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.

[That Guy]

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.

From People v. Schindler, 20 Cal. App. 4th 431:

At the arraignment the trial court advised that if prior to trial, a defendant pleaded guilty subject to being granted traffic school, the court would grant traffic school.

The court further advised that if a defendant was convicted after trial, the granting of traffic school was an alternative sentence within the discretion of the court, that the court might or might not grant traffic school and need not give a reason for granting or not granting traffic school. The court stated that a request for traffic school would be judged in light of all the facts presented to the court. The court gave an example that if a defendant was found guilty of driving 30 miles per hour in a 25-mile-per-hour zone the court might grant traffic school, but if a defendant was found guilty of driving 80 miles per hour in a school yard the court might not.

Appellant offered to plead guilty to violating section 22349 at a lesser speed. The court advised that it would not accept a plea at a lesser speed, treated appellant's offer as a plea of not guilty, and tried the case. Upon the citing officer's testimony, the court found appellant guilty as charged.
After conviction, appellant requested traffic school The court denied this request. Appellant requested the court to give its reasons for not granting traffic school. The court declined to give an explanation.
....
Under section 42005, the court may order traffic school. Although the court may not arbitrarily refuse to entertain a request for traffic school merely because a defendant elects to plead not guilty ( People v. Wozniak (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d Supp. 43 [243 Cal.Rptr. 686]; People v. Enochs (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d Supp. 42 [133 Cal.Rptr. 363]), the court otherwise has discretion to grant or not grant traffic school for a traffic violation. ( People v. Levinson (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d Supp. 13, 21 [203 Cal.Rptr. 426].)
….
To require the busy municipal court to state reasons on the record for denying traffic school in individual cases would impose a time-consuming burden which interferes with the public interest in the efficient processing of thousands of infraction cases. The burden on the system and the public would be far out of proportion to the benefit to be gained by the occasional defendant who hopes to persuade a reviewing court that discretion was abused based on the particular circumstances of his or her case. Given the discretionary nature of the decision and the minor nature of the offense, the trial court should not be saddled with the additional burden of stating its reasons on the record, where the statute does not require it.

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.

The OP in this case changed lanes without having the ability to ensure (for himself rather than counting on the ambiguous signal of another driver) that his action would not interfere with the normal movement of another vehicle which by some stroke of bad luck, happened to be an officer.

Although citations are typically issued to the "at fault" driver in an accident where injury or property damage has occurred, there is nothing that precludes an officer from issuing a citation if he decides that such action by the driver was in any way unreasonable, imprudent or unsafe and without having to have an accident as the reason for the citation.

We don't know how close the officer was or what action he had to take to avoid a collision. He apparently though the it was too close of a call (and you can bet that his testimony will attest to that) to just let it slide.

[ashman165]

The OP in this case changed lanes without having the ability to ensure (for himself rather than counting on the ambiguous signal of another driver) that his action would not interfere with the normal movement of another vehicle which by some stroke of bad luck, happened to be an officer.

Although citations are typically issued to the "at fault" driver in an accident where injury or property damage has occurred, there is nothing that precludes an officer from issuing a citation if he decides that such action by the driver was in any way unreasonable, imprudent or unsafe and without having to have an accident as the reason for the citation.

We don't know how close the officer was or what action he had to take to avoid a collision. He apparently though the it was too close of a call (and you can bet that his testimony will attest to that) to just let it slide.

I never questioned that. But a minor point of clarity is that collision investigators don't determine fault for a collision. They determine causation, which is quite different than fault; that's for the legal system and insurance companies to hash out.

I understand your point: the officer thought it was necessary to take evasive actions; that doesn't, however, at all imply that it was actually necessary, or that the driver of the other car's actions were actually unreasonably unsafe. At best, it's a weak anecdote. A collision, on the hand, would be a strong argument that it was unsafe because the collision actually happened.

I'm not sure how it would fare, but it's certainly worth a thought before pleading guilty.

[jk]

thanks that guy. Much more than I expected even.


as to the act, sans collision, being unsafe:

it matters not whether a collision did take place or if evasive action was required to avoid an accident.

the act itself was unsafe as she did change lanes with a clear knowledge of any possible collisions. I know it sounds kind of cheesy but the fact is, if you are not aware if an action is safe, then it is unsafe and as the OP either did not look or could not see the officer, her act was unsafe.

to make it a bit clearer; if a person changes lanes without looking at all, that action is an unsafe act, regardless of there being any of even no other traffic as the driver is not aware of what may be in the other lane and as such they could collide with and as such, is an unsafe action.

the next step up, and most likely the one in this situation is, the officer did in fact have to take some action or was so nearly at a point where it would be required that the OP;s action was unsafe in the fact that it nearly did cause an accident and only the reaction of the officer prevented it, or in the case of nearly requiring action, such a movement may have been seen as causing some drivers to react in such a manner as to cause an accident, whether with the driver in the OP's position or even some other driver.

[That Guy]

I never questioned that. But a minor point of clarity is that collision investigators don't determine fault for a collision. They determine causation, which is quite different than fault; that's for the legal system and insurance companies to hash out.

It is also for any reasonable person to deduce that the actions of the driver which may have been the causation of the accident, unquestionably makes him the at fault driver.

Its a cause and effect analysis... And a pretty simple on at that. In fact, there are times where a collision report will state the percentage of fault attributed to each driver... So I'm not sure how accurate you statement is that a collision report does not determine fault.

We're getting side tracked though...