2015 Anti-Lane Splitting Bill (Assembly Bill 51)

[mlm]

Now we have two in agreement with the proposed law.

It wouldn't change a single thing about the way that I ride. I was already following the CHP guidelines when they came out.

Scary logic, since it basically says you're fine legislating your life choices/opinions on others.

Cops already have discretion to issue tickets for reckless driving. While I agree with the CHP guidelines in 90% of circumstances, I don't see the benefit of turning them into law.

 

[kingmoochr]

There is no need for this law from a motorcyclists point of view. Just because you agree with it, doesn't mean it should be come law. Laws denote CRIMES, they are not for designating how you must live your life. Terrible thought process.

 

[ScottRNelson]

Scary logic, since it basically says you're fine legislating your life choices/opinions on others.

I didn't say it should become a law - so I don't know what "logic" you're referring to. I'm just saying that if it were to become law, it wouldn't change anything for me, personally. :nerd

 

[planegray]

There's no reason California needs another law.

+1

bottom line

 

[flying_hun]

Cops already have discretion to issue tickets for reckless driving. While I agree with the CHP guidelines in 90% of circumstances, I don't see the benefit of turning them into law.

This

 

[Archimedes]

There's no reason California needs another law.

Agree wholeheartedly, but also recognize that this will never happen. There will always be new laws being written, by leaders on both sides of the aisle. I have no problem with this one at all.

 

[rodr]

Just sent Quirk an email asking him to explain the reasoning for the bill. Didn't indicate if I support or oppose it. Will post up if/when there is a reply.

 

[SRADerwocky]

This seems like perfectly good law and I would support this.

This seems like a guaranteed way to increase ticket revenues and line insurance company pockets.

In my experience, especially on the stretch of 580 along Oakland, heavy traffic moving 35mph-60mph is where I feel the most vulnerable. Having law prohibit me from riding the lines and passing between cars strips me of my (opinion alert) only safety advantage.

This politician is ignorant, although well intended, and needs to GTFO my dangerous deadly concrete lawn. Rabble rabble rabble.arty

 

[budman]

There's no reason California needs another law.

This as well.

All you residents in the area you have the most power with Quirk at the moment. Get on the phone or email and tell him the CHP and Police already have it handled and we do not need another law, but thank you for trying to keep us safe.

We are grown ups and choose to do it ourselves.

 

[ZCrow]

I don't get it. From everything in this thread, the bill seems perfectly reasonable and make things clear for everyone, just like the CHP guideline said. Lane splitting on a single lane road doesn't seem safe anyway, you're riding the emergency lane. And if traffic is going 35mph and you're allowed to go 10+ that, which is 45mph, then that's pretty good. Any faster there's no reason to lane split.

From reading the bill, I think the Assemblyman is looking out for us motorcyclist. If you don't like laws for the sake of not liking laws, that's an entirely different discussion. This seems like perfectly good law and I would support this.

No, he is not looking out for us. First it starts with this law then someone will come along and add more regulations, etc. It is the reason why the NRA opposes all regulations so vehemently.

 

[fubar929]

You guys are awesome! Somebody tries to defend your rights and your knee-jerk reaction is to kick them in the balls! Bravo!

Remember: lane sharing is currently not explicitly legal in California. It also isn't explicitly illegal.

Remember: the DMV and CHP recently dropped their lane-sharing guidelines under legislative pressure.

What do you think the next step in this progression is? You're doing something that isn't explicitly legal and the state government always needs more money... How long before CHP starts ticketing everybody in the state who shares lanes regardless of the manner in which they do it? If you receive one of those tickets, how are you going to fight it? Please, feel free to cite specific sections of the current CVC that show lane sharing by motorcycles is legally allowed.

I haven't read the text of the bill but from the discussion here it sounds like it would enshrine into law the ability of motorcyclists to share lanes and the prior CHP guidelines for when it is permissible. That would presumably give the CHP (and other LEOs) much less opportunity to ticket those who share lanes. Personally, I would love to see lane sharing become explicitly legal rather than continuing to exist in the current legal gray area...

 

[rodr]

Just sent Quirk an email asking him to explain the reasoning for the bill. Didn't indicate if I support or oppose it. Will post up if/when there is a reply.

Well here's my reply:

Thank you for emailing Assemblymember.Quirk@asm.ca.gov. This is no longer a valid email address. Emails sent to this address will not be processed. In order to expedite our response please submit your comments through our website www.assembly.ca.gov/quirk.

We apologize for the inconvenience. If you need additional assistance please contact my District Office at (510) 583-8818.

And using the form on the web site (which BTW makes no mention of the bill) gives me this:

Address is not in District.
Please contact your District Representative.

:thumbdown

 

[Stormdragon]

It looks like this makes the CHP suggestions law. It isn't anti lane splitting bill...Although I agree it should be squashed:

(c)**(1)**A motorcycle, as defined in Section 400, may be driven
line 14 between rows of stopped or moving vehicles in the same lane,
line 15 including both divided and undivided streets, roads, or highways,
line 16 if both of the following conditions are present:
line 17 (A)**The speed of traffic moving in the same direction is 35 miles
line 18 per hour or less.
line 19 (B)**The motorcycle is not driven more than 10 miles per hour
line 20 faster than the speed of traffic moving in the same direction.
line 21 (2)**This subdivision does not authorize a motorcycle to be driven
line 22 in contravention of other laws relating to the safe operation of a
line 23 vehicle.

So if the Officer decides traffic was moving at 36MPH, or that you were passing with an 11MPH differential..... :facepalm

Currently, if an officer of the law wants to, you can get a lanesplitting ticket written up a number of ways that will hold up in court. Unsafe passing, passing on the right, reckless, etc. No real need to come up with a new law IMHO.

 

[revnort]

You guys are awesome! Somebody tries to defend your rights and your knee-jerk reaction is to kick them in the balls! Bravo!

Remember: lane sharing is currently not explicitly legal in California. It also isn't explicitly illegal.

There is no law prohibiting it, so it is legal. To use the old, there is no law explicitly saying you are legally allowed to eat a sandwich.

So if the Officer decides traffic was moving at 36MPH, or that you were passing with an 11MPH differential..... :facepalm

Currently, if an officer of the law wants to, you can get a lanesplitting ticket written up a number of ways that will hold up in court. Unsafe passing, passing on the right, reckless, etc. No real need to come up with a new law IMHO.

I agree with you. I am not proposing the law is good.

Although I will say I see enforcement of this being pretty tough. Even if it passed (again, I am all for fighting it), I don't see anything actually changing...assuming that it stayed as it is written now.

 

[ScottRNelson]

Please, feel free to cite specific sections of the current CVC that show lane sharing by motorcycles is legally allowed.

And maybe you could show us a law that says that breathing air is legally allowed. :laughing

You guys that argue that it's "not explicitly legal in California. It also isn't explicitly illegal" have a weak argument.

It is legal if there is no law stating otherwise. :afm199

 

[fubar929]

There is no law prohibiting it, so it is legal. To use the old, there is no law explicitly saying you are legally allowed to eat a sandwich.

Luckily, eating a sandwich probably won't get you cited for violating CVC 21658(a). Lane sharing, on the other hand...

 

[revnort]

Luckily, eating a sandwich probably won't get you cited for violating CVC 21658(a). Lane sharing, on the other hand...

You've been cited for this? You know many people that have?

I'd bet that it is extremely rare, and when it does happen it is easily fought. Assuming that is the only violation.

 

[fubar929]

And maybe you could show us a law that says that breathing air is legally allowed. :laughing

You guys that argue that it's "not explicitly legal in California. It also isn't explicitly illegal" have a weak argument.

It is legal if there is no law stating otherwise. :afm199

Sounds great! And when you're cited for violating 21658(a) you're going to tell the judge... what, exactly?

 

[revnort]

Sounds great! And when you're cited for violating 21658(a) you're going to tell the judge... what, exactly?

Again, is this a huge problem I am unaware of? Tons of motorcyclists getting cited for unsafe lane changes? The CHP is one of the major proponents behind CA riders ability to lane share...except for a few isolated incidents I really have not heard about this crackdown on lanesharers you indicate is a problem.

I don't see the point in creating a law that limits the legality of what we do in order to solve this non-existent issue.

As already stated if you are being a knob then there are plenty of citations you can get.

 

[fubar929]

You've been cited for this? You know many people that have?

I haven't, but if you google for lane sharing it seems to be the most common citation.

I'd bet that it is extremely rare, and when it does happen it is easily fought. Assuming that is the only violation.

How would you fight this citation? Much like speeding, this would seem to be something that it entirely up to the citing officer's discretion and very difficult to beat since they're always given the benefit of the doubt.