Talk:Filtering forward

	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Cycling This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyclingWikipedia:WikiProject CyclingTemplate:WikiProject Cyclingcycling articles

This page mentions taking a position to the front and right of a lead vehicle. Does this apply to countries where cars drive on the right or the left? 198.28.92.5 (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lane splitting, filtering forward and whitelining are just different terminology for the same thing. There shouldn't be one article for Lane splitting and a different one for Filtering forward. Rather, there should be one article for bicycle lane splitting (or filtering or whatever you want to call it) and a different one for motorcycle lane splitting or whatever. Especially since the laws and the methods are completely different.

I think Lane splitting, Whitelining and Filtering forward should all redirect to a disambiguation page that has two choices: Lane splitting (motorcycle) and Lane splitting (bicycle).

I'm working on improving the motorcycle article now and hopefully a bicycle expert can take up the other end of it.--Dbratland (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree on both points.

First, lane splitting, filtering forward and whitelining are not just different terminology for the same thing. The articles explain the differences (or at least they did last time I checked). There is some overlap, but they are not the same thing. It's not hairsplitting. It's clarifying.

Second, in each case, the behavior is the same whether you're on a bicycle or motorcycle, so I don't see why there should be separate articles for the same thing -- say lane splitting on a motorcycle vs. lane splitting on a bicycle -- depending on whether the power source of the cycle in question happens to be human or man-made. A point can be made that sometimes the legalities differ, but that can be covered in each article about each behavior as appropriate. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, whitelining is not a separate article, but redirects to lane splitting, and is explained there. That's fine, because whitelining is a type of lane splitting, a proper subset if you will, I don't like the idea of combining Filtering forward and Lane splitting into one article because each concept is a superset and subset of the other, depending on what aspect you're looking at.

That is, filtering forward implies going faster than other traffic, while lane splitting does not (you can lane split while going slower than other traffic). So in that sense lane splitting is more general. But lane splitting implies operating between lines of traffic, while filtering forward does not necessarily (you can filter forward on the outside, but you can't lane split on the outside). So in that sense filtering forward is more general. I think that makes the two concepts sufficiently distinct to warrant separate articles, though each should refer to the other as appropriate. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reasons for saying that the terms are more or less interchangeable are based on the sources I've found while researching the topic, listed at Talk:Lane splitting: Citations for possible use to help balance article. These sources treat the terms as being equal, but I would be more than happy to have citations for reliable sources who say the distinction is important. In the Lane splitting article, a Wikipedia editor wrote that there is a difference, but failed to cite a source.

What's more, no motorcycle source defines "lane splitting" as when you are moving slower than the rest of traffic. For motorcycles, it's all about how much faster you are going to go than the traffic. The idea of a motorcycle moving off to the side and allowing faster cars to pass in the same lane is utterly alien. I believe the more you dig into this, the more examples you will find where motorcycle sources view the terminology one way and bicyclists a different way.

Where motorcycle lane splitting is legal, it is only advisable when the motorcycle is going less than 20 to 30 mph faster than the cars (how much faster is up for debate), and the cars are going less than 20 mph. For bicycles, this is beside the point; they don't have to worry about the possibility going 80 mph between lanes of cars that are moving at 40 mph.

The legalities are the central question for motorcycling. For bicycles it's pretty cut and dried, but for motorcycles, it's a huge controversy. It is only legal for motorcycles in one US state, California, and motorcyclists are deeply split over whether it should be legalized elsewhere. Legislative fights are happening year after year over it; this year it is in the Texas legislature. There is argument over whether it is or isn't legal in a given jurisdiction, such as the big blow up in Australia (see the other Talk page mentioned above). That's why there is a list of places where it is legal. For a bicyclist, all of this stuff is beside the point, because it is more or less legal everywhere for bicycles to lane split as needed, and there are no large battles in the state houses over whether to allow it.

Motorcyclists in places where it is legal also argue over whether or not it is a good idea even if you're allowed to do it. For bicyclists in most places, if you don't share lanes you aren't going anywhere, so there is no argument. Until they fill the world with bike trails, you have to share lanes. Motorcyclists only share lanes if the fee like it.

It is totally unacceptable for a motorcyclist to share lanes and overtake a motorcyclist they don't know; they're expected to move into a different lane if they want to pass. For bicylists, sharing a lane with strangers is perfectly normal.

Bicyclists have a whole set of other lane sharing issues, such as getting doored by parked cars, or whether green lanes are a good idea, sharrows, and so on. Motorcyclists don't have any more of a stake in those issues than car drivers.

I have my hands full right now anyway and don't have any plans to do more than work on balancing the POV of the Lane splitting article, so there is plenty of time for input from others.--Dbratland (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dbratland- while it is very uncommon in the US to allow lanesplitting on motorcycles, it's the inverse in the rest of the world. I disagree with you about "motorcyclists don't have any more of a stake in those issues", however, mostly due to visibility. This whole article is a sticky wicket, partly because of the lack of solid sources for much of it. tedder (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tedder - Yes, the lack of solid references is a problem. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dbratland - There is no arguing the point that there is overlap in the terms and in many contexts they are interchangeable, so of course you can find examples of that.

The idea of a motorcycle moving aside to allow faster traffic to pass within the same lane is not an entirely alien concept, if you consider low-powered motorcycles like scooters, especially going up hill.

It is also not unacceptable, and certainly not illegal, for a motorcyclist to pass another motorcyclist in the same lane, if it can be done safely. Heck, car drivers even do that in the rare situations where it's possible. For example, in congested urban traffic where right turners are jammed up against the curb leaving room for through traffic to pass in the remainder of an unusually wide lane.

While bicyclists don't have to worry about going 80 mph between lines of 40 mph traffic, they do have to worry about going 40 mph downhill between lines of stopped traffic. The speed differentials, and safety concerns, are very similar.

If you really believe bicyclists must share lanes in order to get anywhere using roads, you're mistaken, and I suggest you visit the CyclistLorax channel on youtube, and have a gander at Vehicular cycling. The only bicyclists who need to be concerned about opening doors are the ones who choose to ride in door zones. So do motorcyclists who choose to ride there. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a point in showing reliable sources that define lane splitting in a specific way. For example, the NHSTA/MSF's National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety makes very clear that lane splitting (for motorcycles) is done when traffic is slow or stopped and the motorcycle is going faster, not when traffic is going faster than the motorcycle. ^[1] If bicyclists define the term to mean the opposite, that is all the more reason to treat them as two different subjects.

In reply to the contention that it is not unacceptable or illegal for a motorcyclist to pass another in the same lane, we have this verbiage which is comes from the NHSTA and is repeated in many drivers manuals around the country: "Cars and motorcycles need a full lane to operate safely. Lane sharing is usually prohibited. Riding between rows of stopped or moving cars in the same lane can leave you vulnerable to the unexpected. A hand could come out of a window; a door could open; a car could turn suddenly."

Even in California where lane splitting is legal, the Motorcycle Handbook says "Cars and motorcycles each need a full lane to operate safely. Lane sharing is not safe."

Cars may not pass a slow moving motorcycle in the same lane, the way they sometimes can a bicycle. The NHSTA advises drivers "Allow the motorcyclist a full lane width." ^[2] [1] This is in stark contrast to the policy of passing bicycles provided you are able to give them 3 feet of space.

The WA motorcycle manual advises slower moving motorcycles to remain in the center of their lane. There is no suggestion that motorcycles should let passing cars share their lane by moving to the right under any circumstances, as bicycles may do if it is safe.^[3] Same thing in New Mexico and in North Carolina.

A review of bicycle research on dooring accidents shows that dooring accounts for anywhere from 2.6% to 16% of all bicycle accidents, or perhaps 30% of all bicycle injuries. The MAIDS Report in Europe found that all lane splitting accidents, including any hypothetical doorings, only accounted for 0.4% of accidents.^[4] The Hurt Report doesn't mention dooring or lane splitting accidents at all. To me this amounts to significant evidence that bicyclists and motorcyclists deal with drastically different safety issues in this area.

To the point that bicyclists on the street have no choice but to lane split, I would cite, for one example, Urban Bikers' Tips & Tricks, which states "If a street's not wide enough to share safely, and taking the lane scares you, stay off the street -- at least until you feel more comfortable." ^[5] Motorcycle authorities make very clear that the rider should not split lanes unless they feel confident doing so; bicycle authorities say that if you don't feel confident splitting lanes, you have to either stay off the road entirely, or take the lane. Bicyclists do not take the lane when traffic is moving at high speeds.

The Motorcycle Safety Foundation's various publications argue consistently against motorcycles riding two abreast as bicycles normally do when taking the lane. ^{[6] [7]} "Passing and being passed by another vehicle is not much different than with a car. "^[8] Again, we have multiple experts stating that motorcycles, even one motorcycle, always take the lane. Bicycles only take the lane some of the time.

I'm not sure what Vehicular cycling should be telling us here. It is a problematic Wikipedia article because it needs citations and lacks NPOV. Instead, it is advocating for a particular philosophy of bicycling. It isn't how things are; it is how somebody wishes things were. What I'm talking about is making the lane splitting articles conform to Wikipedia standards of neutrality and documentation. I don't understand the contention that this subject lacks reference sources. I have no shortage of them. If you would like me to add more citations to support the idea that bicycle lane splitting and motorcycle lane splitting are different, I can add them.

And once again, if anyone can offer citations that would show that reliable sources think otherwise, I would appreciate it very much the opportunity to see them.--Dbratland (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between bicyclist and motorcyclist usage of these terms is at most a difference in degree, not a difference in kind. While motorcyclists probably primarily use "lane splitting" to refer to passing slower traffic, bicyclists use it for both passing and being passed.

"Bicyclists do not take the lane when traffic is moving at high speeds." Really? Your own source, Glowacz, contradicts this point, implying that only those "too scared" to take the lane don't. Please watch these videos created by instructors certified by the League of American Bicyclists:

• Rights and Duties of Cyclists...

• Lane Splitting in Laguna Beach, CA (note the use of Lane Splitting here by bicyclists to mean passing slow/stopped car traffic)

• Lane Control in Long Beach, CA

• Bicycle Driving on SoCal Arterials (bicyclists taking the lane when traffic is moving at high speeds)

It is not NPOV to only reflect the behavior, attitudes and terminology of cyclists who are "too scared" to use their bicyclists safely and lawfully, and ignore those who are not "too scared".

For reliable sources who "think otherwise" (besides Glowacz), see, for example, John S. Allen. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that motorcyclists and bicyclists use these terms differently takes us back to the original reasons for needing two different Wikipedia articles.

The main point I think your sources are making is that whether to ride in the door zone or to take the lane is a question that occupies the bicycling community. You are showing me various authorities and advocates who want more bicyclists to get out of the door zone. None of the motorcycle authorities I've seen address this question because it has no relevance to motorcycles. This is not a difference of degree. This shows that the two subjects have different problems and different solutions.

The evidence that dooring accidents play such a major role for bicyclists shows that the norm is for bicycles to ride in the door zone. John S. Allen goes to such length to address riding this way because it is a problem; the norm is not to ride bicycles with the normal flow of traffic.

It is not the role of Wikipedia to pretend that the norm is for bicycles to operate the same as motorcycles in order to advance someone's agenda. Rather, a reader interested in the topic of bicycle lane splitting should read an article that coherently addresses that topic, and the various points of view around it, without conflating motorcycle information.

The motorcycle lane splitting topic is preoccupied with two questions: "Is it legal here?" and "Should we legalize it here?" The answers to these two questions make no difference whatsoever if you are a bicyclist. Why would a bicyclist need to be shown this information when they want to learn about lane splitting? What use is it to them?

None of the motorcycles sources we've looked at here mention bicycles. None of these bicycle sources have anything to say about motorcycling. The NHSTA has a completely separate section from motorcycles that addresses bicycle safety. The only place where you see anyone wanting to speak about the two as if they were the same subject is here on Wikipedia. Why is that? Do we know of any source that treats the subject of motorcycle and bicycle lane splitting under the same heading? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbratland (talk • contribs) 23:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bicyclists and motorcyclists do not use the term "lane splitting" differently. It means the same thing - traveling between lines of slower traffic in order to pass. For an example, see again the 2nd video I linked in the list above. Have you watched those videos? Can you find any sources using this term to mean anything else? I don't see any basis for your claim that "motorcyclists and bicyclists use these terms differently".

Yes, in practice, riding in door zones is a much bigger problem for bicyclists in general because many bicyclists habitually ride in door zones. What does that fact have to do with whether motorcyclists and bicyclists use the terms in question differently?

"the two subjects have different problems and different solutions." The problems are different only to the extent that some really bad habits are really common among bicyclists (like riding in door zones). But the solutions are not different. Again, what does any of this have to do with whether motorcyclists and bicyclists use the terms in question differently?

The questions of when and where it is legal for bicyclists to lane split are virtually the same as they are for motorcyclists. In virtually every state a bicycle is either defined as a vehicle, or a bicyclist is specified to have the same rights and responsibilities as a driver of a vehicle (e.g., see CVC 21200 in California). In either case, the legal ramifications are no different for bicyclists than they are for motorcyclists. Wikipedia should not imply that it is by treating the topics separately.

Of course publications intended for a motorcycling audience are going to address lane splitting in the context of motorcycling, and publications whose target audience is bicyclists are going to address their topics in the bicycling context. But Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, seeking to serve the interests of all, including bicyclists as well as motorcyclists. I mean, most sources for counter-steering also only talk about either motorcycling or bicycling, so should we have two Wikipedia articles on that topic too?

This is getting ridiculous. Do you have any specific issues with anything any of these articles say? --Born2cycle (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<---------- (reset indenting)

By the way, this is from the description of the bicyclist lane splitting video:

"Lane splitting is often used by motorcyclists to pass slower motorists, and this technique is just as effective for cyclists. Lane splitting is also legal in CA, and illegal in most other US states, though often used by cyclists in congested major urban cores such as NYC, Chicago and Boston." 1.

Claiming that splitting lanes is significantly different for bicyclists than it is for motorcyclists, enough to warrant having separate articles, is, well, splitting hairs. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The specific issue I think should be addressed first and foremost is that Filtering forward and related bicycle material needs to be brought up to Wikipedia standards. It completely lacks citations, and it bleeds over into how to instructions. Which has already been pointed out by others. The claims that terms like filtering forward are different than lane splitting or whitlining or stripe-riding cry out for supporting references. Find a glossary or dictionary that supports the claim. If no support can be found, it should be removed. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia unless it can be verified.

That is the whole point of the work I'm doing now with the lane splitting article. I'm going to remove everything I can't verify, and I'm certainly not going to insert statements about bicycles unless they come with something to support them.

If one were to go to work cleaning up the bicycle material, I don't see how it can be merged easily with the motorcycle information. It would all have to go in an entirely different section. At which point one would wonder why not just put it in a separate article? I would also hope that sources are used which can be verified easily are used, rather than YouTube videos. If the subject is a TV or movie, there is little choice but to use that as a reference, but otherwise why use such a source that is so difficult to verify? If these videos are literally all there is, perhaps that means we're looking at a fringe theory.

That one video mentions motorcycles in passing doesn't lend much credibility to the claim that they belong together. Particularly when the video seems to imply that the legalities are the same. Lane splitting is illegal for motorcycles in 49 states, but that has nothing to do with bicycles. Bicycle lane splitting is not against the law in any jurisdiction I'm aware of. Apples and oranges.

The California statute you cite does not authorize lane sharing or splitting by cars. The laws I already cited state that cars, trucks and so on may not share lanes. But it is a start, and that's something.

Countersteering is an excellent example of one subject that is the same for both. The fact that you can body steer a bicycle but not a motorcycle actually provides insight into how it works, and motorcyclists benefit from having bicycle countersteering explained, and vice versa. Nobody is suggesting that all bicycle and motorcycle articles should be separate. But when the laws, safety issues, normal practices, and questions which are the subject of ongoing debate are totally different, then they don't belong together. Most primary sources on countersteering do talk about both motorcycles and bicycles together. Contrast that with lane splitting where, at this point, we have only one YouTube video on bicycles that only briefly (and questionably) mentions motorcycles, while every other source treats them separately.--Dbratland (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if lack of citations is the main issue, rather than what the article actually says, that can be easily remedied. To that end, I've added four citations. If there is anything specific that you think still needs citation, please let me know. As far as the "how to" problem goes, there is definitely room for improvement there, and I've left the tag for that. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as far as not citing a California law that authorizes lane splitting for cars, you can't cite one that authorizes it for motorcycles or bicycles either. That's the whole point. The only reason lane splitting is legal in California, for cars (when applicable, which is really rare) as well as for motorcycles and bicycles, is because there is no law that prohibits it. That's a given. In general, laws don't authorize behavior; they prohibit it. Therefore any behavior that is not prohibited by law is authorized by default. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some references to the current Lane splitting article's section Jurisdictions where motorcycle lane splitting is permitted that explains why your assumptions about what the "default" is incorrect. Hough, and others, describe a situation where California is one of many states that don't clearly define one way or the other whether lane splitting is allowed. Most US states, by precedent, interpreted the law to mean that it was not allowed. This contradicts your claim that if it is not prohibited it is authorized by default. What makes California exceptional is not that the law there is vague; it is exceptional because they interpreted the vagueness in the other direction. None of these varying interpretations have any bearing on bicycles. There are separate laws across the country, including California, that specify what the sitation with bicycles is. It is simply incorrect to pretend that the same laws apply.

I would ask you to please refrain from adding your opinions to articles without including a reliable source. Your method for interpreting the intent behind the law has been shown to be faulty. Instead, if you want to make as statement, simply find a source and cite them. That is how Wikpedia is supposed to work.--Dbratland (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as what the law is for bicyclists as compared to motorists, it's very clear. For example, in California, CVC 21200 states, "Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division". "This division" is "division 13", which is the "rules of the road". There are a handful or so of laws that apply specifically to bicyclists, mandating the use of bike lanes for example (except for all the exceptions), but there isn't a separate set of laws for bicyclists. Same rights. Same rules. Same roads. This is not my opinion. This is what the law states.

I can't believe you ask me "to please refrain from adding your opinions to articles without including a reliable source", after you put your baseless opinion about laws and bicyclists in the lane splitting article (and repeated it here, "There are separate laws across the country, including California, that specify what the sitation with bicycles is. It is simply incorrect to pretend that the same laws apply.") What part of "has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions" do you not understand means the same laws do apply? I believe that you genuinely believe some mysterious alternate set of laws apply to bicyclists with respect to what rules they are supposed to follow (which is true for pedestrians), but it's simply not so. There are essentially two sets of rules of the road on the books, those for pedestrians, and those for drivers of vehicles. When traveling on the roads, bicyclists are subject to the rules for drivers of vehicles. This is not an opinion or a philosophy. It's the law.

When you say, "Most US states, by precedent, interpreted the law to mean that it was not allowed", what do you mean by "the law"? Which law are they interpreting? For some behavior to be illegal, the police needs to have a specific statute to specify on the citation that they at least believe was violated by the behavior in question. If lane-splitting is illegal in some state, then what statute is cited as being violated? It is that simple. The reason lane-splitting is legal in CA is because the police have no specific CVC section to site lane-splitting motorcyclists (or bicyclists) with, unless the situation is so extreme that some general section can be cited (like CVC 22350, the Basic Speed Law, which states "No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent ..."). --Born2cycle (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

While I think he's an interesting guy and has useful information on his websites, Michael Bluejay's self-published website http://www.bicyclesafe.com/ does not qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. It's cited a couple of times in this article.   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That site is referenced by others quite often. Does that add to its cache, so to speak?

Results 1 - 10 of about 18,300 for bicyclesafe.com --Born2cycle (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example, this is an example (one of many) of a site that quotes Bluejay:

http://www.bikesarefun.org/safety.html

--Born2cycle (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note this relevant qualification from WP:V:

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

Bluejay's website comes at least very close to meeting that criteria, given how much his own website is cited by others. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ...an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

Is there any evidence that he is regarded as an expert or that he's been published in any 3rd-party publications on the topic? Links to a site do not establish its reliability unless they say, "According to bicycle safety expert Michael Bluejay..." http://www.bikesarefun.org is the website for the Sydney Critical Mass, which is probably a great group but not a reliable source.

However, just because someone isn't established as an expert doesn't mean that they aren't expert. As an expert, Bluejay may be familiar with the sources on the topic. My suggestion is to contact him and ask for his help in finding sources for this topic that would meet WP:RS. He's familiar with the operations here. user:Michaelbluejay IIRC, he had to be convinced that his website wasn't a reliable source but he still made helpful contributions.   Will Beback  talk  23:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I'm not prepared to argue that Bluejay is a bicycling safety expert. However, he knows about it enough to get the basics rights, and that's all he is quoted as saying here. For example, everyone who knows much at all about bicycling safety, much less an expert, understands the hazards of riding near the curb all the way up to an intersection. That's basic/general stuff, that is repeated in every book and website on bicycling safety, without exception AFAIK. It's also why traffic engineers (at least those who know something about bicycling safety) sometimes stop striping bike lanes, or at least change the solid stripe to dashed, when within 100' or so of an intersection. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, there are thousands of self-published sources that get things right but that doesn't make them reliable sources. (Stopped clocks are right sometimes too, but we're never sure when.) If it's in every book then we shouldn't have any trouble finding a citation in a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  01:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. And Bluejay is only used as a secondary source, but I'll find better stuff to replace it. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]