2015 Lane Splitting Bill (Assembly Bill 51)

[rodr]

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.

Why more work? Outlawing lane splitting just requires a bill and a vote, no matter what the existing law may be.

The advantage of an explicit law is that everyone concerned with have some guidance as to what's acceptable and what isn't. The CHP tried to provide guidance but that was beaten down.

Also there's the PR associated with passing the law. That's a two-edged sword. One, more drivers will be aware that it's legal. Two, those who don't like it will be complaining. If enough of them complain we may see the worst outcome yet.

 

[danate]

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.

It is currently legal. Nothing is illegal unless there is a law against it. By defining it in a law, it allows them to restrict what about lane sharing is legal. All the work it would take to change it over to being illegal is another study now saying lane sharing is less safe and it could go the other way, law or no law.

I think we are on the right track with trying to remove the speed limit, but keep the delta. Judgement on the speed delta would likely be no different than it is now, but I worry about the speed issue. If a CHP reads a car travelling at 40mph, then sees you split past, that could equate an insta-ticket for breaking this new lane sharing law. That is ridiculous in my book.

Frazier is my assemblyman and I will be writing a letter to him as soon as I can.

 

[Cabrito]

http://abc7.com/news/motorcycle-lane-splitting-poses-no-additional-dangers/361883/

Drivers in the video complaining about moto's weaving in and out of traffic doesn't sound like they are talking about lane splitters. Sounds like they're talking about hooligans. The reporter maybe could have tried a little harder to find a positive response from a citizen.

At least it ended on a positive note.

Surj is getting a lot of air time eh?

 

[Shadoww]

Hey guys,
I am a little curious as to what the CURRENT law is. I was involved in an accident while lane splitting here in California in October of 2014. I was traveling at 50MPH and traffic was at 20-40MPH but i said traffic was going 30MPH in my report. We're still battling to find who is at fault because apparently from what i understand CURRENT law says you can split lanes up to 30MPH and no more than 15MPH faster than the flow of traffic. At least that's what i was told.

Are you guys telling me that they're wrong and I should technically not be at fault?

 

[budman]

There is no law saying 30MPH.
There is no law saying 15MPH.
There is no current law at all... just simply is not illegal to lanesplit.

You can only be cited for reckless.... if the officer thinks your loco!

 

[rodr]

No, current law has no speed limits or anything else that are specific to lane splitting/sharing. Did the police show up? Did you get a citation? If yes and no, respectively, I would think that's a pretty good argument that it's not your fault. But you might ask in the LEO forum.

 

[Shadoww]

No, current law has no speed limits or anything else that are specific to lane splitting/sharing. Did the police show up? Did you get a citation? If yes and no, respectively, I would think that's a pretty good argument that it's not your fault. But you might ask in the LEO forum.

No officer showed up since i didn't go down and neither parties were cited. It just broke a couple of my toes. The car made contact with me while i was right next to it.

My insurance agent is the one that says that there is something that says you can only go a certain speed. Should I ask him for the VC that he's talking about?

I appreciate the responses!

 

[rodr]

Well... you shouldn't be arguing with your *agent* about it, but rather a claims adjuster. And for that person to be saying what you indicated seems highly unprofessional.

If there's significant money at stake, I'd be lawyering up at this point.

 

[budman]

I have not taken the time to update this thread in part because I was a little frustrated with our meeting with the Assemblyman.

The reason is that the speed limit is looking like it will stay a part of the bill.
The good news is that it will likely go up a little.
The bad news is this will make me a law breaker.

Why??

Let’s look at the reason why there will likely be a speed limit.

Why… because we don’t crash enough at higher speeds to have a source of data.
That to me is such a frustrating take that I have been dwelling on it for over a week.

My take is that motorcyclist who split at higher speeds are simply good at the practice.

The Berkeley study loses all steam right at 45MPH. In fact I am still trying to find out of the crashes that did occur above 40 what was the speed differential…? I guess I need to wait for the final update to come out.

A study by one of the gents from the Hurt report on lane splitting speeds reported that 20% split above 40mph 11% split above 50 and 11% split above 60. That is some pretty high numbers and not having data on crashes tells me we are not crashing much above 40 because experience riders are the ones that are likely to be doing it. Also a factor is that higher speeds tend not to be just a wall to wall line of vehicles so splitting is a little less constant.

My take is exactly that I will do it when I need to so I can get to the safe spot.
Now it a speed limit is put in place it will make me a law breaker because I will do what I need to stay alive.

If a speed limit is too low then a consideration for a reckless could be made.

Quirk was very much discussing this with Dr. Rice only… he did not listen much to any of the other experienced motorcyclist. Dr. Rice does ride. Also their conversation dominated the hour meeting and we got left with 5 minutes to try an present our material, which seemed to be brushed off with little thought as to any of the awesome graphics I did..

I did leave him a couple of binders.

He plans on meeting with the CHP soon and asking them about the speed limit. I think right now 40 is in his mind as that is where Dr. Rice said he loses information. So a bit better than 30, but still not winning my heart.


And... if the CHP says 30 then I think he will roll back to that.

 

[Shadoww]

Well... you shouldn't be arguing with your *agent* about it, but rather a claims adjuster. And for that person to be saying what you indicated seems highly unprofessional.

If there's significant money at stake, I'd be lawyering up at this point.

Claims adjuster is who i was dealing with. Pardon my incorrect wording. We're talking about $800 in medical bills btw.

About the lawyer up- I called CycleLaw (the Instagram page that advertises attorneys for motorcycles) and they told me the same thing my Claims Adjuster said and that I really don't have much of a case because the speed was over the "safe speed" could this be because judicial precedence from a previous time someone went to court for this?

Sorry if i'm asking the same question you just answered but I can't imagine that two different people have the same exact incorrect information.

 

[rodr]

I have no insight into the case law... would just comment that an assertion like that is pretty worthless without the specific citation for it. Ask the adjuster to show you the authoritative source, whatever that may be. I would be interested myself.

 

[rodr]

Budman, thanks for the update!

 

[budman]

I'll be looking forward to the wording, if there is any.

I wondered who gets to decide when to lane share - meaning can cars pass you in the same lane the same way we can pass cars?

I also wondered specifically what makes it illegal to pass on a single lane of direction, or on the left side of freeway lane 1?

I also have wondered about the single lane share deal at least when the is a double yellow. Specifically when a car moves a bit to the right to allow you room to go by.



Never even thought about a car sharing past.. ever!!

 

[rodr]

I'm pretty sure it's legal to pass within the one available lane if there's room and it's otherwise legal (e.g. not speeding or reckless). It's the lack of any law against sharing a lane that gives us the right to lane split, no?

And yeah, given enough room I guess a car could split too.

 

[Chill]

Thank you for the update Bud! And thank you for representing us as a community.

As you said, one of the frustrating parts is that they are not looking at higher speeds "...because we don’t crash enough at higher speeds to have a source of data." I really hope they take that into consideration.

 

[budman]

It was evident Quirk will not.

My hope was to convince Dr. Rice I was correct and that did not happen. I even hit him up after with statistical analysis questions after and he has not responded.

The bill is on the agenda for tomorrows meeting and I will corner him in our committee. :teeth. I know he will be meeting with the CHP and Quirk so man.... I need so mojo to gather an influence I don't have right now.

 

[Hoho]

Hey Dennis,

I found this through Facebook off a video that ThumperX had shared. You probably already have this, but just double-checking. Pretty comprehensive study done in the EU.

EU MAIDS Report

Video Link


Hoho

 

[RightCoastBias]

And this is why we need to go all NRA on lane splitting laws and block any legislation. Legislation will NOT end well for us.

 

[budman]

April 6th is the hearing date... no movement on the speed at this point.

 

[JakesKTM]

What can we do to help? Should we be writing someone?