What you are supposed to do.
Simple; not cross the white line.
....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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
yes I went over the white line.
Whatever you do, stay away from saying that in court.
But isn't the white line only a restriction IF the sign is valid?
Where in the vehicle code does it say that?
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....
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!
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!