21651 crossing a divided highway - California - Santa Clara county

[vish]

I was given this ticket when my car crossed the white line on the rightmost lane. I did not cross the yellow or double yellow line.
Further the ticket written by cop says 21651(0) while the court citation in mail says 21651A-I . Any recommendations on what I should do? Can I file a motion to demurrer?

 

[Zigner]

The court sent you an amended citation. It is valid.
Here is the law you are charged with violating:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=21651
Read through there and then come back with questions.

 

[vish]

Thanks, I re-read the above vehicle code law. The language of the law suggests one has to cross the central barrier or double yellow lines to warrant this citation. ("Whenever a highway has been divided into two or more roadways by means of intermittent barriers or by means of a dividing section of not less than two feet in width, either unpaved or delineated by curbs, double-parallel lines, or other markings on the roadway, it is unlawful to do ").

In my case I was in the fourth lane ready to take exit and got out to the exit lane a few feet before the solid white line turned into broken white line at peak traffic (speed < 25 mph).

Or the emergency lane to the right of white line is considered divided as per the above law?

 

[FlyingRon]

If there weren't double parallel lines (either two yellows or two whites), you're not barred from driving across it (well, not by that section of the code at least). Can you find the location in Google Maps and post a link. It sounds like you may indeed may not be guilty of what they charged you with (or perhaps anything at all).

 

[vish]

Thanks FlyingRon!
Here is the google map location, or few feet near where this happened:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/37°25'23.7"N+122°05'43.2"W/@37.423252,-122.0958712,19z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!1m7!3m6!1s0x808fb0a514c44d39:0x68852ca21e5eb64f!2s101+Rengstorff+Ave,+Mountain+View,+CA+94043!3b1!8m2!3d37.4032557!4d-122.0972849!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d37.4232522!4d-122.0953242

 

[Zigner]

Whenever a highway has been divided into two or more roadways by means of intermittent barriers or by means of a dividing section of not less than two feet in width, either unpaved or delineated by curbs, double-parallel lines, or other markings on the roadway, it is unlawful to do either of the following:

(1) To drive any vehicle over, upon, or across the dividing section.


The lines don't have to be parallel. You crossed the lines on the right. The citation was proper.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Thanks, I re-read the above vehicle code law. The language of the law suggests one has to cross the central barrier or double yellow lines to warrant this citation. ("Whenever a highway has been divided into two or more roadways by means of intermittent barriers or by means of a dividing section of not less than two feet in width, either unpaved or delineated by curbs, double-parallel lines, or other markings on the roadway, it is unlawful to do ").

In my case I was in the fourth lane ready to take exit and got out to the exit lane a few feet before the solid white line turned into broken white line at peak traffic (speed < 25 mph).

Or the emergency lane to the right of white line is considered divided as per the above law?

It's solid for a reason. You are supposed to treat that solid line like it's a physical barrier. You may only begin to change lanes at the broken white line.

 

[FlyingRon]

The lines don't have to be parallel. You crossed the lines on the right. The citation was proper.

I disagree. Where he describes is not an area that fits the definition of that section. He drove on the shoulder, not a dividing area between roadways. This section is at best the wrong one to charge him from. Frankly, unless he passed someone, I'm not seeing how he violated any section of the code.

 

[not2cleverRed]

I disagree. Where he describes is not an area that fits the definition of that section. He drove on the shoulder, not a dividing area between roadways. This section is at best the wrong one to charge him from. Frankly, unless he passed someone, I'm not seeing how he violated any section of the code.

Look at the link and go down the road.

It's not just a shoulder that becomes a turn lane. The lane he was turning into had merging traffic.

I don't know code #'s, but I did read the materials recommended before taking the written driving test. It's fairly clearly described there.

 

[Zigner]

I disagree. Where he describes is not an area that fits the definition of that section. He drove on the shoulder, not a dividing area between roadways. This section is at best the wrong one to charge him from. Frankly, unless he passed someone, I'm not seeing how he violated any section of the code.

Out here, we call that the gore area. It's the divider between the main line and another lane that will enter the roadway farther along.

 

[FlyingRon]

You can call it what you like, but it is not a separation between roadways as described in the statute that he is charged with.

 

[Zigner]

You can call it what you like, but it is not a separation between roadways as described in the statute that he is charged with.

Setting aside the colloquial name, why do you believe that it's not a separation between roadways as described in the statute that he is charged with?

 

[FlyingRon]

Because it is:

1. Not a HIGHWAY that has two such roadways seperated.
2. The gore was not more than two feet wide.
... and I'd argue that single white lines do not make a boundary. There are plenty of times you have to cross single white lines legally.

 

[Zigner]

Because it is:

1. Not a HIGHWAY that has two such roadways seperated.

The incoming lane is a separate roadway from the main line until such time as it passes the area that divides the two.

2. The gore was not more than two feet wide.

Not sure what you are looking at. Per the image on Google Maps, it is about a car-width wide (6-ish feet)

... and I'd argue that single white lines do not make a boundary. There are plenty of times you have to cross single white lines legally.

You can argue that if you'd like, but it wouldn't be correct. These aren't just single white lines. These are white lines that delineate (define) the area between the two roadways.
For reference, the California Vehicle Code (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=530.&lawCode=VEH) defines "Roadway" as: "...that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel." and (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=360.) "Highway" as: "...a way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Highway includes street." Based on these definitions, and the Google images, it is pretty clear that the incoming lane and the main line are both roadways that are separated from each other by a well-defined delineation of white lines greater than 2' apart.


EDIT: I do acknowledge that a portion of the area in question has the lines spaced less than 2' apart. If the OP crossed at that point or further, then the citation is not appropriate...although I suspect the OP crossed much earlier

 

[FlyingRon]

Where the pin is and given the initial description of the incident in his first post, I'd not characturize it as 2' (not even wider than the line).

I'd argue the on ramp is not a divided off section of the same highway. This statute is designed (based on the heading) to apply to barriers dividing the highway not gores and other things at intersecting roadways.