ExpertLaw.com Forums

Obedience by Driver to Official Traffic Control Devices, VC 21461(A)

Printable View

  • 11-25-2013, 10:27 AM
    CitizenG
    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?
  • 11-25-2013, 11:01 AM
    jk
    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.
  • 11-25-2013, 11:02 AM
    That Guy
    Re: 21461. (A) Obedience by Driver to Official Traffic Control Devices
    Quote:

    Quoting CitizenG
    View Post
    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
    View Post
    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
    View Post
    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!
  • 11-25-2013, 11:19 AM
    jk
    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:
  • 11-25-2013, 12:47 PM
    That Guy
    Re: 21461. (A) Obedience by Driver to Official Traffic Control Devices
    Quote:

    Quoting jk
    View Post
    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
    View Post
    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
    View Post
    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
    View Post
    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.
  • 11-25-2013, 12:57 PM
    jk
    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?
  • 11-25-2013, 01:40 PM
    That Guy
    Re: 21461. (A) Obedience by Driver to Official Traffic Control Devices
    Quote:

    Quoting jk
    View Post
    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...

    1. 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.
    2. 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?
  • 11-25-2013, 01:51 PM
    Who'sThatGuy
    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
  • 11-25-2013, 02:01 PM
    Disagreeable
    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.
  • 11-25-2013, 02:16 PM
    jk
    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.
  • 11-25-2013, 07:08 PM
    CitizenG
    Re: Obedience by Driver to Official Traffic Control Devices, VC 21461(A)
    Boy you people are cruel and heartless on us truck drivers. Without us you don’t eat, drink or wipe your butts with anything but your hands. First, I was doing the legal speed limit for my class of vehicles being 55 mph. It was 0200 and there was no, I repeat no traffic behind me on I-5 traveling north in my direction; I saw no lights behind me coming up. I was alone not putting anyone except myself in danger. Let me tell you this, this CHP officer was running blind, meaning he had no lights lit on his vehicle, he was running silent light a submarine, I did not see him sitting anywhere if I had passed him so I know he was running with no lights on. Why do I know this, there was no lights behind me and than out of nowhere and I believe he is allowed to run like that but I though I was alone and if I wanted to drive in that left lane or zigzag it was my business. He was breaking the law running with no lights the sneaky highway bandito. My defense will be to state I am discriminated against because I as a commercial driver cannot attend traffic school and request a no point non-moving violation such as a gas cap violating because us truck drivers work hard so all you know it all fat heads can wipe your butts with something other than your fingers and drink your whiskey and get DUI’s. To all you four wheelers who like to pull in front of us truckers so close we can no longer see your vehicles or cut in front and slam on your brakes, thank you for allowing us hard working truck drivers to bring you everything you use so we can get home maybe twice a month to see out family. Hope I can spend Christmas with them this year. Merry Christmas you all, it’s a celebration of our beloved saviors birthday, his name is Jesus and he loves you all and want you all to spend eternity with him in his kingdom.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Boy you people are cruel and heartless on us truck drivers. Without us you don’t eat, drink or wipe your butts with anything but your hands. First, I was doing the legal speed limit for my class of vehicles being 55 mph. It was 0200 and there was no, I repeat no traffic behind me on I-5 traveling north in my direction; I saw no lights behind me coming up. I was alone not putting anyone except myself in danger. Let me tell you this, this CHP officer was running blind, meaning he had no lights lit on his vehicle, he was running silent light a submarine, I did not see him sitting anywhere if I had passed him so I know he was running with no lights on. Why do I know this, there was no lights behind me and than out of nowhere and I believe he is allowed to run like that but I though I was alone and if I wanted to drive in that left lane or zigzag it was my business. He was breaking the law running with no lights the sneaky highway bandito. My defense will be to state I am discriminated against because I as a commercial driver cannot attend traffic school and request a no point non-moving violation such as a gas cap violating because us truck drivers work hard so all you know it all fat heads can wipe your butts with something other than your fingers and drink your whiskey and get DUI’s. To all you four wheelers who like to pull in front of us truckers so close we can no longer see your vehicles or cut in front and slam on your brakes, thank you for allowing us hard working truck drivers to bring you everything you use so we can get home maybe twice a month to see out family. Hope I can spend Christmas with them this year. Merry Christmas you all, it’s a celebration of our beloved saviors birthday, his name is Jesus and he loves you all and want you all to spend eternity with him in his kingdom.
  • 11-25-2013, 07:17 PM
    Disagreeable
    Re: 21461. (A) Obedience by Driver to Official Traffic Control Devices
    I repeat, HE CUT YOU SLACK!!! Do you not realize you could be facing reckless driving charges? Do you not realize you could have killed someone? If you are not a newbie, you are a fool. Take a look at the wiggle in your wagon, next time you have a similar load. An experienced driver would know the factors affecting trailer wiggle including offset, load balance, cross wind and terrain. Paying $700 for a traffic attorney and a no point amendment is a freebie compared to what the results would have been if you had plowed into Grandma Sue on the way home from babysitting her grand babies.
  • 11-25-2013, 07:42 PM
    jk
    Re: Obedience by Driver to Official Traffic Control Devices, VC 21461(A)
    Quote:

    CitizenG;763153]Boy you people are cruel and heartless on us truck drivers. Without us you don’t eat, drink or wipe your butts with anything but your hands.
    Oh please.


    ,
    Quote:

    I did not see him sitting anywhere if I had passed him so I know he was running with no lights on.
    since you were asleep, how do you know anything about where he was?

    Quote:

    Why do I know this, there was no lights behind me and than out of nowhere and I believe he is allowed to run like that but I though I was alone and if I wanted to drive in that left lane or zigzag it was my business.
    well, actually it isn't because somebody has to clean up your guts when they get spilled all over when you crash.


    Quote:

    He was breaking the law running with no lights the sneaky highway bandito.
    unless you saw him without his lights on, you cannot support that claim.


    Quote:

    My defense will be to state I am discriminated against because I as a commercial driver cannot attend traffic school and request a no point non-moving violation such as a gas cap violating
    starting a comedy career?



    Quote:

    because us truck drivers work hard so all you know it all fat heads can wipe your butts with something other than your fingers and drink your whiskey and get DUI’s.
    I got lots of leaves if I need them.



    Quote:

    To all you four wheelers who like to pull in front of us truckers so close we can no longer see your vehicles or cut in front and slam on your brakes, thank you for allowing us hard working truck drivers to bring you everything you use so we can get home maybe twice a month to see out family.
    it is the job you have chosen. If you don't want to do it, find another job.

    then this turns from a concern about a ticket to a rant on idiot drivers. Yep, that will get you far in court.
  • 11-25-2013, 09:40 PM
    That Guy
    Re: Obedience by Driver to Official Traffic Control Devices, VC 21461(A)
    Quote:

    Quoting CitizenG
    View Post
    Boy you people are cruel and heartless on us truck drivers. Without us you don’t eat, drink or wipe your butts with anything but your hands.

    Don't do us any favors if you're going to do them while sleeping on the wheel of a multi-ton deadly weapon! Using my hands would be much better than getting crushed by a tractor trailer because the driver could not stay awake... But if you think we're cruel, wait until you're standing before the judge and the officer describes your driving that night. See you can talk all the smack that you want... You're clearly not offering any sort of way to mitigate your damages. Instead of asking what can I do to fix this, you're turning it into a pissing match...

    So let me throw this in just for good measure... Your only way out of this is not by admitting you were asleep, and not by crying foul about discrimination... All that is going to piss off the judge and get him frustrated with you, so frustrated that you'll be sorry you even woke up that day... Your way out of this is to hire an attorney, yes, it'll cost you a pretty penny, but that's the price you pay for your mistakes... Not just any attorney. You're going to ask around, at your job, your union, the next truck stop you are at, everywhere and anywhere you see a trucker, ask him if he knows a decent attorney who can handle a ticket for you... Eventually, you will find one.

    This attorney is going to schedule your case for trial but no, you are not going to trial. This is just to get the officer to court so the attorney can talk to him. And so, on your trial day, the attorney is going to talk to the officer to see if he can convince him to change the violation to a non-mover... No you cannot try this on your own simply because you already pissed off the officer and he's not going to care what you want or what could happen to you as a consequence. But coming from the attorney, its your only shot and the only way you can try and slip through this one without screwing yourself over royally.

    I realize you're not going to listen, but now, I've said it and its off my conscience... What you do from here, you own it for the rest of your existence...

    Moving on to your drivel...

    Quote:

    Quoting CitizenG
    View Post
    First, I was doing the legal speed limit for my class of vehicles being 55 mph.

    You were not cited for your speed. You were cited for failing to stay to the right. Which is where you should have been.

    Quote:

    Quoting CitizenG
    View Post
    It was 0200 and there was no, I repeat no traffic behind me on I-5 traveling north in my direction;

    When you are sleeping, I repeat, WHEN YOU ARE SLEEPING, you have to worry about vehicles in front, beside you as well as behind you!

    Quote:

    Quoting CitizenG
    View Post
    I saw no lights behind me coming up.

    Again, when you are sleeping, with your eyes closed... You wouldn't and couldn't see cars behind you!

    Quote:

    Quoting CitizenG
    View Post
    I was alone not putting anyone except myself in danger.

    I refer you to the bottom of page 21 and the top of page 22 of this report titled 2011 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON THE CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM. It shows that I-5 through Kern County has an Average Daily Traffic Volume of anywhere between 31500 vehicles to 81,000 vehicles PER DAY! That is an average of anywhere between 22 vehicles and 56 vehicles per minute... You can manipulate those numbers however which way you want, there is no way you were alone on that highway that night. You're not fooling anyone but yourself. And for all intents and purposes, all there needs to be is one car, and with the officer being there is sufficient to prove that someone was out there.

    See it doesn't affect me that you did what you did that night, but it still drives me up the wall to know that someone out there could be as irresponsible and careless. So don't worry much about me... When you appear in court, in Kern County, in front of a Kern County court judge, who probably lives, sleeps, eats, and DRIVES through Kern County every day, that is the impact you should be concerned about. That is the person who's reaction to what you did will impact the outcome of what you did. S/He might not show much concern, but he is not likely to show much mercy simply because you don't deserve any.

    Quote:

    Quoting CitizenG
    View Post
    My defense will be to state I am discriminated against because I as a commercial driver cannot attend traffic school and request a no point non-moving violation such as a gas cap violating

    That might get a chuckle from the judge... But enlighten us, would you... Why would anyone benefit from discriminating against you because you cannot take traffic school? How would a CHP officer in particular benefit from discriminating against you because of that?

    Let me answer that for you... We all benefit... When you are ignorant enough to place making a timely delivery ahead of everyone else's safety, it serves you right to get a violation on your record and one that everyone can see, and one that will hopefully get you off the highway eventually f you continue making the wrong decisions like you did that night. Because you know what, there are enough responsible drivers out there who will do the work without the risk, who are safety conscious and who car about the safety of others around them. Rest assured interstate commerce will not feel a glitch if you are off the road without a job!

    Here is where it gets tricky so pay attention... For one, this discrimination is mandated by the federal government, and for good reason too. It is also sanctioned by the state, in fact EVERY state in the union subscribes to it. So cry discrimination all you want. This is LEGAL DISCRIMINATION. Worse yet, you controlled your own destiny. You had the option to avoid placing yourself in this spot where you are the subject of this discrimination. All you had to do was to drive within the limits of the law and you would not have to worry about whether you qualify to take traffic school or not!

    Quote:

    Quoting CitizenG
    View Post
    ... because us truck drivers work hard so all you know it all fat heads can wipe your butts with something other than your fingers and drink your whiskey and get DUI’s.

    The hypocrisy of you claiming to work hard all while you're sleeping on the job shines through your entire post... But don't worry about our DUI's worry about staying awake behind the wheel!

    Quote:

    Quoting CitizenG
    View Post
    To all you four wheelers who like to pull in front of us truckers so close we can no longer see your vehicles or cut in front and slam on your brakes, thank you for allowing us hard working truck drivers to bring you everything you use so we can get home maybe twice a month to see out family.

    So who needs who then? See its a jungle out there... No matter what field you're in, only the strong will survive... And the sleeping lazy asses will get booted out. I didn't force you to be a truck driver or to spend most of your time away from your family, neither did the next guy. You had a choice to pick any career you wanted. You chose to be a truck driver. Now, you can either be a responsible one or you can leave the job to those who can handle it right while and stay with your family 24/7/365...

    Sadly for you, you still have not offered a single word that will get you out of your bind.
  • 11-25-2013, 10:58 PM
    Disagreeable
    Re: 21461. (A) Obedience by Driver to Official Traffic Control Devices
    Now that you have been thoroughly chastised OP. I sympathize with your case of white line fever. I used to drag wiggle wagons. Try a flying kite on down hill road construction at 3 am when you are almost eating a guard rail. If your employer is forcing the tweener hours on you and it does not work with your bio-rhythm find another driving job that does. For safety, you need to carry a noise maker such as a screamin meanie and an LED light you can wave across your eyes a bit to get you to the next safe pullover. A damp rag or ice cube helps also.
  • 11-28-2013, 10:06 AM
    CitizenG
    Re: Obedience by Driver to Official Traffic Control Devices, VC 21461(A)
    OK, here is all I have to say to 99.99 % of you…fork you cork suckers and go fork yourselves.
  • 11-28-2013, 10:16 AM
    jk
    Re: Obedience by Driver to Official Traffic Control Devices, VC 21461(A)
    Quote:

    Quoting CitizenG
    View Post
    OK, here is all I have to say to 99.99 % of you…fork you cork suckers and go fork yourselves.

    Have a great Thanksgiving. You might want to stick to forking the turkey
  • 11-28-2013, 11:33 PM
    ptatohed
    Re: Obedience by Driver to Official Traffic Control Devices, VC 21461(A)
    Dividing by zero is "undefined", not infinity.
  • 11-30-2013, 02:32 PM
    That Guy
    Re: 21461. (A) Obedience by Driver to Official Traffic Control Devices
    I am still not clear on where you are going with this....

    Quote:

    Quoting jk
    View Post
    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.

    Actually, it is based on attainable speed and a valid legal presumption can be made here that the commercial vehicle in this case is permitted a lower maximum speed and therefore (with the exception of some extreme examples none of which apply in this case) it must not be driven to the left of a 2 lane highway (or the left lanes of a multi-lane highway). This is made true as a statutory requirement, and the connection I made regarding 22406 is also clearly made in that same statute.

    You are citing CVC 21654 and while that code section might apply in general traffic situations, it establishes the requirement that might dictate the movement of vehicles that are not subject to the provisions under 22406 (non-commercial vehicles), where two such vehicles are sharing the highway at different speeds, the slower vehicle would be required to stay in the right lane or as close as practicable to the right edge of the roadway.

    When it comes to the type/class vehicle the OP was driving at the time, since he was subject to the speed restrictions under CVC 22406, his lane usage is restricted in several ways and he is bound by the requirements under CVC 21655 instead of 21654:

    CVC 21655

    (a) Whenever the Department of Transportation or local authorities with respect to highways under their respective jurisdictions determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that the designation of a specific lane or lanes for the travel of vehicles required to travel at reduced speeds would facilitate the safe and orderly movement of traffic, the department or local authority may designate a specific lane or lanes for the travel of vehicles which are subject to the provisions of Section 22406 and shall erect signs at reasonable intervals giving notice thereof.

    (b) Any trailer bus, except as provided in Section 21655.5, and any vehicle subject to the provisions of Section 22406 shall be driven in the lane or lanes designated pursuant to subdivision (a) whenever signs have been erected giving notice of that designation. Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, when a specific lane or lanes have not been so designated, any of those vehicles shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right edge or curb. If, however, a specific lane or lanes have not been designated on a divided highway having four or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, any of those vehicles may also be driven in the lane to the immediate left of that right-hand lane, unless otherwise prohibited under this code. When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction, the driver shall use either the designated lane, the lane to the immediate left of the right-hand lane, or the right-hand lane for traffic as permitted under this code.

    This subdivision does not apply to a driver who is preparing for a left- or right-hand turn or who is entering into or exiting from a highway or to a driver who must necessarily drive in a lane other than the right-hand lane to continue on his or her intended route.

    Now, you are clearly basing your comments and conclusions on the OPs claim that there was "no traffic" shortly before/during the time he was witnessed by the officer (allegedly) committing several violation(s) he was cited for? I'm not buying that part, in fact, I'm not buying anything he stated, but its your call if you believe him. If his claim of no traffic seems legit to you, then there is no reason as to why you would doubt his statement describing this freeway as a 2 lane highway (first line of his first post), and although I simply do not remember any stretch of I-5 through Kern County being 2 lanes, yet I have not been on that stretch of I-5 in almost a year so I cannot say for sure... But lets go with both claims. 2 lane highway with no traffic at the time...

    Pursuant to CVC 21655, and since there was no mention of any lane designation signage by the OP in this case (a designation where on a multi lane (4 or more lanes highway) is usually made by posting of a "Trucks OK" regulatory sign above the second lane to the right thereby making it, in addition to the rightmost lane the designated lanes), but only a reference to a general "Slower Traffic Must Keep Right" signs, then any of those vehicles so described under 22406 (a description which would include the OP's vehicle) "shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right edge or curb. Not "may" nor "can" but "Shall".

    Note that while the code section describes provisions allowing such vehicles described therein to pass other vehicles in those designated lanes or in the two right lanes if none are designated, yet there are no provisions that would allow for the same type of vehicle described to overtake and pass any other vehicle by using the left lane of a 2 lane highway. But even if the code section allowed for such action, according to the OP there was no other traffic on the highway at the time. So he had no reason whatsoever as to why he would be in the left lane... That is unless he drifted into it involuntarily, and any attempt to try and justify his presence there is an admission of guilt.

    Quote:

    Quoting jk
    View Post
    Note: slow moving traffic, not traffic limited to a lesser speed.

    Is there really any difference between the two? I mean traffic limited to a lesser speed is slow moving traffic to traffic that is allowed a higher speed, is it not?
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:55 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2004 - 2018 ExpertLaw.com, All Rights Reserved