Lane Filtering vs Lane Splitting

[JRoper]

I think I'm up to speed on the legalities of lane splitting on the freeway in California. But I'm not clear on lane filtering. Lane filtering is the practice of filtering between traffic at a stoplight to get to the front of the pack. I was in a traffic jam last night and filtered through the cars to get to the front at a traffic light. Some guy behind me yelled "A** HOLE!". Is lane filtering legal in California? I can handle name calling, but I don't want to be breaking the law too.

[SageRider]

It's still lane splitting. It's still not illegal.

The guy was just talking to himself .

[russell_bynum]

The guy was just talking to himself .

 

[rrrich]

The guy obviously has a problem and you weren't it.

 

Now, if you'd clipped his mirror...

 

[GelStra]

OK, now I'm confused. I thought "lane sharing" as it is technically called, is legal. What am I missing? (Don't start a list. I'm referring to this subject only! )

[Bob Palin]

Is lane filtering legal in California? I can handle name calling, but I don't want to be breaking the law too.

Given the vehicle in your avatar I'm not surprised he yelled at you!

[Tony_K]

Lane splitting is faulty term. The lane can not be split only shared.

 

Lane sharing is the correct term and much more civilized

 

Lane filtering is a deviation of the correct term.

 

I will "filter" to the front if the line is over 10 cars BUT I do filter back in if I see a patrol ahead.

 

I have no desire to be singled out.

 

[SageRider]

OK, now I'm confused. I thought "lane sharing" as it is technically called, is legal. What am I missing? (Don't start a list. I'm referring to this subject only! )

Lane sharing in California is not explicitly stated as legal nor is it explicitly stated as illegal. Thus it is not illegal. A fine distinction.

[pqbon]

OK, now I'm confused. I thought "lane sharing" as it is technically called, is legal. What am I missing? (Don't start a list. I'm referring to this subject only! )

Lane sharing in California is not explicitly stated as legal nor is it explicitly stated as illegal. Thus it is not illegal. A fine distinction.

 

But that is a very important fact... In California motor vehicle code everything is legal unless it is illegal. Now that may sound like a tautology, but not all states are like that.

 

I just wanted to point that out so that no one thought lane sharing was a grey area in Ca. It is completely legal.

[Peter W]

This subject again...not that I'm tired of it since I do so much of it. If you are a sane "lane sharer/splitter/filtered" I have found no LEO will hassle you. I have even split on the double yellow between the carpool lane and number 1 lane and come up on a CHP cruiser who have moved over to let me by. And ChiPs splitting who have let me by because they are splitting slower than I am. It's all about the method. The squids excacerbate the annoyance. Two days ago I trailed a squid splitting and he/she honked at every cage in his/her way. What a duffus. You have to consider the overall social acceptance, which in CA is quite high I must admit.

 

My $0.02

 

Pete

[JRoper]

It seems that the California Highway Patrol is now calling it "Lane Splitting" too. My question was in regards to multi lane city and county surface streets. You know, sneeking past all the cars a the stop light to get in front.

 

I found the following on another web site:

 

Is lane-splitting legal?

Here's the text (verbatim) from the CHP's site: "Lane splitting by motorcycles is permissible under California law but must done in a safe and prudent manner." The text used to also include "The motorcycle should be traveling no more than 10 mph faster than surrounding traffic (without exceeding the speed limit) and not come close enough to that traffic to cause a collision." but has since been removed. Perhaps they wanted to give cops more latitude to interpret what they thought was safe so they removed it.

If you lane split, avoid weaving between the two lanes and don't exceed traffic speed by more than 10 mph. The former could get you a ticket for changing lanes without signaling while the latter could get you a ticket for reckless driving.

Your odds of getting ticketed also increase if you lane split between the carpool and fast lane. A double yellow line divides the two lanes and those are illegal to cross (with rare exceptions that would never occur on the freeway); I know of riders who have been specifically ticketed for crossing the double yellow while lane splitting between those lanes.

Lane splitting on surface streets is probably not addressed in city or county laws so I would do this with caution, as individual cops will decide whether or not they like what they see. I split lanes on surface streets if I don't see any cops, but I stop immediately if I spot one.

There's a little bit of information on "lane sharing" in the DMV Motorcycle handbook. They say to discourage its practice, but never say it's illegal.

 

http://www.ducatigirl.com/california/dmv_b_roulette.html

 

http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html

[ShovelStrokeEd]

Over here on the other side of the continent, neither is legal. I do either if the situation, in my opinion, warrants it. No one seems to mind splitting very much, the occasional sphincter aside. Filtering seems to raise the ire of the cage bound for some reason. Probably preceived as "unfair" from a kindergarden perspective. I doubt the thought that we are doing so for our own safety and not hindering them in any way crosses their minds. We just got in front and they can't. Pisses off their inner child, who, in many cases, is in charge of their forebrain most of the time.

[WildR1150RT]

I have a CHP buddy and asked him about this, he stated that you are legal to "split" lanes provided traffic is moving at less than 25 mph. He rides while at work and said that he does this all the time. As long as it is done in a safe manner.

Web site to back up answer-

http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html

As with most things, this would be at the interpretation of the LEO if you were to be pulled over, but it is still legal in California.

[russell_bynum]

I have a CHP buddy and asked him about this, he stated that you are legal to "split" lanes provided traffic is moving at less than 25 mph.

 

The "traffic less than 25mph" and the "don't go more than 10mph over the speed of traffic are NOT written in the vehicle code. IOW, those are NOT laws and you will not be ticketed for "lane splitting when traffic was going more than 25mph". Those are basically just guidelines that the majority of LEO's seem to follow.

 

I've had a few officers yell at me over their loud speakers as I split past stopped traffic while I was going less than 10mph. I've also split past CHP cruisers as they rolled along in traffic traveling at 45-50mph or so, and they didn't even blink.

 

I had one guy yell at me for crossing the lane stripe without signaling. Basically, I was slowly filtering up to the front of stopped traffic and I was having to go cross back and forth across the lane stripe to fit through. I did it slowly and carefully, but he yelled at me for it over his loudspeaker. Technically, he's right and he could have written me for an unsignaled lane change...but that sort of thing is REALLY common in lane splitting and most LEO's don't give a rip about it.

 

Basically, splitting isn't illegal, so it is permitted. But...there are a slew of other laws that they can nail you for if they don't like what you're doing.

[Tony_K]

there are a slew of other laws that they can nail you for if they don't like what you're doing.

 

There in lies the conundrum!

 

It's perception and how LEO feels that day.

[GelStra]

Little personal experience with that? Hmmmmmmmmm?

[Stringer]

Completely legal. Another thing to keep in mind is that by doing what you did, you are safer. You are vulnerable to rear-ending if you don't. Your detractor, needless to say, is not concerned with your safety. All the more reason for you to be.

[BeniciaRT_GT]

As I said in this thread: This thread

it depends on the cop, period. The guy that pulled me over was in his late 40s or older, not a kid, and said you can't split lanes if cars is moving at all.

 

BS, but what are you gonna do?

[Blake]

As I said in this thread: This thread

it depends on the cop, period. The guy that pulled me over was in his late 40s or older, not a kid, and said you can't split lanes if cars is moving at all.

 

BS, but what are you gonna do?

hmm..., it sounds like we should just carry a copy of the law / code book for each state that we're in.

[russell_bynum]

As I said in this thread: This thread

it depends on the cop, period. The guy that pulled me over was in his late 40s or older, not a kid, and said you can't split lanes if cars is moving at all.

 

BS, but what are you gonna do?

 

Right. As long as they've got subjective things like the Basic Speed Law (all that "Reasonable and prudent" stuff) they can pretty much write you for anything.

[Dave McReynolds]

As long as they've got subjective things like the Basic Speed Law (all that "Reasonable and prudent" stuff) they can pretty much write you for anything.

 

What is ironic is that it works, or maybe works if you've got the money to hire a lawyer, both ways. My SO was on jury duty last week, with a drunk driver case. The defendant had an alcohol level of about .087, higher than the .08 (reduced several years ago from .10), allowed under the law. But in his instructions to the jury, the judge said the .08 was only a guideline; what mattered was if the driver was impared. They were confused enough by this in their deliberations that they requested some clarification from the judge, who essentially confirmed that a person was not guilty of drunk driving solely because they had a blood alcohol content over .08; the prosecutor must also prove the defendant was impared. They didn't feel the prosecutor proved that, so they let the guy off.

 

It makes me wonder what all the fuss was about when they changed the blood alcohol content from .1 to .08; what difference does it make if the prosecutor has to prove imparement anyway?

[Cheechoo]

Doesn't sound correct to me. CVC Sec. 23152(b) makes it illegal to operate a motor vehicle with a BAC of .08 or more. You don't have to appear to be under the influence; simply test at that level.

 

Sounds like the court there either doesn't know the law or was unable to communicate it to the jurors.

 

The presumption that the driver was .08 at the time of arrest is rebuttable but it sounds like it your SO's jury didn't need to decide that.

 

Sec. 23152(a) is the section where you can be convicted for driving under the influence. You could be at .01 BAC and be convicted under that section.

 

I also believe that the test results are usually truncated after 2 digits so .087 translates to .08 which is right on the illegal side of the line. Personally I would find it hard to convict under 23152(b) if someone tested at .08 because it is reasonable for me to believe that between the time of the arrest and the time of the test that counts (the one back at the police station...not the one in the field), the level could have risen.

 

I was on a DUI jury a few years back.

[Dave McReynolds]

Personally I would find it hard to convict under 23152(b) if someone tested at .08 because it is reasonable for me to believe that between the time of the arrest and the time of the test that counts (the one back at the police station...not the one in the field), the level could have risen.

 

Same speculation they had on the jury. They wondered, given the small amount of BAC over the legal limit, why this case had been chosen to go to trial, given that there was nothing obvious the guy was doing to cause him to be "impared." Maybe he was a really bad guy who had several other DUI convictions; who knows? That kind of evidence can't be presented in court; the jury has to decide based on the evidence of the case at hand only.

 

I can't believe this is the first time a jury has let someone off when the BAC is close to the legal limit and there is no obvious evidence of imparement. Why don't the LEO's, or at least the DA's, have an allowable margin for error, like they do with speeding, particularly given that the BAC level, until recently, was .10? My SO's feeling was that this was just a waste of her's and the court's time.

[upflying]

Personally I would find it hard to convict under 23152(b) if someone tested at .08 because it is reasonable for me to believe that between the time of the arrest and the time of the test that counts (the one back at the police station...not the one in the field), the level could have risen.

 

Same speculation they had on the jury. They wondered, given the small amount of BAC over the legal limit, why this case had been chosen to go to trial, given that there was nothing obvious the guy was doing to cause him to be "impared." Maybe he was a really bad guy who had several other DUI convictions; who knows? That kind of evidence can't be presented in court; the jury has to decide based on the evidence of the case at hand only.

 

I can't believe this is the first time a jury has let someone off when the BAC is close to the legal limit and there is no obvious evidence of imparement. Why don't the LEO's, or at least the DA's, have an allowable margin for error, like they do with speeding, particularly given that the BAC level, until recently, was .10? My SO's feeling was that this was just a waste of her's and the court's time.

Good point. This "impared" defense frequently shows up after someone is arrested at a DUI checkpoint. The arresting officer has absolutely no driving "pattern" (weaving, etc) to show the driver was impared before he was arrested. If someone is close to .08, I would argue that I wasn't impared either.

Back to the topic, I was once yelled at by a motorist for "filtering" to the front of the line at a stop light..while I was on my black and white Harley! Just remember the average dim bulb cage driver is severely ignorant compared to the advanced safe driving skills possessed by the avergae motorcyclist. Just blow them off, they are jealous.

[leikam]

I split lanes on surface streets if I don't see any cops, but I stop immediately if I spot one.

 

I don't really understand this. It's not illegal and cops know that bikes split (remember: they also drive/ride while off duty) so it's not like you're doing anything wrong or surprising. Just be 100% sure you don't hit his mirror as you go by. I've never had a problem on city streets.

[Cheechoo]

I was once yelled at by a motorist for "filtering" to the front of the line at a stop light..while I was on my black and white Harley!

 

Probably a BMW rider. In all seriousness, you had the immediate ability to get some "Payback" where the rest of us do not. Did you?

[bvaughan]

I think I'm up to speed on the legalities of lane splitting on the freeway in California. But I'm not clear on lane filtering. . . .

"Splitting" and "filtering" are the same thing, 'cept that splitting is the CA term and filtering the UK term. two names for the same thing. what you call "filtering" is just low speed surface splitting. The fact that it's taught and expressly recognized as a legitimate riding technique in the UK puts the lie to all the blather you hear in the US about whether it's safe/legal/prudent/sinful/and unamerican. like other advanced techniques it's a perfectly good way to get around if your head's screwed on right and a perfectly good way to get whacked if it's not. i usually split at least 30 miles per day on the LA freeways. almost a third of the cagers that see you will make way for you, and the percentage seems to be growing.

[Stir]

 

But that is a very important fact... In California motor vehicle code everything is legal unless it is illegal. Now that may sound like a tautology, but not all states are like that.

 

I just wanted to point that out so that no one thought lane sharing was a grey area in Ca. It is completely legal.

 

Laws limit actions. They never permit them. You won't see laws permitting you to breathe or eat. Lane sharing is not illeagal. The California legislature tried to pass a law against it but the CHP came and argued against it.

 

However, you could be written for too fast for conditions, unsafe lane change and a whole host of other things.

[Stir]

I split lanes on surface streets if I don't see any cops, but I stop immediately if I spot one.

 

I don't really understand this. It's not illegal and cops know that bikes split (remember: they also drive/ride while off duty) so it's not like you're doing anything wrong or surprising. Just be 100% sure you don't hit his mirror as you go by. I've never had a problem on city streets.

 

I lane share past LEOs on the freeway ALL the time. I am a little more selective on city streets. San Diego Police will ticket because, well they are poorly trained and just feel that it should be illeagal. I was in court once when a SDPD had written a motorcyclist for a lane split. The biker said, but it's not illegal. The judge said, and I quote, "It may not be illegal but it still seems dangerous to me so guilty!" Fuhhh.

[MotorinLA]

The only thing a police officer should legitimately be able to cite you for when splitting traffic is “Unsafe speed” – CVC 22350. As a motorcycle rider in California you are allowed to split lanes, share lanes with other vehicles and ride on the dividing line between two adjacent lanes.

 

CVC 21714 – Motorcyclists or motorized bicyclists; operation of vehicles; prohibited areas

The driver of a vehicle described in subdivision (f) of Section 27803 shall not do either of the following (the vehicle referred to is a “fully enclosed three-wheeled motor vehicle that is not less than seven feet in length and not less than four feet in width, and has an unladen weight of 900 pounds or more”, clearly NOT A MOTORCYCLE):

 

(a) Operate the vehicle in a lane established under Section 21655.5 as an exclusive or preferential use lane for high-occupancy vehicles (the carpool lane).

 

(b) Operate the vehicle in either of the following:

 

(1) The area on, or immediately adjacent to, the striping or other markers designating adjacent traffic lanes (this refers to riding on the painted markings between two lanes or right next to those markings).

 

(2) The area between two or more vehicles that are traveling in adjacent traffic lanes (splitting between cars).

 

Translated to plain English this means that if you are not operating one of these strange three-wheeled cars, but you are operating a motorcycle or motorized bicycle, you are allowed to do the things described above (i.e. drive in the carpool lane, drive on the markers between lanes and drive between adjacent vehicles (lane splitting).)

 

Note that there are some exceptions:

When riding in the carpool lane you may not legally ride back and forth across the double yellow lines dividing the carpool lane from the other lanes (CVC 21655.8(a) - …no person driving a vehicle (includes motorcycles) may cross over these double lines to enter into or exit from the exclusive or preferential use lanes… (weaving back and forth across these double yellow lines could be viewed as entering and exiting these lanes)

 

If there are two sets of double yellow lines separating the carpool lane from the other lanes, you may not ride between the two sets of double yellow lines (CVC 21651(a)(1) – illegal to drive over, upon or across the dividing section.)

 

On a positive note you may legally pass vehicles on the left when there is a solid double yellow line in the middle of the roadway, presuming you share the lane with the other vehicle and don’t cross over to the left side of the double yellow lines (CVC 21460(a) – When double parallel solid lines are in place, no person driving a vehicle shall drive to the left thereof, except as permitted in this section). The section does not say that it is illegal to pass on double yellow lines, only that it is illegal to drive to the left of double solid lines.

 

With all this in mind, remember that there are many police officers, especially municipal police officers not specifically assigned to traffic enforcement, who think they know what the traffic laws prescribe, without actually knowing the language of the laws. As such, you could get pulled over by a police officer for splitting traffic without actually having committed a traffic infraction.

 

If anyone has been cited for “lane splitting” I’d be interested to know which California Vehicle Code they were accused of violating.

 

Why ride a motorcycle in any high traffic area if you’re not allowed to split traffic?

 

Be safe, have fun and keep the rubber side down…

[bvaughan]

If there are two sets of double yellow lines separating the carpool lane from the other lanes, you may not ride between the two sets of double yellow lines (CVC 21651(a)(1) – illegal to drive over, upon or across the dividing section.)

This of course is where the CHP (and others) can most often be found when they're splitting . . .

[Peter W]

Yea, and it is apparently impossible for me to NOT split the carpool lane if it's stopped and there is this 4 foot wide slot for me to play in. Legal or not, it's gonna happen (for me). I'm careful, and I figure I'll take a $341 ticket if it's given to me (can I refuse?). But so far I've been lucky. I think in many parts of L.A. it's to congested that if you are prudent and careful on a bike, pretty much anything can go. LEO's here, IMHO, are pretty lenient to quite, careful types.