Carpool Lane Violation at Onramp with Metering Lights On

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

Hi, I got a ticket for improper use of preferential lanes (carpool lane violation) a couple of weeks ago. I was going Eastbound on Hwy 92 and merging onto Hwy 880 North (near Union City), which required me to take a ramp that was on the right side of 92 (so similar to exiting the highway). The ramp had 2 lanes, with the left lane being a carpool lane. It was Friday afternoon during traffic hours, and the metering lights on the ramp were turned on. The combination of these two things meant that both lanes had bumper to bumper traffic, with neither one going faster than the other.

Given the ramp was on the right side, I naturally had to merge into the left lane (the carpool lane) first. Given the traffic conditions, I could not immediately merge over to the right lane without risking an accident. There was a highway patrol officer waiting there, and before I had a chance to merge over again, he pulled me over for being in the carpool lane with no other passengers in my car.

Based on what I described above, I was wondering if I have a case here by citing my safety as the reason for being in that lane? There was no incentive for me to be in the carpool lane, as both lanes were going equally slow due to the metering lights. I wasn't trying to take advantage of the carpool lane to go faster.

I looked up the section of the vehicle code that I was cited for violating (pasted below), and I noticed it mentions an exception to the rule when there is ramp metering? I was wondering if that applies to my case here?

CVC 21655.5(b) The Department of Transportation and local authorities, with respect to highways under their respective jurisdictions, shall place and maintain, or cause to be placed and maintained, signs and other official traffic control devices to designate the exclusive or preferential lanes, to advise motorists of the applicable vehicle occupancy levels, and, except where ramp metering and bypass lanes are regulated with the activation of traffic signals, to advise motorists of the hours of high-occupancy vehicle usage. No person shall drive a vehicle upon those lanes except in conformity with the instructions imparted by the official traffic control devices. A motorcycle, a mass transit vehicle, or a paratransit vehicle that is clearly and identifiably marked on all sides of the vehicle with the name of the paratransit provider may be operated upon those exclusive or preferential use lanes unless specifically prohibited by a traffic control device.

Lastly, I'm pretty sure this is the case but just wanted to confirm that a carpool violation is not a moving violation and therefore I do not need to attend traffic school?

Thanks for any insight you guys may have in advance. It's much appreciated.

The only exception that provides is the obligation of them to post the times the carpool lane is active.
Correct, no points for this so traffic school would be a waste of time and money.

Got it, so just to confirm basically it says they need to post the hours of when the carpool lane is active, unless there's ramp metering in which case they're not required to post the hours?

That aside, do the circumstances I described give me any legitimate defense?

Thanks again.

Not in the least. If cars were stop and go I don't understand why you couldn't enter the appropriate lane. I know a lot of California drivers are jerks, but eventually if you sat there long enough someone would let you in.

Well I suppose that may or may not be true, but I wasn't in the carpool lane for long before I got pulled over. Unless you're saying I should have just stopped completely in the left lane instead of inching forward with the rest of my lane every time the meter light changed, but naturally the inclination is to not block traffic when there is a whole line of cars behind you.

My point is not whether I hypothetically would have been let in or not; the fact is I was not able to find an opening that would allow me to merge over in a reasonably safe manner at the time, and my intention was to merge over to the right lane. I had no reason to take advantage of the carpool lane, as it was going no faster than the other lane. I guess you're saying intentions don't really matter.

If anyone else has a differing opinion, I would love to hear it. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Quoting sshiah

---

Well I suppose that may or may not be true, but I wasn't in the carpool lane for long before I got pulled over. Unless you're saying I should have just stopped completely in the left lane instead of inching forward with the rest of my lane every time the meter light changed, but naturally the inclination is to not block traffic when there is a whole line of cars behind you.

My point is not whether I hypothetically would have been let in or not; the fact is I was not able to find an opening that would allow me to merge over in a reasonably safe manner at the time, and my intention was to merge over to the right lane. I had no reason to take advantage of the carpool lane, as it was going no faster than the other lane. I guess you're saying intentions don't really matter.

If anyone else has a differing opinion, I would love to hear it. Thanks.

---

The presumption is that the citing officer was witness to the same conditions as you and if in his estimate and judgment, it appeared that you were not even attempting to move over into the appropriate lane, then the citation is valid no matter what you are going to later claim the case to be. You inquiry as to wherther "safety can be cited as the reason citied as your reason for being in that lane" seems to imply that you were not making an effort to move over. If you've made any similar statemtns to the officer during the sstop , then you may have dug yourself even deeper.

And even in a traffic jam, more often than not and unless both lanes are metered (which would defeat the purpose of the HOV markings, so it is highly unlikely to eb the case here) the fact that the HOV lane can flow without restriction all while the non-HOV lane is metered, has got to mean that the HOV lane is moving faster, and so in spite your claim of having no incentive for being there, and even of on that particular day that was in fact the case, you won't find a single judge who would buy that idea.

How do I know? Simple... That is the purpose of the metering sensors... The only entry channel that they can regulate is the non-HOV lane. The device counts vehicles on the mainline, it counts vehicles from the unrestricted HOV lane and it then controls the flow of non-HOV lane to minimize delays and maximize flow.

Last but not least, for the DOT to place such restriction, and in spite of your description that you were unable to move over quickly enough, there is a high likelihood that there are early warning devices announcing the restriction long before you are in the thick of it and hence the reason why the officer seemed less than sympathetic.

Interesting. I'm pretty certain both lanes were metered at the time. I'll have to drive by again to make sure that's the case. Thanks for the input.

Quote:

---

Quoting sshiah

---

Interesting. I'm pretty certain both lanes were metered at the time. I'll have to drive by again to make sure that's the case.

---

Please do... As that would make for a lot of wasted paint and signage. Think about it... What would be the purpose of painting in an HOV lane if traffic from that lane is required to stop like traffic from the other lane? Even if they happen to merge past the metering signal, then the HOV lane is still unmetered. In fact (prior to the 2012 California MUTCD), an HOV lane on a metered on ramp used to be referred to as what, you might ask?


It used to be called "bypass lane". The "bypass" is in reference to a vehicle in the HOV lane having the ability to bypass the metering ignal.


Now, and in reference to the code section you posted above... Do you see the term "bypass lane" there?

Both lanes are metered (or at least they are for the other direction, 92W to 880S; I rarely take the OP's route). Both lanes have to stop, but the HOV lane is given priority between the two. I think that's the case for practically all entrances onto 880, at least in the Fremont-Hayward corridor.

EDIT: You can see an example here -- the onramp from Mission Blvd E to 880N in Fremont. Street view for the 92/880 interchange is out of date.

so if both lanes have to stop, how does the HOV lane have priority? the 1st car in the non-HOV lane would go when the car in the HOV lane stops, and then vice versa, so the two lanes would alternate, right? i'm 99% certain that was the case when i got pulled over which is why i'm saying i wasn't trying to be in the HOV lane to go faster.