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.

[VIC] New Legislation regarding Lane Filtering

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by TreeFiddy, Jan 20, 2010.

  1. Sorry if this has already been discussed elsewhere.

    I was just reading through another thread when I came up on this post...

    This good news regarding road rules in Victoria strikes me as suspicious.

    So, does this new legislation effectively legalize lane filtering at traffic lights etc?

    Coming from a regional centre I'm willing to try it out (filtering is less common here).
  2. Aren't the lanes on nearly all approaches to traffic lights marked with solid lines?
  3. they are solid, but could you overtake in the same lane if the vehicle ahead was far enough over?
  4. yes...

    and on the left between the kerb an the cars
  5. But remember that this has only happened because Victoria brought it's legislation into line with other states, and were probably only thinking about cars when they did it. Don't imagine that they just decided to legalise filtering. This is an unintended side effect.
    Do it in the knowledge that hardly any cops will understand how it changes the game for bikes. You might end up as the legal test case. Remember also that legally you need to indicate, and doesn't apply if the cars are moving (cops are still hammering all splitting on freeways!)
    It's a technical legal defense. No more.
    AFAIK, the crossing of solid lines only applies to centre lines... perhaps someone knows better?
  6. I think this also applies to multi lanes...especially freeways where parts of a freeway may have an added lane at an interchange allowing incoming traffic to stay in their lane. Can't change lanes until broken lines appear. However it is safer at times to change lanes BEFORE broken lines if it is safe to do so.
  7. You are correct. My mistake. I'll hand myself in at the nearest police station.
  8. the new vic road rules pretty much say anything goes within a single marked lane.

    " If two vehicles, for example a bicycle and a car or two motorcycles, are travelling in the same single marked lane and one vehicle diverges to the left or right within the marked lane, the diverging vehicle must give way.


    but this is my favourite one "However a driver can drive over the island if they are entering or leaving the road

    haha i like riding over traffic islands... roundabouts have traffic islands...and technically you
    are "are entering or leaving the road"

    just ride however you want, these new rules are just a complete cluster****.
  9. I was having a look on the forums for some clarification on lane filtering, living in the city, I am always flitering up to the front of the traffic if safe to do so. Anyway, a buddy of mine rang me this morning to warn me that the police are having a crack down on it this week... obviously the chief of police or some other political figure had their mirror taken off recently.

    Needless to say, I'll be keeping a lower profile than usual although the motorcycle police I've noticed over the last few days all seemed to be heading into the city in the morning... and I have been heading out. :)
  10. This brings up an interesting question…
    If a Cop hands you a fine for passing on the left (Of a line of stationary traffic) are you better off just accepting the fine quietly, and then writing a letter quoting the legislation later, or are you better off arguing the point there and then (Which gives him the chance to change his story)???
  11. This is also being discussed in the community policing thread.
    (Maybe merge this mods?)

    We need two things to happen.
    (i) Someone get done who's willing to challenge this;
    (ii) Vicpol to take one all the way to court.
  12. I reckon you'd be better off shutting up, lest the officer find something else to throw at you, that you can't get out of.
  13. I think that is a pretty sensible option. I'd be interested to hear what some of the police have to say about the new rule though. If I'm stopped for an RBT or license check I'll flash a copy of the rule and ask their opinion. But if they are already writing me up for it, I'll keep my mouth shut and hope they don't decide to ping me for something I've got less of a chance of getting out of.
  14. Over all that is my thought on the subject as well, I just would like to get the opinion of someone like Tramp…
    If you write a letter identifying it is incorrect, do they just throw something else at you any way?
    If you wait till Court, can they Adjourn and then throw something else at you?
  15. With two threads running its just lucky I have MPD! One personality is working, one is monitoring this thread, one the other thread etc.... 8-[
    (Thats a joke btw, no offence to anyone intended)

    Rule 141 is NOT a "carte blanche" get out of jail free for lane sharing/ lane splitting/ Filtering, call it what you will.

    What it allows is a vehicle to pass another on the left;
    (i) on a multi lane road
    (ii) when it is SAFE to do so.

    If a bike gets pinged for overtaking, and it was SAFE and on a mult-lane road I can't see any other offence that they could use.
    In this case I would NOT argue with the Plod, I would politely ask for it to be withdrawn on the grounds I outlined above.
    If it made it as far as court the plod would have to either;
    (i) withdraw the charge (likely) or
    (ii) Prove that the overtake itself was unsafe.
    They could not just swap another charge in at this time. Not without the defence screaming loud and hard anyway!
  16. So what are the conditions they would have to prove for it to have been unsafe? Surely if you didn't hit anyone or put anyone in danger it was safe?
  17. Nah unsafe is based on the potential to be unsafe not on the actual outcome.

    Is it safe not to wear a seat belt if you don't crash?
  18. After having a quick look at the Road Safety Rules 2009, there's no definition of 'overtaking', so there's nothing explicitly in the Act to prevent lane splitting/filtering from falling under the definition, even though you're not actually moving into an empty lane to pass another vehicle.

    However, judges are fond of implying meaning where Parliamentary intention is not clear, and I wouldn't mind betting that a judge would find that either overtaking requires a vehicle to be in a lane of its own or that lane splitting/filtering doesn't fulfill the safety requirement at 141(1)(c).

    As to the questions about proving a situation to be safe or un-safe, the general rule with any kind of legislation is to use an objective test, so; would an ordinary reasonable person, with reference to all the relevant facts of the situation, think that it is safe to pass between two cars in adjacent lanes? Seeing as the person making the decision is likely to be a 55+ old man (the judge), I think you'd be up sh!t creek without a paddle.
  19. But there is a definition of 'Overtake' in the dictionary at the back of the Act. Page 460.

    Hope that helps.
  20. Nice pick up. I thought it would be something like that. Definitely means that filtering/splitting won't be seen as 'overtaking'.