Surj
Uneasy Rider
NO. Things that are not illegal are legal. End of story. "Permitted" isn't a different legal condition than "legal."
Governor Brown Signs AB51 -- we are legal yo~!
- Thread starter budman
- Start date
NO. Things that are not illegal are legal. End of story. "Permitted" isn't a different legal condition than "legal."
RightCoastBias
F8TRED
Someone didn't get the memo.
Incident: 09/01/16 07:32 AM : Oakland : I80 W / Richmond Pkwy Hov Onr :
Time Detail
Sep 1 2016 7:35AM RP IS REQ CHP DO SOMETHING ABOUT MC\'S DRIVING IN / OUT LNS
Incident: 09/01/16 07:32 AM : Oakland : I80 W / Richmond Pkwy Hov Onr :
Time Detail
Sep 1 2016 7:35AM RP IS REQ CHP DO SOMETHING ABOUT MC\'S DRIVING IN / OUT LNS
gixxerjeff
Dogs best friend
:laughing
LongGoneJohn
Gone
"Do something!"
Busy Little Shop
Man behaving bikely...
True but not the end of the story... Lane splitting is not prohibited in
the CVC... we lane split because it is not illegal... our status to
practice splitting is same before AB51 and our status to practice splitting is
the same post AB51... there has been no shift in the question of legality
because the legislature has only defined it they haven't permitted it nor prohibited it...
You and Budman have gained us so much but before we truly reach "End of
story" please address my original question post #145... Is there an effort to
amend the code to specifically state that lane splitting as currently defined in
the CVC is permitted under law in accordance to CHP guidelines???
Larry, can you find us an example of some other CVC section that is worded in the way you'd like?
Surj
Uneasy Rider
There is not.
metalmaster
Well-known member
what will I be looking for, a flyer or booklet?
DataDan
Mama says he's bona fide
Realistically, it will be some time before the official guidelines are published. Because a) it's government; b) the "not invented here" syndrome will exclude previous efforts; and c) this requirement in the law:
(c) In developing guidelines pursuant to this section, the department [CHP] shall consult with agencies and organizations with an interest in road safety and motorcyclist behavior, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
Sounds like at least 3 years to me.(1) The Department of Motor Vehicles.
(2) The Department of Transportation.
(3) The Office of Traffic Safety.
(4) A motorcycle organization focused on motorcyclist safety.
(2) The Department of Transportation.
(3) The Office of Traffic Safety.
(4) A motorcycle organization focused on motorcyclist safety.
Smash Allen
Banned
If BARF can get with CMSP we could have some input to the guidelines since I am guessing CMSP will be first choice as the 'moto org focused on moto safety'.
Unless we really get the Newbie Rides going :laughing:ride:thumbup
metalmaster
Well-known member
I was referring to Budman's post on his guidelines
A four fold glossy pamphlet. Costing me about a buck a piece so hope you and others like it. Will be available at the Cycle Gear Sac super sale Sept 17th and at the AB 51 party.
I just happened to do my last read thru. It will look something like this.
This is just the front and back. Missing a lot of folds. :laughing
Attachments
-
image.jpg
m0t0_ryder
RYD!
I believe we still have some of the CHP guidelines pamphlets at work.
I'll check tomorrow and grab a few to bring to the AB51 party.
I'll check tomorrow and grab a few to bring to the AB51 party.
Surj
Uneasy Rider
Noyce.
And speaking of that party, in case any of you aren't aware—Budman and I are throwing the best damn AB 51 party ever. :teeth
Social Gatherings Thread
Facebook event page
Please share the shit out of this thing. We're working hard to make it double-possum awesome.
Busy Little Shop
Man behaving bikely...
Sure Andy...
"When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same
direction, the driver shall use either the designated lane, the lane
to the immediate left of the right-hand lane, or the right-hand lane
for traffic as permitted under this code. If, however, specific lane
or lanes have not been designated on a divided highway having four or
more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, a vehicle may
also be driven in the lane to the immediate left of the right-hand
lane, unless otherwise prohibited under this code."
chiara
Well-known member
This is a sandbox I don't often play in, but I received Budman's email about AB51, came over and found the thread. I want to thank Surj & Budman for their time and effort on behalf of the community. It's self sacrificing, and requires time many of us don't have (certainly, I'm among them), so I get why criticism after the fact could be unpalatable, but I agree with the point Larry's asserting.
Recently I had a back & forth with Citybike on Facebook - I'm assuming Surj on barf - about AB51's effect in regards to the legality of lane splitting. Cliff's notes: Although we're on the same side of lane splitting, and I'd welcome a law clearly stating it's legally permissible, we don't see eye to eye regarding AB51. The fb thread left off with a question being posed to me that I didn't respond to because I no longer saw the value of continuing the conversation.
In light of the text of the final bill, the mission is not accomplished if the goal was to make lane splitting indisputably legal by virtue of a written statute in the CVC. The text of the bill is earlier in the thread so I won't re-print it. Reading it, all that was accomplished was a definition of lane splitting, and then authorization for the CHP, in concert with several additional named organizations, to develop guidelines. That's it.
It's still legal just as it always has been - by virtue of the fact it isn't legal - no disagreement there. And I want it to continue to be legal - I think I can safely assume that everyone here is on the same side of the question, "Should lane splitting be legal?" But to say that AB51 made it legal by virtue of codified law is to assume an intent that isn't expressed, which is erroneous. What you need to see is something after the definition along the lines of "Motorcyclists may..." It is an error to assume intent in any law. The text of a law stands on its own - it means nothing more and nothing less than what is stated.
I don't know budman or surj personally, but I do have respect for the fact they've stepped forward and given their time to benefit the community. But it's disturbing to see threads, emails and facebook posts that would lead a reasonable reader to conclude the mission is accomplished. Not so. Asserting that by virtue of the bill, lane splitting is now 'officially' legal or 'formally' legal is just plain misleading.
Recently I had a back & forth with Citybike on Facebook - I'm assuming Surj on barf - about AB51's effect in regards to the legality of lane splitting. Cliff's notes: Although we're on the same side of lane splitting, and I'd welcome a law clearly stating it's legally permissible, we don't see eye to eye regarding AB51. The fb thread left off with a question being posed to me that I didn't respond to because I no longer saw the value of continuing the conversation.
In light of the text of the final bill, the mission is not accomplished if the goal was to make lane splitting indisputably legal by virtue of a written statute in the CVC. The text of the bill is earlier in the thread so I won't re-print it. Reading it, all that was accomplished was a definition of lane splitting, and then authorization for the CHP, in concert with several additional named organizations, to develop guidelines. That's it.
It's still legal just as it always has been - by virtue of the fact it isn't legal - no disagreement there. And I want it to continue to be legal - I think I can safely assume that everyone here is on the same side of the question, "Should lane splitting be legal?" But to say that AB51 made it legal by virtue of codified law is to assume an intent that isn't expressed, which is erroneous. What you need to see is something after the definition along the lines of "Motorcyclists may..." It is an error to assume intent in any law. The text of a law stands on its own - it means nothing more and nothing less than what is stated.
I don't know budman or surj personally, but I do have respect for the fact they've stepped forward and given their time to benefit the community. But it's disturbing to see threads, emails and facebook posts that would lead a reasonable reader to conclude the mission is accomplished. Not so. Asserting that by virtue of the bill, lane splitting is now 'officially' legal or 'formally' legal is just plain misleading.
Last edited:
Surj
Uneasy Rider
Michael, you didn't see the value of continuing that conversation on Facebook and said your "current professional and family obligations don't afford me the luxury of time" to get involved. Yet you found the time and the motivation to come over here to BARF and specifically name me and bring it up again.
I'm sorry that you don't get it and have ignored the wealth of information out there that would help you understand the situation. My current professional and personal obligations certainly don't allow me the luxury of wasting any more time trying to help you get there. But I can understand how it'd be "disturbing," given all the work you've put into this.
Oh, that's right. You haven't put any work into it, other than misinformed criticism of people that have put in the work and know more about details than you do.
If you want to fully accomplish the mission that you believe isn't accomplished, by all means, step up and do it. A perfect opportunity to get started on that would have been the CMSP meeting yesterday. The one you weren't at.
Since you didn't repost the relevant language, I will:
I have one question: Can you show me an example of a law enforcement agency developing educational guidelines for any activity that is not legal?
Marcoose
50-50
Precious.