• 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

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
 
monkeyneck said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...


Please email Jim your thoughts via this website:
http://sd15.senate.ca.gov/send-e-mail
 
Last edited:
clutchslip said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Gabe said:
What definition of "traffic congestion" will be used for enforcement? LEO input in this would be nice.
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TrueFader said:
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?
Click to expand...
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
 
Gabe said:
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.
Click to expand...

Glad to hear you got some info. I haven't received my promised call back, and the staffer I talked to wouldn't tell me anything.
 
Gabe said:
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.
Click to expand...

The session is described as two years because thats the length of term for all Assembly seats and when one-third of state senate seats are up for election. I believe all bills introduced this year only have until Sept. 13 (of this year) to make it through committees, any revisions, be passed in both houses and sent to the Governor who then has until October 13 to sign or veto all bills passed by the legislature in 2013.

I don't think the bills have a two-year life. Anything that doesn't get passed by the legislature this year has to be re-introduced after the legislature re-convenes next January.
 
Climber said:
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!
......
Click to expand...
You can copy and paste this post over and over on barf and elsewhere. I am always amazed when motorcyclists don't realize what a precarious position we have, especially in California. The voting public could virtually legislate us out of existence with smog, safety, and splitting laws. Or they could just ban two-wheeled vehicles, all together.
 
clutchslip said:
You can copy and paste this post over and over on barf and elsewhere. I am always amazed when motorcyclists don't realize what a precarious position we have, especially in California. The voting public could virtually legislate us out of existence with smog, safety, and splitting laws. Or they could just ban two-wheeled vehicles, all together.
Click to expand...

Never happen. Motorcycling issues will never be placed on the ballot as an initiative (or measure at the local level). All motorcycle-related concerns will be decided in the legislature where you don't need to worry about the will of the majority of the voting public. No one in the legislature wants the potential lobbying money and campaign contributions going elsewhere. The helmet law didn't go before the voters and neither did the recent sound regulations. When was the last time the voters decided anything to do with the automotive industry or construction equipment or similar industries?

The economic downside of severely impacting the motorcycle industry in California outweighs whatever the general public may perceive as a nussance or safety issue.
 
Abyss said:
Why do we have legislation to legalize something that's already legal? :wtf
Click to expand...

Because it's not.

That is to say (you should already be aware of this) that there are no laws specifically permitting it, just a liberal interpretation of lane usage laws.

The lane usage laws in Oregon are worded nearly identcally to those in California, but the police and courts interpreted them differently, and you can get a ticket up here.
And, apparently since we started talking about the similar wording between Oregon and California versions of the laws, the Oregon legislature decided to "fix" things by codifying lane splitting here as not allowed.
 
Inside info says bill is DOA.

After all the work CA Mission 12 did on this via the guidelines and the public awareness outreach it sure is a kick in the you know where to see a bill discussed so quickly.

So did some politician suddenly become it was not illegal because of it and now needs to address it.. Or is it an opportunity to slap your name on an issue for ..well you know.
 
DogBoy said:
Never happen. Motorcycling issues will never be placed on the ballot as an initiative (or measure at the local level).
Click to expand...
Ah, you take my words too literally. The huge majority votes legislators into office. They also have huge numbers of complainers to drown out our minuscule voices.

Helmet laws passed, DESPITE enormous amounts of time and money spent to stop it. Sound laws passed, despite the aftermarket lobby. CARB has ruined several SEMA companies in the car market. Legislators control the direction of rules along with making laws. This is representative government. You vote for people to do what you want and pressure them to do it.

You don't need a referendum to change things. As a slightly different example, MADD had very few, but very persistent founders, with very little money. Their success is particularly informative about what can be accomplished without actual direct public votes.
 
clutchslip said:
Ah, you take my words too literally.
Click to expand...

Next time I'll just guess what you're talking about from reading exactly what you wrote. :teeth

I didn't say the legislature wouldn't make it more difficult, just that the industry as a whole won't be severly impacted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top