Going Straight from Left Turn Lane
My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: California
I was cited for VC 22101D.
But I did not go straight from the left turn lane. The left turn signal was red; the straight signal was green. There was no oncoming traffic. I was the second car in the turn lane (policeman was the first car).
I signalled and moved into the straight lane. The police then came after me and said you can't go straight from a left turn lane. So, does that mean you cannot exit the left turn lane once you are in it? That is what I do not understand. Is this worth contesting? Thanks.
Re: Going Straight from Left Turn Lane
You have to look at the paint on the road ... if solid, you cannot cross it ... if it is a "dotted line", you may. Unless any other signage says "left turn lane only".
Am I right??? (Unless an arrow was painted on the ground -- would this make a difference?)
I suggest you turn to the manual on uniform traffic control devices & your "rules of the road" for your state.
Re: Going Straight from Left Turn Lane
Did you change lanes before entering the intersection?
As I read the VC, you are restricted to certain motions WITHIN the intersection.
If there is a dedicated lane for turning and it is marked with a sign, then not doing what that lane requires is a violation of THAT SIGN. Until you enter the intersection you have not violated 22101d.
There will be a few members here who will say 'you were in the left turn lane, you went straight, why are you complaining?"
Prior to reaching the intersection, you can or cannot change lanes...there are rules that dictate these motions. Then, once you enter the intersection (ie cross the limit line) there are separate rules that determine what you may do.
My read...
A
Re: Going Straight from Left Turn Lane
Quote:
Quoting
laojgo
But I did not go straight from the left turn lane.
Ok...
Quote:
Quoting
laojgo
I signalled and moved into the straight lane.
And then you went straight from the left turn lane!
Quote:
Quoting
laojgo
The police then came after me and said you can't go straight from a left turn lane.
How was the lane marked? Were there any signs posted at the intersection? And if so, what did the sign look like/what did it say? Were there any arrows painted on the pavement? Was the lane marked by a straight white line separating it from the lane(s) to the right? You also mentioned a traffic light; was it a red left turn arrow that you were initially stopped for?
Can you post a picture of the intersection that shows those signs/markings? Better yet, you can simply tell us what intersection it was and which direction you were headed and we can look it up on Google Maps...
Quote:
Quoting
laojgo
So, does that mean you cannot exit the left turn lane once you are in it? That is what I do not understand.
Here's the code section you were cited with:
CVC 22101
(a) The Department of Transportation or local authorities in respect to highways under their respective jurisdictions, may cause official traffic control devices to be placed or erected within or adjacent to intersections to regulate or prohibit turning movements at such intersections.
(b) When turning movements are required at an intersection notice of such requirement shall be given by erection of a sign, unless an additional clearly marked traffic lane is provided for the approach to the turning movement, in which event notice as applicable to such additional traffic lane shall be given by any official traffic control device.
(c) When right- or left-hand turns are prohibited at an intersection notice of such prohibition shall be given by erection of a sign.
(d) When official traffic control devices are placed as required in subdivisions (b) or (c), it shall be unlawful for any driver of a vehicle to disobey the directions of such official traffic control devices.
Here is my interpretation... and I'll use the language of the statute to further demonstrate my point:
When (from subsection (b)) an additional clearly marked traffic lane is provided for the approach to the turning movement, in which event notice as applicable to such additional traffic lane shall be given by any official traffic control device... (from subsection (d)): it shall be unlawful for any driver of a vehicle to disobey the directions of such official traffic control devices.
Brings us back to how the lane was marked/what signs/pavement markings were present OR whether this was in fact (from subsection (b) "a clearly marked traffic lane provided for the approach of the turning movement". Based on what you posted, I can only assume that it is indeed a "lane that is clearly marked as a 'left turn lane' by BOTH, a straight white line extending from its entry point to the limit line AND also by a left turn arrow either on the pavement or by way of a sign that is posted (or by all three, the straight white line, the pavement marking AND the sign" (which is why we call it "the left turn lane")...
Notice that the code section does NOT make a reference to whether the alleged unlawful movement occurred before or after you enter the intersection. It only discusses your entry and presence in a lane that is clearly marked for such movement and the subsequent movement that you can lawfully make! In other words, once you've entered such a lane, you have committed to making the left turn... And traversing straight through the intersection from a "clearly marked left turn lane" (whether it is done before or after you enter the intersection), is in violation of 22101(d).
I could be wrong though... Who knows how the judge may interpret the related code sections!!! The only way to find out is for you to contest it and see what happens...
Good luck!
Re: Going Straight from Left Turn Lane
Quote:
Quoting
That Guy
Notice that the code section does NOT make a reference to whether the alleged unlawful movement occurred before or after you enter the intersection.
Uh, the VC states "at the intersection" three times.... and elsewhere it defines "intersection" as:
VC365. An "intersection" is the area embraced within the prolongations of the lateral curb lines, or, if none, then the lateral boundary lines of the roadways, of two highways which join one another at approximately right angles or the area within which vehicles traveling upon different highways joining at any other angle may come in conflict.
Nowhere does 22101 say 'before' the intersection.
Quote:
Quoting
That Guy
once you've entered such a lane, you have committed to making the left turn... !
Is there a legal basis for this?
You are allowed to change lanes- even if it is a solid line.
You cannot disobey a sign that says 'this lane MUST turn left'.
But moving OUT of the lane, prior to the intersection is (i think) permitted.
Now, this is all moot as the officer will likely lie, or at least never provide clear testimony as to where you left the lane...and the judge will agree with the officer.
The only argument you may make is that the officer was stopped and sitting AT the intersection, so you were, in actual fact unable to enter the intersection in the left turn lane. You moved from the left turn lane to the straight lane before the intersection as defined in 365. If this is a violation- and you dont think it is- you should have been cited, but you did NOT go straight in the left lane.
GL
A
Re: Going Straight from Left Turn Lane
Quote:
Quoting
adam_
Uh, the VC states "at the intersection" three times.... and elsewhere it defines "intersection" as:
VC365. An "intersection" is the area embraced within the prolongations of the lateral curb lines, or, if none, then the lateral boundary lines of the roadways, of two highways which join one another at approximately right angles or the area within which vehicles traveling upon different highways joining at any other angle may come in conflict.
If the legislative intent would have been to ONLY prohibit such movement from "within" the intersection, it would have been much easier for them and much clearer for us, had they used word "within" the intersection instead of "at" the intersection. Don't you think?
Furthermore, 22101 clearly applies to the presence of the vehicle is "a clearly marked traffic lane provided for the approach to the turning movement" and any movement that is not in compliance with the directions of or is contrary to that which is allowed by traffic control devices thereon is unlawful. That lane, and the markings thereon, starts at the entry point to the lane, and ends at the limit line for the intersection. Even if you were to argue that the lane starts at its entry point, and ends on the other side of the intersection, the same VC would still prohibit any movement other than that allowed by the traffic control devices from the ENTIRE LANE, not only that which is made from "within" the intersection.
Of course, you are free to argue otherwise!
Quote:
Quoting
adam_
Nowhere does 22101 say 'before' the intersection.
And nowhere does it say "within" the intersection.
Again, the code references a "clearly marked traffic lane is provided for the approach to the turning movement" where the markings (any or all of the following: the straight white line, the left turn arrow painted on the pavement, the Left Turn Arrow posted on the sign, the Left Turn Arrow on the traffic light) conform to the definition of an "official traffic control device" (see below) and any turning movement not in compliance with the direction of those devices is unlawful.
Also, please note that it also states "the approach to the turning movement"... Are you saying that the "approach to the turning movement" can be made from "within" the intersection?
Quote:
Quoting
adam_
Is there a legal basis for this?
CVC 22101
For the Xth time (I stopped counting a while back), 22101 clearly states that if there is a clearly marked lane dedicated for a particular movement, any other movement made from that same lane is unlawful. In other words, and as I sataed in the quote you cited "once you've entered such a lane, you have committed to making the left turn"...
Quote:
Quoting
adam_
You are allowed to change lanes- even if it is a solid line.
If you say so....
Quote:
Quoting
adam_
You cannot disobey a sign that says 'this lane MUST turn left'.
True... But the sign you described is only ONE METHOD of prohibiting such action.
Quote:
Quoting
adam_
But moving OUT of the lane, prior to the intersection is (i think) permitted.
Where in 22101 does it say that the alleged act committed by the OP is ONLY prohibited IF AND ONLY IF there exists a sign that stated "This lane MUST turn left". It doesn't. 22101 prohibits any movement from that lane except for the movement indicated by way of an "official traffic control device" which includes but IS NOT LIMITED TO a posted sign that only allows that movement.
VC 440. An "official traffic control device" is any sign, signal, marking, or device, consistent with Section 21400, placed or erected by authority of a public body or official having jurisdiction, for the purpose of regulating, warning, or guiding traffic, but does not include islands, curbs, traffic barriers, speed humps, speed bumps, or other roadway design features.
A "sign" could be a "Left Lane MUST Turn left", but it could simply mean a "left turn arrow" posted either at the near side of the intersection or atop the traffic light on the far end of the intersection.
A "signal" could be that "Red Light Arrow" (which I can only assume that it was erected at the intersection).
VC 445. An "official traffic control signal" is any device, whether manually, electrically or mechanically operated, by which traffic is alternately directed to stop and proceed and which is erected by authority of a public body or official having jurisdiction.
A "marking" could be a "left turn arrow" or the words "Left Turn Only" painted on the pavement within that particular lane.
Quote:
Quoting
adam_
... or at least never provide clear testimony as to where you left the lane...
It is my opinion, that the only lawful way to leave the LEFT TURN LANE is by making a LEFT TURN. So does it really matter where or when he left the lane?
Quote:
Quoting
adam_
The only argument you may make is that the officer was stopped and sitting AT the intersection, so you were, in actual fact unable to enter the intersection in the left turn lane. You moved from the left turn lane to the straight lane before the intersection as defined in 365. If this is a violation- and you dont think it is- you should have been cited, but you did NOT go straight in the left lane.
Try it and see how it works... Just keep in mind that your strongest defense against any violation of any vehicle code section (or any charge for that matter), is to attempt to convince the court that the elements of the offense with which you were charged did not occur. In this case, stating that you were in a lane that is clearly marked for a left turn, and yet you opted to disregard the direction of an official traffic control device(s) (likely more than one device) that only allows a LEFT TURN, by exiting that lane, (because you think that "'at' the intersection" should mean "'within' the intersection), is in and of itself an admission of guilt (albeit indirectly) to a violation of 22101(d). So much for proving, beyond a reasonable doubt that the element of the offense did not occur.
See? This is pretty typical of what happens in traffic court... Defendant goes up before the judge, either directly or indirectly admits to committing the violation, loses the case and then blames it on "lying cops" and/or so called "kangaroo courts". :rolleyes:
Re: Going Straight from Left Turn Lane
Quote:
Quoting
That Guy
If the legislative intent would have been to ONLY prohibit such movement from "within" the intersection, it would have been much easier for them and much clearer for us, had they used word "within" the intersection instead of "at" the intersection. Don't you think?
Good question.
What is YOUR interpretation of "at"? Is this interpretation 'settled law'?
Quote:
Quoting
That Guy
Furthermore, 22101 clearly applies to the presence of the vehicle is "a clearly marked traffic lane provided for the approach to the turning movement" and any movement that is not in compliance with the directions of or is contrary to that which is allowed by traffic control devices thereon is unlawful. That lane, and the markings thereon, starts at the entry point to the lane, and ends at the limit line for the intersection. Even if you were to argue that the lane starts at its entry point, and ends on the other side of the intersection, the same VC would still prohibit any movement other than that allowed by the traffic control devices from the ENTIRE LANE, not only that which is made from "within" the intersection.
But failure to comply with the markings on the lane is a 21461 (failure to obey a regulatory sign)...once the driver leaves the lane (albiet possibly 'illegally leaving the lane') his obligations to obey his 'old lane' end, no?
("if you say so" is not a real response, BTW. )
Quote:
Quoting
That Guy
Of course, you are free to argue otherwise!
Really? Thanks.
Quote:
Quoting
That Guy
And nowhere does it say "within" the intersection.
Again, the code references a "clearly marked traffic lane is provided for the approach to the turning movement" where the markings (any or all of the following: the straight white line, the left turn arrow painted on the pavement, the Left Turn Arrow posted on the sign, the Left Turn Arrow on the traffic light) conform to the definition of an "official traffic control device" (see below) and any turning movement not in compliance with the direction of those devices is unlawful.
Again, once he leaves the lane, he is no longer bound by the 'rules' of the old lane. Or could he have turned left from the new lane he moved into? He'd be following the rules of the lane he originally entered (but disobeying his new lane)
Quote:
Quoting
That Guy
Also, please note that it also states "the approach to the turning movement"... Are you saying that the "approach to the turning movement" can be made from "within" the intersection?
Not sure what you are saying or asking.
The turning movement can only be made IN the intersection. (By definition an intersection is one roadway to another.)
Quote:
Quoting
That Guy
For the Xth time (I stopped counting a while back),
look, you wanna get preachy, go somewhere else. If your objective is to crap all over the OP and have him give up and pay the ticket, you're doing a fine job...
Quote:
Quoting
That Guy
22101 clearly states that if there is a clearly marked lane dedicated for a particular movement, any other movement made from that same lane is unlawful. In other words, and as I sataed in the quote you cited "once you've entered such a lane, you have committed to making the left turn"...
Well, we disagree. 'committing to make a left turn' is a lay concept, but you've failed to provide a legal definition.
Quote:
Quoting
That Guy
If you say so....
Well, what do YOU say? Yes or no? Can you change lanes over a solid line?
Quote:
Quoting
That Guy
VC 440. An "official traffic control device" is any sign, signal, marking, or device, consistent with Section 21400, placed or erected by authority of a public body or official having jurisdiction, for the purpose of regulating, warning, or guiding traffic, but does not include islands, curbs, traffic barriers, speed humps, speed bumps, or other roadway design features.
A "sign" could be a "Left Lane MUST Turn left", but it could simply mean a "left turn arrow" posted either at the near side of the intersection or atop the traffic light on the far end of the intersection.
A "signal" could be that "Red Light Arrow" (which I can only assume that it was erected at the intersection).
VC 445. An "official traffic control signal" is any device, whether manually, electrically or mechanically operated, by which traffic is alternately directed to stop and proceed and which is erected by authority of a public body or official having jurisdiction.
A "marking" could be a "left turn arrow" or the words "Left Turn Only" painted on the pavement within that particular lane.
Yes?
Quote:
Quoting
That Guy
It is my opinion, that the only lawful way to leave the LEFT TURN LANE is by making a LEFT TURN. So does it really matter where or when he left the lane?
Well this really is the crux. You cannot leave this lane, ever? So if it has dashed lines, I cannot change lanes once I pass a sign that says 'left turn lane' or I pass over a left turn arror?
Quote:
Quoting
That Guy
Just keep in mind that your strongest defense against any violation of any vehicle code section (or any charge for that matter), is to attempt to convince the court that the elements of the offense with which you were charged did not occur. In this case, stating that you were in a lane that is clearly marked for a left turn, and yet you opted to disregard the direction of an official traffic control device(s) (likely more than one device) that only allows a LEFT TURN, by exiting that lane, (because you think that "'at' the intersection" should mean "'within' the intersection), is in and of itself an admission of guilt (albeit indirectly) to a violation of 22101(d). So much for proving, beyond a reasonable doubt that the element of the offense did not occur.
Given the stated circumstances, what would you SUGGEST for the OP?
Not 'what isnt going to work' and not 'how you are guilty'.
The objective, again I thought, was to assist the OP.
Quote:
Quoting
That Guy
See? This is pretty typical of what happens in traffic court... Defendant goes up before the judge, either directly or indirectly admits to committing the violation, loses the case and then blames it on "lying cops" and/or so called "kangaroo courts". :rolleyes:
I agree. I had one suggestion.
WHAT IS YOUR SUGGESTION?
depends on the road markings
http://driversed.com/teen-drivers-ed...d_marking.aspx
good site for line markings & what they mean ..... if there is no white solid line where you changed lanes, then you can change lanes prior to the intersection.
IMO
Re: Going Straight from Left Turn Lane
Quote:
Quoting
adam_
Good question.
What is YOUR interpretation of "at"? Is this interpretation 'settled law'?
It does not necessarily mean “within” if that's what you're alluding to or getting “at”...
Quote:
Quoting
adam_
But failure to comply with the markings on the lane is a 21461 (failure to obey a regulatory sign)...
A "marking" is not a "sign" and a "sign" is not a "marking"... While 21461 applies to "failure to obey a regulatory sign or signal", 22101(d) prohibits movements not in compliance with any “official traffic control device” (see VC 440 for a definition)... in this case, a lane marking (which is NOT a “sign”).
Until the OP comes back with answers to the questions I posed previously...
Quote:
Quoting
That Guy
How was the lane marked? Were there any signs posted at the intersection? And if so, what did the sign look like/what did it say? Were there any arrows painted on the pavement? Was the lane marked by a straight white line separating it from the lane(s) to the right? You also mentioned a traffic light; was it a red left turn arrow that you were initially stopped for?
Can you post a picture of the intersection that shows those signs/markings? Better yet, you can simply tell us what intersection it was and which direction you were headed and we can look it up on Google Maps...
… It would be difficult to ascertain whether a citation for 21461 would have been valid. Without those answers, I am going on the assumption that he was inside of what is described in 22101(b) as "a clearly marked traffic lane provided for the approach to the turning movement" which would make a citation for 22101(d) a valid citation.
Quote:
Quoting
adam_
once the driver leaves the lane (albiet possibly 'illegally leaving the lane') his obligations to obey his 'old lane' end, no?
... albeit possibly...??? So does that mean that you agree that he left the lane ILLEGALLY???
Your “illegally leaving the lane" is where the OP gets in deeper trouble here. That is where he admits to committing the violation of 22101(d). Is that really that difficult to understand???
Quote:
Quoting
adam_
Again, once he leaves the lane, he is no longer bound by the 'rules' of the old lane.
And AGAIN, his leaving the lane, in the manner in which he did, constitutes a violation of 22101(d) which is EXACTLY what he was cited for!
Quote:
Quoting
adam_
Or could he have turned left from the new lane he moved into? He'd be following the rules of the lane he originally entered (but disobeying his new lane)
And yet that is not what he did, nor is it what he was cited for....
Quote:
Quoting
adam_
Not sure what you are saying or asking.
It was a "rhetorical" question...
Quote:
Definition of RHETORICAL
1
a : of, relating to, or concerned with rhetoric
b : employed for rhetorical effect; especially : asked merely for effect with no answer expected <a rhetorical question>
Quote:
Quoting
adam_
The turning movement can only be made IN the intersection. (By definition an intersection is one roadway to another.)
The violation occurred BEFORE the OP entered the intersection... (He failed to comply with the direction of a traffic control device (at minimum, a lane marking -”a left turn arrow painted on the pavement”-) while he was in the dedicated left turn lane and his action was not in compliance to the direction shown by a traffic control device which only allowed a left turn from that dedicated left turn lane). So what does the definition of "intersection", where it starts, how it is marked....etc have to do with anything here?
Quote:
Quoting
adam_
look, you wanna get preachy, go somewhere else.
Fortunately for me, my presence here is not predicated upon your approval or lack there of... :D If for some reason you don't like my posts simply because you disagreed with my opinion(s), you're free to scroll past them...
Quote:
Quoting
adam_
If your objective is to crap all over the OP and have him give up and pay the ticket
The OP asked: "does that mean you cannot exit the left turn lane once you are in it?" and I simply answered his question by posting my opinion as to how "I” define the code section... If you think that is “crapping all over the OP" then go ahead and get your panties up in a wad, stomp your feet and cry foul... It doesn't bother me one bit, and it certainly will not change my opinion! ;)
Quote:
Quoting
adam_
you're doing a fine job...
Thanks!
Quote:
Quoting
adam_
Well, we disagree. 'committing to make a left turn' is a lay concept, but you've failed to provide a legal definition.
The only failure here is yours... You have provided a single legal definition that is neither relevant nor pertinent to the topic at hand. The definition you offered (“intersection”) is irrelevant to an unlawful action that he allegedly committed PRIOR TO his entering the intersection... It falls short of providing the OP with any plausible defense for a violation that occurred PRIOR to his entering the “intersection”.
As for what you described as a “lay concept”, your posts have demonstrated that you failed to grasp the legal meaning of and requirements for being in compliance with 22101(d). Shame on me for making an attempt to clarify those for you by using that so called “lay concept”.
Quote:
Quoting
adam_
Well, what do YOU say? Yes or no? Can you change lanes over a solid line?
Too broad of a question, so it cannot be accurately answered with a "yes" or "no". What color is the line? Where is it painted? What does it delineate?
I'll narrow down my answer to the topic at hand... Under these circumstances, no, you cannot change lanes over a solid white line after entering a left turn lane marked by one (or several) traffic control device(s) indicating that the only allowed movement from that lane is a LEFT TURN!
Quote:
Quoting
adam_
You cannot leave this lane, ever?
You can leave it through the intersection by completing the left turn as required and as indicated by one or several traffic control devices!
Quote:
Quoting
adam_
So if it has dashed lines, I cannot change lanes once I pass a sign that says 'left turn lane' or I pass over a left turn arror?
I'll just take a wild guess and say that the line where the OP crossed back into the other lane was solid, as in "not dashed"... So your hypothetical isn't applicable here.
Quote:
Quoting
adam_
Given the stated circumstances, what would you SUGGEST for the OP?
I'm not sure if he's eligible for traffic school but if he is, that might be a good route for him to go... Not only will he get this particular citation dismissed, but taking the course might also be a refresher on the rules of the road.
No pun intended "laojgo".
Quote:
Quoting
adam_
Not 'what isnt going to work' and not 'how you are guilty'.
This is a public forum and as such, I am free to post what I want, when I want... Until we can all see the word “Moderator” or “Administrator” under your screen name, YOU, don't get to dictate what is posted or by whom!!! Get over yourself...
Quote:
Quoting
adam_
I agree. I had one suggestion.
Is that the “one suggestion” where you advised him to admit to committing the violation he was cited for as part of his defense? Pat yourself on the back, Adam. The OP owes you a lot of thanks!!!
Quote:
Quoting
adam_
WHAT IS YOUR SUGGESTION?
Asked and answered.
Re: Going Straight from Left Turn Lane
OP gone? maybe will post pics of intersection