When did carpool lanes become our lanes?

[midimench]

Does anybody know when (what year) and the exact law that allowed motorcycles into carpool lanes and the ability to lane split as needed?

I heard it was something to do with air cooled engines overheating, but that's all I've heard.

[SVOC]

I'm not sure when, but I know that there is a federal law that preempts state laws (on federally funded highways) which allows motorcyclists to use carpool lanes. Despite this law, local agencies across the coutry have ticketed riders in the carpool lanes. The AMA is currently fighting to reverse the illegal tickets given by these agencies. So go ahead and use the carpool lane. It is 100% legal. If you get a ticket, inform the AMA and they will fight for you!

[Dragonhawk]

Originally posted by midimench
Does anybody know when (what year) and the exact law that allowed motorcycles into carpool lanes and the ability to lane split as needed?

There is no law that allows lane-splitting.

Originally posted by SVOC
I'm not sure when, but I know that there is a federal law that preempts state laws (on federally funded highways) which allows motorcyclists to use carpool lanes.
True.

The Federal Law that allows us to use the carpool lane was put into effect on 18 December 1991.

We can use carpool lanes all over the country according to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 which changed laws in the United States Code as follows:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 1016. PROGRAM EFFICIENCIES.

(a) HOV Passenger Requirements; Engineering Cost Reimbursement.- Section 102 of title 23, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

"Sec. 102. Program efficiencies

"(a) HOV Passenger Requirements.-A State highway department shall establish the occupancy requirements of vehicles operating in high occupancy vehicle lanes; except that no fewer than 2 occupants per vehicle may be required and, subject to section 163 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, motorcycles and bicycles shall not be considered single occupant vehicles.

Source: http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/istea.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------

So, according to that, the act changed the United States Code: Title 23: Chapter 1: Subchapter 1: Section 102: Paragraph A: Subparagraph 1 and Paragraph B.

Those now read:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) HOV Passenger Requirements. -
(1) In general. - A State transportation department shall establish the occupancy requirements of vehicles operating in high occupancy vehicle lanes; except that no fewer than 2 occupants per vehicle may be required and, subject to section 163 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, motorcycles and bicycles shall not be considered single occupant vehicles.

(b) Access of Motorcycles. - No State or political subdivision of a State may enact or enforce a law that applies only to motorcycles and the principal purpose of which is to restrict the access of motorcycles to any highway or portion of a highway for which Federal-aid highway funds have been utilized for planning, design, construction, or maintenance. Nothing in this subsection shall affect the authority of a State or political subdivision of a State to regulate motorcycles for safety.

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1991 AMENDMENT
Amendment by Pub. L. 102-240 effective Dec. 18, 1991, and applicable to funds authorized to be appropriated or made available after Sept. 30, 1991, and, with certain exceptions, not applicable to funds appropriated or made available on or before Sept. 30, 1991, see section 1100 of Pub. L. 102-240, set out as a note under section 104 of this title.

Source: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/23C1.txt

---------------------------------------------------------------------

So, if you are ever ticketed for using a carpool lane on a Federal highway, simply cite United States Code: Title 23: Chapter 1: Subchapter 1: Section 102: Paragraph B and you will win. No state can ticket you for it. (Obviously, that doesn't include doing something stupid like using the carpool lane when it has been shut-down to all traffic for safety reasons or something.)

According to the California Driver Handbook:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Motorcycle riders may use designated carpool lanes, unless otherwise posted.

Source: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs22thru25.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------

According to Federal Law, the "unless otherwise posted" caveat in the California Driver Handbook could be illegal, depending upon the circumstances, because the United States Code clearly states that motorcycles can only be denied use of the carpool lane on Federal highways for safety reasons.

[Buellba Fett]

Awhile back, I posted an excerpt from the November 1997 issue of Motorcycle Consumer News article titled, Everywhere M/C = HOV by Peter Fassnacht.

The link below may help you - it's about midway down on the page.

MCN Nov 1997 (http://www.socalsvriders.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=932&perpage=15&highlight=istea&pagenumber=29)

If you'd like the 3-pg story, I can send it. Lemme know...

[Dragonhawk]

Originally posted by Buellba Fett
Awhile back, I posted an excerpt from the November 1997 issue of Motorcycle Consumer News article titled, Everywhere M/C = HOV by Peter Fassnacht.

Actually, that article has a mistake in it.

The article cites the Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1993. There is no such thing. It was the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.

[CoastieGirl]

You can "share" a lane though right Eric?

[Rocky]

yeah seriously...

Can anyone break that down?

I get the carpool is ok for us.

But lane splitting?

Legal?
Not legal?

How about passing cars in the carpool lane? Is that legal?

I've followed many bike cops passing cars in the carpool lane and I never got bothered. (Maybe I was just lucky)

But I've followed bikes in the carpool lane before that hesitated to pass cars in the carpool lane when they spotted a CHP car or bike.

[Buellba Fett]

In California, safe "lane sharing" is legal. Safe is going to be discretionary based on an observing officer.

I would imagine that lane sharing is also legal in the carpool lane. The difference is that there's a double-yellow you can't cross, whereas in other lanes, you've got a broken white line that facilitates the "quick blink" legal lane change if lane sharing/splitting becomes too tight.

[midimench]

I really appreciate all the great responses I got with this question. The legalities were my intentions, as in what law, what date and so on.

Can I safely assume that having air cooled engines at one time had nothing to do with the passing of HOV accessibility for motorcycles?

I was told that air cooled engines (back in the day, certainly not the norm today) would overheat if we were made to stop and go on the freeway, so the law was passed for that reason.

BTW, a big TIP I learned by watching another freeway lane splitter is to have your emergency blinkers going in addition to your brights. People can see you MUCH better (especially at night) and get out of the way...maybe they even think we're cops, until we get up close to them.

[Buellba Fett]

Originally posted by midimench
... BTW, a big TIP I learned by watching another freeway lane splitter is to have your emergency blinkers going in addition to your brights. People can see you MUCH better (especially at night) and get out of the way...maybe they even think we're cops, until we get up close to them.

Uncertain about the legality of that... Emergency blinkers on yet passing people in their lane? :confused:

[agirls]

If you are "sharing" the lane safely in the carpool lane, you will not be bothered by the police. I have had the motorcycle police come up behind me numerous times while I was "sharing" and I always pull over to let him pass me. He waves thanks (just like all the other bikes I pull over for) and then I fall back in behind him and "share" the lane at my own pace.

[midimench]

Originally posted by Buellba Fett
Uncertain about the legality of that... Emergency blinkers on yet passing people in their lane? :confused:

Never had a cop bothered by my emergency blinkers. It all goes back to day one in my MSF class, where the instructor says "remember, you're invisible". All I'm doing is increasing my visibility...can that actually hurt anybody?

Maybe, you've never been side swiped by a car...well I have and my healed broken left toe is finally getting back it's nail after 2 years.

[Rocky]

the blinkers thing may work to your advantage but it can also send mixed signals to drivers around you.

But hey, its workin for you so to each his own.

Personally I'd just install more lights in the front and back... Hell if you really want to be noticed, get those neon lights to make your bike glow. :D

[midimench]

Originally posted by Rocky
the blinkers thing may work to your advantage but it can also send mixed signals to drivers around you.

:D

Yes the mixed signal is don't do anything until that blinking thing passes you. That's exactly what I'm asking for....no quick and sudden lane changes please!

[ADRATH]

Originally posted by Rocky
the blinkers thing may work to your advantage but it can also send mixed signals to drivers around you.


I agree with the mixed signals bit... its like when people are going through an intersection and someone is waiting to turn left they flash their highbeams to get their attention. The problem is (at leas up here in Canada) flashing your brights is also the signal to go ahead or proceed which the person turning might interperet as go ahead make the left turn then your in trouble. Just my thoughts anyway.

Originally posted by midimench
[B]Yes the mixed signal is don't do anything until that blinking thing passes you. That's exactly what I'm asking for....no quick and sudden lane changes please!

The only thing I can see with hazards is when they are on you can't signal lane changes (unless you use hands) so that could casue some trouble with johnny law.

[smokescreen]

yeah flashing the brights means move over please, or go ahead please.

And i'm with Bueller on this one. I'm pretty sure that could be called a missuse of E-blinkers. Immitating an emergency vehicle etc... You may not have got in trouble for it yet, but you most certainly can.
W

[Lardoggy]

Having trouble being seen by cagers? Get a louder exhaust :D

All kidding aside (I realize there are separate legal issues related to this), but having a louder (than stock) exhaust sure does make me feel move visible (based on the looks I get in rear view mirrors as I approach cars). More of a benefit on my Tuono than the SV though. And, it seems to be more helpful at low speeds.

[Dragonhawk]

Originally posted by CoastieGirl
You can "share" a lane though right Eric?
Oh, no, Traci. I'm not one of those people who split hairs (no pun intended) over "lanesharing" and "lanesplitting" as terms. When annoying terminology-sticklers correct you and say "lanesharing is allowed but lanesplitting is not" they are usually just trying to sound smart and can never cite their references. As you can see from the sources listed below, I can cite mine.

Lane splitting is permitted in the State of California, even though THERE IS NO SPECIFIC LAW IN THE VEHICLE CODE that grants OR denies permission for doing it.

According to the official California Highway Patrol website:

---------------------------------------------------------------
Lane splitting by motorcycles is permissible but must be done in a safe and prudent manner.

Source: http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html

---------------------------------------------------------------

There you go. Official government site. I've cited my reference. You can split lanes in California.

However...

Just because it is allowed by the California Highway Patrol does NOT mean there is a SPECIFIC law permitting it. Try to find one. You won't.

There are 3 specific laws within the California Vehicle Code which are usually cited to defend the legality of motorcycle lane sharing. Those 3 laws are Sections 21658, 22350 and 22107.

Section 21658: Paragraph A is what makes you have to stay in a given lane.

Section 22350 is what governs maintaining a safe speed.

Section 22107 permits you to change lanes without signaling as long as no other vehicle will be affected by your movement.

---------------------------------------------------------------
California Vehicle Code: Division 11: Chapter 3: Article 1: Section 21658: Paragraph A

Laned Roadways
21658. Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, the following rules apply:
(a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until such movement can be made with reasonable safety.

(b) Official signs may be erected directing slow-moving traffic to use a designated lane or allocating specified lanes to traffic moving in the same direction, and drivers of vehicles shall obey the directions of the traffic device.

Amended Ch. 450, Stats. 1975. Effective January 1, 1976.

Source: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21658.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------
California Vehicle Code: Division 11: Chapter 7: Article 1: Section 22350

Basic Speed Law
22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.

Amended Ch. 252, Stats. 1963. Effective September 20, 1963.

Source: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22350.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------
California Vehicle Code: Division 11: Chapter 6: Section 22107

Turning Movements and Required Signals
22107. No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement.

Amended Ch. 1996, Stats. 1959. Effective September 18, 1959.

Source: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22107.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------

This topic has been covered 100,000 times on Internet motorcycle forums and it will be covered 100,000 times after this. I like to do my best to find the ACTUAL LAWS though, that way, people can't argue with inane "I heard it somewhere" retorts.

So, there you go kids. The actual laws. Cited references from actual government websites. You can look them up yourself.

Originally posted by midimench
I really appreciate all the great responses I got with this question. The legalities were my intentions, as in what law, what date and so on.

Can I safely assume that having air cooled engines at one time had nothing to do with the passing of HOV accessibility for motorcycles?

I was told that air cooled engines (back in the day, certainly not the norm today) would overheat if we were made to stop and go on the freeway, so the law was passed for that reason.

By all legal research I have done and/or seen, air-cooled engines overheating has NOTHING to do with it. That is a very common Internet-myth with apparently no basis in fact. If it does have basis in fact, someone needs to prove it. Again - people need to cite their references. Show me the law. Show me the act. Provide evidence of a bill which specifically states it was permitted to prevent overheating. No one ever does.

Until someone can cite their legal references, they are just perpetuating Internet rumors. Simply saying "I heard..." and "I read..." and "This person said..." does not qualify as proof. Doesn't matter if a judge or a CHP officer or an MSF instructor tells you it is true either. They are human and can have misinformation like anyone else. I have never seen anyone provide references to any legal documentation which supports the "overheating engine" rumor.

As for the exact laws and the exact dates enacted, you can find all of that above. To recap:
Carpool Lane: 18 December 1991
Lane Sharing (3 laws): 18 September 1959, 20 September 1963, 1 January 1976

[sandie]

THAT is AWESOME! thanks so much for that, dragonhawk!

[eeeeek]

Originally posted by midimench
I really appreciate all the great responses I got with this question. The legalities were my intentions, as in what law, what date and so on.

Can I safely assume that having air cooled engines at one time had nothing to do with the passing of HOV accessibility for motorcycles?

I was told that air cooled engines (back in the day, certainly not the norm today) would overheat if we were made to stop and go on the freeway, so the law was passed for that reason.

BTW, a big TIP I learned by watching another freeway lane splitter is to have your emergency blinkers going in addition to your brights. People can see you MUCH better (especially at night) and get out of the way...maybe they even think we're cops, until we get up close to them.

First, the genesis of lane splitting not being illegal most likely rests with air cooled engines. It's hard to track down definatively, but that's as good of a guess as any. No law was ever passed to allow it, though. It was simply never written as illegal. That means it's legal because it's not illegal.

As for brights while lane splitting: just don't do it at night. It's illegal and just plane rude.

[CBRMANIMAL]

Originally posted by midimench


I heard it was something to do with air cooled engines overheating, but that's all I've heard.


Yes it was allowed because old police cycles were air cooled and they would overheat in high heat days in so cal areas during traffic. It is really an obsolete exception but thats how it came to be. It was in the late 60's or early 70's when that issue came up.

I asked this question during traffic school and thats what I was told by the instructer. Thats my referance. I was also told the same response by an officer I use to know.

[Dragonhawk]

Originally posted by sandie
THAT is AWESOME! thanks so much for that, dragonhawk!
You are most welcome. Glad to be of help.

[Darth Lefty]

Originally posted by Dragonhawk
...the United States Code clearly states that motorcycles can only be denied use of the carpool lane on Federal highways for safety reasons.
Could that include keeping the carpoolers safe from motorcyclists? :-D

[MonsterGrrl]

Originally posted by midimench
Can I safely assume that having air cooled engines at one time had nothing to do with the passing of HOV accessibility for motorcycles?

I was told that air cooled engines (back in the day, certainly not the norm today) would overheat if we were made to stop and go on the freeway, so the law was passed for that reason.


So, based on that.... would that allow ALL air-cooled engine powered vehicles the right of way in the carpool lane? :-? I mean, I had a Karmann Ghia at one point... aircooled VW, and I didn't get any special priveleges for that. :D And its engine was actually enclosed in an engine bay, vs my duc whose engine is more exposed to breathe.


Just playing devil's advocate.... :evil:

;)

[Darth Lefty]

Does an air cooled engine actually overheat? Or does it just get really hot?

[JV711]

Originally posted by Darth Lefty
Does an air cooled engine actually overheat? Or does it just get really hot?

It will overheat. I drove a pickup truck with a broken radiator for 5 years and 50,000 miles. Everytime the freeway backed up, I'd have to get off the freeway to maintain air flow or else it'd overheat. I thought of it as like "driving a shark".

[Busted]

Another good thing to keep in mind is that the sources quoted for lane splitting were CHP, thats the highway patrol, in the cities you are more likely to get ticketed for lane splitting. In the Miramar area, there is a police officer who lives to cite bikers for "lane whatevering", he cites them for passing to close and tailgating. Just something to keep you paranoid.

[TwistGrip]

Just to add to the dialogue:

I understand that if you're doing the lane-sharing-thing and are involved in an accident, it's automatically YOUR fault. Similar to the following vehicle being at fault for rear-ending another car.

Are you responsible?
-EB

[eeeeek]

Originally posted by TwistGrip
Just to add to the dialogue:

I understand that if you're doing the lane-sharing-thing and are involved in an accident, it's automatically YOUR fault. Similar to the following vehicle being at fault for rear-ending another car.

Are you responsible?
-EB

That depends. If you are lane sharing and the vehicle who is occupying the lane with you merges into another lane, it's your fault. If a vehicle merges into a lane that you are sharing with another vehicle, it's his fault.

So, read between the lines. If you are sideswiped by a vehicle you are sharing a lane with, you will most likely be at fault. Road Rage laws trump that, though.

[Darth Lefty]

Since the law has been carefully written to avoid mention either way of lane splitting or sharing, it's up to the cop whether you're riding safely or not. There's no automatic anything.

In most accidents there's a hammer and a nail, and the hammer is most likely to be cited.

[Dragonhawk]

Originally posted by TwistGrip
I understand that if you're doing the lane-sharing-thing and are involved in an accident, it's automatically YOUR fault. Similar to the following vehicle being at fault for rear-ending another car.

Are you responsible?

Lots of people say that. Again, it's impossible to say someone will "always" be at fault. Since there is no law forbidding lanesharing, then no one can ever say a motorcyclist will "always" be at fault in a lanesplitting accident.

Scenario A:
35 year old motorcyclist with clean driving record is lanesplitting on the highway. Witnesses can testify he was doing about 15MPH while surrounding traffic was doing 5MPH. Motorcyclist crashes when he gets cut off by a 20 year old male who is drunk, stoned, carrying a concealed weapon, and has a bag of cocaine on the passenger seat. The motorcyclist is always at fault? Yeah, right. The cops and judges will be foaming at the mouth to nail every bit of blame on that car driver.

Scenario B:
19 year old motorcyclist with 2 speeding tickets is lanesplitting on the highway. Witnesses can testify he was doing about 55MPH while surrounding traffic was doing 5MPH. Motorcyclist crashes when he gets cut off by a 60 year old grandmother who put on her turn signal and checked her blindspot and nearly has a heart attack at the scene she is so upset, along with the passengers she was taking to Sunday Mass. Who's gonna be at fault there?

Fault in such accidents will be circumstantial based upon details of the accident. Just like every other accident. There's no such thing as "oh, they were lanesplitting, they will always be at fault." Nope. Not true.

[Burke]

I was told in my MSF course that the "lane sharing" law dated back to the 40s or so and it was because of air cooled engines and the fact that motorcycles needed to keep air flowing over the engines to cool them. I've also heard that there is a limit of 10 mph over traffic speed for splitting lanes... I don't follow that rule usually...

[04RoyalBlue]

Originally posted by Rocky
Personally I'd just install more lights in the front and back... Hell if you really want to be noticed, get those neon lights to make your bike glow. :D

actually, those pretty lights you see on show bikes are illegal to have on while driving .

Unlike Dragonhawk I don't have the time to find the state municipal code or whatever but I do remember seeing it on a brochure at the police station about illegal modifications to imports.

BTW: I've never had a problem with a cager intentionally cutting me off while splitting. I've assumed that some big trucks move over to block me but I can't prove it so I don't worry about it.

What makes me sad is how some people swerve like hell to make room. I don't need room, believe me I won't split if I don't have room. Some old ladies cross over the solid lines and ride in the breakdown lane. I feel like a criminal when that happens.

And Please, don't rev your engine in anger when you don't have room... that's just rude. Its one thing to lane split and another to assume the right.

[Rocky]

I never rev the bike out of anger... I do it sometimes to get attention to those cell phone talkers, fast food eaters, tv watchers, make up doers, coffee drinkers, etc....

I want drivers to at least know I'm there. If I dont feel that they do, AND I'm splitting lanes, I'll use the engine, horn, or high beams.

[Sumo]

Originally posted by 04RoyalBlue
actually, those pretty lights you see on show bikes are illegal to have on while driving .


Which kinds? What's the rule: any/all aftermarket lights, only neon, non-amber, what?

Originally posted by 04RoyalBlue
BTW: I've never had a problem with a cager intentionally cutting me off while splitting. I've assumed that some big trucks move over to block me but I can't prove it so I don't worry about it.

And Please, don't rev your engine in anger when you don't have room... that's just rude. Its one thing to lane split and another to assume the right.

Cagers can get out of the way 99.95% of the time. It's rude for them to NOT.

I agree with your point though; nothing good is (usually) accomplished by ticking off someone driving a lethal weapon.

[Burke]

Would you rather have someone rev their engine to say "Get the F@#k out of the way" or just kick in the side door? I use the sound of my bike to get peoples attention all the time. It's like a horn. God knows you can't hear the horn on a bike...

[Thudds]

Originally posted by midimench
BTW, a big TIP I learned by watching another freeway lane splitter is to have your emergency blinkers going in addition to your brights. People can see you MUCH better (especially at night) and get out of the way...maybe they even think we're cops, until we get up close to them.

You can only use emergency flashers if there is a hazardous condition.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc25251.htm

[Kyoseki]

Originally posted by Burke
God knows you can't hear the horn on a bike...
They can hear mine :D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/Kyoseki/Misc/b9_1.jpg

... sometimes :)

[No_Brakes23]

Originally posted by midimench
Does anybody know when (what year) and the exact law that allowed motorcycles into carpool lanes and the ability to lane split as needed?

I heard it was something to do with air cooled engines overheating, but that's all I've heard.

I remember when we got carpool lanes in Cali, bikes were included then.

[eeeeek]

Originally posted by jpulcifer
Which kinds? What's the rule: any/all aftermarket lights, only neon, non-amber, what?


Without looking up the exact code:

lights on the back half of the vehicle have to be red or amber. On the front half, clear or amber. Something along those lines.

[Sumo]

Originally posted by eeeeek
Without looking up the exact code:

lights on the back half of the vehicle have to be red or amber. On the front half, clear or amber. Something along those lines.

Hmm, this seems to follow what you're saying:

From the CA Vehicle Code:

25106. (a) Any motor vehicle may be equipped with lighted white or amber cowl or fender lamps on the front. Any vehicle may be equipped with not more than one amber side lamp on each side near the front, nor more than one red side lamp on each side near the rear. The light source of each such lamp shall not exceed four standard candlepower.

(b) Lamps meeting requirements established by the department for side-marker or combination clearance and side-marker lamps may be installed on the sides of vehicles at any location, but any lamp installed within 24 inches of the rear of the vehicle shall be red, and any lamp installed at any other location shall be amber.



....But, then there's this:


25102. In addition to the lamps otherwise permitted by this chapter, any motor vehicle may be equipped with lamps on the sides thereof, visible from the side of the vehicle but not from the front or rear thereof, which lamps, together with mountings or receptacles, shall be set into depressions or recesses in the body of the vehicle and shall not protrude beyond or outside the body of the vehicle. The light source in each of the lamps shall not exceed two candlepower and shall emit diffused light of any color, except that the color red is permitted only on authorized emergency vehicles.






It sounds like lamps with the bulb visible from the rear must be red, visible from the front must be white or yellow. It also seems to be the case that accent lighting where the bulb is not visible from the front or rear (such as tucked inside the frame/fairing or ground effects) must be low-power and not red.

That's only my 10-second quick-read version; please don't take this as advise. If I get bored sometime soon, I'll see if talking to CHP clarifies anything.