Existing law requires, whenever a roadway has been divided into 2 or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, that a vehicle be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and not be moved from the lane until the movement can be made with reasonable safety.

This bill would define lane splitting as driving a motorcycle, that has 2 wheels in contact with the ground, between rows of stopped or moving vehicles in the same lane, as specified. The bill would authorize the Department of the California Highway Patrol to develop educational guidelines relating to lane splitting in a manner that would ensure the safety of the motorcyclist, drivers, and passengers, as specified. The bill would require the department, in developing these guidelines, to consult with specified agencies and organizations with an interest in road safety and motorcyclist behavior.

Existing law requires, whenever a roadway has been divided into 2 or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, that a vehicle be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and not be moved from the lane until the movement can be made with reasonable safety.

This bill would define lane splitting as driving a motorcycle, that has 2 wheels in contact with the ground, between rows of stopped or moving vehicles in the same lane, as specified. The bill would authorize the Department of the California Highway Patrol to develop educational guidelines relating to lane splitting in a manner that would ensure the safety of the motorcyclist, drivers, and passengers, as specified. The bill would require the department, in developing these guidelines, to consult with specified agencies and organizations with an interest in road safety and motorcyclist behavior.

Existing law requires, whenever a roadway has been divided into 2 or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, that a vehicle be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and not be moved from the lane until the movement can be made with reasonable safety. A violation of the Vehicle Code is a crime.

(1)Existing law requires, whenever a roadway has been divided into 2 or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, that a vehicle be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and not be moved from the lane until the movement can be made with reasonable safety. A violation of the Vehicle Code is a crime.

This bill would authorize a motorcycle that has 2 wheels in contact with the ground to be driven between rows of stopped or moving vehicles in the same lane if the speed of traffic is 30 miles per hour or less motorcycle is not driven at a speed of more than 50 miles per hour and the motorcycle is driven no more than 10 15 miles per hour faster than the speed of traffic. The bill would provide that these provisions do not authorize a motorcycle to be driven in contravention of other laws relating to the safe operation of a vehicle. By creating a new crime, 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.

(1)Existing law requires, whenever a roadway has been divided into 2 or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, that a vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until the movement can be made with reasonable safety. A violation of the Vehicle Code is a crime.

This bill would authorize a motorcycle to be driven between rows of stopped or moving vehicles in the same lane if the speed of traffic is 35 30 miles per hour or less and the motorcycle is driven no more than 10 miles per hour faster than the speed of traffic. The bill would provide that these provisions do not authorize a motorcycle to be driven in contravention of other laws relating to the safe operation of a vehicle. By creating a new crime crime, 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.

(1)Existing law requires, whenever a roadway has been divided into 2 or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, that a vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until the movement can be made with reasonable safety. A violation of the Vehicle Code is a crime.

This bill would authorize a motorcycle to be driven between rows of stopped or moving vehicles in the same lane if the speed of traffic is 35 miles per hour or less and the motorcycle is driven no more than 10 miles per hour faster than the speed of traffic. The bill would provide that these provisions do not authorize a motorcycle to be driven in contravention of other laws relating to the safe operation of a vehicle. By creating a new crime 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.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 51

Author:(Quirk and Lackey)

As Amended Ver:June 1, 2016

Majority vote

Original Committee Reference: TRANS.

SUMMARY: Authorizes the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to develop guidelines relating safe lane splitting practices.

The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of the bill, and instead:

1. Require CHP, in the development of the guidelines, to consult with agencies and organizations with an interest in road safety and motorcyclist behavior including, but not necessarily limited to, the Department of Motor Vehicles, Department of Transportation, Office of Traffic Safety, and a motorcycle organization focused on motorcyclist safety.
2. Define a variety of terms.

AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY, this bill:

1. Unequivocally authorized motorcycles to drive between stopped or slow moving vehicles in the same lane on divided and undivided streets, roads, or highways if the following conditions are met:
   1. The motorcycle is not driven at a speed greater than 50 miles per hour (mph);
   2. The motorcycle is not driven more than 15 mph faster than the speed of traffic going in the same direction.
2. Provided that motorcycles must continue to obey existing laws relating to the safe operation of a vehicle.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.

COMMENTS: Lane splitting (also referred to as lane sharing or filtering) refers to the practice of riding a motorcycle in the same lane as a vehicle traveling in the same direction between clearly marked lanes of traffic. Typically, this maneuver is undertaken so that motorcycles can overtake slow moving or stopped vehicles but the maneuver is also frequently performed when traffic is moving at higher rates of speed. Lane splitting is illegal in all states, with the exception of California, where the practice is neither expressly authorized nor prohibited. Lane splitting, however, is a legal practice in many European and Asian countries where it is frequently utilized in highly urbanized areas.

Recognizing the need to develop guidelines as an educational tool for all roadway users, CHP convened a committee of traffic safety stakeholders and motorcycle safety experts representing governmental, private, academic communities. Together, the committee drafted guidelines on safe lane splitting practices and the guidelines were posted on CHP's Internet Web site in early 2013 and, later, on the Office of Traffic Safety's (OTS's) Internet Web site. The guidelines were also printed in the DMV's motorcycle handbook. The guidelines clarified that lane splitting, when conducted in a safe and prudent and manner is not illegal in California and outlined five general safety recommendations for motorcyclists engaging in lane splitting including that: 1) lane splitting should occur only when a motorcyclist is travelling at a speed no more than 10 mph faster than surrounding traffic; 2) motorcyclists should refrain from lane splitting when the traffic is flowing at a speed of 30 mph or faster; 3) lane splitting should occur between the #1 and #2 lanes over other lanes; 4) the total environment should be considered by the motorcyclist when lane splitting occurs, including the lane width, size of surrounding vehicles, weather, and lighting; and 5) motorcyclists should be alert and anticipate possible movements of other road users.

After CHP and OTS posted the guidelines on their respective Web sites, a complaint was registered with the Office of Administrative Law that the guidelines were developed in the absence of a formal rulemaking process and, therefore, could be considered "underground regulations." CHP and OTS removed the guidelines from their respective Internet Web sites, informed the public that they would not issue or enforce the guidelines, and noted that the guidelines were developed only to provide common-sense safety information for motorcyclists given that California law does not allow or prohibit lane splitting.

According to the author, removing the guidelines from CHP and OTS Web sites left a void in informing the public about safe lane splitting practices, particularly since CHP curtailed all education and outreach efforts on the subject. To address this concern, the author introduced this bill which generally codifies CHP's lane splitting guidelines, except that the allowable conditions have been modified slightly to reflect new research that has just been released.

Writing in support of this bill, the Personal Insurance Federation of California which represents seven of the nation's largest insurance companies, indicates that codifying the CHP's lane splitting guidelines would serve to reduce injuries and enhance public road safety. Specifically, Personal Insurance Federation of California contends that this bill would also serve to educate motorcycle riders and motorists about lane splitting and help to reduce accidents currently associated with this practice.

Several motorcycle groups have writing in opposition to this bill noting that it is overly restrictive and, therefore, lacks support in the motorcycle community. More specifically, the American Motorcyclist Association, also writing in opposition to this bill, states that there is a widespread acceptance of lane splitting in California and that they specifically oppose efforts to restrict this popular practice. It is unclear if these groups remain in opposition following recent amendments to the bill to reflect updated research.

Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion of this bill.

Analysis Prepared by: Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0003547

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 51

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 11-0, 6/14/16

AYES: Beall, Cannella, Allen, Bates, Gaines, Galgiani, Leyva, McGuire, Mendoza, Roth, Wieckowski

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 58-14, 5/28/15 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST: This bill authorizes the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to develop educational guidelines on lane splitting, the practice whereby motorcycles drive between two rows of stopped or moving cars in the same lane.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the state Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and local authorities to prohibit or restrict the use of freeways, expressways, or any portion thereof, in their respective jurisdictions by pedestrians, bicycles, or other non-motorized traffic or by any person operating a motor-driven cycle, motorized bicycle, or motorized scooter.
2. Directs slow-moving vehicles to use the right-hand lane and authorizes Caltrans to designate a certain lane or lanes for slow-moving traffic.
3. Generally requires vehicles to drive on the right half of the roadway and to pass slower traffic on the left.
4. Requires, when a roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, that a vehicle be driven entirely within a single lane to the extent feasible.

This bill:

1. Defines “lane splitting” as driving a motorcycle between rows of stopped or moving vehicles in the same lane, including both divided and undivided streets, roads, or highways.
2. Authorizes the CHP to develop educational guidelines on lane splitting to help ensure the safety of motorcyclists as well as drivers and passengers of surrounding vehicles.
3. Requires the CHP, in developing the guidelines, to consult with agencies and organizations with an interest in road safety and motorcycle behavior, including but not limited to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Caltrans, the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS), and a motorcycle organization focused on motorcycle safety.

Background

1. CHP guidelines: In recognition of the need for guidance on lane splitting, the CHP convened a committee of traffic-safety stakeholders and motorcycle-safety experts representing the public, government, private, and academic communities. The resulting guidelines were posted on the CHP and OTS websites in 2013 and printed in the 2014 DMV Motorcycle Handbook. However, a complaint was filed with the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) claiming that the guidelines were developed without a public process and were therefore “underground” regulations. The OAL stated that the CHP had no authority to publish guidelines, so the CHP removed the guidelines from its website and the DMV and OTS followed suit.
2. What does the research say? A 2014 study published by UC Berkeley in collaboration with OTS found that lane splitting can be done safely when a rider is traveling only slightly faster than the surrounding traffic, and that lane-splitting motorcyclists are less likely to be rear-ended than car drivers. A follow-up study published by UC Berkeley in 2015 found that during lane-splitting collisions, head injury occurrence is low at all motorcycle speeds up to 50 mph and increases markedly above that speed. According to this study, many motorcyclists do not understand how lane splitting at excessive speed creates unnecessary risk. The study also found that riders who adopt a 10 mph or 15 mph speed differential practice may reduce their exposure to injury risk.
3. Amended in Senate. The prior version of this bill, as passed by the Assembly, authorized a motorcyclist to lane split if the motorcycle was driven at a speed of not more than 50 miles per hour and not more than 15 miles per hour faster than the speed of traffic. After consulting with the CHP about the now-defunct guidelines from 2013, the author amended this bill into its current form.

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 350 (Beall of 2013) would have prohibited, with the exception of a peace officer, a motorcycle from passing another vehicle in a portion of a lane occupied by that vehicle unless certain conditions were met, including that the passing occurs during traffic congestion and the passing occurs at a safe speed. The bill was never heard because the author dropped it pending research findings.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT: (Verified 6/27/16)

ABATE of California

American Motorcyclist Association

Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs

Automobile Club of Southern California

Bay Area Riders Forum

California Motorcycle Dealers Association

California Statewide Law Enforcement Association

CityBike Magazine

Fraternal Order of Police, California State Lodge

Lane Splitting Is Legal

Liberty Mutual Insurance

Long Beach Police Officers Association

Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association

Motorcycle Industry Council

Personal Insurance Federation of California

Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs Association

Santa Ana Police Officers Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/27/16)

Stop Lane Splitting

4 individuals

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The author states that existing law is silent on lane splitting. Although the CHP posted lane-splitting guidelines on its website in early 2013, it soon had to withdraw them (see background). The lack of guidelines has forced the CHP to curtail education and outreach efforts on lane splitting and has created confusion for both motorcyclists and drivers. Because statute does not specifically prohibit lane splitting, it is allowed with no restrictions. The author states that there are several practical reasons for allowing a motorcycle to lane split under certain conditions: motorcycles have no air bags, cooling mechanism, or cages, and motorcyclists are at a lower visibility to other drivers when traveling on highly congested roads. Although many motorcyclists lane split safely and only in slow traffic conditions, others do so at unsafe speeds and with no regard for the safety of others. The author states that this bill will help provide guidance on lane splitting and enable the CHP to renew its education and outreach on this issue.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Opponents argue that lane splitting should not be made legal under any circumstances, for a number of reasons. For example, lane splitting encourages speeding because a motorcyclist must be going faster than the speed of traffic in order to “split” (pass cars). In addition, lane splitting increases distracted-driving issues because drivers panic when they are suddenly and unexpectedly passed by a splitting biker, often at high speeds. Opponents also state that street and highway lanes are built to be occupied by a vehicle, not shared by a vehicle and a motorcycle.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 58-14, 5/28/15

AYES: Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dodd, Eggman, Beth Gaines, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, O'Donnell, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Santiago, Steinorth, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Weber, Williams, Wood, Atkins

NOES: Achadjian, Brough, Dababneh, Gallagher, Gatto, Gray, Linder, Mathis, Obernolte, Olsen, Salas, Mark Stone, Waldron, Wilk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bloom, Chau, Dahle, Daly, Frazier, Grove, Mayes, Nazarian

Prepared by:

6/29/16 15:45:47

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING

Senator Jim Beall, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: 6/14/2016

SUBJECT:

DIGEST: This bill authorizes the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to develop educational guidelines on lane splitting, the practice whereby motorcycles drive between two rows of stopped or moving cars in the same lane.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the state Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and local authorities to prohibit or restrict the use of freeways, expressways, or any portion thereof, in their respective jurisdictions by pedestrians, bicycles, or other non-motorized traffic or by any person operating a motor-driven cycle, motorized bicycle, or motorized scooter.
2. Directs slow-moving vehicles to use the right-hand lane and authorizes Caltrans to designate a certain lane or lanes for slow-moving traffic.
3. Generally requires vehicles to drive on the right half of the roadway and to pass slower traffic on the left.
4. Requires, when a roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, that a vehicle be driven entirely within a single lane to the extent feasible.

This bill:

1. Defines “lane splitting” as driving a motorcycle between rows of stopped or moving vehicles in the same lane, including both divided and undivided streets, roads, or highways.
2. Authorizes the CHP to develop educational guidelines on lane splitting to help ensure the safety of motorcyclists as well as drivers and passengers of surrounding vehicles.
3. Requires the CHP, in developing the guidelines, to consult with agencies and organizations with an interest in road safety and motorcycle behavior, including but not limited to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), the Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS), and a motorcycle organization focused on motorcycle safety.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. The author states that existing law is silent on lane splitting. Although the CHP posted lane-splitting guidelines on its website in early 2013, it soon had to withdraw them (see background below). The lack of guidelines has forced the CHP to curtail education and outreach efforts on lane splitting and has created confusion for both motorcyclists and drivers. Because statute does not specifically prohibit lane splitting, it is allowed with no restrictions. The author states that there are several practical reasons for allowing a motorcycle to lane split under certain conditions: motorcycles have no air bags, cooling mechanism, or cages, and motorcyclists are at a lower visibility to other drivers when traveling on highly congested roads. Although many motorcyclists lane split safely and only in slow traffic conditions, others do so at unsafe speeds and with no regard for the safety of others. The author states that this bill will help provide guidance on lane splitting and enable the CHP to renew its education and outreach on this issue.
2. CHP guidelines: background. In recognition of the need for guidance on lane splitting, the CHP convened a committee of traffic safety stakeholders and motorcycle safety experts representing the public, government, private, and academic communities. The resulting guidelines were posted on the CHP and OTS websites in 2013 and printed in the 2014 DMV Motorcycle Handbook. However, a complaint was filed with the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) claiming that the guidelines were developed without a public process and were therefore “underground” regulations. The OAL stated that the CHP had no authority to publish guidelines, so the CHP removed the guidelines from its website and the DMV and OTS followed suit.
3. What does the research say? A 2014 study published by UC Berkeley in collaboration with OTS found that lane splitting can be done safely when a rider is traveling only slightly faster than the surrounding traffic, and that lane splitting motorcyclists are less likely to be rear-ended than car drivers. A follow-up study published by UC Berkeley in 2015 found that during lane-splitting collisions, head injury occurrence is low at all motorcycle speeds up to 50 mph and increases markedly above that speed. According to this study, many motorcyclists do not understand how lane splitting at excessive speed creates unnecessary risk. The study also found that riders who adopt a 10 mph or 15 mph speed differential practice may reduce their exposure to injury risk.
4. Opposition arguments. Opponents argue that lane splitting should not be made legal under any circumstances, for a number of reasons. For example, lane splitting encourages speeding because a motorcyclist must be going faster than the speed of traffic in order to “split” (pass cars). In addition, lane splitting increases distracted-driving issues because drivers panic when they are suddenly and unexpectedly passed by a splitting biker, often at high speeds. Opponents also state that street and highway lanes are built to be occupied by a vehicle, not shared by a vehicle and a motorcycle.
5. Amended in Senate. The prior version of this bill, as passed by the Assembly, authorized a motorcyclist to lane split if the motorcycle was driven at a speed of not more than 50 miles per hour and not more than 15 miles per hour faster than the speed of traffic. After consulting with the CHP about the now-defunct guidelines from 2013, the author amended this bill into its current form.

Related Legislation:

SB 350 (Beall) of 2013 — would have prohibited, with the exception of a peace officer, a motorcycle from passing another vehicle in a portion of a lane occupied by that vehicle unless certain conditions were met, including that the passing occurs during traffic congestion and the passing occurs at a safe speed. This bill was never heard because the author dropped it pending research findings.

Assembly Votes (prior version):

Floor: 58-14

Appr: 16-1

Trans: 13-1

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,

June 8, 2016.)

SUPPORT:

ABATE of California

American Motorcyclist Association

Automobile Club of Southern California

Bay Area Riders Forum

CityBike Magazine

Fraternal Order of Police, California State Lodge (prior version)

Lane Splitting Is Legal

Liberty Mutual Insurance

Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association (prior version)

Motorcycle Industry Council

Personal Insurance Federation of California

Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs Association (prior version)

Santa Ana Police Officers Association (prior version)

OPPOSITION:

Stop Lane Splitting (prior version)

4 individuals (prior version)

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 51

Author:(Quirk and Lackey)

As Amended Ver:May 22, 2015

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Explicitly authorizes two-wheeled motorcycles to drive between stopped or slow moving vehicles in the same lane (lane split) under certain conditions. Specifically, this bill:

1. Unequivocally authorizes motorcycles to drive between stopped or slow moving vehicles in the same lane on divided and undivided streets, roads, or highways if the following conditions are met:

   1. The motorcycle is not driven at a speed greater than 50 miles per hour (mph);

   2. The motorcycle is not driven more than 15 mph faster than the speed of traffic going in the same direction.

2. Provides that motorcycles must continue to obey existing laws relating to the safe operation of a vehicle.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, negligible fiscal impact to the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).

COMMENTS: Lane splitting (also referred to as lane sharing or filtering) refers to the practice of riding a motorcycle in the same lane as a vehicle traveling in the same direction between clearly marked lanes of traffic. Typically, this maneuver is undertaken so that motorcycles can overtake slow moving or stopped vehicles but the maneuver is also frequently performed when traffic is moving at higher rates of speed. Lane splitting is illegal in all states, with the exception of California, where the practice is neither expressly authorized nor prohibited. Lane splitting, however, is a legal practice in many European and Asian countries where it is frequently utilized in highly urbanized areas.

Recognizing the need to develop guidelines as an educational tool for all roadway users, CHP convened a committee of traffic safety stakeholders and motorcycle safety experts representing governmental, private, academic communities. Together, the committee drafted guidelines on safe lane splitting practices and the guidelines were posted on CHP's Internet Web site in early 2013 and, later, on the Office of Traffic Safety's (OTS's) Internet Web site. The guidelines were also printed in the DMV’s motorcycle handbook. The guidelines clarified that lane splitting, when conducted in a safe and prudent and manner is not illegal in California and outlined five general safety recommendations for motorcyclists engaging in lane splitting including that: 1) lane splitting should occur only when a motorcyclist is travelling at a speed no more than 10 mph faster than surrounding traffic; 2) motorcyclists should refrain from lane splitting when the traffic is flowing at a speed of 30 mph or faster; 3) lane splitting should occur between the #1 and #2 lanes over other lanes; 4) the total environment should be considered by the motorcyclist when lane splitting occurs, including the lane width, size of surrounding vehicles, weather, and lighting; and 5) motorcyclists should be alert and anticipate possible movements of other road users.

After CHP and OTS posted the guidelines on their respective websites, a complaint was registered with the Office of Administrative Law that the guidelines were developed in the absence of a formal rulemaking process and, therefore, could be considered "underground regulations." CHP and OTS removed the guidelines from their respective Internet Web sites, informed the public that they would not issue or enforce the guidelines, and noted that the guidelines were developed only to provide common-sense safety information for motorcyclists given that California law does not allow or prohibit lane splitting.

According to the author, removing the guidelines from CHP and OTS Web sites left a void in informing the public about safe lane splitting practices, particularly since CHP curtailed all education and outreach efforts on the subject. To address this concern, the author introduced this bill which generally codifies CHP's lane splitting guidelines, except that the allowable conditions have been modified slightly to reflect new research that has just been released.

Writing in support of this bill, the Personal Insurance Federation of California which represents seven of the nation's largest insurance companies, indicates that codifying the CHP's lane splitting guidelines would serve to reduce injuries and enhance public road safety. Specifically, Personal Insurance Federation of California contends that this bill would also serve to educate motorcycle riders and motorists about lane splitting and help to reduce accidents currently associated with this practice.

Several motorcycle groups have writing in opposition to this bill noting that it is overly restrictive and, therefore, lacks support in the motorcycle community. More specifically, the American Motorcyclist Association, also writing in opposition to this bill, states that there is a widespread acceptance of lane splitting in California and that they specifically oppose efforts to restrict this popular practice. It is unclear if these groups remain in opposition following recent amendments to the bill to reflect updated research.

Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion of this bill.

Analysis Prepared by: Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0000466

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 51

Author:(Quirk and Lackey)

As Amended Ver:February 11, 2015

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Explicitly authorizes motorcycles to drive between stopped or slow moving vehicles in the same lane (lane split) under certain conditions. Specifically, this bill:

1. Unequivocally authorizes motorcycles to drive between stopped or slow moving vehicles in the same lane on divided and undivided streets, roads, or highways if the following conditions are met:

   1. The speed of traffic moving in the same direction is 30 miles per hour (mph) or less; and,

   2. The motorcycle is not driven more than 10 mph faster than the speed of traffic going in the same direction.

2. Provides that motorcycles must continue to obey existing laws relating to the safe operation of a vehicle.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, negligible fiscal impact to the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).

COMMENTS: Lane splitting (also referred to as lane sharing or filtering) refers to the practice of riding a motorcycle in the same lane as a vehicle traveling in the same direction between clearly marked lanes of traffic. Typically, this maneuver is undertaken so that motorcycles can overtake slow moving or stopped vehicles but the maneuver is also frequently performed when traffic is moving at higher rates of speed. Lane splitting is illegal in all states, with the exception of California, where the practice is neither expressly authorized nor prohibited. Lane splitting, however, is a legal practice in many European and Asian countries where it is frequently utilized in highly urbanized areas.

Recognizing the need to develop guidelines as an educational tool for all roadway users, CHP convened a committee of traffic safety stakeholders and motorcycle safety experts representing governmental, private, academic communities. Together, the committee drafted guidelines on safe lane splitting practices and the guidelines were posted on CHP's Internet Web site in early 2013 and, later, on the Office of Traffic Safety's (OTS's) Internet Web site. The guidelines were also printed in the DMV’s motorcycle handbook. The guidelines clarified that lane splitting, when conducted in a safe and prudent and manner is not illegal in California and outlined five general safety recommendations for motorcyclists engaging in lane splitting including that: 1) lane splitting should occur only when a motorcyclist is travelling at a speed no more than 10 mph faster than surrounding traffic; 2) motorcyclists should refrain from lane splitting when the traffic is flowing at a speed of 30 mph or faster; 3) lane splitting should occur between the #1 and #2 lanes over other lanes; 4) the total environment should be considered by the motorcyclist when lane splitting occurs, including the lane width, size of surrounding vehicles, weather, and lighting; and 5) motorcyclists should be alert and anticipate possible movements of other road users.

After CHP and OTS posted the guidelines on their respective websites, a complaint was registered with the Office of Administrative Law that the guidelines were developed in the absence of a formal rulemaking process and, therefore, could be considered "underground regulations." CHP and OTS removed the guidelines from their respective Internet Web sites, informed the public that they would not issue or enforce the guidelines, and noted that the guidelines were developed only to provide common-sense safety information for motorcyclists given that California law does not allow or prohibit lane splitting.

According to the author, removing the guidelines from CHP and OTS Web sites left a void in informing the public about safe lane splitting practices, particularly since CHP curtailed all education and outreach efforts on the subject. To address this concern, the author introduced this bill which codifies CHP's lane splitting guidelines. Specifically, this bill expressly authorizes lane splitting under two conditions: when the speed of traffic moving in the same direction does not exceed 30 mph; and the motorcycle is not driven more than 10 mph faster than the speed of traffic. Additionally, the bill provides that motorcycles must continue to be operated in a safe manner, in compliance with existing laws, to ensure that law enforcement has the ability to cite motorcyclists that misuse the practice.

Writing in support of the bill, the Personal Insurance Federation of California which represents seven of the nation's largest insurance companies, indicates that codifying the CHP's lane splitting guidelines would serve to reduce injuries and enhance public road safety. Specifically, Personal Insurance Federation of California contends that this bill would also serve to educate motorcycle riders and motorists about lane splitting and help to reduce accidents currently associated with this practice.

Several motorcycle groups have writing in opposition to this bill noting that it is overly restrictive and, therefore, lacks support in the motorcycle community. More specifically, the American Motorcyclist Association, also writing in opposition to this bill, states that there is a widespread acceptance of lane splitting in California and that they specifically oppose efforts to restrict this popular practice

Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion of this bill.

Analysis Prepared by: Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0000243

Date of Hearing: April 29, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Jimmy Gomez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 51

Author:(Quirk) – As Amended Ver:February 11, 2015

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill explicitly authorizes motorcycles to drive between stopped or slow moving vehicles in the same lane (lane split) if:

1. The speed of traffic moving in the same direction is 30 mph or less; and,
   
   
   

2. The motorcycle is not driven more than 10 mph faster than the speed of traffic going in the same direction.

The bill also requires that motorcyclist continue to obey existing laws relating to the safe operation of a vehicle.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Negligible fiscal impact to the CHP and DMV.

COMMENTS:

1. Background. Lane splitting refers to the practice of riding a motorcycle in the same lane as a vehicle traveling in the same direction between clearly marked lanes of traffic. Typically, this maneuver is undertaken so that motorcycles can overtake slow moving or stopped vehicles, but the maneuver is also frequently performed when traffic is moving at higher rates of speed. Lane splitting is illegal in all states, with the exception of California, where the practice is neither expressly authorized nor prohibited.

Motorcyclists favor the practice, saying it improves safety while motorists typically dislike it. Motorcyclists note that lane splitting allows them to achieve greater protection because they can position themselves between vehicles in stop-and-go traffic, thus minimizing the chance of being struck from behind. They also claim that lane splitting allows for improved sight distance for the motorcyclist, and can prevent breakdowns that can occur with a motorcycle's engine overheats as a result of excessive idling.

Anecdotally, many motorists dislike lane splitting, claiming that they are startled by motorcycles that pass them in the same lane. Motorists also express concerns that they could kill or severely injure a motorcyclist if they change lanes or open a car door while a motorcyclist is passing in close proximity. A good number of motorists presume lane splitting is illegal and there have been reports of motorists intentionally blocking motorcyclists' attempts to lane split.

Recognizing the need to develop guidelines as an educational tool for all roadway users, the CHP convened a committee of traffic safety stakeholders and motorcycle safety experts representing governmental, private, academic communities. The committee drafted guidelines on safe lane splitting practices and the guidelines were posted on CHP's website in early 2013 and, later, on the Office of Traffic Safety's (OTS's) website. The guidelines were also printed in the DMV's motorcycle handbook. Subsequently, a complaint was registered with the Office of Administrative Law that the guidelines were developed in the absence of a formal rulemaking process and, therefore, could be considered "underground regulations." CHP and OTS then removed the guidelines from their respective websites, and informed the public that they would not enforce the guidelines.

2. Purpose. According to the author, removing the guidelines from CHP and OTS websites left a void in informing the public about safe lane splitting practices, particularly since CHP curtailed all education and outreach efforts on the subject. To address this concern, the author introduced this bill which codifies CHP's lane splitting guidelines. Specifically, the bill expressly authorizes lane splitting under two conditions: when the speed of traffic moving in the same direction does not exceed 30 mph; and the motorcycle is not driven more than 10 mph faster than the speed of traffic. In support, the Personal Insurance Federation of California (PIFC), representing seven of the nation's largest insurance companies, indicates that codifying the CHP's lane splitting guidelines would serve to reduce injuries and enhance public road safety.

3. Opposition. Several motorcycle groups argue that this bill noting that it is overly restrictive and, therefore, lacks support in the motorcycle community. The American Motorcyclist Association contends there is a widespread acceptance of lane splitting in California and that they specifically oppose efforts to restrict this popular practice.

Analysis Prepared by: Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 6, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Jim Frazier, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 51

Author:(Quirk) – As Amended Ver:February 11, 2015

SUBJECT: Vehicles: motorcycles: lane splitting

SUMMARY: Explicitly authorizes motorcycles to drive between stopped or slow moving vehicles in the same lane (lane split) under certain conditions. Specifically, this bill:

1. Unequivocally authorizes motorcycles to drive between stopped or slow moving vehicles in the same lane on divided and undivided streets, roads, or highways if the following conditions are met:

1. The speed of traffic moving in the same direction is 30 miles per hour (mph) or less; and,

2. The motorcycle is not driven more than 10 mph faster than the speed of traffic going in the same direction.

2. Provides that motorcycles must continue to obey existing laws relating to the safe operation of a vehicle.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Defines a motorcycle as a motor vehicle having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider, designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.

2. Requires, whenever a roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, that a vehicle be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane.

3. Authorizes the erection of signs directing slow-moving traffic to use a designated lane or allocating lanes to slow moving traffic moving in the same directions.

4. Does not explicitly authorize or prohibit lane splitting.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: Lane splitting (also referred to as lane sharing or filtering) refers to the practice of riding a motorcycle in the same lane as a vehicle traveling in the same direction between clearly marked lanes of traffic. Typically, this maneuver is undertaken so that motorcycles can overtake slow moving or stopped vehicles but the maneuver is also frequently performed when traffic is moving at higher rates of speed. Lane splitting is illegal in all states, with the exception of California, where the practice is neither expressly authorized nor prohibited. Lane splitting, however, is a legal practice in many European and Asian countries where it is frequently utilized in highly urbanized areas.

Lane splitting is controversial in the United States. Motorcyclists favor the practice, saying it improves safety while motorists typically dislike it. Groups such as the American Motorcycle Association note that one of the most dangerous situations for any on-highway motorcyclist is to be caught in congested traffic where vehicles, often driven by distracted and inattentive motorists, can rear-end motorcyclists when they are stopped behind other cars. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), one of the most common types of accident on the road are rear-end collisions, which NHTSA indicates makes up nearly 40% of all accidents in the United States. While rear-end accidents typically result in minor damage when they happen between vehicles, they frequently result in serious injury or death when motorcyclists are involved, primarily because motorcycles offer little or no protection to the rider.

Motorcyclists note that lane splitting allows them to achieve greater protection because they can position themselves between (rather than behind) vehicles in stop-and-go traffic. They also claim that lane splitting allows for improved sight distance for the motorcyclist. Additionally, lane splitting allows motorcyclists to prevent breakdowns that can occur with a motorcycle's engine overheats as a result of excessive idling. According to motorcyclists, lane splitting also serves to ease congestion by creating another "lane" for motorcyclists and reduces cyclist exposure to unhealthy exhaust fumes.

Anecdotally, many motorists dislike lane splitting, claiming that they are startled by motorcycles that pass them in the same lane. Motorists also express concerns that they could kill or severely injure a motorcyclist if they change lanes or open a car door while a motorcyclist is passing in close proximity. A good number of motorists presume lane splitting is illegal and there have been reports of motorists intentionally blocking motorcyclists' attempts to lane split.

Recognizing the need to develop guidelines as an educational tool for all roadway users, California Highway Patrol (CHP) convened a committee of traffic safety stakeholders and motorcycle safety experts representing governmental, private, academic communities. Together, the committee drafted guidelines on safe lane splitting practices and the guidelines were posted on CHP's Internet website in early 2013 and, later, on the Office of Traffic Safety's (OTS's) Internet website. The guidelines were also printed in the Department of Motor Vehicles' motorcycle handbook.

The guidelines clarified that lane splitting, when conducted in a safe and prudent and manner is not illegal in California. The guidelines also outlined five general safety recommendations for motorcyclists engaging in lane splitting including that: 1) lane splitting should occur only when a motorcyclist is travelling at a speed no more than 10 mph faster than surrounding traffic; 2) motorcyclists should refrain from lane splitting when the traffic is flowing at a speed of 30 mph or faster; 3) lane splitting should occur between the #1 and #2 lanes over other lanes; 4) the total environment should be considered by the motorcyclist when lane splitting occurs, including the lane width, size of surrounding vehicles, weather, and lighting; and 5) motorcyclists should be alert and anticipate possible movements of other road users.

After CHP and OTS posted the guidelines on their respective websites, a complaint was registered with the Office of Administrative Law that the guidelines were developed in the absence of a formal rulemaking process and, therefore, could be considered "underground regulations." CHP and OTS removed the guidelines from their respective Internet websites, informed the public that they would not issue or enforce the guidelines, and noted that the guidelines were developed only to provide common-sense safety information for motorcyclists given that California law does not allow or prohibit lane splitting.

A 2014 study published by the University of California at Berkeley, in collaboration with OTS and CHP, found that lane splitting can be done safely when riders are travelling only slightly faster than surrounding traffic. The study also points out that lane splitting offers motorcyclists a safer position in traffic which protects them from often catastrophic rear-end impacts. The Hurt Report of 1981, reportedly the one of most comprehensive motorcycle crash causation studies to date, also noted that reducing a motorcyclist’s exposure to vehicles that are frequently accelerating and decelerating on congested roadways is one way to reduce front- and rear-end collisions.

According to the author, removing the guidelines from CHP and OTS websites left a void in informing the public about safe lane splitting practices, particularly since CHP curtailed all education and outreach efforts on the subject. To address this concern, the author introduced this bill which codifies CHP's lane splitting guidelines. Specifically, the bill expressly authorizes lane splitting under two conditions: when the speed of traffic moving in the same direction does not exceed 30 mph; and the motorcycle is not driven more than 10 mph faster than the speed of traffic. Additionally, the bill provides that motorcycles must continue to be operated in a safe manner, in compliance with existing laws, to ensure that law enforcement has the ability to cite motorcyclists that misuse the practice.

The author notes that lane splitting, when performed in accordance with CHP guidelines, improves safety by reducing the potential for catastrophic rear-end collisions, making motorcycles more visible to drivers in heavy traffic, and preventing motorcycle engine breakdowns that occur from excessive idle time. The author contends that providing reasonable guidelines for lane splitting helps inform drivers and motorcycle riders alike and removes ambiguities in the law.

A number of states, including California, have attempted to address lane splitting in the past.
SB 350 (Beall) of 2013, would have prohibited lane splitting unless the maneuver occurred at a safe speed during traffic congestion. SB 350 was introduced but was never heard. Measures introduced in other states to authorize lane splitting under certain conditions have also failed to garner legislative support or have been vetoed.

Writing in support of the bill, the Personal Insurance Federation of California (PIFC), which represents seven of the nation's largest insurance companies, indicates that codifying the CHP's lane splitting guidelines would serve to reduce injuries and enhance public road safety. Specifically, PIFC contends that this bill would also serve to educate motorcycle riders and motorists about lane splitting and help to reduce accidents currently associated with this practice.

Several motorcycle groups have writing in opposition to this bill noting that it is overly restrictive and, therefore, lacks support in the motorcycle community. More specifically, the American Motorcyclist Association, also writing in opposition to this bill, states that there is a widespread acceptance of lane splitting in California and that they specifically oppose efforts to restrict this popular practice

Previous legislation: SB 350 (Beall), of 2013, would have prohibited a person operating a motorcycle from passing another vehicle in apportion of a lane occupied by that vehicle unless passing occurs during traffic congestion and provided passing occurs at a safe speed. SB 350 was returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56 by the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Fraternal Order of Police

Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association

Personal Insurance Federation of California

Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs Association

Santa Ana Policy Officers Association

Oppose

ABATE of California, Inc.

American Motorcyclist Association

Bay Area Riders Forum

CityBike

LaneSplittingIsLegal.com

3 private citizens

Analysis Prepared by: Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093