2015 Anti-Lane Splitting Bill (Assembly Bill 51)

[RightCoastBias]

The path to hell is paved with good intentions.

I think that is very applicable here.

If some LE agency decides to start ticketing splitters, people can fight it. The PD is going to waste time issuing tickets that aren't going to stick in court.

 

[fubar929]

Just for clarification, what does that mean and where did you get it?

It means: I googled for stories about lane-splitting citations and found a ton of references to CVC 21658(a) violations. If you read the proposed bill, you'll see that it plans to revise 21658 to make lane sharing explicitly legal.

 

[RightCoastBias]

It means: I googled for stories about lane-splitting citations and found a ton of references to CVC 21658(a) violations. If you read the proposed bill, you'll see that it plans to revise 21658 to make lane sharing explicitly legal.

So we can exchange one ticket for another. Sweet.

 

[fubar929]

If some LE agency decides to start ticketing splitters, people can fight it. The PD is going to waste time issuing tickets that aren't going to stick in court.

Have you ever tried to fight a speeding ticket? It's very nearly impossible, from what I've seen in court. I suspect that trying to argue against a 21658(a) violation is just as difficult... especially since nobody here has been able to explain an air-tight defense strategy.

 

[RightCoastBias]

Have you ever tried to fight a speeding ticket? It's very nearly impossible, from what I've seen in court. I suspect that trying to argue against a 21658(a) violation is just as difficult... especially since nobody here has been able to explain an air-tight defense strategy.

Speeding is speeding. Cop clocked you at 85 in a 55. Ticket.


Unsafe lane change is a lot more defensible. Especially since lane sharing is legal in CA and very rarely ticketed. I also always ride with a camera, so I'd have that as evidence. There are also many ways to argue the cops position that it was unsafe.

 

[Human Ills]

This will absolutely have a negative effect on moto sales. Oh well.

 

[boney]

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

:applause

 

[fubar929]

Unsafe lane change is a lot more defensible. Especially since lane sharing is legal in CA and very rarely ticketed. I also always ride with a camera, so I'd have that as evidence. There are also many ways to argue the cops position that it was unsafe.

Can you prove to the judge that your video footage wasn't altered or edited? Are you planning to show up in court with a large monitor so everyone can watch the footage simultaneously? Are you videotaping traffic in front of and behind you? If you can't answer 'Yes' to all of those questions, I wouldn't count on your video being allowed or carrying much weight if it is allowed.

Unfortunately, disputing the "unsafe" argument will be almost impossible. The LEO will, effectively, be testifying as an expert witness and the judge will give far more weight to his viewpoint than to yours. The LEO, if he's at all competent, will have a whole list of reasons why your maneuver should be considered unsafe. What will your defense be? "I thought it was safe"? Trust me: I've seen that "I didn't do it" defense attempted in traffic court multiple times and it doesn't seem to work. Maybe you've got something better than that in mind, though?

 

[RightCoastBias]

Can you prove to the judge that your video footage wasn't altered or edited? Are you planning to show up in court with a large monitor so everyone can watch the footage simultaneously? Are you videotaping traffic in front of and behind you? If you can't answer 'Yes' to all of those questions, I wouldn't count on your video being allowed or carrying much weight if it is allowed.

Unfortunately, disputing the "unsafe" argument will be almost impossible. The LEO will, effectively, be testifying as an expert witness and the judge will give far more weight to his viewpoint than to yours. The LEO, if he's at all competent, will have a whole list of reasons why your maneuver should be considered unsafe. What will your defense be? "I thought it was safe"? Trust me: I've seen that "I didn't do it" defense attempted in traffic court multiple times and it doesn't seem to work. Maybe you've got something better than that in mind, though?

So you're saying there is no way to submit video footage as evidence?

I'd rather take my chances fighting a ticket for unsafe lane change while lane splitting which is legal in CA, than a speeding ticket, which is not.

 

[MrIncredible]

Again, you seem completely incapable of understanding my point.

Your point has been and still is woefully unclear.

 

[metrorollah]

Partial response from Quick's office. Updated on post #1.

 

[metrorollah]

They didn't even give us a years break since SB350 died. I hate how they can rely on voter fatigue to slip this shit through. I wonder who's behind this legislation?

SB350 was way worse in my opinion, but less toxic than this one. AB51 actually gives specifics on how to commit lane splitting crimes.

 

[packnrat]

need to find out what people in his office wroth this for him and are pushing him to go forward with it.where is the money coming from???
who is going to make money if this become a law???


.

 

[U26A1]

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.

Any legislation?

So if somebody were to introduce a bill that in its entirety was large capital letters that literally read "LANESPLITTING IS OK" . . . you'd be against it?

You have to keep in mind: we are in an echo chamber on this forum. All of us here know that lanesplitting is legal. 99.x% of the public does not. The vast, vast majority of my non-moto friends/family/coworkers etc that I talk to are surprised to find out that it is legal the first time I broach the subject with them.

I was ecstatic when the CHP guidelines were introduced. Actual state dollars spent on actually trying to educate car drivers on the fact that why yes, it is illegal to try to block a lanesplitting motorcyclist. Never thought I'd ever see that happen. This bill looks like it is just trying to codify those guidelines formally. This whole thing is as much about educating the non-motorcycling public as it is anything else.

 

[enki]

I support limiting to less than 35. Dont see. problem.

 

[fubar929]

Partial response from Quick's office. Updated on post #1.

Summary: Quick wants to codify lane-splitting so that it can't be made illegal. ABATE plans to shit all over his efforts. Why? Because they want to be able to split at speeds above 35mph. WTF? :wtf

 

[rodr]

If Quirk wants to "codify" lane splitting then the language should be changed to something that makes sense. The now-defunct CHP guidelines are not a good model because they try to work within existing law. If you're gonna change the law then do it right.

In particular: as I noted before, when splitting riders *do* cross the line often according to car positions, and this is to increase safety. This needs to be acknowledged and the crap about "entirely within a single lane" and "in the same lane" needs to be removed.

 

[mlm]

Summary: Quick wants to codify lane-splitting so that it can't be made illegal. ABATE plans to shit all over his efforts. Why? Because they want to be able to split at speeds above 35mph. WTF? :wtf

As it stands today, if you ride like a tool and attract the attention of a LEO, they might find a way to ticket you. This law wouldn't change that.

Passing a law is also no guarantee another law won't be passed in the future. Laws can and do change all the time. What do you think would happen if there is a measurable increase in accidents after the law is passed? Do you think opponents would just shrug their shoulders and think "darn…too bad this is legal or we'd pass a law to restrict it" :laughing

 

[domingo3]

First off, I want to say "thank you" to ABATE for representing moto riders in CA. I was not aware of this organization or what they have done for us until reading this thread.

I don't agree, however, than any and all proposed legislation regarding lanesplitting should be squashed, primarily for the reason quoted below. I'm mostly OK with the one proposed here. I agree with what some others have said about removing the part regarding staying in one lane to provide flexibility to cross over the line as space opens up one one side or the other. I'd also like to see a provision for sharing when there is only one lane each way.

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.

When I talk to non-riders about lane sharing, the "not-illegal" statement takes a lot of steam out of the argument from the get-go. Being able to quote a CVC that allows lane splitting would be a much better conversation starter. Also, I believe that we'd have more positive attitude from cagers about splitting if more people did follow the guidelines. High speed and high differential speed splitting causes more negative attitudes from my observations.

 

[Kurosaki]

I support limiting to less than 35. Dont see. problem.

The problem is I watch CHP moto officers splitting at typical freeway speeds all the time. I actually love following behind them. It's like walking behind Moses in the Red Sea.

If they're cool with those speeds, I'm cool with it.

I do not want specific speeds limiting splitting. It should fall under the law regarding other speed limits which is 'safe for current conditions' which as things currently stand, is how things are. If traffic is at a stand still, 35 isn't going to be safe for current conditions. If traffic is moving at 50, 55-60 is totally safe. The delta is way more important than the motorcycles singular speed.