CA sec 21775, 21774 roadway, traffic lanes

[CareyMcD]

I was cited in California for violation of section 21755, unsafe passing on the right (two counts).

The facts of the matter is that I was driving a motorcycle and the vehicle in front of me slowed to make a left turn, and I passed on the right utilizing the marked bike lane. There was no bicycle traffic or other traffic (other than the cop behind me). This was a curbed 'two lane' street.
According to section 21754, I'm allowed to use an 'adjacent traffic lane' to pass on the right. I was not cited for using a bicycle lane. A bicycle IS a vehicle, thus a bike lane is a vehicle lane IMHO, and the road way would be defined by the curb. Do I have a chance in arguing that I did not violate 21755? (twice). The road was a down hill slope, and I'm use to going down the area on my bike (using the entire road. It was a careless mistake as far as using the bike lane with my motorcycle, but THAT is not what I was cited for.
(Thank you in advance for any advice you might have)

[Jim_bo]

First, I don't know what 21775 and 21774 are.

Section 21755 that you were cited for states:

21755. The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass another
vehicle upon the right only under conditions permitting such movement
in safety. In no event shall such movement be made by driving off
the paved or main-traveled portion of the roadway.

I think you make an interesting argument, however, the bolded section above will likely be the part that screws you. I'd make the argument that you present, but I wouldn't expect a high probability of positive results.

[LSCAP]

JIM-Bo, Why not?

He passed safely. Didn’t disturb other traffic or pedestrians. No one had to take evasive action to avoid an accident.
What did he do wrong?

[Zigner]

California Streets & Highway Code:

890.4. As used in this article, "bikeway" means all facilities that
provide primarily for bicycle travel. For purposes of this article,
bikeways shall be categorized as follows:
(a) Class I bikeways, such as a "bike path," which provide a
completely separated right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of
bicycles and pedestrians with crossflows by motorists minimized.
(b) Class II bikeways, such as a "bike lane," which provide a
restricted right-of-way designated for the exclusive or semiexclusive
use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians
prohibited, but with vehicle parking and crossflows by pedestrians
and motorists permitted.


Driving a motor vehicle in a bike lane is prohibited, except to cross (ie: for turns, etc)

[Jim_bo]

LSCAP,

I understand your point... and I even agree with it. I would likely go to court and make that same argument if I were the OP as I believe that it is correct and that the OP is in fact not guilty of what he was charged with. However, I have also been to traffic court enough times to know that traffic court judges are terribly biased towards convicting defendants. Most seem truly frustrated that you are even wasting their time by pleading not guilty in the first place. With that in mind, I can imagine that a court would say moving into the bike lane was unsafe.

So, with that in mind, I'd certainly question the cop extensively (for the record) concerning how "safe" the lane change was. Once I got him to admit that no one was put at jeopardy, then I'd let the judge give his decision. If he decided guilty, I'd appeal and have the appellate court decide if his interpretation of "safe" is the same as theirs.



Zigner,

You make a valid point. I even agree with your point. However, the OP wasn't charged with riding in a bike lane. If he were, then your post would be right on the money. He was charged with being unsafe (essentially). He may have been guilty of an apple, but he was charged with an orange.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by Jim_bo

Zigner,

You make a valid point. I even agree with your point. However, the OP wasn't charged with riding in a bike lane. If he were, then your post would be right on the money. He was charged with being unsafe (essentially). He may have been guilty of an apple, but he was charged with an orange.

The actual wording of what our OP was charged with:

21755. The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass another
vehicle upon the right only under conditions permitting such movement
in safety. In no event shall such movement be made by driving off
the paved or main-traveled portion of the roadway.



I believe he was cited because the "main-traveled" portion of the roadway does not include a portion where traveling is prohibited.

[racer72]

Originally Posted by LSCAP

JIM-Bo, Why not?

He passed safely. Didn’t disturb other traffic or pedestrians. No one had to take evasive action to avoid an accident.
What did he do wrong?

So this means I can drive on sidewalks and other areas, as long as no has to take evasive actions to avoid my vehicle?

[Jim_bo]

Originally Posted by Zigner

The actual wording of what our OP was charged with:

21755. The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass another
vehicle upon the right only under conditions permitting such movement
in safety. In no event shall such movement be made by driving off
the paved or main-traveled portion of the roadway.



I believe he was cited because the "main-traveled" portion of the roadway does not include a portion where traveling is prohibited.

It would depend on what the bike lane looked like where he crossed into it. We'll have to get the OPs input on that. In CA, bike lanes are seperated from the road with a solid white line (typically), however, as you approach an intersection, the line becomes dashed. At that point, a motor vehicle is allowed to cross into the bike lane so as to make a right turn. That would make it a "main traveled portion of the roadway". Since he was going around someone turning left, he may be talking about an intersection which would have a dashed line as described above.

[Jim_bo]

Originally Posted by racer72

So this means I can drive on sidewalks and other areas, as long as no has to take evasive actions to avoid my vehicle?

No... it doesn't mean that at all. If you do so, you may be charged with a whole host of violations. The point above was not that the OPs actions were legal or illegal... just that they may have not violated the specific section of the VC that he was charged with.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by Jim_bo

It would depend on what the bike lane looked like where he crossed into it. We'll have to get the OPs input on that. In CA, bike lanes are seperated from the road with a solid white line (typically), however, as you approach an intersection, the line becomes dashed. At that point, a motor vehicle is allowed to cross into the bike lane so as to make a right turn. That would make it a "main traveled portion of the roadway". Since he was going around someone turning left, he may be talking about an intersection which would have a dashed line as described above.

NO - the dashed area is where vehicles are allowed to CROSS THROUGH the bike lane (the crossflows referred to in the Highway code)

A motor vehicle is NOT allowed to use the bike lane as a lane of travel (as our OP did).

[Jim_bo]

Originally Posted by Zigner

NO - the dashed area is where vehicles are allowed to CROSS THROUGH the bike lane (the crossflows referred to in the Highway code)

A motor vehicle is NOT allowed to use the bike lane as a lane of travel (as our OP did).

No one has disagreed with you... why do you keep saying the same thing over and over? I agree that you can't use the bike lane as a lane of travel as per VC890.4 which you cited above. However, that's not what he was charged with. Certainly the cop could have done a better job of selecting a section of the VC in which to charge the OP which would have made things much clearer. The OPs case is grey at best.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by Jim_bo

No one has disagreed with you... why do you keep saying the same thing over and over? I agree that you can't use the bike lane as a lane of travel as per VC890.4 which you cited above. However, that's not what he was charged with. Certainly the cop could have done a better job of selecting a section of the VC in which to charge the OP which would have made things much clearer. The OPs case is grey at best.

Jim - you were doing so well...

If one is not allowed to use a portion of the roadway, then said portion of the roadway is not considered a "main-traveled" part of the roadway. It's not a gray area at all...

[Jim_bo]

Originally Posted by Zigner

Jim - you were doing so well...

If one is not allowed to use a portion of the roadway, then said portion of the roadway is not considered a "main-traveled" part of the roadway. It's not a gray area at all...

Do you have a hard time with disagreeing with me? Why can't you just leave it at that. The whole intent of this website is to offer assistance to an OP for a possible defense. From what I see, this makes a reasonable defense. It doesn't make a perfect defense... I never said it did. However, providing only perfect defenses (or worse, no defense) doesn't meet the intent of the site nor does it help the OP.

If the OP tries a defense (whichever one he chooses) and is unsuccessful, he will be convicted. If he simply gives up as you seem to advocate, he will be convicted. So, what is the problem with providing a reasonable defense? At least the advice I have given him provides him a chance. Your message is simply that he has no chance. So, how are you helping at all? Why not use some of your efforts to actually try to help at least ONE OP without simply saying that he is guilty.

One thing I know for sure... you fail at 100% of the attempts you don't make.