2015 Anti-Lane Splitting Bill (Assembly Bill 51)

budman

budman

General Menace
Staff member
Idiots.

Saying it is legal, but not safe when traffic is stopped and your going 50-60mph.
That is f'ing illegal. Any Police Officer would cite for that.

Sorry the young man died.
I am willing to bet his speed differential was greater than 15mph if hitting a vehicle caused his death.

Article says "we need guidelines". Mandler you are that ass that had them removed. That young man might still be alive if you were not a d!ck.
 
Z3n

Z3n

Squid.
History shows guidelines don't hold up, they either become laws or they get overruled and become worthless - this is why I think a law setting reasonable boundaries is a good choice.
 
Last edited:
budman

budman

General Menace
Staff member
History shows Mandler is a ......****

I hear you. Laws are laws. Lord knows we have more than we need and some maybe that we should have a few more.
 
Surj

Surj

Uneasy Rider
R6Chick said:
You couldn't find something better and more credible than fox?
Click to expand...

The source of the article (assuming it's factual) is immaterial. Every time there's a serious crash/fatality involving lane splitting, the lack of law that can be referenced puts us at risk of a bill to outlaw splitting.

"Lane splitting" is much easier to remember and bitch to your local legislator about than "too fast for conditions."

Now, when a crash happens. Media says "lane splitting!" - never mind that he was splitting at 50-60 MPH in nearly stopped traffic. People / politicians say "that shit should be illegal!"

It's not like I'm sitting around all day thinking "gee, it'd sure be nice if there was a law codifying lane splitting," but it's become harder to stick with the "we don't need no stinking law!" line over the years. The attacks on splitting aren't going to stop.
 
Marcoose

Marcoose

50-50
Surj said:
It's not like I'm sitting around all day thinking "gee, it'd sure be nice if there was a law codifying lane splitting," but it's become harder to stick with the "we don't need no stinking law!" line over the years. The attacks on splitting aren't going to stop.
Click to expand...

Will it stop if there's a law? (Rhetoric, of course. The answer is no.) There are people that still attack smoking regulation and Obamacare. Mind the old adage: "The pen giveth, the pen taketh."

No law or lack thereof will ever result the people's perception of splitting until us riders change the way we split and every person within the state of California, whether resident or tourist, know splitting is legal/not illegal.
 
Z3n

Z3n

Squid.
Marcoose said:
Will it stop if there's a law? (Rhetoric, of course. The answer is no.) There are people that still attack smoking regulation and Obamacare. Mind the old adage: "The pen giveth, the pen taketh."

No law or lack thereof will ever result the people's perception of splitting until us riders change the way we split and every person within the state of California, whether resident or tourist, know splitting is legal/not illegal.
Click to expand...

The best way to make it legal is to clearly define when, where, and how it is legal. At the moment the gray area makes legality dependent on the discretion of what the public considers to be "safe and prudent", which is very different from rider "safe and prudent", and police "safe and prudent". Those conflicting definitions and no clarity around them are what makes lane splitting less defensible. Note that despite many attacks on Obamacare it is still law, because they are unable to mount a concrete offense due to how clearly defined the law is overall. The strength of a law and it's defensibility/ability to stand the test of time is in the clarity of it's definition.
 
Last edited:
Marcoose

Marcoose

50-50
Z3n said:
The best way to make it legal is to clearly define when, where, and how it is legal. At the moment the gray area makes legality dependent on the discretion of what the public considers to be "safe and prudent", which is very different from rider "safe and prudent", and police "safe and prudent". Those conflicting definitions and no clarity around them are what makes lane splitting less defensible. ... The strength of a law and it's defensibility/ability to stand the test of time is in the clarity of it's definition.
Click to expand...
Gee, let's hope this doesn't turn into a long debate.

The public's consideration is kind of irrelevant. People that hate splitting today will likely hate it tomorrow if they're alive. A few cases here and there of converted, or perhaps within generation to come like the perception of homosexuality and pot use, but otherwise, haters will hate.

The riders' consideration is also kind of irrelevant.

The important one is the policemen's and judges' considerations, because they can enforce, cite, rule, etc, meaning, they can mess with us real bad. And there are already dozens of VCs that deal with safety and prudence, all incredibly subject to consideration of the aforementioned key players. Even something as innocuous as speeding, that one would think a machine will precisely measure it, black and white; signed, sealed, delivered; end of case, can and is scrutinized daily because it is "dependent on the discretion of what [law enforcement] considers to be safe and prudent."

Add a new law to the long list of very clear codes that are dependent on the discretion of this and that, yet zero less haters.

:2cents

No endless debate, please. :thumbup
 
Abyss

Abyss

Anhedonia
Starting to think the education programs teaching California drivers about lane splitting has only made them aware of something they didn't know or care about and now it's on the chopping block.

Seemed like a good idea at the time?
 
M

mlm

Contrarian
clutchslip

clutchslip

Not as fast as I look.
Abyss said:
Starting to think the education programs teaching California drivers about lane splitting has only made them aware of something they didn't know or care about and now it's on the chopping block.

Seemed like a good idea at the time?
Click to expand...
Oh, they cared. They just thought it was illegal. As Barf LEOs and Budman will tell you, there were already hornets stirring in the ban splitting hive. Thus, the whole guideline thing was also to help calm the hornets.
 
HeatXfer

HeatXfer

Not Erudite, just er
boney said:
When considering a risk/reward ratio, looking at the benefits in time is interesting as well. The reward of traveling at 55 MPH over 45 MPH is only .16 minutes per mile. That means you would have to split at 55 MPH for 6.25 miles in order to realize a 1 minute gain over 45 MPH.

Thats:
3 minutes savings from the Carquinez Bridge to the McAurthur Maze on I-80
5.5 minutes from 101 x 85 in SJ to 101 x 280 in SF
5.7 minutes from 880 x 237 in Milpitas to 880 x 908 in Oakland

I don't generally have that small of a margin on my commute. I guess I should slow down and reduce the risk.:ride
Click to expand...

Sorry if this has already been addressed:

I think we could make some positive headway if this were made an automobile operator issue as well as a moto operator issue and not a moto speed issue. And rather than point out how little it actually helps us moto operators, let's look at the greater good.

How much will a single splitting moto reduce the average commute? None. But how much of a difference will 50 to 100 moto's splitting make? When the alternative is to take up space between existing auto commuters, with either a car or a bike, I'd like to think it's going to make some impact. It will also affect parking, downtown congestion, fuel consumption, pollution - all the bullet points.

I haven't been able to find any statistics or even anecdotal data on this. Anybody see the value in this approach?
 
Z3n

Z3n

Squid.
HeatXfer said:
Sorry if this has already been addressed:

I think we could make some positive headway if this were made an automobile operator issue as well as a moto operator issue and not a moto speed issue. And rather than point out how little it actually helps us moto operators, let's look at the greater good.

How much will a single splitting moto reduce the average commute? None. But how much of a difference will 50 to 100 moto's splitting make? When the alternative is to take up space between existing auto commuters, with either a car or a bike, I'd like to think it's going to make some impact. It will also affect parking, downtown congestion, fuel consumption, pollution - all the bullet points.

I haven't been able to find any statistics or even anecdotal data on this. Anybody see the value in this approach?
Click to expand...

http://www.gizmag.com/motorcycles-reduce-congestion/21420/

mlm said:
Funny, but I don't recall much media coverage of lane splitting until the recent guidelines debacle.
Click to expand...


It spiked when it started getting more mainstream coverage thanks to the efforts of the CHP and people like Budman. Look twice for motorcyclists, the lane sharing is legal signs, etc.

Marcoose said:
Gee, let's hope this doesn't turn into a long debate.

The public's consideration is kind of irrelevant. People that hate splitting today will likely hate it tomorrow if they're alive. A few cases here and there of converted, or perhaps within generation to come like the perception of homosexuality and pot use, but otherwise, haters will hate.

The riders' consideration is also kind of irrelevant.

The important one is the policemen's and judges' considerations, because they can enforce, cite, rule, etc, meaning, they can mess with us real bad. And there are already dozens of VCs that deal with safety and prudence, all incredibly subject to consideration of the aforementioned key players. Even something as innocuous as speeding, that one would think a machine will precisely measure it, black and white; signed, sealed, delivered; end of case, can and is scrutinized daily because it is "dependent on the discretion of what [law enforcement] considers to be safe and prudent."

Add a new law to the long list of very clear codes that are dependent on the discretion of this and that, yet zero less haters.

:2cents

No endless debate, please. :thumbup
Click to expand...

Your argument is completely flawed, by your own examples. Gay marriage, pot legalization, are legal because they took the public interest seriously and advocated strongly and stridently for their rights. In the case of pot legalization, they set appropriate boundaries around taxation, enforcement, amounts you can carry, etc, and now it's getting legalized across the country.

This is the same sort of situation, except we have a huge advantage - it's already legal, although the boundaries of that legality are questionable. You place strong laws, based on studies and facts, that set clean, clear limits, with demonstrated gain to the general population, and you will keep lane splitting legal, and potentially even give it enough momentum to start legalizing it elsewhere, due to demonstrated benefits to the general public, lack of risk, etc. Just like pot legalization. The fact is, setting it to 35/10 gives the police, judges, and others LESS grounds to fuck with us, because the guidelines are a protective factor. An officer or judge with an ax to grind against bikes can still trump up some charges to get you fucked with, but they can't just use "You weren't sharing in a safe and prudent fashion" to fuck you even though you were. Worse, if that case ends up setting some kind of precedent for enforcement, we're gonna get double fucked. Thankfully, the CHP are on our side on this one, but we should take advantage of the clear benefits of splitting to others, lack of risk at 35/10, and make clear the boundaries for safe and unsafe behavior to keep our commutes short and protect a basic, common sense benefit for motorcyclists and everyone else.
 
Last edited:
Abyss

Abyss

Anhedonia
clutchslip said:
Oh, they cared. They just thought it was illegal. As Barf LEOs and Budman will tell you, there were already hornets stirring in the ban splitting hive. Thus, the whole guideline thing was also to help calm the hornets.
Click to expand...

I dunno if it was a step in the right direction. IMO the time to campaign for lane splitting awareness would be as soon as people try to make the practice illegal, not before. But then again I know nassing :twofinger
 
boney

boney

Miles > Posts
Abyss said:
I dunno if it was a step in the right direction. IMO the time to campaign for lane splitting awareness would be as soon as people try to make the practice illegal, not before. But then again I know nassing :twofinger
Click to expand...

Maybe you missed the multiple times in this thread where it has been pointend out that there were highly placed officials in CA who were ready to ban lane splitting and all the politicians who might say something wouldn't because it would have been political suicide.

You can thank Budman and our LEOs for keeping that from happening. That is when the education campaign began. T happened just like you said it should.

Call me silly, but it's almost like you posted that so someone would repeat the information that has been repeated several times once more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top