Cycle News is a weekly magazine that covers all aspects of motorcycling including Supercross, Motocross and MotoGP as well as new motorcycles
Issue link: https://magazine.cyclenews.com/i/717711
CN III VOICES L E T T E R S T O T H E E D I T O R "…Riders were splitting a little slower, and driver awareness and sentiment appeared to be improving." Lane Splitting Brent Meeker's letter (Cycle News issue #32, August 16, 2016) about AB 51, the recently passed California lane splitting bill, contains incorrect assump- tions and incorrect information that should be cleared up. Brent is correct that things which are not prohibited by existing statute are legal, how- ever, the CHP didn't invent the previous lane splitting guide- lines to "tell us motorcyclists how to do what we've been doing." The guidelines came about because a high-ranking person at CA DMV proposed a ban on splitting, which resulted in years of research, discussion and work by a diverse working group, including law enforce- ment and representatives of the riding community, such as Dennis "Budman" Kobza of BayAreaRidersForum.com. I don't agree that the CHP was "effectively writing laws" and know of zero evidence that "CHP planned to enforce its 'guidelines' as if they were laws"—show me one example of a ticket written by CHP because someone was "split- ting faster than the guide- lines"—however, the Office of Administrative Law agreed with a spurious claim to that effect and the CHP ceased promotion of the guidelines. This was very unfortunate— according to the OTS (Califor- nia Office of Traffic Safety) lane share surveys, the guidelines and supporting efforts to get the word out were making a difference: riders were splitting a little slower, and driver aware- ness and sentiment appeared to be improving. The guidelines and a previ- ous bill, SB 350, drew more attention to lane splitting. As- semblymember Quirk observed the situation and to his credit, saw an opportunity to get lane splitting "on the books," which would let CHP, OTS and other orgs educate both riders and drivers again. Rider advocates from organizations such as the AMA, ABATE, MMA and "independents" such as me and Dennis "Budman" Kobza took the opportunity to get involved with Quirk—a legisla- tor who seemed to be acting with riders' interests in mind—to remove the gray area and allow education to happen again. Early versions of AB 51 were not favorable—speeds were too limited. I suggested that Assemblymember Quirk meet with Dr. Thomas Rice of UC Berkeley/SafeTREC and examine his data, to better inform the language of the bill, and made an introduction. This eventually led to a version of the bill specifying a 50 mph speed limit with a 15 mph delta. I was comfortable with this ver- sion, as were many in the riding community, but many represen- tatives of the community were not. There was also concern as to whether Governor Brown would sign this version of the bill, and—apparently—concerns from CHP behind the scenes, resulting in the bill being bumped to the 2016 session. In 2016, the bill was amended to have no specifics other than a definition of splitting and specific allowance for the CHP to collaborate with other orgs to create new guidelines. There was no clash of bu- reaucracies, and the bill is about education—we have splitting on the books, and CHP, OTS and other orgs can now educate rid- ers and drivers again. Surj Gish Gish is a daily moto-commut- er, Editor In Chief of San Fran- cisco Bay Area-based City- Bike Magazine, and founder of LaneSplittingIsLegal.com. –Editor Letters to the editor can be sent to voices@cyclenews.com. Published letters do not necessarily reflect the position of Cycle News. Letters should not exceed 150 words and are subject to editing. Anonymous letters won't be considered for publication and each letter should contain the writer's name, address and daytime phone number… Editor P6 Perhaps California's new lane- splitting law will open the doors in other states for such practice.