2015 Anti-Lane Splitting Bill (Assembly Bill 51)

[clutchslip]

Now, OTOH, if Budman etal were reporting a banning law is coming down the pike eminently and the only way to thwart it is to preemptively pass "this" law, that'd be another ball of wax.

How the hell does he know? Budman did not see the guidelines being removed.

This thread is thoroughly confusing. What is your FINAL stance, Budman?
Oppose any law on the principle that we have too many laws. I agree.
Oppose this law because YOU want to split at faster speeds. We all speed, now, so what?
Find someway to make sure we don't loose lane-splitting altogether? I hope.

I remember the initial helmet days, and believe me, there is FAR less monetary and industry support for Lane Sharing than for no helmet laws. And helmet laws were still passed.

I hope we are reasonable with our goals. I have lost many battles because of my principles. I don't want to go the wrong direction here and lose the right to split because of other ideals.

 

[boney]

I see what you did there. :laughing ...and you have a point. Why ruffle 30,000+ BARF feathers? Here's why. It worked last time with AB435, not by much, but it did work. We called for people to ride Senator Pavely's ass and they did. A lot of people from BARF participated in the call ins, and we even had AMA support if you remember. I have to wonder if my thread is doing more harm than good on this particular issue, but ultimately it's not the public's decision. People MUST form action committees to make things happen in our government, and then take concerted actions. It's just the way things work. This post on this forum is just what it is. Informational. I appreciate gaining lots of good information to be able to help the brotherhood, not the least of which are yours, and yours truly. :thumbup

Really? Then why did ABATE drop it's opposition eventually and receive thanks from Pavely in committee for doing so?

Inquiring minds want to know?

ABATE did NOT ultimately oppose the AB 435.

 

[fubar929]

Teh troof, but ... there are already a dozen laws prohibiting asshattery, ie, speeding, tailgating, wheelies, DUI, texting, reckless, DYL, etc, etc. Why would THIS ONE be the one that puts the kibosh on asshattery?

This law doesn't put the kibosh on asshattery. What it does is guarantee that those who aren't asshats will be able to continue to lane-split within the established guidelines. Right now, there is not such guarantee...

 

[metrorollah]

Really? Then why did ABATE drop it's opposition eventually and receive thanks from Pavely in committee for doing so?

Inquiring minds want to know?

ABATE did NOT ultimately oppose the AB 435.

All you need to know is that there are no smog checks required for you and your sprotbile stunner. Won't be anytime soon either.

 

[SRADerwocky]

I think you're all missing the point here. There's absolutely NO PROBLEM with the current lane splitting situation. This bill proposes to fix a non issue by imposing ultra conservative rules to achieve____________.

I'm filling the blank in with insurance revenues. Feel free to fill your own in. I'd liken this to the current state of DUI legislation where it's become a huge revenue machine over a pillar of safety.

Quit all this posturing and arguing over who rides the safest, what with your 'I already ride within the guidelines,this law should be just fine' crap. There's a barbed hook hidden in this and you'd be a fool to think this was made with motorcyclist safety in mind.

 

[metrorollah]

I think you're all missing the point here. There's absolutely NO PROBLEM with the current lane splitting situation.

Well, my friend, I'm hoping that a lot of people see this thread and do the right thing when the time comes. There a bunch on pencil dick safety whiners on this board and always were. I'll be contacting you and others on here that have a brain to help out if and when we need some support. In the meantime, it doesn't bother me at all that commuterider123 and biblefreak4u are on here thumbing their nuts. Not sure about the 'hidden barb' comment, but hell, works for me. :thumbup

I'll put you on the PM list if and when we need to get signatures and phone calls made.

 

[boney]

All you need to know is that there are no smog checks required for you and your sprotbile stunner. Won't be anytime soon either.

The SMOG checks were a backdoor effort to get quiet pipes.

The fight to prevent loud-pipes laws led to the formation of a smog-check law which would be worse. ABATEs successful efforts to prevent loud pipes laws forced the lawmakers to come up with smog check laws and eventually, with ABATEs help it was gutted into what they wanted in the first place, a quiet pipes law. Which ABATE dropped it's opposition of.

A lot of work for the outcome they wanted.

Is this what we're in for with the lane splitting law?

 

[rodr]

Strange because all the "responsible" riders keep stating that they already ride according to the guidelines. And since when have LEOs had a problem writing tickets?

Two problems that simply don't exist. A law can't fix that.

Wow, you may be on to something there! We should do away with all speed limits. After all, the responsible drivers will do the right thing and the others will get ticketed for reckless driving.

:teeth

 

[metrorollah]

The SMOG checks were a backdoor effort to get quiet pipes.

The fight to prevent loud-pipes laws led to the formation of a smog-check law which would be worse. ABATEs successful efforts to prevent loud pipes laws forced the lawmakers to come up with smog check laws and eventually, with ABATEs help it was gutted into what they wanted in the first place, a quiet pipes law. Which ABATE dropped it's opposition of.

A lot of work for the outcome they wanted.

Is this what we're in for with the lane splitting law?

Weird kind of speculative summary, because I'm still not sure that loud pipes were really the impetus (only Fran Pavely really knows)... but more or less the bones of the whole struggle of making sure motorcycle smog checks did not happen.

To my knowledge there still does not exist an enforceable 'quiet pipes law'. Law enforcement has not been fitted with approved devices, and more importantly training, to read the sound levels of pipes. In fact, those devices are still in the beginning stages of being approved by the DOT on the Federal level. AB435, as approved, says you can't operate a motorcycle manufactured after 2013 without an exhaust system that has an EPA compliance sticker. Nothing new. Forever in CA, it has been explicitly illegal to modify a factory intake or exhaust system. You may be aware that it is actually a $10,000 fine if you remove your catalytic converter. You can replace your carburetor or muffler, for instance, with another carburetor or muffler of your choice, and if those replacement parts happens to come from Mikuni or Muzzy, then great... buy with confidence at your local California bike shop. Those aftermarket manufacturers will have made the necessary arrangements to have an EPA stamp on your new street legal farkle. End of the problem, no need to have anyone check anything. Pavley got a pat on the back, Schwarzenegger got Motorcyclist of the Year by the AMA, and ABATE got to preserve the current status quo, more or less.

So you see that AB435 as it stands now is redundant and harmless. I hope that is the outcome here too, if we can't get it completely killed.

So, uh, yes.

 

[Marcoose]

This law doesn't put the kibosh on asshattery. What it does is guarantee that those who aren't asshats will be able to continue to lane-split within the established guidelines. Right now, there is not such guarantee...

Not so sure. Right now it is legal to lane-split. And there's no guarantee a new law won't be further amended, fine-tuned, tweaked, etc, until the upshot of lane-splitting is totally negated.

I'd liken this to the current state of DUI legislation where it's become a huge revenue machine over a pillar of safety.

While unable to debate the revenue machine statement, if one road user is spared because a to-be DUI driver thought of the consequences of a DUI, then let the revenue machine be. (Although the day the people make me king, DUIs will carry $0 fine but a life-time of public service.) DUI hurts, injuries, maims, kills, destroys.

 

[Busy Little Shop]

Do you remember when ABATE stood for... American Bikers Against Totalitarian Extremes???

 

[jidery]

This "law" wouldn't change anything for me if it passed. I rare lane split if traffic is moving faster than 25

 

[Motech]

We don't try and fix what ain't broke and don't offer solutions to questions nobody asked because when we do, we get more broken shit and answers we won't like.

Tell me now how wrong I was.

 

[Tharkûn]

We don't try and fix what ain't broke and don't offer solutions to questions nobody asked because when we do, we get more broken shit and answers we won't like.

Tell me now how wrong I was.

You also don't get it. I don't know how to make this any more plain for you guys.

 

[Marcoose]

I don't know how to make this any more plain for you guys.

Perhaps re-stating in plain-"er" language with dates, names, places, actions, etc? A play-by-play of sorts? Hint-hint, glad to help!

 

[fubar929]

Not so sure. Right now it is legal to lane-split.

Right now if the CHP or any local law enforcement agency wanted to, they could start issuing CVC 21658(a) citations to anyone lane-splitting at any speed. You know what you could do about it? Not a goddamned thing! Sure you could go to court and argue the case but what's your defense? That a LEO doesn't know what is "reasonably safe" and you do? From what I've seen, courts tend to side with the LEO on these sorts of things so I think you'd be convicted. Unless you have an airtight defense for 21658(a) violations that you're not telling us about?

And there's no guarantee a new law won't be further amended, fine-tuned, tweaked, etc, until the upshot of lane-splitting is totally negated.

Do you understand what a pain in the ass it is to pass, or tweak, a law in California? Fine-tuning and tweaking doesn't happen at the drop of a hat... if ever.

 

[Marcoose]

Right now if the CHP or any local law enforcement agency wanted to, they could start issuing CVC 21658(a) citations to anyone lane-splitting at any speed.

Yes, and they don't. There are already numerous codes that policemen can cite all road users all the time, and hence the bazillion frivolous, idiotic, BS citations left and right. But you contend a new law will put a halter on CVC 21658(a), like if policemen and courts cannot use their judgments of unsafe lane change. That's peculiar.

Unless you have an airtight defense for 21658(a) violations that you're not telling us about?

Of course not, but no different than defence for speeding, crossing the DYL, DUI, etc. Hire a good attorney, try my chances in court. Welcome to 'Merica!

Do you understand what a pain in the ass it is to pass, or tweak, a law in California? Fine-tuning and tweaking doesn't happen at the drop of a hat... if ever.

Granted, the CVC is not my bag, but FYI, laws/codes pertaining to environmental, permitting, public utilities, construction, safety, tax, etc, get tweaked, fined-tuned and amended every year. Not all, of course, but it's commonplace. As the axiom goes, "the pen giveth, the pen taketh." Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Foxhole Atheist]

You also don't get it. I don't know how to make this any more plain for you guys.

I had to laugh when I thought of this thread and saw this: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/allow-motorcycle-lane-sharing-all-public-roads/qP86QbjN

Coupla questions: 1) if there's a traffic accident between a car and a bike, and the bike is lane splitting, presumption of blame is on the rider, right? 2) Would AB51 change that?

 

[metrorollah]

Coupla questions: 1) if there's a traffic accident between a car and a bike, and the bike is lane splitting, presumption of blame is on the rider, right? 2) Would AB51 change that?

Not true. I had an accident while lane splitting and the car that hit me was deemed 100% at fault by recollections of the witnesses and the officer on scene. The guy attempted to change lanes while I passed him in his own lane. He entered my path.

Unclear whether AB51 would change anything revolving around at fault percentage, but you may be issued a ticket for whatever CVC code AB51 incites, putting you in the blame section by way of traffic citation.

 

[MrIncredible]

I don't want motorcycle accidents, full stop, which no law can provide. (Sorry about all the I's.)

It'd be easy enough to ban motorcycles.