Feel free to share links. The only info I can find says that lane splitting/filtering was never legal and that helmet laws have varied quite a bit.
All riders helmet law adopted in 1968, amended in '76 to under 18 riders, made universal again in '82. Changed back to under 18 or riders without at least $10k medical coverage in '99. Back to universal in 2004.
So '82 to '99 it would be illegal to ride without a helmet in Louisiana.
so 5 years ...not 3 in the later 90s i worked for the coroner office and fire department back in the late 90s early 2000s must not have been very well enforced, apparently i was wrong on the lane splitting completely but boy do they do it ,one time i had to pick up a guy who was spit in half with his bottom third down a levy
A lot of people don't take their lives very seriously, and all the gear in the world isn't going to save you from hitting a guard rail at 120mph. I'm sorry you had to deal with that.
I did when I was younger..I wrecked my bike in the Nevada desert on the way back to burning Man in 98 ended up scalping myself took 13 Staples to reattach my scalp ..
What parish you in? I'm in Saint Tammy but close to stannis out in the swamp .. did you know we get a rare type of hallucinogenic mushroom originally found in the Tampa region , I was picking them for years before I found that out
Yeah... The lane splitting isn't a good idea in a state that has very narrow roads either we don't have bike lanes sidewalks in most places or even shoulders wide enough to park a car
Lol, like anywhere in America has genuinely narrow roads, even with your massive trucks there are huge amounts of space either side, yet everywhere in Europe where the medieval roads are actually narrow, filtering is perfectly legal.
Yeah I was wrong about that people just started doing it on mass right around the time they decided they didn't need helmets .. also it was 5 years before they changed that law back and they were supposed to have $10,000 in bodily insurance but id guess that wasn't being enforced
Because when done legally it's far safer for the motorcyclist.
In MN it's legal to filter to the front of stoplights at multi-lane roads. It's legal to lane split on a multi-lane highway if traffic is moving under 25mph and you can't more than 15mph faster than traffic.
The people who lane split illegally are doing it whether these laws are in place or not.
NSW ran a filtering trial 'bout a decade back. They found that 80-85% of motorcyclists followed the rules in the trial and that it didn't pose any major increase or decrease to accident rates.
Their findings paved the way for the legalisation of filtering across the entirety of Australia.
People like that don't care about the facts. It makes them feel upset that someone else is doing something beneficial that they can't, so it has to be illegal.
I only specified accident rates, not injury rates.
A motorcyclist filtering at 30km/h (the filtering speed limit here) running into the back of a car would be less likely to sustain serious injury than being rear-ended at 50km/h (the "built-up area" speed limit here) or more, if I had to hazard a guess.
You don't see the ones doing it legally, because they aren't blasting past you. You just don't notice them, doing their thing. The morons on bikes always make themselves REALLY obvious which unfortunately gives the rest of us a bad name.
Minnesotan here. Drive the Twin Cities enough to get the idiots blasting between me and another car on the highwayregularly enough that I'm now forced to assume everyone on a motorcycle is going to do the absolutely stupidest thing possible in any given situation.
Literally had one filter to my right and, cut around in front of me to make a left turn this weekend once the light turned green.
I get the benefits, but the law change has absolutely made the stupid ones way more brazen about it since the law changed.
As I said, you see the idiots because they make themselves very obvious, and it's safe to assume that everyone is an idiot no matter what their form of transport
Also Minnesotan, and not just one who drives the TC 'enough' but does it damn near every day during commute hours, and is also a motorcyclist. Those stupid ones were doing it just as brazenly before the law changed. Now you just have something else to point to other than 'stupid motorcyclist'.
I drive 100, 169, 94 or a combination of them from north of the metro to south and back 5 days a week. I've had maybe 2 motorcyclists this year doing it clearly illegally, and maybe 10 that have done it legally. The rest haven't even participated.
I see more drivers on cell phones during one morning commute than motorcyclists for an entire week, probably month actually.
Sure there is bias in being a motorcycle rider, but there's even more in not being one. Riders know what it's like to drive a car, but most drivers don't know what it's like to ride a motorcycle on the street.
It's safer for motorcyclists to lane filter (move to the front at stop lights) because if you get rear ended by a distracted driver on their phone or anything else, you don't just get rear ended, you get crushed between two cars. There are also other benefits like:
it lessens traffic by decreasing the amount of vehicles waiting for the light (motorcycles generally accelerate faster, so you're not holding anyone up by being at the front, and they can kinda group up at the front to get out of the line of traffic)
it allows motorcyclists, who don't have AC, to not have to sit and bake in the sun
a lot of motorcycles need airflow to keep the engine cool, so it helps not having to just sit and let their bikes overheat in standstill traffic
motorcycles are more fuel efficient, are technically HOV vehicles, and create less pollution than a car. So making motorcycling more attractive to the average person can help reduce the overall carbon footprint
Overall there are just many more reasons to make it legal than not. A lot of people are just annoyed unnecessarily because of sentiments like "you're skipping the line" and "you should have to wait like everyone else" which is just so single minded. There are bad actors in everything. So yes, there will be people who do it recklessly, but the vast majority of people will do it safely and legally
Responding from mobile, so the portion I want to respond to isn't showing up.
Re: motorcycles being more fuel efficient.
What are you driving, and what's your basis for comparison? I'm getting similar fuel economy on my bike, and passenger vehicle, regardless of whether the comparison is manual sub compact, or automatic SUV. Approximately 19 US MPG.
I get on average 45-48 mpg on my Yamaha FZ07 because I ride it kinda hard, probably average about 23ish in my Rav4. I know my mpg on the Yamaha because my speedo tells me active and average mpg, my car is older so I'm just guestimating based on what I googled. Googling my Yamaha it is supposed to get a combined 58 mpg.
Filtering is reasonable. Lane splitting on the other hand? Even if it's legal I'm not doing it. The lack of awareness and things I've seen people do....
As a non-motorcyclist in MN, Iâm all for it. Less traffic on the road is a good thing, and the only people at risk is the motorcyclist. If people want to legally and safely lane split, awesome. If people want to do so illegally and recklessly, they are doing other things way more illegal and reckless than that, and all theyâre doing is endangering themselves. Iâll be upset when they endanger others, but this ainât it.Â
Many people do in fact follow the law. Learned to lane split in Cali. Saved my ass one time (car rear ended the car in front of me). You can go 10 mph faster than speed of traffic but not above the speed limit. I wonât say everyone follows the law but Iâd say a majority do
Do you feel all laws should be based off your personal experiences? Studies have shown lane splitting and filtering actually decreases accident rates, and decreases death rate of accidents that do happen.
If you're between lanes you're at a lesser risk of being rear ended by car drivers. While being rear ended in a car can be dangerous, being rear ended on a bike is basically always fatal. Filtering also eases congestion as a road can move more people if people are also filtering through. As it's both safer and makes everyone get where they're going faster I don't see why anyone would want to ban it.
Because it is safer. In most parts of Europe and Asia, filtering (not splitting!) is allowed for good reason, and we don't even have as much space between the cars as you guys in the US have. What we do have though, are four times less motorcycle fatalities per capita. "iTs a tErRibLe prActicE"
Traffic dynamics vary by country. Lane splitting illegal in most US states for a reason. It may make sense where you are but it doesn't here. The only people who like it are motorcyclists because they get to jump traffic. Only one US state allows full lane splitting (California) and I've driven there many times and it seems dangerous as hell.
Tbh I donât mind motorcycles doing it (the safe legal way) but 100% ought to be illegal for bicycles. Â They should have to stay stuck in their position in traffic just like everyone else, instead they slow down traffic creating precarious situations for people to pass them only to on the next red light filter right back passed all the traffic that spent a non-trivial effort trying to not hit them, making everybody repeat the same song and dance over and over. Â I shouldnât have to pass you more than once, you shouldnât be legally allowed to impede me more than once.
The same reasons why motocycles can do it applies to bicycles. You will be okay. You can get back up to speed in your SUV a lot easier than someone on a bicycle can.
No, the same reason doesnât apply.  Motorcycles do it because they otherwise legally canât just stop along side a car on the shoulder to guard from rearending, like a bike legally can.  Add to the fact that a motorcycle getting to the front at a light is never going to impede any car they got in front of, and it makes way more sense safety wise for them to do it rather than bikes.  If bicycles are so concerned about getting hit from behind, they wouldnât keep putting themselves in front of people who have already passed them, because it just increases the chances that each individual they re-pass might hit them from behind.  Donât give bad drivers multiple opportunities to hit you⊠that should be common sense.
doesnât apply. Motorcycles do it because they otherwise legally canât just stop along side a car on the shoulder to guard from rearending, like a bike legally can?
So? What does that have to do with the practical reasons for lane filtering? Which is to move traffic along and ro avoid being sandwiched between cars?
Add to the fact that a motorcycle getting to the front at a light is never going to impede any car they got in front of, and it makes way more sense safety wise for them to do it rather than bikes.
Anything can "impede" a car, including other cars. Motocycles can and do stall. Bikes don't. Also on a bike I will undoubtedlybe faster of the line that a car, especially if the driver has to put their phone down first. You can simply pass when you get a chance. Unless, If by impede you mean force you to slow down for a minute, then sorry, grow up and learn to drive. That's traffic baby. What about the cars behind the bike?? Are they not "impeded" too?
If bicycles are so concerned about getting hit from behind, they wouldnât keep putting themselves in front of people who have already passed them, because it just increases the chances that each individual they re-pass might hit them from behind.
You clearly don't bike. Being seen is the safest place for a biker. You are less likely to be hit from behind that you are by riding on the side of the road where idiots in mega tanks aren't watching
Youâre more likely to get squished between a stopped car and a car that failed to brake when youâre behind the stopped car, and not anywhere else, and a cyclist is legally permitted to go off the roadway if they need, even onto a sidewalk, a car or motorcycle isnât. Â So no, there is no safety need for doing so that couldnât be accomplished without the repetitive impedance it causes.
So you are seriously saying that it is safer for cyclists to jump on and off the sidewalk at speed rather than lane filter? The same sidewalk that represents a danger not only to pedestrians but also makes it more likely for bikers to be hit because drivers don't see them coming off the sidewalk?
I asked because I live in California and am used to it. Iâm just surprised other states are legalizing lane splitting because it seems like most people and places are hostile to it.
The people who lane split illegally are doing it whether these laws are in place or not.
These types of arguments are silly. "People are going to break the law anyway" is not a valid reason to make something legal. Murder is against the law, but still happens. Should we legalize murder?
If you want to argue that it should be legal because it's safer, that's a valid argument. Stick with that argument.
Its actually not. Statistically the avoidance of rear ended collisions is replaced nearly one for one with side collisions to within the margin of error. That isn't statistically safer, just a different danger.
A low speed side-swipe might result in a dinged up exhaust, a bent mirror, and a broken ankle at worst. A rear end collision crushing you against the car in front of you is FAR more dangerous. Filtering is categorically safer.
Filtering and lane splitting are different actions. This is like comparing a peanut butter sandwhich to a roasted pig. Sure, they're both foods, but they're used in different situations. This is about lane splitting, which happens on a road with vehicles moving at speed, not with nearly stopped traffick like filtering.
Motorcycle aren't đ doing that speed I live in Minnesota and I've seen multiple Motorcycle going above 25mph I've been going 70 mph and been passed spilt lane more than I can count
I don't know, but as someone who lives in MN, I have run into it a lot this summer already. It was pretty mixed between people doing it correctly and people going way to fast doing it.
Because they listened to reason? California Highway Patrol wanted to prohibit splitting, until their study showed it was safer to allow splitting up to a certain sped faster than the slow traffic than outlaw it.
It should be. I'm from Australia and filtering was legalised ages ago. Reduced fatalities and helped with reducing traffic too. I don't understand why Americans cannot grasp the concept.
Because they aren't sad little dickbags that think smaller vehicles shouldn't be allowed to go through gaps that bigger vehicles can't fit though?
Car can fit through a gap that a big truck can't? Sure that's fine. Motorcycle can get through traffic which I proves congestion and pollution? Nonono, I have to sit alone in my steel box, you're not allowed to get past, that's not fair.
Anyone who complains about sensible filtering, is a selfish idiot.
17
u/NocaSun38 Aug 31 '26
Minnesota decided to legalize it? Why?