Unsafe Lane Change

[jpsoutlook]

Hello everyone and thanks in advanced for your assistance. I live in Orange County CA and we recently cited for an unsafe lane change.

I was in the car pool lane approaching a wall of traffic in front of me on the freeway. My exit was coming up so I signaled and when the car pool lane opened up I exited the car pool lane into the fast lane. I then made my way over to each lane and just before I exited I was pulled over.

The officer claimed that the car behind me in the fast lane had to apply their breaks because I pulled in front of them. The reality was that he was driving faster than the approaching wall of traffice and had to apply his breaks to slow down.

Now I know that many drivers have different habits and some people apply breaks more than others for no apparent reason or it could have been something within the drivers car that distracted them causing them to apply their breaks. They could have been texting or distracted by a phone conversation and they suddenly breaks as their attention is back on the road.

My point is how can the officer prove I caused him to break and that he was not breaking because he was approaching the traffice. In other words he had to break becuase he was traveling faster than the cars in front of him.

What would be the best defense here?

 

[Zigner]

Ok, then he had to brake HARDER than he would have otherwise had to brake. How's that?

The "proof" is the officers unbiased testimony as to the facts of the situation. Your "proof" is the biased testimony of the guy who cut in front of another driver.

Now, another question: Did you cross the yellow lines to make your lane change?

(ETA: Ignore the last question - your post was not entirely clear, but upon a second reading, you DID state that you exited at the appropriate place)

 

[jpsoutlook]

Thank you, but I am not clear as to what I should do, I did exit correctly and I even waited in each subsequent lane before trying to exit. The guy that breaked was just driving fast and had to slow down for the traffice...he was a considerable distance away from me and there was pleanty of room to exit.

 

[Zigner]

Thank you, but I am not clear as to what I should do, I did exit correctly and I even waited in each subsequent lane before trying to exit. The guy that breaked was just driving fast and had to slow down for the traffice...he was a considerable distance away from me and there was pleanty of room to exit.

And THAT is where your misunderstanding is. Had you NOT moved over, he would NOT have had to brake quite so early or quite so hard.

You should be eligible for traffic school...

 

[I_Got_Banned]

I signaled and when the car pool lane opened up I exited the car pool lane into the fast lane.

Just because you "signaled" does not necessarily mean that your lane change was safe or appropriate at that time.

Is this what you were cited for?

California Vehicle Code section 22107.

No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement.​

​

​

So was your action reasonably safe? Obviously the officer didn't think so and he will probably testify to that.
Was another vehicle affected by your movement? Th officer already answered that when he told you that the other vehicle had to brake as a result of your movement.

The guy that breaked was just driving fast and had to slow down for the traffice...

Your argument that he was "driving too fast" and yet you still entered his lane might be considered, an indirect admission that you committed the 'unsafe lane violation'"... i.e. you should have waited until he passed before you cut him off.

 

[jpsoutlook]

I entered the lane safley, there was more than 3 car lenths between me and the car behind me...there was plenty of room. My wife was even surpised that I got pull over.

 

[Zigner]

I entered the lane safley, there was more than 3 car lenths between me and the car behind me...there was plenty of room. My wife was even surpised that I got pull over.

Incredible - you just don't get it.

3 car lengths is covered in no-time flat.

At 30 mph, a car travels about 44 feet per second. A "car length" is generally less than 15 feet, but for simplicity, let's call it 15 feet. So, you gave the guy about a second to react in order to avoid a collision. THAT sure sounds like an unsafe lane change to me!

 

[demurringdude]

Incredible - you just don't get it.

3 car lengths is covered in no-time flat.

At 30 mph, a car travels about 44 feet per second. A "car length" is generally less than 15 feet, but for simplicity, let's call it 15 feet. So, you gave the guy about a second to react in order to avoid a collision. THAT sure sounds like an unsafe lane change to me!

Not so incredible to me.

Your "calculation" wrongly assumes that the OP came to a complete and total stop 3 car lengths in front of the other car, and that the other car had to brake to a complete halt to avoid a collision.

The correct calculation would use the difference in speed between the two moving vehicles. So for example if the carpool lane was moving at 60 and the fast lane was doing 65, then the faster car would have about 6 seconds to avoid a collision, which he could do by merely slowing down a little.

 

[demurringdude]

And THAT is where your misunderstanding is. Had you NOT moved over, he would NOT have had to brake quite so early or quite so hard.

That's a ridiculous argument. If you could get a ticket for causing someone to brake earlier than they might have liked, then no-one would be able to merge onto an LA freeway. No-one would ever be able to get out of a car pool lane. No one would ever be able to change lane at all in LA. There's never a 100ft clear spot for you to saunter into. You have to signal and do it.

In any case, how do does the police officer know what is in the mind of the driver who brakes? He might be voluntarily braking to let the guy in.

In the situation the OP describes, it sounds like the other driver was driving dangerously. If you are in the fast lane going faster than the car-pool lane, and the car-pool lane exit comes up, and a guy in it is indicating he's coming out, and he's 40 feet in front of you, then only an idiot is going to try to shave past that guy and block him.

 

[JayScott]

Cop Wins!

Sounds like some measure of judgement is afforded to the cop by the law. I was charged with driving to fast for the conditions, fender bended the car in front, who was stopped for a lovely squirrel. The judge used the term "validity of judgement," and I paid. He meant the law, its intent, provides for the cop's judgement. No matter how "right" you and your logic may be, cops and squirrels have the edge.

 

[Zigner]

That's a ridiculous argument. If you could get a ticket for causing someone to brake earlier than they might have liked, then no-one would be able to merge onto an LA freeway.

THAT is a ridiculous argument

 

[jpsoutlook]

That's a ridiculous argument. If you could get a ticket for causing someone to brake earlier than they might have liked, then no-one would be able to merge onto an LA freeway. No-one would ever be able to get out of a car pool lane. No one would ever be able to change lane at all in LA. There's never a 100ft clear spot for you to saunter into. You have to signal and do it.

In any case, how do does the police officer know what is in the mind of the driver who brakes? He might be voluntarily braking to let the guy in.

In the situation the OP describes, it sounds like the other driver was driving dangerously. If you are in the fast lane going faster than the car-pool lane, and the car-pool lane exit comes up, and a guy in it is indicating he's coming out, and he's 40 feet in front of you, then only an idiot is going to try to shave past that guy and block him.

That is exactly what happened....

Also...correct me if I am wrong but this is a free advice forum yet no one has actually answered the original question which was "What would be the best defense here?" Thank you for your continued interest and support.

 

[VeronicaLodge]

yes they have, you just fail to see/hear it.. the answer is you don't have a defense here.

 

[demurringdude]

no one has actually answered the original question which was "What would be the best defense here?"

You are right, you have had no legal advice yet. Driving advice, yes. Lectures and rudeness, yes. Fuzzy math, yes. Legal advice, no.

The only thing you can really do is plead not guilty, go to court, and argue that you what you did was not unsafe. Bring your wife as a witness. There is the possibility that the police officer will not show, and there is also the possibility that the judge will believe you. There aren't any slam-dunk legal arguments you can make - you will just have to persuade the judge you were driving safely.

I would not waste any time on a TBWD in your situation - you will do better in open court.

I think the fines for this are about $200, so you will have to make a decision about the time you will spend on it vs what it costs to just pay. You also need to consider whether you want traffic school or not, before you decide how to plead. If it was me, I'd go to court.

Best of luck!

 

[Zigner]

The only thing you can really do is plead not guilty, go to court, and argue that you what you did was not unsafe. Bring your wife as a witness. There is the possibility that the police officer will not show, and there is also the possibility that the judge will believe you. There aren't any slam-dunk legal arguments you can make - you will just have to persuade the judge you were driving safely.

Ahhh...so you're "advice" is exactly what this OP has already been told.