BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 51
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
51 (Quirk and Lackey)
As Amended February 11, 2015
Majority vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes |
|----------------+------+----------------------+---------------------|
|Transportation |13-1 |Frazier, Achadjian, |Linder |
| | |Baker, Bloom, Chu, | |
| | |Daly, Dodd, Eduardo | |
| | |Garcia, Kim, Medina, | |
| | |Melendez, Nazarian, | |
| | |O'Donnell | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+----------------------+---------------------|
|Appropriations |16-1 |Gomez, Bigelow, |Gallagher |
| | |Bloom, Bonta, | |
| | |Calderon, Chang, | |
| | |Daly, Eggman, Eduardo | |
| | |Garcia, Holden, | |
| | |Jones, Quirk, Rendon, | |
| | |Wagner, Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Explicitly authorizes motorcycles to drive between
stopped or slow moving vehicles in the same lane (lane split)
under certain conditions. Specifically, this bill:
AB 51
Page 2
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:
a) The speed of traffic moving in the same direction is 30
miles per hour (mph) or less; and,
b) 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
AB 51
Page 3
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
AB 51
Page 4
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
AB 51
Page 5