carpool lane violation

[grantners]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ca

My wife crossed out of a carpool lane because a police car ahead of her, in the lane to the right, put on his lights and started weaving in his lane, right ahead of her. She thought maybe there was an accident or incident up ahead so she moved to the right, outside the carpool lane. The officer than kept his lights on, fell in behind her and pulled her over for crossing. Was her crossing not legally justified because of the emergency vehicle?

 

[HighwayMan]

She should have slowed down but continued in her lane. The officer was not blocking her or impeding her since he was in a totally different lane. Why she thought she had to move over in this case is beyond me.

 

[grantners]

reply to highway man

Yeah, I agree. However, CA section 21608 does car for all vehicles surrounding an emergency vehicle with at least one light on to pull to the right if safe, so that's what she's going to use as her defense.

 

[asiny]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ca

My wife crossed out of a carpool lane because a police car ahead of her, in the lane to the right, put on his lights and started weaving in his lane, right ahead of her. She thought maybe there was an accident or incident up ahead so she moved to the right, outside the carpool lane. The officer than kept his lights on, fell in behind her and pulled her over for crossing. Was her crossing not legally justified because of the emergency vehicle?

Why would she move to the lane to her right - if that was where the cruiser was?
If the cruiser was in her lane - and behind her - she is meant to give-way and allow the cruiser to pass... but he was ahead of her. I could be wrong on this, but I perhaps HighwayMan (or someone more familiar with CA) could jump in.
I have seen this in NJ where a state trooper on the Turnpike is ahead of traffic, hits the lights and begins weaving in order to control the traffic flow behind. It COULD be because of an accident far ahead or some other reason. But the traffic behind don't have to give-way and head to the right-lane. It makes no sense.

What was the citation number she was cited with?

 

[HighwayMan]

Yeah, I agree. However, CA section 21608 does car for all vehicles surrounding an emergency vehicle with at least one light on to pull to the right if safe, so that's what she's going to use as her defense.

One could argue that taking illegal action with your vehicle, like crossing pavement markings that prohibit that movement and disobeying posted signs, is inherently unsafe.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ca

My wife crossed out of a carpool lane because a police car ahead of her, in the lane to the right, put on his lights and started weaving in his lane, right ahead of her. She thought maybe there was an accident or incident up ahead so she moved to the right, outside the carpool lane. The officer than kept his lights on, fell in behind her and pulled her over for crossing. Was her crossing not legally justified because of the emergency vehicle?

The officer was running a traffic break... meaning, trying to get traffic to slow down to a stop for some reason (either an accident or some sort of road debris up the road). There was absolutely no reason for her to exit the HOV lane and add to the traffic congestion that was about to result due to all vehicle in those lanes trying to slow down!

Yeah, I agree. However, CA section 21608 does car for all vehicles surrounding an emergency vehicle with at least one light on to pull to the right if safe, so that's what she's going to use as her defense.

If you meant to type 21806, then the requirement for her to exit the HOV lanes is based upon an emergency vehicle approaching her from behind, not one that is ahead of her that is trying to slow her down!

 

[startedone]

Yeah, I agree. However, CA section 21608 does car for all vehicles surrounding an emergency vehicle with at least one light on to pull to the right if safe, so that's what she's going to use as her defense.

I think it is an excellent defense in this case. Cop was a pinhead IMO. Probably saw a donut on the pavement and was trying to save it. If it is safe to move over, the driver must do so ... the driver did & now the state wants to have her pay?

I would be asking the cop some questions about his "emergency" that was less of an emergency than someone driving in a HOV lane for 200 feet...

 

[asiny]

I think it is an excellent defense in this case. Cop was a pinhead IMO. Probably saw a donut on the pavement and was trying to save it. If it is safe to move over, the driver must do so ... the driver did & now the state wants to have her pay?

I would be asking the cop some questions about his "emergency" that was less of an emergency than someone driving in a HOV lane for 200 feet...

Did you even read this or even the section?

If you meant to type 21806, then the requirement for her to exit the HOV lanes is based upon an emergency vehicle approaching her from behind, not one that is ahead of her that is trying to slow her down!

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21806.htm