Bay Area Riders Forum Officially Opposes AB 51 - Lane Splitting Bill

[budman]

I have been working with local clubs, the AMA, Surj and others to try to get the proposed 30MPH speed limit in the Bill increased. We know that more data is forth coming from the Berkeley Study and that should show a higher limit is indeed safe and the speed differential (delta between riders and drivers speed) is the key factor.

In fact the higher speed of splitting cause a loss of data for the study as not many people were crashing. In fact not enough for statistical experts to gather proper info on.

We tried hard to work with Assemblyman Quirk to raise the limit, all to no avail.

The Info on all that is in THIS THREAD

I have had the support of various members during the effort and I thank you for that. The deadline to have an opposition letter formally submitted for the Transportation Committees review is today and mine is below.

It is time to start a push for a No Vote.

You can write to your CA Assemblyman. Use this link to find the Assemblyman for your district.

I suggest taking a snippet of my letter or otherwise proclaim that a lower speed limit with increase rear end accidents causing both injury and death to motorcycle riders. If you can get your Mom, brother, sister, GF etc. to write as a driver who is concerned for their loved one that could go along way as well.

We are the ones on the front line in traffic. We are the ones who are risk and we should be the ones the Legislator is asking about a speed limit. Right now the speed limit is an arbitrary choice by the CHP and not based on the data that has been provided. It already is showing a higher speed and all signs point to an even higher speed being shown as safe.

I have been blowing steam saying that the reason that splitting crashes are almost non existent when applying the 10MPH speed differential at higher speeds is because of a couple of factors.

Most splitters at higher speed are:
1. Good at the practice (experienced riders).
2. Not engaged in long term splitting as we are usually just looking for a quick to split to the safety of the next gap.
3. Use proper protocol to identify the right time to split. (Cars side by side)
4. Cars are less likely to make a sudden jump to another lane at higher speeds.

Anyways this is an official FYI and request for help to defeat the Bill.
The politicians say the speed can be adjusted as it works through committee, however today was the final chance to officially say something for the record on the Bill as it is written. Besides.

[m0t0_ryder]

Why is it we get these call to actions on the final day for feedback.
I would think with more time provided more feedback and letters would be forthcoming.

Is the cutoff at midnight or EOB (End of business) time?

edit to add... it's too bad your attached example is in PDF form. Can't cut and paste pertinent info into letter/email to my representatives.
Will just cull what I can from the forum post.

[m0t0_ryder]

Here is what I culled and sent by email...

Request to oppose AB 51 The Lane Splitting Bill.

Although I do believe in establishing a Lane Splitting Bill I cannot agree with the 30 MPH limit as the bill is currently written.
As a rider I am the one who is at risk and I should be the one the Legislator is asking about a speed limit. Right now the speed limit is an arbitrary choice by the CHP and not based on the data that has been provided. It already is showing a higher speed than 30 mph and all signs point to an even higher speed being shown as safe.
Studies have shown that the reason that splitting crashes are almost non existent when applying the 10MPH speed differential at higher speeds is because of a couple of factors.

Most splitters at higher speed are:
1. Good at the practice (experienced riders).
2. Not engaged in long term splitting as we are usually just looking for a quick to split to the safety of the next gap.
3. Use proper protocol to identify the right time to split. (Cars side by side)
4. Cars are less likely to make a sudden jump to another lane at higher speeds.

Given my experience (over 45 years as a licensed motorcycle rider) and the information provided to the State Committee on Transportation I would ask that you please vote no on AB51.

Thank you for taking the time to read and understand this issue.

Regards... John Logan

This was sent to...
Assembly member Evan Low of District 28
Senator Jim Beall of the 15'th Senate District

[m0t0_ryder]

Here's a link that lets you enter your address to find your state representatives--> LINK

note: I had to use that as the map in budman's link was just too small to find my district.

[Cincinnatus]

Done, sent to Loni Hancock & Rob Bonta.

[Marcoose]

Done.

I asked them to oppose the bill in its entirely, not only speed limit or delta.

We'll see.

[Chill]

Here is some language that can be used to draft a letter to your representative, reqesting them to oppose AB 51.

Dear Assemblyman ______________,

As a motorcyclist I urge you to oppose AB 51, an act to amend Section 21658 of the Vehicle Code as it is currently written for motorcycle lane sharing. AB 51 includes a 30MPH speed limit when sharing lanes. This speed limit effectively restricts a motorcycle riders ability to react to other vehicles moving near and around them on a crowded highway. To obey AB 51 as written could potentially force a motorcycle rider to maintain an unsafe position next to, behind or in front of an inattentive or erratic vehicle operator.

If there is to be a new law, it needs to be done right. The data needed to codify lane splitting properly is not currently in the hands of our Legislators. Once the final data is in from the Study by Dr. Rice of Berkeley, a member of the California Motorcycle safety committee, I believe there will reasonable data to establish a law for the practice. Getting this right is of utmost importance to the motorcycle community and until the final study is in I urge you to vote no on AB 51.

Contact your CA using this map, or by your address

[weasel]

Done & Thanks

[budman]

Originally Posted by m0t0_ryder

Why is it we get these call to actions on the final day for feedback.
I would think with more time provided more feedback and letters would be forthcoming.

Is the cutoff at midnight or EOB (End of business) time?

edit to add... it's too bad your attached example is in PDF form. Can't cut and paste pertinent info into letter/email to my representatives.
Will just cull what I can from the forum post.

Well let me clarify John.

Writing this is just to have the letters be part of the States documentation (meaning on file for future use)..

The reason you got it on the last day is so did I .
I was not aware of the week deadline... I am still learning this process and with the AMA's help I will be smarter about how to approach it in the future.

The Group I am working with here felt it was important for me to have something in because I was involved with the Guidelines and also on two State committees as noted. So I took 2 hours out of my busy day to hammer something out.

I think the hope is that they may just ditch the bill because of the lack of the final study results being made public. for sure.

Once the transportation committee has their way with the Bill it will either move forward to the full legislature or it won't. Writing your Assemblyperson will help the State gather information on support or not.

[m0t0_ryder]

Thanks for the info Dennis!
I am not surprised that you got the notice in the 11'th hour as well.

I hope my initial angst didn't come across as directed at you.
I super appreciate all you do and wouldn't want to deride you for your efforts.
Thanks for taking the time to inform us and call us to action.
I'll do what I can to help when you rally us.

[clutchslip]

When and why did the bill get amended from 35mph down to 30? It seems that it should have gone the other way with the 'people' involved. The bill is written with other completely useless legislation, and I am not sure whether bringing my assemblyman's attention to it is good or not. I will ponder the proper message to send him, and act tomorrow.

[Surj]

Originally Posted by clutchslip

When and why did the bill get amended from 35mph down to 30? It seems that it should have gone the other way with the 'people' involved. The bill is written with other completely useless legislation, and I am not sure whether bringing my assemblyman's attention to it is good or not. I will ponder the proper message to send him, and act tomorrow.

Believe me, that change, in early February, was the subject of much discussion. Tomasa Duenas, Quirk's Legislative Director, told us the change was to bring the bill in line with the CHP guidelines.

[mnb]

The CHP speed limitations are pathetically low as well. I strongly disagree with a 35mph limit (which they pulled out of their asses). The limitations in the CHP guidelines are not based on any facts or studies. They just picked a speed.

Lanesharing should be permitted up to the prevailing speed limit WHEN SAFE. The rider is given the ability to judge safety in the CHP guidelines, so why not up to the speed limit other than they want to arbitrarily limit it.

There's no evidence that shows that lanesharing over 35mph is unsafe.

I laneshare safely every day at the speed limit and have done so for DECADES.

Excessive limitations should not be accepted.

[metrorollah]

Bill passed 13-1. Surj, you guys ruined it. Your carelessness screwed up our riding privileges. Fuck Quirk and Fuck CityBike.

[budman]

It made it out of the first committee. It is not law. It has a long way to go.

Also believe me 30mph will change.

Thanks for throwing out a line of bull shit.