ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Riding > Regional forums > West California, the desert southwest and whatever is left
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-19-2013, 11:31 AM   #31
dman
Studly Adventurer
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Oddometer: 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdarling View Post
all of this said, i have taken advantage of the passing full-dress, straight pipe harley blazing a trail for me. If he can fit, so can i!
+1
dman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 06:25 PM   #32
francisthepig
Dances with Lurkers
 
francisthepig's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Oddometer: 153
Bill introduced

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/po...B&author=beall

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 350, as introduced, Beall. Vehicles: motorcycles.
(1) Existing law requires, when a roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, among other things, that a vehicle be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and prohibits the vehicle from being moved from the lane until that movement can be made with reasonable safety. A violation of the Vehicle Code is a crime.
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. Because the failure to comply with these provisions would constitute an infraction under the Vehicle Code, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________
Digest Key
Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: YES

Bill Text
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.Section 21658.5 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:

21658.5.(a) Notwithstanding any other law, and except as provided in subdivision (b), when a highway has been divided into three or more clearly marked lanes for traffic traveling in the same direction, a person operating a motorcycle shall not pass another vehicle in a portion of a lane occupied by that vehicle unless the following conditions are met:
(1) The passing occurs during traffic congestion.
(2) The passing occurs at a safe speed.
(b) This section does not apply to a peace officer in the performance of official duties.

SEC. 2.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution
francisthepig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 06:44 PM   #33
Andrew
Optimus Primer
 
Andrew's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2001
Location: Eastbania
Oddometer: 15,289
Fuckers. An outright ban on splitting when only two lanes in a direction?

And, please... define "congested"

Note as a bonus the pandering to CHP and local LE agencies.
__________________
Splitting lanes, and splitting hairs.
Andrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 06:46 PM   #34
K. L. Rocket
Big bouncy make big happy
 
K. L. Rocket's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Location: North SF Bay, California
Oddometer: 1,094
Sounds like surveys, guidelines and studies are not intended to reinforce the status quo.


Quote:
Originally Posted by K. L. Rocket View Post
Since "law" has been mentioned, and the survey appears to have led to guidelines, does anyone know if conducting a study is the next step toward changing the law? If not, what is the purpose of the study?

Also, has there ever been a public awareness campaign to inform California drivers, and those visiting from out of state, that lane splitting is legal here? The survey indicates that obstructionist driver behavior stems from disapproval based on ignorance on the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by francisthepig View Post
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/po...B&author=beall

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 350, as introduced, Beall. Vehicles: motorcycles.
(1) Existing law requires, when a roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, among other things, that a vehicle be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and prohibits the vehicle from being moved from the lane until that movement can be made with reasonable safety. A violation of the Vehicle Code is a crime.
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. Because the failure to comply with these provisions would constitute an infraction under the Vehicle Code, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________
Digest Key
Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: YES

Bill Text
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.Section 21658.5 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:

21658.5.(a) Notwithstanding any other law, and except as provided in subdivision (b), when a highway has been divided into three or more clearly marked lanes for traffic traveling in the same direction, a person operating a motorcycle shall not pass another vehicle in a portion of a lane occupied by that vehicle unless the following conditions are met:
(1) The passing occurs during traffic congestion.
(2) The passing occurs at a safe speed.
(b) This section does not apply to a peace officer in the performance of official duties.

SEC. 2.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution
__________________


K. L. Rocket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 07:42 PM   #35
Andrew
Optimus Primer
 
Andrew's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2001
Location: Eastbania
Oddometer: 15,289
Looks like SB 350 needs to be defeated.

Before getting all bent out of shape, here's a good brief on the path any bill takes through the legislature:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=591209

There will be many opportunities to comment, in person and through faxes, emails, and phone calls.
Is BARF highlighting this thing yet? I didn't see it in a quick review of the threads.
__________________
Splitting lanes, and splitting hairs.
Andrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 10:13 PM   #36
francisthepig
Dances with Lurkers
 
francisthepig's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Oddometer: 153
One could argue that with the right language, this could be a good thing. It makes lane sharing legal and it's on the books. Right now someone else could come out with a bill that makes it illegal no matter what.
Imagine if California had a law on the books that actually spelled out how and when lane sharing is legal. Other states could take that language and use it to get similar bills passed.

I agree right now it is still vague and not quite to my liking, but at least it isn't a bill that outlaws lane sharing outright.
francisthepig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 10:17 PM   #37
Andrew
Optimus Primer
 
Andrew's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2001
Location: Eastbania
Oddometer: 15,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by francisthepig View Post
One could argue that with the right language, this could be a good thing. It makes lane sharing legal and it's on the books. Right now someone else could come out with a bill that makes it illegal no matter what.
Imagine if California had a law on the books that actually spelled out how and when lane sharing is legal. Other states could take that language and use it to get similar bills passed.

I agree right now it is still vague and not quite to my liking, but at least it isn't a bill that outlaws lane sharing outright.
As initially proposed, it outlaws lane-splitting on roads with fewer than three lanes. WTF? Status quo is far preferable.

I will do my part to defeat this legislation.
__________________
Splitting lanes, and splitting hairs.
Andrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 10:43 PM   #38
Aprilia
Studly Adventurer
 
Joined: Sep 2008
Location: Flagstaff, AZ
Oddometer: 651
I lane split for nearly 15yrs while living in the Bay Area. My job had me going from location to location every day....my mileage was anywhere from 100-200 miles a day. Most of that was while splitting traffic. You quickly learn to read other drivers and when/when not to split. I had a few close calls the first year but after that I found it far safer to be splitting. BTW...even did a couple years using a K1200LT.
Aprilia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 10:47 PM   #39
SF_Hooligan
Deadwood Original
 
SF_Hooligan's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Location: Oakland, CA
Oddometer: 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew View Post
Is BARF highlighting this thing yet? I didn't see it in a quick review of the threads.
I just posted a summary on BARF and a deeper analysis on LaneSplittingIsLegal.com here - a site I launched to help publicize the CHP guidelines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by francisthepig View Post
One could argue that with the right language, this could be a good thing. It makes lane sharing legal and it's on the books. Right now someone else could come out with a bill that makes it illegal no matter what.
Imagine if California had a law on the books that actually spelled out how and when lane sharing is legal. Other states could take that language and use it to get similar bills passed.

I agree right now it is still vague and not quite to my liking, but at least it isn't a bill that outlaws lane sharing outright.
I agree with you, as do some of the experts I've spoken with. The three lane thing makes this bill a big loser, but the other part, basically "split when it's congested, if you can do it safely" is not that far from what we have right now, in that it's super ambiguous and open to interpretation by LEOs.
SF_Hooligan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 10:50 PM   #40
MeterPig
Meh
 
MeterPig's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: Parker, Colorado...
Oddometer: 17,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by francisthepig View Post
One could argue that with the right language, this could be a good thing. It makes lane sharing legal and it's on the books. Right now someone else could come out with a bill that makes it illegal no matter what.
Imagine if California had a law on the books that actually spelled out how and when lane sharing is legal. Other states could take that language and use it to get similar bills passed.

I agree right now it is still vague and not quite to my liking, but at least it isn't a bill that outlaws lane sharing outright.
It already is legal.
__________________
You looked down here...didn't you.
MeterPig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 10:52 PM   #41
MeterPig
Meh
 
MeterPig's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: Parker, Colorado...
Oddometer: 17,090
The main advantage of lane sharing is moving to front of the line.
__________________
You looked down here...didn't you.
MeterPig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 11:08 PM   #42
francisthepig
Dances with Lurkers
 
francisthepig's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Oddometer: 153
I agree that, as written, it sucks.
But what if it was changed to:
EGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 350, as introduced, Beall. Vehicles: motorcycles.
(1) Existing law requires, when a roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, among other things, that a vehicle be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and prohibits the vehicle from being moved from the lane until that movement can be made with reasonable safety. A violation of the Vehicle Code is a crime.
This bill would ALLOW, as provided, a person operating a motorcycle to pass another vehicle in a portion of a lane occupied by that vehicle if/when certain conditions are met, including that the passing occurs at a safe speed. Because the failure to comply with these provisions would constitute an infraction under the Vehicle Code, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________
Digest Key
Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: YES

Bill Text
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.Section 21658.5 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:

21658.5.(a) Notwithstanding any other law, and except as provided in subdivision (b), when a highway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic traveling in the same direction, a person operating a motorcycle shall be allowed to pass another vehicle in a portion of a lane occupied by that vehicle if the following conditions are met:
(1) The passing occurs during traffic congestion. DELETE THIS LINE
(2) The passing occurs at a safe speed.
(b) This section does not apply to a peace officer in the performance of official duties.

SEC. 2.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution

I know it is a long shot, but what if this legislator is trying to help motorcyclists by passing a bill that makes it legal before another legislator writes a bill that outlaws it. I ASS U ME that this was written by one of his staffers and I would be surprised if it was written by a rider. There is no mention of two or three lane highways in the CHP guidelines or congestion. In my opinion there is a big difference between "slower moving traffic" and congestion.
His website is below.
http://www.jimbeall.com/
francisthepig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 11:26 PM   #43
francisthepig
Dances with Lurkers
 
francisthepig's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Oddometer: 153
For those stating it lane sharing is already legal, can you show me where it is written?

Years ago, I could smoke in a bar, because it was "legal". No law was written outlawing it. Then a law was written and now I had to go to a patio.

A few years later, I could smoke on a patio of a bar in some cities, no law was written outlawing it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...2.A0California

I can lane share in California, because there is no law against it...yet.

I personally rather have a well written law allowing me to do something then one telling me I can't.
francisthepig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 11:34 PM   #44
K. L. Rocket
Big bouncy make big happy
 
K. L. Rocket's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Location: North SF Bay, California
Oddometer: 1,094
Riders Unaware Too?


http://abatelocal27.org/pages/local-27/pac.php


Quote:
Originally Posted by francisthepig View Post
For those stating it lane sharing is already legal, can you show me where it is written?

Years ago, I could smoke in a bar, because it was "legal". No law was written outlawing it. Then a law was written and now I had to go to a patio.

A few years later, I could smoke on a patio of a bar in some cities, no law was written outlawing it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...2.A0California

I can lane share in California, because there is no law against it...yet.

I personally rather have a well written law allowing me to do something then one telling me I can't.
__________________


K. L. Rocket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 11:42 PM   #45
SF_Hooligan
Deadwood Original
 
SF_Hooligan's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Location: Oakland, CA
Oddometer: 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by francisthepig View Post
For those stating it lane sharing is already legal, can you show me where it is written?

Years ago, I could smoke in a bar, because it was "legal". No law was written outlawing it. Then a law was written and now I had to go to a patio.

A few years later, I could smoke on a patio of a bar in some cities, no law was written outlawing it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...2.A0California

I can lane share in California, because there is no law against it...yet.

I personally rather have a well written law allowing me to do something then one telling me I can't.
I agree with you, but it's already legal in the same way chewing gum while walking is - there's no law against it. Not illegal = legal.

I wouldn't be opposed to a well written law - but I also think its unnecessary.
SF_Hooligan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

.
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 03:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014