21658(a) VC

[madmike]

Hello fellow officers,
Reasonably new California Reserve PO here. Scenario: Travelling N/B on freeway approaching end of freeway and a freeway interchange to a second perpendicular freeway E/B and W/B. I notice a vehicle directly in front of me enter the E/B interchange dedicated to traveling E/B. He suddenly changes his mind, slows and crosses the median desiring to travel W/B. I cannot recall if he signaled. And of course the median is clearly marked with solid white and yellow lines.
I cited the subject for:

21658. Unsafe lane change. 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.

I believe this is a good cite and will stick due to the fact that crossing a center median is unsafe. One other officer said I should cite for Failure to obey traffic sign or signal due to the road markers being ignored:

21461. (a) Failure to obey traffic sign or signal: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.

Anyone have experience with this type of violation and or citation in couirt? If so what was the dispo? Thanks in advance.

[Imaginethat1]

Hello fellow officers,
Reasonably new California Reserve PO here. Scenario: Travelling N/B on freeway approaching end of freeway and a freeway interchange to a second perpendicular freeway E/B and W/B. I notice a vehicle directly in front of me enter the E/B interchange dedicated to traveling E/B. He suddenly changes his mind, slows and crosses the median desiring to travel W/B. I cannot recall if he signaled. And of course the median is clearly marked with solid white and yellow lines.
I cited the subject for:

21658. Unsafe lane change. 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.

I believe this is a good cite and will stick due to the fact that crossing a center median is unsafe. One other officer said I should cite for Failure to obey traffic sign or signal due to the road markers being ignored:

21461. (a) Failure to obey traffic sign or signal: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.

Anyone have experience with this type of violation and or citation in couirt? If so what was the dispo? Thanks in advance.

Try 22107VC (unsafe turning movement) or 21651aVC crossing divided section of divided highway 2 feet or more). 21461aVC would also apply as long as a black and white regulatory sign is posted. All have held up in court with me.

[PapaBear]

In order for a lane change to be unsafe, another has to be involved. You do not mention if another vehicle was involved. If not, then you were in error. People often are confused when they come to intersecting freeways and cut across a gore point or make a last minute lane change. Sounds like this may have been the case. If that is the issue, it sounds like a stop and verbal might be the appropriate enforcement action. If you felt a cite was necessary then you should have written the driver for 21461(a) VC. Gore points and similar markings are directory in nature and bring attention to the fact that there is a separation approaching. At least, that is my perception and opinion based on your description.

[madmike]

Nope , no other vehicle. Ill just say my piece and see what happens. Theres always next time. Thanks for the advise smokies.

[spikerman19]

22107 for sure, thats what I usally use

[Litlgeneral]

When working in Orange County saw this violation many times. Usually it was when traffic was backed up and they would use the exit lane to pass everyone ten cut back into traffic across the "gore point" Those in my opinion were well deserved cites and would always use 21461(a)....since there was a sign stating right lane must exit.

If it seemed like the person was confused as in your scenario I would usually verbal but all depends on the circumstances. Crossing a dividing section wouldn't apply since the white lines were not the proper markings to delineate a "dividing section". Those are usually marked by yellow lines or double yellows.

[G-Man]

I realize this thread is old, but here's my .02 for what it is worth.

If they drive over the raised portion of the gore, 21651(a) would apply as it is a divided section at that point.

21461(a) vc if there was a sign posted that "right lane must exit." I agree with Papa on this one, pavement markings are regulatory (white lettering and black asphalt)

21658(a) I don't think would apply as it is not a lane change, they are changing their vehicle from a direct course of travel (22107). 22107 would apply if they hit something or someone or if they caused someone to swerve or brake, I think that section would also require someone else to be involved (ie. T/C)

[madmike]

Just an update, The guy didnt show to court. Easy win. Thanks smokies!!

[10-7]

Just an added piece: Years ago, I heard an Attorney General's interpretation of the violation of "driving over a divider" - i.e. gore, reverse gore points, etc. - the ones that are designated by solid white lines (in Sac, this becomes an obvious turning movement when a major freeway transitions to another major freeway where a lot of congestion occurs during rush hour, ie. I-80 w/b to business 80 s/b.) Traffic in the "left lanes" will pass slower traffic in the "right lanes", wait until the last 10 feet, then cut across the paved portion of the gore point 'cuz those drivers feel their time is a whole lot more valuable than any one elses. The "change" in itself, it is not a violation. The interpretation / decision indicated the solid white lines are there for "traffic direction" only (I don't agree with it, but then again, no one asked me).

If a citation is burning a hole in your ticket book when you see one do this turning movement, one must articulate a safety issue, ie. unsafe lane change, or better yet, unsafe turning movement. Obviously you have to be able to articulate why is was unsafe.

[slicktop575]

Just an added piece: Years ago, I heard an Attorney General's interpretation of the violation of "driving over a divider" - i.e. gore, reverse gore points, etc. - the ones that are designated by solid white lines (in Sac, this becomes an obvious turning movement when a major freeway transitions to another major freeway where a lot of congestion occurs during rush hour, ie. I-80 w/b to business 80 s/b.) Traffic in the "left lanes" will pass slower traffic in the "right lanes", wait until the last 10 feet, then cut across the paved portion of the gore point 'cuz those drivers feel their time is a whole lot more valuable than any one elses. The "change" in itself, it is not a violation. The interpretation / decision indicated the solid white lines are there for "traffic direction" only (I don't agree with it, but then again, no one asked me).

If a citation is burning a hole in your ticket book when you see one do this turning movement, one must articulate a safety issue, ie. unsafe lane change, or better yet, unsafe turning movement. Obviously you have to be able to articulate why is was unsafe.

Hate to reopen an old thread, but the yard sgt did not like that I cited for 21651(a)(1) VC. I was driving the PCF car (in slower traffic) yesterday and was passed by subject who proceeded to drive over the gore in front of me. Not unsafe at all. I leave a good size safety cushion. Pulled over and cited for 21651(a)(1) VC. So is it or not a good cite?

[dw]

Hate to reopen an old thread, but the yard sgt did not like that I cited for 21651(a)(1) VC. I was driving the PCF car (in slower traffic) yesterday and was passed by subject who proceeded to drive over the gore in front of me. Not unsafe at all. I leave a good size safety cushion. Pulled over and cited for 21651(a)(1) VC. So is it or not a good cite?As long as the gore was more than 2' wide at the point he crossed it, it is a good cite. I've won many.

[TheForceCHP]

As long as the gore was more than 2' wide at the point he crossed it, it is a good cite. I've won many.


That's how I write them, but just had a big discussion at the office about how they say that is still not ok. If white lines are 100% guiding in nature then how do they work for separating the roadway from the right shoulder :question:

[PapaBear]

That's how I write them, but just had a big discussion at the office about how they say that is still not ok. If white lines are 100% guiding in nature then how do they work for separating the roadway from the right shoulder :question:

The solid white line that separates the shoulder of the roadway from the traffic lane is called a "FOG" line. It is to warn drivers where the main traveled portion of the roadway ends and the shoulder begins.

It is not against the law to drive on the shoulder, it is only against the law to pass other traffic on the right while using the shoulder (21755 VC).

The shoulder is defined as that portion of a highway that is adjacent to the "main traveled portion of the roadway."

[Mac]

...It is not against the law to drive on the shoulder, it is only against the law to pass other traffic on the right while using the shoulder (21755 VC).

The shoulder is defined as that portion of a highway that is adjacent to the "main traveled portion of the roadway."
However, 21650 VC states "Upon all highways, a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway at all times..."

530 VC defines "roadway" as "that portion of a highway improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular travel". The shoulder is not designed or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, therefore 21650 VC prohibits driving upon it. The shoulder is part of the highway, but not part of the roadway.

[PapaBear]

However, 21650 VC states "Upon all highways, a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway at all times..."

530 VC defines "roadway" as "that portion of a highway improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular travel". The shoulder is not designed or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, therefore 21650 VC prohibits driving upon it. The shoulder is part of the highway, but not part of the roadway.

So, let me get your interpretation right: If I am having car trouble and use the shoulder to proceed to the next exit of a freeway, you will take a positive enorcement action agains me? Sorry, that is not the intent of 21650(a). The intent is to keep traffic separated on a two way highway; that each direction use its own roadway for travel.

If shoulders were not intended for use - there would be a specific section prohibiting their use just as there is in 21755. Even more, there would be no shoulders similar to what you find on US 395 and many older highways.

Improved, paved shoulders are a relatively new design by highway standards. They came about in the late 1950s.

Prior to that, from the edge of the roadway to the perimeter fence was unpaved and unimproved. In fact, the old perimeter fences were between five and ten feet from the roadway (you can see that on the Pasadena Freeway).

[Mac]

So, let me get your interpretation right: If I am having car trouble and use the shoulder to proceed to the next exit of a freeway, you will take a positive enorcement action agains me?...
Nope. But if you were doing 65 down the shoulder for no obvious reason other than you wanted to drive there instead of in the traffic lane, I most certainly would. As with most enforcement issues, common sense should be utilized in healthy doses.

[dw]

As with most enforcement issues, common sense should be utilized in healthy doses.Eh? :noidea:

[Mac]

Eh? :noidea:
Yeah, I know......

[PapaBear]

Yeah, I know......

Duh! Me too........ :biggrin: