A09823 Summary:

BILL NO    A09823 

SAME AS    Same as S 5175-B

SPONSOR    Miller J

COSPNSR    

MLTSPNSR   

Amd S1128, V & T L

Relates to the presence of official full or partial barrier markings on
roadways which prohibit crossing of such markings.

A09823 Actions:

BILL NO    A09823 

02/01/2010 referred to transportation

A09823 Votes:

A09823 Memo:

BILL NUMBER:A9823

TITLE OF BILL:  An act to amend the vehicle and traffic law, in relation
to roadway lane markings

PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL: To amend the vehicle and traffic law by
clarifying which roadway official traffic control devices prohibit the
changing of travel lanes in the same direction.

SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS: Section I of the bill amends subdivision
d of section 1128 of chapter 206 of vehicle and traffic law by changing
the language "markings are in place indicating those portions of any
roadway where crossing such markings would be especially hazardous, no
driver of a vehicle proceeding along such highway shall at any time
drive across such markings" to read, "traffic control devices are in
installed on roadways prohibiting the changing of lanes, drivers of
vehicles shall obey the direction of every such device." Additionally it
adds the wording "For the purpose of this subdivision, official traffic
control devices are designated by a two normal solid white line pavement
marking or a sign. Section 2 provides that this act shall take effect
immediately.

JUSTIFICATION: As the current vehicle and traffic law 1128(d) is writ-
ten, official highway markings are those that shall not at any time be
crossed by a driver. The law's original intent was as a "no lane change"
provision to the vehicle and traffic law. However, the current law is
vague and allows police officers to issue a ticket in violation of
section 1128(d) to anyone whom the officer deems has, in a hazardous
manner crossed a marking such as the edgeline, which could include your
own driveway entrance. The Appellate Term, of the Second Department
found in the People v Shulman that the white edgeline along the side of
the road does not constitute an "official marking" under VAT 1128(d).
This court ruled in favor of Mr. Shulman, finding from his research that
the original intent of section 1128(d) was in specific reference to
crossing barrier markings. The white edgeline along the road, for
instance, does not represent a _barrier marking and thus is not an offi-
cial. roadway marking under section 1128(d).

The presence barrier markings already indicates those portions of the
roadway where the NYDOT has determined that crossing such markings would
be especially hazardous and thus that changing lanes is prohibited.
Further, the extra wording "where crossing such markings would be espe-
cially hazardous" can be misconstrued as an additional criterion (to the
presence of barrier markings) required being in violation of this law.

In the proposed amendment, the use of the phase "where changing lanes is
prohibited", brings NYS VAT 1128 (d) closer to the corresponding termi-
nology in the Uniform Vehicle Code 11-309(d). Further, to update section
1128(d), the term "barrier markings" which is no longer described in the
NYS MUTCD, has been replaced by the Federal MUTCD description, "a two
normal solid white line pavement marking".

PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: 2007-08; remained in committee

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None Known.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This act shall take effect immediately.