2015 Anti-Lane Splitting Bill (Assembly Bill 51)

[Lunch Box]

Originally Posted by fubar929

I haven't, but if you google for lane sharing it seems to be the most common citation.

Wait. If I google "lane sharing," I would see that the most common citation for lane sharing is, ummm, unsafe lane sharing? That's amazing!!!!!

[/dev/null]

Originally Posted by fubar929

Remember: lane sharing is currently not explicitly legal in California. It also isn't explicitly illegal.

Everything is legal until legislation is passed that makes it illegal. The converse argument isn't true in our system.

Remember: the DMV and CHP recently dropped their lane-sharing guidelines under legislative pressure.

These guidelines weren't removed under legislative pressure. Kenneth Mandler, a private citizen petitioned the California Office of Administrative Law to have them removed because they were regulations which is the province of the legislature. You shouldn't just read the first 2 or 3 stories google spits out.

What do you think the next step in this progression is?

You're doing something that isn't explicitly legal and the state government always needs more money...

Lanesplitting at 5mph then lanesplitting at 0mph. This is a zero sum game, what they win we lose. There is obviously a powerful special interest behind this with unknown purposes because this Quirk is setting himself up for storm of complaints.

Again, an act is legal until is has been made illegal. You need to brush up on how the legal system works.

What we don't need is people like you spreading misinformation.

[rodr]

Originally Posted by fubar929

Sounds great! And when you're cited for violating 21658(a) you're going to tell the judge... what, exactly?

Not sure I understand this. If a lane change is not safe, surely the officer can express a reason for that.

Generally speaking, when lane splitting you're gonna be "changing lanes" (crossing the line) a lot because some cars will offer more room than others. This is surely more safe than staying in the same lane. That's what I'd say to the judge.

[Gabe]

Originally Posted by fubar929

You guys are awesome! Somebody tries to defend your rights and your knee-jerk reaction is to kick them in the balls! Bravo!

Remember: lane sharing is currently not explicitly legal in California. It also isn't explicitly illegal.

Remember: the DMV and CHP recently dropped their lane-sharing guidelines under legislative pressure.

What do you think the next step in this progression is? You're doing something that isn't explicitly legal and the state government always needs more money... How long before CHP starts ticketing everybody in the state who shares lanes regardless of the manner in which they do it? If you receive one of those tickets, how are you going to fight it? Please, feel free to cite specific sections of the current CVC that show lane sharing by motorcycles is legally allowed.

I haven't read the text of the bill but from the discussion here it sounds like it would enshrine into law the ability of motorcyclists to share lanes and the prior CHP guidelines for when it is permissible. That would presumably give the CHP (and other LEOs) much less opportunity to ticket those who share lanes. Personally, I would love to see lane sharing become explicitly legal rather than continuing to exist in the current legal gray area...

I get your argument, but I don't think you're quite the legal and legislative scholar you think you are. Here are some facts that you are either ignorant of or choose to ignore:

-The CHP likes motorcycles lanesplitting, so long as it doesn't violate the vehicle code in other ways (read my column here for an analysis of that: http://www.motorcycle.com/features/s...headache.html]. It eases congestion and reduces motorcycle accidents, plus most CHP officers ride or like motorcycles.

-There is no such thing as a "legal gray area" when it comes to the vehicle code. Either you can do something or you can't do something. You can do something if it isn't explicitly stated you can't do it.

-I don't see how you can say putting a limit on something is the same as defending the right to do it. And by the way, allowing all vehicles defined as a motorcycle under CVC 400 is dumb, as it allows sidecars and Can-Am Spyders as well.

-Quirk and Beale aren't interested in protecting our rights. They're interested in making a name for themselves by getting legislation passed. It shows their constituents that they're doing something--that's what Democrats do, unfortunately--write and pass laws. Usually I like that, as there are legitimate problems you can solve with laws. But this time, I don't. There's in no problem here that is being solved by this bill. So F those guys.

You also asked how to fight an unsafe lane change law. You fight it the same way you fight any ticket you think is wrong. You do an analysis of the case and show the court that there is enough doubt that you violated the provision of the vehicle code.

"21658. Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, the following rules apply:

(a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until such movement can be made with reasonable safety."

Fuck me! Talk about gray areas! My defense would depend on the officer's testimony, (which I would move to suppress unless he/she properly introduced their notes into evidence before testimony), but I would say I stayed entirely in one lane (when I lane split, I don't bounce over the botts dots, but ride to one side of them, usually the right) unless it was impractical. Since I was following the CHP guidelines (which I would introduce as evidence), I was moving "with reasonable safety."

If the cop made up evidence to make it look like I was violating 21658, I would work to present conflicting evidence to cast enough doubt for an acquittal. But there's not much you can do about lying cops.

Anyway, your slippery-slope doomsday scenario has been predicted for 100 years and hasn't happened yet, despite the State always needing money and other motorists always not liking lane splitting.

Honestly, the best strategy for us is to always fight any lane-sharing/splitting legislation no matter how benign it seems and to STFU otherwise.

[fubar929]

Originally Posted by Gabe

-The CHP likes motorcycles lanesplitting, so long as it doesn't violate the vehicle code in other ways (read my column here for an analysis of that: http://www.motorcycle.com/features/s...headache.html]. It eases congestion and reduces motorcycle accidents, plus most CHP officers ride or like motorcycles.

That's great? I like lane-splitting, too! So what? Do you think CHP officers wouldn't ticket lane-splitting riders for violating CVC 21658 or 22108 if they were directed to do so?

-There is no such thing as a "legal gray area" when it comes to the vehicle code. Either you can do something or you can't do something. You can do something if it isn't explicitly stated you can't do it.

Great theory. In practice, however, many things are left up to the discretion of the citing officer and the CVC is filled with weasel language like "when safe to do so", "when practical", "reasonable", etc. In court, my experience suggests that LEOs are usually given the benefit of the doubt by judges. Regular citizens? Almost never.

You also asked how to fight an unsafe lane change law. You fight it the same way you fight any ticket you think is wrong. You do an analysis of the case and show the court that there is enough doubt that you violated the provision of the vehicle code.

"21658. Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, the following rules apply:

(a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until such movement can be made with reasonable safety."

Fuck me! Talk about gray areas! My defense would depend on the officer's testimony, (which I would move to suppress unless he/she properly introduced their notes into evidence before testimony), but I would say I stayed entirely in one lane (when I lane split, I don't bounce over the botts dots, but ride to one side of them, usually the right) unless it was impractical. Since I was following the CHP guidelines (which I would introduce as evidence), I was moving "with reasonable safety."

Wait? So you admit that there are gray areas? BTW, as far as I know, the CHP has no current guidelines on lane-splitting.

So, when the LEO claims that part of your bike (think: mirrors, bar ends, turn signals, side cases) crossed the lane divider and you were in violation of the "entirely within a single lane" provision, what would your defense be?

What if the LEO claimed that you moved across the lane divider without signaling and thus failed to cross "with reasonable safety"? Do you think the judge wouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt and find you guilty?

[metrorollah]

Originally Posted by revnort

There is no law prohibiting it, so it is legal. To use the old, there is no law explicitly saying you are legally allowed to eat a sandwich.

Exactly right. In some states anal sex is illegal because somebody decided that we need laws with specific guidelines on sex. Some on here say "well, look at me, I always have sex in missionary and for reasons of pro-creation ... it won't change a thing about MY habits, just makes everyone else fuck just like I do. I support these regulations."

Well guess what folks. WE. DONT. NEED. YOUR. LAWS. HERE.

Originally Posted by Gabe

Honestly, the best strategy for us is to always fight any lane-sharing/splitting legislation no matter how benign it seems and to STFU otherwise.

Gabe, I appreciate your help. Depending on how far this gets kicked down the line, you and a handful of other journalists are on my short list. Also as a fellow in the legal profession, I respect your demonstrative lean here. It mirrors ABATE's. We'll meet up again soon.

[revnort]

Originally Posted by fubar929

What if the LEO claimed that you moved across the lane divider without signaling and thus failed to cross "with reasonable safety"? Do you think the judge wouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt and find you guilty?

What if?

We don't need laws to cover what if these problems occur. We would have to create an infinite number of laws.

Again, you keep throwing this out like it is an actual issue, which it isn't. Nobody is pulling over CA lane splitters in abundance and citing them for unsafe lane changes.

[mlm]

Originally Posted by fubar929

Luckily, eating a sandwich probably won't get you cited for violating CVC 21658(a). Lane sharing, on the other hand...

CVC21658 covers unsafe lane changes. Lane sharing as defined in the proposed law is explicit to staying within the same lane.

(c)**(1)**A motorcycle, as defined in Section 400, may be driven
line 14 between rows of stopped or moving vehicles in the same lane,
line 15 including both divided and undivided streets, roads, or highways,
line 16 if both of the following conditions are present:

BTW. My guess is that many people eating sandwiches while driving have been cited for CVC 21658.

[Gabe]

Originally Posted by fubar929

That's great? I like lane-splitting, too! So what? Do you think CHP officers wouldn't ticket lane-splitting riders for violating CVC 21658 or 22108 if they were directed to do so?

What if, what if what if...the fact is CHP doesn't target lane-splitters, and I don't think they ever will.

You're getting all worked up and welcoming restrictions on our liberties because of some unlikely paranoid scenario. Let it go.

[fubar929]

Originally Posted by revnort

Again, you keep throwing this out like it is an actual issue, which it isn't. Nobody is pulling over CA lane splitters in abundance and citing them for unsafe lane changes.

Again, you seem completely incapable of understanding my point. Which, again, is that there is nothing that prevents this from happening in the future.

Originally Posted by mlm

CVC21658 covers unsafe lane changes. Lane sharing as defined in the proposed law is explicit to staying within the same lane.

It appears that people who are cited while lane sharing are often cited for 21658(a) violations, though there appear to be other sections of the code that could also be used, depending on the exact situation: 22107, 22108, 21705(a), etc.

[mlm]

Originally Posted by fubar929

Again, you seem completely incapable of understanding my point. Which, again, is that there is nothing that prevents this from happening in the future.

Understand this wasn't addressed to me, but passing the proposed law doesn't prevent something from happening in the future either.

Originally Posted by fubar929

It appears that people who are cited while lane sharing are often cited for 21658(a) violations, though there appear to be other sections of the code that could also be used, depending on the exact situation: 22107, 22108, 21705(a), etc.

Exactly my prior point. There are multiple existing and overlapping laws that could be written up against someone who is lane sharing. What you don't seem to account for is that the proposed law wouldn't change that…it would just add ANOTHER law that could be written up against someone lane sharing.

[revnort]

Originally Posted by fubar929

Again, you seem completely incapable of understanding my point. Which, again, is that there is nothing that prevents this from happening in the future.

I understand your point completely. See my previous bit about an infinite number of laws necessary to handle every scenario that doesn't actually exist as a problem.

It's a bit like saying we need a law that says we are explicitly allowed to ride a vtwin...you know in case somebody tries to outlaw that engine configuration.

[HeatXfer]

Originally Posted by fubar929

It appears that people who are cited while lane sharing are often cited for 21658(a) violations, though there appear to be other sections of the code that could also be used, depending on the exact situation: 22107, 22108, 21705(a), etc.

Just for clarification, what does that mean and where did you get it?

[NTron3000]

From a riders perspective the biggest concern in lane splitting/sharing is the attitudes and awareness of the cages around them. Almost all effort to educate about lane splitting has been to show that it is in fact a legal thing to do. There are some statistics that would indicate that the CHP guidelines did just that and there was correlation showing fewer lane splitting accidents which while it would need more study I can at least follow the logic of. There is a difference in public perception around a "grey-quasi legal" activity and one explicitly allowed. Might mean fewer angry black trucks is all I'm saying. And it might mean the 'guidelines' for it can be more easily exported to other states.

[fubar929]

Originally Posted by mlm

Understand this wasn't addressed to me, but passing the proposed law doesn't prevent something from happening in the future either.

No, but it ensures that future changes will be more difficult and those changes will be handled at least somewhat publicly.

At the moment, if some particular law-enforcement agency wants to start ticketing every lane-splitting motorcyclist in their jurisdiction for violating 21658(a) all they have to do is tell their LEOs to start doing it. They don't have to inform anyone about the change, they can just start writing tickets. If lane sharing is made explicitly legal via the proposed changes to 21658, then obviously you couldn't be cited using that section of the vehicle code. Granted, you might still get cited using some other section of the vehicle code, but it would probably be pretty clear that they were trying to do an end-run around the revised 21658.