Two months ago we wrote to you about efforts underway to legalize basic lane-splitting in Oregon. While the bill has considerable support in the Oregon State Legislature, HB2314 is stuck in the joint transportation committee.
In order to get HB2314 the vote that it deserves, the motorcycling public of the Pacific Northwest needs to reach out to the members of the committee leadership as well as Speaker of the House Tina Kotek.
Thankfully, the folks behind the Oregonian lane-splitting bill have made it very easy for us to reach our representatives, so that they can see the support the motorcycle community has for this bill.
The Oregon Legislative Assembly is set to consider a bill that would legalize the practice of lane splitting by motorcyclists.
Accordingly, House Bill 2314 aims to allow motorcyclists and moped riders the ability to ride between vehicles in traffic, under certain sensible conditions.
HB 2314 builds upon the failures of previous attempts to pass lane splitting in the State of Oregon, and there are some important distinctions in this bill that set it apart from previous attempts.
As regular readers of Asphalt & Rubber surely know by now, legalizing lane splitting in Oregon will help reduce traffic congestion, help make motorcyclists safer on the road, and help lower the amount of pollution from transportation.
The future of MV Agusta has hinged on a crucial court decision for the past five months now – one that would allow the Italian motorcycle brand to restructure its debt, thus reducing its financial liabilities and freeing up a greater portion of its cash flow for continued production.
News comes today from Varese, Italy that a local court has approved MV Agusta’s new business plan, and allowed the motorcycle manufacturer to restructure its debts with creditors and suppliers.
This is positive news for MV Agusta, and it sets in motion a number of possibilities for the Italian brand, namely closing its investment deal with Black Ocean, an Anglo-Russian private equity firm.
Legalizing lane-splitting in Washington State just got a step closer to reality, as the State Senate of the Washington State Legislature has passed a bill that would allow lane-splitting under very specific circumstances.
Senate Bill 5378 (SB 5378) would allow lane-splitting only during slow traffic conditions – up to 10mph faster than the flow of traffic, but no faster than 25 mph – and only on numbered highways that have a median and multiple lanes of traffic in each direction.
The bill passed the senate with 32 “yea” votes from both Republicans and Democrats, while the 17 “nay” votes came solely from Democrat members.
Oregon once again is trying to join the 21st century when it comes to pragmatic transportation laws, and as such State Senator Jeff Kruse (R-Roseburg) has re-introduced a lane-splitting law to the Oregon legislature, with the hopes that it will get voted on later this year.
That might be a tall order to ask from the Oregon legislature though, since the proposed lane-splitting law is no different from the one that Oregon shot down back in 2015.
Both proposals aimed to make lane-splitting legal under very stringent conditions: only on roads where the posted speed limit is 50mph or more, only when traffic is traveling 10mph or slower, and only at a rate of no more than 20mph.
Things keep getting worse motorcycle helmet startup Skully, as its production partner Flextronics has filed suit for money and materials allegedly owed it.
According to court documents, Flextronics is demanding payment of roughly $2 million dollars – $505,703 in past-due bills, $514,409 in unpaid bills, and another $1.5 million in what Flextronics calls “materials and inventory related to the Skully project.”
This lawsuit is the second legal action taken against Skully since the company laid off its workforce and shut its doors for lack of funding.
It finally happened, Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 51 into law, making California the first state to put lane-splitting on its books.
Lane-splitting has always been legal of course (despite what other headlines might suggest), though was legal only by a technical loophole in the California Vehicle Code (CVC).
The passage of AB 51 now formally adds lane-splitting as a condoned practice by the CVC; and more importantly, it expressly allows government agencies, like the California Highway Patrol, to create and teach best-practice guidelines.
There is good news for those following California Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51), which would formally codify lane-splitting as legal under the California Vehicle Code and empower state agencies to develop safety guidelines for its practice.
That news is that the California State Assembly yesterday concurred with the California State Senate on the most recent wording of AB 51 (AB 51 had been changed by the State Senate, dropping the provisions about maximum speed and traffic speed deltas for when lane-splitting was permitted).
The State Assembly’s vote yesterday was needed in order to create a concurrence on the same language of the bill between the two legislative bodies. With the Assembly’s unanimous vote, AB 51 now goes to California Governor Jerry Brown for his signature, the last step before making lane-splitting a law.
Gov. Brown is expected to sign AB 51, especially since both the State Assembly and State Senate had unanimously passed the codification of lane-splitting.
California is now just a single signature away from being the first state in the United States of America that expressly allows lane-splitting for motorcyclists. Booyah!
California just got another step closer to formalizing the practice of lane-splitting in the Golden State, as AB 51 just passed the California State Senate.
The bill will now go back to the California State Assembly, which will need to approve of the amendments made by the Senate, but that should be a formality for the legislative body.
This means that California is now just a couple procedural movements away from codifying lane-splitting into its vehicle code. For many lane-splitting advocates, this marks a decisive victory. Though, we’ve had some reservations.
The receivership of Erik Buell Racing continues to go on, as the company’s second round on the auction block ended with no fruitful resolution.
It was hoped that Monday would see the announcement of a Erik Buell Racing’s new owner, after the auction on Thursday seemed to show that a new bidder, Liquid Asset Partners LLC, had snatched up the American motorcycle effort and had plans to liquidate EBR’s assets.
However, it appears that the winning bid on Erik Buell Racing’s liquid assets has been contested by previous auction-winner Bruce Belfer and potential-bidder US Heritage Powersport. Accordingly, a new date in court set for January 14th, 2016 and formal motions to be submitted by January 4th, 2016.
This means that the ongoing saga and future of the Erik Buell Brand will continue, well into the start of the new year.
Valentino Rossi has formally withdrawn his appeal against the three penalty points handed down to him in the clash at Sepang.
The Italian had originally appealed the three points handed down by Race Direction for the incident with Marc Marquez at Turn 14 at Sepang, first to the FIM Stewards, and after the FIM Stewards had rejected his appeal, to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
After filing the appeal to the CAS, Rossi then filed an appeal for a stay of the three-point penalty. If that stay had been granted, then Rossi would not have had to start from the back of the grid at Valencia.