California Bill AB 51 Codifying Lane Splitting To Be Introduced To Committee

Evans Brasfield
by Evans Brasfield

Brings motorcycle safety organization to the table

Here at MO, we are strong proponents of lane splitting. Not a day goes by in which we don’t filter between the lines of slower moving or stopped cars. In the process, we’re also easing congestion and protecting ourselves from being rear-ended by distracted drivers. So, naturally, we were excited last year when we heard of California bill AB 51 was making the rounds in an effort to codify the act of lane splitting by giving it a set of clear rules for riders to follow. One of the primary benefits of the rules would be that they would make it possible to educate the driving public about lane splitting.

AB51 To Formally Legalize Lane-Splitting

Hallelujah! The AMA Endorses Lane Splitting

The Truth About Lane-Splitting

Skidmarks – Splitting Headache

Unfortunately, the bill was pulled last July at the request of its author, California Assemblyman Bill Quirk, because of fears that it would not pass. Since that time, Quirk has worked on changing the language of the bill to a form that will improve its chance of passing. According to LaneSplittingIsLegal.com, an organization devoted to promoting lane splitting, the wording has changed to a much less specific recipe for legal lane splitting to a more generalized one. The result is a bill that maintains lane splitting’s legality by virtue of not being explicitly illegal while giving the CHP the option of developing and distributing educational guidelines for riders and the driving public to better understand safe lane splitting.

A sample of how the updated AB 51 text will read, produced by LaneSplittingIsLegal.com.

In a mockup of the amended version of AB 51 produced by LaneSplittingIsLegal.com, the specifics of the top speed and the speed differential between the motorcycle and other traffic have been removed. In their place, the mandate for CHP to create guidelines to educate the public is inserted: “The California Department of Highway Patrol may develop educational guidelines relating to lane splitting in a manner that would ensure the safety of the motorcyclist and the drivers and passengers of the surrounding vehicles.”

Additionally, the agencies that the CHP is to consult in developing the guidelines includes not only the Department of Motor Vehicles, the Department of Transportation, and the Office of Traffic Safety, but it also lists the requirement of consulting with a “motorcycle organization focused on motorcyclist safety.” So, we assume the organization selected would be either the AMA or the MSF, giving actual motorcyclists an active say in the development of lane splitting guidelines – which is very good news!

These changes were scheduled to be submitted to committee yesterday, May 31, 2016, but at the time of publication, the bill’s page on the California Legislative Information website had not been updated. Interested parties can track the progress of the bill there. California residents who want to contact their representative can search here. Those who want to contact Assemblyman Quirk’s office can visit his web site.

Evans Brasfield
Evans Brasfield

Like most of the best happenings in his life, Evans stumbled into his motojournalism career. While on his way to a planned life in academia, he applied for a job at a motorcycle magazine, thinking he’d get the opportunity to write some freelance articles. Instead, he was offered a full-time job in which he discovered he could actually get paid to ride other people’s motorcycles – and he’s never looked back. Over the 25 years he’s been in the motorcycle industry, Evans has written two books, 101 Sportbike Performance Projects and How to Modify Your Metric Cruiser, and has ridden just about every production motorcycle manufactured. Evans has a deep love of motorcycles and believes they are a force for good in the world.

More by Evans Brasfield

Comments
Join the conversation
 7 comments
  • Surj Gish Surj Gish on Jun 02, 2016

    Surj from LaneSplittingIsLegal.com here. Just to clarify, I didn't "produce" that mockup—from the article you quote above: "Here’s the bill mockup from Quirk’s office..."

    The bill has now been amended with the updated language: https://leginfo.legislature...

    • See 4 previous
    • Old MOron Old MOron on Jun 03, 2016

      Did I give the impression that I have a blanket aversion to regulation? I don't. But I do have an aversion to meddling in something that is already legal and working just fine as far as I'm concerned.

      In your first reply you reminded us that lane splitting is legal specifically because it is not prohibited. Yet you have been working on this issue for years? No wonder you don't have time for uninformed borderline trolls.

      But let me get back to my sense of working just fine. I also looked at the "excellent study of lane splitting in California by James Ouellet" that you provided. It's a thick dissertation because he's looking at data from the multiple studies, but one of his principal findings is, "lane splitting crashes appear to be a tiny portion (less than 1%) of the motorcycle accident population." And his first conclusion: "It is clear that lane-splitting contributes little to the population of motorcycle accidents – less than 1% both in Los Angeles in 1976-77 and a quarter century later and a continent away in Europe in 1999- 2000." All of this without guidelines. So remind me again why suddenly they're so urgent.

      Finally, you still haven't replied to my sincere question. Since motorcycles are already defined as including three wheelers, why is the "two wheels on the ground" language necessary in the bill? I mentioned wheelies and MP3s because that's all I could think of. But since I helicoptered in so uninformedly, it's no surprise that I got it wrong, eh? I don't suppose you care to enlighten us as to why "two wheels on the ground" is in the bill. I'm genuinely curious. You see, I'm going to have to decide on whether to support this bill. Obviously, I'm disinclined to do so, but I'm willing to examine the text and look for a reason to go one way or the other.

      Speaking of text, how come I'm the only one referring to the text of the bill and of the motorcycle safety studies? How come all you've done is condescend and call names? Who's the presumptuous one here?

  • Born to Ride Born to Ride on Jun 02, 2016

    I am glad they removed that top speed stipulation, I was worried that it was going to just become another means for CHP to write tickets. I hate bills introduced to improve public awareness that end up giving the government more means of divesting citizens from their hard earned money. I have followed officers (On bikes) on the freeway splitting at speeds upwards of 60 mph in perfect safety. I see no need to enforce another secondary speed limit.

Next