Unsafe Lane Change

[deviljay]

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: California

Hi everyone!

So on April 30th, 2009 I was driving on Diamond Bar BL on the left lane, when i encountered a traffic merging onto the freeway ramp, i decided to move out to the right lane, the problem happaned there, the driver behind me also wanted to move out of the traffic, so she signals and tried to turn,she stopped midway which blocked all my views from the left mirror, i tried looking over my shoulder, still couldn't see. So i watched her in the rearview mirror when she gave me a hand signal, confused and frustrated, i thought she meant that the right lane is clear and that i am clear to go. without further consideration, i merged onto the right lane, which as a result, i cut off a police officer. he gave a citation and i just got it today, it is a 202 dollars bail out, which i think is unreasonably high. should i go to the court and fight the case? is there any chance that i might win? by the way the violation code is 21658A 29


thank you guys, if you have questions please ask me

[That Guy]

without further consideration, i merged onto the right lane, which as a result, i cut off a police officer.... by the way the violation code is 21658A 29

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.

It's gonna be tough fighting this one especially considering the fact that the officer was the one whom you cut off...

You can opt for traffic school to try and avoid any affect on your insurance but that will cost you an additional $49 in court fees as well as the cost of attending the traffic school itself.

Sorry, and best of luck!

[deviljay]

thanks man! is it true if the officer don't show up on the day of the thing i won automatically, and if he does and i lose the case the judge has the choice to let me go to traffic school and don't go? and if he chooses to not let me go, then i will never have the chance to make that up? thanks again!!

[That Guy]

thanks man!

You're welcome!

is it true if the officer don't show up on the day of the thing i won automatically

That is true. Although there has been times where the officer did not show up and instead of dismissing, the judge opted to postpone the trial. That is a rare occurrence though. You should also know that "the officer not showing up" does not happen as often as it used to in the past. Showing up in court is part of an officer's responsibility and job description and most law enforcement agencies (as well as most judges) frown upon an officer's decision not to show up.

and if he does and i lose the case the judge has the choice to let me go to traffic school and don't go?

That is also true however, let me rephrase what you said. The judge cannot preclude you from attending traffic school simply because you chose to defend yourself in a trial, however, he/she is under no obligation to approve that offer if you request it. In other words, the judge can simply say "denied' if you request traffic school after a trial without having to give a reason why he is denying you that opportunity.

In your case, and since you don't seem to have a valid excuse to fight the citation (other than hoping that the officer won't show) might be looked at by the judge as you wasting the court's time by virtue of scheduling a trial when in fact you had no valid defense. If your judge sees it that way he/she is more apt to decline your request without being obligated to state a reason why he/she decline it. Its a chance you have to decide whether you wanna take or not take.

and if he chooses to not let me go, then i will never have the chance to make that up?

That is true. Once the judge denies you traffic school then you won't get that chance again... That is unless the judge were to make an error either during the trial at which time you'd have the right to appeal your case.

thanks again!!

You're welcome again!!!

[jk]

I thought I had read (on this forum and from Carl the California cop) that by taking a ticket to trial, you forfeit the possibility of traffic school. I could be wrong. It just seems I did read that here though.

[ashman165]

I'm also curious about how well an argument would fare in the form of: no collision occured, no one was harmed, thus the lange change wasn't per se unsafe.

That someone chose to react to a perceived hazard (in this case the assumption that failure to react after being "cut off" was necessary) isn't proof that the action was itself unsafe.

[cdwjava]

I thought I had read (on this forum and from Carl the California cop) that by taking a ticket to trial, you forfeit the possibility of traffic school. I could be wrong. It just seems I did read that here though.

It's a common practice, but not policy or law.

What most courts do after the roll is called is they announce prior to trial that the court understands that many people attend court to see if their officers have shown. They further announce that since the roll has been called, any defendant who are eligible for traffic school and would wish to plead guilty may do so, and traffic school will be granted. The defendants are admonished, however, that after trial the same opportunity to take traffic school may not be available. Ostensibly this is because the court may decide that the driver's actions do not warrant traffic school so that option is denied. The cynical will say that it is denied as punishment for not pleading guilty. Since opinions vary as to the reason, and the judges do not have to cite a reason, we can only guess as to the benevolent or punitive intent behind such a decision to deny traffic school.

- Carl