Comments on: Is It Legal to Change Lanes in an Intersection?

By: SuperM

SuperM — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:06:37 +0000

Even. changing lanes in the vicinity of an intersection (without even having entered it) is not illegal. That’s why there are unbroken lanes near the intersection!!

Unbroken lanes = Do not change lane.
If you are not to change lanes near an intersection then you certainly should not be changing lanes when you are in the intersection.

I second the ‘dumb prick’ charge, and raise it to a f’ing a$$hole.

By: I-95, U-405

I-95, U-405 — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 23:03:44 +0000

Bobby, what you are talking about is a left turn from a single left turn only lane. In that scenario, yes, you can go to any lane that’s open if you can do so safely. However, go to this link and look at Example #7 and the graphic that goes with it:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/turns.htm#turnexamples

Granted, they’re talking about instances at a T-intersection, but the car in the middle lane, which has an option of turning right or left, is supposed to follow the turn so that it ends up in the appropriate lane.

As for why some people say making a lane change in an intersection is more unsafe, I suppose it’s because lane markings tend to cease in the middle of intersections. In some very large intersections, sometimes the municipality has chosen to paint lane markings in the intersection, but for the most part they’re non-existent. As a result, one could argue that it’s riskier to make a lane change maneuver when there aren’t any markings on the pavement. I suppose one could also argue that there are more hazards to be aware of in an intersection than not…so why not wait the few extra feet before executing a lane change?

In the end, it’s up to the judgement of the officer who cited an unsafe lane change as to why such a lane change was unsafe. Sure, you can be a martyr and try to fight this in court, though I think the smarter, safer, and more time-efficient route would be to just not execute lane changes in intersections.

By: Bobby

Bobby — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 05:05:32 +0000

I-95, U-405,
You wrote, ” If the law demands that in multiple turn lanes (say 2 left hand turning lanes), you must initiate and finish the turn in the same lane.” But the CA vehicle code does NOT state that. It says that when making a left turn you can move into any lane that it’s safe to turn into.
And I greatly agree with Bobbo. An unsafe lane change isn’t any more unsafe just because it was made in an intersection, and it isn’t any more safe if it’s NOT made in and intersection. In fact, No One has explained what would make a lane change any less safe by making it in an intersection — it seems people state that it’s obviously less safe because it’s less safe. Shees! what dumb logic!

By: Vytautas

Vytautas — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 02:57:06 +0000

cool you saytik! Write more!

By: I-95, U-405

I-95, U-405 — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:24:15 +0000

Carol, unfortunately, according to what I read in the article, your friend was turning left in front of oncoming traffic at an intersection. So even though the motorcyclist was drunk and changing lanes in the middle of the intersection, your friend legally had to yield the right of way before initiating any left turning movement. Was there any associated factors for the accident on the police report? For example, if your friend’s failure to yield the right of way was the main cause of the accident, an associated factor could be that the motorcyclist was speeding. Were there any witnesses that could testify to the fact that the motorcyclist was speeding? This could help reduce the severity of any sentence if your friend is convicted.

By: Carol

Carol — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:03:20 +0000

We have heated case here in Ohio regarding a mortorcycle passing another motorcycle on the right in an intersection and fatally smashing into the side of an SUV. My friend was the driver of the SUV. He’s pleaded not guilty to the vehicular manslaughter charge and is demanding a jury. What do you guys think? http://www.the-daily-record.com/news/article/3844422

By: I-95, U-405

I-95, U-405 — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 06:40:34 +0000

Bobbo, great points. I suppose the question is what is the objective of most people who are changing lanes in intersections? Usually it’s too pass, and more often than not it’s to avoid getting stuck in the intersection (ie. tailing the car in front of them without checking to see if there was enough clearance before proceeding forward). I guess the gray area is where the spirit of the law comes in vs. the letter of the law. If’ it’s 3 am in the morning and you’re the only car on the street, then sure, switching lanes in an intersection isn’t a big deal. But when there’s a lot of traffic on the road, common sense will dictate that changing lanes in unmarked intersections lends itself to unsafe driving. If the law demands that in multiple turn lanes (say 2 left hand turning lanes), you must initiate and finish the turn in the same lane, so as to avoid cars colliding into each other, reason dictates the same should hold true while going straight. And in the end, since cops do use unsafe lane change citations pretty liberally, it’s probably best not to try to nitpick around the lettering of a law and just suck up with driving straight a few extra feet.