Carpool Onramp Citation

[fabianmg77]

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: California
I was making a left onto an onramp entering E 101 from Balboa Blvd. I received a citation code: 21655.5(b)for being on the carpool lane entrance with only me being in the car.

In my defense I was making a left turn and entering the closest lane to me in which was the carpool lane but at the same time a driver was making a right onto the the on ramp as well (in which was not safe for me to slow down in which I could have caused an accident) and enter the lane and was not able to get into the regular lane which is stopped by a red light at every car.

I did not rebuttal to the CHP officer at all and agreed to everything he said since either way I would be given a citation for being in a carpool lane.

I hope I don't confuse you guys, but i want point of views if my defense would even make a dent in me trying to get my citation dismissed.

Also would a written defense be worth being written?

[That Guy]

In my defense I was making a left turn and entering the closest lane to me in which was the carpool lane but at the same time a driver was making a right onto the the on ramp as well (in which was not safe for me to slow down in which I could have caused an accident) and enter the lane and was not able to get into the regular lane which is stopped by a red light at every car.

So you deserved another citation for failing to yield to oncoming traffic, in addition to your 21655.5 citation.

Your actions do not mitigate you illegal presence in the car pool lane!

[Speedy Gonzalez]

I think you have a valid case if you immediately turned your right blinker on with the intention of moving right... and LEFT IT ON the entire length of the left lane once you realized that it was HOV only. There is no warning that the left lane is HOV only prior to making the turn. There are no signs of any kind to warn you that you might screw up until you begin make your turn. Normally you have choice of lanes on that turn if there are no cars turning right (right hand turn has the right of way, but only in the right-most lane). However, since the right-hand onramp lane was completely full of cars and stopped per your description -- and you could not block the intersection or the left turn lane -- you were FORCED to turn into the left lane. And to boot, your attention was focused on the traffic turning right, because if one of them suddenly shot out in front of you, then you would need to take evasive action. If you had sat at the light, you would have illegally blocked any HOV traffic. If you had turned into left lane then stopped and waited to get over, you would have illegally blocked HOV traffic.

This onramp seems to be a serious catch 22, and likely a BIG money maker for all agencies; LASD, CHP, LAPD...

The possible outcomes are all pretty much no-win in this situation. He was the poor bastage that got caught at the money maker. I am sure the officer was there to pick him off on purpose because he KNOWS single-occupancy drivers will do one of five actions.

1. Sit there when the light changes and block the turn lane resulting in a cite for impeding.
2. Begin to make the turn when the signal changes, observe the HOV sign up the ramp, say "Ah, CRAP!" then sit there as the light changes, resulting in a cite for blocking the intersection.
3. Make the left when the signal changes, turn into the left lane -- because you are forced to do so -- and drive up the ramp, resulting in a cite for an HOV lane violation.
4. Make the left when the signal changes, turn into the left lane -- because you are forced to do so -- then turn on their right-hand blinker and stop then wait to move right, resulting in a cite for impeding.
5. Make the left when the signal changes, turn into the left lane -- because you are forced to do so -- then turn on their right-hand blinker drive the ramp anyway, resulting in a cite for an HOV lane violation.


I wonder if there could be a valid MUTCD signage defense here? What say you, That Guy?

[That Guy]

In all honesty I can say that I have never seen anyone prevail by using an MUTCD argument. While the MUTCD does purport to be the standard for traffic control devices, signage, markings... etc, and while many people misinterpret its placement on the hierarchy scale, it often ensures that it fulfills the statutory requirement for signs and signals and often times it may enhance on those requirements. But for all intents and purposes the statutory requirement is what will hold up in court. In fact, the MUTCD has some statements that make this basic principle quite clear:

This Manual describes the application of traffic control devices, but shall not be a legal requirement for their installation.

So going back to the code section itself, which you can read it in its entirety HERE, the signage/marking requirement (underlined) comes under subsection (b), and the prohibition (bolded) is also under subsection (b):

21655.5.

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

And as you can see, it requires "signs and other traffic control devices" and from the Google Maps link for the on-ramp, it appears that there are at minimum 3 signs and several pavement markings and so the "notice" requirement is satisfied.

It appears that the OP was trying too hard to come up with some legit argument... Either that or I am confused about something. In one sentence he says he didn't want to slow down for fear he might cause an accident, all while he is trying to convince us that there was a traffic back up and he couldn't use the non-HOV lane because it was backed up, but that he also turned simultaneously with a driver who was turning right on the on-ramp... None of it is going to help justify his actions, in my opinion. I really don't see this being any different from the other two or three HOV lane citations we've recently discussed. Driver tries to circumvent a traffic back up, gets caught and is now back pedaling.

Either way, it does not appear to be as bad as he wants to make it out and it certainly isn't likely to be as nightmare-ish as your scenario, In fact, here is a link showing that the meter is on, and yet if I traverse backwards from the meter, as I did in this link, you'll see that the back up isn't that there (both lanes are completely empty), it is not that bad at all. I cannot claim that this presents the same conditions at the time he used the on-ramp, (of course this is only one moment it time when these images were taken) but if the meter is on, that is likely as bad as it will get on a normal day.

My other guess is if the non HOV lane was really backed up as the OP describes, he would have at least mentioned it to the citing officer. In this case, he simply "did not rebuttal to the CHP officer at all and agreed to everything he said since either way [he] would be given a citation for being in a carpool lane".

With that being said, and although it appears that you did a bit of research on this one, and while I hate to disappoint you or make it seem like your work was in vain but you'll have to note that a driver turning left from the OPs direction onto the on-ramp is facing a left turn arrow. And when it shows green in his direction, opposing traffic has a red signal. And so while my initial assessment was that he also violated the right of way, I was clearly way off in that simply because he would have the right of way when he is able to get across the intersection and if as he claims, there was another car turning in the right lane, presumably he would have told the officer about this as well, and/or the officer would have seen that alleged violation and either cited it as well or cited it instead since it would have affected the OPs movement and forced him into the HOV lane!

[Speedy Gonzalez]

If you go South a click past the intersection and turn around to look North, you will see on the adjacent right-hand corner past the intersection that there is a No Right Turn On Red from 7am to 9am Except Saturday and Sunday sign close to the overpass. If this happened between Monday and Friday between 7 AM and 9 AM, then the driver turning right broke the law by turning the corner on a red light, and then failed to yield the right of way. This would play into the plausibility of being forced into the left lane. I am guessing he, like many people, possibly clammed up/froze up under pressure and failed to mention the full details -- not that it would have really done him any good.

Too bad this isn't Washintgon. He might stand a chance. I am forced to concede that he will likely lose. I've lost before in California when I proved the officer was outright lying about having paced me at all. The judge paused for about 5 seconds and looked at me like, "Hmm... this guy is telling the truth..." then said, "GUILTY!"