Work on your reading comprehension: I didn't say this was happening but there is nothing in the current vehicle code to prevent it from happing on a much wider scale.
2015 Anti-Lane Splitting Bill (Assembly Bill 51)
- Thread starter metrorollah
- Start date
Work on your reading comprehension: I didn't say this was happening but there is nothing in the current vehicle code to prevent it from happing on a much wider scale.
revnort
Tasty Pants
See my last post. This does not seem to be an epidemic I am aware of. I lanesplit daily and have for years.
I've received one ticket and that was for speeding, and I deserved it. The chippie did not cite me for the split past two people playing the penis game. Only the speed.
+ a whole lot...
Lane Sharing, as it is set up now, are guidelines that are at the discretion of the CHP to enforce or not. This is much better than having laws in place that require enforcement. I can see how people may interpret the law as creating clear and definitive rules for sharing, but it opens the door for more restrictions.
revnort
Tasty Pants
So add a law to prevent it from potentially happening? Again, the CHP is and always have been arguably the largest force behind keeping the practice legal here. If they changed that tune then we might have reason to worry, but I don't see it happening.
Regarding my reading comprehension, I read your posts just fine so keep your BS insults to yourself. :thumbup
phocup
Well-known member
I'm a frequent A&R reader but some how missed that self driving car post. Thanks for linking to it. I definitely could believe there's some big money behind these "initiatives" with the ultimate goal of outlawing lane splitting to smooth out the path to the "robot car" culture.
Lunch Box
Useful idiot
Wait. If I google "lane sharing," I would see that the most common citation for lane sharing is, ummm, unsafe lane sharing? That's amazing!!!!! :wtf
/dev/null
taking a wrong turn
Everything is legal until legislation is passed that makes it illegal. The converse argument isn't true in our system.
These guidelines weren't removed under legislative pressure. Kenneth Mandler, a private citizen petitioned the California Office of Administrative Law to have them removed because they were regulations which is the province of the legislature. You shouldn't just read the first 2 or 3 stories google spits out.
Lanesplitting at 5mph then lanesplitting at 0mph. This is a zero sum game, what they win we lose. There is obviously a powerful special interest behind this with unknown purposes because this Quirk is setting himself up for storm of complaints.
Again, an act is legal until is has been made illegal. You need to brush up on how the legal system works.
What we don't need is people like you spreading misinformation.
rodr
Well-known member
Not sure I understand this. If a lane change is not safe, surely the officer can express a reason for that.
Generally speaking, when lane splitting you're gonna be "changing lanes" (crossing the line) a lot because some cars will offer more room than others. This is surely more safe than staying in the same lane. That's what I'd say to the judge.
Gabe
COVID-fefe
I get your argument, but I don't think you're quite the legal and legislative scholar you think you are. Here are some facts that you are either ignorant of or choose to ignore:
-The CHP likes motorcycles lanesplitting, so long as it doesn't violate the vehicle code in other ways (read my column here for an analysis of that: http://www.motorcycle.com/features/skidmarks-splitting-headache.html]. It eases congestion and reduces motorcycle accidents, plus most CHP officers ride or like motorcycles.
-There is no such thing as a "legal gray area" when it comes to the vehicle code. Either you can do something or you can't do something. You can do something if it isn't explicitly stated you can't do it.
-I don't see how you can say putting a limit on something is the same as defending the right to do it. And by the way, allowing all vehicles defined as a motorcycle under CVC 400 is dumb, as it allows sidecars and Can-Am Spyders as well.
-Quirk and Beale aren't interested in protecting our rights. They're interested in making a name for themselves by getting legislation passed. It shows their constituents that they're doing something--that's what Democrats do, unfortunately--write and pass laws. Usually I like that, as there are legitimate problems you can solve with laws. But this time, I don't. There's in no problem here that is being solved by this bill. So F those guys.
You also asked how to fight an unsafe lane change law. You fight it the same way you fight any ticket you think is wrong. You do an analysis of the case and show the court that there is enough doubt that you violated the provision of the vehicle code.
"21658. Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, the following rules apply:
(a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until such movement can be made with reasonable safety."
Fuck me! Talk about gray areas! My defense would depend on the officer's testimony, (which I would move to suppress unless he/she properly introduced their notes into evidence before testimony), but I would say I stayed entirely in one lane (when I lane split, I don't bounce over the botts dots, but ride to one side of them, usually the right) unless it was impractical. Since I was following the CHP guidelines (which I would introduce as evidence), I was moving "with reasonable safety."
If the cop made up evidence to make it look like I was violating 21658, I would work to present conflicting evidence to cast enough doubt for an acquittal. But there's not much you can do about lying cops.
Anyway, your slippery-slope doomsday scenario has been predicted for 100 years and hasn't happened yet, despite the State always needing money and other motorists always not liking lane splitting.
Honestly, the best strategy for us is to always fight any lane-sharing/splitting legislation no matter how benign it seems and to STFU otherwise.
That's great? I like lane-splitting, too! So what? Do you think CHP officers wouldn't ticket lane-splitting riders for violating CVC 21658 or 22108 if they were directed to do so?
Great theory. In practice, however, many things are left up to the discretion of the citing officer and the CVC is filled with weasel language like "when safe to do so", "when practical", "reasonable", etc. In court, my experience suggests that LEOs are usually given the benefit of the doubt by judges. Regular citizens? Almost never.
Wait? So you admit that there are gray areas? BTW, as far as I know, the CHP has no current guidelines on lane-splitting.
So, when the LEO claims that part of your bike (think: mirrors, bar ends, turn signals, side cases) crossed the lane divider and you were in violation of the "entirely within a single lane" provision, what would your defense be?
What if the LEO claimed that you moved across the lane divider without signaling and thus failed to cross "with reasonable safety"? Do you think the judge wouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt and find you guilty?
metrorollah
OWHLY?
Exactly right. In some states anal sex is illegal because somebody decided that we need laws with specific guidelines on sex. Some on here say "well, look at me, I always have sex in missionary and for reasons of pro-creation :afm199... it won't change a thing about MY habits, just makes everyone else fuck just like I do. I support these regulations."
Well guess what folks. WE. DONT. NEED. YOUR. LAWS. HERE. :shame
Gabe, I appreciate your help. Depending on how far this gets kicked down the line, you and a handful of other journalists are on my short list. Also as a fellow in the legal profession, I respect your demonstrative lean here. It mirrors ABATE's. We'll meet up again soon.
:thumbup
revnort
Tasty Pants
What if?
We don't need laws to cover what if these problems occur. We would have to create an infinite number of laws.
Again, you keep throwing this out like it is an actual issue, which it isn't. Nobody is pulling over CA lane splitters in abundance and citing them for unsafe lane changes.
CVC21658 covers unsafe lane changes. Lane sharing as defined in the proposed law is explicit to staying within the same lane.
BTW. My guess is that many people eating sandwiches while driving have been cited for CVC 21658.
Last edited:
Gabe
COVID-fefe
What if, what if what if...the fact is CHP doesn't target lane-splitters, and I don't think they ever will.
You're getting all worked up and welcoming restrictions on our liberties because of some unlikely paranoid scenario. Let it go.
Again, you seem completely incapable of understanding my point. Which, again, is that there is nothing that prevents this from happening in the future.
It appears that people who are cited while lane sharing are often cited for 21658(a) violations, though there appear to be other sections of the code that could also be used, depending on the exact situation: 22107, 22108, 21705(a), etc.
Understand this wasn't addressed to me, but passing the proposed law doesn't prevent something from happening in the future either.
Exactly my prior point. There are multiple existing and overlapping laws that could be written up against someone who is lane sharing. What you don't seem to account for is that the proposed law wouldn't change that…it would just add ANOTHER law that could be written up against someone lane sharing.
revnort
Tasty Pants
I understand your point completely. See my previous bit about an infinite number of laws necessary to handle every scenario that doesn't actually exist as a problem.
It's a bit like saying we need a law that says we are explicitly allowed to ride a vtwin...you know in case somebody tries to outlaw that engine configuration.
Last edited:
HeatXfer
Not Erudite, just er
Just for clarification, what does that mean and where did you get it?
NTron3000
When in doubt...
From a riders perspective the biggest concern in lane splitting/sharing is the attitudes and awareness of the cages around them. Almost all effort to educate about lane splitting has been to show that it is in fact a legal thing to do. There are some statistics that would indicate that the CHP guidelines did just that and there was correlation showing fewer lane splitting accidents which while it would need more study I can at least follow the logic of. There is a difference in public perception around a "grey-quasi legal" activity and one explicitly allowed. Might mean fewer angry black trucks is all I'm saying. And it might mean the 'guidelines' for it can be more easily exported to other states.
No, but it ensures that future changes will be more difficult and those changes will be handled at least somewhat publicly.
At the moment, if some particular law-enforcement agency wants to start ticketing every lane-splitting motorcyclist in their jurisdiction for violating 21658(a) all they have to do is tell their LEOs to start doing it. They don't have to inform anyone about the change, they can just start writing tickets. If lane sharing is made explicitly legal via the proposed changes to 21658, then obviously you couldn't be cited using that section of the vehicle code. Granted, you might still get cited using some other section of the vehicle code, but it would probably be pretty clear that they were trying to do an end-run around the revised 21658.