• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

FINALLY - Lane Sharing is supported in CA

Awesome and well done OP :thumbup
 
Its been a long time coming. Its taken a lot of arm twisting, arguing, and frustration. But we have taken a huge leap forward.



The Message:
Motorcyclists who are competent enough riders to lane split, should follow these general guidelines if choosing to lane split:

1)Travel at a speed that is no more than 10 MPH faster than other traffic – danger increases at higher speed differentials.

2)It is not advisable to lane split when traffic flow is at 30 mph or faster – danger increases as overall speed increases.

3)Typically, it is more desirable to split between the #1 and #2 lanes than between other lanes.

4)Consider the total environment in which you are splitting, including the width of the lanes, size of surrounding vehicles, as well as roadway, weather, and lighting conditions.

5)Be alert and anticipate possible movements by other road users.

Thank you to all envolved in getting this done. I have always used 35 MPH as a guide I will use 30 to support this effort.

I have also posted the CMSP link to my FB wall.


:thumbup:ride:thumbup
 
I'm glad someone else brought this up because I was going to ask this too.

I'm all for official guidance that clarifies the legality of lane splitting. There are, from time to time, officers that don't seem to know lane splitting is permitted - perhaps they are new to CA. This helps make it clear that lane splitting is ok.

What I don't like is specific numbers. First, I don't agree with the specific numbers specified. I firmly believe in most circumstances that the speeds mentioned are more dangerous than higher speeds. Second, while guidelines are good from an advisory standpoint, some officers will use those specific numbers as the law and anyone splitting above 30mph or faster than 10mph above surrounding traffic will be considered unsafe or reckless.

Not for a second do I not appreciate the work in getting this done.

Agreed. "Reasonable" is nice, because it doesn't specify a number, an express speed limit, etc. It depends on time of day, traffic conditions, weather, etc., and provides more wiggle room.

Oh well, still awesome.
 
I used to split before it was mainstream, man.

we all did, man! we all did:teeth

also a huuuuuuuuuuge thanks for all involved, including to those opposed! i mean what fun would it be if there were no fighting at all:D
 
:thumbup :ride
 

Attachments

  • Mr Burns excellent 2.png
    Mr Burns excellent 2.png
    30.8 KB · Views: 292
Nice work! I guess all of that info collections some months back really paid off. Great public service, you did there :thumbup
 
I'm glad someone else brought this up because I was going to ask this too.

I'm all for official guidance that clarifies the legality of lane splitting. There are, from time to time, officers that don't seem to know lane splitting is permitted - perhaps they are new to CA. This helps make it clear that lane splitting is ok.

What I don't like is specific numbers. First, I don't agree with the specific numbers specified. I firmly believe in most circumstances that the speeds mentioned are more dangerous than higher speeds. Second, while guidelines are good from an advisory standpoint, some officers will use those specific numbers as the law and anyone splitting above 30mph or faster than 10mph above surrounding traffic will be considered unsafe or reckless.

Not for a second do I not appreciate the work in getting this done.

This is what I was getting at with the CVC's, at this point officers will site for reckless driving if they feel you're "reckless". Some will consider the listed speeds as the limit of sanity, others will be reasonable.

Don't deny I am happy for the PSA, which is awesome, but it's still a PSA at this point, the laws are the same.
 
This is welcome news because in the past Lane Splitting was such a grey
area that all you got from the CHP was this...

Quote CHP
Motorcycle lane sharing that you can share with your class from Sgt
Ron Burch Motorcycle CHP

"Riding between two rows of cars is challenging and not exactly the
safest thing to do. There are *no* laws on the books in California
regarding lane splitting, but a *general* rule of thumb is to ride no
faster than 5mph above the flow of traffic. If traffic is moving
faster than 30mph, it's *probably* best to not split lanes."

Ask the CHP hot line about lane splitting and you got this:

Question:

Can motorcycle riders "split" lanes and ride between other vehicles?

Answer:

Lane splitting by motorcycles is permissible but must be done in a
safe and prudent manner.


Quote the Hurt Report...
The Hurt Report, published in 1981 and based on accident data gathered
in the 1970s, concluded that lane splitting reduces rear end crashes
and improves motorcycle safety.

[1] FARS data from the United States Department of Transportation
shows that rear end collisions with motorcycles are 30% lower in
California (the only US state where it is legal) than in Florida or
Texas, states with similar riding seasons and populations.

But then again Lane splitting was called unsafe in the California
Motorcycle Handbook 2008:

Quote California Motorcycle Handbook 2008:
"Cars and motorcycles each need a full lane to operate safely. Lane
sharing is not safe. Riding between rows of stopped or moving cars in
the same lane can leave you vulnerable. A car could turn suddenly or
change lanes, a door could open, or a hand could come out of a window.
Discourage lane sharing by others."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurt_Report


The Oxford Systematics report commissioned by Vic Roads, the traffic
regulating authority in Victoria, Australia, found that for
motorcycles filtering through stationary traffic

"No examples have yet been located where such filtering has been the
cause of an incident." Lane splitting is more than a congestion
reducer or a convenience for the road denizens who are willing to
accept and manage more risk by motorcycling. It is a tool that can
literally save a biker's life, especially in situations where they're
being tailgated, crowded, or flat-out ignored by others."

—Tim Kreitz, moto-journalist & MSF riding instructor
 
No new laws. No new violations. The posted guidelines are not laws. They are simply a set of suggestions on how to lane share safely and prudently.

Until now there has been no "official" guidance on how to lane share safely and legally. What we have done is provided a best practice/guideline for riders to follow.

This also gives us the ability to educate motorists and law enforcement. It is an opportunity to get all three groups on the same page in regard to the legality of motorcycles lane sharing on our roadways.

I was about to say...err post. Lanesharing is still against CA law. Don't get me wrong I'm all for it. I do it.

Lane sharing is accepted in CA, much like smoking pot but that is another story.

If a cop wants to bust you for lane sharing he can and you will get a ticket.
 
Last edited:
nice! its always good to eliminate the grey area around a law that benefits so many people. good deal.
 
I know that you and Budman have been working hard on this. Thank you for the effort.
 
Indeed a cool deal. John has clout in our committee and is very respected.

This all came out of a proposal by the DMV to ban it... That is when we went on the offensive to protect the practice.

I truly hope the practice will start to be allowed in many more states as cali sets the standard for many things.

I applaud the state of California for doing this. :applause

..and stoked that because of barf and our influence I got to be a part of it. I still get a chuckle hearing barf in our meetings. Who would have thought our State would respect something called barf. I believe they do.

:cool
 
I was about to say...err post. Lanesharing is still against CA law. Don't get me wrong I'm all for it. .

Um, no its not.

And thus, my enthusiasm for this big step we just made.

Now we need to do the public education to eliminate thought processes that lead to these types of statements.
 
Back
Top