• 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

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 think you guys are right. Long day, and I just read some other similar interpretations. Apologies for the misinformation. I'll see if I can get the "bad" edited out of the title to keep from stirring up more rage unnecessarily.
 
Why do we have legislation to legalize something that's already legal? :wtf

so the government can control you.
they must be seen as in total control at all times. so many unneeded, unused, and worthless laws get slapped onto the books.

just let them have control, as soon as they find another reason to control you there will be new and better laws.


.
 
thanks for the stack of stickers. (got it on our parts counter) we slapped it on our trucks right away... and yes hopefully there will be more clarity on this...
 
I have been splitting lanes in california for 25 years with only the occasional problem from a driver that does not like it , now it has all changed, I think we should have just kept our mouths shut and lived on unless the practice was threatened of becoming illegal.

I hope this ends well, now everybody shut up and do not publicize this more, do not interview with anyone or show the media how to lanesplit as the ones I saw gave a negative effect, we should just have kept it on the downlow and lived with it the privelage that is not illegal.
 
This reminds me a bit of the open carry debacle.

People: This is perfectly legal!

Gov't: ORLY?!

People: Fuck

EDIT: Of course, if I recall from another thread, all the activity with CHP and all that was in response to a legislative threat to ban the practice all together.
 
Last edited:
This is also why I'm leery of any new studies on lane splitting. The data will be used against us to outlaw it, regardless of what it shows.:thumbdown
 
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.
If you got me all jacked-up with my sheeple bashing, unnecessarily, I will never forgive ..... myself, for not reading more carefully. :shame on me.
 
What definition of "traffic congestion" will be used for enforcement? LEO input in this would be nice.
 
This bill is just a waste of time that accomplishes nothing.

Sent a message to the senator in question:

Your proposed bill, SB 350, is a waste of the resources allotted to you. It simply restates the law on lane sharing already in place. It provides peace officers with no additional ability to clamp down on the crimes committed against existing infractions of the vehicle code this restates.

We need more peace officers and highway patrol to enforce existing laws, not superflous laws that do nothing short of further complicating Vehicle Code for no benefit. If your interest is in safer roads, please work to expand, support and regulate our law enforcement offices.

Thank you for your time.


Please email Jim your thoughts via this website:
http://sd15.senate.ca.gov/send-e-mail
 
Last edited:
If you got me all jacked-up with my sheeple bashing, unnecessarily, I will never forgive ..... myself, for not reading more carefully. :shame on me.

:cool I was pretty explicit in my statement, though - and I got it wrong. I gotta be more careful... and awake when typing.

What definition of "traffic congestion" will be used for enforcement? LEO input in this would be nice.

Sometimes my nose is stuffed up (congested), and I'm in traffic. I think that covers it.
 
What definition of "traffic congestion" will be used for enforcement? LEO input in this would be nice.

I did some searching of the CA Vehicle Code official definitions, but "Traffic Congestion" was not included. If it's not officially defined, doesn't that mean it's up to the officer to define?

LEOs? Any clarification on this? :confused
 
Emailed...

Senator Beale, SB 350 is an unnecessary and superfluous piece of legislation that only further complicates the California VC. Both of the requirements mandated by it (1, during traffic congestion, and 2, at a safe speed) are left completely at the discretion of the peace officer, making impossible to fairly enforce--different officers could have vastly different opinions of what qualifies as "congestion" or "safe." As it is, we already have laws to cover the situation described by SB 350, namely, CVC 22350: " No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property." This covers all aspects of lane sharing, including the amount of traffic (congestion), width of the lanes, and overall safety of the movement. I hope you will recognize that all aspects of SB 350 are already covered by CVC 22350, and that there is no need to add further redundant sections to the vehicle code.
 
The intent of the bill as noted in the Legislative digest doesn't match the intent of the bill as it would be written into code. What happens in the Capitol is that staff members provide a general outline of their intent to the legal staff that then draft the intent into legal jargon. I suspect, in this case, the legal jargon doesn't match the intent. Note this bill can't even be voted on until March 23rd.

This bill would prohibit, with an exception for a peace officer,
as provided, a person operating a motorcycle from passing another
vehicle in a portion of a lane occupied by that vehicle unless
certain conditions are met, including that the passing occurs during
traffic congestion, and the passing occurs at a safe speed.

I read that as an intent to codify the regulations for lane splitting. I don't want that.

If anyone cares (as we all should), you can subscribe to receive any bill updates from the leginfo link provided in the original post. That will alert you to any changes in the wording or voting process.

I sent my local Senator a similar letter to sckego's urging her to oppose this bill if it comes to vote. Beall isn't from my district so he doesn't care what I think.
 
What is so wrong with the current lack of legislation on lane splitting that is causing this surge of attempts at guidelines and laws on the books restricting the current practices? Why can't what not broken be just left alone?
 
I've seen how this plays out. This will be an easy score for legislators. Cagers hate splitting, and this will be a good way for them to say they made the roads safer by restricting/banning it.

As with gun laws, simply beating it once won't do any good. It'll keep coming back every session, maybe snuck into other bills, once a legislator takes it up as a cause. Countering with logic and statistics would be about as effective as having a sit-down discussion at the bottom of a swimming pool.
 
Just talked to the Senator's office--I can't quote the legislative aide I talked to, but from what I could gather, SB350 as it is now is a "spot bill," a kind of legislative place holder that allows them to schedule hearings on the issues. I guess they had to slap something together to hold a place in the calendar, which is why it has so much vague language in it. Expect to not see much movement on this for the next year--the CA legislature has 2-year sessions.

I have a call in to the actual press secretary for Sen. Beall (pronounced "Bell") and will keep you updated.
 
What is so wrong with the current lack of legislation on lane splitting that is causing this surge of attempts at guidelines and laws on the books restricting the current practices? Why can't what not broken be just left alone?
One thing to never, never forget is that we're seriously outnumbered and if the subject ever goes to the voters for a vote, we're screwed!

So, when lane splitting, people should never forget that it's a privilege and that privilege will most certainly go away if we piss off too many people. Yeah, there will always be 'tards giving the rest of the community a bad name, but if you know one of those 'tards, let them know that they aren't being cool with their actions because we'll all pay for their actions if push comes to shove.

Also, we need to be a very, very vocal minority to the legislator's to give the impression that there are far more of us out there (than there really are) when this goes to discussion. There is safety in (perceived) numbers.

My :2cents
 
Back
Top