Governor Brown Signs AB51 -- we are legal yo~!

two wheel tramp

two wheel tramp

exploring!
Surj said:
Noyce.

And speaking of that party, in case any of you aren't aware—Budman and I are throwing the best damn AB 51 party ever. :teeth

Social Gatherings Thread
Facebook event page

Please share the shit out of this thing. We're working hard to make it double-possum awesome.
Click to expand...


I invited all my friends that ride to the party via FaceBook and intend to bring as many newbs as I can from the newb ride that we're holding Saturday. :party
 
chiara

chiara

Well-known member
Surj said:
Michael, you didn't see the value of continuing that conversation on Facebook and said your "current professional and family obligations don't afford me the luxury of time" to get involved. Yet you found the time and the motivation to come over here to BARF and specifically name me and bring it up again.

I'm sorry that you don't get it and have ignored the wealth of information out there that would help you understand the situation. My current professional and personal obligations certainly don't allow me the luxury of wasting any more time trying to help you get there. But I can understand how it'd be "disturbing," given all the work you've put into this.

Oh, that's right. You haven't put any work into it, other than misinformed criticism of people that have put in the work and know more about details than you do.

If you want to fully accomplish the mission that you believe isn't accomplished, by all means, step up and do it. A perfect opportunity to get started on that would have been the CMSP meeting yesterday. The one you weren't at.
Click to expand...

Hi Surj,

I went back to the fb thread to refresh my memory. The fb thread became argumentative between Citybike & Kris, at which point I chose to participate in it again. Realizing that I had already made my point and any further discussion would likely be more argumentative and likely fruitless, I chose not to engage in it further.

I would like to apologize if my words here, on BARF, came across as a personal attack, naming you specifically. That wasn't my intent, but I can see how they may have been seen that way. You're right that I haven't been involved in the legislative process as far as AB51 was concerned. If the fact that I was not aware of AB51 until I saw fellow riders proclaiming 'Lane splitting is now legal!' on FB and the fact that I didn't go to a meeting I wasn't even aware was happening disqualify me from having an opinion, then I guess we're done talking.

If you seriously are attempting to recruit me to get involved I'll take you up on that. I truly am pressed for time right now but have a couple commitments that will be concluding at the end of the year. Shoot me a message through fb, let me know how I can help, and I promise I'll consider it. We are on the same sides of the issue. I think the new law has value, and commend the effort that doubtlessly went into it. It's simply a disagreement on what it accomplished.
 
chiara

chiara

Well-known member
tzrider said:
Since you didn't repost the relevant language, I will:



I have one question: Can you show me an example of a law enforcement agency developing educational guidelines for any activity that is not legal?
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong - I see the line of thinking and the point you're trying to make: 1) Legislature authorizes law enforcement to draft guidelines. 2) If guidelines are authorized then it can't be illegal.

However, to say the bill expressly stated it's legal is an inference of intent. It's not what the bill said. So it's still legal because it isn't stated illegal, as it's always been. You may think I'm hairsplitting but I'm not. It's an important detail if the goal is to have a code that informs law enforcement and the courts that splitting is legal by statute.
 
chiara

chiara

Well-known member
budman said:
I will ask Assembly member Quirk at our party on Saturday if it is legal. Maybe if he does say so peeps who are still dissenting will agree. I should have asked the CHP yesterday when we were at their HQ repping the two wheel masses.

Stay tuned.
Click to expand...

I'll watch the thread and thanks in advance.

We can argue about what the Bill accomplished until we're blue in the face but, in practice, what matters is the manner in which law enforcement and the courts choose to apply it.
 
DataDan

DataDan

Mama says he's bona fide
The purpose of the law as passed is to enable CHP to issue guidelines for lane splitting. Full stop.

Before it passed, the Office of Administrative Law ruled that the previous guidelines amounted to de facto law that had not been enacted as the constitution requires. There is nothing in the new law to be enforced, and since the guidelines are explicitly authorized as "educational" they cannot be enforced as law either.

We get guidelines that should improve the practice, which remains legal. We win. Thanks, all, for making this happen.
 
Surj

Surj

Uneasy Rider
Busy Little Shop said:
Thats what I was going to do if I rode down from Sac but I'm not sure about
the parking... I worry when my bike is out of sight...
Click to expand...

See the latest in the party thread—we're gonna have a bunch of bike parking right out front. And you can win a disc lock from ABUS in the pile of awesome door prizes.
 
Last edited:
budman

budman

General Menace
Staff member
Busy Little Shop said:
Thats what I was going to do if I rode down from Sac but I'm not sure about
the parking... I worry when my bike is out of sight...
Click to expand...


Come down Larry. Meet me and ask him.

IMO they had to make LS legal to overcome the OAL determination that the guidelines were underground law.

Mission accomplished.
 
A

ariacode

Well-known member
Chira brought up a really interesting point that I hadn't heard before. It's pretty fucked up that he was attacked for it.

DataDan's explanation that the previous guidelines were found to be de facto laws makes sense. It should probably be part of the front-page summary on lanesplittingislegal.com

Even with the explanation, the situation is nuanced, which makes it easy to think that it's tenuous. e.g.:

"Turning right on a red light is legal because it says so in section 21453 (B) in the CVC"

VS:

"Lane splitting is legal because at one point an agency said that the CHP's guidelines on it were de facto laws which hadn't been properly enacted and so a bill was passed which said that the CHP can make guidelines on lane splitting."

More examples of things that people do every day which are legal by "de facto" laws instead of being stated as legal in the CVC would probably help calm uneasiness about the situation. It'd help my unease, at least.

Personal attacks against people who raise questions about the situation only make it seem like the questions have merit.
 
Surj

Surj

Uneasy Rider
Marcoose said:
I clearly remember you explaining to me a few years ago that lane splitting had been legal for years. So did Surj. The change of tune is puzzling.
Click to expand...

There's no change in tune. Lane splitting was previously legal because it was not prohibited. But since the previous guidelines were shut down, we needed something on the books to let "us" educate riders and drivers again. As Dan said, and as I've said countless times, AB 51 was very much about letting us educate again, but also, having a law on the books may help protect us from an outright ban, which we'd previously faced.

ariacode said:
Chira brought up a really interesting point that I hadn't heard before. It's pretty fucked up that he was attacked for it.

DataDan's explanation that the previous guidelines were found to be de facto laws makes sense. It should probably be part of the front-page summary on lanesplittingislegal.com

Even with the explanation, the situation is nuanced, which makes it easy to think that it's tenuous. e.g.:

"Turning right on a red light is legal because it says so in section 21453 (B) in the CVC"

VS:

"Lane splitting is legal because at one point an agency said that the CHP's guidelines on it were de facto laws which hadn't been properly enacted and so a bill was passed which said that the CHP can make guidelines on lane splitting."

More examples of things that people do every day which are legal by "de facto" laws instead of being stated as legal in the CVC would probably help calm uneasiness about the situation. It'd help my unease, at least.

Personal attacks against people who raise questions about the situation only make it seem like the questions have merit.
Click to expand...

Personal attack? I called him on the uninformed stuff he and another guy argued with me about on Facebook. He said he was too busy to get involved, but not too busy to call me out specifically here.

You misunderstand the situation. The second point in your comparison isn't what we have. It's more like "Lane splitting has always been legal, but because the CHP guidelines were shot down, we needed something on the books to be able to educate again. AB 51 gets us that."
 
A

ariacode

Well-known member
Surj said:
You misunderstand the situation. The second point in your comparison isn't what we have. It's more like "Lane splitting has always been legal, but because the CHP guidelines were shot down, we needed something on the books to be able to educate again. AB 51 gets us that."
Click to expand...

I see. This explains the "underground regulations" issue well. Thanks.

Not gonna split hairs on the eve of your party. I'm happy and thankful that the crisis was resolved with pro-splitting coming out on top. Looking forward to the party and what comes next.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top