Talk:Lane splitting/Archive 2

Proposed merge with "Filtering forward"
I would like to propose that Filtering forward is merged with this article as the two are essentially variations on the same them - two wheeled vehicles using empty portions of the road to gain ground on stationary or slower moving four wheeled vehicles. Whether those two wheeled vehicles use the space between two lanes of traffic going in the same direction, or the space between lanes of traffic going in opposite direction it is the same thing. In the United Kingdom, for example, this is known as filtering whatever portion of the road is used. I therefore support (my) proposal to merge. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge. If all of the above were true, I would agree. However,
 * filtering forward is not necessarily riding between lanes of other traffic, but lane splitting is. For example, an emergency vehicle can use the shoulder of a road to filter forward past congested traffic, but that's not lane splitting.
 * lane splitting is not necessarily "to gain ground", but filtering forward always is. For example, bicyclists, scooter riders and other riders of low-powered motorcycles can sometimes ride the white line (spitting lanes) to allow faster traffic to pass (perhaps in the process of moving across a multi-lane road to make a turn); that's splitting lanes without filtering forward.
 * It is true that in some contexts the terms can be used interchangeably to refer to the same thing (and hence the understandable inclination to merge the two topics). The two concepts are related, but I believe they are sufficiently different to warrant separate articles. A merge would only make the signficant distinction even less obvious.  Currently the intros of each article refer to, and contrast with, the other topic.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support merge. That the terms mean slightly different things is not a reason to have separate articles:  Help:Merging and moving pages. "2. Overlap - There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, 'Flammable' and 'Non-flammable' can both be explained in an article on Flammability."
 * The fact that the two terms are related, and that you need to weigh them side by side in order to grasp them best, is all the more reason to merge them.--Dbratland (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * First, flammable, non-flammable and flammability are all dictionary words. The terms and concepts we're discussing here are not.


 * More importantly, the topic of "flammability" clearly encompasses the meanings of both "flammable" and "non-flammable" (note that neither "flammable" nor "non-flammable" would be an appropriate title for that article). One reason I oppose this merge is because there is no such encompassing concept or term for "lane splitting" and "filtering forward", unless you go really general, with something like "traffic maneuvers" that would encompass much more than just these two concepts.  The meanings of the two terms do not overlap; they have very different meanings:


 * Filtering forward means passing stopped or slower traffic by using unused road space.
 * Lane splitting means traveling on or near the stripe between two lanes of traffic.


 * It is true that filtering forward is often accomplished by lane splitting, but often it is not. For example, bicyclists and emergency vehicles often filter forward by using shoulder space - that's not lane splitting.  Further, when lanes are wide enough for a motorcyclist to filter forward within the lane, without encroaching in the adjacent lane, that too is not lane splitting... it's lane sharing.  All the sources you cite that claim lane splitting is illegal in the ambiguous states (states where lane splitting is not explicitly banned by statute) assume lane splitting involves encroaching in other lanes, and, so, for example, laws against not signaling prior to changing lanes can be used against lane splitters.   So, what if a motorcyclist is filtering forwarding not by lane splitting, but by lane sharing?  What if a motorcyclist is lane splitting not in order to filter forward, but in order to allow faster traffic to pass him on both sides?  Is that illegal?  Questions like this can't even be asked without making clear distinctions among the meanings of each of these terms.


 * It is also true that lane splitting is usually done for the purpose of filtering forward, but not always. For example, car drivers sometimes lane split lanes when one or more others are waiting to turn.  And slow/narrow vehicles (bicycles and low powered scooters) sometimes split lanes in order to allow faster traffic to pass them on both sides.


 * Lane splitting and filtering forward are two distinct concepts with separate meanings that happen to both apply to the particular behavior of using lane splitting in order to filter forward. If you really wanted to have an article on that behavior in particular, it should be called something like filtering forward by lane splitting.  But if you're going to have just one merged article that talks about both lane splitting and filtering forward, what exactly is the topic going to be?  Heck, what is the title going to be?  If it's going to be Lane splitting but will also cover filtering forward (or vice versa), it's going to have to be a mess of exceptions and qualifications. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support merge. Clearly they're near-identical concepts and any technicalities can be covered in the merged article. -- Brianhe (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Both apply when someone is engaged in the particular behavior of lane splitting by filtering forward, but the concepts are distinct. See above for detailed explanation of the distinction. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To illustrate my point... by the logic of this merge proposal (since filtering forward is often involved when one is lane splitting, and vice versa), perhaps running and prison escape should be merged too, since running is often involved when one is escaping from prison, and vice versa... --Born2cycle (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support merge. As others have mentioned, they are similar, and the argument of other stuff exists isn't terribly valid. tedder (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, lane splitting and filtering forward are similar, and often mean the same thing, but we don't merge mean and median, which are also similarly similar, and also often mean the same thing (e.g., the median and mean of 1, 2, 3 are both 2).
 * The reason median and mean are covered in separate articles is because the underlying concepts are essentially different. Even though many people conflate median and mean (can't explain the difference, or even clearly define either), that's no reason to merge the two articles.  In fact, it would be even more confusing to do so.   The reason filtering forward and lane splitting should remain in separate articles is also because the underlying concepts are essentially different. Merging them would do little if anything to help those who conflate the two terms (those who can't explain the difference, or even clearly define either), and would almost certainly just create more confusion.   --Born2cycle (talk) 04:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on next steps
Am I correct in saying that we are not going to be able to do any work on merging these two articles until we go through some further process? I'd like to spend my time working on editing rather than carrying on any more debate than is absolutely necessary. Does anyone have suggestions on the best way to proceed?--Dbratland (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I'd say first of all that we have one objector and a number of supporters for the merge so we should go ahead. Create a section "Uses for lane-splitting" and put filtering forward in there. After all, that's all filtering forward is. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The vote of anyone who doesn't understand the difference between lane splitting and filtering forwarding should not be counted. It is not true that "all filtering forward is" is a "use for lane splitting".  For example, one can filter forward without lane splitting, like an emergency vehicle is driven in the shoulder in order to pass congested traffic.
 * Filtering forward means passing slow or stopped traffic by using extra available space. That may be done with or without lane splitting.
 * Lane splitting is traveling between lanes of traffic. That may or may not be for the purpose of filtering forward.
 * Filtering forward and lane splitting are as similar as mean and median. Just because the mean and median are often similar if not identical results does not mean those two topics should be merged.  Same with lane splitting and filtering forward.    Can you see how someone who does not understand and appreciate the difference between mean and median might believe those two topics should be merged?  If so, then you might be able to understand my objection to this merge.  But if you believe that filtering forward is just one of the uses of lane splitting, you should recuse yourself from voting on this.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What Biker Biker said. Consensus has been reached. Consensus building is not voting. -- Brianhe (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not support the merging. The underlying concepts are different. Filtering-forward is done when local traffic is stopped or near stopping speeds, coming to a point where traffic is stopped. Whereas lane-splitting can be done at highway speeds, while traffic is flowing. Even if you disagree with my definitions and there is legitimate debate regarding the definitions of lane-splitting and filtering-forward there seems to be no debate that two separate terms do exist. The very existence and usage of two separate terms should provide for a strong consideration that they may be two separate concepts for others. Simply because pink is a pale red color doesn't mean it shouldn't have it's own article. Likewise, simply because many view filtering-forward as a type of lane-splitting doesn't mean we should further add to the ambiguity of the terms by failing to define them as precisely as possible given the information available. I realize my own personal bias should not count for much but I would describe lane-splitting differently than I would filtering-forward. I would ask the other editors, if they were asked "What's lane-splitting?" vs "What's filtering-forward?" would their answers be exactly identical? Or would they be nuanced responses? Would it not be better to allow the reader to come to their own conclusion based on the best encyclopedic descriptions we can provide for each term? CáliKewlKid (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This was actually resolved almost one year ago -- the consensus was to go ahead and merge. A significant amount of mediation and discussion and dispute resolution was required to reach that point. You are of course free to start a new discussion proposing a split back to the way it was, but my feeling is that nobody in the motorcycling project wants to re-open this can of worms. There are many more pressing issues that are more worth our time and energy, such as those listed at WikiProject Motorcycling/Cleanup listing and WikiProject Motorcycling/to do, Category:High-importance Motorcycling articles and Category:Top-importance Motorcycling articles. There are also various open tasks under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling. I don't follow WikiProject Cycling so I couldn't say whether or not there are any editors there who want to split the page, but none of them have said anything about it over the last 12 months. --Dbratland (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I was afraid that it had been "resolved". Nevertheless, I still disagree with the resolution.  I think it is confusing an already confusing situation and was a disappointing choice for Wikipedia editors to make.  I have no desire or idea how to trudge through the process of Wikipedia mediation.  I'd rather go on record with my definite opposition and let other, obviously more personally invested, persons work out a resolution.  If my argument above is not compelling in and of itself than further discussion would fail to produce results.  To that end: Merging the articles was clearly a poor choice when faced with compelling arguments that there exists a fundamental difference, though only observed by a minority, between lane-splitting and filtering-forward. CáliKewlKid (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with CáliKewlKid. The two concepts are related but distinct, and should have separate articles.  I continue to believe that whenever people say that "lane splitting" is unlawful, they are not considering filtering forward, which, so far as I can tell, is even legally acceptable for drivers of automobiles and trucks, when lane space allows for it (particularly for right turners to filter forward and turn right to the right of through traffic stopped at a red biased left in a wide outside lane).  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

New Evidence on the difference between Lane-Splitting and Filtering-Forward
I have discovered new non-trivial evidence supporting the difference in terms that I wished to bring it to the attention of other editors (though I am not proposing any article-splits, only further discussion and in-article edits). While splitting the articles is clearly unwarranted based on these examples alone, I believe it warrants mention in the article (as mentioned previously by Brianhe, regarding definitions) that there is ambiguity in terminology (even amongst professional researchers) and in some instances mean different things (The Oregon report had to explicitly state their definition of the terms in order for clarity's sake). Considering the previous debate I'm reluctant to make changes that may be seen as undermining the merger decision without discussion first. -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 05:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) From the Federation of European Motorcyclists Association: "In broad terms, filtering by motorcyclists is defined as moving between traffic when other surrounding traffic is stationary. This is standard motorcycle practice and necessary for safe motorcycle travel. Lane splitting is defined as moving through traffic when other traffic is in motion. It can also refer to overtaking within the same marked lane in moving traffic." (emphasis added)
 * 2) The FEMA publication from above was cited in a Oregon Department of Transportation, Research Section, Literature Review.  It states: "Lane-sharing refers to passing between lanes of stopped or slower moving vehicles on a motorcycle (NHTSA 2000). In some cases, the term “filtering” has been used to specify moving between stationary traffic, while the term “lane-splitting” has been reserved for moving between traffic in motion (FEMA 2010)." (emphasis added)  (it goes on to state that for their report the terms would be synonymous unless otherwise noted).

California - really a difference in kind, or just in scale?
Since lane splitting motorcyclists can be cited for reckless driving or illegal lane changes in California - where it is supposedly legal - how is California really any different from other states in which lane splitting is not explicitly outlawed? Is no lane splitting tolerated in those states? Even when filtering forward at, say, 5 mph to the front of traffic stopped at a red light? Or are anonymous bureaucrats responding by email thinking of riding between lanes of congested freeway traffic at 40+ mph when they say lane splitting is illegal in their state? Are the answers to these questions known, or unknown? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good subject for some original research you could submit somewhere that publishes that sort of thing.--Dbratland (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? The article currently says that in other states, "officials rely on other laws to effectively render it prohibited."  Well, yeah, except police in California use the same laws to cite lane splitters sometimes - but that does not effectively render lane splitting prohibited in California.  Why does it in other states?  Do we have any evidence that supports this statement which essentially implies that there is no legal tolerance at all for lane splitting in states outside of California?   --Born2cycle (talk) 05:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The claim in the article that I'm questioning -- "officials rely on other laws to effectively render it prohibited." -- is supposedly supported by four references. Well, let's look at each one.


 * "Lane splitting is not recognized as a legal maneuver in any state except California. In most states it is not specifically prohibited but it is regularly interpreted by police and courts as unlawful."
 * That's hardly conclusive. Checking the time on your watch while driving is also not recognized as a legal maneuver in any state - that doesn't mean it's illegal. And yeah, lane splitting might be regularly interpreted by police and courts as unlawful - that doesn't mean lane splitting in all cases is always interpreted by police and courts as unlawful.
 * [ http://www.amadirectlink.com/legisltn/laws.asp American Motorcyclist State Motorcycle Laws]
 * That website notes that in states like Montana lane splitting is "Not referenced in Administrative Code or Statutes". That supports the part about lane splitting not being explicitly prohibited, but not that "officials rely on other laws to effectively render it prohibited."
 * "This practice is allowed in California (the the with the most motorcycles), but is outlawed in many others."
 * There is no question about lane splitting being outlawed in many others. The issue is about whether it's always illegal in states in which it is not explicitly outlawed.  Again, this does not at all support the claim for which it is a foot note.
 * "In California it's legal to 'split' lanes on a motorcycle, ..."
 * Doesn't even address other states, much less support the statement in question.
 * None of these support the statement in question, which I'm hereby tagging with a citation needed. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * J.L. Matthews is an attorney, law professor, and author who has written extensively on traffic safety and traffic law, and has litigated traffic cases. His book How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim has extensive research into the differences between state laws around the country, on a wide variety of critical legal questions, including the legality of lane splitting.  As stated before, "Lane splitting is not recognized as a legal maneuver in any state except California. In most states it is not specifically prohibited but is regularly interpreted by police and courts as unlawful." --Dbratland (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. Again, the Matthews' statement you quote here is not in dispute (as explained above).  The statement in dispute that is in the article goes well beyond that, and is unsupported.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Be careful. When someone says or writes that "lane splitting is unlawful", be sure to understand what they mean by "lane splitting" in that particular context. Do they mean all forms of lane splitting are unlawful (including moving ahead of traffic stopped at a red light at 5 mph to get to the front, by using unused wide lane space without encroaching into adjacent lanes), or only relatively high speed whitelining on freeways between lanes of congested and slow-but-moving traffic? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not repeat this edit for the 3rd or 4th or 5th variation. I don't know how many times or in how many ways you have tried to force your point of view into the article using every trick you know.  Why not take this to the Reliable sources/Noticeboard and have it resolved?  You're filling the talk page with hundreds of words of debate over a sourcing question that can easily be judged and put to rest.--Dbratland (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Unbelievable. Above (first bullet of four), I quote Matthews and explain why his statement does not back up the statement made in the article.  Your response? You ignore my explanation and simply requote Matthews -- adding some commentary about who he is as if his credentials are in question (they are not - and why you thought they might be is beyond me).  Here you ignore my clarification on all that (am I wrong to assume you don't get the point if you don't respond to it, but instead to something irrelevant?), and  you have the gall to complain about me repeating my edits?  If you actually read what I wrote the first time, and responded to that, there would be no need for all this repetition.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And PLEASE stop thinking in terms of editors' points of view. That's all  irrelevant here.  What matters is only whether the statements made in the article are supported by the references cited.  Please focus on just that.  Thank you.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Your arguments are weak. They are long, involved, and distracting, but they are weak.  Notice you convinced zero people to oppose the merge, for all the time you spent writing arguments.  Nobody bothered to rebut any of those points either. They all simply held fast to their support of the merge and ignored you and ignored each and every one of your bullet points.  I think you're playing games, demanding others play along with your thinking.  I don't want to play any more.  If you have a case, take it to an admin and let them read through your byzantine reasoning and finely-honed points of distinction.--Dbratland (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My difficulty to convince others on the merge issue says nothing about whether I was right or wrong, nor has anything to do with the salience of my argument on this point. Also, once people commit to a position, they are often more likely to walk away than admit they were mistaken.  Your tendency to repeatedly bring up irrelevant points like this is what is truly disruptive here.   Also, I try to make stand-alone posts, which do not require reading all the other posts I made.  Repetition is the price that must be paid for that, but at least folks showing up don't have to read so much.  For example, this whole section is stand-alone - no need for anyone to read anything posted prior to this on this talk page to catch up with what's going on here.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You are both good editors, and I'm having trouble understanding what this is really about. As I see it, we can safely say that lanesplitting by motorcycles in the US is only legal in California, and anything further would need to be supported with reliable sources. Yes, it's been raised to a few state senates, but it's only legal in one state. There are sufficient sources to prove it's legal in California, there's no need to prove it's illegal in the other 49- instead, the burden of proof would be on proving that it is legal. Can we all get along? tedder (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. For a statement in the article that claims lane splitting is not legal in the other 49 states, why is the burden to find a reference that says it is legal?  As far as I can tell, the legality of lane splitting, in at least those states where lane splitting is not explicitly prohibited, is at best unclear.  Why is not the burden to find a reference that it's effectively not legal, supporting what the statement in the article claims?  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I just reworded the statement in question to say only as much as the references support. Instead of:


 * "... but officials rely on other laws to effectively render it prohibited"

Since we have no source that supports the claim that lane splitting is "effectively prohibited" in the other states, it now says:
 * "... but officials rely on other laws to regularly interpret lane splitting as unlawful."

The problem is that officials in California regularly interpret lane splitting as unlawful too, by relying on other laws (like reckless driving, illegal lane change, etc.) whenever they consider lane splitting to be unsafe. So, again, when we limit our article to say only as much as the references support, what is the real practical distinction between how lane splitting is treated in California as compared to other states where it is not explicitly outlawed? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This seems like such minutiae to be spending so much time on. It's going to be hard to prove a negative in this case, and getting into such hairsplitting detail is not helping. I'm unsure what your end goal is here, but it's certainly headed well down the path to WP:TE. dbratland has given sources to support the 49+california concept, but this isn't the place for a legal battle. tedder (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm just concerned that the "49+California concept" is a myth with respect to the other states that do not explicitly outlaw lane splitting, and don't think WP should be perpetuating myths. Further, the apparent myth seems to be compounded by conflicting definitions of "lane splitting" ("lane splitting is outlawed" might be true for a relatively strict interpretation of "lane splitting", but not for a more broad definition).  That's the whole point of restricting claims in our articles to those that are supported by reliable sources.
 * There is no need to prove a negative. My only point is that traffic law is often unclear, and the article should not imply that the law is clear, when it is not.  Reasonable people can disagree on how important that is, and how much time it's worth.  To me, it seems very important.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Informal mediation
I'll make one last attempt here. Born2cycle and dbratland, are you willing to have me informally mediate here? If not, are you willing to allow someone to informally mediate? Please reply with yes or no- not arguments about the subject. tedder (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, this requires mediation.--Dbratland (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Mediate what? I'd much rather focus on the article content. If there is a particular issue that you think needs mediating, please identify it. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The outcome of the mediation should be that the matter is no longer to be debated, and that the tenor of the article should no longer be tweaked one way or the other on this issue. Unless distinctly new reliable sources are brought forward which would change our understanding of the question. You can define it any way you like, but I think what most of us would like to see is for the bickering and edit warring to stop, so that we can move on to other things, such as the globalization of the article and the proposed merge.--Dbratland (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mediate the question of whether or not the article should hint or imply that lane splitting might be legal in the other 49 states, or say that there are any opinions to that effect, and whether tags or similar means should be used to undermine basic claim that you can lane split in California but not the other states.  Unless a reliable source has published that they think there is such a state other than California and which state exactly that would be, and why.   Or a reliable source who states that there is a "myth" with regard to any jurisdiction with no specific law on lane splitting, and just what this myth consists of.  This includes Germany and Australia, who prohibit lane splitting using a similar list of other laws.  I'm not talking about mere weasel words from those sources who are unsure about it and so try to cover themselves with vague phrases like "California and other states..."


 * I agree that this needs mediation. The situation is getting ridiculous. From what I have seen of Tedder he seems a good editor. I would take him up on his offer. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If you folks really want to have something to mediate about, then add, and/or support the inclusion of, statements and claims in the article that are not supported by reliable sources, or exaggerate what the sources are saying. Then we can mediate the question of whether each claim at issue is supported by the sources or not.

But I suggest we just put our beliefs and biases aside, whatever they may be, and abide by WP:NPOV instead, even if that means the article implies something might sometimes be true that we believe is never true. If we don't have the sources to support our beliefs and biases, then the statements and claims cannot reflect our beliefs and biases. That's ultimately what WP:NPOV is all about. I hope this puts an end to all the bickering and edit warring. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As the great Yankee philosopher, Yogi Berra, once said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." We don't have to decide on which version of reality is correct. In fact, doing so is antitheical to Wikipedia's principles. Some sources say one thing and others have a different view. So we report all of them, giving proportionate weight to each according to how prominent they are. It may well be that there is no de jure law against this practice, but it may be prohibited by the de facto application of "reckless driving" laws. If so it'd be a mistake to give readers the impression that it's explicitly legal. It's worth pointing out that traffic laws are enforced by both state patrollers (the CHP), and local police officers, so interpretations may vary from one jurisdiction to the next. Since the matter is in dispute, I suggest avoiding making too much of a big thing about the purported legality in California. Maybe something more like, "Some sources note that there is no reference to lane splitting in the code, while others say that riders have been cited under reckless driving statutes for the activity."   Will Beback    talk    07:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no question that unsafe lane splitting is illegal in all states, and that even safe lane splitting is illegal for motorcyclists in those states where lane splitting is explicitly prohibited by law.  There are reliable authoritative sources who explicitly say that lane splitting is legal in CA, when done "safely and prudently".  There are no reliable sources that say whether lane splitting, when done safely and prudently, is always, never or sometimes legal or illegal in all the other states that have no explicit laws prohibiting it.  So there is that important distinction with California.  --Born2cycle (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research."


 * Motorcyclists risk getting cited, crashing, and killed if they lane split in places where it is not legal and not standard practice. Aside from reliable sources, rejected only by Born2cycle for reasons understood only by him, who do say it is illegal, we have many reliable sources who point out that it must not be done unexpectedly, when it isn't the norm.  Doing the unexpected on a motorcycle in traffic is frankly a jackass move, and nothing of the sort should get any support at all on WP.


 * Why, by the way, are we simply ignoring Australia? It's the same legal situation as the 5 or 6 US states in question, and we have several reliable sources saying with no doubt that it is illegal, based on the same use of other laws as the 5 or 6 US states.


 * I'd like to know why we should have a lower standard for suggesting a motorcyclist risk his life than we do for harming someone's reputation in a WP bio.


 * Most of all I'd like to know: Will this debate ever end? --Dbratland (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ignore the straw man conjecturing riddled throughout this post because that's not productive. I will only address the specifics that pertain to article content.


 * You cite Matthews as a source for establishing that lane splitting is illegal in all states but California. Yet what he states is this: "Lane splitting is not recognized as a legal maneuver in any state except California."  That's not in dispute.  But just because it is not recognized explicitly as a legal maneuver, the way it is by the CHP (not the law) in California, does not establish that safe lane splitting is always illegal.  For example, what's not clear at all is whether lane splitting at a very slow speed to pass cars stopped at a red light, to be at the front when it turns green, is always illegal.  It's not even clear whether Matthews is even considering very slow lane splitting in the red light context in his statement.


 * Matthews also states, "In most states it is not specifically prohibited but it is regularly interpreted by police and courts as unlawful." First he says "most", not "all" states. Anyway, that statement is not in dispute.  What is disputed is whether the statement "lane splitting is regularly interpreted as unlawful" is basis for claiming that "lane splitting is always illegal, even when done safely and prudently (like in the red light context)".  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Vehicles may turn left and they may turn right. Yet making left turns unsafely is illegal.  Making right turns unsafely is illegal.  Is it necessarily to say so?  Doing handstands on the roof of a moving car is always illegal, even when done safely.  Even when there is no law explicitly prohibiting doing handstands on the roof of a moving car.  You can get away with murder, depending on the particular circumstances and how good your lawyer is.  Must WP say these commonplace banalitiees at every mention of a law or regulation?  Your points are sophomoric, pedantic and destructively argumentative.  Your points have won no support.


 * Born2cycle, you refused the opportunity to participate in mediation on this, and instead you simply go on and on, repeating points you have posted several times before, even though you have convinced nobody. You have been offered compromise, and you refuse.  You offer no compromise of your own, and instead say the only solution is that all of your failed arguments must be conceded.  Yet even when you get what you want, you come back and ask for more.  What is the point in even trying to placate you?


 * What are you trying to do here? How can you speak of what is "productive" when every collaboration you join on WP grinds to a halt until you are thrown out?  When will this debate end?--Dbratland (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you stopped asking the same questions over and over, and addressed my answers, then I would not feel compelled to answer them over and over. For example, I don't believe you've ever addressed my point about the legality of slow/safe lane splitting in traffic light congestion, which is a very common, perhaps the most common, form of lane splitting.


 * All I'm trying to do is make sure the article is accurate, and, in particular, does not make claims for which there are no sources. What are you trying to do here?


 * No, it's not necessary to say that making unsafe turns is illegal, or that doing handstands on car rooftops is illegal. What relevance does that have here?  The issue is whether the available sources support the statement in question.


 * Your "getting away with murder" example is interesting, but is begging the question. That is, you're presupposing that lane splitting is illegal (like murder is), and then saying that not saying lane splitting is always illegal is like not saying that murder is always illegal because sometimes you can get away with it.   It's not the same thing, and I'm certainly not suggesting that the reason we should not say that safe lane splitting is always illegal is because sometimes you can get away with it.  I'm saying we should not say that safe lane splitting is always illegal because we have no sources that say that (for the states besides CA that do not have explicit laws prohibiting lane splitting).  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This requires mediation.--Dbratland (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe you'll understand if you read my point from somebody else. Look at this article: Lane Splitting Law Is A Legal Grey Area. Not this source, nor any other source, says that lane splitting is always illegal in all states other than California, so our article cannot say it either. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC


 * Is that a reliable source?--Dbratland (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know if that is a reliable source, but since we're not using it to support any claims in the article, it doesn't matter. I just thought it might help you understand my point, which is not bizarre, as you make it seem.  --Born2cycle (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of wild claims in that blog post. Perhaps a good use of your time would be to find reliable sources to back some of them up, and then you'd have something to add to the lane splitting article.  Rather than having endless arguments that hinge on unreliable sources, filled with weasel words and unsupported claims.  The article will still be here waiting while you do your research, so what's the hurry?--Dbratland (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * <- reset indent

Again, since we're not using that article as a source, why do research on it?

What the article does say, in the intro, without citation, is that lane splitting "is illegal in the US except in California". That implies that lane splitting is always illegal in every state except for California, and I can't find any source, much less a reliable authoritative secondary source, that supports that statement. That's a real problem. And no, the "Lane splitting is not recognized as a legal maneuver in any state except California" quote does not establish that lane splitting is illegal in every state except for California. The legality of lane splitting is not that clear and simple, and the article should not incorrectly say that it is. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If that problem were real, why can't you find a single reliable source to say so?--Dbratland (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BURDEN: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.


 * There is no burden on a person challenging material in an article to find sources supporting that challenge. The burden to find a supporting source is on whoever believes the challenged material should remain. Do we need to mediate about this point?


 * Consider the statement in the intro that states that lane splitting "is illegal in the US except in California" to be challenged.  As per what I promised User:Biker Biker yesterday,  and in the interest of civility, I will refrain from deleting that statement, or adding a  tag, for six more days.  But if that material is not attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation by June 8, per WP:BURDEN, then I will re-insert the  tag, and, if it remains unattributed on, say, the 10th, I will delete it, and any other unattributed challenged statements, then.    --Born2cycle (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I just went back in the article's history to see when that "[lane splitting] is illegal in the US except in California" material was inserted, and by whom, and was surprised to see that it showed up only last month, and was inserted by User:Dbratland.


 * Dbratland, you added that material, so the burden is clearly on you to attribute it to a reliable, published source using an inline citation, or it needs to be reverted. It is that simple.   Thanks.  --Born2cycle (talk) 06:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You should accept mediation or arbitration. After all, if I'm so unreasonable, wouldn't it help to have a third party work it out?--Dbratland (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you believe mediation is required for either of these issues:
 * In general, whether the person adding or supporting challenged material has the full burden of citing reliable authoritative sources, or whether the one challenging the material has some of that burden too.
 * In particular, whether the above applies to my challenge of the statement you added to the intro recently, which states that lane splitting "is illegal in the US except in California", or any similar statement, without citation, is an instance of the previous general issue.
 * I will agree to mediate these points, as long as we find an experienced editor without any strong preconceived notions about the legality of lane splitting (hint: tedder is not it).  But I don't understand why you don't want to just resolve this here.   --Born2cycle (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The above comment about me is probably due to a current thread at ANI by Biker Biker and a RFC on the user conduct of Born2cycle I created. tedder (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Tedder, you weren't mentioned because of the ANI or the RFC (which I didn't even know about until this moment). You were mentioned because you had offered to mediate and because you are an active editor on this page (i.e., not neutral with respect to the legality of lane splitting).  --Born2cycle (talk) 04:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm responding to a post on WT:V. This is just to confirm that if the article says lanesplitting is "illegal in the US except in California," that needs a source if someone challenges it. It's up to the editor who added it, or any editor who restores it, to produce the source, not up to the editor who is challenging it. See Verifiability, which is policy. It says: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Hope this helps. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 06:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the claim that lane splitting "is illegal in the US except in California" needs a source (or alternatively, 49 sources for every state other than California, plus one for the law governing federal areas such as D.C.). The sources I see seem to support a very different conclusion. This source says "Although lane splitting is legal in some states like California," which implies that it is legal in some states other than California. This source indicates that Montana is silent on the issue. Even the Matthews book says that "[i]n most states it is not specifically prohibited"—while saying that it "is not recognized as a legal maneuver" and "is regularly interpreted by police and courts as unlawful", but this is not the same thing as saying it is illegal. I'm certain that "unsafe lane splitting" is illegal in all 50 states, and I'd even believe that some police, even in California, may routinely cite any lane splitters as "unsafe lane splitters", but this does not mean that lane splitting in general is illegal. DHowell (talk) 07:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, the analogy to "unsafe left turns" and "unsafe right turns" is interesting, in that while there are certainly laws which specifically prohibit unsafe turns, one certainly cannot then conclude that turning is illegal. Similarly, laws against unsafe lane splitting can not be used to support the claim that lane splitting is illegal. And yes, you'd also need a cite for any claim that "Doing handstands on the roof of a moving car is always illegal, even when done safely," considering that at least in Nevada, there apparently is no law against riding on the roof of a car at all. A police officer considered that he might write a seat belt citation in such a case, but even that is iffy as the law isn't clear whether a person on the roof of a car is a passenger or a pedestrian! DHowell (talk) 07:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually what it says is, "Lane splitting by motorcycles is generally legal in Europe, and in Japan and several other countries, and is illegal in the US except in California (see list below)."


 * This is for the purpose of avoiding an extended explanation in the lead, and giving undue emphasis to the state of California, especially when we have identical situations in Australia and Germany. The explanation in the body of the article goes into great detail to give a basic explanation of what is potentially complicated -- as is any legal question if it were being argued by lawyers and legal scholars.  But such pointy argument has no place in a WP article.


 * I think if you are floating a legal theory that says these two countries, and the ten states (AR, DE, ID, KY, MI, MO, NJ, NM, OK, WV) that disallow it are wrong, then you should cite a source for that legal theory.  Is there a reliable source that says, in general, you may drive your car in any way that is not specifically prohibited?  Or is it a fact that more generic laws such as reckless driving are sufficient?  If not, is it meaningless to have a law against reckless driving?  And why does NJ need to study legalizing it if it is already legal?.


 * My contention is that those who say "California and other states" are simply using weasel words because they don't really know for sure. And that it is unethical to encourage dangerous and unexpected maneuvers lacking any source to support this novel legal theory.


 * The LV Sun article makes clear that the police and prosecutors don't consider a the lack of a specifc law to be any barrier to prosecution.  They have NRS 484.377  at their disposal, and many other laws, I'm sure.  They have common sense on their side.


 * Why on Earth can't "unlawful" and "illegal" be treated as meaning the same thing? Is this an encyclopedia or the Princeton Law Review?  Are WP readers legal scholars?  Does a motorcycle rider care about the difference between "illegal" and "unlawful" when he is deciding whether or not ride between lanes?


 * All of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling editors, save one, who have been editing this article have consistently been guided by common sense, which is a fundamental principle of WP: Use common sense  These tortured legalistic debates and hypotheticals and hairsplitting over semantics have no place here.  Common sense says you shouldn't try lane splitting in Idaho and WP has no reliable sources claiming otherwise.--Dbratland (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good, back to discussing the core issue here... Of course unlawful and illegal can be used to mean essentially the same thing.  The problem is that there is no citation for a source that states or even means that safe lane splitting is always unlawful (or illegal) in all states but California, which is what the challenged statement claims.


 * Even with the excerpts from WP:BURDEN, plus now the comments from DHowell and SlimVirgin, in addition to my countless attempts to explains this to you, do you really still not understand what we are saying? This is exasperating.


 * Again, statutes against reckless driving (like NV's 484.377) can clearly be used in jurisdictions where lane splitting is not explicitly outlawed to prosecute unsafe lane splitting. There is no debate about that.  But that does not show at all that safe lane splitting in those jurisdictions is ever illegal, much less always illegal as the challenged material states as if it's a plain fact.  More importantly, the statement is challenged, and there is no citation for it.  The burden is yours.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Clearly I made a mistake trying to reply to DHowell and SlimVirgin. The core issue Requests for comment/Born2cycle.  Until your disruptive behavior is ended, no constructive work is possible and I should not have helped you continue your campaign of endless and useless argument.--Dbratland (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dbratland, if you are claiming that "(see list below)" is the source for the claim that lane splitting "is illegal in the US except in California", it still doesn't support that statement. A more accurate summary might be "..is illegal in many states in the US, but is considered lawful in California (see list below)". There is no need to address the status in the states that don't have an explicit lane-splitting law in the summary. The list then might be improved by stating (supported by reliable sources) the status of lane splitting in each of the 50 states. For some states, like Arizona, Nevada, and Utah, you can cite the actual law against lanesplitting, or you can just cite the AMA site.
 * But that being said, I don't see how you can use a law requiring a signal 100 feet before making a turn to support the claim that lane splitting is illegal. California has exactly the same law (CVC §22108), so why doesn't that law make lane splitting illegal in California? You do need a better source than this if you are going to claim lane splitting is illegal in New Mexico (for example an official statement by law enforcement or a published court case).
 * And I am not floating any legal theory or claiming any states are "wrong", I'm merely saying that if you are going to claim something is illegal, you need a reliable source for that claim if there is no explicit law against it. Just because we don't say it is illegal, doesn't mean we are claiming it is legal. We can state exactly what the sources say. Say, for example, "In some states, while there is no explicit law against lane splitting, police and courts regularly consider it unlawful", and cite the Matthews book. I don't think there is any significant difference between "unlawful" and "illegal", but there is a very significant difference between "is regularly interpreted as" and "is". We can say that others are making an interpretation, but we can't make that interpretation ourselves unless it is uncontroversial. As for why NJ is considering making it legal if there is no explicit law against it, perhaps they would need to do so in order to stop police officers from citing lane splitters under other laws?
 * Our obligation is to provide accurate information supported by reliable sources, not to ensure that people don't use information contained in Wikipedia to harm themselves or others. Claiming something is illegal just because we think it is dangerous is not our job. That doesn't mean we have to claim it's legal—we either don't address the issue or we say what the sources say. We don't make up laws where they don't exist.
 * Certainly you're not suggesting that a source which says a dangerous behaviour is "apparently not illegal" can be used to support a claim that it is illegal? Your claim that the police can use reckless driving laws against it is original research, because the article specifically only mentioned the seat belt law as a possible that could be used, and was lamenting the lack of any law explicitly against it. Of course it is plain common sense that standing on top of a moving vehicle is dangerous, and the laws of physics will be a greater deterrent against such behavior than any laws on the books, but this is irrelevant to what we can say in a Wikipedia article.
 * You may think "common sense" says you shouldn't try lane splitting in Idaho, but when you have one of the largest states in the US and several countries which legalize the practice, I'd say it is far from "common sense" that it will get you ticketed when there is no explicit law. What you could do, however, is cite this article, which says that the Idaho State Police consider it illegal under Idaho Code 49-637. Though again, you have a nearly identically worded law in California (CVC §21658), so this is clearly an interpretation by the police, not a fact of law. DHowell (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Do you think it's acceptable to say in the article that the legality of lane splitting in such states is unknown or unclear, or subject to the interpretation of the police (meaning whether such a citation will hold up to a legal challenge is unknown), even though we may not have a source for exactly that?  Either way, do you think merely suggesting adding such a statement to the article [1], or maybe even adding one [2], is an example of WP:DISRUPT [3]?  --Born2cycle (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The folks at WP:V have explained persuasively why sourcing is required even for statements that indicate a lack of knowledge about something, if it is challenged. So, it's acceptable to make statements like that in an article without sourcing, as long as nobody challenges them.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To be fair, Dbratland has challenged the claim that the legality in such states is unknown or unclear, so per WP:V it seems that you would need to cite a source for that as well. What's wrong with remaining silent on the issue, or simply summarizing what the available sources actually say about the subject? And no, I don't see any evidence of disruption here. The fact that you are soliciting outside opinions rather than just stonewalling indicates your good faith to my satisfaction that you are trying to productively resolve this dispute. DHowell (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I realize that since Dbratland has challenged it, it needs to be sourced. What's very hard for me to understand is how the challenge can really be genuine.  The statement I tried to add was, "whether such a citation will hold up to a challenge in court depends on the particular situation."  Ultimately, that's plainly true of all citations, but especially of the inherently subjective type (reckless driving, illegal lane change, etc.) that must be used in states where lane splitting is not explicitly prohibited.  But difficult to understand or not, we are to WP:AGF and accept it as a genuine challenge.  I'll keep looking for a source, however.  Maybe in a how to beat a ticket book or something...


 * I also still have a little problem with why it's okay to summarize what the sources say, but not okay to say what they don't say in such a summary. But that seems to be the prevailing view at WP:V, and I've even offered to clarify that in WP:BURDEN accordingly.  Perhaps it's because it's assuming a false dichotomy.


 * Anyway, I'm okay with staying silent on the issue - much better than saying something that the sources do not support.


 * LOL about "soliciting outside opinions" being evidence of lack of disruption on my part. The four antagonists here even see that as evidence of me being disruptive, referring to it incorrectly as "forum shopping".  Every issue has been like that with them.  I'm so glad you're here. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You ignored my suggestion to seek a third opinion on this. Twice.  Until an RFC was created about your behavior and then all of a sudden you were all about seeking impartial advice.--Dbratland (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I did choose to not follow your suggestion to seek a third opinion at that time. It should be noted that you didn't either, and you were the one who felt there was a problem, not me.  Until you went the RfC route, I saw no need for outside assistance.  Perhaps I should have seen it, but is poor vision now a crime as well?  And that advice notwithstanding, once I did go for outside help, you wasted no time to misconstrue my actions again (violating WP:AGF each time), characterizing it as "forum shopping" in the RfC.  But I'm the disruptive one.  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Now, now, can you two call a truce? I've helped you reach consensus on at least one dispute, so it is possible for you to collaborate. Why not let bygones be bygones, and get back to editing the encyclopedia. Have a cookie :) DHowell (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)



DHowell has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!


 * Sorry, but the whole RfC thing really pisses me off. Anyway, I enthusiastically accept your cookie and eagerly agree to continue to do whatever is reasonable to reach a WP:TRUCE with User:Dbratland. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "...there is a very significant difference between 'is regularly interpreted as' and 'is'" If there is a wiki that specializes in elaborating on the fine points of the law, I'm sure such a distinction would make a good article there.  I don't think WP needs to get caught up in such details -- especially while neglecting Germany, Australia, and the whole rest of the world.  Before Born2cycle began making his demands for ever more tortured language and ever more sources, the article had a couple plain statements about California and the states with similar laws, and left it at that.  Since then the article has been made worse with regard to this one issue, becoming less readable and of less interest to the general audience.


 * As far as whether WP has an obligation "not to ensure that people don't use information contained in Wikipedia to harm themselves or others," I rely on the principles found in WP:BLP.  We don't just have a self-serving need to avoid any more libel suits which drain the coffers of the WP Foundation.  We also have an ethical obligation not to cause harm.  Especially for no good reason.  The question of whether or not there is a legal loop hole in the 10 US States lacks notability -- hence the lack of any reliable sources arguing such a loop hole exists. So why must WP drill down so deep on the question when it can only lead to tears?


 * I should mention that the police in Idaho and Mississippi and so on don't care in the least how Californians interpret their laws. I would expect they'd be inclined to to the opposite.--Dbratland (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You're still trying to justify the inclusion of "illegal in all states except California" without citation? Even your anti-Born2cycle RfC partner Tedder has finally conceded "it needs to be cited" (implying "or removed if it cannot be cited").   By the way, even though I disagree with you on this point, and you're doing exactly what you've accused me of doing, I don't think you're doing anything wrong or disruptive by simply continuing to argue in favor of something you genuinely believe to be true, much less is it anything worthy of filing ANIs or RFCs. I also don't think citing WP:BLP is wikilawyering, any more than I think my citing WP:BURDEN is wikilawerying.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dbratland, I am not trying to argue fine points of law, I am trying to determine whether sources justify the statement that lane splitting is "illegal in the US except in California". Based in my reading of what sources I have seen so far, I have to say they don't. And I am also not arguing that we should state there is a "legal loop hole" in the states without an explicit law. I agree there is no source for that either. We don't have to say anything about the status in those states (though for completeness, I think it would be good to at least try to find reliable sources that do address the issue in those states). What I am trying to say is this ought to be resolved by simply reflecting what the sources actually say. What is wrong with the wording I suggested above, "..is illegal in many states in the US, but is considered lawful in California (see list below)"? It accurately describes the issue, and doesn't imply that it's OK to lane split anywhere but California. I would have made this edit myself if the page weren't protected. And why not replace the New Mexico example presently in the article, which is original synthesis unless we allow a personal e-mail to you to be a reliable source, with the Idaho example I cited above, which has been reported in a reliable source as the position of law enforcement in that state? DHowell (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with that wording. And if the Idaho example is just as good, I have no problem with using it instead.  I would be very, very pleased to see this debate settled, one way or the other.--Dbratland (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yay!!! --Born2cycle (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Consensus, what a wonderful thing. Now, with all due respect can we agree to stop the petty bickering above so the page can be unprotected and we can get back to editing? Please? DHowell (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is why lane splitting is not illegal here in California, The CHP's official stance is that "Lane splitting by motorcycles is permissible but must be done in a safe and prudent manner." according to http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html I added it to the article next to the Washington State Trooper's comments Monkeythumpa (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hatnote
Whiteline redirects to this article. Would an administrator mind adding a hatnote stating this fact and linking to the White line disambiguation page for other uses? Neelix (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Whitelining is the one the most needs to redirect here. Whiteline less so; it is rarely used without -ing so I moved it to the disambiguation page.  A lot of this is guesswork about which neologisms are most common anyway.


 * A hatnote is still needed.--Dbratland (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Also worth considering is having Whiteline redirect to the White line dab page, and having that dab page say something like "Whiteline may refer to whitelining, a synonym for Lane splitting". Then no hat note would be required on this article.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be preferable to maintain whiteline as a redirect to this article as no other entry on the white line disambiguation page would be referred to by the single word "whiteline". Neelix (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But isn't someone looking for "White line" fairly likely to type "Whiteline"? Looks like Dbratland already made the updates.  Do you see a problem with it?   --Born2cycle (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you've got the best solution there. And I hope the hatnote is satisfactory. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The current situation is a good one. Neelix (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hot weather consideration
Deleted from the article: "Most air cooled motorcycles take advantage of air blowing past the cylinder and cylinder head while in motion to disperse heat. Frequent, sustained stationary periods may cause over-heating. Some models (mostly scooters with an engine displacement of only 50-100 CCs) are equipped with fans that force the air to go past the cylinder block, which solves the problem of city driving. The cylinders on air cooled bikes are designed with fins (heat sinks) to aid in this process. Air cooled bikes are cheaper, simpler and lighter than their water-cooled counterparts. The majority of Harley Davidson models (with engine displacements of 880-1650 CCs)are air-cooled without fans. For these, lane-splitting is often considered a necessity during hot weather operation." This is probably worth mentioning, but it needs some sourcing. When you talk about "most" motorcycles or "most" H-Ds, do you mean models or bikes registered on the road? An with so many air cooled bikes, why does this one brand seem to suffer from overheating in traffic? It's a weird argument: rather than fix the motorcycles that are ill-addapted to traffic conditions in most of the world's cities, traffic law should be changed? I don't know but the main thing is to cite a source behind all this.--Dbratland (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's true that the article would be improved if this new section was sourced, and I've marked it accordingly, but I, for one, think it's better in there unsourced than not in there at all. As to whether only HDs are affected by this, clarifying and sourcing that would be helpful too. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Born2cycle, I just removed it- not to start an edit war, I honestly hadn't seen that you posted here on the talk page. I apologize.


 * Anyhow, tons of motorcycles are aircooled, it's (apparently) at least part urban legend that lanesplitting and heat issues are related. Second, it's fairly poorly written with lots of unsupported generalisms- why is it important in a lanesplitting article that air cooled bikes are cheaper? Why so much emphasis on small scooters and specific Harley Davidsons, but nothing else? Finally, the weasel wording to connect this to lanesplitting ("is often considered..") is pretty weak. tedder (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Citations:
 * (Quoted in full.)
 * (Note that BMW sales manager is not an independent source.)
 * (Note this is only someone's opinion from an email.)
 * (Note this is only someone's opinion from an email.)
 * (Note this is only someone's opinion from an email.)


 * The first two or three are probably the most useful, especially the one with an H-D sales rep specifically saying their brand is susceptible to overheating. There are many more newspaper citations like those above where somebody says air-cooled engines in general overheat when idling, but we are all aware this is a gross over-generalization.  But you can verifiably say that many people believe this over-generalization to be a fact, and some believe that this is the reason behind California's lack of a law against lane splitting.


 * I'll write something and put it in the article when I have a chance -- but hopefully someone else can get to it before I do.--Dbratland (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)