therefore label cyclists as non-stop rule breakers)

    So I don't think this rule has anything to do do with filtering or lane splitting.

    cool bananas
    sbb
     
     Top
  8. Re: To split or not to split

    ps: i think there is a rule that prevents motor vehicles (excluding pushbikes) overtaking within the same lane. This could be used to book a rider filtering/splitting.

    but not 100% sure on where that rule is

    sbb
     
     Top
  9. Re: To split or not to split

    Army has prejudicial behaviour for those special times they can't quite stick something else to you. I am sure there would be provisions for this in the road rules as well.
     
     Top
  10. Re: To split or not to split

    Just split it, split it, split it, split it
    No one wants to be defeated
    Showin' how funky and strong is your fight
    It doesn't matter who's wrong or right
    Just split it, split it
    Just split it, split it
    Just split it, split it
    Just split it, split it
     
     Top
  11. Re: To split or not to split

    See, this is my take on it exactly ... it could be taken a number of ways, it doesn't specifically state you can, nor that you cant. The use of the word provision IMO isn't clear enough.

    Anyhow, I was hoping that we'd get a black and white answer - I do appreciate the RTA getting back to me however it doens't really give me as concrete an answer as I was hoping.
     
     Top
  12. Re: To split or not to split

    don't forget that (in NSW) it is quite legal to pass a vehicle on the left providing the vehicle is turning right or is STATIONARY.
     
     Top
  13. Re: To split or not to split

    Its not illegal to filter, however in the process of filtering you are may be breaking other laws.
     
     Top
  14. Re: To split or not to split

    Same with Victoria, Queensland and South Australia.....:cool:
     
     Top
  15. Re: To split or not to split

    I believe what they are saying with all that diatribe is that only motorcycles and bicycles are permitted to pass two abreast in a lane. By "filtering" past cars you are passing two abreast in a lane, and only one of the vehicles is a motorcycle and/or bicycle.

    There is the offence.
     
     Top
  16. Re: To split or not to split

    If you have to break a law to do something else "legally", then is it really legal at all?
     
     Top
  17. Re: To split or not to split

    spenze said:
    The key word here is "may"......

    It IS possible to filter or lane split without breaking road rules....


    A few years back the National Transport Commission actually tried to make lanesplitting/filtering specifically illegal by proposing the following amendment to the Australian Road Rules.....

    Fortunately, due to the uproar by motorcyclists, this proposal was given the flick.....at least for now....
     
     Top
  18. Re: To split or not to split


    As agro said, the keyword here is 'may be breaking the law'.

    So you decide to take it to court because you think you did not break any laws. The judge has to first decide if you actually did break any other laws - its probably going to be tough to prove. Then on top of that, the judge is legally bound to interpret the laws as they were intended. If you were to fail to win, then there is precedent, therefore esentially making it illegal (all judges are bound by precedent unless you want to go to a higher court than where the precedent was set). Furthermore, I reckon if you won, then you would see legislation being introduced to make it illegal. Best case you would see it introduced to the australian rules which eventually end up in most state legislation.

    So for the time being, its probably safe to say that filtering is not legal (in any state that adopts the australian road rules) until such time as it is explicitly made legal.

    Disclaimer. I am not a lawyer.
     
     Top
  19. Re: To split or not to split

    In other words, it does not explicity state that you *can*, therefore assume that you *can't*. Thats generally how this kind of thing works, although it will all come down to the officer and what their views are on this matter.

    All that aside, we're still going to bloody well do it, aren't we? Yeah? So whats the fuss?

    - boingk

    PS:

    You know what? You're dead right. I'll look it up sometime.
     
     Top
  20. Re: To split or not to split

    Wrong. In this country unless there is a law against it it's legal.
    The coppers have to prove that you broke a RR whilst filtering.
    Re-read my earler post. It is NOT illegal to filter.
     
     Top