
Quoting
California student
Unless I'm missing something, isn't 21754 constructed as "You can't pass on the right unless one of the following is present, (a)... (b)... etc"?
Well, not using those same exact words in that particular order, but it has the same meaning:
21754. The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle only under the following conditions:
It says: You can pass only under the following conditions;
Which also means: Passing only allowed under these conditions;
You can't pass unless one of these conditions is present
So actually, it IS constructed as "you can't pass on the right unless one of the following is present".
It IS saying : "You can only pass under these circumstances"...
It is saying "you can pass if and only if"...
However you want to describe it.
And in this case, it is saying you cannot pass between the right lane and the right edge of the roadway " or what the OP is attempting to describe as the "parking lane", simply to justify his attempt to split lanes (plural)- unless the vehicle in the #2 lane is making a left. Because:
1) the vehicle in the #2 lane could not be have been turning left...
2) the OP is NOT by any means or description "splitting lanes, simply because he isn't between two lanes that he can split -unless you buy into his analogy that the parking lane should count as a separate lane, which it is not...
3) The only defense that you're presenting here is: "Lane splitting isn't usually cited for so why did I get cited?" or "If I was doing the same thing between two lanes I? would not be cited" or "if I was doing this in the carpool lane I would not be cited"... But we all know that "all of them doing it is not a valid defense" or "I always do it but I never get cited for it".
Let's play a hypothetical... Traffic is backed up as described here Passenger cars up front at a traffic light... In an attempt to get past traffic, a motorcycles rider attempted to split lanes. Two vehicles are now trying to occupy the same space and from a physics stand point, it is impossible. Whether it is because the car driver didn't see him, didn't like him or did't care, they end up getting tangled, the M/C is on the pavement, the car is all scratched up... From a legal standpoint, who is at fault?
So, yes, I will agree that there is nothing prohibiting "lane splitting", per se... However, there is nothing allowing it! Certainly none of the "excuses in # 3 above.

Quoting
California student
As such, I'm trying to figure out how one can violate 21754(a) since (a) is basically saying, "You can pass on the right a vehicle making a left hand turn."
Imagine a one lane set up... Under what conditions can you pass on the right?
Only if the driver in the vehicle ahead of you is turning left.
Yes, I realize this is two lanes, but the OP should not have attempted to split lanes to the right of the #2 lane. The norm, the way I do it (100% of the time), the way I have always (99% of the time) seen it done, is to split #1 & #2, or #2 & #3 if its a 3 lane road... and so on on and so forth. But just like you won't (or should NOT) try and split to the extreme left of traffic (i.e. between the left most lane/#1 lane and the left edge of the roadway, you should NEVER try to split to the rightmost lane (the #2 lane in this case) and the right edge of the roadway. *
Why is that? I guess the only analogy I can come up with is if for some reason a driver decided to crowd you (as in squeeze you out of his lane), you always have the option to try and encroach on the other side, the other driver's lane. Where as if you're doing so on the right edge of the roadway, or the left edge of the roadway, if anyone tried to squeeze you out, you'd either end up head first into parked vehicles, or you'd end up over the median or facing opposite traffic.
So while lane splitting between 2 lanes is not 100% legal nor is it 100 % safe, it is the lesser of all evils compared to lane splitting on the extreme edge of the roadway. So while you might not get cited for doing so between 2 lanes, does not mean you won't get cited when doing so on the extreme edge of the roadway.
From reading the description in the OP, it is clear that both lanes headed N/B on Highland before/at/or after crossing 6th St in Los Angeles, BOTH lanes are occupied with traffic. OP chose to drive in the small space between the #2 lane and the edge of the roadway (or what he describes as the "parking lane"), rather than to drive in the small space in between both #1 & #2 lanes (where your typical "lane split happens)... In both cases, the officer could have cited him but chances are, he would have looked the other way if it happened between both lanes. The fact that it happened on the right edge of the roadway, he decided to cite this time.
OP goes to court and his only defense is (copied and pasted from the OP):
"I have been riding a motorcycle for 10+ years in US and in Europe. CA is now open to the splitting lanes but i cant actually find any law/ codes on it. I have seen and spoke to CA moto officers about passing cars in lane 2 of a 2 lane street with parked cars/lane and told it is absolutely legal. I did this and got a ticket the other day. Cop says you may not pass on the right side of vehicles...hmm ok, I know better than to try to get into it and tell him how just the other day officer so and so did it and actually told me its legal. I see a great deal of info online and peoples "opinions", but no real laws citing what a motorcycle can and cant do. It was dead stop traffic 10 cars deep and i passed the two lanes straddling the parking lane (so i always presumed was splitting as well) at 5 mph up to the light and in front, waiting for light to change the continued safely."
Really.. He has very little else to present.

Quoting
California student
Actually, I'm basing it on the fact that the CHP has come out and said that the act itself is not illegal, but it is possible to be cited for performing other illegal acts while lane splitting.
And since when is the CHP the authority on interpreting the law with regards to matters that are less than 100% clear?
If this were an interpretation that worked against the OP, the argument would be "that's like the fox watching the hen-house", so why would we, or any fair and impartial court accept the CHP's interpretation as a legally binding and final determination of what is, and isn't legally applicable? When in fact, it it the court that must and always has played that role?
We went through this when we discussed the CHP's (and the DMV's) interpretation of Cell phone laws...
And if the CHP's authority or interpretation were to be binding, then why did most of these people have to go to appeal to have their matters properly decided?
But even while I disagree that the CHP is an authority on interpretation, there are certain key words in what you've quoted from the CHP that further enforces what I am saying. In the first quote:

Quoting
California student
"There is not a Vehicle Code that specifically allows lane splitting, also called lane sharing, but California police agencies consider the practice legal
if done properly – when traffic is bogged down, not traveling at higher speeds, and when doing so safely, said Denise Quesada, an officer and spokeswoman for the California Highway Patrol.
"If done properly"... are the key words there. You wouldn't lane split to the left of all lanes would you?
And in the last one:

Quoting
California student
"But if he or she is (otherwise)
passing safely, the (motorcyclist is) within the law,'' Quesada said.
"
I'd have issue with "within the law" especially when in his opening quote, officer Quesadilla offered that "There is not a Vehicle Code that specifically allows lane splitting" So you see, even when we might choose to accept their interpretation, they are still offering contradicting facts to undermine the credibility of their answer.

Quoting
California student
Also from the CHP FAQ page.
"Can motorcycle riders "split" lanes and ride
between other vehicles?
Lane splitting by motorcycles is permissible but must be done in a safe and prudent manner."
-
http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html
Key words there are: between other vehicles, meaning between the #1 & #2, or #2 & #3 if its a 3 lane road... etc. OP tried to split between the #2 lane and the edge of the roadway.
* And lastly, in the slight chance that anyone is going to come back and argue "carpool lane" to somehow negate my theory up there, the argument could be made that in case of a carpool lane, subsection(e) would apply, otherwise, it is clear that under most circumstances, if someone tried to crowd you out of the carpool lane, you could simply swerve out over the double solid yellow, but under most circumstances, carpool lanes have sufficient distance between the double solid yellow and the single solid while line to its left to accommodate a motorcycle without encroaching on the vehicle in the actual carpool lane. (And no, contrary to what most people think, the placement of the white solid line to the left of the double solid yellow does not represent a separate lane for motorcycles. The while line is painted there simply to allow vehicles (any vehicle) from traveling to the left of any double solid yellow lines which is otherwise prohibited by law (VC 21460) In other words, and with the while solid line in place there, you are no longer driving to the left of a double solid yellow lines, you are now driving to the left of a white solid line which represents the right edge of your roadway (thereby giving even more reason to justify why subsection 21754 (e) would be applicable here)).