SacramentoMike
Not Safe For Work
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
