ItsBruce:
I sometimes sit as a traffic judge in LA Superior Court and I see lots of speeding tickets, but have never seen an obstructing traffic ticket. Obstructing traffic by driving too slowly or daydreaming instead of making a turn is, in my view, at least as hazardous as speeding. It causes everyone else to become frustrated and then to drive particularly poorly or aggressively. So, why no tickets for obstructing traffic by driving too slowly?
It's nice to see someone from the bench weighing in on this topic.
With driving too slow (CVC 22400a) it all depends on one's interpretation of "impede or block the normal and reasonable flow of traffic." In California, NOBODY drives the speed limit except when they know there's a cop around; 10 MPH over is common, with 15 over becoming more frequent. So one could argue that by driving the posted limit, one is "impeding the normal flow" of traffic. While CVC 22400a does provide exemptions if it is "necessary for safe operation, because of a grade, or in compliance with law" it's tricky to cite a motorist for this section.
People tend to get rather upset if they feel they're driving as fast as they safely can (particularly the elderly) and SLAM! they're being cited for it. That just fuels the notion of police officers being "armed tax collectors." For that reason, I only cite for this section when I can clearly articulate the notion of "impeding" to a judge, such as 35 MPH on a posted 65 MPH freeway (with traffic going above that) or something like 10 MPH in a posted 35 MPH zone. Another reason I would use it is for someone who is FULLY stopped in a traffic lane for reasons not related to safe operation or to comply with the law, which is actually the more common reason for me to issue such a cite.
As a traffic court judge, what would YOU consider to be "impeding?"
As to why we tend to write more speeding tickets than "impeding" tickets is simple: I can name NUMEROUS traffic collisions that I've investigated in which excessive speed was the primary collision factor, or else a secondary collision factor in which the primary was DUI. In nearly 13 years, I have yet to to come across one in which someone driving too slow caused a collision. While some would argue that slow drivers are prone to being rear-ended, and/or cause other drivers to make unsafe lane changes to avoid hitting them, my argument is that regardless of the posted limit, one should NEVER drive above that speed that would allow him/her to safely react to any roadway hazards, including vehicles that are driving slowly or even stopped in unexpected places. It's the concept behind the Basic Speed Law.
If someone's slow driving is bringing out the aggression of another driver, or causes that other driver to drive in a reckless manner, it's the OTHER driver who needs an attitude adjustment in the form of a citation, or even an arrest if warranted. However, it's another example of how Americans like to blame the other guy for their own screwups.
Off-duty, when I feel someone is driving "too slow" I take a hard look at myself, and my speedometer. Is this person driving "too slow" when they're already at the posted limit? Or is it just me being impatient, and I'm blaming the guy in front of me when it's really me to blame?
Now, there are other forms of "obstructing" that are also citable under the California Vehicle Code. You speak about "daydreaming and not making a turn" which I presume to be left turns. Only problem with that is if the motorist is facing a circular green and not a green arrow, the onus is on the motorist to make sure his/her left turn is being done in a safe manner, since a collision with oncoming traffic will almost automatically put that left-turning motorist at fault. Green left arrow of course is a different story, it's mandating that you go unless necessary for safe operation, or to prevent blocking the intersection in violation of the anti-gridlock law.
Another myth here in California is that a motorist MUST make a right turn on red. CVC 21453(b) states that a motorist MAY, not SHALL, but MAY make a right turn on red (or left turn on red if from a one way street onto a one way street) when safe to do so, unless signs at the intersection specifically prohibit it. Again, absent a green right arrow (with the same exceptions as above), the onus is on the motorist to make sure that a right turn on red is being done in a safe manner. So if the motorist does not feel comfortable until the light turns green...that's just too bad for the people behind him or her.
If a motorist does not IMMEDIATELY go on their green, yes they could be daydreaming, or maybe they're checking to make sure it's clear to enter the intersection. The California Vehicle Code clearly states that traffic that first entered the intersection on a green or a yellow have the right of way, even if you now have the green light. Where I will issue (and have issued) a cite is if the motorist is truly not paying attention, and they've let their signal cycle all the way to red for no legitimate reason such as unsafe to cross, emergency vehicles coming through, will cause them to block the intersection in violation of the anti-gridlock law, etc. With the increasing proliferation of red-light runners, taking an extra second before entering the intersection could save your life. Many traffic engineers will intentionally "delay" the onset of a green signal for a second or two for this very reason.
