silverbelt
Well-known member
shraz said:
I do it all the time in such lane configurations. Cops don't really care and just let it go. If it is illegal, then cops give it a very low priority.
*The definitive laneSHARING thread*
- Thread starter motorman4life
- Start date
I do it all the time in such lane configurations. Cops don't really care and just let it go. If it is illegal, then cops give it a very low priority.
WFO
When in doubt, gas it!
How 'bout some further explanation, daddy. 
Tell me what's wrong with using this approach:
Hand Signals
22111. All required signals given by hand and arm shall be given from the left side of a vehicle in the following manner:
(a) Left turn-hand and arm extended horizontally beyond the side of the vehicle.
(b) Right turn-hand and arm extended upward beyond the side of the vehicle, except that a bicyclist may extend the right hand and arm horizontally to the right side of the bicycle.
(c) Stop or sudden decrease of speed signal-hand and arm extended downward beyond the side of the vehicle.
Amended Ch. 751, Stats. 1976. Effective January 1, 1977.
Tell me what's wrong with using this approach:
Hand Signals
22111. All required signals given by hand and arm shall be given from the left side of a vehicle in the following manner:
(a) Left turn-hand and arm extended horizontally beyond the side of the vehicle.
(b) Right turn-hand and arm extended upward beyond the side of the vehicle, except that a bicyclist may extend the right hand and arm horizontally to the right side of the bicycle.
(c) Stop or sudden decrease of speed signal-hand and arm extended downward beyond the side of the vehicle.
Amended Ch. 751, Stats. 1976. Effective January 1, 1977.
Last edited:
JPM
Well-known member
WFO said:How 'bout some further explanation, daddy.
You talking to me? I said no! You don't trust me? Some people :laughing
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
CVC 22110. (a) The signals required by this chapter shall be given by signal lamp, unless a vehicle is not required to be and is not equipped with turn signals. Drivers of vehicles not required to be
and not equipped with turn signals shall give a hand and arm signal when required by this chapter.
(b) In the event the signal lamps become inoperable while driving, hand and arm signals shall be used in the manner required in this chapter.
Which was posted in this thread: http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/f...tid=3149949&highlight=turn+signal#post3149949
:thumbup
motorcyclegrin
Well-known member
Bad Santa said:
That's about the same as riding in Mazatlan. Except the speed. Excessive.
bte320
Playa Hater Extraordinar
I hate how vaguely these laws are written. It's like the unwritten rule that the speed limit on most freeways is 75, not 65. If gives cops free reign to pullover whomever they don't like. It's a state of pseudo-legality, and it's bullshit. A vast majority of cops I have met are douchebags, and a vast majority of those douchebags hate motorcyclists. I got a ticket for doing 75 in the fast lane while between two cars. A corvette four car-lengths in front of me, and some jap sedan a few lengths behind me. I was th one that got pulled over. And guess what! He was a douchebag! I will however, give it up to motorcycle cops. Nicest guys I've ever met, cop or otherwise.
rumpofsteelskin
friend to spiders
Crikey. How is it that this thread was never stickied? IS THERE NO JUSTICE IN THIS CRUEL WORLD?
donjumpsuit
Well-known member
To everyone who rides FROM the Richmond bridge north on 580, TO where it joins the 101N in San Rafael (construction these days).
When the two lanes merge into one, I was basically walking my bike (both feet off pegs) past the cagers merging by passing them straddling on the right hand solid line side at 5 mph.
During this time there was a motorcycle LEO parked in the break-down lane at exactly the merge point. He saw me pop out, (at 5mph mind you), pointed at me, pointed at the ground next to him, pulled out his ticket book and started writing.
STARTED WRITING!
Was I traveling at unreasonable speeds? NO
Was I acting like a jackass? NO
Was I putting anyone in Danger (including self)? NO
He told me I cannot pass on the right, PERIOD.
He told me I can split up to the lane merge and then squish myself into the cagers to merge.
The moral of this story is to my understanding is Lane sharing is a myth, and lane splitting is the actuality of it all. In order to laneshare/split, you need two lanes to split. So when in doubt make sure there are two lanes to split. This includes hwy merges, onramp merges, stoplight with any turn lane and forward lane.
These are the rules I follow according to my swift correction by the LEO.
When the two lanes merge into one, I was basically walking my bike (both feet off pegs) past the cagers merging by passing them straddling on the right hand solid line side at 5 mph.
During this time there was a motorcycle LEO parked in the break-down lane at exactly the merge point. He saw me pop out, (at 5mph mind you), pointed at me, pointed at the ground next to him, pulled out his ticket book and started writing.
STARTED WRITING!
Was I traveling at unreasonable speeds? NO
Was I acting like a jackass? NO
Was I putting anyone in Danger (including self)? NO
He told me I cannot pass on the right, PERIOD.
He told me I can split up to the lane merge and then squish myself into the cagers to merge.
The moral of this story is to my understanding is Lane sharing is a myth, and lane splitting is the actuality of it all. In order to laneshare/split, you need two lanes to split. So when in doubt make sure there are two lanes to split. This includes hwy merges, onramp merges, stoplight with any turn lane and forward lane.
These are the rules I follow according to my swift correction by the LEO.
donjumpsuit
Well-known member
The ticket was for "Passing on the right"
If I was straddling it was a matter of fact rather than a purposeful act, I wasn't attempting to ride the breakdown lane the whole way out, probably just trying to avoid a merged car still stuck to the far right of the lane.
If I was straddling it was a matter of fact rather than a purposeful act, I wasn't attempting to ride the breakdown lane the whole way out, probably just trying to avoid a merged car still stuck to the far right of the lane.
WFO
When in doubt, gas it!
Funny - When I was riding back from Laguna Seca on the Friday practice day, I got stuck in the traffic between Castroville and Pajaro (Highway 1 is only two opposing lanes on this stretch.) Three CHPs on Beamers road past everyone on the shoulder. There were never any incidents further up the road when it turned back into freeway. I love how cops break the law whenever it suits them.
Lester Green
DROOPY FOR MOD
Question: If for instance I'm on Hwy 9 double yellow and all that. If the car moves to the right slightly and i go around the car on the left side, sharing the lane and never cross over the double yellow. could that be considered lane sharing? could i be cited?
My guess is yes.
My guess is yes.
QuaiChangKane
Anathema
And to bump yet another dormant thread....
Great practical info from everyone, and good on the LEOs for offering their understanding of the VC as it can be applied to lane splitting (yeah, I said it).
Just one comment and one question:
First, for those who are complaining of unfair persecution for splitting, you should try to understand that the CVC is HUUUUGE, and not every LEO can have a full understanding of each code by both the letter and spirit of the law at all times. As with a lot of other occupations, I'd imagine that most traffic patrol LEOs have a solid general understanding of most of the CVC and a better understanding of any city/county codes as they apply in their own jurisdiction - but never a 100% knowledge of everything all the time. As they encounter traffic trends, their knowledge will change as they start citing for different codes, and because of this, their overall memory of the CVC will be constantly changing depending on what codes (if any) their department or superiors like to pay special attention for, and what current trends those on patrol encounter.
In other words, a traffic officer's job is to enforce the CVC and local vehicle codes in order to keep all road users/bystanders/property owners safe from undue harm. If you feel that a particular officer misinterpreted the CVC, profiled you, or wrongly cited you - just collect your facts and negotiate with the judge - or get an attorney. You can't expect every officer to know the nuances of every code at all times - especially over something with so many potential applicable codes (yet something that's not even fully defined) as lane splitting.
Secondly, a question for the LEOs - the two-lane road issue. I have read in several places that it is only legal to split if the lane you're riding in has a stripe on each side - meaning both the center line and fog line are necessary to define the boundaries of each lane. If there is no stripe on right side of the lane, then you are technically passing on the shoulder if you split past someone on the right. IIRC, when I was reviewing snippets from the CVC, it said something to the effect that any deviance from the common path of traffic within a lane with no right-side boundary is considered driving on the shoulder. In essence, this could make it illegal to split on a two-lane road with no shoulder stripe, or in the right-most lane of a multiple lane road where the lane has no shoulder stripe.
Can any of the LEOs clarify this?
And many thanks again to BudMan for starting the LEO forum, and to the LEOs who take their time to moderate and answer questions here - this is a great resource. And gawd only knows that the last thing I want to do when I get home from my day job is to continue working (off the clock!) by answering even more CVC questions online....
Cheers,
-Q!
Great practical info from everyone, and good on the LEOs for offering their understanding of the VC as it can be applied to lane splitting (yeah, I said it).
Just one comment and one question:
First, for those who are complaining of unfair persecution for splitting, you should try to understand that the CVC is HUUUUGE, and not every LEO can have a full understanding of each code by both the letter and spirit of the law at all times. As with a lot of other occupations, I'd imagine that most traffic patrol LEOs have a solid general understanding of most of the CVC and a better understanding of any city/county codes as they apply in their own jurisdiction - but never a 100% knowledge of everything all the time. As they encounter traffic trends, their knowledge will change as they start citing for different codes, and because of this, their overall memory of the CVC will be constantly changing depending on what codes (if any) their department or superiors like to pay special attention for, and what current trends those on patrol encounter.
In other words, a traffic officer's job is to enforce the CVC and local vehicle codes in order to keep all road users/bystanders/property owners safe from undue harm. If you feel that a particular officer misinterpreted the CVC, profiled you, or wrongly cited you - just collect your facts and negotiate with the judge - or get an attorney. You can't expect every officer to know the nuances of every code at all times - especially over something with so many potential applicable codes (yet something that's not even fully defined) as lane splitting.
Secondly, a question for the LEOs - the two-lane road issue. I have read in several places that it is only legal to split if the lane you're riding in has a stripe on each side - meaning both the center line and fog line are necessary to define the boundaries of each lane. If there is no stripe on right side of the lane, then you are technically passing on the shoulder if you split past someone on the right. IIRC, when I was reviewing snippets from the CVC, it said something to the effect that any deviance from the common path of traffic within a lane with no right-side boundary is considered driving on the shoulder. In essence, this could make it illegal to split on a two-lane road with no shoulder stripe, or in the right-most lane of a multiple lane road where the lane has no shoulder stripe.
Can any of the LEOs clarify this?
And many thanks again to BudMan for starting the LEO forum, and to the LEOs who take their time to moderate and answer questions here - this is a great resource. And gawd only knows that the last thing I want to do when I get home from my day job is to continue working (off the clock!) by answering even more CVC questions online....
Cheers,
-Q!
Last edited:
JPM
Well-known member
QuaiChangKane said:
21755 VC-part about driving off pavement or main-traveled portion of the roadway.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21755.htm