CHP removes lane-splitting guidelines from their web site

[tcfjr]

From this article in today's Los Angeles Times (paywall for frequent users, but occasional visitors to the site can view the article for free).

My interpretation is that nothing has changed in the way the law is written or enforced, but the CHP was forced to remove articles on its web site that some people thought promoted the practice.

July 23, 2014 -- The California Highway Patrol has withdrawn its safety guidance on motorcycle lane-splitting.

The law enforcement agency two weeks ago quietly removed from its website a series of recommendations for riders using the popular traffic-avoidance practice, one often reviled by automobile drivers.

Lane-splitting, or lane-filtering, is the term used to describe motorcyclists riding in the space between lanes, usually on freeways, and usually when the traffic has slowed or stopped.

In March 2013 the CHP appeared to take a position on the controversial practice, and issued a handful of hints on lane-splitting. While not explicitly recommending the practice, the agency gave riders guidance on how to do it safely.

The agency said riders should never lane-split at more than 10 mph faster than the stopped or slowed traffic; should never lane-split at speeds over 30 mph; should try to split between lanes 1 and 2; and should take extra caution in bad weather or on bad roads.

"Lane-splitting in a safe and prudent manner is not illegal in the state of California," the agency said.

Now, under pressure from a citizen who is opposed to lane-splitting, the CHP has retreated from the subject and taken down its guidelines.

The American Motorcycle Assn. reported the removal after state lawmakers determined that publishing a position on lane-splitting was tantamount to an endorsement or recommendation by the CHP — activities that do not fall within the the agency's domain.

The CHP denied that it had been attempting anything more than a public service.

"Some have interpreted the recently published Motorcycle Land Splitting Guidelines as rules, laws or regulations that could or would be enforced by the department," the CHP statement read. "The guidelines were never intended for this purpose and were prepared simply as common sense traffic safety tips and to raise public awareness."

In California, lane-splitting is considered legal, though the practice is not taught or endorsed by the California Department of Motor Vehicles nor by most motorcycle training schools.

Confirming that the agency had eliminated the safety guidelines, CHP Officer John "Mike" Harris said, "They were taken down because people were looking at them as law. But they are not law. They were just driving tips."
...

The CHP's position — or lack of position — remains unchanged: "It’s not against the law, and it’s not authorized by law," Harris said.

Some motorcycle groups, including the AMA, assert that lane-splitting actually reduces the number of motorcycle-involved freeway accidents because it removes motorcycles from the lanes where the highest number of accidents occur.

"We believe that the CHP guidelines provided important safety information for those who might want to use the lane-splitting technique and to non-motorcyclists who need to understand what the motorcycle riders are doing and why," said the AMA's western state representative, Nick Haris. "We want the guidelines back on the websites and available in DMV brochures."

In a related article, the columnist asserts that removing the guidelines has made lane splitting more dangerous:

But legality isn't the issue here. It's what Kenneth Mandler, a former California State employee and a guy that holds seminars on how to snag sweet state gigs, claims is a California Highway Patrol's "underground regulation" for lane splitting.

Specifically, Mandler's issue is the Motorcycle Lane Splitting Guidelines. They've been published by the CHP for years as a way for motorcyclists – and yes, drivers – to understand what lane splitting is and how to do be safe. Mandler contends that by posting these guidelines, the CHP is somehow surreptitiously legalizing lane splitting. He filed a petition a last year to the California Office of Administrative Law and last week the guide was pulled from state websites.

"People were viewing those as rules or laws," CHP officer Mike Harris told Jalopnik. "And that's why we took them down."

Now I'm all for toppling shadow governments and burning clandestine laws to the ground, but this was not that. It was a guide. A way for motorcyclists and drivers to live harmoniously on the road together. And unsurprisingly, the American Motorcyclist Association – longtime proponents of lane splitting – agrees.

"By forcing the California Highway Patrol to remove its guidelines, Mr. Mandler and the Office of Administrative Law are denying the public vital safety information," says Nick Haris, the AMA's western states representative. "Now, neither riders nor motorists have a place to turn for authoritative guidelines on the practice."

 

[dudeckp]

Damn YouTube generation... If there's a video online, it must be fact (or law.)

Damn reactionary politicians,.. "and take down the guideline videos for speeding, driving under the influence and operating unsafe, uninsured vehicles. What, there aren't any? Oh, because those ARE ILLEGAL? And stuff like that was in the drivers' handbook? You mean guideline videos explain LEGAL activities?"

I was just looking for the video yesterday to show some friends that, done safely, lane splittings not the end of the world. Guess those idiots in Sacramento showed me, huh?

 

[dudeckp]

AMA petition was started to counteract the "citizen who is opposed to lane-splitting".

https://cqrcengage.com/amacycle/app/sign-petition?0&engagementId=55066

 

[Twigg]

For the first 30 years of my motorcycling life I practised lane-splitting and filtering much in the way previously described by the CHP.

Then I came here ... and suddenly I find a common-place, normal and encouraged driving technique is dangerous .... Who knew

Conversely, the habit of passing moving vehicles on the inside appears to be legal. In the UK that would be dangerous driving and attract a hefty fine.

 

[SacramentoMike]

First of all, nothing has changed. Yet. But when the CHP put those guidelines up on their website, I actually was concerned that by doing that, they might attract the wrong kind of attention. I'm afraid now they have.

Only a state employee like this **** who filed the complaint--Mandler--would have done so. Who else would know about "underground regulations," whatever that is? I don't know if he had some sinister purpose behind the complaint, but he saw that there was a vulnerable point and went after it. Once the complaint was filed, the Office of Administrative Law really had no choice but to order the guidelines taken down. The fact is, they were underground "regs," and not legal. The CHP, for all it's power and glory, can't just make law.

It works like this. The legislature passes a law. When necessary, the affected agency writes regs that basically tell everybody what the law really says, what it means, and how it will be enforced. The regs then go through a formal review and approval process (including publication and a posted public comment period), before they can be adopted. These then are published in The California Code of Regulations, and effectively become law. Any interpretation of a law that doesn't go through this process, especially if it's ever published, exposes the agency to legal liability problems. These lane splitting guidelines didn't go through that.

So that was why I was concerned about the guidelines being published in the first place. I recognized the Undergound Regs problem, and saw this coming, and now it's here. And by publishing it, and opening it up for this kind of scrutiny, the CHP has invited (not purposely) just this public review, commentary, and opportunity to revise these guidelines into official Regulations, effectively putting them into law.

That's the problem. As guidelines, they would have been fine. The way it was before the guidelines were printed (putting into words exactly what has been done here forever anyway), was fine too. Better even. But once you open it up to comment, and revision, oh baby, there goes the neighborhood. Every nervous driver who ever was startled by a motorcycle racing past or stunting in traffic, or resented a bike getting to go through when they were stuck in traffic, everybody who never even thought about it till now, and every politician who can think of a reason to weigh in, will now have the chance to fiddle with it. And when something is already just fine as it is, I wish everybody had just left it well enough alone.

 

[dudeckp]

First of all, nothing has changed. Yet. But when the CHP put those guidelines up on their website, I actually was concerned that by doing that, they might attract the wrong kind of attention. I'm afraid now they have.

Actually, California DMV DID change their "Motorcycle Handbook".

It previously read, "Vehicles and motorcycles each need a full lane to operate safely. Lane sharing is not safe."

Last year it was amended to read, "Lane splitting should not be performed by inexperienced riders.”

The handbook offers safety tips, echoing the CHP guideline, but does not state that the practice is legal.

The CHP did the responsible thing and created a PSA that educated riders and alerted drivers. Some dude gets all PIAK and this the reaction???

 

[Twigg]

That amended phrase sounds like very clear, good advice.

Motorcycling has dangers inherent in the activity. It is my view that lane-splitting, done correctly, lessens those dangers.

 

[TomInPA]

The AMA petition is well intentioned, but it is directed to the wrong agency. CHP was ordered by the Office of Administrative Law to remove the guideline. No petition can overturn that order, and may actually force the issue as described by Mike. If a formal law is ever passed in CA that actually states lane sharing is legal (and most probably when it is not permissible), it would be a huge catalyst to take the movement to other states. The risk is that the legislative process ultimately bans the practice as it is in the other 49 states.

 

[exskibum]

The AMA petition is well intentioned, but it is directed to the wrong agency. CHP was ordered by the Office of Administrative Law to remove the guideline. No petition can overturn that order, and may actually force the issue as described by Mike. If a formal law is ever passed in CA that actually states lane sharing is legal (and most probably when it is not permissible), it would be a huge catalyst to take the movement to other states. The risk is that the legislative process ultimately bans the practice as it is in the other 49 states.

You and Mike make a good point, Tom. I agree with both your assessments of the risk inherent in a formal law (legislative bill becoming statute, to be administered pursuant to formal regulations), and I also prefer to avoid that. Two points, though: the cat is already out of the bag and there is opposition to lane splitting that will seek to demonize it. First point is that I think it beneficial to counter that with such analysis as the AMA statement uses (Hurt report findings, etc.) and to ride the coat tails of an ally like the CHP.

The second and more important point is that it seems that the CHP (and the AMA?) are or should be taking the position that these guidelines were never regulations at all, no more than statements in the DMV Handbook constitute regulations over which the OAL has jurisdiction. There is no statute to administer by the CHP, so how is general guidance about safety in operating a vehicle a regulation? I don't know the management structure of the OAL regarding the review of staff positions internally. I assume the agencies (such as the CHP) have some mechanism by which to voice their reasoned disagreements, and it seems the CHP is availing itself of something like that if the press releases can be relied upon. I can't find the titling on the petition, but I assume it is the OAL to which it is directed, probably in support of the apparent CHP position. To what other agency could or would it be directed?

Which brings us to the courts. If there is an error by the OAL (following exhaustion of whatever internal "appeal" processes might exist) in determining that these guidelines were impermissible regulations, I assume a declaratory relief action or extraordinary writ would be the mechanism of appeal to the court. For such remedies, it is usually a gateway requirement that there be an actual controversy and/or an issue important enough to require guidance of the court via the writ process. I think that the AMA position paper (presumably reflected in the "petition" signed by motorcyclists and drivers) helps meet those gateway burdens. That is as far as I can get in trying to decide whether it is better to sign the petition or not. I haven't done the research on the specific process (administrative or judicial), don't know all the facts and certainly haven't talked to the players, but that's my seat of the pants reason for trusting the AMA and its team on this.

Thank you both for so eloquently stating the issues. As you note, Tom, other states' motorcyclists might wish to see us be the front lines to a more universal privilege, but that poses a risk for us here in California. The nature of such discussions as this is political, but in my opinion, that's appropriate here.

 

[Bounce]

In keeping with the forum guidelines:

10. Off topic threads and thread hijacking in any area except Jokes & Fun Stuff, Completely Off Topic, or NEPRT are inapropriate. Admins reserve the right to move or remove them as needed. Posting in the other areas must still adhere to previous guidelines.

As such, ALL threadjacking posts (including mine) have have been (and will be) hidden (not deleted) so the OP and original discussion can get back on track. To leave them here would be as distracting as continuing to debate it in their thread.

PM discussions into the details will remain in PM because of the nature of those.

Suffice it to say, I was persuaded and agreed that, regardless of my original intent, the result was threadjacking. A monthly-reported admin action that will be address here as it is anywhere else (including my own post(s)).

If you want to discuss it, PLEASE take it out of this thread and over into OFF TOPIC. If you're intent on continuing the discussion and want to add your old post over there, contact me by PM and I will cut-and-paste it back to you.

 

[exskibum]

FWIW, Bounce has my permission to publicly post the brief PM discussion we had, so long as he posts ALL of it, UNEDITED with the context of the posts he deleted. I will not post it on my own.

What is relevant to this thread and is directly on topic is the ability of forum members to discuss the politics of the issue here: the formulation of statutory law and regulations on the issue of lane sharing, and the arguably separate issue of CHP safety guidelines. In our system of government, that is simply what is in play if we wish to have our interests as motorcyclists heard and acted upon favorably.

On this issue, the discussion of politics is expressly permitted by the Forum Guidelines:

"2. No religious/moral philosophy/political crap. There are countless forums/blogs on the web if you want to delve into these divisive topics. This is a motorcycle forum. That said, political discussions SPECIFICALLY about pending motorcycle legislation, regulation, and laws are allowable." (Emphasis mine.)

I appreciate the conclusion Bounce reached about thread jacking having occurred in this thread and do not mean to argue that point further. I object to the censorship, however, at least insofar as it removed any discussion of the permissible political discussion of "pending motorcycle legislation, regulation, and laws," as specifically excepted in the Forum Guidelines.

 

[FJR4JAB]

There has been no change in California law (or more accurately, no new regulating law) for lane sharing. I seriously hope it stays that way. The only way I can see this issue gaining momentum and becoming some sort of law, is if it can be proven that motorcycle lane sharing is excessively dangerous and the specific act of lane sharing causes collisions. California freeways are more than wide enough for a motorcyclist to travel between cars in congested traffic. It would be very difficult to prove that lane sharing, on its own, could be the proximate cause for a collision. IMHO, the majority of collisions that occur between motorcycle and car, while lane sharing, are caused by the driver of the car making a lane change without checking their blind spot. We already have an enforceable law in the vehicle code that prohibits this. Its called an unsafe lane change. On rare occasion, the collision is caused by a motorcyclist that is traveling too fast, while splitting the lanes of congested traffic, and the driver of a car makes a lane change with the expectation that all vehicles are traveling at a safe speed for the traffic conditions. Again, there's already an enforceable law that prohibits the motorcyclist from traveling too fast in congested traffic. Its called unsafe speed. Whether the CHP safe practice "guidelines" were written or not, I'd be willing to bet that common sense will prevail and no new law will ever be enacted to prevent or regulate lane sharing in California. The current vehicle code laws are adequate enough for the CHP to regulate lane sharing. .02

 

[infrared]

If anybody wants to see the CHP web pages from before they got changed, there is an Internet Archive of pages long ago. It is called the Wayback Machine, with a tip of the hat to Mr. Peabody and Sherman. Chances are, these folks have older pages on hand for the CHP site.

https://archive.org/web/

Cheers,

Infrared

 

[dudeckp]

Video is gone, but the guidelines CAN be found on WBM:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140401005343/https://www.chp.ca.gov/programs/motorcycle.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20131110024957/https://www.chp.ca.gov/programs/lanesplitting.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20140328022344/https://www.chp.ca.gov/programs/lanesplitguide.html

 

[LKLD]

Now a study confirms what most Californians know.

https://www.gizmag.com/motorcycle-lane-splitting-filtering-safety-research/34425/

 

[FJRBluesman]

Nothing changed for me. I still lane share. All's well.

 

[Bugman]

Here is where the California guidelines are now posted.

https://americanmotorcyclist.com/Libraries/Rights_Documents_State/lanesplitting_guidelines.sflb.ashx?download=true