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

[Shaggy]

You may be right, but 21658 VC still applies.

§ 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.

 

[Leftbrain]

You may be right, but 21658 VC still applies.

Thank you. I just wish I understood how it applies. If the rider made an unsafe lane change or took more than one full lane of travel, then it would certainly apply.

Anyway the actual citation is 22400(a), and I'm really wondering if the court could find an actual violation.

 

[Shaggy]

It’s a failure to maintain a lane violation

 

[Shaggy]

As for your violation, I suggest following the advice posted previously and file for discovery. You would get copies of the officer’s citation notes and any other evidence like audio or video recordings.

 

[Leftbrain]

Others, including one person here, have suggested trial by written declaration. The advantage to that seems to be that the officer might not have much incentive to write his statement. Another advantage is that no court appearance is required. It seems to have worked well for some, but there are certainly drawbacks to that approach that I can see.

I appreciate the advice from all. I still can't figure out how a 22400(a) can be upheld, but seeing the evidence would probably help shed more light. I'm wondering what possible evidence would support a violation. If the officer simply says he saw me stopped in either the crosswalk or in the bike lane and blocking the right of way, would that be enough?

Also, is it possible to bring another charge at court?

 

[bojangle]

Others, including one person here, have suggested trial by written declaration. The advantage to that seems to be that the officer might not have much incentive to write his statement. Another advantage is that no court appearance is required. It seems to have worked well for some, but there are certainly drawbacks to that approach that I can see.

If you're not happy with the outcome of a trial by written declaration, you can do a trial de novo. Basically, you can have a second chance at an in person trial with you and the officer in front of a judge.

I appreciate the advice from all. I still can't figure out how a 22400(a) can be upheld, but seeing the evidence would probably help shed more light. I'm wondering what possible evidence would support a violation. If the officer simply says he saw me stopped in either the crosswalk or in the bike lane and blocking the right of way, would that be enough?

Maybe.

Also, is it possible to bring another charge at court?

Possibly. The officer could ask the court to amend the charge to something more appropriate.

1) The officer may or may not request this.

2) The court may or may not grant it.

 

[Shaggy]

I’ve requested to have a violation changed in trial before and have also seen it done several times by other officers. I’ve never seen it denied.

I suppose if the defendant asked the judge to continue the trial to another date to better prepare, the judge would consider it.

 

[bojangle]

I’ve requested to have a violation changed in trial before and have also seen it done several times by other officers. I’ve never seen it denied.

I suppose if the defendant asked the judge to continue the trial to another date to better prepare, the judge would consider it.

I saw one where a newer officer had screwed up and cited for the wrong section. The defendant successfully proved that the section he was cited for did not apply. The newer officer should have, but did not know he could, request the court to amend the charge. The defendant was found not guilty even though video showed him roll through a red signal without first stopping.

 

[ctwo]

I object, your honor.

 

[orbframe]

I object, your honor.

 

[Leftbrain]

I requested a trial by written declaration. My declaration was lengthy (13 pages I believe) but cited the MUTCD significantly.

Verdict: Not Guilty.

I'm not sure if the officer submitted a declaration himself, but it took 2 months and I assume had he not, it would have defaulted sooner.

Thanks for the suggestions and advice.

 

[TheRiddler]

I saw one where a newer officer had screwed up and cited for the wrong section. The defendant successfully proved that the section he was cited for did not apply. The newer officer should have, but did not know he could, request the court to amend the charge. The defendant was found not guilty even though video showed him roll through a red signal without first stopping.

This will depend on the judge. I've seen a number of them refuse to amend citations the day of.

Glad it worked out for you, OP.

 

[bojangle]

I requested a trial by written declaration. My declaration was lengthy (13 pages I believe) but cited the MUTCD significantly.

Verdict: Not Guilty.

I'm not sure if the officer submitted a declaration himself, but it took 2 months and I assume had he not, it would have defaulted sooner.

Thanks for the suggestions and advice.

13 pages? Wow! The judge probably rolled his eyes and said ok, ok, not guilty. :laughing

Glad it all worked out for ya! :thumbup

 

[Shaggy]

I requested a trial by written declaration. My declaration was lengthy (13 pages I believe) but cited the MUTCD significantly.

Verdict: Not Guilty.

I'm not sure if the officer submitted a declaration himself, but it took 2 months and I assume had he not, it would have defaulted sooner.

Thanks for the suggestions and advice.

:thumbup