CA 21658(a,b) - LANE STRADDLING

[rfrey]

California

How much distance has to be traveled "straddling a lane" to qualify for a ticket?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[Zigner]

California

How much distance has to be traveled "straddling a lane" to qualify for a ticket?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

21658. Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more
clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, the following
rules apply:
(a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely
within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until such
movement can be made with reasonable safety.
(b) Official signs may be erected directing slow-moving traffic to
use a designated lane or allocating specified lanes to traffic
moving in the same direction, and drivers of vehicles shall obey the
directions of the traffic device.


I guess it depends. Apparently, the citing officer feels you didn't obey.

 

[Free_Advice]

California

How much distance has to be traveled "straddling a lane" to qualify for a ticket?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

Any distance That an officer feels is appropriate to issue a ticket.

You may be able to argue the safety aspect of the ticket.

If the officer does not testify that a safety issue was present then you may be able to ask for a summary judgment due to the fact that all the elements of the infraction had not been presented to the court.

You could argue the vagueness of the statute but I don't think this would be successful.

Ask for a summary judgment after the state rests or after the officer testifies

 

[HighwayMan]

Safety issue is NOT an element of the offense. That applies to lane changes. It's interesting that the statute is worded almost identically to the New York equivalent.

There is no minimum distance required to be in violation.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Ask for a summary judgment after the state rests or after the officer testifies

Generally, in California traffic courts, and since the officer is typically the "only witness" for the state (ans there is typically no prosecutor)... it would be "after the officer testifies" that in his/her opinion, the OP was straddling... So how would a "summary judgment" benefit the defendant in any way without him/her putting on a case, to either refute the officer's testimony, add to it or to simply offer his/her own opinion, s/he does not believe s/he was lane straddling as opposed to simply changing lanes?

In my opinion, lane straddling versus a simple (legal) lane change will depend on a number of different factors including but not limited to the flow of traffic, the officer's vantage point as well as (YES) the distance/time it took you to get completely out of one lane and completely into another (though there is no particular statutory distance that would deem any lane change as a violation or not). A good rule of thumb may be in whether another vehicle's normal movement (in either lane) would have been obstructed by the OP's movement!

Its purely a judgement call, and the officer will win this one nine times out often!