California Lane Splitting Guidelines Now Being Developed--UPDATED 5/18

This is now in effect as section 21658.1 of the Cali Vehicle Code. A Work Group will meet 3/21/17 to decide on specific guidelines. See post 101.

Original post below:

First of all, I thought I'd go straight to the section on "State by State Laws," but apparently it can only be moved there, not started there. At least by me.

This could be FAR more significant than it is at this point, but I decided to raise it now just to keep folks in the loop--we've had a lot of discussion on this recently.

I'm emphasizing that this is NOT LAW--it's a brand-new bill that hasn't been to even the first committee; it's a very long process. When we were discussing the guidelines that the CHP had on its website for lane splitting, and then their removal, a lot of folks read a lot more into that than was appropriate. Lane splitting has always been legal here. The guidelines were intended to help riders do it safely, and give LEOs information that they could use to help determine if it was being done safely (or justify their decisions).

My own feeling is I'm mostly sorry to see it put into law, because I worry a lot about what the final product could turn out to be. New law seldom (never, really) looks much like the first version introduced, after a lot of people weigh in with their own revisions. And we can't predict what "interested parties," aka lobbyists, might want to modify, dilute, or "augment" it with. I like things exactly the way they've been.

I should get to the thing itself. The text of the new language to be inserted into the California Vehicle Code (in the unlikely event it passes through both houses, all the committees, and the governor's desk unchanged) can be found here. The part with the most impact reads:

( C ) (1) A motorcycle, as defined in Section 400, may be driven
between rows of stopped or moving vehicles in the same lane,
including both divided and undivided streets, roads, or highways,
if both of the following conditions are present:

(A) The speed of traffic moving in the same direction is 35 miles
per hour or less.

( B ) The motorcycle is not driven more than 10 miles per hour
faster than the speed of traffic moving in the same direction.

(2) This subdivision does not authorize a motorcycle to be driven
in contravention of other laws relating to the safe operation of a
vehicle.

If you compare this to the old guidelines from the CHP website, you'll see they are more restrictive (the specific references to under 35 mph and +10 mph over traffic, for example).

The best-case possible scenario I can think of, though, is the HOPE that IF it goes through fairly unchanged, other states could do what they've often done in the past, and use it as a template for their own possible adoption. There are LOTS of examples of that throughout California law, and it's often funny to see how many states have virtually the exact same wording on laws that were first passed in CA, and I'm sure that's fairly common all over.

Just the idea that specific law authorizing what has always been accepted (and legal) here could give others a model, and that would be a biggie. I guess we can hope.

I'm not sure if those restrictions hurt or not (haven't ridden in a lane splitting state...yet), but even under those conditions, it would make things better here in Flatistan traffic. Though, I think there's a better chance of legalizing gambling and marijuana before allowing lane splitting here.

As an outside observer who normally lane-splits where appropriate, I'd say that quote shows a fairly sensible approach. Quoting from a post of mine in a related thread, my observation was:

If the traffic is moving above something like 15 or 20 mph, I don't filter. The actual speed depends on all sorts of probably indefinable variables, call it "gut feel" at the time.

I never travel much faster than the two queues I'm between, say 10 to 15 max; this includes stationary traffic. Again, "gut feel" comes into play.

Click to expand...

Not too far away.

One query is about the wording "between rows of stopped or moving vehicles in the same lane", does that infer lane sharing as opposed to splitting? (The fact that I ask the question means either it's badly worded, or that I'm more senile than I thought.) It's generally safest if you can ride the dividing line between lanes, maybe "borrowing" a bit of either lane to suit the cars' positioning.

S/M - thank you for continuing this discussion. I'm confused a little. I thought since lane splitting is "legal" in CA, that there must be some kind of law or statue on the books that makes is so. Do you not already have such a law, and if so, why is it necessary to have a new law?

LKLD said:

I'm not sure if those restrictions hurt or not (haven't ridden in a lane splitting state...yet), but even under those conditions, it would make things better here in Flatistan traffic. Though, I think there's a better chance of legalizing gambling and marijuana before allowing lane splitting here.

Click to expand...

SacramentoMiguelito: I hope this passes, as you state what starts in California usually becomes law in the other states!

LKLD: Gambling and MaryJane are illegal? Since when, ese! Certainly news to Papa Chuy Viejo, I wonder what's next!

hppants said:

S/M - thank you for continuing this discussion. I'm confused a little. I thought since lane splitting is "legal" in CA, that there must be some kind of law or statue on the books that makes is so. Do you not already have such a law, and if so, why is it necessary to have a new law?

Click to expand...

The state approach can be confusing sometimes. The OP also fell into the trap of "it's been legal".

The state says nothing one way or another about it in code. Anything not explicitly illegal (anywhere in the US) is, by extension okay to do. It seems that in recent years there's an assumption that anything not approved must be illegal and that's where the confusion comes in.

CA says nothing about lane sharing in its code so you can do it. Do it in a reckless manner and you could find yourself liable in the event of a crash. (That sentence sets off my internal klaxons because of the apparent "wreck" when things are "wreck-less". )

Most other states have something in their code about 2 vehicles in the same area of the same lane that precludes lane sharing until an exception is added.

First, I think the CA proposal is reasonable, and offers some guidance to motorcyclists to avoid some of the egregious behavior we've all seen from time to time.

My discussions with CHP officers is that a bike "sharing" a lane, must establish his lane, and signal changes. Weaving on the dividing line will be considered illegal lane changes by some officers, and might be enforced with a citation. In my experience, it is possible to establish a lane, but you may need to escape is a vehicle invades your safe space. I still try to hold a fairly steady course when splitting.

This may help in getting similar laws passed in other states, BUT all other states may need to also repeal the portion of the vehicle code that prohibits two vehicles from occupying the same lane.

hppants said:

S/M - thank you for continuing this discussion. I'm confused a little. I thought since lane splitting is "legal" in CA, that there must be some kind of law or statue on the books that makes is so. Do you not already have such a law, and if so, why is it necessary to have a new law?

Click to expand...

Laws generally don't work that way.

We don't normally pass laws to "make things legal". Usually, laws are passed to make things illegal, and everything not specifically illegal is, by definition, legal.

Passing laws to make a specific activity "legal" is fraught with problems, and I'm fairly confident we will find that out if this proposal goes anywhere.

hppants said:

S/M - thank you for continuing this discussion. I'm confused a little. I thought since lane splitting is "legal" in CA, that there must be some kind of law or statue on the books that makes is so. Do you not already have such a law, and if so, why is it necessary to have a new law?

Click to expand...

+1 on Twigg's response. My answers to your last two questions are, no we don't, and it isn't necessary to put "permission" to split into the law. Lane splitting is not "legal" in CA. Lane splitting is legal in CA. So is wearing one brown shoe and one black shoe, although nowhere in the statute books is it specifically addressed or made "legal." It's legal because it's not illegal. Difficult concept, I know.

But the idea of CA putting it specifically into law, I can hope, might give a precedent that supporters of the practice in other states can use to bolster their case when arguing for new law on the subject there. And at least here in CA, any new legislation on a subject that has impact on more than one statute will, in its final form, not just change a section as in the proposed legislation here, but incorporate any needed changes into those other sections as needed.

It seems to me that this is just an effort to put some enforceable limits on what's already happening. People can split lanes now because there's no law that says you can't. That would seem to leave it wildly open to interpretation about how fast you can go, how fast traffic can be going, etc. This would just set those limits. A LEO catches you doing 20mph through stopped traffic, he could write you a ticket because there is a law.

I'd love to be able to do 10mph through stopped traffic. I've been stopped, but not ticketed, for riding around traffic for less than 100 yards to get to my exit. Frustrating!

SacramentoMike said:

hppants said:

S/M - thank you for continuing this discussion. I'm confused a little. I thought since lane splitting is "legal" in CA, that there must be some kind of law or statue on the books that makes is so. Do you not already have such a law, and if so, why is it necessary to have a new law?

Click to expand...

+1 on Twigg's response. My answers to your last two questions are, no we don't, and it isn't necessary to put "permission" to split into the law. Lane splitting is not "legal" in CA. Lane splitting is legal in CA. So is wearing one brown shoe and one black shoe, although nowhere in the statute books is it specifically addressed or made "legal." It's legal because it's not illegal. Difficult concept, I know.

But the idea of CA putting it specifically into law, I can hope, might give a precedent that supporters of the practice in other states can use to bolster their case when arguing for new law on the subject there. And at least here in CA, any new legislation on a subject that has impact on more than one statute will, in its final form, not just change a section as in the proposed legislation here, but incorporate any needed changes into those other sections as needed.

Click to expand...

California law isn't that different from some others where lane sharing will earn you a quick ticket. PA doesn't actually prohibit two vehicles from occupying the same lane, but I'm pretty sure filtering and lane sharing would get a swift reaction. Explicit authorization in CA is a great benefit for those of us that would like to see the practice adopted elsewhere. How do you answer the question, "show me where it is allowed? It just doesn't work to answer that....well it's not prohibited.

TomInCA said:

California law isn't that different from some others where lane sharing will earn you a quick ticket. PA doesn't actually prohibit two vehicles from occupying the same lane, but I'm pretty sure filtering and lane sharing would get a swift reaction. Explicit authorization in CA is a great benefit for those of us that would like to see the practice adopted elsewhere. How do you answer the question, "show me where it is allowed? It just doesn't work to answer that....well it's not prohibited.

Click to expand...

Sure it works.

In every instance where you are cited, indicted or charged with breaking a law, the specific law and relevant sections have to be quoted or there is nothing to charge you with.

In Oklahoma, the statute would be the one covering two vehicles in one lane ... easy.

Oops found it...PA-sucks

§ 3523. Operating motorcycles on roadways laned for traffic.

(a) Right to use of lane.--All motorcycles are entitled to full use of a lane and no motor vehicle shall be driven in such a manner as to deprive any motorcycle of the full use of a lane.

(b ) Overtaking and passing.--The operator of a motorcycle shall not overtake and pass in the same lane occupied by the vehicle being overtaken.

(c ) Operation between lanes or vehicles.--No person shall operate a motorcycle between lanes of traffic or between adjacent lines or rows of vehicles.

(d) Limitation on operating abreast.--Motorcycles shall not be operated more than two abreast in a single lane.

(e) Limited access highways.--No motorized pedalcycle shall be operated on any limited access highway.

(f) Exception for police officers.--Subsections (b ) and (c ) do not apply to police officers in the performance of their official duties.

Admin Reminder: This thread is about a bill in California about lane splitting. It is not about Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, or somewhere else. It is not about marijuana, it is not about other laws, or other things. Please stick to the subject of the thread.

Thank.

The Management.

Ahem, Iggie, Lane SHARING...

.

I agree with some other comments that the proposed law is not "legalizing" lane sharing or lane splitting. It is setting specific limits as to the conditions when it is not legal. Ergo, it does imply that in the absence of those limitations, it is legal.

The big advantage here is that this will (could) be a law that can be held up and shown to other vehicle drivers so that they unequivocally understand that lane splitting IS legal. While most CA motorcyclists understand that it is legal, my understanding is that there are still many other motorists that think it is just hooliganism. All those motorcyclists are hooligans.

I think it is a good step both for California, and for other states to use as a boilerplate for their own adoption. I don't see how limiting the practice to those specific circumstances is overly restrictive.

Does someone really think they need to split through traffic by more than +10 mph, or ride between traffic that is moving faster than 35 mph? If so, I'm sure that you'll still be able to accomplish that. Just that it will be explicitly illegal, just like speeding or passing on a double yellow line.

I say "**** it" leave it alone..........

R

You would!

Lots of bills get introduced, never to see the light of day. I suspect this is one of them.

I need to take a look at the sponsor and any supporters to see what's up and why this is in the queue. Hmm, Bill Quirk...