metrorollah
OWHLY?
That is correct. Lanesplitting is already "ok". If this bill had three capital words, as you say, it would be at best redundant to current status quo.
Last edited:
2015 Anti-Lane Splitting Bill (Assembly Bill 51)
- Thread starter metrorollah
- Start date
That is correct. Lanesplitting is already "ok". If this bill had three capital words, as you say, it would be at best redundant to current status quo.
metrorollah
OWHLY?
You are welcome. The American Brotherhood Aimed Towards Education promotes programs that exist to educate the public about rider safety. We strictly oppose any new legislation that does not conform to that standard. We oppose and safety rules or regulations that apply only to motorcycles, such as AB51. In the past ABATE has defeated bills that required motorcyclists to have "both feet on the footpegs, and two wheels on the ground at all times" for instance. It was believed that bill was an 'anti-stunting' bill, and was stricken for grounds of prejudice as it did not apply to all drivers equally. We filed a law suit in that particular battle. Again, there are already CVC violations in place to cover "careless driving," or "exhibition of speed."
While ab51 bill does include some language of educational value, ABATE does not feel that the a new law needs to be 'codified' in order to educate the public. We encourage the public to seek education in motorcycle safety. We encourage legislators to make that information mandatory, as on the driver's license written examination, for instance.
:thumbup
Last edited:
domingo3
Newb
I see police exceeding posted speed limits and rolling through stop signs all the time. Doesn't mean I will follow their lead and not fear a ticket.
I'm fine with there being a specific limit and fine with it being 10 mph delta over 35 mph traffic flow. I'd prefer to have a codified reasonable expectation rather than nothing. I know others disagree. Any speed you say, I could argue a faster speed is "safe". There's a subset of riders who could safely ride 70mph with a 30mph delta. In some situations I believe I could.
I believe that it will effectively be a judgement call by the officer anyway. I doubt that CHP is equipped or trained to simultaneously clock two speeds to determine traffic flow and delta speed.
Kurosaki
Akai Suisei - 赤い彗星
Exceeding Speed limits and rolling stop signs are illegal.
Lane splitting is not illegal.
If CHP wants to lane split at freeway speed, which is legal and not crazy, then I'm fine with the law being as it is.
metrorollah
OWHLY?
Just a note. CHP and all peace officers are required to follow all the same rules we are unless they are 1) in pursuit, with sirens and lights flashing or 2) en route to an emergency, again with appropriate signals. Either of these conditions exempt them from all speed limits, stop signs, or other roadway regulations, including what AB51 proposes. However, AB51 would curb their ability to lane-share at above 35mph to and from non-emergency destinations... such as the donut shop. :laughing
Last edited:
Kurosaki
Akai Suisei - 赤い彗星
I used to commute 50 miles each way in LA/Santa Monica traffic.
It was a daily occurrence. The LEOs usually split faster than me. I'd move over to let them through. Then I'd follow them.
But I experienced the same in Orange County and other areas traffic or free flow. They just do their thing and split with a normal delta.
Maybe it's a SoCal thing.:dunno I don't have much experience with Bay Area and Sacramento law enforcement yet.
Last edited:
metrorollah
OWHLY?
Same thing here. I once passed a M/C LEO (who was in traffic) while lane splitting and got pulled over and royally chewed out. No citation however, as he did not have a CVC code to pull. Things are good now, we aim to keep them that way.
Kurosaki
Akai Suisei - 赤い彗星
That's interesting. What'd they say?
GAJ
Well-known member
I think it's inevitable that this kind of thing will pass because of us!
Just take a look at this recent thread where the OP was derided as a pussy for shaking his head at dangerous splitting.
http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=468632
Part of me thinks if such a law passed it would be easier for other States to legalize lane splitting.
The number of riders who split beyond the CHP's now pulled guidelines has got to be close to 50 percent.
If that continues I predict some kind of legislation is inevitable.
Just take a look at this recent thread where the OP was derided as a pussy for shaking his head at dangerous splitting.
http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=468632
Part of me thinks if such a law passed it would be easier for other States to legalize lane splitting.
The number of riders who split beyond the CHP's now pulled guidelines has got to be close to 50 percent.
If that continues I predict some kind of legislation is inevitable.
metrorollah
OWHLY?
See thread here:
http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=308173
I was misinformed back then, BTW. There is no vehicle code regarding lane splitting. In retrospect his initial comment to me should have been "The reason I pulled you over is because...." That is what LEOs are required to tell you. I was being friendly.
Totally agree.
We are our own worst enemy. I continue to see riders splitting at a pretty high speed differential. I think that is the killer here. Seeing guys split easily at 45, 55 etc with little zpeed differential or excitement is not the big problem.
The big problem is riders doing 20 -30 mph faster than the cars... that scares your avg driver and you can say "So what?" all you want.
I will tell you what>>> Another damn law we don't need. The first step of crushing the practice.
This bill is not crazy bad in a sense of what it says... it is crazy bad in the sense of what it could ultimately could do. I am sure the hell against it.
However vs. banning lanesplitting I would take it in a heartbeat.
I URGE all to contact Quirk and politely disagree with the Bill by saying there are plenty of laws in place to cover it. What we need is to educate the public that it is legal and that does not require a law.
boney
Miles > Posts
Copied from the White House Petition thread where I mistakenly posted this the first time:
What if?
Suppose the bill only defined lane splitting/sharing and put no qualification on it?
Something like, lane sharing in CA allows motorcycles to move between two adjacent lanes moving in the same direction in slower moving or stopped traffic. At no point will CVC 51755 (driving on the shoulder) or 21460 (passing left of the double yellow) be considered.
It would memorialize lane splitting, define what it is and what it isn't.
I know the law-haters will hate it. But let's face a reality that no one has mentioned yet. THERE WILL BE A LAW EVENTUALLY. When all ya'll got butthurt and fighty-fight about the SMOG law that was really all about making loud exhausts quiet, everyone went to town on preventing a law. It's like you think that you can stop a steamroller by linking arms and and taking a stance.
It didn't work. We got a quiet pipes law that's technically worse than a law that puts sound limits on exhausts. Now new bikes have to have stamped exhausts, and any exhaust you put on your 2013 or newer bike has to be stamped. Chalk that one up as a loss. It could have been much better to just have a sound requirement on new pipes and a standard by which to measure it. You could have had any exhaust you wanted, so long as it wasn't stupid loud, but no, we can all pay more for CA legal pipes or face the chance of a fine and a fix-it.
This is the second time this dude in SJ has proposed this lane splitting bill. It's not going away. The approach no one took with the loud pipes bill was to embrace the conversation, discover the true intent (or make one up that suits you) and control the outcome. And to control the outcome you have to be in on the discussion. Sending this guy hate mail will only empower him, because law makers think that if they piss off everyone then they're making a good compromise. Engaging him, discussing it with him and helping him write a better lane sharing bill that the motorcyclists will endorse will give him the warm fuzzys. He'll think he's really helping out when in reality we're using him to get what we really want. (no real changes.)
It's too late to stop a lane sharing bill. We might as well make it one we can live with- one that has no speed limits involved, recognizes the CHP as the definitive decision maker on "guidelines" and is vague enough to keep the practice as is.
...And we're seriously poking the bear with the White House Petition...
What if?
Suppose the bill only defined lane splitting/sharing and put no qualification on it?
Something like, lane sharing in CA allows motorcycles to move between two adjacent lanes moving in the same direction in slower moving or stopped traffic. At no point will CVC 51755 (driving on the shoulder) or 21460 (passing left of the double yellow) be considered.
It would memorialize lane splitting, define what it is and what it isn't.
I know the law-haters will hate it. But let's face a reality that no one has mentioned yet. THERE WILL BE A LAW EVENTUALLY. When all ya'll got butthurt and fighty-fight about the SMOG law that was really all about making loud exhausts quiet, everyone went to town on preventing a law. It's like you think that you can stop a steamroller by linking arms and and taking a stance.
It didn't work. We got a quiet pipes law that's technically worse than a law that puts sound limits on exhausts. Now new bikes have to have stamped exhausts, and any exhaust you put on your 2013 or newer bike has to be stamped. Chalk that one up as a loss. It could have been much better to just have a sound requirement on new pipes and a standard by which to measure it. You could have had any exhaust you wanted, so long as it wasn't stupid loud, but no, we can all pay more for CA legal pipes or face the chance of a fine and a fix-it.
This is the second time this dude in SJ has proposed this lane splitting bill. It's not going away. The approach no one took with the loud pipes bill was to embrace the conversation, discover the true intent (or make one up that suits you) and control the outcome. And to control the outcome you have to be in on the discussion. Sending this guy hate mail will only empower him, because law makers think that if they piss off everyone then they're making a good compromise. Engaging him, discussing it with him and helping him write a better lane sharing bill that the motorcyclists will endorse will give him the warm fuzzys. He'll think he's really helping out when in reality we're using him to get what we really want. (no real changes.)
It's too late to stop a lane sharing bill. We might as well make it one we can live with- one that has no speed limits involved, recognizes the CHP as the definitive decision maker on "guidelines" and is vague enough to keep the practice as is.
...And we're seriously poking the bear with the White House Petition...
Last edited:
metrorollah
OWHLY?
boney
Miles > Posts
Then we're going to get a piece of shit when it happens. It may not be this guy but it will happen.
metrorollah
OWHLY?
ABATE's lobbyist has already got Mr. Quick's office to agree to make changes. See OP. We are already doing exactly what you propose.
boney
Miles > Posts
metrorollah
OWHLY?
I will actually be in LA for work during the Orange County PAC meeting. I am going to do my best to attend.
