Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    4

    Cool Lane Split / Share Law Violation

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

    I have been riding a motorcycle for 10+ years in US and in Europe. CA is now open to the splitting lanes but i cant actually find any law/ codes on it. I have seen and spoke to CA moto officers about passing cars in lane 2 of a 2 lane street with parked cars/lane and told it is absolutely legal. I did this and got a ticket the other day. Cop says you may not pass on the right side of vehicles...hmm ok, I know better than to try to get into it and tell him how just the other day officer so and so did it and actually told me its legal. I see a great deal of info online and peoples "opinions", but no real laws citing what a motorcycle can and cant do. It was dead stop traffic 10 cars deep and i passed the two lanes straddling the parking lane (so i always presumed was splitting as well) at 5 mph up to the light and in front, waiting for light to change the continued safely. Any help or insight from this community would be awesome, thanks.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Lane Split / Share Law Violation

    What section were you cited for?

    I believe that lane sharing is legal because it isn't outlawed, not because there's a specific statute authorizing it. However, just because lane sharing is legal doesn't mean that the other traffic laws don't apply when sharing a lane. As such, if you are in a section where you can't pass on the right, the fact that you're passing on the right is still illegal even if lane sharing is legal.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    4

    Default Re: Lane Split / Share Law Violation

    violation 21754 (a) passing ont he right. I cant really figure out with the (a) means but thats how its written on my ticket. thanks in advance

  4. #4

    Default Re: Lane Split / Share Law Violation

    So the question is, do any of the following exemptions apply?

    21754. The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass to the right
    of another vehicle only under the following conditions:
    (a) When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left
    turn.
    (b) Upon a highway within a business or residence district with
    unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of
    moving vehicles in the direction of travel.
    (c) Upon any highway outside of a business or residence district
    with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width and clearly marked for
    two or more lines of moving traffic in the direction of travel.
    (d) Upon a one-way street.
    (e) Upon a highway divided into two roadways where traffic is
    restricted to one direction upon each of such roadways.
    The provisions of this section shall not relieve the driver of a
    slow moving vehicle from the duty to drive as closely as practicable
    to the right hand edge of the roadway.

    If any of those apply, then you're not guilty.


    Alternatively, is it possible that you were cited for 21755?


    21755. (a) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass another
    vehicle upon the right only under conditions permitting that movement
    in safety. In no event shall that movement be made by driving off
    the paved or main-traveled portion of the roadway.
    (b) This section does not prohibit the use of a bicycle in a
    bicycle lane or on a shoulder.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    4

    Default Re: Lane Split / Share Law Violation

    section B and E seem to have bearing on my location. I was going northbound on Highland ave at 6th street 90020. The road is 2 lanes going each direction with a divider and residential with ample space and min 2 lanes (3rd is parking). I am not sure how to go about this other than read this in court and see what happens.
    map: http://maps.google.com/maps?client=s...ed=0CD8Q_AUoAg

    no my citation is definitely 21754 (a) maybe there is a us after the (a) but i cant tell.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Lane Split / Share Law Violation

    E doesn't apply (the road isn't divided into two roadways), however B and C does apply (I'm not sure how to determine if a section is a residential or business district or not). Assuming what get's put in is 21754 (i.e. it doesn't get amended), I can't see how you can be convicted of that charge at that location.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    LA LA Land
    Posts
    9,170

    Default Re: Lane Split / Share Law Violation

    Quote Quoting eraine
    View Post
    ... passing cars in lane 2 of a 2 lane street with parked cars/lane....
    Quote Quoting eraine
    View Post
    It was dead stop traffic 10 cars deep and i passed the two lanes straddling the parking lane (so i always presumed was splitting as well) at 5 mph up to the light and in front, waiting for light to change the continued safely.
    A 'lane", and while there is not actual definition that I can find, is clearly known that area of the roadway that is designed, marked and used for vehicular travel. A good example on that would be a "2 lane undivided highway" as described in VC 22349(b). You might note that in that code section, and while it covers the possibility that there exists a 'turning lane, it fails to address or even mention anything remotely similar to a parking lane...

    And while the term "parking lane" may be often used in our descriptions, while it is clearly marked in this situation, it does not describe a "lane used for vehicles to travel", instead, that white solid line marks the edge of the roadway that is used for vehicular travel.

    So for all intents and purposes, you didn't pass "traffic" on your right side, you passed parked vehicles. That is not, by any means, illegal nor is it prohibited. What is prohibited and what you were cited for is passing traffic on the right.

    Quote Quoting California student
    View Post
    So the question is, do any of the following exemptions apply?

    21754. The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle only under the following conditions:
    (a) When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn.
    (b) Upon a highway within a business or residence district with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles in the direction of travel.
    (c) Upon any highway outside of a business or residence district with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width and clearly marked for two or more lines of moving traffic in the direction of travel.
    (d) Upon a one-way street.
    (e) Upon a highway divided into two roadways where traffic is restricted to one direction upon each of such roadways.
    The provisions of this section shall not relieve the driver of a slow moving vehicle from the duty to drive as closely as practicable to the right hand edge of the roadway.
    If any of those apply, then you're not guilty.


    Quote Quoting California student
    View Post
    Alternatively, is it possible that you were cited for 21755?
    Unless its amended, there really is no benefit in going there.

    Quote Quoting eraine
    View Post
    section B and E seem to have bearing on my location. I was going northbound on Highland ave at 6th street 90020. The road is 2 lanes going each direction with a divider and residential with ample space and min 2 lanes (3rd is parking). I am not sure how to go about this other than read this in court and see what happens.
    map: http://maps.google.com/maps?client=s...ed=0CD8Q_AUoAg
    Some subsections in 21754 apply to one lane roadways and the subsection itself will provide some sort of indication accordingly.... Subsection (b) does not apply here simply because not only does it have sufficient width for 2 lanes of travel, it is delineated as such for two lanes. Subsection (e) does not apply simply because it would then be a violation to pass on the right every time we passed anyone one a multilane roadway/highway... Think "freeway".

    In this case, you are guilty of 21754(a). If you continue to think that lane sharing/splitting is safe, and you'd like to continue to do so, the lane split/share in between two lanes of travel. In this case, you should have lane split between the #1 and #2 lane. It doesn't make it completely legal but it does eliminate the minute chance of any of those parked vehicles suddenly having a passenger or a driver open up a door on you in your path and even a 5mph, you could end up getting pushed over and into a car or in front of one in the #2 lane.

    The parking lane is not a travel lane as I explained above.

    Quote Quoting eraine
    View Post
    no my citation is definitely 21754 (a) maybe there is a us after the (a) but i cant tell.
    That might be a "VC" referring to "Vehicle Code"

    Quote Quoting California student
    View Post
    E doesn't apply (the road isn't divided into two roadways), however B and C does apply (I'm not sure how to determine if a section is a residential or business district or not). Assuming what get's put in is 21754 (i.e. it doesn't get amended), I can't see how you can be convicted of that charge at that location.
    Subsection (a) easily applies.

    Of course you could come back and say, well, if I had split lanes 1 & 2 I would not have been cited. The answer is, that is illegal as well but just because you think you would not have been cited for doing that or because officer so and so did it and was not cited does not mean it is not illegal.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Quoting California student
    View Post
    E doesn't apply (the road isn't divided into two roadways),
    You're correct in that it doesn't split it into two roadways, but it clearly only refers to a one lane roadway in each direction.

    Quote Quoting California student
    View Post
    however B and C does apply (I'm not sure how to determine if a section is a residential or business district or not).
    B might apply because this area is strictly residential (I don't even need to count)... However, it too refers to a one lane roadway with enough width to split it into two lanes... This is already a two lane roadway. So B does not apply.

    C does not apply because, again, this is WITHIN a residential district, whereas C refers to roadways OUTSIDE of residential/business districts.

    Quote Quoting California student
    View Post
    (I'm not sure how to determine if a section is a residential or business district or not)
    How about VC 240

    Quote Quoting California student
    View Post
    Assuming what get's put in is 21754 (i.e. it doesn't get amended), I can't see how you can be convicted of that charge at that location.
    You're simply basing that on the premise that lane splitting/sharing is "legal" simply because it is rarely cited. Fact of the matter is, driving 68 in 65 is rarely cited but it is not legal, and we have in fact seen it get cited just recently. An amendment is not needed simply because subsection (a) clearly applies.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Lane Split / Share Law Violation

    Quote Quoting That Guy
    View Post
    In this case, you are guilty of 21754(a). If you continue to think that lane sharing/splitting is safe, and you'd like to continue to do so, the lane split/share in between two lanes of travel. In this case, you should have lane split between the #1 and #2 lane. It doesn't make it completely legal but it does eliminate the minute chance of any of those parked vehicles suddenly having a passenger or a driver open up a door on you in your path and even a 5mph, you could end up getting pushed over and into a car or in front of one in the #2 lane.
    Unless I'm missing something, isn't 21754 constructed as "You can't pass on the right unless one of the following is present, (a)... (b)... etc"? As such, I'm trying to figure out how one can violate 21754(a) since (a) is basically saying, "You can pass on the right a vehicle making a left hand turn."

    You're simply basing that on the premise that lane splitting/sharing is "legal" simply because it is rarely cited. Fact of the matter is, driving 68 in 65 is rarely cited but it is not legal, and we have in fact seen it get cited just recently. An amendment is not needed simply because subsection (a) clearly applies.
    Actually, I'm basing it on the fact that the CHP has come out and said that the act itself is not illegal, but it is possible to be cited for performing other illegal acts while lane splitting.

    "There is not a Vehicle Code that specifically allows lane splitting, also called lane sharing, but California police agencies consider the practice legal if done properly – when traffic is bogged down, not traveling at higher speeds, and when doing so safely, said Denise Quesada, an officer and spokeswoman for the California Highway Patrol.

    She looked at those Vehicle Code sections you cited. They refer to various violations.

    "Anytime a motorcyclist violates any of (them), they will be cited (splitting lanes or not),'' Quesada said. "But if he or she is (otherwise) passing safely, the (motorcyclist is) within the law,'' Quesada said."

    - http://www.ocregister.com/articles/l...honk-bike.html

    Also from the CHP FAQ page.
    "Can motorcycle riders "split" lanes and ride between other vehicles?
    Lane splitting by motorcycles is permissible but must be done in a safe and prudent manner."

    - http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    LA LA Land
    Posts
    9,170

    Default Re: Lane Split / Share Law Violation

    Quote Quoting California student
    View Post
    Unless I'm missing something, isn't 21754 constructed as "You can't pass on the right unless one of the following is present, (a)... (b)... etc"?
    Well, not using those same exact words in that particular order, but it has the same meaning:

    21754. The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle only under the following conditions:

    It says: You can pass only under the following conditions;

    Which also means: Passing only allowed under these conditions;

    You can't pass unless one of these conditions is present

    So actually, it IS constructed as "you can't pass on the right unless one of the following is present".
    It IS saying : "You can only pass under these circumstances"...
    It is saying "you can pass if and only if"...
    However you want to describe it.

    And in this case, it is saying you cannot pass between the right lane and the right edge of the roadway " or what the OP is attempting to describe as the "parking lane", simply to justify his attempt to split lanes (plural)- unless the vehicle in the #2 lane is making a left. Because:

    1) the vehicle in the #2 lane could not be have been turning left...
    2) the OP is NOT by any means or description "splitting lanes, simply because he isn't between two lanes that he can split -unless you buy into his analogy that the parking lane should count as a separate lane, which it is not...
    3) The only defense that you're presenting here is: "Lane splitting isn't usually cited for so why did I get cited?" or "If I was doing the same thing between two lanes I? would not be cited" or "if I was doing this in the carpool lane I would not be cited"... But we all know that "all of them doing it is not a valid defense" or "I always do it but I never get cited for it".

    Let's play a hypothetical... Traffic is backed up as described here Passenger cars up front at a traffic light... In an attempt to get past traffic, a motorcycles rider attempted to split lanes. Two vehicles are now trying to occupy the same space and from a physics stand point, it is impossible. Whether it is because the car driver didn't see him, didn't like him or did't care, they end up getting tangled, the M/C is on the pavement, the car is all scratched up... From a legal standpoint, who is at fault?

    So, yes, I will agree that there is nothing prohibiting "lane splitting", per se... However, there is nothing allowing it! Certainly none of the "excuses in # 3 above.

    Quote Quoting California student
    View Post
    As such, I'm trying to figure out how one can violate 21754(a) since (a) is basically saying, "You can pass on the right a vehicle making a left hand turn."
    Imagine a one lane set up... Under what conditions can you pass on the right?

    Only if the driver in the vehicle ahead of you is turning left.

    Yes, I realize this is two lanes, but the OP should not have attempted to split lanes to the right of the #2 lane. The norm, the way I do it (100% of the time), the way I have always (99% of the time) seen it done, is to split #1 & #2, or #2 & #3 if its a 3 lane road... and so on on and so forth. But just like you won't (or should NOT) try and split to the extreme left of traffic (i.e. between the left most lane/#1 lane and the left edge of the roadway, you should NEVER try to split to the rightmost lane (the #2 lane in this case) and the right edge of the roadway. *

    Why is that? I guess the only analogy I can come up with is if for some reason a driver decided to crowd you (as in squeeze you out of his lane), you always have the option to try and encroach on the other side, the other driver's lane. Where as if you're doing so on the right edge of the roadway, or the left edge of the roadway, if anyone tried to squeeze you out, you'd either end up head first into parked vehicles, or you'd end up over the median or facing opposite traffic.

    So while lane splitting between 2 lanes is not 100% legal nor is it 100 % safe, it is the lesser of all evils compared to lane splitting on the extreme edge of the roadway. So while you might not get cited for doing so between 2 lanes, does not mean you won't get cited when doing so on the extreme edge of the roadway.



    From reading the description in the OP, it is clear that both lanes headed N/B on Highland before/at/or after crossing 6th St in Los Angeles, BOTH lanes are occupied with traffic. OP chose to drive in the small space between the #2 lane and the edge of the roadway (or what he describes as the "parking lane"), rather than to drive in the small space in between both #1 & #2 lanes (where your typical "lane split happens)... In both cases, the officer could have cited him but chances are, he would have looked the other way if it happened between both lanes. The fact that it happened on the right edge of the roadway, he decided to cite this time.

    OP goes to court and his only defense is (copied and pasted from the OP):

    "I have been riding a motorcycle for 10+ years in US and in Europe. CA is now open to the splitting lanes but i cant actually find any law/ codes on it. I have seen and spoke to CA moto officers about passing cars in lane 2 of a 2 lane street with parked cars/lane and told it is absolutely legal. I did this and got a ticket the other day. Cop says you may not pass on the right side of vehicles...hmm ok, I know better than to try to get into it and tell him how just the other day officer so and so did it and actually told me its legal. I see a great deal of info online and peoples "opinions", but no real laws citing what a motorcycle can and cant do. It was dead stop traffic 10 cars deep and i passed the two lanes straddling the parking lane (so i always presumed was splitting as well) at 5 mph up to the light and in front, waiting for light to change the continued safely."
    Really.. He has very little else to present.

    Quote Quoting California student
    View Post
    Actually, I'm basing it on the fact that the CHP has come out and said that the act itself is not illegal, but it is possible to be cited for performing other illegal acts while lane splitting.
    And since when is the CHP the authority on interpreting the law with regards to matters that are less than 100% clear?

    If this were an interpretation that worked against the OP, the argument would be "that's like the fox watching the hen-house", so why would we, or any fair and impartial court accept the CHP's interpretation as a legally binding and final determination of what is, and isn't legally applicable? When in fact, it it the court that must and always has played that role?

    We went through this when we discussed the CHP's (and the DMV's) interpretation of Cell phone laws...

    And if the CHP's authority or interpretation were to be binding, then why did most of these people have to go to appeal to have their matters properly decided?

    But even while I disagree that the CHP is an authority on interpretation, there are certain key words in what you've quoted from the CHP that further enforces what I am saying. In the first quote:

    Quote Quoting California student
    View Post
    "There is not a Vehicle Code that specifically allows lane splitting, also called lane sharing, but California police agencies consider the practice legal if done properly – when traffic is bogged down, not traveling at higher speeds, and when doing so safely, said Denise Quesada, an officer and spokeswoman for the California Highway Patrol.
    "If done properly"... are the key words there. You wouldn't lane split to the left of all lanes would you?

    And in the last one:

    Quote Quoting California student
    View Post
    "But if he or she is (otherwise) passing safely, the (motorcyclist is) within the law,'' Quesada said.
    "
    I'd have issue with "within the law" especially when in his opening quote, officer Quesadilla offered that "There is not a Vehicle Code that specifically allows lane splitting" So you see, even when we might choose to accept their interpretation, they are still offering contradicting facts to undermine the credibility of their answer.

    Quote Quoting California student
    View Post
    Also from the CHP FAQ page.
    "Can motorcycle riders "split" lanes and ride between other vehicles?
    Lane splitting by motorcycles is permissible but must be done in a safe and prudent manner."

    - http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html
    Key words there are: between other vehicles, meaning between the #1 & #2, or #2 & #3 if its a 3 lane road... etc. OP tried to split between the #2 lane and the edge of the roadway.

    * And lastly, in the slight chance that anyone is going to come back and argue "carpool lane" to somehow negate my theory up there, the argument could be made that in case of a carpool lane, subsection(e) would apply, otherwise, it is clear that under most circumstances, if someone tried to crowd you out of the carpool lane, you could simply swerve out over the double solid yellow, but under most circumstances, carpool lanes have sufficient distance between the double solid yellow and the single solid while line to its left to accommodate a motorcycle without encroaching on the vehicle in the actual carpool lane. (And no, contrary to what most people think, the placement of the white solid line to the left of the double solid yellow does not represent a separate lane for motorcycles. The while line is painted there simply to allow vehicles (any vehicle) from traveling to the left of any double solid yellow lines which is otherwise prohibited by law (VC 21460) In other words, and with the while solid line in place there, you are no longer driving to the left of a double solid yellow lines, you are now driving to the left of a white solid line which represents the right edge of your roadway (thereby giving even more reason to justify why subsection 21754 (e) would be applicable here)).

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    832

    Default Re: Lane Split / Share Law Violation

    $10 says the white line was crossed at some point in the "sharing" of the lane, which is not lane splitting or sharing.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Business Disputes: Former Business Associate Refuses to Pay Share of Split Advertising
    By ThinkerThinks in forum Business Law
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-15-2012, 08:55 PM
  2. Violation & Enforcement: Should I Share Truth at Court About Violation
    By aruiz219 in forum Orders of Protection
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-29-2011, 06:15 PM
  3. Traffic Lane Violations: Lane Violation Due to Fog
    By Alex Felix in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-17-2009, 06:51 PM
  4. Traffic Lane Violations: Lane Violation Ticket
    By mul781 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-15-2009, 07:51 AM
  5. Traffic Lane Violations: Carpool Lane Violation
    By mattmcg in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-04-2006, 06:04 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources