This is interesting - especially with the specifics of this bill regarding speeds and when it's acceptable, etc. In California, there's a common misconception that lane-splitting is legal. There's not a specific law on the books like this proposed TX one. Lane-splitting in CA is just not _illegal_ and therefore is open to _many_ interpretations of what constitutes "safe" lane-splitting. I've heard from many police and CHP; completely differing "standards" that they use to judge "safe or unsafe" lane-splitting - it's all very confusing actually...
My question is this - how is any LEO going to know one way or another if the rider splitting lanes has completed the required safety course, is over the age of 21, or has the necessary medical insurance? Will the LEO be able to randomly just stop lane-splitters to check to see if they're compliant with the regulation? And if they can do that - wouldn't this immediately invoke an ACLU suit against 4th ammendment rights?
Maybe the 4th ammendment thing is a bit overkill, as the Supreme Court already held up LEOs being able to dog-sniff your vehicle upon pulling you over for a traffic violation...
v2-90
(405 lane-splitting warrior)
My question is this - how is any LEO going to know one way or another if the rider splitting lanes has completed the required safety course, is over the age of 21, or has the necessary medical insurance? Will the LEO be able to randomly just stop lane-splitters to check to see if they're compliant with the regulation? And if they can do that - wouldn't this immediately invoke an ACLU suit against 4th ammendment rights?
Maybe the 4th ammendment thing is a bit overkill, as the Supreme Court already held up LEOs being able to dog-sniff your vehicle upon pulling you over for a traffic violation...
v2-90
(405 lane-splitting warrior)