DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Lane splitting

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

[edit]

The article says: In most of the European Union lane splitting is legal, and in a number of countries, such as France, Italy, Spain or Netherlands, it's even expected. I don't know about the other countries but in the Netherlands it is illegal. It is just not enforced by most policeofficers (a few actually do!). If you get an accident you are always guilty and insurance might not cover it. I highly suggest editing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.158.114.46 (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to say i'm pretty sure its the same in Germany, and the citation linking to the German ADAC website even says as much. i suggest editing this to reflect what it actually says in the link. 2A02:3038:6E0:8044:B057:6D04:803:A716 (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok i just add one extra detail to my comment above... its forbidden in germany but only transitively, not directly. The lanesplitting itself is not illegal, but its illegal to overtake any vehicle without giving the other vehicle enough room, e.g. having a 1m gap between you and the vehicle, and in the case of lane-splitting the gap is almost by definition not big enough for that, therefore a finable offence 2A02:3038:6E0:8044:B057:6D04:803:A716 (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

US Lane Splitting Map caption - could clarify "pending" status for Utah (blue). What are the differences between Black/Red and Orange/Yellow? SquashEngineer (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to note that lane splitting is legal in Minnesota now 156.98.26.129 (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory and inaccurate info regarding California law

[edit]

In the second paragraph of the section titled "Legal Status", the following is stated: "In the United States, bills to legalize lane splitting have been introduced in state legislatures around the US over the last twenty years but none had been enacted until California's legislature passed such a bill in August, 2016.[48][49][50][51][52][53][54] Effective January 1, 2017, section 21658.1 was added to the California Vehicle Code and defines lane splitting, which is now explicitly legal in California."

In the fifth paragraph of the same section the following is stated: "The new law established a definition of lane splitting, while making no mention of whether, or under what circumstances, it is allowed, or not allowed."

Besides being sloppy (having California law being discussed in spaced apart paragraphs), it is contradictory. The fifth paragraph is much more accurate. A quick reading of the bill shows that it most certainly did not make lane splitting "explicitly legal." Xray88 (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Articles are sometimes made out of date by new developments. Someone updated part of the article without updating the rest. Changing the tense of the earlier version to match the changes in the law should be an easy correction to make. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I mentioned was regarding out of date information; it was regarding information that was always inaccurate. The solution is not to change tenses; it is to remove the incorrect information entirely. 96.242.30.7 (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section cited above for the reasons mentioned. Xray88 (talk) 11:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggeat removing references to the Hurt report

[edit]

Nowhere in the actual Hurt report findings does it describe the effect of lane splitting. Later interviews with Hurt suggests there is no evidence for lane splitting. The original evidence that suggested the Hurt report supported lane splitting is from an interview with Harry Hurt that misattribute his opinion and the actual report's findings.

Plus the whole research section is a mess because of it. We are claiming the Hurt report supports lanensplitting but it is followed by evidence that it doesn't... it not even debatable. 2600:4040:2DF2:6800:C6D:C2A3:A5D5:CBB4 (talk) 11:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it just complicates and confuses the discussion.
Statfix55 (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted a lot of content about the MAIDS Report, in addition to the Hurt Report. There was no discussion of that, and your edit summary is misleading.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

[edit]

As a follow up from a recent AFD at Lane sharing (closed as keep)… it was noted that many of the sources that discuss that topic conflate it with this one (ie they use the terms interchangeably). Which raises the question: are the two topics distinct enough for separate articles or should the two articles be merged? I have started a discussion at Talk:Lane sharing, please respond there. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete John Forester/Effective Cycling

[edit]

John Forester is finally being recognized as the pseudo-scientific crank that he always was. He has no credentials in traffic engineering or safety sciences or anything. He has an English degree and he sold a lot of books. He has never succeeded in publishing any peer reviewed work. He has railed against the conspiracy of the intellectual establishment for failing to recognize his genius, which I think says it all.

Can we just get rid of the citations and not mention his advice to bicycle riders? His vehicular cycling theories are just the opinions of a guy who succeeded in getting a lot of attention, but they have no objective credibility. His entire thesis is utterly destroyed by what we have seen for the last 50 years in the Netherlands, among many other places. It's time for the dustbin of history for Forester. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]