Is It Illegal To Change Lanes In An Intersection In California

My question involves a "potential" traffic ticket from the state of: CA

My hubby tells me that if I make a lane change while driving through a (signaled) intersection, I'grand going to get a ticket! I have read the commuter's handbook and there is no reference to this. If I e'er go a ticket for it, I'll never hear the terminate of it!

I seemed to remember that information technology used to be in the CVC that you couldn't do information technology, similar over 10 or 15 years ago, only it was changed and that'due south why (I would guess) information technology is not referenced in the handbook.

I haven't establish a definitive answer to this and would really appreciate it if everyone tin can shed some calorie-free. Especially if in that location was ever a dominion confronting it.

Cheers

Let me get-go by saying I'm not all that familiar with CA constabulary, but I remember seeing something in the WA laws about it -- but I cannot find information technology now. The only CA reference I can find is from the Commercial Driver's Handbook. It states:

When driving through an intersection:

Check traffic thoroughly in all directions.
Decelerate and yield to any pedestrians and traffic in the intersection.
Exercise not change lanes or shift gears while proceeding through the intersection.
Keep your hands on the wheel.

I cannot detect a statute which really makes information technology unlawful, nevertheless. Maybe someone else, who knows CA law better, will be able to.

Barry

Hmmm. . . Commercial huh? Well, if it's in the Commercial Handbook, but not the standard handbook, if yous (a "regular" person) get a ticket for information technology, that you probably accept a very good chance of winning your argument in court. Of course, that's assuming you didn't practice anything else (kinda dumb) to have received (the attention and) the ticket in the starting time place!

And, and then, at that place is your time, etc. to challenge it.

I can't aid only wonder why then many people think it is a clear violation. . .

Thanks over again

Maybe this i:

Quote Quoting California Vehicle Code, Sec. 21451

(a) A driver facing a circular green point shall proceed direct through or turn right or left or make a U-turn unless a sign prohibits a U-turn. Any driver, including 1 turning, shall yield the right-of-manner to other traffic and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or an next crosswalk.

(b) A driver facing a dark-green arrow bespeak, shown lonely or in combination with another indication, shall enter the intersection only to make the movement indicated by that green arrow or whatsoever other motion that is permitted by other indications shown at the same fourth dimension. A driver facing a left green arrow may as well make a U-turn unless prohibited past a sign. A driver shall yield the correct-of-mode to other traffic and to pedestrians lawfully inside the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk.

(c) A pedestrian facing a circular green signal, unless prohibited by sign or otherwise directed past a pedestrian command point as provided in Section 21456, may proceed across the roadway within whatever marked or unmarked crosswalk, but shall yield the right-of-mode to vehicles lawfully within the intersection at the fourth dimension that point is first shown.

(d) A pedestrian facing a green arrow plow signal, unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian command betoken every bit provided in Department 21456, shall not enter the roadway.

Ooooh, I never thought of that. But, just to play "devil's advocate", doesn't statutory structure say that statutes must be read as a whole, and when items are separated by the conjunction "or", yous may choose ANY i of the alternatives? So, wouldn't that merely say that, if you have a green light, you may:

Go straight.
Turn Left.
Plough Right.
Brand a U-Turn

without further qualifying those movements. Other statutes dictate HOW a commuter must plow right, left, or make a U-turn. Merely I cannot notice one that defines "go direct". The statute on driving within a lane simply says yous cannot change lanes until "such movement can be made with safety".

Anyhow, it'south an interesting question. And, call back, Aaron is an attorney and I am non, so there'due south a REALLY good hazard that HIS interpretation is right, while I'thousand just running off at the mouth (or keyboard).

Barry

You lot could try to argue to a courtroom that irresolute lanes is the same as making a "left turn" or "right turn". I believe the meaning of a "turn" is pretty clear, so I don't think you'll accept much luck with that.

I decided to call three local police force dept.'s, Newark, Fremont and Union City, CA., and proposed a theoretical question, "If I bulldoze through a signaled intersection, null to do with a left or a correct turn, and I change lanes when I'g in the centre of the intersection, assuming I did it safely, is information technology a violation?". Newark and Union City were both quick to tell me "no, it is not a violation, assuming information technology was not 'an unsafe lane change'." The officer in Fremont idea he remembered something almost not doing it within 100 feet of the intersection, but he couldn't find information technology while we were on the phone, he was going to telephone call me dorsum, I imagine he got busy.

Newark didn't know if the rule had ever been on the books, Union City was sure it had never been on the books and Fremont, well, nosotros didn't get that far.

And there are lots more than cities in CA, but I'k not "going at that place"!

Appreciated the feedback folks, till I run across another one of "those" kind or (Sky forbid!) I go a ticket! I'm good!

I have seen many intersections that really exercise a "domestic dog leg" such that if you were to bulldoze "straight through", yous would end upward in a different lane!

As a matter of fact, there is 1 of those "dog leg'due south" inside a 1/2 block from one of those very metropolis'due south police dept.'southward, and I was so surprised one evening, to, actually witness an officer do exactly that, a lane alter in the heart of the signaled intersection and "cut " somebody off! Fortunately, it did not consequence in an accident, in this example. Wow, I totally forgot about that!

That particular intersection "prompts" me to alter lanes, in the eye, because of it's design, more oftentimes than I tin can count! I can't believe I forgot near it!

That would clearly be a case of "unsafe lane change" vs. "safe", ya recollect?!

And, I'm relieved to say, at least, of the ii dept.'s that told me information technology was Not a violation, (unless, of course, it was unsafe!), that this ane was one of them! In an odd sort of fashion!

I'm distressing, i can't help merely do the footling (like if I were a true cat and just ate a bird, only didn't really want to fess up to information technology!) smile!!! 'Crusade that but cracks me upward!

Cheers EWYLTJ! It'due south always the petty things that getcha!

Is It Illegal To Change Lanes In An Intersection In California

Irresolute Lanes in an Intersection

Re: Irresolute Lanes in an Intersection in CA

Re: Changing Lanes in an Intersection in CA

Re: Irresolute Lanes in an Intersection in CA

Re: Changing Lanes in an Intersection

Re: Changing Lanes in an Intersection

Re: Changing Lanes in an Intersection

Re: Irresolute Lanes in an Intersection

Re: Changing Lanes in an Intersection

0 Response to "Is It Illegal To Change Lanes In An Intersection In California"

Post a Comment

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel