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

[Old Guy]

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...

It'll be interesting. You folks in CA keep this thread updated for us.

I suspect the guy that introduced this got pass on the center line by an R1 doing triple digits, and his first thought was "There aughta be a law ...."

 

[Ignacio]

Ahem, Iggie, Lane SHARING...

Even better.

 

[SacramentoMike]

The ongoing discussion about pending legislation on this subject in our neighboring northern states got me wondering, so I went back to the CA legislative website. There's been a little movement on this bill. As I feared, it's now been modified to make it more restrictive than the first version, which was in turn more restrictive than the guidelines that the CHP temporarily put up on its website regarding lane splitting. Yes, they and the legislature call it lane splitting.

So the current version (pending only, of course) has reduced the maximum speed of other traffic for legal lane splitting from 35 to 30 m.p.h. I'm sure the legislators, always with a moistened finger raised into the wind, are watching the bills in WA and OR closely.

Before all this attention, the standard here was simply "safely and reasonably," IIRC. So much better. Still, if it ends up in California law, maybe it becomes a template for other state legislatures. Still hoping.

 

[hppants]

I'm hoping too. Like everything else these days, once a spark is lit, all one has to do is fan the flames. Selfishly, I hope the passage of these bills fans its way East like wildfire.

Most definitely still subscribed...

 

[TomInPA]

An obstacle to getting any traction in other states is when they say "show me the law where California allows this". The answer has always been, well you can't find it, it's just not prohibited. I don't want to see CA lane sharing become more restrictive, but if a good legal template could be created, it would perhaps spread. I doubt that it will be adopted anytime soon in the east, just as many states here retain restrictive speed limits and arcane state controlled alcohol sales.

 

[BigOgre]

Before all this attention, the standard here was simply "safely and reasonably," IIRC. So much better.

My only experience of lane-splitting from here usually involves both shoulders and a Grand Theft Auto mentality

but I remember paying attention when Montana was forced to get rid of their "reasonable" speed limit. I'd guess the same issues concerned the powers that be in Calf. when they had to deal with it.

 

[gotfz1]

My only experience of lane-splitting from here usually involves both shoulders and a Grand Theft Auto mentality

The shoulder isn't lane sharing. Driving on the shoulder is specifically prohibited in the CA vehicle code.

 

[CAJW]

I suspect the guy that introduced this got pass on the center line by an R1 doing triple digits, and his first thought was "There aughta be a law ...."

I'm sure that was an impetus for this proposal. What legislators forget is that Darwin eventually takes care of those type of violators. IMHO proposals like this take away discretion from our LEO's thinking they (Legislators) are better at Law Enforcement than the guys on the street. I'm with Richard, leave the damn thing alone!

 

[Bounce]

The shoulder isn't lane sharing. Driving on the shoulder is specifically prohibited in the CA vehicle code.

Come to TX. Enjoy the "improved shoulder" rule. You have to look at the codes and combine them but they add up to using an improved shoulder (not a median) to go around stalled, left-turning, or otherwise blocked lanes that would usually be used.

From: https://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/DocViewer.aspx?DocKey=TN%2fTN.545&Phrases=developed|shoulder&HighlightType=1&ExactPhrase=False&QueryText=improved+shoulder

Sec. 545.058. DRIVING ON IMPROVED

SHOULDER

. (a) An operator may drive on an improved

shoulder

to the right of the main traveled portion of a roadway if that operation is necessary and may be done safely, but only:(1) to stop, stand, or park;

(2) to accelerate before entering the main traveled lane of traffic;

(3) to decelerate before making a right turn;

(4) to pass another vehicle that is slowing or stopped on the main traveled portion of the highway, disabled, or preparing to make a left turn;

(5) to allow another vehicle traveling faster to pass;

(6) as permitted or required by an official traffic-control device; or

(7) to avoid a collision.

(b ) An operator may drive on an improved

shoulder

to the left of the main traveled portion of a divided or limited-access or controlled-access highway if that operation may be done safely, but only:

(1) to slow or stop when the vehicle is disabled and traffic or other circumstances prohibit the safe movement of the vehicle to the

shoulder

to the right of the main traveled portion of the roadway;

(2) as permitted or required by an official traffic-control device; or

(3) to avoid a collision.

© A limitation in this section on driving on an improved

shoulder

does not apply to:

(1) an authorized emergency vehicle responding to a call;

(2) a police patrol; or

(3) a bicycle

3, 4, 5, and 7 especially.

Outside of metroplexes it's not uncommon to see someone move to the improved shoulder to let you pass them (5) and I've had guests who've ridden here, talk about that for years afterwards.

Left improved shoulders are more restrictive as they are allowed only when told to by a cop or to stop in an emergency or to dodge an *****.

 

[TripperMike]

So the current version (pending only, of course) has reduced the maximum speed of other traffic for legal lane splitting from 35 to 30 m.p.h. I'm sure the legislators, always with a moistened finger raised into the wind, are watching the bills in WA and OR closely.

If I were still living in CA, I wouldn't see this as such a take-a-way.

I suspect the guy that introduced this got pass on the center line by an R1 doing triple digits, and his first thought was "There aughta be a law ...."

I'm sure that was an impetus for this proposal. What legislators forget is that Darwin eventually takes care of those type of violators. IMHO proposals like this take away discretion from our LEO's thinking they (Legislators) are better at Law Enforcement than the guys on the street. I'm with Richard, leave the damn thing alone!

LEOs will always be able enforce or not enforce at their descretion. Law gets written in at 30 mph and riders will still be able to share lanes doing 35 or a little more. There's a big difference between sharing doing 40 in a responsible and skilled manner and sharing doing 40 with a slice-n-dice mentality. I'm pretty sure which direction the LEO's descretion would swing. Big difference between riding respectfully and not.

As one of the many denied non-californians, I can't help but think that a real bon-a-fide law in CA can only help our cause in other states. There has to be a hard and fast base point from which other states can look at to determine it's success. At least in their eyes I think that's the case. Besides, most folks not in CA or it's neighboring states, have very little idea how well lane sharing can work; particularly true for those not riding bikes.

 

[Bokerfork]

To a certain degree it doesn't really matter what the law looks like when enacted. In California they enact reasonable laws all the time. Nobody *******. Then, two weeks later, in the middle of the night, they amend the law.

It wouldn't surprise me if this starts out at 30 mph and is quickly dropped to "stopped" traffic.

When cell phone laws were being discussed the CHP went to the legislature and advised them that there were already distracted driving laws they could use to cite cell phone users. That didn't slow down the legislature for a second.

Be careful what you wish for. Having no law currently for a problem that doesn't exist is what the government calls a "vacuum". And space abhors a vacuum.

 

[Fred W]

Before all this attention, the standard here was simply "safely and reasonably," IIRC. So much better.

Certainly easy to see your point, but I would counter that leaving it non-specific as "safe and reasonable" is a double edged sword. What is safe and reasonable to you and me may not seem so to someone else, (other drivers, police, judges, etc.). By defining limits to safe and reasonable it removes the ambiguity and becomes more enforceable in both directions.

 

[Bounce]

That's what lead to losing "reasonable and prudent". Some chuckle-head did a billion miles an hour through town and got a ticket. He took it all the way up the appeals process (lots of money and lots of self-entitlement seem to go hand-in-hand). The state was ordered to switch to a posted speed limit because "reasonable" wasn't, apparently, reasonable.

 

[James Burleigh]

The ongoing discussion about pending legislation on this subject in our neighboring northern states got me wondering, so I went back to the CA legislative website. There's been a little movement on this bill. As I feared, it's now been modified to make it more restrictive than the first version, which was in turn more restrictive than the guidelines that the CHP temporarily put up on its website regarding lane splitting. Yes, they and the legislature call it lane splitting.
So the current version (pending only, of course) has reduced the maximum speed of other traffic for legal lane splitting from 35 to 30 m.p.h. I'm sure the legislators, always with a moistened finger raised into the wind, are watching the bills in WA and OR closely.

Before all this attention, the standard here was simply "safely and reasonably," IIRC. So much better. Still, if it ends up in California law, maybe it becomes a template for other state legislatures. Still hoping.

Hi, Mike. I haven't been following this thread or the law.... But seeing your post, it occurs to me: After about 30 MPH then what lane splitting often turns into, I think, is lane "changing," or what I refer to as "slaloming."

When traffic (and the rider) are going > 30 MPH, then if you wind up "splitting" (meaning the cars are right next to each other), that's just aggressive riding and probably a red flag for getting pulled over if a cop notices and has a mind to respond (and it upsets drivers, who may introduce legislation, etc.). There's no "need" for higher-speed splitting (unless you're talking about kicks, adrenalin highs, and the "need for speed!")).

Oh--correction: a valid reason for splitting at speed is to get outta Dodge in the event you are in a pecarious situation with aggressive drivers around you, or find yourself in the middle of a pack of bovines, or some such....

Just my $.02.

 

[SacramentoMike]

Well, Hans, the proposed law just addresses kind of "normal" lane splitting. Once you start zigzagging through traffic like you're talking about, it's not hard to imagine you might catch some officer's eye--that's pretty aggressive riding. But I know what you mean about getting out of tight spots any way you can sometimes. I've found somebody tailgating the hell out of me in traffic--whether I pissed him off somehow or he just wanted to be a ****, who knows? Or cares? At that point, you just need to get away quick.

Whether it's legal or not is not very important at that point. Kind of like the guy who pulls out an illegally concealed handgun for self defense in a desperate spot. The old "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" defense.

OK, I'll say it myself, before an admin does: we'd better stay on topic about the pending law change.

 

[SacramentoMike]

Update: AB 51 has had its first hearing with the Assembly Transportation Committee, and it's moving forward. It's not really huge, getting out of committee, but it's huge if a bill doesn't get over that hurdle. So it's still on track, with no current additional modifications. I'll keep you posted.

 

[TomInPA]

All they have to do is associate motorcycle lane sharing with carbon emission reductions, and the bill will become a sacred cow and get passed. Without that, no one cares about the convenience of motorcyclists, so it is more likely to become a restrictive legislation than enabling. JSNS

 

[hppants]

S/M - I'm rooting for ya'll. The more I look at the principle of lane splitting (done the right way), the more I like it.

In fact, if you peeps can keep it to yourselves, I'd like to share a secret. I've started my own version of lane splitting. While riding in high traffic situations on a multi-lane road, I've started REALLY cheating toward the center of the lane - like maybe only a couple of inches from the dividing stripe. I've got a MUCH better view of the road ahead and behind me, and it really makes me feel more comfortable regarding the danger of getting rear ended.

 

[G Squared]

Sure, I can stay tight lipped, but I've been practicing many forms of lane 'sharing', 'splitting', whatever it is to be called just in case our legislature or gov. would get their 4 wheel heads out of their ***** and do something meaningful and helpful to motorcyclists. Last Gov. we had whom gave a darn (because he was a rider, even if it was a H-D) was 2 Govs. back. Since then, nothing but hard times....so I'll keep doing it my way to keep me feeling safer.. And if I get caught 'practicing' said safety maneuvers, let's hope it's a LEO with a motor at home. And there are many here that ride whether for the job or off the job.

 

[SacramentoMike]

AB 51 been amended again, and this time for the better, from my point of view. The first version (Dec '14) proposed limiting lane splitting to situations where the speed of traffic is 35 mph or less, and limited the speed differential between that traffic and the m/c to 10 mph. So the top speed at which a motorcyclist could travel while lane splitting would be 45.

The bill was modified in February and made more restrictive, limiting the maximum traffic speed at which lane splitting could be legally done to 30 mph, and still holding the m/c to a 10 mph differential over traffic. Maximum speed, now 40.

Last week further modifications were printed, and lo and behold, the restrictions were loosened! As now written, the motorcycle will be allowed to travel 15 mph over traffic speeds, up to a maximum speed (of the motorcycle) of 50 mph. Worded differently, but the allowable speed of other traffic for splitting to be allowed is now back up to 35.

One possible reason for this change may have been to get the support of some motorcycle groups (AMA for one) who had opposed it on the grounds that they didn't want this popular practice to be restricted so severely by the new law.

Here's a link to the lastest version from this past week. No idea how long this whole process may go on, but the direction is forward, and getting better. Fingers crossed.