CA Finally Admits 'Lane-Splitting' Is NOT Legal

[tangorider]

Let me know how that Missouri lane-splitting turns out - presuming you're allowed a phone call.

 

[tangorider]

If lane-splitting could be made with reasonable safety and/or allows to reduce traffic congestion (and therefore pollution), it should deserve legal status for the benefit of everyone.

 

[rad]

If lane-splitting could be made with reasonable safety and/or allows to reduce traffic congestion (and therefore pollution), it should deserve legal status for the benefit of everyone.

My buddy, retired 20 year CHP motor officer and a fellow MSF instructor said he rolled on many an accident where motorcycles were rear ended, but never rolled on one from lane splitting. He is 100% convinced and passionate about how much safer lane splitting is than not lane splitting when done in a safe and prudent manner.

 

[98lee]

For some unknown reason, Kevin is intent on trying to tell everyone on this forum what the law is and how it is interpreted here in California.

He is WRONG (as has been pointed out by every California poster to this thread). I am sure he was a fine LEO in his own jurisdiction and knew their laws and how to interpret them, but his interpretation of what is and has been happening in California is very misleading to all that have been have been reading this thread.

Laws are different throughout this country. The way they are interpreted and what is condoned is different (even with similar wording).

And he can't blame the CHP for "allowing" lane splitting. EVERY California city LEO, county sheriff, state police officer, DMV, and judge "allows" it. That's quite a conspiricy supporting a "NOT LEGAL" action. Maybe they don't have access to this thread.

Would you hire a California lawyer to interpret Ohio property law, Missouri water rights, or Texas gun laws? Keep that in mind when listening to Wisconsin LEOs interpreting California Vehicle Code. Kinda funny when he tries to tell the CHP what they SHOULD be doing. I'm sure they appreciate his recommendations, but just haven't had time to get to them yet.

I have no idea why he insists on misleading you. He should be telling us about what he truly knows (and there is a wealth of that that is truly valuable)

 

[Omega Man]

FWIW, CBS News this morning. The news commentators remarks at the end of the piece

The video may take a few seconds to load.

[video]http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/california-could-be-first-state-to-legalize-lane-splitting/[/video]

OM

 

[rad]

FWIW, CBS News this morning. The news commentators remarks at the end of the piece

The video may take a few seconds to load.

[video]http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/california-could-be-first-state-to-legalize-lane-splitting/[/video]

OM

The bills author who is an x CHP officer said a number of times it will make motorcyclists safer and save lives. It is amazing how the general public and even fellow motorcyclists in other states don't understand this.

 

[98lee]

My issue is (and ONLY is) that he is mis-informing our readers. His title, the fact that he capitalized the NOT LEGAL, and the way his tone is one of "there, I told you so" strongly suggests to readers who don't have real knowledge of the situation, that lane splitting in California is ILLEGAL. That does no one a service.

He has been told over and over by every Calif. poster that his INTERPRETATION is not accurate. But, since he is an ex LEO, his opinion is given greater credence (which in MOST cases, is a reasonable expectation, just not in THIS case.)

This is an item that is very relavent to our members, whether they live in California or not. They may intend to visit CA, move to CA, or lobby for or against lane splitting in their own state. Being misinformed on the issue by someone of trust (Ex LEO) is not going to be helpful.

 

[ted]

I guess you could think of it this way - I could ride around Virginia all day with an AR-15 slung across my shoulder. But if I ride across Chain Bridge into DC I'd probably find myself in hot water pretty quickly. A DC lawyer will tell you open carry is illegal, a Virginia lawyer would tell you the opposite. They are both right (and of course, both wrong).

 

[88bmwjeff]

My issue is (and ONLY is) that he is mis-informing our readers. His title, the fact that he capitalized the NOT LEGAL, and the way his tone is one of "there, I told you so" strongly suggests to readers who don't have real knowledge of the situation, that lane splitting in California is ILLEGAL. That does no one a service.

He has been told over and over by every Calif. poster that his INTERPRETATION is not accurate. But, since he is an ex LEO, his opinion is given greater credence (which in MOST cases, is a reasonable expectation, just not in THIS case.)

This is an item that is very relavent to our members, whether they live in California or not. They may intend to visit CA, move to CA, or lobby for or against lane splitting in their own state. Being misinformed on the issue by someone of trust (Ex LEO) is not going to be helpful.

The big difference, IMO, is on how some people are defining what is legal. From what I've read, it appears that Kevin defines a legal action as one that is defined by a statute as being legal. Sorry Kevin if this is incorrect, but that's what it appears to me from what I've read. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth--just trying to understand your point of view. However, some, including some lawyers, define things are legal if they are not specified as being illegal. This boils down to word play and how those words are interpreted. One aspect that Kevin may be lacking is that judges, to the best of my knowledge, have affirmed in court actions that lane splitting is allowed. That provides a legal precedence, which by definition, to the best of my limited knowledge, makes it legal. Granted Kevin is correct in that there is no statute on the books permitting this action, but I believe the legal precedence does make it legal. Just as when the Supreme Court makes a decision, it becomes law of the land without a statute being passed.

 

[pauls1150]

Decent vid, even though it does show a couple of "definitely unsafe and/or illegal" moves...

And I really have to strongly agree with Lee.

Some of the major dealers in this area – specifically, Long Beach BMW, Century BMW, and Irv Seaver BMW – will sometimes host Open House events, with a barbeque, maybe a band, test rides (of course!), accessory vendor booths, equipment demonstrations, and even talks with Real Live C.H.P. Motor Officers. Lane-splitting is a subject that WILL be discussed at length, every time. In all of the events that I have attended, not a one of them has EVER said that lane-splitting is illegal. Note that these are the very guys whose job it is not just to keep us safe, but to initiate a penalty if and when we are not. They have not only studied some relevant CA law, they have immediate access to the entire Code. Of course they (and we) can offer many ways that it can be unsafe enough to demand a citation (see post 29 for a few examples), but if the rider is traveling “reasonably”, they will not waste their time over a silly or useless hassle.

Kevin, you have stated that you are not opposed to the idea, but what else you have posted appears contrary to this. It’s (almost) amusing to weigh that vis–à–vis against your earlier posts. Unless and until you have studied California law enough to pass the bar exams, or become the judge sitting behind the bench – that is, The Man Who Makes The Final Decision In The Court – your words on this subject are your own opinion and that of a few of your associates ... but that’s what “discussion forums” are for. To continue the cry that “It IS illegal! It IS illegal!” is wrong and misleading to our readers.

Mom told us motorcycling is dangerous, but the sky hasn’t fallen, we didn’t put somebody’s eye out, and our faces didn’t stick that way. By the way, I have been rear-ended - but that was on a surface street, where the idiot behind me didn't realize he was approaching a red light.

 

[36654]

I guess you could think of it this way - I could ride around Virginia all day.................

You might have the "right" to do some things in VA, I just wouldn't do them in places like Mclean or Crystal City area unless you like extra-special attention.

Similarly, Lane splitting is something that the whole driving populace will have to accept as beneficial and not just a means for a few riders to pass stopped traffic. Otherwise, the drivers will just assume that the riders are jumping line and will likely react in their own creative way. Apparently, the CA populace has progressed to a state of general acceptance of lane splitting. However, in my area, lane splitting would likely get you run off the road or worse.

 

[Friedle]

Lane splitting and hair splitting

I guess you could think of it this way - I could ride around Virginia all day with an AR-15 slung across my shoulder. But if I ride across Chain Bridge into DC I'd probably find myself in hot water pretty quickly. A DC lawyer will tell you open carry is illegal, a Virginia lawyer would tell you the opposite. They are both right (and of course, both wrong).

Hello Ted, nice to hear from you again. Still have the 1S2P plate on your bike? Friedle

 

[ted]

Hey Mike! I can't believe you remember that plate

 

[greenwald]

Decent vid, even though it does show a couple of "definitely unsafe and/or illegal" moves...

And I really have to strongly agree with Lee.

Any time a law enforcement officer pulls you over – regardless of the vehicle you’re using – he has already pretty much decided that you’re guilty. If you weren't (in his eyes), he wouldn’t have wasted his time with you in the first place.

This is the mental attitude of the typical LEO.

We have in this Forum a member who is well-known and well-respected for his many inputs to the magazine and to the Forum; one certainly cannot denigrate his wide experiences and we applaud his sharing his wisdom with us.

But even though he is retired, his mind is still locked in the LEO mode. Let me re-phrase that: the “Non-Californian” and the “Non-European, Non-Asian” LEO mode.

Some of the major dealers in this area – specifically, Long Beach BMW, Century BMW, and Irv Seaver BMW – will sometimes host Open House events, with a barbeque, maybe a band, test rides (of course!), accessory vendor booths, equipment demonstrations, and even talks with Real Live C.H.P. Motor Officers. Lane-splitting is a subject that WILL be discussed at length, every time. In all of the events that I have attended, not a one of them has EVER said that lane-splitting is illegal. Note that these are the very guys whose job it is not just to keep us safe, but to initiate a penalty if and when we are not. They have not only studied some relevant CA law, they have immediate access to the entire Code. Of course they (and we) can offer many ways that it can be unsafe enough to demand a citation (see post 29 for a few examples), but if the rider is traveling “reasonably”, they will not waste their time over a silly or useless hassle.

Kevin, you have stated that you are not opposed to the idea, but what else you have posted appears contrary to this. It’s (almost) amusing to weigh that vis–à–vis against your earlier posts. Unless and until you have studied California law enough to pass the bar exams, or become the judge sitting behind the bench – that is, The Man Who Makes The Final Decision In The Court – your words on this subject are your own opinion and that of a few of your associates ... but that’s what “discussion forums” are for. To continue the cry that “It IS illegal! It IS illegal!” is not just wrong – and misleading to our readers – it’s outright ludicrous.

Mom told us motorcycling is dangerous, but the sky hasn’t fallen, we didn’t put somebody’s eye out, and our faces didn’t stick that way. By the way, I have been rear-ended - but that was on a surface street, where the idiot behind me didn't realize he was approaching a red light.

Holy Crap! Hold on there a minute, Skippy.

I just got back from the AMA SuperBike Races at Road America to discover that the playing field isn't exactly level.

Apparently, lowly Wisconsinites way over on this side of the country are incapable of dissecting California traffic laws (yes - they can be accessed on the internet, though apparently only those breathing CA air can properly decipher them?!), but yet you could perform a psycho-analysis on me from 2,113 miles away with infallible accuracy. That's quite the hat trick!

No worries - made me chuckle and smile, though the condescension was palpable.

Oh oh - big words for someone with "the mental attitude of the typical LEO," and a "non-CA, non-European, non-Asian" brain. I shall endeavor to locate my dunce cap and retreat to a corner for the rest of the evening.

 

[Bud]

Sure is a passionate issue for folks in CA.

How about looking at what the State of California official documents have to say about this bill.

BILL NUMBER: AB 51 INTRODUCED
BILL TEXT


INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Quirk

DECEMBER 1, 2014

An act to amend Section 21658 of the Vehicle Code, relating to
vehicles.



LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


AB 51, as introduced, Quirk. Vehicles: motorcycles: lane
splitting.
(1) Existing law requires, whenever a roadway has been divided
into 2 or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction,
that a vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely within
a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until the
movement can be made with reasonable safety. A violation of the
Vehicle Code is a crime.
This bill would authorize a motorcycle to be driven between rows
of stopped or moving vehicles in the same lane if the speed of
traffic is 35 miles per hour or less and the motorcycle is driven no
more than 10 miles per hour faster than the speed of traffic. The
bill would provide that these provisions do not authorize a
motorcycle to be driven in contravention of other laws relating to
the safe operation of a vehicle. By creating a new crime this bill
would impose a state-mandated local program.
(2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.

It would appear, that the text quoted from this document http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/asm/ab_0051-0100/ab_51_bill_20141201_introduced.html clearly states that under the current CA law lane splitting is a crime, otherwise this sentence, "A violation of the Vehicle Code is a crime.", makes no contextual sense.

In addition, the bill "would authorize a motorcycle to be driven between rows of stopped or moving vehicles in the same lane" and "creates a new crime" by limiting speeds while lane splitting.

One does not need to reside in CA or be an attorney licensed in CA to read the plain English text in the referenced document.

I'm not against lane splitting. Only pointing out what others have not, which is looking at the source documents regarding the proposed legislation.

YMMV

 

[MarkM]

The bill Bud quoted mentions same CA vehicle code I quoted previously, which says:
21658. Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, the following rules apply:
(a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until such movement can be made with reasonable safety.

No one has answered the question: To those who still maintain it is a legal activity, why is the above code not applicable?

 

[rxcrider]

As far as I can tell, sitting in Ohio, the same or similar words in the code just get enforced differently depending on where you are. I'd love to see reasonable splitting / filtering / sharing codified as expressly legal within certain limits using the same language in all states. I also expect to go to my grave without seeing it happen. At the end of the day, I'll still make illegal passes when it seems like a good option and hope for the best. Personally, I avoid traffic and freeways as much as possible and slow drivers combined with a lack of appropriate passing zones is a bigger issue for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ted]

One does not need to reside in CA or be an attorney licensed in CA to read the plain English text in the referenced document.

Nor does one need to be a CA licensed attorney to fire up Google and in less than a few minutes discover that California is the only State not to specifically prohibit lane-splitting, and further find that the California Highway Patrol, on its own website, says it is perfectly legal when done safely.

As any licensed lawyer will tell you, a statute, by itself, doesn't mean much.

 

[pauls1150]

Perhaps the purpose of the bill is to define what "reasonable safety" is?
That's certainly in the eye of the beholder, but if it would reduce the number of car drivers getting PO'd at us, that could be a good thing.

 

[AKsuited]

Nor does one need to be a CA licensed attorney to fire up Google and in less than a few minutes discover that California is the only State not to specifically prohibit lane-splitting, and further find that the California Highway Patrol, on its own website, says it is perfectly legal when done safely.

From that same website, different page: California law does not allow or prohibit motorcycles from passing other vehicles proceeding in the same direction within the same lane, a practice often called "lane splitting," "lane sharing" or "filtering."

Everyone is right, everyone is wrong, time to move on.

Harry