• 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.

Lane Splitting Legislation introduced in CA

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:

... 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:
If that's what it says they're specific to highways too. Does this ban lane splitting around town?

Highways = roads.

However, it does limit splitting to roads with more than three lanes in one direction - and that rules out a lot of city streets.
 
Tried to send an email using his website but since my home address isn't in his district it won't let me :rolleyes Will send one from my computer later
 
Highways = roads.

However, it does limit splitting to roads with more than three lanes in one direction - and that rules out a lot of city streets.

Didnt realize highways referred to all roads. Interesting. Yeah that second part is confusing too. What about roads with a lane usually reserved for parking? Or at an intersection when there's a lane for right and/or left turns?
 
Clearly it seems he's not a rider and really have no concrete concept of what lane splitting really all about. Not splitting on 2-lane roads going in the same direction would be twice as bad. IMO And couldn't that also be interpreted as splitting at a light to get to the front is prohibited also?
 
This elected official is LOCAL. Please POLITELY inform this gentleman that his legislation is not reasonable, if you live in his district.

This law would prohibit lane-sharing on Hwy 1 during rush hour, for example. That is not logical. I am sure this "gentleman" has not really thought about this issue. He is a reactionary with little experience. Be gentle, but firm. Sheep like it that way. Thanx.
 
Clearly it seems he's not a rider and really have no concrete concept of what lane splitting really all about. Not splitting on 2-lane roads going in the same direction would be twice as bad. IMO And couldn't that also be interpreted as splitting at a light to get to the front is prohibited also?

this is nothing new to all of our law makers. they get these very dumb bills posted to them by there staffs and never even know what it is all about. and then try and push it through with a lot of "riders" (not as in bikers) but as in things that have nothing to do with the bill. this is were the pork is spent.

did you know in Ca alone there are over 1500 new laws in just 2012.
most will never see the light of day as they are so redundant. but all the add on deals in the back rooms are what created the over spending.

so the only way to truly kill and bury a bill is to buy there votes. just like the big money peoples do.
till then bend over for some very stupid laws and then the "fixes" for them.

.
 
The way to fix it is to outlaw 'riders' to legislation and omnibus bills.

One bill at a time, up or down vote. Pure & simple. And at LEAST a 72-hour window for public viewing and input.

Democracy, dammit. :x
 
Surj, thanks for being a lane splitting champion. :thumbup

Thanks for the stickers, too. I'll shoot him a polite note tomorrow. :)
 
The biggest issue I see is the 3 lanes part. One unintended consequence is it means you may not be allowed to get around someone waiting to turn left at an intersection, even if there's enough room to do so in a car.
 
Tried to send an email using his website but since my home address isn't in his district it won't let me :rolleyes Will send one from my computer later

I believe his actual email address is senator.beall@senate.ca.gov. I emailed him and asked if he'd be willing to speak to me, specifically about the three lane requirement.

Surj, thanks for being a lane splitting champion. :thumbup

Thanks for the stickers, too. I'll shoot him a polite note tomorrow. :)

Thanks, and you're welcome! :thumbup
 
A more effective method of having your voice heard is to send a letter/email/phone call to your elected official's office to tell them you don't support this law. Members of the Senate need support to get a bill passed. Don't let this get any.
 
Dang. We have bit ourselves in the arse! This is now going to go on and on and on and on....
 
Although, reading it I interpret it differently
Section 21658.5 is added to the Vehicle Code,
to read:
21658.5. (a)**Notwithstanding any other law, and except as
provided in subdivision (b), when a highway has been divided into
three or more clearly marked lanes for traffic traveling in the same
direction, a person operating 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.
(b)**This section does not apply to a peace officer in the
performance of official duties.
The way I read it, the law only applies to roads with 3+ lanes per direction.
 
Although, reading it I interpret it differentlyThe way I read it, the law only applies to roads with 3+ lanes per direction.

Crap. You may be right - does this essentially leave things alone on roads with fewer lanes? Is he just trying to address high speed splitting on the freeway? I edited my first post to add this and am looking for more info from sources and Beall himself. Will report back.
 
Last edited:
Although, reading it I interpret it differentlyThe way I read it, the law only applies to roads with 3+ lanes per direction.


Yup, I read it the same as you. It does not affect splitting on two-lane roads at all.


Also... "a person operating a motorcycle shall not pass another vehicle in a portion of a lane occupied by that vehicle..." I don't know about you guys, but I always try to pass vehicles in the portion of the lane NOT occupied by them. Trying to pass "in a portion of a lane occupied by that vehicle" generally leads to a collision.
 
I imagine it would be interpreted as pass another vehicle in a portion of (a lane occupied by that vehicle)
 
Back
Top