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

[BigOgre]

Bringing this up again out of my own ignorance and curiosity. Recently RevZilla posted a video showing a motorcyclist doing a good deed during a morning commute. Over the course of the video several bikes are seen lane splitting/sharing prior to the highlight of the video. These others appear to be run-of-the-mill commuters also and not your stereotypical squids. Now I've read with interest several articles on the attempts to legalize this practice, digested the latest statistics showing how, if done properly, it could reduce injuries and have heard the opinions of those who've lived with it both here and abroad. Yet I remain skeptical, possibly influenced by living in the area that I do. So my question to those with real-world experience: Is what we see in the video the norm? Does it represent typical motorcyclists' behavior in an accepted lane-sharing area?

(Btw, afterwards I went back to read the comments section and see I'm not the only one who has noticed this.)

 

[PhilJet09]

All I can say is, like almost everything else in this world, until you've actually done it...you don't really know what you're talking about. We can say whatever it is you want to hear, but you still won't really know until you've tried it.

 

[user 31223]

Seems pretty normal to me, there's occasional idiots doing ridiculous speeds, but they are not the norm, in my daily commute experience.

 

[SacramentoMike]

So my question to those with real-world experience: Is what we see in the video the norm? Does it represent typical motorcyclists' behavior in an accepted lane-sharing area?

It's very tough to estimate anybody's speed from a video like this one, or the closing speed as the rider split between cars. One thing that wasn't tough at all to judge was the speed of the little red car as he Zoomed past traffic in the left breakdown lane. My point is I couldn't tell you if the guy with the camera was splitting within the speed limit (55 on the Bay Bridge) or closing with slower traffic by over 15 mph, which was the CHP guideline until they pulled it, and the max closing speed in the bill that was the original subject of this thread. It did seem a bit faster than +15, if I were to guess.

On your point, BigO, I think it was fairly normal lane splitting, even if it seemed VERY fast in the video. I base that on the speed other bikes were passing on both sides when the camera guy seemed to be going pretty quick already, and even the speed other cars on the road were passing in some cases. The camera can fool you, and the slightly fish-eye effect of GoPro cameras can amplify this.

Finally, just an update. There's been no action yet to revive AB51 here since the Assembly came back this month, but your post reminds me to check in with the author's office and see if they have anything planned. I've heard they don't, but I'll call and check anyway. But there sure was no shortage of dumb-assed comments, was there? Gotta love the internet, huh?

 

[hppants]

A big +1 to Philjet. Until I went to Europe and saw motorcycles lane splitting lawfully (NEVER exceeding the posted limit, and NEVER exceeding more than 10-ish mph faster than the adjacent traffic), I was very skeptical. Not only did my skepticism subside, but it prompted me to read more about it.

Many researchers are suggesting that the lane splitting area is actually SAFER for the motorcyclists. They offer that in the lane splitting area, the only thing they have to worry about front and rear are other motorcyclists. And while I'm not suggesting that all bikers are safe, just thinking about it statistically, the numbers move in your favor. Also in the lane split, especially in bumper to bumper traffic, you don't have to worry about cages cutting you off in a lane change. The traffic on the adjacent lane is protecting you.

I hope lane splitting catches on for more American States.

 

[mcatrophy]

... Also in the lane split, especially in bumper to bumper traffic, you don't have to worry about cages cutting you off in a lane change. The traffic on the adjacent lane is protecting you....

You can never assume a car won't try to swap lanes even in so-called bumper to bumper traffic. Even if the traffic flow is stationary, a car can attempt to move across into an adjacent lane, either because there is a gap, or to initiate a lane change when the traffic starts to move. You have to be totally focused on the possibilities. I find lane splitting quite tiring because of the concentration levels I put in to remain safe, but well worth it because of the progress that's possible.

 

[rickysnickers]

I have done it a few times on the freeway during bumper to bumper. Yes, there is always some person that sees a hole open up and they move over to get five feet ahead. Usually this is done w/o a blinker in my part of the world, SoCal. I went pretty slowly. In fact, I was going too slow for a CHP m/c officer that came up behind me. I moved over so he could get by. I had to smile because I was betting he was thinking "rookie." I getting mentally worn out from the concentration as well.

 

[fjrbird]

Put in some more lights on the fronts and turn on high beam all the time to get seen. Drivers on your right lane are likely to see you coming than ones on the left so stay close to the right lane. Safe riding!

 

[SacramentoMike]

Here's an update. AB 51 (remember AB 51?) IS being revived this year--year two of the 2-year legislative session. No movement yet, but look for info from me by May or so. Got this from the author's office today!

On fjrbird's comment above, the now-removed CHP guidelines had it that the best place to be to split lanes was between lanes one and two, and the lanes are numbered from left to right, so between the "fast" lane and the one next to it. Personally, I've always believed the driver who's most likely to see you is the one who happens to be looking at you, but you'd better not count on it.

 

[SacramentoMike]

I hadn't heard a word about this since it was shelved last fall, and the legislature has been back in session for several months, but an amended version was released today--it's not even in the Assembly's website yet, but the amended text follows:

Section 21658.1 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:

21658.1.

(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, including both divided and undivided streets, roads, or highways, if both of the following conditions are present:

(1) The motorcycle is not driven at a speed of more than 50 miles per hour.

(2) The motorcycle is not driven more than 15 miles per hour faster than the speed of traffic moving in the same direction.

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

SEC. 2.

No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

I will post updates as soon as they are available. It looks very good to me--NO substantial changes to the way it was left. Since it's already been through much of the analysis and committee process, it could move pretty quickly.

 

[Bokerfork]

Still leaves the ultimate question unanswered.

How do I know the speed of the other traffic unless it is at a zero. And therefore, how do I know if I'm within the 15MPH limit.

And FWIW 15MPH is a crawl. JSNS

 

[SacramentoMike]

Get a radar gun like the cops have.

 

[hppants]

Mike - correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the previous lane splitting law only allowed splitting vehicles to go 10 mph faster than adjourning traffic.

Also, I would suppose the general thinking is that if regular traffic is moving 50 mph, then there be no need to lane split.

 

[mcatrophy]

... Also, I would suppose the general thinking is that if regular traffic is moving 50 mph, then there be no need to lane split.

In my experience, it would be unwise to attempt to lane split much above that sort of speed. Ok, your lanes are generally wider than ours, but a car can swap lanes very quickly if it's going at that rate however much space you have. Your anticipation requirement becomes unreasonable.
I generally stop splitting at around 40, maybe 45, traffic speed, though it varies according to all sorts of parameters - but mostly my gut feel.

 

[TomInPA]

Still leaves the ultimate question unanswered.
How do I know the speed of the other traffic unless it is at a zero. And therefore, how do I know if I'm within the 15MPH limit.

And FWIW 15MPH is a crawl. JSNS

15 mph faster than the slowly moving traffic feels pretty fast, and will get you where you are going. Heavy traffic tends to move at very variable speed, and can go from 40 to 0 in a very short space of time. The intent of the law is apparently to codify what is considered good judgement. CHP is trained to estimate speed, and their estimates will hold up in court. If they say you were moving 40 mph faster than adjacent traffic, they are probably right and the judge will agree. A prudent speed lets you observe traffic, take evasive actions and adjust speed safely. There is plenty of video of unsafe differential speed, and you know it when you see it, or ride with Fairlaner.

Lane sharing/spliting is not something that you can be skilled at, or even comprehend the safety of, without practice. It is an art that becomes safe as a result of experience, provided other drivers respect the right of a motorcyclist to move through traffic. California includes lane splitting rights in its driver exams. Other states, will be riskier until motorcyclists become experienced, and drivers respectful as a result of changes of law and enforcement against dangerous aggressive behavior.

 

[SacramentoMike]

Pants, I agree with mcatrophy about splitting over 50--generally. At that speed, you can easily (on an FJR) get by traffic just by changing lanes, keeping close to the lines, but not splitting. You probably do that too. Just please don't call it "weaving."

We don't need a hell of a lot of room. Unless--two bozos driving side by side a few mph below the limit, for what I judge to be "too long." I have been known to get close up behind and--when conditions allow--blast through in about .7 seconds. That's point 7.

@ TominCA PA: Pretty sure Mark was just jerking my chain. Even HE can approximate 15 mph.

edit: I didn't answer Pants' first question. There IS no previous lane splitting law. It's never been prohibited or even addressed in the vehicle code. Every other state specifically prohibits it in some way with something about "two vehicles sharing the same lane." We don't. There were some general guidelines in the California Drivers Handbook--I think--that said it could be done "reasonably and prudently" or some such phrase. This came to be understood here as meaning you'd be ok (with the cops) if you kept it to within 15 over. Then the CHP put it out on its website with specific numbers and suggestions, like it was "safest" or something to split between the number 1 and 2 lane (counted from the left) It also included that 15-over-traffic standard that's now in the draft legislation.

CHP had to pull the guidelines, not because somebody objected, but because of a legal requirement that any such guideline published without a thorough legal review and opportunity for the public to comment, etc., was not lawful. They were basically creating law where there was none without the full legal review required. Only the legislature can do that. Picky, and too bad, because it was useful.

So now this proposed legislation, if passed, will say definitively that it IS legal, with specific, enforceable limits. And I'll say it again: offering other states something they can copy--if only they would.

 

[SacramentoMike]

Another change. The state senate has it now and they're doing whatever they're doing to it. The parts struck out below have been, well, struck out of the proposed law, and some new language added as shown below. (The first block of text is just quoted from my own post of June 1.)

I hadn't heard a word about this since it was shelved last fall, and the legislature has been back in session for several months, but an amended version was released today--it's not even in the Assembly's website yet, but the amended text follows:
Section 21658.1 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:

21658.1.

(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, including both divided and undivided streets, roads, or highways, if both of the following conditions are present:

(1) The motorcycle is not driven at a speed of more than 50 miles per hour.

(2) The motorcycle is not driven more than 15 miles per hour faster than the speed of traffic moving in the same direction.

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

SEC. 2.

No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

I will post updates as soon as they are available. It looks very good to me--NO substantial changes to the way it was left. Since it's already been through much of the analysis and committee process, it could move pretty quickly.

Here's what's been added right after all the strikeouts:

(b ) The Department of the California Highway Patrol may develop educational guidelines relating to lane splitting in a manner that would ensure the safety of the motorcyclist and the drivers and passengers of the surrounding vehicles.
(c ) In developing guidelines pursuant to this section, the department shall consult with agencies and organizations with an interest in road safety and motorcyclist behavior, including, but not limited to, all of the following:

(1) The Department of Motor Vehicles.
(2) The Department of Transportation.
(3) The Office of Traffic Safety.

(4) A motorcycle organization focused on motorcyclist safety.

So what's it all mean? Almost anything, I suppose. They've removed all the specifics about maximum speed, speed of traffic, and so on, and left the development of the guidelines up the the CHP, with input from the four entities listed. Number (4), I suppose, would include the AMA, as the only listed opposition to the bill last year.

I kind of hate to open it up to all that input--it's seldom good. But the best part of it is to put the primary responsibility of developing the guidelines on the CHP, and that agency has always supported lane splitting in Cali, and nothing has changed there. They did have those reasonable guidelines in their website, itemized before, and were forced to pull them for the reason I said in my last post, just above. I'm hoping that the idea is, by putting the authority to create guidelines in law, CHP will now basically re-issue very similar or identical guidelines to what was in their website a couple years ago.

The Senate committee is hearing this bill on June 14. I'd like to attend the hearing, but if not, I'll have the update as soon as they publish it, hopefully by the next day. Sorry this drags on so, but I hope we have something soon.

 

[TomInPA]

Mike, I think it's interesting that the new language (b ) is permissive "may", not mandatory "shall". There is no requirement for the CHP to do anything, but if they do develop guidelines, then the involved interests come into play.

 

[SacramentoMike]

Since CHP already issued guidelines once, and have always and still do support it, and only pulled it off their website because they had to, no reason to suppose they won't. They want some form of specific control to exist for enforcement purposes.

Since the guidelines, assuming this passes (big assumption, I know), will not be in the form of "law," but regulations, I have a concern that it could weaken the likelihood that whatever they publish will serve as a template for others. It might, I just don't know. Seems to me it would make a stronger argument in trying to swing another state over to approval of lane splitting if the parameters were actually IN the law itself. (I hope I made that distinction clear.)

OTOH, guess I don't have any real reason to believe that it won't change a hell of a lot more as time goes on.

 

[user 31223]

Mike Not sure if this will work as it's a facebook link - But this Roseville PD's use of the "guidelines" , so even if they stay as guidelines vs law some PD's will use them

https://www.facebook.com/RoseveillePolice/videos/1121075067944877/