My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: California
I got a ticket for merging late onto the freeway. At the time the ticket was issued, the CHP told me I didn't obey the sign which reads: Right Lane Must Exit.
There was stopped traffic on the highway and, before I could reasonably merge, I had to keep moving because some nitwit was tailgating me within inches and leaning on his horn. Further, I didn't want to just stop in the lane and wait for an opening.
I actually thought about pulling over to the right to allow the tailgater to pass me but there was only the shoulder so I kept moving.
As soon as I saw an opening in the stopped traffic, I merged left. The tailgater followed.
I was waved over by a CHP officer parked on the shoulder. He ignored the tailgater, of course: he probably never even saw him.
My point is: I did not cross a solid white line. I merged left crossing the broken white line and at the same point where the sign that reads RIGHT LANE MUST EXIT is posted. In other words, as soon as practicable and safe.
The CHP officer was completely uninterested in hearing what I had to say, so I just gave up talking and handed him my paperwork.
Problem is I only have my story, e.g., no proof of what happened. I guess my only hope is that the issuing officer doesn't show up next week.
I searched for something in the vehicle code or CA law that covers how soon a motorist has to actually obey such a sign. Could not find anything. Does anyone know if there is such language?
It seems to me that if I had merged after passing that sign, then I would be guilty of not obeying it. If however I merged as soon as I saw the sign, which due to traffic conditions and flow and to refrain from simply stopping in the lane, occurs just as my car was at the the sign, then I did in fact obey the sign.
This is the only way I have of describing my position.
What do you think?
Have any advice?
Thank so much!
Failure to Obey Traffic Sign in California
Printable View
-
05-31-2009, 04:29 AMtess4todayFailure to Obey Traffic Sign in California
-
05-31-2009, 10:14 AMEWYLTJRe: Failure to Obey Traffic Sign in California
What section of the Vehicle Code were you charged with?
It seems to me that if there was no solid line, then you were still allowed to change lanes. -
05-31-2009, 10:33 AMtess4todayRe: Failure to Obey Traffic Sign in California21461 A your basic failure to a obey traffic sign. I've posted the text below.Quote:
Quoting EWYLTJ
I did not cross a solid white line or the "gore" between the highway and the exiting lane. Thanks for your help...
21461. (a) It is unlawful for a driver of a vehicle to fail to obey a sign or signal defined as regulatory in the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, or a Department of Transportation approved supplement to that manual of a regulatory nature erected or maintained to enhance traffic safety and operations or to indicate and carry out the provisions of this code or a local traffic ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to a local traffic ordinance, or to fail to obey a device erected or maintained by lawful authority of a public body or official.
(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to acts constituting violations under Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500) of this division or to acts constituting violations of a local traffic ordinance adopted pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500). -
05-31-2009, 11:05 AMThat GuyRe: Failure to Obey Traffic Sign in CaliforniaI would think that if there is a sign that states "Right Lane MUST Exit" (and I'll have to re-read tess' post) to see whether the lane changed occurred before or after the sign, the 21461 is in fact a violation.Quote:
Quoting EWYLTJ
-
05-31-2009, 11:34 AMtess4todayRe: Failure to Obey Traffic Sign in CaliforniaIt was before the sign. Just, but still...I had not passed the sign before I merged and when I tried to explain that to the CHP, he cut me off and said, "I don't want to hear your explanation." And walked away with my paperwork to issue the ticket.Quote:
Quoting That Guy
His chief complaint was the way I merged--too abruptly for his taste--but he didn't cite me for reckless merging or whatever...
Thanks. -
05-31-2009, 12:11 PMThat GuyRe: Failure to Obey Traffic Sign in CaliforniaGood point, you could have been cited for impeding traffic.Quote:
Quoting tess4today
Another good point; using the shoulder in a non emergency is also a violation.Quote:
Quoting tess4today
Although practicable and safe are two requirements, the presence of that sign added a third absolute requirement.Quote:
Quoting tess4today
Just so you know, and although they do, at times, pull over more than one driver, they are not obligated to do so…Quote:
Quoting tess4today
Your word against his, makes it tough for you to disprove your guilt… And only because the officer gains nothing by your being found "Guilty" while you might benefit from a "Not Guilty" finding by saving some money.Quote:
Quoting tess4today
So have you been arraigned yet? Did you enter a plea and next week is your trial or are you yet to enter a plea?Quote:
Quoting tess4today
If you are yet to enter a plea, the officer will not be in court next week. He will only appear if you have entered a plea of “Not Guilty” which means that your appearance next week is for your actual “Trial".
If next week is your trial date, then it might be too late to do an "Informal Discovery Request". If next week is you arraignment then you might consider doing that which will afford you a look at the officer's notes about what he saw that day... Might help you prepare yourself for a better defense if you choose to fight this by opting with a "not Guilty" plea.
I don’t know off hand but I will do a search as well… Point is, and with any sign (example: a STOP sign or a Speed Limit sign)… the verbiage of such is enforced as soon as you get to the sign or pass it. It doesn’t need any specific code section to explain it.Quote:
Quoting tess4today
I agree…Quote:
Quoting tess4today
I disagree… Again, think of a STOP sign or better yet, a Speed Limit sign… If you are driving at 45mph as soon as you pass another sign reducing that limit to 35mph then you are already in a 35mph speed limit zone; continue at 45mph and you can get cited for being in violation of the 35mph zone.Quote:
Quoting tess4today
So as soon as you get to as Right Lane MUST Exit sign, then you have committed to staying in that lane and taking the exit. And let me add this… The dashed lines are there past the sign to allow traffic from the freeway to enter that particular lane; not for you to merge out from it. -
05-31-2009, 12:19 PMtess4todayRe: Failure to Obey Traffic Sign in California
Thanks, That Guy, for your lengthy and considered reply. I really appreciate it.
I've already entered a plea of Not Guilty at my arraignment and my trial date is this Tuesday.
I guess since it's too late for discovery, I'll just hope the the CHP doesn't show up. They don't always. Otherwise, what can I do? Just tell my side of the story and hope for the best.
Thanks again. -
05-31-2009, 12:20 PMThat GuyRe: Failure to Obey Traffic Sign in California
Adding...
Not to argue or try to prove anything but... Now you're saying:
While earlier, in your first post, you said:Quote:
Quoting tess4today
So which is it???Quote:
Quoting tess4today
"where the sign was" which (in my opinion and by using the Speed Limit analogy) is still a violation...
OR...
Before the sign (like you stated in your second post)????
:(Quote:
Quoting tess4today
True, they don't always show... However, that is part of their job and the CHP has a strict about officer's not appearing. Also, I have seen one instance where the officer does not appear and the judge postponed the trial. Rarely happens (and it shouldn't) but it did.Quote:
Quoting tess4today
My guess is you will be given the opportunity to take traffic school before the judge gets to the bench. $49 more and a fee to the traffic school, a few hours online and the citation is dismissed.Quote:
Quoting tess4today
You have the option to request traffic school after your trial as well, although most judges will not grant you that opportunity and they are under no obligation to tell you why.
You're quite welcome... Wished I could have been a better help. Hang tight though, EWYLTJ did comment earlier and he may be back soon with something that I missing out on... You never know.Quote:
Quoting tess4today
Best of luck either way.
ADDING some more... :D
Whatever it is that might decide to do, leave out discrepancies such as the one I pointed out earlier. Most people are found guilty by virtue of saying too much, thereby incriminating themselves... So keep that in mind! -
05-31-2009, 12:47 PMtess4todayRe: Failure to Obey Traffic Sign in CaliforniaSorry for the confusion.Quote:
Quoting That Guy
This is precisely why I asked for specifics with regard to how soon one must obey a sign. I assume, due to the lack of language in the Code, that the standard of "reasonable" applies. This is not a STOP sign, painted, RED at an intersection that a motorist is coming towards. It is a B+W sign, under an overpass. I saw the sign and merged as soon as it was practicable and safe.
I could not stop and then merge, otherwise, I would impede traffic behind me.
I realize now that I will just have to exit in the future. But I just thought, as long as I had not passed the sign, I had every right to merge onto the highway and be on my merry little way. Evidently not. I stand corrected.
I slowed considerably (from maybe 20 mph) while desperately searching for an opening in bumper-to-bumper traffic. I maintain that I merged before the sign and told that to the CHP officer. Beginning the merge before it and completing the merge just as my car was directly across from it.
That's how I recall it.
The CHP officer, however, simply wasn't interested in listening to anything I had to say, so I stopped talking. He complained about the method of my merging, which he seemed to take offense at. It was abrupt because there was a small window of opportunity for me to merge or risk getting into harm's way. This occurred in the morning, at rush hour, in the Bay Area, by the way.
But to clarify: yes. I merged before the sign--just before it.
There no way for me to prove it, however. It's my word against his. Frankly, I expected something along the lines of an unsafe lane change citation from the way he spoke to me and was surprised to find out that it was a Failure to Obey a Traffic Sign citation.
Thanks for your help. -
05-31-2009, 01:09 PMThat GuyRe: Failure to Obey Traffic Sign in CaliforniaIt is still a "regulatory sign"... Just like a Speed Limit sign (which are also White with Black letters)... Not and advisory sign (which are usually Yellow with black letters) nor an informational sign (which are usually Green with white letters (like a Freeway Exit sign)).Quote:
Quoting tess4today
Don't take my comments personally. I only pointed out a discrepancy that might serve you no help as you stand there before the judge. That's all!Quote:
Quoting tess4today
-
05-31-2009, 01:29 PMtess4todayRe: Failure to Obey Traffic Sign in CaliforniaNo, no, no! I didn't take offense. I really do appreciate your help. This is all very helpful to me in preparing for the trial.Quote:
Quoting That Guy
I understand that all traffic signs must be obeyed, no matter the color, et cetera...but some events cannot occur simultaneously within a vacuum, so to speak. Thus my interest in uncovering some standard to obey the signs: instantaneously? If that is the case, then the CHP issuing officer shouldn't necessarily have made such a to-do about the method in which I merged. Or so it seems to my way of thinking...
Until I find a different answer, do you think I could make the assumption that we must obey all signs as fast as is reasonable, practicable and safe? Because I can argue the facts on that, if that is the case.
Anyway, really: thank you for your help. I rather appreciate you pointing out my inconsistencies and/or confusions here so that I can better prepare for and be very clear during trial. :)
Thank you! -
05-31-2009, 01:48 PMThat GuyRe: Failure to Obey Traffic Sign in CaliforniaIf you want to read about signs and the regulations associated with them, then you might want to take a look at the "Manual For Uniform Traffic Control Devices". The MUTCD is published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).Quote:
Quoting tess4today
You will find that here: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
You should also take a look at the California Supplement to that document which you will find here: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/...ifornia/ca.htm
If that is your only argument then I don't see why you couldn't present it in court. However, I think that in addition to reasonable, practicable and safe, there is also "legal" and that to me, and by my understanding, means that once you get to a regulatory sign, you must obey what it states otherwise you can be cited for violating it.Quote:
Quoting tess4today
Glad you see it that way... ;)Quote:
Quoting tess4today
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here you go... Found this in the main document, although you might want to find something similar/more specific in the California Supplement:
Link: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2003r1...t2/part2b2.htm
Quote:
Section 2B.21 Mandatory Movement Lane Control Signs (R3-5, R3-5a, and R3-7)
Standard:
If used, Mandatory Movement Lane Control (R3-5, R3-5a, and R3-7) signs (see Figure 2B-4) shall indicate only those vehicle movements that are required from each lane and shall be located where the regulation applies. When the mandatory movement applies to lanes exclusively designated for HOV traffic, the R3-5c supplemental plaque shall be used. When the mandatory movement applies to lanes that are not HOV facilities, but are lanes exclusively designated for buses and/or taxis, the word message R3-5d and/or R3-5g supplemental plaques shall be used. The R3-7 word message sign shall be for ground mounting only.
If the R3-5 sign is ground mounted on a multi-lane approach, a supplemental plaque (see Figure 2B-4), such as LEFT LANE (R3-5b), HOV 2+ (R3-5c), TAXI LANE (R3-5d), CENTER LANE (R3-5e), RIGHT LANE (R3-5f), BUS LANE (R3-5g), or LEFT 2 LANES, indicating the lane with the appropriate movement shall be added below.
The Mandatory Movement Lane Control (R3-7) sign shall include the legend RIGHT (LEFT) LANE MUST TURN RIGHT (LEFT). The Mandatory Movement Lane Control symbol signs (R3-5 and R3-5a) shall include the legend ONLY.
Guidance:
Mandatory Movement Lane Control signs should be accompanied by lane use arrow markings, especially where traffic volumes are high, where there is a high percentage of commercial vehicles, or where other distractions exist.
Option:
The Straight Through Only (R3-5a) sign may be used to require a road user in a particular lane to proceed straight through an intersection.
When the Mandatory Movement Lane Control sign for a left-turn lane is installed back-to-back with a Keep Right (R4-7) sign, the dimensions of the Mandatory Movement Lane Control (R3-5) sign may be the same as the Keep Right sign.
Except for the R3-7 sign, Mandatory Movement Lane Control signs may be overhead or ground mounted.
The diamond symbol may be used instead of the word message HOV on the R3-5c supplemental plaque.
-
05-31-2009, 03:04 PMtess4todayRe: Failure to Obey Traffic Sign in CaliforniaQuote:
Quoting That Guy
Thanks for the links. I found the first two this morning but was unable to find any clarification regarding my particular issue: how much time a motorist has to completely obey a sign such as this one.
If the legal argument is as you state it, 'that once you get to a regulatory sign, you must obey what it states otherwise you can be cited for violating it[,]" I would still be where I am: my word against his: I say I merged beforehand, he'll insist I did so after passing the sign.
I really think the issue, though, is the timing from seeing a sign versus 'passing' a sign. My argument will be in the absence of statutory explanation, as long as a motorist begins the action of obeying the sign before passing it, there should not be any citation issued as long as the lane change in this instance is completed by the time the car passes the sign. Since there is nothing in the statute, it may be open to judicial interpretation. That is why I brought up as a counter example the difference between a RIGHT LANE MUST EXIT sign and a STOP sign at an intersection. There are reasonable inferences in the differences between the two.
For example, if you had never been on that entrance/exit before and thus never had seen that sign, you wouldn't know until you are more than three-quarters of the way through that lane that there is a RIGHT LANE MUST EXIT sign for you to obey. The sign is located near the end of the exit lane.
It's clearly there to keep motorists who are in stuck in traffic trying to get on the highway from blocking those who need to exit it. Still, there must be a reasonable distance allowed to a motorist to use the lane as an entrance--because it is actually an entrance as well as as exit.
So then the question becomes if the entrance/exit lane is only to be used as one or the other, when does the entrance to the highway end and the exit begin? In other words, motorists look to signs to clear up such potential confusions. If you have 75 yards to safely merge and 25 to exit, then as long as you merge within that 75 yards, you shouldn't be cited. If you merge after the entrance "becomes" an "exit" at say 76 yards AND there is such a sign, you have missed your chance and you must exit or be cited. It would be capricious and unfair otherwise. And using this example, I contend that I was well within the legal limits to merge and so did so.
If the reason for the sign is to clear the lane of merging vehicles well before the exit so as to provide safe passage for those exiting the highway, then the sign should itself be moved from its spot at 75 yards (in the above example) to say 50 or even 40 yards into the lane. Then all those entering the highway would know they had to merge into the highway much sooner than instructed by the existing posted sign.
That the citing officer never made the sign an issue after waving me over but instead lectured me on my merging style, or lack thereof, just confused me all the more, to be honest.
Seems to me that this whole issue in this case turns on a definition which is not made clear by either the statute or the sign.
Thank you for the quote at the end--that was very helpful!
:) -
05-31-2009, 04:57 PMThat GuyRe: Failure to Obey Traffic Sign in CaliforniaI quoted the MUTCD, underlined and bolded the part that states that with a mandatory movement lane control sign, the sign should be located where the regulation applies.Quote:
Quoting tess4today
I realize a similar statement does not appear to be in the California vehicle code, however, the specific code section you were cited with specifically mentions the MUTCD and the associated federal requirements. Think of it this way, if the MUTCD does not apply to California, then none of the signs that you see on any of the roads would be considered legal, nobody would be cited, and we wouldn’t be here discussing any of this.
A logical analogy for a description that does not exist in the statute. However, if that same statute refers you to a particular document thereby making such a document a reference for the judiciary to clarify such gray areas, then you can bet that it will meet the burden of being the regulatory authority. The MUTCD after all, sets the FEDERAL requirements for traffic signage, regulation and design. If you want to argue that those regulations do not fit in this case, you might get lucky by having a judge who is very understanding and much less strict than the ones I have appeared before.Quote:
Quoting tess4today
Although I agree that the drivers actions at a stop sign are quite different from those when he/she passes a Right Lane MUST Exit sign, from a regulatory stand point and as far as “when must you comply” both signs mean that you must comply prior to passing it.Quote:
Quoting tess4today
Without knowing what the length of that on ramp is and how far the sign is from or how soon it is viewable to the naked eye, I couldn’t argue that point. Again, just remember that just because you did not notice the sign while giving yourself enough time, does not necessarily mean that it cannot be viewed or that it is improperly placed.Quote:
Quoting tess4today
You had your eye on the freeway traffic through your side window as well as by looking at your outside mirror to see when you can merge, so your inability to see the sign does not suggest that it is improperly placed nor does it imply that you need not comply with what it is regulating.
You can argue proper placement of that sign or lack thereof by contacting CalTrans and requesting the engineering survey for that on ramp.Quote:
Quoting tess4today
If they cannot justify its placement legally then that would prove that sign should not be there and by virtue of such a report from that agency stating that the sign should not be there, you get to have your case dismissed.
Actually, it would seem to me that the entire length of the lane where the line is dashed, is considered part of the exit ramp.Quote:
Quoting tess4today
As for the on ramp portion, it is limited by and does terminate once you reach the “Right Lane MUST Exit” sign…
Signs, are not randomly placed… like I said, the California Supplement of the MUTCD should tell you exactly where that sign needs to be placed.Quote:
Quoting tess4today
You were charged with violating a sign that states “Right Lane MUST Exit”. How much clearer than that can it be?Quote:
Quoting tess4today
At any rate… here is your best chance at raising some reasonable doubt as far as the officer’s testimony is concerned.
First, I highly doubt that he will remember the issue as being an abrupt lane change and even if he did, it is not what you were charged with, so he won’t mention it or discuss it.
He will testify that he saw you merge onto the freeway from the on ramp after passing the sign in question.
What you need to do is to draw a diagram or take a picture or something of the sign, from your vantage point and possibly (WHILE SOMEBODY ELSE IS DRIVING) a picture looking back towards it from where the officer was standing.
Once he testifies, and when it comes time for you to cross examine him, ask him to pinpoint his location when he witnessed you committing the violation.
You can then produce the picture and ask him if he could really see your position relative to where the sign is from his vantage point.
Obviously, and from an angular point of view, and unless he was in line with the sign as soon as you passed the sign, then his ability to determine your position relative to the sign is questionable at best, if not extremely difficult.
Honestly, this is going to be your best strategy to raise some reasonable doubt… No guarantees it will get you out of the citation, but I seriously see it as your best chance.
Good luck! -
05-31-2009, 05:49 PMtess4todayRe: Failure to Obey Traffic Sign in CaliforniaThanks for your help. Much appreciated, really. Would that I had come here weeks ago, alas! I agree that he will never recall the actual conversation that transpired or indeed the specifics of the citation and plan to use that against him when I produce the photos I have taken.Quote:
Quoting That Guy
Still, I think my only real hope is that he does not show up!
But you've really helped me prepare better for trial.
Take care--I'll let you know what happens! :) -
05-31-2009, 07:14 PMThat GuyRe: Failure to Obey Traffic Sign in CaliforniaPlease do!Quote:
Quoting tess4today
Are you really? :eek:Quote:
Quoting tess4today
-
05-31-2009, 08:55 PMtess4todayRe: Failure to Obey Traffic Sign in CaliforniaQuote:
Quoting That Guy
no--it's a joke! but maybe I should change it lest I get in trouble for impersonating one...lol -
05-31-2009, 10:38 PMThat GuyRe: Failure to Obey Traffic Sign in CaliforniaOh, I wasn't asking about the "attorney" part, I was asking about the "getting it worng part"... :pQuote:
Quoting tess4today
J/K
I think if you don't go into court pretending you are one, you should be alright! -
06-07-2009, 09:42 AMtess4todayRe: Failure to Obey Traffic Sign in California
hey that guy! just wanted to let you know how my case turned out.
here's the story:
my citing officer was the only one to show up for 5 cases in the 3:30 calendar. irritating. moreover, I had gotten there early and walked into the gallery during the remainder of the 2:00 calendar, listened to the judge (an octogenarian lady judge) for about 1 minute before being escorted out by the bailiff. she scared me. I thought doom & gore would be my only result.
when we were finally called in, she was finishing up a case from the previous calendar and seemed quite sharp and fair all the same. my mood lifted.
it was 4:30 before my case was called, and a few minutes before it, she looked at me and said, "I'm sorry to have kept you waiting. I promise we'll get to you in a moment."
the officer was all courtesy and cordials, opening doors for me and such. he went to the witness box and I sat at the plaintiff's table.
she read the file and said out loud, oh, I know what this is about: that sign! she began to question the officer.
the judge asked him a bunch of questions about where he was located in relation to the sign. he gave her three conflicting answers. he even said he couldn't see the sign from his vantage point but then tried to argue that meant motorists passed it by the time they came into his view. so he made his location the central issue but then gave conflicting testimony as to his location (on the shoulder, at the gore point, east of the gore & off to the shoulder, and so on).
his testimony was so confusing that when I looked over my notes regarding what he had just testified to, I felt a little dizzy. each answer seemed more convoluted than the last. the judge started to get irritated with him and finally said, "you and I are not communicating!" then she looked at me and said, "but you and I are communicating," to which I nodded my head.
then she said, "you keep changing your answer. this is ridiculous. I'm entering a finding of not guilty."
the CHP officer was by this time bright red and clearly pissed off. the judge said to him, "I want you to come up here and I will show you on a map what you need to be able to say when you are asked questions about your location." at first he hemmed and hawed and she said, "You don't want to come up here? Are you mad? That's okay, I get mad, too." then he said he would come (he really had no choice: as we all know, if a judge wants to give you a lesson, you're gonna get a lesson even if you are a rather large, middle-aged CHP officer with an irksome quality that every syllable that falls from your mouth makes sense, even when all evidence suggests the contrary. ;))
as I left, walking on air, I turned to look back at the bench where the officer was receiving a cogent lesson in how to read a map and translate that into reasonable and reliable testimony.
thank you for all of your help, that guy. your comments and questions helped me to prepare the stronger defense regarding his vantage point in relation to the sign. and even though I never had to testify, I felt fully prepared if I had to, largely because of your help. thank you!
:)