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

[flying_hun]

And a great party it was! arty Thanks to Surj, Bud, Quirk, the AMA, and ABATE for all their hard work. :thumbup

 

[injun]

Had to leave early but it was good to be a part of it !
Thank all of you for making it happen!:hail:hail:hail:newbie:newbie:thumbup:thumbup:thumbup:thumbup

 

[Butch]

You guys are awesome...

Edit. Nick Haris, AMA dog, mentioned a bunch of issues. One that is particurlarly urgent is the zero emmission ohv park that The Deanster has been working in for years. There is a meeting next Thursday, Oct 13, 4 pm, at the new City Hall.

If some of you guys could attend to show support, it would be significant. Really.

More to follow.

 

[magyarbetyar]

I preferred being at the mercy of the cop pulling me over and the "reasonableness" test. Now we are going to get a bunch of chickenshit guidelines that only outline how the tickets are written when you exceed some arbitrary parameter.
One step closer to ruining the last good thing here besides the weather and sooner or later those gov't dirtbags are going to mess that up too.

This is what I am afraid will happen too.

 

[Butch]

This is what I am afraid will happen too.

The big picture is really so much more complicated.
AB51 is really awesome for California motorcyclists, and many other states to follow. It will help save our lives, as well as releaving congestion.

We need folks who ride to be more engaged in the political process, as painful as it is. This is our future. Please help.

 

[JZH]

The evolution of this bill, as detailed on Surj's site, makes it clear that it went from (a) "what we want" to (b) "what we can accept" to (c) "er, okay". I agree that after the CHP guidelines were pulled, something had to be done, and something was done, but what that "something" will turn out to be is still TBD: the specified "educational guidelines" will NOT necessarily be the same as the previous ones.

Some measure of jubilation is to be expected from those who committed time and effort to get this bill passed, but the result should not be overstated (e.g., claiming that this bill "legalized lane splitting"). If you want to see what legalization of lane splitting would have looked like, it's in the previous draft of the bill: "(a) A motorcycle, as defined in Section 400, that has two wheels in contact with the ground may be driven between rows of stopped or moving vehicles in the same lane..." [emphasis added] The new law does contain a useful definition of lane splitting, but that definition is limited to "for purposes of this section", i.e., for the purposes of Section 21658.1, only, so this definition clearly has no other legal effect.

Fortunately, the legal status of lane splitting has not been changed--it is still as legal as singing while riding is. But I fear what the new guidelines might eventually contain... :|

Ciao,

 

[m0t0_ryder]

... But I fear what the new guidelines might eventually contain... :|

Ciao,

As do most all of us.

That is why we are so fortunate to have Budman, Nick Haris and James Lombardo on the CMSP Advisory Committee. I'm sure they will argue for the best possible set of guidelines.
This beats having no moto enthusiast providing input.

 

[budman]

Correction. It went to exactly the way we wanted.

No speed limits. No restrictions other than standing law.
Will there be attempts to restrict it in the future?? Of course.

It will likely take additional studies. More information to change the current application.

Right now the data says it is basically fine up to 50. I know that is because there was so little data that a number had to be chosen. 50 mph was where the data fell off. So few incidents that the data became inconclusive unless the speed differential was largely ignored. 22% of riders share above 50 mph. And that is actually really done pretty damn safely or the data of it not being so would have been overwhelming.

So we have a path.

We have a great chance to avoid changes to the law by being respectful and adhering to the 10-15 mph delta that will appear in the guidelines again. We, as always will be our own worst enemy. We will split at greater speeds, we will irratate the public.

It will cost more money and more time to gather true data that would create a basis for a good law. Does that mean a legislator will wait for that?? Nope. Once Joe public starts yelling then someone will try I suppose.

I am grateful to have a voice in the guidelines being restablished and just like before I know what we establish could become a basis for the law. As before, I will fight to allow for a generous consideration for expert riders and fight for the guidelines to be cognicent of many levels of skill.

The State realizes that we are part of a traffic solution and I truly believe that with the upcoming education splitting will become safer. I also truly believe that because some will not be mature enough to restrict themselves we will face problems in the future.

 

[ariacode]

So does lane splitting mean that you have to be between two lanes or does it still act as lane sharing and you ride within the lane?

This would be key to know about pulling up to a red light on a single lane filtering to the front sharing the lane.

Does it state that the two lanes you split have to travel in the same direction?

TIA

Anyone have an answer for this? I see something from before AB51 here:

If there is room to share, you can share. One lane or multiple lanes. It is just that with one lane, you have fewer places to go if something goes wrong. Be safe, consider your skills, the bike's capabilities, the various conditions, the other driver's awareness and skills and how badly you NEED to get by them right then. Act accordingly, remember all the choices being made are not up to you and accept the consequences if you screw up.

Life is not a video game. No reset button, Save Game or "god mode." At freeway speeds, you die or maybe become a paraplegic, if you are lucky.

AB51 says this:

21658.1. (a) For the purposes of this section, "lane splitting"
means driving a motorcycle, as defined in Section 400, that has two
wheels in contact with the ground, between rows of stopped or moving
vehicles in the same lane, including on both divided and undivided
streets, roads, or highways.

This seems more narrow than "If there is room to share you can share".

Sharing between traffic and the fog line does not fall within the definition of lane splitting.

It's not clear to me if sharing on the left between #1 and double yellow is considered "splitting". A literal reading of it would say that it's OK if there is stopped or moving traffic going in the other direction, but that doesn't make much sense. The way it's written looks like it was meant to be "moving vehicles in the same direction".

If AB51 is more meaningful than simply allowing guidelines to be distributed again, what is the status of lane sharing on the far left or far right?

 

[JZH]

If you read the statute narrowly, the CHP is authorized to produce guidelines relating ONLY to "lane splitting" meeting the definition contained therein, and NOT relating to any other kind of lane sharing not meeting that definition. But, I wouldn't count on the courts (or the CHP) interpreting it that way.

The definition is certainly a strange one. Why the "two wheels in contact with the ground" bit? Is wheelying while lane splitting really a "thing"? (OTOH, this could be read as exempting wheelying motorcycles from the definition, and thus, from any subsequent legislation incorporating it...)

Although I'm not impressed by the accuracy of the press coverage of AB51, I can't say I'm unhappy about headlines telling BDCs that "lane splitting is now perfectly legal", if only because it will help condition them to accept it and stop getting hysterical.

Ciao,

 

[ToraTora]

A new article from Thomas Elias posted on this subject from a cager point of view. As you can imagine it's not very glowing.

Suddenly you hear an ear-splitting roar from behind and a motorcycle rips past with leather-clad rider and mere inches between your car and the rider’s bike.

...

Which means other motorists can expect more and more loud, flinch-inducing moments that just might translate into better highway safety. Or the reverse. Only time will tell how that works out.

 

[Surj]

A new article from Thomas Elias posted on this subject from a cager point of view. As you can imagine it's not very glowing.

Sure, the sentiment of the article is not exactly pro-splitting but it's far better than most, because it actually provides a lot of background information on splitting, and therefore some legitimacy in spite of the overall tone.

Guys and gals, we bring this on ourselves. There was another post on here the other day about splitting too fast, and as usual, someone said "the people you need to reach aren't on here."

Not true. There are tons of riders here on BARF that split too fast, run too-loud pipes, and continue to create a divisive, us-vs-them mindset by thinking of and referring to drivers as "cagers," a derogatory term to be sure.

Stop it. This lack of self-awareness, of critical thought, of cause and effect from the riding community at large, it's our undoing in so many ways.

 

[SixShock]

A new article from Thomas Elias posted on this subject from a cager point of view. As you can imagine it's not very glowing.

Disregarded the article the moment I saw a blur of a sportbike rider.

 

[ScottRNelson]

It seemed reasonably unbiased until the second to last paragraph:

In short, a single study from one academic center has now produced a major change in California highway rules, with little or no consideration for the majority of drivers, who are in cars, not on cycles.

 

[gixxerjeff]

Methinks the war is not over.
(I already knew that)
"Left to our own devices...."

 

[KazMan]

I actually appreciated the article from the persons perspective behind the wheel. Is it correct, partially, is it unbiased, fairly with a hint of sedan shade to it, but it was something for all of us to take away from and figure out how to promote ourselves better on the road.

But I may see it a bit different as I am typically in the 15mph delta set and usually don't split above the posted speed limit. Yes...perhaps odd duck...which explains my hi-vis yellow riding gear :laughing

 

[budman]

I agree kaz... that is a good article.

A little drama to engage is OK.

I sent him an email correcting the one item about the CHP creating rules (Guidelines) and thanked him for it. I believe he writes for the Daily Post here in Palo Alto as well. His bio pic looks familiar.

I did tell him I am seldom startled because I watch for my fellow riders and I told him we are trying to create a respect level between riders and motorists.

 

[gixxerjeff]

....and then the other side of the coin.
"ear splitting lane splitters are here to stay."



http://napavalleyregister.com/news/...cle_836393e1-f122-53d9-a996-5c72ae07277d.html

:thumbdown to the hyperbolic headline.

 

[philipviana]

For what it's worth, I have begun to lower my delta and split less frequently as a result of what I've read on BARF, so it is reaching some of us. I think it also helps to get in a car once in a while and be on the "receiving end" of lane splitting to remember what it feels like.

 

[Marcoose]

....and then the other side of the coin.
"ear splitting lane splitters are here to stay."



http://napavalleyregister.com/news/...cle_836393e1-f122-53d9-a996-5c72ae07277d.html

:thumbdown to the hyperbolic headline.

It's like when people say, "it was like being hit by a freight train", as in, "I've been hit by freight trains, numerous times actually, and this thing felt just like being hit by one."