• 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.

CHP forced to remove Lane Splitting Guidelines-Need your help now!

jdhu said:
...Oh well. Practically, it doesn't change much. Lane sharing isn't outlawed, so it is legal. The guidelines were nice in providing a bit of official backing, but I don't see we will see any difference in ticketing.
Click to expand...

Didn't read much in this thread but the CHP cannot create or interpret the law, they merely enforce it. The guidelines were too close to interpreting the law and that's all it was, nothing has changed.
 
Why does this guy pull so much weight? Is this the first time anyone has press this issue? Hard to believe if they acted so quickly and this hasn't come up before and blown off before yet this dick has turned things upside down.
 
tootall424 said:
Why doesnt everyone email or call this Kenneth Mandler and let him know what you think?
Click to expand...
Like what is going to happen? He is going to suddenly feel guilty, and reverse his complaint? He will send you a FREE seat to one of his seminars to teach you how to rip off taxpayers and do nothing in return?

Once all the rock throwing stops, I hope barfers can come-up with a plan to counteract this ridiculous complaint. This guy does not seem invulnerable. I mean, he is a rip-off artist. Perhaps (wild-shot) someone in the government might care????

I will think about it, and then probably go back to sleep. :p
 
Last edited:
jdhu said:
Figured that guy would be an attorney (maybe admin law one), but he isn't. Who else would be so nitpicky and douchey?

Oh well. Practically, it doesn't change much. Lane sharing isn't outlawed, so it is legal. The guidelines were nice in providing a bit of official backing, but I don't see we will see any difference in ticketing.
Click to expand...

russ69 said:
Didn't read much in this thread but the CHP cannot create or interpret the law, they merely enforce it. The guidelines were too close to interpreting the law and that's all it was, nothing has changed.
Click to expand...

A guy like this is sooo much more dangerous than even a brilliant attorney. It's all about a principle to him and he won't relent to his beliefs.
Have come up against his type in city council meetings. He starts with nothing, files a myriad of paperwork, is relentless until he gets his way, then moves onto something bigger. Sidewalks, Benches, Noise. Since he acts in pro per its all free but for his time, and he has nothing but time on his side. He'll do things no attorney would do because he'll invest a lifetime of money, energy and paperwork over nothing. That's how he wins.
If you think he's harmless and the support of the ChP to suggest guidelines for our rights to continue is nothing, consider what this guy's ultimate goal may be....Who knows, perhaps he DOES ride bikes and actually dislikes the suggestions as he wants to ride the speed limit while lane sharing....OR....he doesn't ride bikes and feels that lane sharing is the devil and should be banished and this is the first step to eliminating the appearance of support for it by targeting the CHP site.
What if the DMV posts them? Will he insist that they are acting to interpret law as well?


The best defense is a strong offense. Don't think this is nothing.
 
Last edited:
tootall424 said:
this upsets me more than what he did to remove some lane sharing guidelines...
Click to expand...
Yeah, he is a dirtball.
horsepower said:
A guy like this is sooo much more dangerous than even a brilliant attorney. It's all about a principle to him and he won't relent to his beliefs......

The best defense is a strong offense. Don't think this is nothing.
Click to expand...
Are you sure it's principle? Sometimes people's egos are just too big for their own good. He has been fed success through negative behavior. Maybe this is just another feeding for him?

I'll participate in a coordinated offense. :thumbup
 
Now please...
 

Attachments

  • 320px-Anonymous_emblem.svg.png
    320px-Anonymous_emblem.svg.png
    42.5 KB · Views: 373
clutchslip said:
Yeah, he is a dirtball.

Are you sure it's principle? Sometimes people's egos are just too big for their own good. He has been fed success through negative behavior. Maybe this is just another feeding for him?

I'll participate in a coordinated offense. :thumbup
Click to expand...
Good points indeed. Should have put "prinicple" in quotations.
scimmione said:
Now please...
Click to expand...
Exactly, my first question to this man would be "what was your goal here? "

Attack based upon answer.:laughing
 
has/can anyone find any additional info on the bit in quotation below? i tried. couldn't find anything. it doesn't look like the APA applies - but depending on the context, and when the 'certification' occurred, it could be an issue (not sure if it preceded the complaint or not). hopefully the advice was pulled while they sort this out, and not as a final judgement.

in any event, the dude is a sanctimonious, self righteous prick. and apparently too stupid to realize that moto riders are tax payers - best to keep us alive. if he wants to keep sucking off the public tit, he needs all of those he can get.

"The Office of Administrative Law sided with Mandler, noting that CHP Commissioner J. A. Farrow certified that his department would not "issue, use, enforce, or attempt to enforce the public education information." The OAL determined that posting the guidelines on the website was "issuing" them."
 
It's not over yet folks, this is just the beginning. I'm sorry I couldn't make this clearer before. :(
 
What I want to know is why any government job deserves a pension, when virtually no private company offers them anymore. Just weaksauce 401k matching.
 
Reli said:
What I want to know is why any government job deserves a pension, when virtually no private company offers them anymore. Just weaksauce 401k matching.
Click to expand...

there are companies that still offer pensions. no where near the number that there used to be, but they still exist.
 
littlebeast said:
has/can anyone find any additional info on the bit in quotation below? i tried. couldn't find anything. it doesn't look like the APA applies - but depending on the context, and when the 'certification' occurred, it could be an issue (not sure if it preceded the complaint or not). hopefully the advice was pulled while they sort this out, and not as a final judgement.

in any event, the dude is a sanctimonious, self righteous prick. and apparently too stupid to realize that moto riders are tax payers - best to keep us alive. if he wants to keep sucking off the public tit, he needs all of those he can get.

"The Office of Administrative Law sided with Mandler, noting that CHP Commissioner J. A. Farrow certified that his department would not "issue, use, enforce, or attempt to enforce the public education information." The OAL determined that posting the guidelines on the website was "issuing" them."
Click to expand...


I started digging into this a little over a week ago. There'll be a piece in the August CityBike and of course on LaneSplittingIsLegal.com shortly. If you've read the AMA piece, you've got the basics, but I interviewed Sergeant Pope at CHP and spoke to folks at OAL as well.


Here are two background docs (both PDFs:
- Mandler's petition to OAL

- California Regulatory Notice Register - "Suspension of Action Regarding Underground Regulations"

Mr. Mandler apparently has a beef with the CHP and motorbikes. Here's part of his petition:

"Historically, the California Highway Patrol has reserved for itself the right to pick and choose which laws to enforce and to pick and choose whom to enforce the laws against. Californians have accepted this subjective effort by the California Highway Patrol.

However, in issuing its “lane-splitting” guidelines in February 2013, the California Highway Patrol has intruded on the role of the California State Legislature in “making the laws”. In the absence of a law against lane splitting, the agency issued “so- called” regulations that allow reckless behavior on the road. These “guidelines” received no public input and are not sanctioned by statute."

...

"There are 22.6 million licensed vehicle drivers in California. The “so-called” regulations affect every single one of these drivers. A significant percentage of the car drivers disagree that motorcycle drivers have the “extra” rights to weave between lanes that the California Highway Patrol purports to support. Well over 500 motorcyclists are killed on California highways annually. Many more sustain substantial injuries. In addition, the car driver population sustains substantial mental stress from the continuing “lane weaving” antics of typical motorcycle drivers. The car driver population would prefer that the California Highway Patrol enforce the law as it clearly now stands and not provide for additional “exceptions” to a favored population."

Stay tuned for more. Busy, busy week.
 
Surj said:
I started digging into this a little over a week ago. There'll be a piece in the August CityBike and of course on LaneSplittingIsLegal.com shortly. If you've read the AMA piece, you've got the basics, but I interviewed Sergeant Pope at CHP and spoke to folks at OAL as well.


Here are two background docs (both PDFs:
- Mandler's petition to OAL

- California Regulatory Notice Register - "Suspension of Action Regarding Underground Regulations"

Mr. Mandler apparently has a beef with the CHP and motorbikes. Here's part of his petition:

"Historically, the California Highway Patrol has reserved for itself the right to pick and choose which laws to enforce and to pick and choose whom to enforce the laws against. Californians have accepted this subjective effort by the California Highway Patrol.

However, in issuing its “lane-splitting” guidelines in February 2013, the California Highway Patrol has intruded on the role of the California State Legislature in “making the laws”. In the absence of a law against lane splitting, the agency issued “so- called” regulations that allow reckless behavior on the road. These “guidelines” received no public input and are not sanctioned by statute."

...

"There are 22.6 million licensed vehicle drivers in California. The “so-called” regulations affect every single one of these drivers. A significant percentage of the car drivers disagree that motorcycle drivers have the “extra” rights to weave between lanes that the California Highway Patrol purports to support. Well over 500 motorcyclists are killed on California highways annually. Many more sustain substantial injuries. In addition, the car driver population sustains substantial mental stress from the continuing “lane weaving” antics of typical motorcycle drivers. The car driver population would prefer that the California Highway Patrol enforce the law as it clearly now stands and not provide for additional “exceptions” to a favored population."

Stay tuned for more. Busy, busy week.
Click to expand...

thanks so much for the info, and for your efforts. just saw this recently, and have not had a lot of time to study all of the information, but from what i have read, the information CHP provided does not appear subject to the APA (irrespective of the information in your last paragraph - which is immaterial to the question). caveat being the bit regarding the commissioners certification, and the circumstances surrounding it.
 
littlebeast said:
thanks so much for the info, and for your efforts. just saw this recently, and have not had a lot of time to study all of the information, but from what i have read, the information CHP provided does not appear subject to the APA (irrespective of the information in your last paragraph - which is immaterial to the question). caveat being the bit regarding the commissioners certification, and the circumstances surrounding it.
Click to expand...

Agreed, totally irrelevant, but kind of helps us understand the dude's viewpoint. Some typical "it's not fair!" stuff in there.
 
Surj said:
Agreed, totally irrelevant, but kind of helps us understand the dude's viewpoint. Some typical "it's not fair!" stuff in there.
Click to expand...

lol - yeah, tried the 'fair' argument myself once (emphasize 'once'). might have been my first day of class. felt like i had been through a wood chipper when my professor was done with me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top