CA vehicle code

[Slonopotam]

Hi,

A friend asked me a question we could not find an answer to in CA vehicle code.
The question is about lane merging, that is when 2 lanes become one.
Sometimes it is difficult to say which lane ends and which continues, but lets
assume it is not a problem this time.
Consider the situation, there is either a sign "Lane ends merge LEFT" or the right lane has bent arrows drawn on it, or both.
Who has the right of way ?

[GrimmJeeper]

i would say the left lane has the right of way, it is up to the merging lane to... well.... merge... :D

[kdailey4315]

I always thought this was a common sense type thing. One person goes from each lane at a time. To answer you question I would say the lane without the arrows would have the right of way.

[5-90]

Hi,

A friend asked me a question we could not find an answer to in CA vehicle code.
The question is about lane merging, that is when 2 lanes become one.
Sometimes it is difficult to say which lane ends and which continues, but lets
assume it is not a problem this time.
Consider the situation, there is either a sign "Lane ends merge LEFT" or the right lane has bent arrows drawn on it, or both.
Who has the right of way ?

As I understand it, the right of way typically belongs to whoever was in the lane first - meaning that the lane that continues to exist has the right of way (although it should be ceded to the incoming drivers. But, this is California...)

I know this much because I had someone rear-end me years ago, and they tried to say it was my fault (I was changing lanes at the time.) Since they were not changing lanes and I was, I was supposed to allow them right of way.

What didn't come out on their side (but damn sure did on mine!) was that I'd signalled and verified that the way was clear, but they then sped up to overtake me during the lane change... Oops - I told them I wasn't going to pay for that - and I didn't.

Anyhow, as I understand it, it is the lane that continues that has the right of way. As you said, this is usually clear - but it is sometimes not. I'm not sure how to handle the cases where it is not clear which lane continues.

Why for do you ask?

(You forgot the "California option" on the poll - "My vehicle always has the right of way!")

[Fergie]

Whoever DOES NOT interrupt the flow of traffic has the right of way. In this case, the person in the left lane does.

Same as on the interstate. If you are merging in to traffic, and I don't move over, that is your problem, not mine. However, it is easier to be polite and allow room than to be a dick and follow the "law."

Funny you mention this too, I just officially gave up my AZ residency...no more fun guns for a bit.

[WB9YZU]

I would think this is common sense also. I don't quite agree though that it is a matter of "First", or of "Interupting", but simple manners.
I am suprised as heck this would have come up as a question !

The lane merging yeilds right of way to non-merging trafic. Just like a ramp or a lane change (which is what you are executing). Or as Fergie put it, "just like the Interstate".

So if the Right lane is ending, the right of way belongs to the Left lane.

The common sense part I was talking about is simple: Share the road and be polite to other drivers; even if they are being knobs. You wouldn't dream of having another driver cutting you off, so why then race them to the end of the road to prove a point?

In the end, that is the best policy. Giving up a fraction of a second in drive time will not appreciably change the arrival time at your destination, but insisting on the right of way can.

Ron

[5-90]

I would think this is common sense also. I don't quite agree though that it is a matter of "First", or of "Interupting", but simple manners.
I am suprised as heck this would have come up as a question !

The lane merging yeilds right of way to non-merging trafic. Just like a ramp or a lane change (which is what you are executing). Or as Fergie put it, "just like the Interstate".

So if the Right lane is ending, the right of way belongs to the Left lane.

The common sense part I was talking about is simple: Share the road and be polite to other drivers; even if they are being knobs. You wouldn't dream of having another driver cutting you off, so why then race them to the end of the road to prove a point?

In the end, that is the best policy. Giving up a fraction of a second in drive time will not appreciably change the arrival time at your destination, but insisting on the right of way can.

Ron

I'll not argue with you - but California drivers, to put it bluntly, suck. They tend to drive like they're the only people on the road at that given moment - and it shows.

People out here don't signal, they don't look, and they seem to rarely stop. When I got out here, I was amazed at seeing some five roads incidents in two miles of freeway. After I'd been here a solid week, I was amazed that there weren't more!

[WB9YZU]

I'll not argue with you - but California drivers, to put it bluntly, suck. They tend to drive like they're the only people on the road at that given moment - and it shows.

People out here don't signal, they don't look, and they seem to rarely stop. When I got out here, I was amazed at seeing some five roads incidents in two miles of freeway. After I'd been here a solid week, I was amazed that there weren't more!

Sort of like Illinois drivers... J/K

I've driven in CA, though admittedly it was only for 1 week around the LA burbs by the airport, some of Hwy 1, and also up to Encino and back. They seemed just like everybody else to me.
Perhaps I was too wrapped up in the "newness" of the place to be jaded so easily.

The gas attendants are a different tune :roflmao:
CA is the only place where the owner of a gas station has ever came out to me, obviously angry, waiving his arms, and in a thick indian accent, blasted me for not knowing how to run his variation of a gas pump. After I asserted that I was dumb as a brick, note the thick midwest accent, he calmed down enough to show me the mysterious workings of his gas pump. Dam fine of him to do so; what a decent fellow ;)

Ron

[Matthew Currie]

Usually, the signs show the right lane ending, and the left continuing, which suggests that the left has the right of way, and often even add "climbing lane ends" or some such language. On the other hand, this can be a real nuisance in real life, because many people try to squeeze past at the last moment, forcing the person in the right either to slow way down, or even to go onto the shoulder. That's very inconvenient, especially for climbing lanes.

So I'm guessing that legally the right of way belongs to the left, but it's bad etiquette to take it late.

Edited to add, obviously I'm not in California. I'm speaking generally here!

[IslanderOffRoad]

The guy whose lane is not ending has the right of way.

Of course out here in the real world, its realisticaly whoever is less afraid of body damage, or more willing to hit the skinny pedal.

[91Woody]

I lived in CA for five years, just moved back East again last year. In my opinion, everyone in CA has the right of way all the time no matter the law- at least that's how they all drove. Hit the gas and move your ass. If you wanted to merge you usually had to "convince" someone that they wanted to let you merge. On some VERY rare occasions someone would wave me over, but usually it's cut-throat.
Back on track though, the lane not merging has the right away and the merging traffic must yield to the traffic pattern already established in said lane.

[streetpirate]

just close your eyes and say "lord, let me not fear body damage"

then just go for it. 99% of the time they let you in

[cdn_xj]

It would appear that the intent of the traffic laws is the same, even if the interpretation is not. lol

Here in BC when a vehicle must enter another vehicle's lane of travel (regardless of the reason why) the mergine vehicle must yield. Obviously emergency vehicles are exempt.

Alternate merging is not required, but is generally seen as the fairest way to deal with merging in rush-hour and is unwritten traffic ettiquite. so to speak.

[XJensen]

Just this morning some a-hole passing me cut me off when merging back into my lane. Why? I can only wonder, bad driver plan and simple.

His rear bumper was not even past my drivers door before he started to make a lane change back into my lane. I gave him the horn and he looked at me like, What?

The car in the non-merging lane has the right of way.

[XJensen]

California drivers, to put it bluntly, suck. They tend to drive like they're the only people on the road at that given moment - and it shows.


I also have to say living in both San Diego and Sacramento the drivers are much worse up here. Don't get me wrong they drive faster down there but it's more of a controled chaos. Here you will see five cars run a red light one after the other, people will drive on the sidewalk, and pass in the turn lanes.

These people should be beat!

[87manche]

just close your eyes and say "lord, let me not fear body damage"

then just go for it. 99% of the time they let you in
I've found that driving an MJ on 34's with steel bumpers and a lot of body damage usually get's you the right of way.

[billyjp2]

i always thought it was the vehicle that looks like it has the least to lose in an accident.

[TheAlmightySam]

You know, it's amazing how different drivers are around me when I'm driving my XJ vs. driving my girl's Lancer. It's a fight to merge, a fight to actually go fast in the fast lane, a fight to keep people from cutting you off in the Lancer. I get in my XJ, and suddenly people aren't in such a hurry to get in front of me. It was even better when I drove a ratted-up mid-eighties diesel Suburban occasionally :) .

[Slonopotam]

it is up to the merging lane to... well.... merge
If I am not mistaken, CA handbook formulates it as "merging laneS".

...common sense type thing. One person goes from each lane at a time.
...To answer you question I would say the lane without the arrows would have the right of way.


I would think this is common sense also. I don't quite agree though that it is a matter of "First", or of "Interupting", but simple manners.
I am suprised as heck this would have come up as a question !

unwritten traffic ettiquite

Ok, so generally NAXJA members know the rules of the road and have a good sense of humor.

The rules do not say, who has the right of way. Neither CA handbook, nor CA vehicle code. Period.
One can find additional material on the dmv web site, which tells, that the left lane has a right of way,
but one has really dig to find it and again, this is not a rule, this is some pretty well hidden secret.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/rd/r_d_report/Section%206/213_High_RisK_Elder_Driver.pdf

I admire attitude "why do you need laws, when people can just be polite and considerate of each other".
The problem is that not all people are like that. Now let's look at a foreigner in SF bay situation.
He reads CA handbook, he recognizes that it omits quite a few situations, then he reads CA vehicle code
just to find out that it is basically "just drive, baby [but safely]".
So the idea is to drive extremely carefully and learn as you go. It APPEARS that the rule is "one after one" [sometimes it is even enforced by traffic lights],
so the man accepts it, follows it as a rule and EXPECTS other drivers to behave accordingly.
This is a recipe for an accident.

My personal model is to be polite but not to expect others to be polite, but I am a known coward.
The idea behind this search was to find out how much impoliteness is reasonable to expect.

[philip_g]

merging means your lane ends, no lane=you have to change lanes, changing lanes yield to traffic in that lane.
contrary to what people seem to believe, particularly when passing 12 lane ends signs in a contruction zone so they can force their way in at the front.
No one wants to wait their turn anymore....

[Trail-Axe]

The rules do not say, who has the right of way. Neither CA handbook, nor CA vehicle code. Period.
Are you sure about that?

California Vehicle Code Section 22107 states:
"No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move
right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with
reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate
signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other
vehicle may be affected by the movement."

So the lane that merges would cause the driver in that lane to make a turning movement, and place the burden to do so safely on him, not the driver in the lane that continues on. :)

[WB9YZU]

The rules do not say, who has the right of way. Neither CA handbook... Period.


Well, no, it does, many times. It just doesn't word it as simply as "Here is an example of a end of lane sign. The lane which does not end has the "Right of Way".

I strongly recomend you re-read the drivers handbook; cover to cover. Here is the real link: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/dl600.pdf

Keep in mind that it is not going to come right out and say "Here's rule #426: Dealing with End of lane signs and who has the right of way".

You will have to examine the situation and apply your knowledge of both the "end of lane sign" and the "merge" it strongly suggests that you be prepared to make. Then put 2 and 2 together and apply the knowledge that you have learned about both subjects.

There is a very good reason that they do not allow the metally deficient to drive. :shocked:
If people can't make the required mental leaps and be adaptive in their interpretation of the rules of law, physics, moral values, and general common sense, they have no place on the road, least of all behind the wheel of a Tonka Toy in a sand box.

Ron

[5-90]

Are you sure about that?

California Vehicle Code Section 22107 states:
"No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move
right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with
reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate
signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other
vehicle may be affected by the movement."

So the lane that merges would cause the driver in that lane to make a turning movement, and place the burden to do so safely on him, not the driver in the lane that continues on. :)

The CA DMV handbook also sez "drive with your hands at 10 and 2, looking straight forward at all times" (emphasis mine.) At least, it did the last time I looked.

How many people do we see out here making lane changes without bothering to see if they're clear to do so? That's right - better than half (and, not to be stereotypical, but mostly Asian. Stereotypes usually have some basis in fact...)

And, while I can't recall specifics offhand, there are also instances where the DMV Handbook is just plain wrong, and where the "correct" answers on the written test were also wrong.

And don't get me started on the instructors out here...

One thing I've noted - incompetent instructors and incompetent evaluators do not make for effective drivers...

[Slonopotam]

Are you sure about that?

California Vehicle Code Section 22107 states:
"No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move
right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with
reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate
signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other
vehicle may be affected by the movement."

So the lane that merges would cause the driver in that lane to make a turning movement, and place the burden to do so safely on him, not the driver in the lane that continues on. :)

We see a definition of a "direct course" differently. When lanes merge, you actually continue moving straight, so my opinion is that the driver in the right lane does not deviate from "direct course". Your opinion is that the "direct course" for the right lane does not exist. Does CA VC define what is a "direct course", when it begins and ends ?

One a side note - I do not believe there is any common good behind giving the right of way to the lane without arrows. Examples ? Nobody wants to use "slow traffic keep right" lanes.

[Slonopotam]

Well, no, it does, many times.
I dare you to show me where it says it ONE time. Or how one could use logic to deduct the rule from the handbook, without using his own imagination or previous experience on CA roads. otherwise...


There is a very good reason that they do not allow the metally deficient to drive. :shocked:

becomes "a good reason not to allow people without imagination". And yes, they do allow mentally deficient people to drive, it is good for the economy. :amuzed:

[5-90]

And yes, they do allow mentally deficient people to drive, it is good for the economy. :amuzed:

Believe me, I know about the mentally deficient driving - I see it all the damn time! It's probably good for body shops and insurance companies, but I doubt it's useful for anyone else...

Andrushka - how long have you been here in CA? I'd think after about the first month you'd probably realise that the roadways out here are bordering on anarchy. I don't know whether I want an M35A2 "Deuce" or an M113 Gavin for a work truck...

"Hire the handicapped - it's fun to watch them work!" Apparently, someone thinks it's fun to watch them try to drive as well - but I'm not that someone...

[in2fords]

I dont know about california but down here in Hawaii it allways depends. If I drive my little Porsche then I never get the right of way! now If im in my rusted out, dented up, nobumper having big, loud dodge w150 with the roof cut off people stay the hell away from me and I do what I want. My rule is "they want to hit me less then I want them to hit me" and it depends on the type of their vehicle.
a couple years ago I was in rush hour traffic and a onramp was ending on my right, I let a mini van in and my job was done(call it the zipper or nascar effect, 1 for 1) the old man behind them speeds up and treis to wedge in front of me. Now Im in my 1991 f250 4x4, it was in nice shape but still a big noisy truck, he keeps coming over even after seeing Im not letting him in and he hits me. We pull over and his infinty g45 has a gauge down the side of it from my door step, I have no damage. at some point he should have noticed he was coming into me and I wasnt moving but he still hit me! In no way was it my fault and he admitted it so the cop just laughed and I drove off. I bet the old man still does the same thing everyday!!
Jeremy

[Slonopotam]

I doubt it's useful for anyone else...
Big automobile corporations, as an example. Everybody wants to make the market bigger, get more clients. Bill Gates CREATED software market, all software was free before him, in fact all the software tools he used to write his stupid BASIC interpretor he got for free. Intel CREATED microprocessor market (they bought back the design they made for some other company microcalculator, once they realized the potential), and so on.
Sure, there are groups of people whose interest conicides with an interest of some big business, but until that big business appears, there is no financial power to changes laws and otherwise create favourable conditions, or just make life impossible without satisfying that interest.
Now, I am not implying that, say, Chrysler did something. I am just saying that they have both the motive and means.

the roadways out here are bordering on anarchy.
I think you meant madness, since anarchy in moderation is a good thing.
I drove in St.Petersburg, Russia in the late nineties, that was madness. It is much better now, only very powerfull people are allowed to kill people intentionally and get away with it without any troubles.

I don't know whether I want an M35A2 "Deuce" or an M113 Gavin for a work truck...
I thought you worked at home, but if you need a work truck...M35A2 or something very similar is parked at techshop parking lot. Make them an offer :)

[Trail-Axe]

We see a definition of a "direct course" differently. When lanes merge, you actually continue moving straight, so my opinion is that the driver in the right lane does not deviate from "direct course". Your opinion is that the "direct course" for the right lane does not exist. Does CA VC define what is a "direct course", when it begins and ends ? One a side note - I do not believe there is any common good behind giving the right of way to the lane without arrows. Examples ? Nobody wants to use "slow traffic keep right" lanes.

I'm not sure why you do not understand this my friend. The California Vehicle Code does not need to define English. Webster has already done that for us. Direct Course is two words. Direct, meaning: "take charge of, or to cause to move toward a goal." And Course, meaning: "Onward movement in a particular direction or the route or path taken." So by this definition, which is not my personal definition, a Direct Course can be straight forward, or even a turning movement. I bet the next time you are on the road you will notice that the lane merging does not continue in a straight line, you would probably be on the shoulder if you did, but in fact it requires some steering input to merge into the existing lane.

But Vehicle code section 22107 does not stop there; it also says, “Or move right or left upon a roadway," as in merge left or right, which is what you are doing when one lane ends, and merges with an existing lane.

[Slonopotam]

No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course
Lane change, agreed.
So by this definition, ... a Direct Course can be straight forward, or even a turning movement
agreed, lane can turn
you actually continue moving straight, ... the driver in the right lane does not deviate from "direct course"
your lane turns and becomes one with another lane.
you will notice that the lane merging does not continue in a straight line, ... but in fact it requires some steering input to merge into the existing lane.
No need to make demented people drive. It's a picture time.
http://slonopotam.no-ip.org/AJXAN/merge1.JPG.
Funny thing, I notice a traffic light, it does not operate most of the time, but when it does, it changes the rule to "one by one".
“Or move right or left upon a roadway," as in merge left or right
Now where exactly does it say "as in ..." ?

Now, please let me change the original situation a little. If there were no sign "lane ends, merge left", would you still insist that the lane ends ?
I mean, the arrows by themselves do not mean "yield". You can see arrows everywhere and they basically mean the direction of travel.

[Trail-Axe]

Now where exactly does it say "as in ..." ?Now, please let me change the original situation a little. If there were no sign "lane ends, merge left", would you still insist that the lane ends ? I mean, the arrows by themselves do not mean "yield". You can see arrows everywhere and they basically mean the direction of travel.

My friend, if you desire to learn, I have said enough on this subject. If it is a debate, then it will have to be with another. Drive safely and good day to you.

[5-90]

I think you meant madness, since anarchy in moderation is a good thing.

I do work at home - but I sometimes have to work out of the home, and (horrors!) there are days I end up having to work in SF!

Anarchy governed by social contract would be a good thing - but what we've got on the roadways doesn't seem to be governed by anything at all. The "me first!" mentality I've long seen here in CA is nowhere near as apparent as it is on public roadways...

[WB9YZU]

I dare you to show me where it says it ONE time. Or how one could use logic to deduct the rule from the handbook, without using his own imagination or previous experience on CA roads. otherwise...


becomes "a good reason not to allow people without imagination". And yes, they do allow mentally deficient people to drive, it is good for the economy. :amuzed:

You quote, what you want and ignore the rest. What you omitted was me telling you that it says so many times, but you need to put the pieces together by refering to different subjects, starting with the "End of lane" sign. I explained that process.

...Sigh...

End of Discussion

Turns out you don't want a discussion, you want an argument.
You don't actually want to know the answer, but are being a troll.

Go RTFM. If you posess anything higher than a babys IQ, you will comprehend and connect the concepts you need to grasp. If after RTFM, you still have questions, I strongly recomend you retake drivers education, because there is a strong chance that you missunderstood a large amount of other vital connections along the way.

Good Luck! (tic)

[Leep]

The law in calif states the the merging vehicle must yield or give the right of way to free flowing traffic. They must merge at the same rate of flow to make an attempt not to impead on the forward flow of traffic.