*The definitive laneSHARING thread*

Alan_Hepburn

Well-known member
I believe it means "in the same lane" - if you cross over a lane marker you're no longer "sharing" the lane; you're making a lane change...
 

TheRiddler

Riddle me this.
I believe it means "in the same lane" - if you cross over a lane marker you're no longer "sharing" the lane; you're making a lane change...

Seconded.

I believe it should be very clearly stated that the introduction of 21658.1 VC does nothing to support or detract from a rider's fault in the incidence of a lane-splitting collision. The lane-splitting vehicle code is purely a definition at this point. It doesn't absolve riders from using reasonable caution and traveling at a safe speed. I had a rider essentially recite the (old) guidelines to me to a T at a crash, where he said he was following them, and he was still found at fault due to additional factors.
 

TheRiddler

Riddle me this.
Does CHP have their part published yet? Its part of the law...

(b) The Department of the California Highway Patrol may develop educational guidelines relating to lane splitting in a manner that would ensure the safety of the motorcyclist and the drivers and passengers of the surrounding vehicles.

"May". No requirement :p
 

ctwo

Merely Rhetorical
I believe it means "in the same lane" - if you cross over a lane marker you're no longer "sharing" the lane; you're making a lane change...

Is it not legal to change lanes while splitting? I've not seen a statute that prohibits that or maybe I do not understand what "between rows of stopped or moving vehicles in the same lane" actually means.

(Literally means, to me, that the rows of vehicles have to be in the same lane, and I'd be between them, so three abreast... but obviously, that is ludicrous.)

Also, I've not seen addressed, what about between rows of vehicles moving in opposite directions?
 
Top