Surj
Uneasy Rider
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2002
- Location
- The Sac
- Moto(s)
- R1200RT, CRF250L, XT225, dos Monkeys
- Name
- Surj
- BARF perks
- AMA #: 2825187
There's been a ton of attention to lane splitting after the release of the CHP lane splitting guidelines and Senator Jim Beall introduced a bill yesterday - SB 350 - that legalizes lane splitting in a very specific and SUCKY way.
I did a more complete write up over on LaneSplittingIsLegal.com here, but the gist of this is that the bill is super general about splitting, saying:
Not so bad, in that it's not so different from the ambiguity we have now.
EDIT: I originally read this section to limit splitting to roads with three + lanes in one direction - end of a long day and I had just read a similar interpretation. Apologies from me for this - which probably riled folks up a bit unnecessarily.
As Junkie points out here, it's looks like it's simply saying these conditions apply when there are three or more lanes. Previous to writing this, I reached out to a friend who is more directly involved and he'll have more info back to me tomorrow. I'm also hoping for clarification on intent from Beall. If this is only applicable to three lanes+, it's strangely specific but not that harmful.
I did a more complete write up over on LaneSplittingIsLegal.com here, but the gist of this is that the bill is super general about splitting, saying:
... a motorcycle shall not pass another vehicle in a portion of a lane occupied by that vehicle unless the following conditions are met:
(1) The passing occurs during traffic congestion.
(2) The passing occurs at a safe speed.
Not so bad, in that it's not so different from the ambiguity we have now.
...when a highway has been divided into three or more clearly marked lanes for traffic traveling in the same direction
EDIT: I originally read this section to limit splitting to roads with three + lanes in one direction - end of a long day and I had just read a similar interpretation. Apologies from me for this - which probably riled folks up a bit unnecessarily.
As Junkie points out here, it's looks like it's simply saying these conditions apply when there are three or more lanes. Previous to writing this, I reached out to a friend who is more directly involved and he'll have more info back to me tomorrow. I'm also hoping for clarification on intent from Beall. If this is only applicable to three lanes+, it's strangely specific but not that harmful.
Last edited: