From: robin_listas@es.invalid   
      
   On 2025-12-05 12:28, Don Y wrote:   
   > On 12/5/2025 3:45 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:   
   >>> "Splitting" because the driver is splitting a pair of lanes (by riding   
   >>> "on the dividing line")   
   >>   
   >> Ok, this one makes sense.   
   >>   
   >> I think I may have spoken once of "virtual lanes".   
   >>   
   >>> "Filtering"?  Maybe the driver's motion through the *stationary*   
   >>> vehicles   
   >>> is seen as passing through a filter (composed of stationary vehicles)?   
   >>   
   >> Mmm :-?   
   >   
   > Imagine the stationary cars as charcoal granules in a filter and the   
   > motorcyclist as a fluid navigating between them.  Sorry, I   
   > can only imagine where the term comes from... that's the best   
   > analogy I could fabricate.   
      
   Yes, I understood you :-)   
      
   >   
   >>>> AFAIK, both are prohibited here. Maybe Lane filtering is permitted   
   >>>> (it certainly happens), but there is still a risk of a car opening a   
   >>>> door. There is another variant that was permitted recently, which is   
   >>>> a bike slowly driving on the shoulder during a traffic jam, but   
   >>>> still yielding to emergency vehicles using the shoulder.   
   >>>   
   >>> Here, a more significant hazard comes from multiple turn lanes.   
   >>> E.g., if there are two lanes that *can* turn right at an   
   >>> intersection, a motorcyclist splitting (filtering) between   
   >>> them is at risk at the leftmost of those two lanes MAY turn right   
   >>> INTO his travel.   
   >>>   
   >>> Likewise for left-turns.   
   >>>   
   >>> [And, of course, the morons who make turns from improper lanes]   
   >>>   
   >>> We also have stop that isn't a real stop -- when the (car) drivers   
   >>> have discretion as to whether or not to proceed (based on "observed   
   >>> conditions").  This is intended to expedite turns through intersections   
   >>> where oncoming traffic may have significant gaps that a driver could   
   >>> exploit.   
   >>   
   >> Here that has different signage, "yield" instead of "stop".   
   >>   
   >>    
   >   
   > Yes, we have "static" yield signs.   
   >   
   > But, we also have traffic signals that dynamically can indicate such   
   > a condition.   
   >   
   > For example, one can be in a lane that is eligible for a certain type   
   > (left/right) of turn and be forced to stop by a red arrow (the arrow   
   > indicating the turn direction that is currently prohibited).  The other   
   > traffic alongside you may or may not be prevented from progressing   
   > based on the signals associated with their lanes.  Often, they are   
   > allowed to progress while you are inhibited.   
   >   
   > This can eventually turn into a green arrow which typically means   
   > you can go AND have the right of way.  E.g., a green LEFT arrow   
   > means that the oncoming traffic is being prohibited from moving.   
   > "You have the right-of-way"   
   >   
   > The arrow will eventually turn yellow as a cautionary notice that   
   > you are about to be blocked from making that turn (by an upcoming   
   > RED arrow).   
   >   
   > But, to facilitated traffic flow, you can be granted a FLASHING   
   > YELLOW arrow which allows you to proceed in that direction   
   > IF CONDITIONS MERIT.  A yield, of sorts.   
      
      
   Right.   
      
   >   
   > So, while you may have been commanded to stop at the red arrow   
   > and a motorcyclist is about to pull up beside you, you can   
   > "suddenly" get a flashing yellow arrow and, seeing that it is clear   
   > AHEAD (no oncoming traffic), opt to turn left across the path of that   
   > motorcyclist.   
   >   
   > Of course, he should be vigilant to avoid putting himself in   
   > this situation.  But, "accidents" are lapses in vigilance.   
      
   I see.   
      
   >   
   >>> A solid "red" (stop) would prohibit the driver from exploiting those   
   >>> gaps.  The "discretionary" stop leaves a motorcyclist at the mercy   
   >>> of a driver that he is about to slip past *suddenly* turning into his   
   >>> path from a (discretionary) stop.   
   >>>   
   >>> I just don't see the merit of allowing either behavior (split/filter)   
   >>> as there doesn't seem to be any evidence that lots of motorcyclists   
   >>> are "hit from behind WHILE STOPPED" at such places.   
   >>>   
   >>> And, it's hard to imagine letting the few motorcyclists weave through   
   >>> such stopped traffic makes an appreciable difference in traffic flow.   
   >>   
   >> For bikes, it makes a difference. For car drivers, it is unnerving.   
   >   
   > Exactly.  I don't see enough motorcyclists that it would appreciably   
   > affect THEIR travel times or the times of those around them.  It just   
   > seems like another detail that can cost them injury or their lives   
   > (motorcycle accidents tend to result in greater injury as the driver   
   > is completely exposed).   
   >   
   > And, it is one more convention of which drivers have to keep aware.   
   > Visitors are easily baffled by the seeming randomness of our traffic   
   > signalling patters (and, how it changes throughout the day!)   
      
   Oh, for me traffic in Canada or USA is very baffling, because the   
   signage is very different, and some rules are different. I've never   
   driven across the pond.   
      
      
   --   
   Cheers, Carlos.   
   ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)