Mak, you're a tard.  The California code is pretty clear on this.  As a motor vehicle, you're not supossed to straddle more than one lane, but it says nothing about sharing a lane.  And having two wheel, it's pretty hard to straddle a lane.  Is there some reason you disagree with the CHP, or is it just because you insist on being right (which you aren't)?

Jaywalking certainly isn't permissible.  Most people find it permissible, but that permisison isn't their's to five.  In this context, permissible and illegal are antonyms. 

Furthermore, the idea that there's "no provisions" for it is rediculous.  There's no provisions for me to sit around and play Gamecube games all day in the law, but it certainly isn't illegal.  The idea that if something isn't specifically prohibited it's than it's legal isn't just common sense, it's a well respected part of common law, and specifically spelled out in the Tenth amendment.

Until you can cite code saying lane sharing is legal, you might as well sotp arguing.

Quote from: aaronstj on April 10, 2006, 05:27:30 PM
Mak, you're a tard.

CHP doesn't make the laws.  California's DMV says two motorcycles may share a lane, but a motorcycle and a vehicle with three or more wheels may NOT occupy the same lane...

Quote...permissible and illegal are antonyms.

"Permissible" and "legal" certainly aren't synonomous.

QuoteUntil you can cite code saying lane sharing is legal, you might as well sotp arguing.

I NEVER said it was legal.

Sorry, I meant to say illegal.  Either quote line and verse, or stop blabbering.

Quote from: aaronstj on April 10, 2006, 05:41:17 PM
Either quote line and verse, or stop blabbering.

Find me something better than EMTkid's quote from ducatigirl.com saying it IS supported by California law...which that quote is actually not in verbatim (CHP says they find lane-splitting in propper circumstances permissable [determined by officer, not law]...not that it's legal...I bet they don't ticket everyone who fails to use a turn signal, either).

So I was just wondering if Mak only argues with people from Seattle???

Quote from: makenzie71 on April 10, 2006, 05:49:37 PM

Quote from: aaronstj on April 10, 2006, 05:41:17 PM
Either quote line and verse, or stop blabbering.

Find me something better than EMTkid's quote from ducatigirl.com saying it IS supported by California law...which that quote is actually not in verbatim (CHP says they find lane-splitting in propper circumstances permissable [determined by officer, not law]...not that it's legal...I bet they don't ticket everyone who fails to use a turn signal, either).

The point is, I DON'T HAVE to find textual support for my position.  Unless specifically prohibited, lane splitting is legal.  So is anything.  If you can't quote law, you're wrong.  There's no such onus on me.  Or are you going to tell me it's illegal to stand on one foot, since I can't find a law saying it's legal?

Quote from: aaronstj on April 10, 2006, 05:59:29 PM
The point is, I DON'T HAVE to find textual support for my position.  Unless specifically prohibited, lane splitting is legal.  So is anything.  If you can't quote law, you're wrong.  There's no such onus on me.  Or are you going to tell me it's illegal to stand on one foot, since I can't find a law saying it's legal?

I have to prove my position, but you don't have to prove yours? wow

The best you guys can come up with are technicallities...the only reason anyone in California, or anywhere else, gets away with it is because the authoraties don't always care.  At the moment, in the states that do not clearly prohibit it, it is up to the officer to decide whether the action was appropriate or not.  Without clear guidlines as to what's legal and what propper proceedure is, they can be ticketed for any reason related to the act.  That's how it is...that's all there is...

ok how about legal until proven illegal???

tomorrow i'm calling CHP office and DMV to ask about this. my question will be: "hi, I ride a motorcycle and I was wondering if I can split lanes to pass vehicles while staying under speed limit..."

btw, is not the dmv who stops you on the streets of cali, but the patrols cars.

Quote from: makenzie71 on April 10, 2006, 06:55:19 PM

Quote from: aaronstj on April 10, 2006, 05:59:29 PM
The point is, I DON'T HAVE to find textual support for my position.  Unless specifically prohibited, lane splitting is legal.  So is anything.  If you can't quote law, you're wrong.  There's no such onus on me.  Or are you going to tell me it's illegal to stand on one foot, since I can't find a law saying it's legal?

I have to prove my position, but you don't have to prove yours? wow

The best you guys can come up with are technicallities...the only reason anyone in California, or anywhere else, gets away with it is because the authoraties don't always care.  At the moment, in the states that do not clearly prohibit it, it is up to the officer to decide whether the action was appropriate or not.  Without clear guidlines as to what's legal and what propper proceedure is, they can be ticketed for any reason related to the act.  That's how it is...that's all there is...

The concept is "burden of proof."  The burden of proof is on the person claiming the existence of something, whether it be god, ghosts, or a law prohibiting lane splitting.  Lane splitting, when done reasonably and safely (and therefore not meeting the threshold of reckless driving), is AFAIK not prohibited by California law.  If you know of a law prohibiting such, which flies in the face of all evidence to the contrary, then you must show it to be taken seriously.  

Quote from: Egaeus on April 10, 2006, 07:07:11 PM
The concept is "burden of proof."  The burden of proof is on the person claiming the existence of something, whether it be god, ghosts, or a law prohibiting lane splitting.  Lane splitting, when done reasonably and safely (and therefore not meeting the threshold of reckless driving), is AFAIK not prohibited by California law.  If you know of a law prohibiting such, which flies in the face of all evidence to the contrary, then you must show it to be taken seriously.  

The "proof" has been provided by the very people trying to convince us that it's legal.  All they've done is simply point out that the state of California makes no provisions for or against lane-splitting...which means that it's 100% up the witnessing officer's judgement as to whether it was an appropriate act or not.  You could pass between cars, travelling 10mph under the speed limit, 5ft of room on either side and an officer could still ticket you for wreckless driving and the charge would stand.

There has to be a law prohibiting something.  The law doesn't address everything that is legal, but rather what is not.  Is it legal to shave before I shower?  What about after?  Is it legal to crumple TP, or do I have to fold?  There are no laws addressing this.

Sure, lane splitting can be ticketed as reckless driving.  However, there are a lot of things that are legal that can be ticketed as reckless driving.  Changing lanes, cornering, accelerating, etc.  Your argument is weak, and you just won't admit it.

Exactly but there is no provision that clearly states lane splitting is ILLEGAL.  So you would never get a ticket with the infraction of "lane splitting" only reckless driving.  So thus lane splitting is not illegal, reckless driving is illegal.

I can't figure out why Mak is so determined to prove everyone wrong.  Look, people drink coffee and drive, but theres no law for it so it must not be 'legal'.  I wear sunglasses under my helmet.  There's no law approving it, so it must not be 'legal'.
For that matter, there's no law to mandate acceleration that I know of, so every time I accelerate, I guess it's not 'legal'.  

Mak, you're arguing a moot point, and what's worse is that everyone else is arguing with you over semantics.  Suffice it to say, and I think everyone can agree, it is NOT ILLEGAL to lane split in California provided the language of the law is followed.

Now, let's not argue about stupit shite!  Let's argue about subjects of substance...
Less filling...tastes great?  

Quote from: makenzie71 on April 10, 2006, 06:55:19 PM

Quote from: aaronstj on April 10, 2006, 05:59:29 PM
The point is, I DON'T HAVE to find textual support for my position.  Unless specifically prohibited, lane splitting is legal.  So is anything.  If you can't quote law, you're wrong.  There's no such onus on me.  Or are you going to tell me it's illegal to stand on one foot, since I can't find a law saying it's legal?

I have to prove my position, but you don't have to prove yours? wow

Yes.  That is exactly the case.  Because it is by default legal.  I do not have to quote law saying it is legal.  There does not need to be such a law for it to be legal.  That is how law works.  If there's no law for or against any given thing, it is legal.  End of story.

QuoteYou could pass between cars, travelling 10mph under the speed limit, 5ft of room on either side and an officer could still ticket you for wreckless driving and the charge would stand.

This is true.  But you are likely to beat the charge in  court.  And he could not ticket you for lane splitting itself.  Lane splitting is legal in California.

Oh, but if it makes you feel better, Mak, here's from the California DMV.

Quote
Allow the motorcycle a full lane width. Although it is not illegal to share lanes with motorcycles, it is unsafe.

So the DMV specifically recognizes that lane sharing is legal.  Not that they needed to to make it legal, but they did.

Dont worry Aaron the rest of us know you are right!!!

Thanks.  Not sure how I feel about having you on my side.   

LOL    I can assure you that it is definatley better than me not being on your side!!!!

Wow.. after reading all that.. All I have to say is.. "Mine's bigger than yours! NYAH!"



Anyway.. you guys have jacked this poor soul's thread all to hell.. so can anyone actually answer his question?