Obedience by Driver to Official Traffic Control Devices, VC 21461(A)
My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: California
I am a big rig truck driver traveling North on interstate 5 in Kern county, a two lane highway. I was legal with logs etc. I was tired and somewhat drifting. Not asleep but shacking my head to stay awake. Yes, I know from experience when you start shacking your head its time to pull over and take a quick break which I was going to do. What do you call driving and dreaming you’re driving but you still see the road but also see you’re drifting over and back of the center white line? As I was driving I saw no lights behind me but than the blue & red lights came on out of nowhere in my mirror and caught my attention or perhaps snapped me out of my dream state and I pulled off onto an exit off the road. The CHP officer told me I was all over the road and suspects I was asleep.
I did not know if I should have confessed to being in the state was but I never confess to anything I’m accused of. Like when they ask, do you know why I pulled you over, Daaaaa! To give me a good driving award!!!! I did not say that but I did not confirm his allegation. He got pissed and wrote me VC 21461(a) Obedience by Driver to Official Traffic Control Device; being a sign stating Slower traffic keep to your right. I told him there was no traffic at 2:00 am and I was not going slower than traffic sine there was no traffic. He said do not argue with me and compiled.
My question, there is no violation for falling asleep at the wheel and since I had no accident what did I violate, reckless driving, no because to be convicted of reckless driving it has to be done willingly. I was asleep and did nothing willingly or purposely. I did not confess because I was afraid he might if he has the authority to take me out of service for ten hours and I would have missed my delivery. I am going to set this for trial, what is my defense, confess to falling asleep?
Re: 21461. (A) Obedience by Driver to Official Traffic Control Devices
Quote:
there is no violation for falling asleep
actually, there is but I'm not chasing statutes to prove it.
Quote:
. I was asleep and did nothing willingly or purposely.
you did it negligently and some might say; recklessly
but yes, your actions were willing. The alternate is accidental. You continuing to drive in a stupid condition was willing on your part.
Quote:
I am going to set this for trial, what is my defense, confess to falling asleep?
not if you ever want to drive again.
Quote:
What do you call driving and dreaming you’re driving but you still see the road but also see you’re drifting over and back of the center white line?
stupid
so, your only defense is you did not violate the statute you were cited for...and don't be so stupid to make the same argument in court you did here.
Re: 21461. (A) Obedience by Driver to Official Traffic Control Devices
Quote:
Quoting
CitizenG
My question, there is no violation for falling asleep at the wheel and since I had no accident what did I violate, reckless driving, no because to be convicted of reckless driving it has to be done willingly. I was asleep and did nothing willingly or purposely.
He could have cited you for a number of different violations: Lane straddling (CVC 21658, illegal lane changes (CVC 22107, and/or CVC 22108), possibly speeding (CVC 22406)...
He cited you for failing to stay to the right and he would be correct, by virtue of the fact that you are driving "a motortruck or truck tractor having three or more axles or any motortruck or truck tractor drawing any other vehicle", that in compliance with CVC 22406 restricts your speed to a maximum of 55 mph... With other traffic (as in passenger vehicles) getting maxed out at 65 mph, that makes you "slower traffic"... And before you come back to repeat that it was 2:00 am and that there was no other traffic on the highway, sure there was, the officer who cited you is "other traffic".
Quote:
Quoting
CitizenG
I did not confess because I was afraid he might if he has the authority to take me out of service for ten hours and I would have missed my delivery.
Right... Not missing your delivery is more important that the safety of other drivers on the highway...
Quote:
Quoting
CitizenG
I am going to set this for trial, what is my defense, confess to falling asleep?
You have no defense... You screwed up and the likely outcome is that you will be convicted, your record will show the 1 1/2 violation points, and unless you are self employed, this might hurt you a slight bit more than missing your delivery!
Re: 21461. (A) Obedience by Driver to Official Traffic Control Devices
aww, come on TG. This is California, the land of more defenses than Carter has liver pills.
what is wrong with arguing that since there was no other traffic the statement "slower traffic keep right" simply cannot apply? (and that is not meant to be facetious). Slower is an adjective applicable only when there are at least two objects and there is the ability to compare them. It's like trying to divide by 0. You just can't do it.
and if you want to argue the cop was other traffic; apparently he did keep right at that point, way right, like on the apron he was so far right.:smiley_simmons:
and this is for the OP :sleeping:
Re: 21461. (A) Obedience by Driver to Official Traffic Control Devices
Quote:
Quoting
jk
aww, come on TG. This is California, the land of more defenses than Carter has liver pills.
If that is the case, the Carter must be chewing up on a whole lot of placebos... Because with the exception of our speed trap laws, traffic matters aren't really much different than the majority of other states...
Quote:
Quoting
jk
what is wrong with arguing that since there was no other traffic the statement "slower traffic keep right" simply cannot apply?
Well, under the circumstances, and since this driver was sleeping as he rolled down the highway at who-knows-how-fast, even if we were to exclude citing officer, and in preparation for any traffic that might approach him from behind, he still is obligated to stay to the right with his speed being restricted to a lower max limit than other traffic.
Quote:
Quoting
jk
It's like trying to divide by 0. You just can't do it.
Aw, come on jk, you can do anything if you put your mind to it… Even dividing by zero is doable… You’ll end up with infinity as a result…But infinity is a good number sometimes…
Quote:
Quoting
jk
and if you want to argue the cop was other traffic; apparently he did keep right at that point, way right, like on the apron he was so far right.
My argument is based on a valid presumption that until that red/blue lightbar came on, the officer was nothing but "other traffic" and if he witnessed the defendant zigzagging back and forth across traffic lanes, then he was not keeping to the right as the officer was approaching.
Re: 21461. (A) Obedience by Driver to Official Traffic Control Devices
Quote:
That Guy;763046]If that is the case, the Carter must be chewing up on a whole lot of placebos... Because with the exception of our speed trap laws, traffic matters aren't really much different than the majority of other states...
You folks have other defenses the rest of us do not have available but it also applies to other areas as well besides traffic law. Overall, there are more protections for the individual in California than most any other state.
Quote:
Well, under the circumstances, and since this driver was sleeping as he rolled down the highway at who-knows-how-fast, even if we were to exclude citing officer, and in preparation for any traffic that might approach him from behind, he still is obligated to stay to the right with his speed being restricted to a lower max limit than other traffic.
I know you live for this so:bull_head::
show me that "slower traffic" is speaking to the max limit they are allowed to drive rather than their actual speed in relation to other vehicles present. Using your argument, I could drive 45 in the fast lane since I am allowed to drive 65 and based on that, I am the faster traffic, regardless of the 12 mile long trail of pissed off drivers in my wake.
Quote:
My argument is based on a valid presumption that until that red/blue lightbar came on, the officer was nothing but "other traffic" and if he witnessed the defendant zigzagging back and forth across traffic lanes, then he was not keeping to the right as the officer was approaching.
well, that would be a valid argument for the ticket then. I guess OP is going to have to see what works out for him.
Personally, I would love to watch him try the argument (face to face with a judge):
Quote:
I am going to set this for trial, what is my defense, confess to falling asleep?
Re: 21461. (A) Obedience by Driver to Official Traffic Control Devices
Quote:
Quoting
jk
I know you live for this so:bull_head::
show me that "slower traffic" is speaking to the max limit they are allowed to drive rather than their actual speed in relation to other vehicles present. Using your argument, I could drive 45 in the fast lane since I am allowed to drive 65 and based on that, I am the faster traffic, regardless of the 12 mile long trail of pissed off drivers in my wake.
I'm not sure I understand your question but I'll try to rephrase what I described in my first reply in this thread...
The freeway the OP was on, I-5 through Kern County, has two maximum speed limits for two types (classes) of vehicles...
- Commercial Verhicles, three axles or more, vehicles towing trailers or other vehicles... all the categories described under CVC 22406 are restricted to a 55 mph maximum speed limit.
- Other passenger vehicles, motorcycles, non-commercial vehicle in general are restricted to a maximum speed limit of 65 mph (in fact, it may even be 70 mph in that stretch through Kern County)
With the OP being in a vehicle that falls under category (1), he is restricted to a 55 mph maximum speed limit... And with I-5 though Kern County being the major thoroughfare between Southern California and Central California, it isn't reasonable to assume that there was no other traffic as he is trying to impress here. So even at 2:00am and with this other traffic likely including vehicles such as those described under category (2) where the speed limit they are allowed is higher by 10mph (possibly 15 mph) than the OPs vehicle, the OP will always be the "slower" vehicle and as such, he is required to stay to the right as suggested by the officer.
If that doesn't cover it then, as I reread your post, you driving at 45 mph in the fast lane while driving a vehicle that is in a class that is allowed a maximum 65 mph would likely get you an impeding traffic citation. Especially if you ended up with a 12 mile long line of pissed off traffic in your wake... But this is quite different than you being restricted to a lower limit than everyone else by virtue of the type of vehicle you are in.
Does that cover it?
Re: 21461. (A) Obedience by Driver to Official Traffic Control Devices
Make sure that CA won't charge you with a crime that they would in NJ.
In NJ, fatigue driving is considered reckless driving and driving under the influence. DUI/DWI.
Good Luck
Re: Obedience by Driver to Official Traffic Control Devices, VC 21461(A)
The officer cut you slack. Don't go make an idiot of yourself in court. Either suck it up or pay an attorney to request an amended charge to V C Section 4454a failing to posses registration. I'm sure you did not get your tail out of the cab to grab the trailer reg out of the can.
Re: 21461. (A) Obedience by Driver to Official Traffic Control Devices
but as we can see here, it is all premised on the traffic actually on the road and not simply based on possible speeds attainable:
Quote:
21654. (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any
vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal
speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be
driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable
to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing
another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing
for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or
driveway.
(b) If a vehicle is being driven at a speed less than the normal
speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time, and is
not being driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as
practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, it shall constitute prima
facie evidence that the driver is operating the vehicle in violation
of subdivision (a) of this section.
(c) The Department of Transportation, with respect to state
highways, and local authorities, with respect to highways under their
jurisdiction, may place and maintain upon highways official signs
directing slow-moving traffic to use the right-hand traffic lane
except when overtaking and passing another vehicle or preparing for a left turn.
Note: slow moving traffic, not traffic limited to a lesser speed.
everything in that statute is premised on the actual speed of the traffic at the time.