Illegal Lane Change in California

[mdhvw]

California Section VC21461A

Merging onto 101 North in San Rafael at Industrial there is no signage until it is too late to be trapped in an exit only lane.

Can the lack of signs be a defense to the ticket?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

[I_Got_Banned]

It depends.... You can check the California MUTCD for guidance on where and how signage is supposed to be posted. But also keep in mind that in addition to signs, the pavement & lane markers may at times be considered sufficient.

Here's a link: [url=http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/state_info/index.htm]Information by State - FHWA MUTCD[/url]

[mdhvw]

Thanks for the link!

They are in violation of CAMUTCD, but more specifically here is a Google maps view of the on ramp where I entered 101N at Industrial Way in Santa Rosa.

[url=http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=37.938823,-122.51579&spn=0.00063,0.00284&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=37.938822,-122.515789&panoid=Rmoir0OlANYFxWrmMLC3CA&cbp=11,308.07,,0,1.31]Google Maps[/url]

The signs before you get on the freeway all say you are getting on 101, but as soon as you enter the freeway you are heading straight towards the Richmond bridge.

Because of the bend in the on ramp there is less than 100' where the sign that says you have to exit is visible.

I wasn't familiar with the area and certainly didn't want to go across the Richmond bridge so I merged over.

[I_Got_Banned]

OK... Let me first start by posting CVC 21461(a)...

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.

Now. and after glancing at the link that you posted, and although I initially thought that you were cited in violation of a posted "Right Lane Must Exit" sign (usually posted on the right shoulder of the freeway), I am now assuming that you were cited in violation of an overhead sign that says "Exit only lane" or a combination of the "Exit Only lane" sign & crossing over the white solid line...

Reason for that being is that I do not see the dashed lines separating the on ramp lane from the rest of the freeway. What I see is a solid white line.

So did you get on the freeway from the on ramp shown on that map, merge over to the #5 lane (right most lane) to the #4 lane... Over the white solid line and went on your way on the 101, correct?

If so, and again, assuming that you crossed over the white solid line (and asuming that the officer will testify that he witnessed you do that, then you've got a pretty weak case.

Just my opinion... Even though I see that it IS a messy interchange that's for sure.

[mdhvw]

What you are supposed to do, and there is absolutely no sign to this effect until much later . . . I went back and looked, is proceed on the connector (labelled as going across a bridge) for about 1/2 mile, catch the last exit before the bridge, exit then re-enter the freeway.

That is one of my defenses, that no reasonable person without prior knowledge could ever be expected to navigate this intersection. Oh yeah, the CHP headquarters is on this exit as well so they can just slide on over there for a guaranteed ticket to start their shift. Ticket trap, if not a speed trap.

The officer said I was being ticketed for the right lane must exit sign, yes I went over the white line. But isn't the white line only a restriction IF the sign is valid?

According to the California MUTCD their signs are all wrong, the right lane must exit should be at the beginning of the white line and it is not. It shouldn't be hanging adjacent from the exit only sign, there shouldn't be two of them and so on.

CA MUTCD also admonishes against too many signs to prevent confusion, precisely what happens here.

I did the calculation and in a slow Subaru I had about 1.2 seconds to read large collection of signs that directly conflicted what is posted at the entrance of the freeway while merging onto a busy freeway.

[I_Got_Banned]

Originally Posted by mdhvw

What you are supposed to do.

Simple; not cross the white line.

Originally Posted by mdhvw

....and there is absolutely no sign to this effect until much later . . .

Precisely why in my first post, I stated "in addition to signs, the pavement & lane markers may at times be considered sufficient"

Originally Posted by mdhvw

I went back and looked, is proceed on the connector (labelled as going across a bridge) for about 1/2 mile, catch the last exit before the bridge, exit then re-enter the freeway.
.

So in other words, you were not really "trapped". You did in fact, have other options.

Originally Posted by mdhvw

That is one of my defenses, that no reasonable person without prior knowledge could ever be expected to navigate this intersection..

And yet, another "reasonable person" would assume that if they were to violate the lane marking which restricts an movement that they intend on making, that they can possibly get a citation for such a violation.

Originally Posted by mdhvw

Oh yeah, the CHP headquarters is on this exit as well so they can just slide on over there for a guaranteed ticket to start their shift..

And unless you can somehow prove that the CHP influenced the design of that interchange, or that they somehow had a hand in misleading drivers so that they can be guaranteed a ticket to start their shift, then I wouldn't make that argument in court.

Originally Posted by mdhvw

Ticket trap, if not a speed trap.

Well, again, if you can prove that it is a "ticket trap", then it would only be a "trap" for those who do in fact violate the lane restriction. As for it being a "speed trap", I would post the legal definition of that had this been a "speeding citation (but its not) and had this not been a "freeway" where a statutory speed limit applies. For future reference, you can refer to CVC section 40802 for that definition.

Originally Posted by mdhvw

The officer said I was being ticketed for the right lane must exit sign

He cited you for 21461(a). That is why you're defending against.

Originally Posted by mdhvw

yes I went over the white line.

Whatever you do, stay away from saying that in court.

Originally Posted by mdhvw

But isn't the white line only a restriction IF the sign is valid?

Where in the vehicle code does it say that?

Originally Posted by mdhvw

According to the California MUTCD their signs are all wrong, the right lane must exit should be at the beginning of the white line and it is not. It shouldn't be hanging adjacent from the exit only sign, there shouldn't be two of them and so on.

So, in this paragraph, you're arguing that they should have posted more signage... Hold that thought for a minute....

Originally Posted by mdhvw

CA MUTCD also admonishes against too many signs to prevent confusion, precisely what happens here..

And yet now, you're arguing that they posted too many signs!

Originally Posted by mdhvw

I did the calculation and in a slow Subaru I had about 1.2 seconds to read large collection of signs. that directly conflicted what is posted at the entrance of the freeway while merging onto a busy freeway.

Add 1 second to realize that a solid white line means "do not cross".. So we're up to 13 seconds.... a bunch of wasted since you chose to ignore everything that your read and much of what you saw in lieu of saving the alternative of staying within the law and not risking a citation.

In closing, you are free to present all or any of these arguments before the judge, if you so choose. He may agree with you, he may feel sympathetic, and yet again, he may find you guilty. I don't know....

Good luck... It would be great if you would let us know how it works out!

[mdhvw]

Doesn't CVC Section 21400 conform standards to CA MUTCD 3B.04?

Absent the signs it isn't advised. Double white lines are always wrong.

Even if I lose it's worth it, whoever designed it needs to hit civil planning school again.

Thanks for the feedback!

[I_Got_Banned]

Originally Posted by mdhvw

Doesn't CVC Section 21400 conform standards to CA MUTCD 3B.04?

And your point?

Originally Posted by mdhvw

Absent the signs it isn't advised.!

So are you back to arguing that the signs were insufficient?

Originally Posted by mdhvw

Double white lines are always wrong.

I'm sure CalTrans had some extra white paint... Better use it before it dries out... Right?
And what double white lines? All I could see here was a single white line!

Originally Posted by mdhvw

Even if I lose it's worth it

True....

Originally Posted by mdhvw

whoever designed it needs to hit civil planning school again.

That person might argue that who ever violates it, should hit driver's ed again!