Talk:Lane splitting

message: This article is not supposed to be a travel guide or a driver's manual. We're not trying to tell the reader what they can and can't do in ever jurisdiction. WikiVoyage covers this in an appropriate article that tells you whether you can lane split, have to wear a helmet, carry passengers, etc, in each country. That's not the role of an encyclopedia. This was discussed extensively above, and once again, the reasons we go into detail about Australia and California are because they are instructive examples. They illustrate the social confusion of lane splitting. The should not be broken apart into separate sections, one for each country. That's what WikiVoage is for. This is about a broader survey of the concept of lane splitting. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted addition of country-by-country legal status 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Legal status in the European Union 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Legal Status 

message: , why this revert? Seems appropriate and properly sourced. In the future, please explain reverts in the edit summary; thanks. --В²C ☎ 21:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I did explain, the first time. It's a single-purpose account where a guy adds citespam to articles to cite his own graduate thesis. In Spanish. Which describes some stuff in a computer model. A hypothetical computer model. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why revert this? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Contradictory and inaccurate info regarding California law 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suggeat removing references to the Hurt report 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge?