22400(a) citation in SF for lane splitting / filtering

[Leftbrain]

Someone I know (ahem) recently received a 22400(a) citation. A cop was on Valencia south of an intersection ticketing a car when a motorcyclist heading southbound in his direction filtered to the front at a light, between several cars and the bike line to the right.

The cop was writing tickets all day apparently, claiming that Valencia is the busiest bike lane in SF and I'll note that it was the weekend of Carnavale. There were no cyclists in the bike lane. The cop said everyone is getting tickets today, but I don't understand the use of 22400, which is impeding the flow of traffic. I also question his view of what happened. He said he thinks the motorcyclist crossed a solid white line into the bike lane and further that he wasn't sure but also thinks that the motorcyclist was blocking the cross walk. But he was 100 ft or more (edit: I measured 276 ft) down the road and his own car was between him and the intersection. He did not have a clear view. Like I said, he pulled the motorcyclist over while he was writing another ticket. Then he flagged someone else over right after that as well.

Any thoughts on how to contest this? I think the mere fact that no one was impeded is sufficient to get the charge dropped.

TIA!

 

[Lionel Cosgrove]

Someone I know (ahem) recently received a 22400(a) citation. A cop was on Valencia south of an intersection ticketing a car when a motorcyclist heading southbound in his direction filtered to the front at a light, between several cars and the bike line to the right.

The cop was writing tickets all day apparently, claiming that Valencia is the busiest bike lane in SF and I'll note that it was the weekend of Carnavale. There were no cyclists in the bike lane. The cop said everyone is getting tickets today, but I don't understand the use of 22400, which is impeding the flow of traffic. I also question his view of what happened. He said he thinks the motorcyclist crossed a solid white line into the bike lane and further that he wasn't sure but also thinks that the motorcyclist was blocking the cross walk. But he was 100 ft or more down the road and his own car was between him and the intersection. He did not have a clear view. Like I said, he pulled the motorcyclist over while he was writing another ticket. Then he flagged someone else over right after that as well.

Any thoughts on how to contest this? I think the mere fact that no one was impeded is sufficient to get the charge dropped.

TIA!

The officer may be contending that your “friend” was blocking the flow of traffic for bicyclists in the bike lane. Contest the citation in traffic court and describe your perspective as you have done here and the ticket may get dismissed.

 

[Leftbrain]

Thanks.

And just to be clear, I do not condone riding motorcycles in bike lanes. I rarely if ever do that myself. I think the officer thinks that the motorcycle crossed into the bike lane but had no clear vantage point for that.

The 22400 might also be related to allegedly blocking the crosswalk, I suppose. But, regarding that, he definitely said "I'm not sure, but I think you may have entered the crosswalk while the light was still red." Who knows what he actually wrote in his notes and what he'll say in court, though?

 

[bojangle]

I moved this thread to the LEO forum as it appears to be more appropriate here.

 

[bojangle]

Thanks.

And just to be clear, I do not condone riding motorcycles in bike lanes. I rarely if ever do that myself. I think the officer thinks that the motorcycle crossed into the bike lane but had no clear vantage point for that.

The 22400 might also be related to allegedly blocking the crosswalk, I suppose. But, regarding that, he definitely said "I'm not sure, but I think you may have entered the crosswalk while the light was still red." Who knows what he actually wrote in his notes and what he'll say in court, though?

The rider can request "discovery" of any notes there officer made related to the citation. He can also request discovery of any related video. The rider has a right to see this at trial, before it is submitted as evidence. But the rider can also make a request for discovery ahead of time with the police department to help prepare for the trial.

 

[TheRiddler]

Trial by written declaration.

Include that officer stated the motorcyclist may have impeded bicycle traffic. Include that there were zero bicycles, so they could not have been impeded. Include that the officer's view was obstructed, and the officer could not have confirmed even if there were any bicyclists, if they could have been impeded.

Because I also don't understand 22400 as you've described the situation. 21209(a) would've been the (more) correct code.

 

[mototireguy]

Valencia is a traffic zoo and current enforcement hot spot for SFPD.

Lyft, Uber, taxis, delivery trucks, cars, motorcycles, etc have all been taking 'liberties' (stopping/passing/etc) in the protected bicycle only lane.

Grey area moving violation maneuvers where motorcycles typically get a pass in other parts of town will get extra scrutiny on Valencia and other bike lane protected streets.

And with continuing news of bicycle fatalities and the creation of protected bicycle only lanes to help address this problem you might be facing an uphill battle contesting the cite.

 

[cal scott]

Are there situations where crossing the line into a bike lane are okay or is this an absolute under the eyes of the law? Assuming that you are not putting a cyclist in danger, I can think of several instances where it makes sense with a view to keeping traffic moving:

• Right turns: bike lane lines turns to dotted near the intersection, however, in many instances traffic going straight may be backed beyond this point. By entering the bike lane, it is often possible to proceed up to junction to make the right without waiting for the light to turn and the traffic to clear.
• Proceeding around an obstruction: Here I am thinking of situation where a drivers decides late that they want to turn left and ends up blocking the right lane as a result of the late decision waiting for gap to get into the left turn lane. Entering the bike line for a short time can enable through traffic to circumvent the blockage.

The officer obviously has some discretion on whether or not to ticket, however, by law, am I to understand that, should either of the above actions be taken, these are ticket-able offenses?

 

[Leftbrain]

Lots of good points and suggestions here. Many thanks. I also agree that a 22400 is just the wrong code to cite in under the circumstances, but the bigger issue to me is that the officer's view was at least partially obstructed by his own vehicle and he was standing almost 100 yards down the road (I measured yesterday)

For more context, this was a Saturday. Valencia is always pretty busy, but I'd say there were no more than one or two bicyclists each light cycle. I personally would never even come close to veering into or closely alongside a bike lane without making sure no cyclists were in the immediate area. Below are some views from where the traffic stop occurred and of the intersection itself.

Here is the view from where the traffic stop back toward the intersection just driven through, at 15th St., where the rider was heading south. The officer was standing beside and behind a car he had already stopped to ticket. He flagged the rider over from that point and the rider did not pass him. So this view is about the same distance as his view. He was standing right about on the double white, so his own car was likely obstructing his view. He was also standing 275 ft down the road from the north side of the intersection where the rider stopped before the light turned green, and where he claims the infraction occurred.

Zoomed in view:

View of the intersection facing the direction of travel. You can see the buffer between the car lane and the bike lane. There is also just enough room for a motorcycle to fit in the car lane as well without technically crossing the white line, depending on how close the cars position themselves to the double yellow. Also, there is roughly 10 feet between the stop line and the crosswalk, so even moving in front of a car stopped there would not require moving into the crosswalk.

Same view, with cars at light:

 

[dravnx]

CV21209
(a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in a bicycle lane established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207 except as follows:

(1) To park where parking is permitted.

(2) To enter or leave the roadway.

(3) To prepare for a turn within a distance of 200 feet from the intersection.

 

[cal scott]

ort Cheers. That pretty much answers my questions.

 

[Gravisman]

I gotta say, I find the title of this thread a bit misleading. When I read “lane splitting/filtering” to me, that’s riding between two valid vehicle lanes. Riding in a bike lane is something else entirely, and I wouldn’t describe that as a ticket for “lane splitting/filtering.” I lane split all the time, but I never use the bike lane, even if it means I wait behind a car.

 

[Leftbrain]

I gotta say, I find the title of this thread a bit misleading. When I read “lane splitting/filtering” to me, that’s riding between two valid vehicle lanes. Riding in a bike lane is something else entirely, and I wouldn’t describe that as a ticket for “lane splitting/filtering.” I lane split all the time, but I never use the bike lane, even if it means I wait behind a car.

I appreciate the response, but it should not be misleading because i never went into the bike lane. I never said I went into the bike lane. I moved alongside the line of cars at the light, sharing the same lane with the cars. That's lane sharing.

 

[mototireguy]

Apologies if already clarified elsewhere.

Leo's please remind us...

Lane filtering/sharing is allowed on roads only with 1 lane in each direction roads as long as you don't cross the center line on the left side and don't cross the white line on the right side?

Or lane filtering/sharing is only allowed when there's 2 or more lanes of traffic in each direction and you're sharing in between the #1, #2, #3 etc lanes?

 

[Gravisman]

Apologies if already clarified elsewhere.

Leo's please remind us...

Lane filtering/sharing is allowed on roads only with 1 lane in each direction roads as long as you don't cross the center line on the left side and don't cross the white line on the right side?

Or lane filtering/sharing is only allowed when there's 2 or more lanes of traffic in each direction and you're sharing in between the #1, #2, #3 etc lanes?

Thanks for asking the question. I’ve never been clear on this and always erred on the side of caution.

 

[bojangle]

Apologies if already clarified elsewhere.

Leo's please remind us...

Lane filtering/sharing is allowed on roads only with 1 lane in each direction roads as long as you don't cross the center line on the left side and don't cross the white line on the right side?

Or lane filtering/sharing is only allowed when there's 2 or more lanes of traffic in each direction and you're sharing in between the #1, #2, #3 etc lanes?

Lane sharing/splitting is not outlawed in California. It never was. In 2017 a "lane splitting" definition was enacted. It is not an enforceable section. It is only a definition. Here it is.

CVC 21658.1(a) For the purposes of this section, “lane splitting” means driving a motorcycle, as defined in Section 400, that has two wheels in contact with the ground, between rows of stopped or moving vehicles in the same lane, including on both divided and undivided streets, roads, or highways.

Per the section above, California now defines "lane splitting" as splitting between rows of stopped or moving vehicles in the same lane. IMO, it's not the most clear definition, but seems to definite it as at least two lanes in the same direction.

However, nothing really changed as this is a definition only and not an enforceable section. There is no law that specifically prohibits sharing a single lane in one direction. Other sections could apply, like they always did, such as speeding, passing on the right, double yellow, bike lanes, and whatnot.

So sharing a single lane is legal as well as sharing between lanes in the same direction. Clear as mud.

 

[Shaggy]

The easiest way to think of it is this:

“There is no law that defines how many vehicles can occupy a lane of traffic.”

If it fits, it’s legal. So a car and a motorcycle riding side by side is legal the same way two motorcycles riding side by side is legal. Three or four or five motorcycles riding side by side would be legal (although probably not very safe/smart) with this same understanding.

OP: When you go to court, present the case factually as you recall it happening. Things to avoid:

“I feel like...”
“I would never...”
“Other motos do it...”

Things to bring up:

The pictures are good. Explain the distance and view the officer had and how he could not have clearly seen the violation due to his distance and obstructed view. I’d take an aerial shot also from Google Maps.

Explain that you saw him in the middle of another traffic stop and his attention was clearly divided between the current stop and your approach to the intersection.

Tell the judge you filtered to the front, which is legal under CA law, but remained completely in your lane of traffic and never crossed the line into the bike lane.

There were no bicycles present, so traffic for the bicycle lane could not have been impeded, even though you did not cross into the bike lane.

You stopped at the light adjacent to the #1 vehicle at the light and prior to the limit line, keeping the crosswalk clear for pedestrian traffic.

Any other factual information you think is relevant.

 

[Leftbrain]

There's no clear consensus on the best approach. I am leaning toward contesting the ticket based on the facts and the circumstances. The rider certainly did not enter the bicycle lane. There were no bicycles in the bicycle lane and no pedestrians at the crosswalk while the rider was in the vicinity. The officer was standing 275 feet down the road handling another traffic stop with his view of the intersection blocked by his own vehicle, so I don't believe he was able to see clearly whether or not the rider went into the bicycle lane, crossed the solid white line into the buffer area between the car lane and the bike line, or moved into the crosswalk early. Instead, he saw the rider alongside cars and made a judgment call. The fact that he chose to cite 22400(a) also signals that he didn't see a more specific infraction. He did say: "it's not just you - everyone is getting tickets today." (That's an exact quote).

I also found Section 3B.24 in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD):

Section 3B.24 Chevron and Diagonal Crosshatch Markings
01 Chevron and diagonal crosshatch markings may be used to discourage travel on certain paved areas, such as shoulders, gore areas, flush median areas between solid double yellow center line markings or between white channelizing lines approaching obstructions in the roadway between solid double yellow center line markings forming flush medians or channelized travel paths at intersections, buffer spaces between preferential lanes and general-purpose lanes (see Figure 3D-2), and at grade crossings.​

I do think the office ultimately believed that I crossed into the channel/buffer between the vehicle lane and the bike lane. However, discouraged travel is not prohibited travel. The buffer between the car lane and the bike lane is not a double white line, but a single white line buffer and these types of buffer channels discourage but do not prohibit vehicle crossing. Further support here, on pages 21-23.

Also worth noting is CA Vehicle Code 21401:

CV21401.
(a) Except as provided in Section 21374, only those official traffic control devices that conform to the uniform standards and specifications promulgated by the Department of Transportation shall be placed upon a street or highway.​

Notice the markings at the intersection - not a double white line, but a single white line buffer channel designated with chevron markings per Section 3B.24 of the MUTCD:

This adds up to no prohibition from entering that channelized buffer zone between the vehicle lane and the bicycle lane.

Above all other things, none of this is applicable in the cited code CV22400(a), so why should I not feel confident that this will get dismissed?

 

[Shaggy]

You are wrong on the white hash markings. That constitutes a painted island (like a curbed island only painted) dividing the roadway and is a violation of 21651(a)(1)VC.

§ 21651. (a) 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.
(2) To make any left, semicircular, or U-turn with the vehicle on the divided highway, except through an opening in the barrier designated and intended by public authorities for the use of vehicles or through a plainly marked opening in the dividing section.
(b) It is unlawful to drive any vehicle upon a highway, except to the right of an intermittent barrier or a dividing section which separates two or more opposing lanes of traffic. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (c), a violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor.
(c) Any willful violation of subdivision (b) which results in injury to, or death of, a person shall be punished by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code, or imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not more than six months.

 

[Leftbrain]

You are wrong on the white hash markings. That constitutes a painted island (like a curbed island only painted) dividing the roadway and is a violation of 21651(a)(1)VC.

I respectfully disagree, and apparently so does the CA DOT. See pages 11-13 of this from the CA DOT site, which I also linked above.

As further explained in that link and in the code itself, a double parallel white (or yellow) outline would be required to satisfy 21751(a). A single white outlined buffer area does not comport.

That buffer zone might look like two parallel white lines filled in by a chevron marked buffer area, but that's not the uniform standard for prohibited travel - it would have to be two close parallel lines on either side of the buffer zone to constitute a painted island according to the guidance from the DOT and the uniform standard, and even the code you quoted above.