2015 Lane Splitting Bill (Assembly Bill 51)

[Chill]

***2016 EDIT******
New language will be submitted to the Senate Transportation Committee on Tuesday May 31st.
Bay Area Riders Forum will endorse the revised bill. The officially language is still a draft, but once formalized we will share it with you. Thanks for your continued interest.
****END 2016 EDIT***

****EDITED****
Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with the 2015 Lane Splitting Bill (Assembly Bill 51). A discussion on Assembly Bill 51 is located below and here:
http://bayarearidersforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=468731

Essentially, the CHP was strong armed into removing the Guidelines for lanesharing from their website. Also, the Bill includes a speed limit for lanesharing. If the guidelines can be put back on the CHP website and the speed limit can be removed from the language in the Bill, then we would support this bill.

As riders, we should oppose any law that strictly defines how to laneshare on the principle that we have too many laws already. This is not about opposing because it limits the speed at which you can laneshare. This is about finding someway to make sure we don't lose lanesharing altogether, even if that eventually means supporting another bill.

How can you help? Contact your CA representatives. Use these broiler plate letters or come up with your own.

Regarding AB 51 as referenced here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/...introduced.pdf

As a motorcyclist I urge you to oppose this bill as it is currently written. If there is to be a new law, it needs to be done right and in a way that is a win-win for both motorcyclists and car drivers as was outlined in the CHP's Lane Splitting General Guidelines published earlier this year.

For example, existing law allows a vehicle to share a lane with another vehicle and to move into or out of that lane as long as it is practical and safe to do within existing speed limits.

AB 51 restricts a motorcycle riders ability to react to other vehicles moving near and around them on a crowded highway. This strikes at the very heart of motorcycle safety. To obey AB 51 as written could potentially force a motorcycle rider to maintain an unsafe position next to, behind or in front of an inattentive or erratic vehicle operator. Very dangerous.

I have been riding motorcycles in California for over 40 years, I would be delighted to share my insight with you or your staff regarding AB 51 and I invite you to contact me to discuss further. Thank you.

Regarding AB 51 as referenced here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/...introduced.pdf

I'm a long time motorcyclist and lane splitter, and feel fortunate California is with the rest of the world in allowing it. I urge you to oppose this and any related legislation, and remind your colleagues that law enforcement already has the appropriate discretion and tools to ensure public safety.

Thanks you for your time.

 

[budman]

Thanks Chill.

Will get a banner linked to this thread tomorrow to help get eyeballs on this.

:thumbup

 

[Jester]

Dammit, the assembly member for my district (20), Bill Quirk is the one who introduced this stupid bill.

I found this out after I sent him an email urging him to oppose the bill :laughing
:ride

 

[budman]

I wanted to update you all on this bill in this thread.

It is moving forward. I had the opportunity to meet with Assemblyman Quirk with Surj and a few members from East Bay MC's.

He is PRO Lanesplitting and is willing to listen to what motorcyclist have to say about the bill. We stressed the speed differential as the key to splitting safely. I also pointed out that there are times where a speed limitation as proposed could put a rider at risk as we need to find the gaps to keep us safe.

We also pointed out that the recent study showed that injuries are less severe when lane splitting and he has agreed to meet with Dr. Tom Rice who did the study and myself again. I talked with Dr. Rice and he agrees that the speed differential is the key element and a speed limit does not seem to be a prominent part of keeping the practice safe.

So with that.. I am hopeful that the bill will just include a speed differential element and with a bill that makes it legal beyond a shadow of a doubt we will see the Guidelines re-established and the education of drivers that it is legal become a much more aggressive part of the Office of Traffic Safety and CHP's programs.

So with that said.. I have flopped to support for this bill if it does not have a speed limit.

FYI.

 

[Butch]

this just sent to my assembly person (who has a couple motorcycles in her garage)

Regarding AB 51; Your husband is a motorcyclist, so I hope you are already engaged with this.

As a motorcyclist I urge you to oppose this bill as it is currently written. If there is to be a new law, it needs to be done right and in a way that is a win-win for both motorcyclists and car drivers as was outlined in the CHP's Lane Splitting General Guidelines published earlier this year.

For example, existing law allows a vehicle to share a lane with another vehicle and to move into or out of that lane as long as it is practical and safe to do within existing speed limits.

AB 51 restricts a motorcycle riders ability to react to other vehicles moving near and around them on a crowded highway. This strikes at the very heart of motorcycle safety. To obey AB 51 as written could potentially force a motorcycle rider to maintain an unsafe position next to, behind or in front of an inattentive or erratic vehicle operator. This is dangerous and possibly life threatening.

I have been riding motorcycles in California for over 40 years and am actively involved with the bayarearidersforum and would be delighted to share our insight with you or your staff regarding AB 51 and I invite you to contact me to discuss further. Thank you.

 

[budman]

Attended a town hall meeting with Assemblyman Quirk and clubs from around the Bay Area. Interesting experience.

He mentioned a speed and the club members mentioned over and over they don't want that. There is work to do to convince him. Even if we do I am worried that others will adjust the bill.

He did confirm if they try to make it illegal he will abandon the bill.

Quirk front middle in the blue shirt.

 

[budman]

I sent the picture to the Assemblyman and he was polite enough to say thank you. Dr. Rice, myself and a few gents from the alliance of clubs will be meeting with Mr. Quirk on March 6th.

Hopefully Nick Haris from the AMA will join us too.
All parties on our side of the fence agree that we prefer no speed limit.

Dr. Rice's recent analysis confirms that speed differential is the key.
Since Mr. Quirk was a Nuclear Scientist I am hoping Dr. Rice's analysis will make a big impact.

Since he is not a rider he likely does not really understand my real world experience of the accordion effect of traffic and having to look down to see how fast we are going vs. doing what we have to for the safety of the gap seems less than scientific. He has acknowledged there are no doubt times when an action to stay safe above his 30mph speed is necessary. How that works I don't know.

If anyone has a great YouTube video they have seen about finding the gap I would love to see it. Or one where a rider for another state could not split and got whacked.

Thanks

 

[enwoo]

Thank you for all your effort in helping to keep our riding "free."

 

[rodr]

What's the latest with AB 52?

I'm planning to attend a "coffee and conversation" event with my assembly rep (Jim Frazier) on 2/28 and would like to stay current to have a clue what to say to him.

This is coming up Saturday morning. Just wondering if there is a draft somewhere of the version of the bill that has only the speed differential? It would be nice to point out exactly what it is that I'm supporting.

Also I had earlier suggested the thing about allowing free movement across the line according to car positions, removing the stuff about staying in one lane while splitting. Is that being considered?

I like the group pic, will pass on a copy to him.

 

[budman]

There is not Rod.
March 6th a panel of riders are meeting with Quirk.
Me
Surj
Nick Haris from AMA.
Dr. Rice from Berkely
3 members from the UMCoAC

All are in the same page. No speed limit.
Put the guidelines back up.
Don't make us look down to check speed when the accordion of traffic is closing on us.

Dr. Rice has a newer summary coming out for the meeting that shows speed has little affect on crashing.

The Assemblyman still has to be convinced. That is our mission.

 

[rodr]

Thanks Dennis! I'll make do then. Really appreciate your ongoing efforts with this.

 

[budman]

One for all.... all for one. :ride

 

[rodr]

So I talked with Frazier one-on-one for a few minutes about the bill. Turns out he's chair of the Transportation Committee, and he has discussed it in the past with Quirk. He's also a former motorcyclist. I mentioned that I'm active on this forum and it has over 30,000 members and that many of us think the bill is OK if the speed limit is taken out, yada yada.

Main thing I expressed is that we didn't want the bill to become a target for more restrictions against riders, and Frazier acknowledged that could happen (and that's really up to Quirk as the bill's author). HOWEVER when he rode he didn't lane split and is not convinced it's a good idea. I left him with a couple of things written out as well as a printout of the first 5 pages of the study done by UCB. He said he'll read up on it to get more informed.

 

[budman]

Right on Rod. :thumbup

As a follow up I can throw you my presentation to the Assemblyman once done.
It will summarize a lot of the Data collection/Analysis and the Survey on how the Guidelines helped make splitting safer and also WHY NO SPEED LIMIT is beneficial.

 

[rodr]

Sounds good Dennis!

 

[rodr]

By the way, don't forget to make the following point and/or consider the following way of saying it:

At any speed below the speed limit, the danger of a rider being rear-ended is significant. At speeds above 35 mph there would be considerable carnage from that.

If splitting, consequences of screwing up are similarly severe. However if an accident from being rear-ended is more likely than an accident from splitting, then splitting is still the winner at these higher speeds. THIS is why raw speed is not so important, as long as it's within the speed limit that applies to everyone.

Accidents from splitting will depend greatly on rider skills. It's certainly true that inexperienced riders should not split. What we want to do is keep it legal for those who do have the experience, and we hope that those who are not familiar with or are not (yet) comfortable with the practice will appreciate that.

Everyone benefits from lane splitting in the same way that they benefit from more lanes. It's a win-win. On that point, Frazier pointed out to me that "motorcycles already get a free ride in the HOV lane." It's clear that he and others have some premeditated views on the topic, and those who see it negatively are not appreciating the win-win; they see riders as the only ones who benefit. So I think spending extra time to get that across is important.

 

[budman]

All over that Rod. Includes graphics and photos.

SHOCKED that he thinks we are getting a free pass.. :wtf :wow

Thanks
ort

 

[Maddevill]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I heard that one good thing about the bill is it would, for the first time, make lane splitting actually legal, rather than a grey area judgement. This would make it way harder to throw out at some future date. True?

 

[rodr]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I heard that one good thing about the bill is it would, for the first time, make lane splitting actually legal, rather than a grey area judgement. This would make it way harder to throw out at some future date. True?

Sort of. It's already legal since there's no law against it. The law would codify more exactly when it is and is not legal. Dunno how it might affect the future... riders who split have a bad PR problem and IMO we need to start calling them out on douchbaggery, or things will end badly.

 

[Maddevill]

Sort of. It's already legal since there's no law against it. The law would codify more exactly when it is and is not legal. Dunno how it might affect the future... riders who split have a bad PR problem and IMO we need to start calling them out on douchbaggery, or things will end badly.

But that's my point. Right now it isn't technically legal, it just isn't technically illegal either. The bill would make lanesplitting an actual legal act, written and therefore it would take much more work to throw it out again as illegal.