Lane splitting and Filtering should be legalized.

Thank you for a response, most debates end in forfeiture. :)My opponent's first point explains that he had made things clear. However, just because this legislation is being tested (mandatory or otherwise) doesn't make it permissible or plausible in society. He also claims that there would be no issues found with this legislation. But as the evidence I brought up earlier shows, there is problems with the system. (And yes, evidence matters. I will explain later.) These issues include, but are not limited to: public disapproval, nervousness of drivers, and heightened risk of accidents. Any of these three should be concerns when implementing or legalizing something such as lane splitting/filtering.My opponent's next argument regards lane splitting itself, and how it works. He correctly mentions we have both defined it, and obviously know what it entails. However, simply labeling lane splitting as a safer alternative gives no credibility. The reason being is this: my opponent has not once explained HOW lane splitting is safer than motorcylcists just sitting in the back. Yes, he has made blatant claims that it is, multiple times. Everything true must be proven. Thus, without proving with a logical argument or evidence (which gives needed credibility) lane splitting cannot be truly considered a safer or even safe alternative. Because of this, my opponent has not fulfilled the resolution or the BoP. As the BoP rests primarily on myself, I have in fact proven that there are more dangers to lane splitting than the status quo while my opponent has not made any feasible arguments as to A) why lane splitting is safe, or B) why the status quo is not effective enough.My opponent basically concedes to the point about necessary learning experience. However, he still argues that individuals must practice in a parking lot prior to driving on roads. While true, there is another vital part of experience that every driver must learn; driving in traffic. While parking lot driving can get you comfortable behind the wheel, everyone must learn to deal with traffic and other drivers arround them to sufficiently drive. Lane splitting, especially to individuals in the aforementioned phase, can be hazardous and even deadly.In regards to evidence, and the provision of sources, I would like to set up a model example of how arguments made without evidence are permeable and transparent. Let's take McDonald's as a frame of reference. I can say that "94% of American's consider McDonald's a dangerous restaurant." However, that doesn't make the statement true. On the other hand, if I said "In his book "'Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal, Eric Schlosser explains the mentality behind fast food establishments' aggressive marketing towards children. According to Schlosser, they try to immediately seek dependance from kids at an extremely young age. Schlosser references another book written by James U. McNeal, called "Kids As Customers," in which McNeal explains that fast food companies want children to see them as a "mom or dad, grandma or grandpa." If companies find a way to foster this relationship with a child at a young age, it is more likely that the child will establish belief and trust in the company.' (Huffington Post Article, March 13, 2014)" you could look it up and find that it is actually a valid source, one that has credibility and valid points. Also note that the majority of writers are experienced and experts in their field. Their "quotes" are backed up with studies and polls, just as the evidence I provided. None of them were merely quotations, but mainly statistics regarding the subject under dispute.To opponent: I am aware by your profile picture that this subject is important to you. However, you have not provided any legitimate explanations as to HOW, specifically HOW, lane splitting makes a less dangerous situation for the biker. I have enjoyed debating you, and wish you luck on further debates. :)Thank you for your time. :)