Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Not 22108 if no vehicles affected?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Not 22108 if no vehicles affected?

    Came across this "People v. Carmona (May 27, 2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1385" Basically says that 22108 only describes the way a driver should signal in reference to 22107 CVC, and that it is not a stand alone section. Essentially a stop for failure to signal won't hold up if no other cars around
    Any thoughts?

    I disagree with the case. In my opinion "any" within the language means that any signal, be it hands or blinkers, shall be given.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • #2
    http://legalupdate.com/vol16-no08.html

    Link to above case law
    Short enough read.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Comment


    • #3
      IANAL, and IANAL, but (in my opinion) a plain reading bears out the decisions you cited, for the exact reasons cited.

      Comment


      • #4
        I argued a 22108 case in traffic court and lost, because the judge ruled that no other vehicles were affected.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by NuBoot1035 View Post
          I disagree with the case. In my opinion "any" within the language means that any signal, be it hands or blinkers, shall be given.
          I, along with most cops I'm sure, disagree with most case law haha

          Comment


          • #6
            Court was right on this one. 22108 does not require a signal be given. It merely dictates the duration of signal should one be given. 22108 does not have language which says you shall signal. The shall is only included in 22107 VC.

            The operative words in 22107, with respect to signalling, are "in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement."

            If you use 22107/22108 as PC to stop you should articulate in your report how another other vehicle may be affected. For example blind driveways ahead? Anybody pulling up at a driveway might not pull out if they saw an approaching vehicle signal. Any oncoming traffic? If the vehicles indication to turn might affect oncoming cars signal required.

            Nobody around in view and no roadways or driveways that could put a vehicle in a position to be affected during the approach or during the turning movement? Then no signal required.

            Lane changes are turning movements as well. If you stop for an un-signalled lane change you'll want to document how an approaching/passing/about to passed vehicle might be affected by the lane change.

            For PC - If you don't write it down it didn't happen.
            If you see me running try to keep up!

            Comment


            • #7
              And there BETTER be that other vehicle being impacted.
              Now go home and get your shine box!

              Comment


              • #8
                *Could* be impacted by the movement. I've had a couple 1538's on these and always won. It's not as if a vehicle needs to slam on its brakes.

                Comment


                • #9
                  If there are no other vehicles impacted, why bother?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yea some confusion I think in my Dept. We use 22107 as a PCF when a vehicle veers off into the curb (solo TC) or into a vehicle in an opposing lane but slightly in front of it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      OK...If a vehicle is required to signal for a turning movement when it "affects another vehicle" (22107) and the signal must be continuous for 100 feet (22108), and a "turning movement" includes a lane change, can a motorcycle rider be cited for 22107/22108 when they are splitting lanes and they cross from one lane to another while splitting????

                      That is a lane change when they move from one lane to another while splitting...
                      My comments are my personal opinion and are based on my life experiences and training. They are not to be construed as legal advice in any form as I am not an attorney. Should you act on any of the information I provide in my comments, you do so at your own risk!!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Chiefjack. I've heard other cops use this same logic. If I were cited for 22107 while lane splitting I would argue against the violation as follows. I'm a longtime motor cop and a long time lane splitter and in my opinion the action of moving back and forth over the lane line, while splitting lanes, is not an action that will affect vehicles any more than lane sharing on one side of the line while splitting.
                        If you see me running try to keep up!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          21658 VC covers lane splitting. I found a case that says the "and" in the language is not conjuctive. In other words the and means "or".

                          But hey that's why we have discretion.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by LeeRoy View Post
                            Chiefjack. I've heard other cops use this same logic. If I were cited for 22107 while lane splitting I would argue against the violation as follows. I'm a longtime motor cop and a long time lane splitter and in my opinion the action of moving back and forth over the lane line, while splitting lanes, is not an action that will affect vehicles any more than lane sharing on one side of the line while splitting.
                            But 22107 says "may" have an effect, so if it's possible, then it would apply. Not that I would agree with a lane splitting ticket.

                            Originally posted by NuBoot1035 View Post
                            21658 VC covers lane splitting.
                            Not strictly speaking, but I see where you're going. The cool thing (for me anyway) about being allowed to lane split in CA is that it's generally fine. I've had every one of the 3 local agencies at one time or anouther either move over to make more room, or wave me by. The standing guidance used to be (before one idiot complained and got the CHP to take down their very useful tips) it was cool as long as it was done in a safe and reasonable manner. Safe and reasonable being 100% up to the LEO who would be issuing the cite. But you gotta be riding like a pretty big ****** to get a ticket while splitting. Of course, we here in SoCal seem to have the ****** market cornered, thank you very much.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The fat slob who made the complaint about the CHP lanesplitting guidelines is a state employee himself. He should be fired for that.
                              Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. - Ronald Reagan

                              I don't think It'll happen in the US because we don't trust our government. We are a country of skeptics, raised by skeptics, founded by skeptics. - Amaroq

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 5841 users online. 356 members and 5485 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X