Talk:Lane splitting/Archive 4

"between lanes"???
The intro defines "lane splitting" as "riding ... between roadway lanes of vehicles".

I know this is based on the NHTSA glossary definition ("Passing between lanes of stopped or slower-moving vehicles on a motorcycle" ), but it's non-sensical.

There is no space between lanes. Where one lane ends, the next adjacent one begins. There is no space between them. Lanes are demarcated by stripes, and the center of the stripe is actually where one lane ends and the other begins. The concept of "between lanes" is meaningless, by definition.

The phrase "lanes of vehicles" does not make sense either. Each lane can be said to have line of vehicles in it, and one may ride between those lines of vehicles, but "lane of vehicles" is also meaningless.

Instead of lines of vehicles you can also say rows of vehicles. In fact, that is the language used by the new law in California. I suggest we follow suit, and will update the article accordingly.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB51

--В²C ☎ 06:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that "rows of vehicles" seems to be a better option. Though I note that "lanes of vehicles" is not nonsensical when one interprets it as it was originally written. That was simply that vehicles needn't follow lane demarcations to form lines of cars, as if in a lane. A lane is merely a path or road. Nevertheless, I think this is probably an improvement so good change. -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no need to be this pedantic. The rest of the world has no trouble understanding the world choice of our sources. If this article shifts to some contrived terminology not found in our sources, we create confusion where none existed. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not pedantic at all, and it is sourced, to the language used in an actual current law. --В²C ☎ 19:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you cite it please? I found about six that said "between lanes of traffic". This whole objection is original research. Trying to invent your own imaginary controversies like this is far beyond the scope of Wikipedia. We follow our soures, not leading them in new directions or uncovering new problems. If it's so nonsensical, how come every single source uses this "between lanes" phrase? If you can actually cite a source that says it's nonsensical, we could stick a short mention of it deep down near the bottom of the article. But even that is really a violation of WP:FRINGE. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I think you mean California AB 51. You're basing this on the literal text of a new law in California, which gives the definition "between rows of stopped or moving vehicles in the same lane". This is a misuse of primary sources as explained in WP:PSTS. This part of the WP:NOR policy says do not use primary source, e.g. a legal code, to draw conclusions beyond the most obvious facts. You're using primary source to draw the original conclusion that the phrasing used by all the secondary sources is flawed or confusing. Your primary source doesn't claim any such thing, no other sources say "between lanes of traffic/vehicles" is flawed or confusing. That's totally made up. The NOR policy is that we should rely on secondary sources to explain what laws mean. We have at least one secondary source cited that explains this particular law is a "legislative non sequitur". Not only is it a primary source, but an expert interpretation is that it's not even a coherent or meaningful primary source. Even without that, the policy is that secondary sources overrules any literal parroting of a primary source. We write Wikipedia in plain English, not legalese, or legal jargon.The English grammar error behind this whole faux "confusion" is the difference between a traffic lane and a lane of traffic. A traffic lane is, pedantically, the paved surface bounded on either side by stripes. To a literalist, there is no space between where one lane ends and the next begins. This ignores the fact that natural language is driven by common sense rather than formal logic. But the real problem is that the phrasing used by all the secondary sources is "between lanes of vehicles" or "between lanes of traffic". A lane of traffic is the occupants of the traffic lane. There is space between the vehicles occupying the traffic lane.I really wish we didn't have to discuss things like this. Just follow the sources. You don't have to fix things that nobody has told you are broken. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Can I cite it please? Original research? Are you serious? Citing sources is now original research?  Imaginary controversies? Text in actual legal language is "fringe"?  The only controversy is the one you're creating.  IT'S CITED IN THE FIRST COMMENT OF THIS SECTION.  Oh, now you found it, and are objecting to a phrase because it is found in a primary (legal) source?  Seriously?  Anyway, how many secondary sources would you like?
 * "If you’re wondering what lane-splitting is, it’s riding a motorbike between rows of vehicles travelling in lanes in the same direction."
 * "It also defines lane splitting as “driving a motorcycle … that has two wheels in contact with the ground, between rows of stopped or moving vehicles in the same lane including on both divided and undivided streets, roads, or highways. ”"
 * "New Jersey's state driver's manual warns bikers against "lane sharing" with another vehicle and specifically says "do not ride in between rows of stopped vehicles."
 * "Motorcycles would be authorized to be driven between rows of stopped or slowed vehicles in the same direction if the speed of traffic is 30 mph or less. However, motorcycles could be driven no more than 10 mph in excess of the speed of traffic."
 * "Most car drivers and other non-driving folk might become very nervous when lane splitting is brought into discussion, and most of these angry guys will mention those “low fliers” speeding between rows of cars and of whom many end up dead." (that's from 2012, by the way)
 * Do you always make baseless accusations? --В²C ☎
 * Here is the basis:
 * You're giving citations of sources which literally quote the the text of AB 51, in order to explain AB 51. Except the first and last links, which are ESL bloggers who plagiarized the law's text instead of admitting it's a quote. I think you googled the phrase without reading the context.
 * Instead of addressing the misuse of primary sources, these supposed citations beg the question.
 * You have not cited any sources to support your claim that the language is confusing.
 * You have not addressed the blunder "no space between lanes" . If you're going to be this literal and pedantic, then acknowledge that these sources don't literally say there's space between lanes, they say there's space between lanes of traffic.
 * Finally, please address the multiple sources that say AB 51 is hardly authoritiative, but rather is an odd piece of legislative sausage meant to serve a specific, unique, local political purpose found only in California. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You complain about a primary source (as if that even mattered in a situation about whether a given wording is appropriate or not), I provide a multitude of secondary sources, and you complain because some of them are quintessential secondary sources (they rely on the primary source).
 * None beg the question. Any one of the five meets the hurdle you previously set. Even if you throw out a couple per your dubious reasoning, you still have the others.  And please explain how an article from 2012 can be based on a 2016 law?  You're a piece of work.
 * My claim that the language is confusing is my opinion and I explained why, above. Your opinions is it's better to rely on semantic shifting around the meaning of "lane".  I'd rather avoid the language altogether, and at least  agrees.  You're on your own. I'm  not claiming consensus, but my position is certainly closer to consensus than yours.
 * More semantic confusion. Again, I say avoid it.
 * Sources say AB 51 is not authoritative?  What sources? They say it's not authoritative about what?  Give me something to address and I'll address it. Anyway, there are other sources that use the phrase, so even if some sources opined that AB 51 was not considered authoritative about something, as if that mattered (it doesn't), it's moot.
 * --В²C ☎ 23:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * By the way, of the 5 sources I listed above, only the 2nd and 3rd refer to the California law or related bill, and of those two, one of them (landlinemag) refers to laws in five states, and the 'rows of ... vehicles" reference is not specific to California language. That means 4 out of the 5 in the list are not relying on the primary source to which you object.   --В²C ☎ 00:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, we can go through this source by source. You have cited 5 very weak, very inferior sources. You're ignoring a very large number of more authoritative sources, that have used the common phrasing for many years. If this phrasing were confusing or contradictory, why did all these writers, and their editors, and their readers, have no problem with it? Before I list these sources and quotations one by one, please delete your RfC. It's a terrible idea. Dragging in large numbers of editors to involve themselves in this petty wording dispute is annoying and disruptive. Nobody else cares. You are very well aware how much this irritates the wider community. I've avoided dealing with you on this article because I know you will stonewall on petty items, but this writing is so bad that I have to say something now. But that doesn't mean I want to see lots of others caught up in it. No, RfC, OK? I'll show you a very large number of quotes who have used this common phrasing, and that will be an opportunity to end this without creating drama. At least wait a couple days before immediately sounding the RfC alarm bell.You know what it says at WP:RfC: "Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt to working out their disputes before seeking help from others." You have not made a reasonable attempt. You haven't even seen the citations I alluded to. How can you say you made a good faith effort when you're too impatient to look at the citations? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I've requested speedy close of the RfC below at Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure. An RfC is premature and disruptive, and the guidelines ask editors to make an effort to resolve it before staring an RfC. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Three sources that explain why AB51 is an odd duck i.e. not authoritative:


 * Sources that use variations of "between lanes of traffic/cars/vehicles", showing no problem with the idea that space exists "between lanes":
 * Proficient Motorcycling: The Ultimate Guide to Riding Well. David L. Hough. Bow Tie. 2000. p. 233. "Riding the white line between traffic lanes is a subject journalists tend to avoid." p. 237 "zipping between the lanes at a speed much faster than traffic"
 * Mastering the Ride: More Proficient Motorcycling, 2nd Edition. David L. Hough. 2012. p. 79 "A motorcyclist in Southern California rides between lanes of traffic on the busy freeway during rush hour…"
 * Effective Cycling. John Forester. MIT Press, 1992, 2012. p. 198. "Ride between the traffic lane and the parking lane, and when you reach a place where there are no parked cars". p. 393 "Don't overtake between lanes of moving traffic."
 * How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim. Joseph Matthews 2015. p. 41. "…it means squeezing between lanes, passing the cars in stop-and-go traffic on each side."
 * Ride Hard, Ride Smart. Pat Hahn. 2004. p. 105. "There is also usually a decent amount of room between lanes to use if you need it."
 * The Total Motorcycling Manual (Cycle World). Mark Lindemann. Ben Spies. 2013. 100 "Lane splitting, lane sharing, traffic filtering, white-lining — whatever you call the practice, it's one of the huge advantages motorcycles offer over cars in traffic. Basically, it's about riding between lanes of slow or stopped traffic."
 * Safe Riding; Staying Alive on Your Motorcycle. Mitch Williamson. Everest House. 1980 p. 72 "Riding between lanes; What about riding the dash line between lanes of traffic going in your same direction? ...California went on record saying between-lanes riding by a cyclist would not get him arrested."
 * How to Ride a Motorcycle. Pat Hahn. Motorbooks. 2005. p. 14 "Lane splitting: in states that allow it, riding between lanes of slow or stopped traffic, easing congestion on crowded highways."
 * Hahn, Pat (2012), Motorcyclist's Legal Handbook: How to Handle Legal Situations from the Mundane to the Insane, MotorBooks International. p. 75 "Riding between lanes of traffic is not legal anywhere, including California. However, it is tolerated in California..."
 * The Complete Idiot's Guide to Motorcycles. Motorcyclist Magazine, ‎Darwin Holmstrom, ‎Simon Green. 2008. p. 184 "In some American states and most European countries, it is legal for a motorcycle to ride between lanes of traffic. This is known as splitting lanes or filtering"
 * Cyclecraft: the complete guide to safe and enjoyable cycling for adults and children. John Franklin. The Stationery Office. 2007 . p. 162. "On multi-lane roads its safer to pass between lanes, riding the lane line"
 * Art of Cycling: Staying Safe on Urban Streets. Robert Hurst. Rowman & Littlefield. 2014. p. 100 "Filtering… riding between lanes of jammed traffic"
 * Born to Be Wild: The Rise of the American Motorcyclist.Randy D. McBee. 2015. p. 65 "Motorcyclists were known for riding between lanes of cars (lane splitting) when stopped at a traffic jam"
 * Bicycling Magazine's Complete Book of Road Cycling Skills: Your Guide to Riding Faster, Stronger, Longer, and Safer. Ed Pavelka. Rodale. 1998. p. 84. "In some states it is not legal for a cyclist to pass on the right or ride between lanes of traffic."
 * Street smarts: Bicycling's traffic survival guide. John S. Allen. 1988. p. 36 "in some states and cities it's not legal for a bicyclist to pass on the right or ride between lanes of traffic."
 * Popular Mechanics. Apr 1970. Vol. 133, No. 4. p. 216. "It takes considerably less time if you streak along illegally between lanes of traffic even when cars are moving at or near the speed limit. In my book, doing that's an abuse of the freedom a motorcycle gives you."
 * California Will Be the First State to Formally Legalize Lane Splitting Collin Woodard. Road and Track. Aug 8, 2016 "Lane splitting, where a motorcyclist rides between lanes of traffic, has been common in California for years"
 * Cycle World Magazine.Jan 1979. Vol. 18, No. 11. p. 2. "the narrowness of the engine also makes riding between lanes of a traffic jam (in states where its legal) less nerve-wracking."
 * California DMV joins motorcycle lane-splitting controversy Charles Fleming. LA Times.. July 30, 2014. "The sometimes controversial act of lane-splitting, in which riders use the space between lanes when traffic is slow or has stopped, is legal in California"
 * American Motorcyclist. Feb 1989. Vol. 43, No. 2. p. 24. "Steinberger remembers when it was common for couriers to split lanes through traffic to get to the head of..."
 * The official DSA theory test for car drivers and the official… Driving Standards Agency.
 * 2010. "Look out for cyclists and motorcyclists travelling between lanes of traffic."Note that we have experts like John Forester, David Hough, Pat Hahn, Motorcycling Magazine, Bicycling Magazine, Cycle World, and more, who find this phrase "riding between lanes of traffic/cars/vehicles" a better choice than the stilted legal language found in some vehicle codes. This is a classic example of secondary sources guiding us and primary sources misleading.How can so many of the best sources say there is space "between lanes" and yet not one single person outside Wikipedia has ever said it doesn't make sense? Why hasn't anybody said "lanes of vehicles" or "lanes of traffic" doesn't make sense? It's a made-up problem, original research. Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a whole other problem making "between rows of vehicles" confusing. It explains why writers and editors overwhelmingly prefer "between lanes of traffic/vehicles". The word row raises ambiguities over which direction is meant. Row (disambiguation) vs column (disambiguation) vs line (disambiguation) vs rank (disambiguation) vs file (disambiguation) . Theater rows run perpendicular to the direction the audience is facing; if drivers were analogous, a row of cars in traffic shoulder-to-shoulder, or abreast, would run perpendicular the direction of travel. Given that pedestrians, bicyclists and sometimes motorcycles do in fact cut perpendicularly between vehicles stopped in traffic, it is easy to think that is what "riding between rows of vehicles" means. Vehicles, people, or things moving in a line are often called a "column", and when they are, "rows" are at a right angle to that. In video graphics, mathematics, and spreadsheets, rows are at right angles to columns. In motor and horse racing, rows are perpendicular to the direction of movement. Pole position is "the position on the front row of the starting grid nearest to the inside of the first bend". In chess, row is also at right angles to the forward-back direction. It's not consistent: rows, columns, lines, ranks and files can all sometimes be used either direction, though you'd forgive anyone for assuming that street traffic followed the same conventions as motor racing, or that racing terms come from traffic. In reality, it's a confusing mess, because in spite of all this, a "row" can also be a lane. Evidence? . Whenever you hear "row" in an unfamiliar context, you need someone to give further explanation as to what they mean by "row"; it's not obvious which direction it goes.Lane, however, is not ambiguous. It is never used except to mean in the direction of travel, never perpendicular to it. The meaning is obvious with no further information needed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Back in August, I made a simple suggestion, provided my reasoning, and another editor concurred. I made the change.
 * Then, in October, you arrived. Without discussion, and with a comment using dismissive language, you reverted.
 * After your revert you made your first comment, asking for a citation even though one was provided in my original post just above your comment.
 * Then, apparently finally reading the reasoning to which you were responding, you added a second comment objecting to the citation as being a primary source.
 * So I provided five examples of secondary sources.
 * Then you claimed these secondary sources were literal quotes of the primary source.
 * So I pointed out that was true for only one out of the five.
 * Then you objected that these sources are "very weak, very inferior", as if I ever argued they weren't. So what? You asked for secondary sources; they are secondary sources.
 * Your most recent post takes up acres of discussion space listing references supporting a point that I essentially acknowledged in my original post, certainly not one that refutes anything I've argued or presented.
 * --В²C ☎ 17:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd like to be able to discuss this without any further personal attacks. Perhaps Born2Ccyle will make another attempt to participate in this discussion without name-calling and defamatory accusations. I'm aware he would like to discuss his five citations in detail, so here we go. It's a very, very long read, but a point-by-point explanation was requested.
 * The Middle Ground is a news blog in Singapore. Li Shan Teo blogs about a wide variety of subjects, and is not known as a motorcyclist or expert on motorcycling. Or transport. There is [an orgy of evidence that this writer is not a native speaker of English and has a limited understanding of English idiom: "It’s an age-old advice", "[Helmets are] designed to absorb the impact of collision to the brain", "minor scraps [read scrapes] and lacerations ", "By wearing proper close-toed footwear [read closed-toed] and long-sleeved shirts, it could [read you can]significantly reduce or prevent injuries", "Be prepared to pull the brakes". Teo's choice to closely paraphrase the California legal code, " it’s riding a motorbike between rows of vehicles travelling in lanes in the same direction." is a poor example to follow.
 * Susan Carpenter's Lane splitting may soon be formalized in California begins with "It's a common sight on California roadways: Motorcycles speeding between lanes of cars to get ahead of traffic." Carpenter is an professional journalists and motorcycling expert. She chose the phrase "between lanes of cars" for her lead because she obviously thought it communicated the idea well. This contradicts the original claim that the phrase is meaningless or does not make sense. Later in her piece, Carpenter is telling the reader specifically what AB51 does, which is to provide a definition of lane splitting, and Carpenter quotes AB51. So our secondary source, a skilled writer and subject expert, takes the primary source, which says, "between rows of stopped or moving vehicles" and she provides a clearer, plain English interpretation, i.e. "between lanes of cars". The NOR policy says at WP:ANALYSIS that "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources" because "because it is easy to misuse" primary sources, so we must "refer to reliable secondary sources" to interpret them.
 * The post by commuting reporter Larry Higgs at NJ.com. Higgs does exactly the same thing as Carpenter. He opens with his own word choice, "riding in between lanes of moving or stopped traffic on a busy highway", to best communicate to readers what the subject is. The question in this Q&A is also phrased "ride in between lanes of traffic". In part of his answer, Higgs provides a direct quote of the NJ drives manual: ""do not ride in between rows of stopped vehicles." Here we have a second professional writer and subject matter expert who contradicts the claim that "between lanes of" is meaningless or senseless. Like Carpenter, Higgs demonstrates that he things this phrasing is a clearer plain English interpretation of official legalese. Higgs cites a source that uses the phrase "between lanes" three times.
 * Fourth citation is Land Line Magazine, by Keith Goble, state legislative editor. For the third time, the writer leads with "One example is motorcyclists who ride between lanes of freeway traffic to bypass congestion." Meaningless? Makes no sense? Not according to this writer. Goble then turns to the specific subject of AB51, and closely paraphrases that California bill: "between rows of stopped or slowed vehicles in the same direction if the speed of traffic", before moving on to bills in four other states. Another example showing that "between rows" is not the preferred or general terminology, but it is used only when describing a specific legal code.
 * Last, we have a post by Florin Tibu at Autoevolution. Tibu is Romanian, another non-native English writer. Nothing wrong with that, but ESL writers should not be role models for our word choices. Tibu is a rider who has many blog posts about motorcycling. In his awkward language, he first writes, "If need be, lane splitting could be defined as operating a motorcycle between two adjacent lanes of traffic on a public road." While I don't think this is an example of clear writing, what we have is our fourth writer, cited by Born2Cycle, that does not think "between lanes of traffic" is meaningless or senseless. Like the others, Tibu leads with this phrasing. He follows with this, "Lane splitting is a maneuver used by motorcyclists to overtake other vehicles especially in heavy traffic, by literally passing between two rows of cars, often riding exactly over the separation lines, be they white or yellow, single or double, continuous or not." Again, poor writing, and quite confusing. Nobody else claims lane splitting means crossing over double yellow lines, i.e., into oncoming traffic. The next thing Tibu does is take a third whack at defining lane splitting: "Splitting refers to riding between two traffic lanes, whereas sharing means to overtake a vehicle by passing beside it within the space of the lane both vehicles are in." Again, a writer who does not think "between two traffic lanes" is meaningless or makes no sense. The rest of Tibu's post devolves into more repetition, wild speculation, and confused writing. Given how problematic this one is, and that it's clearly not standard English, should we be paying any attention at all to it? And if we do trust Tibu here, then he actually contradicts Born2Cycle's assertions, along with three of his previous citations.There are weak, inferior citations in support of this "between rows" phrasing; in fact, they can be seen as evidence against referring this phrase. We have better, more respected writers, like Forrester, Hough, Hahn, Deitzler, Holmstrom, etc. who provide stronger guidance.We still have zero evidence that anyone thinks "between lanes" is meaningless or makes no sense. Only an editor's original research. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You lost me at, "he would like to discuss his five citations in detail". The only reason I introduced these secondary sources was because you objected to the original source for being primary. "Between lanes" is nonsense unless you use a colloquial definition of "lane" that I can't find in any dictionary.  That's a fact.  Another fact - never disputed by the way, but don't let that stop you from wasting vast swaths of talk page space supporting it - is that the phrase is never-the-less commonly used.  Well, that's how memes works.  Doesn't mean the article can't be improved by avoiding the wording, no matter how popular it is. --В²C ☎ 23:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed compromise
What if we just wrote:

{{Talkquote|Lane splitting is riding a bicycle or motorcycle between lanes or rows of slow moving or stopped traffic moving in the same direction.{{sup|[1][2]}} It is sometimes called lane sharing, whitelining, filtering, or stripe-riding.{{sup|[3][4]}} This allows riders to save time, bypassing traffic congestion, and may also be safer than stopping behind stationary vehicles.{{sup|[2][3][5][6]}}} }}

OK? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's OK. Thank you.  --В²C ☎ 23:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks, everyone. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

slow moving
What is "slow moving"? This source, http://motorbikewriter.com/californian-lane-splitting-safe/, indicates 30km/hr (19mph). That's a very fast running speed, but arguably "slow" for traffic. However, California's " 50 mph, but no more than 15mph faster than the cars" is not what most people would call "slow". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is exactly one of those ambiguities that this article spends so much space exploring. Pretty much everyone agrees that lane splitting at "high" speed is a bad idea, and likely to get you cited even when it is legal, or semi-legal and tolerated. The the CHP guidelines which triggered all the complaints which led to AB51 said 30mph was the maximum. They also said the difference between the traffic and the motorcycles passing the traffic should be no more than 10 mph. Most experts say the the speed differential is of greater importance than the absolute speed. Going 30 mph in stopped traffic is probably much crazier than going 45 mph through 40 mph traffic.Sean MacDonald, in the Cycle World article I cited, argues for no upper limit, that going 60 mph in 45 mph traffic is safe. MacDonald is young, and hasn't been writing for very many years. I'd call that a fringe view, since a greater number of experts who have been writing about this for many more years have spoken in terms closer to the 30 mph max, 10 mph difference rule that the CHP had.Anyway, what's really important to tell readers is that there is no definition of "slow". It is always a judgment call. Pat Hahn says nobody should attempt lane splitting with less than 10 years driving/riding experience, and less than 5 years on a motorcycle in the traffic conditions where you would lane split. Any legal traffic maneuver can get you cited, if under the given conditions, the police thought you did it in an unsafe way. Hence the emphasis on no easy, simple rules, and the rider having to figure it out for himself.It's a really weird thing. And it's not just California that has all this uncertainty. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You know, anybody wanting to write a country-by-county how-to advice article for motorcycle travelers who want to know what the laws are as they cross borders can help finish Draft:Motorcycling at Wikivoyage. It would be a great place to fill in the lane splitting rules and speed limits for each jurisdiction, along with helmet laws and advice on whatever you like. Bikes, hotels, camping. All that stuff that's "not encyclopedic" is welcome there. Not a dumping ground, but good stuff. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

RFC: looking for outside opinions on dispute about wording
The discussion section above this one and the related edits on the article history are about whether "lane splitting" should be defined in the article as
 * Riding between lanes of traffic, or
 * Riding between rows of vehicles.

Please review the section above, the cited sources, the related edits and weigh in on how you thing this should be resolved. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 23:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Having not read all of the above...
 * " lanes of traffic" reads ok, although it may be read as implying marked lanes to the exclusion of unmarked lanes. Note sure that this is an issue.
 * "rows of vehicles" is very weird. Rows are side by side, columns seems the right word. Cars queue up in the lane. At a busy multi lane four way stop sign (or failed lights) the row of cars at the front move together on their turn. The 2nd row moves forward, and waits for the front row of cars left and right and across move first before they all cross on their turn. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You guys are using too many spreadsheets! Definition of "row" per Google dictionary: "a number of people or things in a more or less straight line." --В²C ☎ 23:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Now, boys and girls, line up in two columns, please". LOL!  --В²C ☎ 23:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, school kids are told to line up in rows, but a row of cars? Sounds like a parking lot, not traffic.  Cars travel in lanes.  Things are stored in rows.  Spreadsheets definitely permeate the world. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't recall being told to line up in rows, just "line up", connected to "form two lines".
 * Google images: "row of cars" returns almost exclusively cars parked side-by-side.  "column of cars" is dominated by steering columns, but there are images of cars in lanes, moving and stopped.  I m not suggesting "column", although column (formation) is well used and understood, but a "row of cars" does not mean a lane of cares.  Possibly Californian legislators are out-of-touch? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, the definition of pole position, and a theater row is abreast. And the numerous questions at Quora and Yahoo answers and whatnot, 'What is the difference between columns and rows?'. People ask that a lot. Rows can go either direction, there are many examples of both. Nobody ever asks which direction a lane goes. I said all this up there ins the stuff nobody wants to read. This is resolved now; we have a compromise. Just saying. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * We have agreed on a compromise. Any reason to continue this RfC? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Because there is still some question, apparently, as to the usage of "row" in this context. Why are you so eager to discontinue the ongoing discussion? Uncollapsing... Anyway, an uninvolved editor should close, unless we're unanimous.  I think we'll get there, just not quite yet.  --В²C ☎ 16:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Here's an example:
 * "Row of cars parked in line." --В²C ☎ 16:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Shutterstock? That's telling us how to write articles? If you're going to argue by example, at least pick an example that carries weight. Like John Forester (cyclist). But anyway, nobody disputes that row can sometimes mean in the direction of travel. The problem is that it can also mean the other way, as in pole position, or in theater seats. When people see the word row, they might think of one of these analogies, or they might think of matrix algebra or spreadsheets, where half the time nobody can remember which way they go. Any time the word row is used, you have to add another cue to clarify which way it's going to go. A column of vehicles/tanks/cars/people goes in the direction of travel. Rows go at right angles to columns. Or do they? Depends.That's ambiguity.This problem doesn't exist with lane. We have no examples of lanes going at right angles to the direction of travel. Experts like Forrester, Hough, Hahn, and many more (listed at great length above), use "between lanes" because it's the best word choice. In the five examples you gave above, three of them, all subject experts and native English writers, lead with "between lanes". The two that don't are writing in English as a second language, and only one of them is a rider.But even so, we've found a perfectly good compromise. The lead uses both words. What possible reason is there to go on with this? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a comment about the word "row". This usage of row would tend to indicate units side-by-side. This usage comes from farming (row to hoe), with the word its from meaning to scratch in the dirt.

So I hesitate to think that "row of cars" is the phrasing you're looking for. And if, as one person notes, "lane" may cause a person to think of "official" demarked lanes, how about just using "line"? - jc37 23:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This has already been resolved. It isn't a problem any more. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lane splitting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090411011850/http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html to http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090411011850/http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html to http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120302121659/http://www.americanmotorcyclist.com/asp/legisltn/laws.asp to http://www.americanmotorcyclist.com/asp/legisltn/laws.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lane splitting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090803183048/http://www.soundrider.com/archive/newsworthy/2005_legal_issues.htm to http://www.soundrider.com/archive/newsworthy/2005_legal_issues.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130120021143/http://www.chp.ca.gov/programs/lanesplitguide.html to http://www.chp.ca.gov/programs/lanesplitguide.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090422155206/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/regional/policy/motorcycles/motorcyclesandcongestionthee3728 to http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/regional/policy/motorcycles/motorcyclesandcongestionthee3728

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Australia's definition of lane filtering vs lane splitting
Australia specifically defines Lane Filtering, which is legal differently to Lane Splitting which is not legal. Are you happy with the addition of that definition on the introduction to understand the difference for an Australian audience? Hopefully, this can help in other countries compromise by separate definition on what is legal and what is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norrgard (talk • contribs) 05:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * First, where is your source? The article gives several good sources which agree that the law in Australia is not entirely clear to everyone. Wikipedia generally avoids primary sources unless it’s for undisputed facts that are unlikely to be open to interpretation. We know that Australia’s laws are seen as ambiguous, so we would definitely need a well-cited secondary source here. Also, why is this in the intro? You could probably mention this somewhere down in the body, but why does it need to be at the very top? This is a general survey of lane splitting, looking for broad concepts and patterns. The big picture, with some specific examples meant only for illustration. It’s not a country-by-country guide on what you can and can’t do. WikiVoyage has an article on that, for those looking for advice and guidance. Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)