• 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

So ABATE says on the CA ABATE Facebook group the bill isn't actually being withdrawn, but rather:

Contrary to the AMA's announcement, SB350 has not been withdrawn, rather it's now a 2-year bill. This means that while it may be possible that the bill is heard in April (April is the deadline for submission to the Senate Trans Cmt for all policy making bills); the likelihood is that it won't be heard by Committee until next January 2014. Good news for us, gives us plenty of time to work with our constituents to make certain the bill that is finally submitted will be a GOOD bill!

Sheesh. Gotta add to my post on it, it seems.
 
Why make a GOOD bill? why not just make NO bill and have a good day?

Some folks think having a law on the books helps protect us riders from a potential ban. Pre-emptive measure, basically.
 
Some folks think having a law on the books helps protect us riders from a potential ban. Pre-emptive measure, basically.

There is no pre-emptive measure when the attempts to restrict our current privilege are coming sooner and more frequently.
 
Bill S.B. 350 to be withdrawn

The AMA site says that the bill would "be put on hold", not "withdrawn." But either way, they are going to wait until the University of California-Berkeley safety study is done.

"An aide to state Senator Jim Beall (Democrat-San Jose), who sponsored S.B. 350, confirmed in an email to the AMA on Tuesday that the bill would be withdrawn, pending the results of a University of California-Berkeley safety study expected later this year."
http://www.cyclenews.com/articles/industry-news/2013/02/27/anti-lane-splitting-bill-withdrawn/
 
The AMA site says that the bill would "be put on hold", not "withdrawn." But either way, they are going to wait until the University of California-Berkeley safety study is done.

"An aide to state Senator Jim Beall (Democrat-San Jose), who sponsored S.B. 350, confirmed in an email to the AMA on Tuesday that the bill would be withdrawn, pending the results of a University of California-Berkeley safety study expected later this year."
http://www.cyclenews.com/articles/industry-news/2013/02/27/anti-lane-splitting-bill-withdrawn/

Hmm. The AMA appears to have pulled down the page for their original announcement, which was at http://www.americanmotorcyclist.com...stricted_lane-splitting_by_motorcyclists.aspx. Google-cached page is here.

California lawmaker withdraws bill that would have restricted lane-splitting by motorcyclists
February 26, 2013
The sponsor of a California Senate bill that would have restricted the current practice of lane-splitting by motorcyclists will withdraw the bill from consideration.

Lane-splitting by motorcyclists in California is recognized by the California Highway Patrol and helps ease traffic flow.

An aide to state Sen. Jim Beall (D-San Jose), who sponsored S.B. 350, confirmed in an email to the AMA Tuesday afternoon that the bill would be withdrawn, pending the results of a University of California-Berkeley safety study expected later this year. The bill, introduced Feb. 20, would have allowed lane-splitting only in certain instances: on divided highways with three or more lanes of travel in the same direction, only when traffic is congested and only at "a safe" speed.

Even your quote says withdrawn - of course pending the study.

The original page still comes up in a search on the ama site for SB 350 (they use Google search) but the page is gone, and there's no new announcement under Rights > Issues & Legislation > CA. Weird - what gives?
 
Hmm. The AMA appears to have pulled down the page for their original announcement, which was at http://www.americanmotorcyclist.com...stricted_lane-splitting_by_motorcyclists.aspx. Google-cached page is here.



Even your quote says withdrawn - of course pending the study.

The original page still comes up in a search on the ama site for SB 350 (they use Google search) but the page is gone, and there's no new announcement under Rights > Issues & Legislation > CA. Weird - what gives?

Take a look at the 2 URLs. They changed the language from "withdrawn" to "places_bill_on_hold" :wtf

Broken:
"http://www.americanmotorcyclist.com/NewsView/13-02-26/California_lawmaker_withdraws_bill_that_would_have_restricted_lane-splitting_by_motorcyclists.aspx"

Working:
"http://www.americanmotorcyclist.com/news/13-02-26/California_lawmaker_places_bill_on_hold_that_would_have_restricted_lane-splitting_by_motorcyclists.aspx"
 
Last edited:
Take a look at the 2 URLs. They changed the language from "withdrawn" to "places_bill_on_hold" :wtf

Broken:
"http://www.americanmotorcyclist.com/NewsView/13-02-26/California_lawmaker_withdraws_bill_that_would_have_restricted_lane-splitting_by_motorcyclists.aspx"

Working:
"http://www.americanmotorcyclist.com/news/13-02-26/California_lawmaker_places_bill_on_hold_that_would_have_restricted_lane-splitting_by_motorcyclists.aspx"

Oh jeez. They should have left the original URL intact or redirected it. And they need to get that new link into their own search and under the CA section of the site. Thanks for the heads up.
 
Budman - Is it worthwhile to ask Rep Beall for a townhall meeting with some BARFers & AMA folks to quietly discuss this? Not suggesting a massive rally (yet), but a 10-20 BARFer group to meet & talk?
 
Budman - Is it worthwhile to ask Rep Beall for a townhall meeting with some BARFers & AMA folks to quietly discuss this? Not suggesting a massive rally (yet), but a 10-20 BARFer group to meet & talk?

Beall has his next "coffee date" listed on his site as March 15. Agree that low key is good for now. ABATE has characterized him as moto-friendly and stated that the person in his office working on the bill is a rider.
 
Beall has his next "coffee date" listed on his site as March 15. Agree that low key is good for now. ABATE has characterized him as moto-friendly and stated that the person in his office working on the bill is a rider.
thats good news. although I prefer fewer laws to more laws, this one seems like it will go the way of a law sooner or later, and in that case, having a rider working on the bill for a moto-friendly senator following on the CHP having just publicly stated a position is probably the best outcome.

It's already the case that the CHP stated position has in essence made lane sharing above 30mph a ticket....
 
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...

Where can I get some stickers?
 
thats good news. although I prefer fewer laws to more laws, this one seems like it will go the way of a law sooner or later, and in that case, having a rider working on the bill for a moto-friendly senator following on the CHP having just publicly stated a position is probably the best outcome.

It's already the case that the CHP stated position has in essence made lane sharing above 30mph a ticket....

Agreed - and I know a bunch of riders outside Beall's office are involved. :thumbup

Not sure about the ticket thing. They're just "guidelines" after all, but I'm obviously not a LEO.

Where can I get some stickers?

Honestly, I'm not sure who's still got 'em. I'd cruise into the shops in your area on the CityBike distro map. I sent out close to three thousand stickers with the March issue, but I've also heard that they've gone super fast in most cases.

Also, Pashint.com has a stack and is sending 'em out with orders shipping to CA addresses - so if you need something from Pashnit.com, now's a good time to order. You can also order at the link in my sig.
 
Not sure about the ticket thing. They're just "guidelines" after all, but I'm obviously not a LEO.

True. However at present it is a judgement call for the LEO writing the ticket, and now CHP has stated precisely what they consider to be good judgement. I'd expect that to correlate in the future to other LEO's "judgement". The good side of this, is 30 and under is now less likely to get ticketed even by moto-unfriendly LEOs.
 
True. However at present it is a judgement call for the LEO writing the ticket, and now CHP has stated precisely what they consider to be good judgement. I'd expect that to correlate in the future to other LEO's "judgement". The good side of this, is 30 and under is now less likely to get ticketed even by moto-unfriendly LEOs.

Saw a quote in the SC Sentinel today that is timely to this discussion. Asked if riders can be cited under the new guidelines, CHP Sergeant Mark Pope (statewide coordinated for moto safety programs, quoted in other articles recently) says:

"No. Guidelines are not statutory in nature and represent no change in law or policy. They will, however, foster a better understanding of what may be considered 'safe and prudent.'"

Of course, as before, if a cop wants to write you up for splitting then can certainly come up with something. Unsafe lane change seems to be the common one used in the rare cases I've heard of riders being ticketed for splitting.
 
Why make a GOOD bill? why not just make NO bill and have a good day?

I was thinking about this the other day. Why not take control of the inevitable? There is going to be a lane sharing bill. That has become obvious. There's no reason that we should not embrace this as an opportunity to get it right, rather than fight it and get a bad law.

Also, if we specifically legalize lane splitting in CA, we will have created a model upon which other states can launch their platform. Oregon and Washington have both had lane sharing legislation in the recent past, and they have both failed.
 
I was thinking about this the other day. Why not take control of the inevitable? There is going to be a lane sharing bill. That has become obvious. There's no reason that we should not embrace this as an opportunity to get it right, rather than fight it and get a bad law.

Also, if we specifically legalize lane splitting in CA, we will have created a model upon which other states can launch their platform. Oregon and Washington have both had lane sharing legislation in the recent past, and they have both failed.

This and this, exactly. :thumbup
 
Back
Top