BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 51
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
51 (Quirk and Lackey)
As Amended May 22, 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 | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
AB 51
Page 2
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:
a) The motorcycle is not driven at a speed greater than 50
miles per hour (mph);
b) 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
AB 51
Page 3
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
AB 51
Page 4
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
AB 51
Page 5