• Welcome, Guest! We hope you enjoy the excellent technical knowledge, event information and discussions that the BMW MOA forum provides. Some forum content will be hidden from you if you remain logged out. If you want to view all content, please click the 'Log in' button above and enter your BMW MOA username and password.

    If you are not an MOA member, why not take the time to join the club, so you can enjoy posting on the forum, the BMW Owners News magazine, and all of the discounts and benefits the BMW MOA offers?

New law on Lane Sharing / Splitting .. how do you read this?

There must be at least two lanes going in the direction you are going. You may split between those lanes. Between #1 and #2 lane is the recommended spot and may become the only legal one once the CHP weigh in again, as this is the only spot that cars are expecting it and there is more room for the cars to leave space as the #1 lane can hedge towards the center divider.

You may not go to the left of the left most lane of traffic in the direction you are traveling (unless it is a legal pass in the oncoming lane) or to the right of the right most lane of traffic in the direction you are traveling (illegal pass on the shoulder). Same as it's always been.



:dance:dance:dance
 
Last edited:
Who's on first:scratch

A visual helps some of us

Lane-Splitting-Guidelines.jpg


and then there is this one...not here of course

Lane-Splitting-Traffic-Congestion.jpg
 
So... only between #1 and #2, and not between #2 & #3...... even if there is a #4 and/or a #5??.

I have split a few times on previous visit.
It got kinda loud (wife screaming at me).

I will be on I-8, and I-15 and I-5 again in a few days... er, excuse me, THe 8 and the 15 and the 5.
(San Diego, near Ocean Beach, and headed out on day rides.)

.
 
So... only between #1 and #2, and not between #2 & #3...... even if there is a #4 and/or a #5??.
.

Dave,

While it is not specifically outlawed (yet) between other lanes, it is HIGHLY adviseable to stick to between #1 and #2 because other drivers don't expect it between other lanes and, for someone that doesn't do it routinely, you need use all the precautions you can.

If you split between #2 and #3, it causes the car in #2 to hedge to the left, right INTO the bike that is splitting between #1 and #2. It really makes it hard on the cars in the #2 lane to have to be looking at BOTH sides and weaving back and forth to make more room for the bikes. If everyone stays between #1 and #2, the cars in #1 stay to the left of their lane and the cars in #2 stay towards the right of their lane and Everybody's happy.

The slower lanes have much less lane discipline as they are the ones that are contantly getting on and off the freeways or aren't going to be on the freeway long enough to get to the fast lane and back before their exit. Also, they are the drivers that don't feel comfortable (in their own abilities) in the fast lane. They don't notice that 18 wheeler when they blindly change lanes 100 ft. before their exit, why would they notice a motorcycle?

The fast lanes in California generally have a higher percentage of people that are actually paying attention. It might only be 50%, but that's higher than the other lanes.:dunno

Plan each pass with care even (especially) when splitting for long distances in stop and go traffic. It is safer to split when there are cars next to each other because the chance of one of them suddenly decideing that he just has to get in the other lane NOW is low. Watch out for the frustrated driver that thinks the other lane is moving faster and there is an open spot next to him. He might not see YOU. Be careful when cars have JUST slowed. They might be thinking more about getting in another lane than watching out for bikes. Once they have slowed and feel resigned to the slow traffic, the lane disipline gets better, especially after the first bike goes by.

1st or second gear, cover the brakes and clutch, all conspicuity lights on. Modulators work great! Concentrate! It only takes a split second for things to go wrong.



:dance:dance:dance
 
Last edited:
I was riding south of LA on the 405 in September during a Friday afternoon rush hour. All the lanes were filled, and the far left lane was designated the HOV lane. All of the lane-splitting by we motorcyclists was done between the HOV lane and the #1 lane. Fortunately for this RT rider, the space was wider there with multiple lane markers. The motorcyclists were not following the 10 mph difference guideline (since the traffic was rolling along, stop and go, but otherwise about 20 mph). This neophyte from MA tried to move along smartly, but every few minutes I had to move into the HOV lane to let those behind get moving fast. The drivers were very helpful, moving to the left in the HOV lane and the right in the #1 lane to allow the motorcyclists through.

It would be great if this could be the law of the land, but we all know that will never happen...
 
I think the trend towards legislation favoring self driving cars will eventually kill lane splitting altogether, as a motorcycle coming through the lanes from the rear is something that they can not recognize easily and the cars are programmed to stay in the center of the lane. They will get confused. It will be easier to ban lane splitting than have the cars recognize the situation.:banghead



:dance:dance:dance
 
I think the trend towards legislation favoring self driving cars will eventually kill lane splitting altogether, as a motorcycle coming through the lanes from the rear is something that they can not recognize easily and the cars are programmed to stay in the center of the lane. They will get confused. It will be easier to ban lane splitting than have the cars recognize the situation.:banghead



:dance:dance:dance

So true. Though CA waited so long for this to be legalized, I think the clock is already ticking on it's sunset.

Visiting the San Fran area more frequently now (with my daughter in seminary in Berkeley), I mix it up with CA traffic there and on occasion, in the San Diego area (brother-in-law lives in Mira Mesa).

I have to chuckle that some motorists actually believe that bikes are going follow this law, which states:

"Do not travel more than 10 MPH faster than the flow of traffic."

"Do not split lanes when traffic is moving 30 MPH or faster"


"Ride a motorcycle between lanes of stopped or slower (<30 MPH) traffic."

I observed all of these tenants violated on a consistent basis - it's basically a free-for-all on the highways, albeit in the mantra of 'safety.'

Good Luck. :scratch
 
So true. Though CA waited so long for this to be legalized, I think the clock is already ticking on it's sunset.

Visiting the San Fran area more frequently now (with my daughter in seminary in Berkeley), I mix it up with CA traffic there and on occasion, in the San Diego area (brother-in-law lives in Mira Mesa).

I have to chuckle that some motorists actually believe that bikes are going follow this law, which states:

"Do not travel more than 10 MPH faster than the flow of traffic."

"Do not split lanes when traffic is moving 30 MPH or faster"


"Ride a motorcycle between lanes of stopped or slower (<30 MPH) traffic."

I observed all of these tenants violated on a consistent basis - it's basically a free-for-all on the highways, albeit in the mantra of 'safety.'

Good Luck. :scratch



Kevin,

While I'm sure you saw what you think are "violations", at this point they are only recommendations. No LAW exists specifying those speeds.
The LAW codifies lane splitting/sharing as a legal practice and recommends that the CHP come out with recommendations.

I would imagine that someone from a small town like Sheboygan, WI would see traffic in ANY large metropolitan area as a "free for all". But those that live in these areas are coping the best we can given the millions of cars on the roads all trying to get home and it actually works pretty well. Do we have some individuals who push the limits? Yes. Do we have some individuals who are just plain crazy? Yes. But we also have a huge majority of very good drivers managing a couple hours a day, in very heavy traffic, looking out for each other, making room for lane splitters, giving room for the 18 wheeler to make his lane change, alternating at lane mergers, etc. I would GUESS that California ranks Ok in the accidents PER MILES DRIVEN.

It's a good thing that small town residents are ALL perfect law abiders. No speeders. No crime. It must have made your tenure as an LEO pretty boring. But that's a good thing.:thumb We all want to see people safe. I live in a very low crime area with a decent size police force and I see the officers just cruising around 99% of the time. I like it like that!



:dance:dance:dance
 
Kevin,

While I'm sure you saw what you think are "violations", at this point they are only recommendations. No LAW exists specifying those speeds.
The LAW codifies lane splitting/sharing as a legal practice and recommends that the CHP come out with recommendations.

I would imagine that someone from a small town like Sheboygan, WI would see traffic in ANY large metropolitan area as a "free for all". But those that live in these areas are coping the best we can given the millions of cars on the roads all trying to get home and it actually works pretty well. Do we have some individuals who push the limits? Yes. Do we have some individuals who are just plain crazy? Yes. But we also have a huge majority of very good drivers managing a couple hours a day, in very heavy traffic, looking out for each other, making room for lane splitters, giving room for the 18 wheeler to make his lane change, alternating at lane mergers, etc. I would GUESS that California ranks Ok in the accidents PER MILES DRIVEN.

It's a good thing that small town residents are ALL perfect law abiders. No speeders. No crime. It must have made your tenure as an LEO pretty boring. But that's a good thing.:thumb We all want to see people safe. I live in a very low crime area with a decent size police force and I see the officers just cruising around 99% of the time. I like it like that!



:dance:dance:dance

Hmmmmmmmmm......... ....... "no speeders, no crime..." "my tenure boring" and "no experience with big-city traffic?"

Not even close to describing my 32+ years on the streets - nice try. :nono

And if all you have is 'guidelines' to regulate this law, then that explains the 'free for all' operation I observed in both San Diego and San Fran.
 
What is clear from this, and previous discussions is that Kevin detests the notion of lane sharing and many riders in California have been doing it for years and like it. The argument over whether it is legal, or just not illegal is over. But that didn't change Kevin's mind about its merits, nor the California rider's minds about its merits either.
 
I have to chuckle that some motorists actually believe that bikes are going follow this law, which states:

"Do not travel more than 10 MPH faster than the flow of traffic."

"Do not split lanes when traffic is moving 30 MPH or faster"

"Ride a motorcycle between lanes of stopped or slower (<30 MPH) traffic."

I observed all of these tenants violated on a consistent basis –

I'm not sure how someone with a law enforcement career behind them, and your credentials with the MSF could get this so wrong. The law DOES NOT, as you claim, state these things. The law defines lane splitting, allows the CHP to look into 'best practices,' and codifies that it is not illegal. That's it. At one time there were guidelines on the DMV website, but when it was pointed out that there was no scientific support or consensus for those guidelines, they were deleted.

In a CHP brochure written with input from the CMSP (California Motorcyclist Safety Program) they are termed "safety tips." They are not codified in the law, as you claimed. http://lanesplittingislegal.com/assets/docs/CHP-Lane-Splitting-Brochure.pdf

They can also be found on a publication from the CMSP, called "Lane Splitting General Guidelines" http://lanesplittingislegal.com/assets/docs/CHP-lane-splitting-guidelines-California.pdf

Notice the use of the key words, "tips" and "guidelines."

The bill that the law came from "permits the CHP to develop lane splitting educational safety guidelines in consultation with other state traffic safety agencies and at least one organization focused on motorcycle safety." http://patch.com/california/banning...-truly-handsfree-driving-carseat-changes-lane
 
I'm not sure how someone with a law enforcement career behind them, and your credentials with the MSF could get this so wrong. The law DOES NOT, as you claim, state these things. The law defines lane splitting, allows the CHP to look into 'best practices,' and codifies that it is not illegal. That's it. At one time there were guidelines on the DMV website, but when it was pointed out that there was no scientific support or consensus for those guidelines, they were deleted.

In a CHP brochure written with input from the CMSP (California Motorcyclist Safety Program) they are termed "safety tips." They are not codified in the law, as you claimed. http://lanesplittingislegal.com/assets/docs/CHP-Lane-Splitting-Brochure.pdf

They can also be found on a publication from the CMSP, called "Lane Splitting General Guidelines" http://lanesplittingislegal.com/assets/docs/CHP-lane-splitting-guidelines-California.pdf

Notice the use of the key words, "tips" and "guidelines."

The bill that the law came from "permits the CHP to develop lane splitting educational safety guidelines in consultation with other state traffic safety agencies and at least one organization focused on motorcycle safety." http://patch.com/california/banning...-truly-handsfree-driving-carseat-changes-lane

Actually, if you look, I already corrected myself in Post #12. You're late to the party.

And like I commented - if all you have to work with is "guidelines" and "recommendations," that explains much. :dance
 
Actually, if you look, I already corrected myself in Post #12. You're late to the party.

First, your post #12 was written while I was writing my response to your post #10 which misstated the law on lane sharing in California. How someone with "32+ years on the streets" could make such an egregious error, is difficult to understand. It only took me a couple of minutes to find the facts that I provided in my previous post. It appears that your apparent dislike for lane sharing has allowed you to be less–than–accurate in your writing on this matter.

Second, I saw nothing in your post #12 that you"corrected yourself." You said that the lane sharing law in CA stated things that it did not. Nor was there an admission that you were wrong in your statement. It looked to me as if you just glossed over that fact. It's not a big deal, but your difficulty, perhaps your inability, to simply admit it, may tell us some things.

And like I commented - if all you have to work with is "guidelines" and "recommendations," that explains much.

The CVC (California Vehicle code) has never addressed the issue of lane sharing so the CHP's position was that it was legal. It was up to each law enforcement officer to use his discretion as to when a rider was being unsafe. Such things as speed of the rider, speed of traffic, lane width, roadway and traffic conditions, and the relative danger, were completely subjective and open to interpretation. Now that it's codified, the CHP has been "authorized to develop ... guidelines, ... consult with other ... safety agencies, and at least one organization focused on motorcycle safety." I'm confident that when these things have been completed, that legislators will put the results of those findings into the VC. Then riders will have specific rules to follow when they share lanes, and officers won't have to use solely their judgment as to when a violation has been committed. They'll have hard and fast guidelines to go by.

In any case, please tell us what you mean by the statement, "if all you have to work with is 'guidelines' and 'recommendations,' that explains much." You also made a similar statement previously. What do YOU think it "explains?"
 
My dear beemerdood -

Your commentary is getting a tad sarcastic and accusatory, but that's OK with me - thick skin. If we can't examine this phenomenon with objectivity, best we not discuss it at all.

As Paul somewhat enthusiastically pointed out, I 'detest' lane splitting, though that's a bit too strongly worded - more like, I don't really consider it a 'safety option,' so much as simply a long-practiced convenience in your state.

No need for us to go round and round on this - your passion for this practice is evident, so I'll not disturb your feelings on this issue.

As I certainly do not wish you to lose sleep over the absence of an epic apology, I officially apologize for confusing guidelines with actual statutory requirements. :bow If you wish to continue insulting my "experience and expertise," you are welcome to do so. After all, I am unaware of your credentials.


Ride safe and often in your state! :thumb
 
As always, this topic often ( sometimes always)brings diametrically opposed stances.

Lets respect the difference of opinions and not go down the personal feelings rabbit hole .

I have done it, not done it, wished I could do it and shook my head for some who practice it with no others safety in mind.
It works where it works and a necessity in the toolbox of many riders where it is practiced. I move on.
 
A proposed lane splitting law for Montana died in committee in the legislature for the second year in a row. Having a lane splitting law in Montana makes about as much sense as a screen door on a submarine. :scratch
 
My dear beemerdood -

Your commentary is getting a tad sarcastic

You write, "My dear beemerdood" – and you say that I'm "getting a tad sarcastic?" LOL.

and accusatory,

"[A]ccusatory?" You made a mistake. I caught it and called you on it. Then you claim that you had "corrected" it before I had a chance to post my reply. But in fact, you had neither corrected it, nor had you even admitted the error.

but that's OK with me - thick skin. If we can't examine this phonemnum with objectivity, best we not discuss it at all.

But we are "discuss[ing] it." And it does not seem, especially with your admission that you dislike lane sharing, that you are being objective.

As Paul somewhat enthusiastically pointed out, I 'detest' lane splitting, though that's a bit too strongly worded - more like, I don't really consider it a 'safety option,' so much as simply a long-practiced convenience in your state.

Traffic laws are based in safety of the traveling public. A good part of that involves keeping traffic moving, a matter of, as you say, "convenience." Rumors are that back in the day, when all motorcycles were air cooled, that lane sharing was permitted because it kept them moving so they did not overheat. But I've never seen that rumor confirmed. There have been several safety studies that show that lane sharing keeps traffic moving, and is safer for motorcyclists, but there have been some saying that there is no difference regarding safety. There may be some showing the reverse of the first one, I can't keep up.

It seems obvious that that it does move traffic along, since the bikes aren't taking up space in traffic. I've seen both rear end collisions and bikers who have gone down while lane sharing. I had a good friend killed while lane sharing, but he was one of those who rode much too fast while passing traffic, and another one purposefully taken down (only slightly injured) by a driver who didn't think he should be riding past him in the same lane. I've seen several serious injuries from riders who were rear ended, while sitting in traffic. Generally the rear end collisions I've seen, resulted in far more serious injuries than from lane sharing. It's my opinion, formed through over 50 years of riding, and many years of accident investigation, that lane sharing, especially when done within the guidelines suggested by the CHP, (or close to them) is safer for the motorcyclist than taking up space in traffic. It's been my experience that the accidents that occur during lane sharing are less traumatic than the rear end collisions that occur while sitting in traffic.

It seems to me that since lane sharing is only lawful in CA that those from other states are talking more theory than practice, since they have little or no experience with it. And so I tend to rely more on information from people who have actually seen and done it, as well as my own experience with it.

No need for us to go round and round on this - your passion for this practice is evident, so I'll not disturb your feelings on this issue.

You haven't "disturb[ed my] feelings on this issue." But your passing along of bad info is troublesome. I think that people rely on LE to have the best information on the law, and you obviously did not live up to that. When caught, instead of simply admitting your error, you tried to make me look like the bad guy, with a snide remark that I was "late to the party."

As I certainly do not wish you to lose sleep over the absence of an apology,

Yeah, no sarcasm there. LOL.

I officially apologize for confusing guidelines with actual statutory requirements.

Thanks. I think that any mistaken information that you may have conveyed, has now been corrected.

If you wish to continue insulting my "experience and expertise," you are welcome to do so. After all, I am unaware of your credentials.

I'm pretty sure that I didn't "insult [your] experience and expertise." I'm pretty sure that the only reference I made to it was that it was difficult to understand how someone with your education, training and experience could get an easily referenced law so wrong.

As to my credentials – I'm a 30 year retired police Sgt. who worked for two LE agencies in the Los Angeles, CA area. I worked patrol as Reserve, an officer, an FTO (Field Training Officer, a K−9 handler, and as a Sergeant. I worked SWAT, Traffic, Detectives, Personnel, on a SIT (Shooting Investigation Team), Vice, Narcotics, I've been the Rangemaster for the department and the department K−9 trainer. I'm a court recognized expert on the use of force, several weapons and weapons systems and K−9's. I now train people to train their dogs, teach the defensive use of firearms for a prominent company, and do consultant, work on the use of force and the training, use and deployment of K−9's.

But my credentials really have little to do with this exchange, I only provided this information so you'd have some idea of who you were talking with.

You made the error regarding the law, and I pointed it out. Anyone who was familiar with the new law in CA could have done that. Now you've admitted it and apologized for it.
 
Back
Top