Misplaced Pages

Talk:Lane splitting: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:58, 22 October 2016 editDennis Bratland (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users61,245 editsm →"between lanes"???: ce← Previous edit Revision as of 17:36, 23 October 2016 edit undoBorn2cycle (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,496 edits →"between lanes"???: We need another set of eyes here, not more feeding of anyone's illness.Next edit →
Line 134: Line 134:


* 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. ] vs ] vs ] vs ] vs ] . 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. ] is "the position on the front row of the starting grid nearest to the inside of the first bend". In ], 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.<P>], 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. --] (]) 17:54, 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. ] vs ] vs ] vs ] vs ] . 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. ] is "the position on the front row of the starting grid nearest to the inside of the first bend". In ], 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.<P>], 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. --] (]) 17:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
:: The reason I started the rfc below is because it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you about this.
::*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 that revealed you obviously did not even read the discussion on the talk page, 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 conjured an objection based on claiming 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.
::So, I'm done with your ], ], trolling over such a minor wording change. We need another set of eyes here, not more feeding of anyone's illness. --] ] 17:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


== RFC: looking for outside opinions on dispute about wording == == RFC: looking for outside opinions on dispute about wording ==

Revision as of 17:36, 23 October 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lane splitting article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
WikiProject iconMotorcycling C‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorcycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorcycling on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MotorcyclingWikipedia:WikiProject MotorcyclingTemplate:WikiProject MotorcyclingMotorcycling
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:



 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Template:On OOMandM

WikiProject iconCivil engineering Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCivil engineering
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

California Dominates this article and is repeated so much

California Dominates this article and is repeated so much. I think almost every section talks about California. I think it can be hedged and sentences can be condensed some.--Inayity (talk) 10:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Blame the sources. And blame reality. California dominates any English-language discussion of lane splitting. The world is divided into places that have never heard of lane splitting and never talk about it, places that take it for granted and never talk about it, and places that have it but obsess over it (California and Australia). We could write a different article that ignored the copious California sources and magnified the importance of the few other sources we have, but that would be original research and POV pushing to distort what we have to create a false impression of balance. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I was also referring to the repetition of information. It says it one place and then it goes and says it again. Read the entire article and see. And That second motorcyclist is out of frame.--Inayity (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The first mention of California mentions lack of comparison between California and the other US states with regard to safety research.
  • The second mention is about indirect research in the FARS database, again comparing California with other states because, obviously, California is the one state with the difference under discussion.
  • The third mention is about the Hurt Report, which, for whatever reasons, happened to have been conducted entirely within California.
  • The fourth mention is about responsibility and liability, saying that there is no carte blance to lanesplit in California. It must be done "safely".
  • Fifth is a more in-depth discussion of what safety means. In the US context, all of the safety guidance comes from California. The UK Roadcraft manual is mentioned. More sources from other countries would be welcome, but I don't have those sources. Anyone who has sources here would certainly be able to improve the article. That's not an argument to arbitrarily delete mention of California.
  • Sixth we have an in-depth discussion of legality in the US and Australia.
Sorry, but I don't see the redundancy. I need some help if anyone can point out specifically what is redundant. Note that MOS:LEDE says that every fact in the intro should be repeated in the body text.

If tThe second motorcyclist is not outside the frame. The frame is the border of the image; if he were outside the frame, we couldn't see him at all. It's true he is not in the center of the image, but so what? The fact that he is harder to spot than the other one is relevant to the subject of lane splitting safety. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be equally a case of poor writing and bad prose. Esp that section on Is it Legal. Hence the information is not just an expansion but a direct repeat. Anyway It is up to you, I am passing by and making a critical observation on how it could be improved. Some welcome that others do not. --Inayity (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
What is bad or poor? Can you clarify? Have you changed your mind about it being repetitive? I'll delete the repetitive sections but I can't identify them. I'll rewrite the bad prose but I don't know what is bad about it. Previously I've heard others criticize this article because they detect a kind of irrationality around the subject of lane splitting, but the legal status of lane splitting in the US and some countries is in fact not very rational. Sometimes reality is bizarre.

Anyway, your opinions are welcome but please understand that unclear criticism isn't likely to result in any action. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Unclear to you, let us be clear about this. More editors with some understanding of[REDACTED] is better than one determining the fate of this article.--Inayity (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Please direct me to where On Wiki it says I cannot add other countries.

You know it starts to become a problem when editors appear to WP:OWN articles. Misplaced Pages is liberal enough that I do not have to abide by what you and one other person decide for an article. It does not a. Bring Worldview into it B. Totally ruins the purpose of this article Which is titled lane splitting. That means where ever in the world lane splitting is mentioned and discussed it applies. I see a pattern with your editing and I think it is a problem. Again these articles are developed not by one person or two, its not a bike club with one rule set back in the 80's that anyone has to follow. Unless that logic sits with Misplaced Pages policy please do not police these articles. By all WP:DEV standards I could start creating a region by region box of the legality of lane splitting per RS. That is my right as an editor. I hope you are aware of your limits over this page?--Inayity (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

First, this is not my talk page. When you send personal messages on article talk pages without even mentioning who the "you" is that you're addressing, it creates all sorts of confusion. How are other editors supposed to know who you're addressing? If you want to make specific complaints about me Talk:Lane splitting is not the appropraite venue. Go to my talk page or an appropriate notice board if you want to talk about me personally.

Second, the table showing the legality of lane splitting in every jurisdiction has been discussed many, many times. Scroll up and read. It even went to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. The problem is that the sources you allude to don't exist. You can start to cite a few countries, then you run out of gas and we're left with a list that will never be reliable because nobody seems to be able to find good sources for every single country. As you'll see from the previous discussions, Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not is the policy page that says why we don't want the legal status of lane splitting for every country. Encyclopedias are not drivers manuals. Encyclopedias are not legal guides. They aren't traveler's guides.

There is a good draft article at WikiVoyage for just such a travel guide. WikiVoyage is specifically designed to give someone thinking about riding a motorcycle in different countries exactly the kind of reference information they need. It's not an encyclopedia, it's a travel guide. Finish fleshing that article out and move it to the main namespace and all is well. Most of the hard part is already done. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Kind of a mess

Issues, briefly: 0) Lede appears to contain OR on bicycle lane splitting. 1) Section headers: Safety is listed again under safety section. 2) Research: the UC Berkeley study needs to be summarized. 3) "Hough has not gone on record...": is impossible to cite a negative. — Brianhe (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what to do about the bicycle stuff. It was a compromise with Born2cycle (talk · contribs) who wants to argue that bicycles are identical to motor vehicles, and therefore should be treated in the same breath as motorcycle lane splitting, based on the vehicular cycling movement whose popularity peaked a decade or two ago. I'd still rather discuss bicycles elsewhere, given that none of our sources treat them as the same subject.

The Hurt Report supports lane splitting should no longer be treated as credible; we should probably delete it. Nobody can point out where in the Hurt Report it says this. I guess it's notable that some people believe the Hurt Report says it, but that's more of a popular misconception than a lane splitting fact. I agree we should remove the part about Hough not going on record about new laws.

I would expect that since we now do have a new report on lane splitting, that will be followed by pro and con opinion arguments published by recognized authorities. That means we can directly attribute whatever arguments they make, which is a much easier article for us to write. Currently we are awkwardly trying to state the pro and con facts without appearing to argue either side. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Difference US <--> developing world_developing_world-2015-07-15T12:39:00.000Z">

Currently, the article talks about the situation in the US and the situation in the "developing world". This is a pretty harsh take on "everything but the US is inferior and is thus the developing world". There REALLY should be made a clear distinction here. Theres places like Japan which sure isn't "the developing world" but has many 2-wheeled vehicles. Same goes for Europe, UAE and many more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.217.40.222 (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)_developing_world"> _developing_world">

What is harsh? Can you point out where it says "everything but the US is inferior"? You're asking for a clear distinction between what and what else? What would you like to say about Japan and Europe and the UAE? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lane splitting. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 09:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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?

  1. "If you’re wondering what lane-splitting is, it’s riding a motorbike between rows of vehicles travelling in lanes in the same direction."
  2. "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. ”"
  3. "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."
  4. "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."
  5. "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:
  1. 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.
  2. Instead of addressing the misuse of primary sources, these supposed citations beg the question.
  3. You have not cited any sources to support your claim that the language is confusing.
  4. 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.
  5. 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)
  1. 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).
  2. 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.
  3. 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 CáliKewlKid agrees. You're on your own. I'm not claiming consensus, but my position is certainly closer to consensus than yours.
  4. More semantic confusion. Again, I say avoid it.
  5. 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)

  • 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

The reason I started the rfc below is because it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you about this.
  • 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 that revealed you obviously did not even read the discussion on the talk page, 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 conjured an objection based on claiming 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.
So, I'm done with your goal-post-moving, straw man-creating, trolling over such a minor wording change. We need another set of eyes here, not more feeding of anyone's illness. --В²C ☎ 17:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

RFC: looking for outside opinions on dispute about wording

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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)

Categories:
Talk:Lane splitting: Difference between revisions Add topic