Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[enaef]

It is illegal in Switzerland. How so in the States?

[TheRan]

It's legal in California (so LA included) and more recently became legal in one other state, Utah I think.

I wouldn't be able to cope riding in the US and not being able to filter and split, one of the best things about riding a bike is being able to cut through all the traffic and if I had to sit in it I'd rather just be in a car.

[togo]

See lanesplittingislegal.com to learn all about it. 

[enaef]

Being illegal does not mean it isn't done around here ...

It is legal for bicycles or e-bicycles in Switzerland.

Any guess how long that 8 minutes ride in the video would have taken completely without splitting / filtering?

E-motorbykes definitively seem to have an advantage for filtering / splitting; for the start when the light turns green.

@Toge: Thanks! Interesting!

[Doug S]

It's not just a time-saver. It's a life saver -- there have been studies done, and they all show that a motorcyclist is SAFER between the lanes, where he's controlling the interaction, than sitting still behind one vehicle, passively waiting for another to rear-end him. You don't have any escape options if you're stuck squarely behind someone's bumper.

Periodically, some bright newly-elected state senator tries to introduce a bill making it illegal here in CA, just like it is (almost) everywhere else. But the discussion's been had before, the studies are all clear, and the correct conclusion is reached yet again. Allowing the bikes to split lanes eases traffic (for everybody) somewhat and whatever anybody may think, it really is safer.

Why no other state legislature comes to the correct conclusion is beyond me, unless it's "they can't do it if I can't do it in my car!" - ism.

[Crissa]

Yeah, I see arguments that 'all vehicles should follow the same rules!'

Which is not an argument.  Vehicles already follow different rules based upon their weight, length, axles, width, and power source.

Another we've been trying to get in California is for bicycles to treat stop signs and red lights as yield.  Just like pedestrians shouldn't be penalized for getting across the light when their walk sign isn't on, bicycles travel at about 15mph max in these interactions and have a much better vision than cars.  There are very few spots a bike shouldn't yield instead of stop at.

Getting bikes (of all sizes and capabilities) out of the flow of traffic is better for all congestion as well.  Lane splitting removes vehicles from the queue.

-Crissa

[DonTom]

It is illegal in Switzerland. How so in the States?

It depends on the state. It is illegal here in Nevada, but is perfectly legal in CA.

Many traffic laws in the USA change between one state and the next. There are also things that are legal here in NV that are NOT legal in CA, such as towing two vehicles, CA only allows one.

-Don-  Cold Springs Valley, NV

[TheRan]

Another we've been trying to get in California is for bicycles to treat stop signs and red lights as yield

I can understand the stop signs, we don't have many over here but my understanding is you stop completely and then go once it's clear to do so, a bicycle is so comparatively slow and has good vision that it can safely determine if it's safe to continue without stopping and putting a foot down.

Red lights however I don't get, generally they're used in combination with a green light on a connecting road to allow traffic to pass, and usually those roads are fast, busy, and sometimes obstructed. In those situations it's rarely going to be safe for a bicycle to continue on a red and allowing them to do so is just asking for trouble

[Crissa]

A red light is a stop sign.

And many are on t-intersections which require a bicycle to stop even while letting pedestrians uninterrupted on the sidewalk.

If a bicycle can go, it should go.  Signals timed for cars are not proper for bicycles.

-Crissa

[TheRan]

They must be used differently over there. Here in the UK if you run most reds you've got a death wish, except for at ped crossings (we've had peds die from getting hit by bikes at crossings) or really late at night when the roads are empty.

[Richard230]

They must be used differently over there. Here in the UK if you run most reds you've got a death wish, except for at ped crossings (we've had peds die from getting hit by bikes at crossings) or really late at night when the roads are empty.

It is the same in San Francisco.  More than one pedestrian has been killed when a bicycle rider blew though a stop light. 

[Crissa]

If you hit someone at a yield, it's still your fault.

A red light doesn't change that.

-Crissa

[TheRan]

Sure but we all know how a lot of cyclists behave, if they see a chance they take it. Telling them they can go through if they think it's clear puts the responsibility on them instead of the precisely timed lighting system.

[Crissa]

The lights are not precisely timed to bicycles, though.

The liability doesn't change.

-Crissa

[TheRan]

They're timed with enough time (or should be) for a slow moving vehicle to make it through the intersection or whatever before the other lights turn green.

As for the liability, it really doesn't matter once someone is seriously injured or dead. Give the cyclist a massive fine or even send them to jail, it doesn't repair the damage. A lot of cyclist already jump red lights (probably a worse offence than failing to yield), you go and tell them that they can go if they feel like it and hardly any of them will stop. And for those that do get caught saying "I thought it was clear" is going to be a better defence than "I didn't see the red light".