• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Ticket for not Signaling

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Rincon3

Junior Member
What is the name of your state?
California

The offence is listed as an infraction, code: 22108 VC (Turning without signaling last 100 feet).

I was pulled over for going 45 in a 30mph zone at 10pm on a monday night, no traffic, clear and dry weather. The officer gave me a warning on speeding and issued me a ticket for turning twice without signaling. I am just wondering where I should go to find out more about the law and if there is anything I can argue, as well as figure out if traffic school would be benificial to me, or a wash due to the time/fees, as this actually the first moving violation I have ever had.

Any help would be greatly appreciated, thank you.
 


TYRIS

Member
Rincon3 said:
What is the name of your state?
California

The offence is listed as an infraction, code: 22108 VC (Turning without signaling last 100 feet).

I was pulled over for going 45 in a 30mph zone at 10pm on a monday night, no traffic, clear and dry weather. The officer gave me a warning on speeding and issued me a ticket for turning twice without signaling. I am just wondering where I should go to find out more about the law and if there is anything I can argue, as well as figure out if traffic school would be benificial to me, or a wash due to the time/fees, as this actually the first moving violation I have ever had.

Any help would be greatly appreciated, thank you.[/QUOTE


The Officer gave you a break and you still want to fight the ticket?!! this is
why I don't give breaks....people are ungrateful.

You don't dispute the fact that that you were not speeding or failing to signal the last 100 feet prior to turning.


Tyris
 

Rincon3

Junior Member
TYRIS said:
Rincon3 said:
What is the name of your state?
California

The offence is listed as an infraction, code: 22108 VC (Turning without signaling last 100 feet).

I was pulled over for going 45 in a 30mph zone at 10pm on a monday night, no traffic, clear and dry weather. The officer gave me a warning on speeding and issued me a ticket for turning twice without signaling. I am just wondering where I should go to find out more about the law and if there is anything I can argue, as well as figure out if traffic school would be benificial to me, or a wash due to the time/fees, as this actually the first moving violation I have ever had.

Any help would be greatly appreciated, thank you.[/QUOTE


The Officer gave you a break and you still want to fight the ticket?!! this is
why I don't give breaks....people are ungrateful.

You don't dispute the fact that that you were not speeding or failing to signal the last 100 feet prior to turning.


Tyris

Well, I believe the officer gave me a "break" on the speeding ticket because it would not have held up in court. I was not driving at a speed that was unsafe for the conditions, and I would be willing to bet that a traffic survey of the same area would show a higher average speed than 30mph, if there was one done in the last 5 years. Instead he went with a citation that from what I have read so far is much more easy to convict on being that it is written much more straight forward.

I was simply looking for information on the law to make sure that it was being enforced correctly as the officers and courts in this town have a reputation for handling things improperly.

I also am trying to figure out if it would be beneficial for me to attend traffic school, because I do not know how the DMV point system works and if these moving violations have a point value to them, and if so what it is.

But thank you for your unhelpful input, assuming you are an officer of the law I wouldn't expect anything less as said agencies seem to be more focused on finding ways to bend the system to gain revenue to fund their bloated budgets rather than focusing on being there to help people in need and uphold/protect our rights.
 

fedcop110

Member
Bloated Budgets? Funding from Citations? That would be great!! I need to find the city that you live in. I would do just about anything to get a bloated budget. :D Or any budget at all other than the one that we have. I guess it's time to move to Cali.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
Rincon3 said:
Well, I believe the officer gave me a "break" on the speeding ticket because it would not have held up in court.
CVC 22350 is not JUST for unsafe speed.


I was simply looking for information on the law to make sure that it was being enforced correctly as the officers and courts in this town have a reputation for handling things improperly.
Courts aren't part of the "town" - they are county. And the two are not related.

As for defenses, CVC 22107 is often cited as the section that giverns under what conditions a signal is needed:

22107. 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.


And 22108 reads:

22108. Any signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given
continuously during the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before
turning.


So, you might be able to argue that if there was no other vehicle near enough to have been effected by the movement the signal was un-necessary. However, this is NOT a universally accepted argument and it might backfire on you.


I also am trying to figure out if it would be beneficial for me to attend traffic school, because I do not know how the DMV point system works and if these moving violations have a point value to them, and if so what it is.
It should be a 1 point violation (see CVC 12810 et seq.)


But thank you for your unhelpful input, assuming you are an officer of the law I wouldn't expect anything less as said agencies seem to be more focused on finding ways to bend the system to gain revenue to fund their bloated budgets rather than focusing on being there to help people in need and uphold/protect our rights.
Ah, yes! My FAVORITE fallacy ... okay, here is a primer in fines and budgeting to CA law enforcement:

It is NOT a profit making venture for local law enforcement to cite for moving violations. We receive approximately $22 of every $100 fine. This rarely makes up for the cost of the officer and the processing of the citation by clerical personnel - and if it goes to court, it is a DEFINITE money-loser. Furthermore, state law CAPS what we can receive from these fines and most agencies usually max. out 8 months in to the fiscal year.

So you know, when budget crunches hit (like in the past two years) we do not consider increasing traffic enforcement, we consider increasing PARKING enforcement. Why? Because that money goes almost entirely to the local government! Thus, if the police were in the money-making business we'd put them in golf carts and give them a chalk stick. Parking enforcement generally at least pays for itself when done with gusto.

I won't even address the comment on "bloated budgets". If you think its that bloated, you need to take a gander at your local police department's budget a little better.

Speed enforcement is a proven method of improving public safety. If you don't like it, then get politically active and remove speed enforcement from your local agency's priorities. Who knows, you might even get a drag strip on the public roadways!

Your attitude is one of the reasons why some cops do NOT give breaks to anyone. I rarely do. And based on Tyris' account, I think he is in the same boat. Gee ... imagine that ... officers with time under their belts coming to the same conclusion.

Go figger.

- Carl
 
Last edited:

Labtec600

Member
"But thank you for your unhelpful input, assuming you are an officer of the law I wouldn't expect anything less as said agencies seem to be more focused on finding ways to bend the system to gain revenue to fund their bloated budgets rather than focusing on being there to help people in need and uphold/protect our rights."

One thing people dont understand is the Police dont like people telling them how to do their jobs. 99% of the people who post on this board seem to think they know the laws better than the police.

Look at it from their stand point, how would you like it if one of them came in to your work and told you how to do it?

Yes, you do have the right to fight things, but when you do fight them dont expect the law enforcement people on this board to be Mr/Ms. Nice.
 

Rincon3

Junior Member
Thank you CdwJava, that is what I was looking for, just an explanation of the violations so that I knew what I was facing when I go to court. Being that I was literally the only car on the road when I made the two lane changes, other than the officer who was far enough behind me that I did not notice him until he came up and started pacing me, there is a possibility that my not signaling did not warrant a ticket. I will have to look into that, as I’m not interested in going in front of a judge and pissing them off by being misinformed or arguing a point that has no credibility, and receiving even more fines.

One other question I have is if anyone knows how I would go about obtaining the traffic survey for that street/area of town, mostly out of curiosity but I like to be well informed.

As for the comments on budget I will take a few minutes to explain something that may clear up what I said because from the responses you guys have given I think this explanation could be of value, as you're misinterpreting what I said. And, well I like talking about this stuff because every time I do, I learn something, and knowledge is second in value only to time.

A bloated budget does not directly equate to the entire hierarchy of the budget having a noticeable lax in capitol to spend. This is true when it comes to government, especially our government at this time. In regards to government departments, good and healthy business practices go out the window, and they do so quickly. The operating procedure is to make sure that your entire budget is spent before the annual review, because if it is not, it will be decreased. Often times those funds are misallocated, because they are spent very quickly in a furry at the end of the organizations fiscal year. Employees such as police officers often do not see any of this money, because to give the whole department a raise, more/better equipment/training, and other such all inclusive acts is an action that is done at the beginning of the fiscal year, when the budget statements from the prior year show that the department was likely close to, or over budget.

That creates quite a negative atmosphere from a business standpoint, and encourages some of the most arrogant and foolhardy business practices that a capitalist could ever invasion. In general terms a government employee is punished for being efficient when it comes to revenue and budget, unfortunately that can only last so long, and eventually will collapse. I personally hope that does not happen, but I would start preparing for a drastic economic/government flux or change in the next 30 years. On average a person will experience a major depression every 65 years, the baby boomer generation has yet to experience one, and is nearing the average age of 45. Think about it, it will serve you well.

Tickets are a great revenue system, just because the issuing department only sees 22% of that revenue does not mean that it does not exist. The officers, clerks, and all other agencies involved in handling the process of those tickets will be paid, tickets being issued, or not. It is far more profitable to issue them.

I would gladly and wholeheartedly invest in anything that was legal and gave a consistent 22% return, it would be foolish not to. Some of the most successful stockbrokers in history had average returns in the area of %16. The Stop and Shop super market chain on the east coast is considered to be almost god like due to the fact that they have an average annual ROI of 5%, where as most other major chains in the area are below %1.

Parking citations are even more profitable, that is true. In my town they have given more people golf carts and chalk sticks, as well as changed nearly 30% of the cities streets, in the downtown locations where daytime commuter parking is most prevalent, to have once a week street sweeping. There is nowhere to park in my town, it is a major issue, and has been for years. On any given day, there will be a percentage of people forced to pay $35 to park that day, because there are no spots left, and they will have to accept a ticket. Why do this to your city? Because the budgets from last year, and the years before that show that the government departments are close to, or over budget… so they must need more revenue, they must find a way to spend more money.

I have lived here for 13 years, I live on a street that has "street sweeping" twice a week, I have never, once, seen a street sweeper at the times that parking is not allowed. Be that as it may, it is amazing revenue for the city; unfortunately it will almost certainly not go to good use, as financial literacy is not required to be responsible for government budgets as it is in the civilian business world.

Remember, wealth is not how much money you have, or how much money you spend, but how much money you keep. Unfortunately the system that our government uses does not adopt that belief.
 

Pugilist

Member
If getting traffic school is important for you, you may not be able to fight it. It will depend upon the policy of your local judges. Some judges won't give traffic school (to those who have been found guilty) after the case has been argued. To find out if that is the case in your local court, you will need to go there and observe some trials.

If the judges are liberal about school after trial, then fight the ticket. Go see your local reference librarian for books on how to do it.

Pug
 

Curt581

Senior Member
Rincon3 said:
A bloated budget does not directly equate to the entire hierarchy of the budget having a noticeable lax in capitol to spend. This is true when it comes to government, especially our government at this time. In regards to government departments, good and healthy business practices go out the window, and they do so quickly. The operating procedure is to make sure that your entire budget is spent before the annual review, because if it is not, it will be decreased. Often times those funds are misallocated, because they are spent very quickly in a furry at the end of the organizations fiscal year. Employees such as police officers often do not see any of this money, because to give the whole department a raise, more/better equipment/training, and other such all inclusive acts is an action that is done at the beginning of the fiscal year, when the budget statements from the prior year show that the department was likely close to, or over budget.

That creates quite a negative atmosphere from a business standpoint, and encourages some of the most arrogant and foolhardy business practices that a capitalist could ever invasion. In general terms a government employee is punished for being efficient when it comes to revenue and budget, unfortunately that can only last so long, and eventually will collapse. I personally hope that does not happen, but I would start preparing for a drastic economic/government flux or change in the next 30 years. On average a person will experience a major depression every 65 years, the baby boomer generation has yet to experience one, and is nearing the average age of 45. Think about it, it will serve you well.

Tickets are a great revenue system, just because the issuing department only sees 22% of that revenue does not mean that it does not exist. The officers, clerks, and all other agencies involved in handling the process of those tickets will be paid, tickets being issued, or not. It is far more profitable to issue them.

I would gladly and wholeheartedly invest in anything that was legal and gave a consistent 22% return, it would be foolish not to. Some of the most successful stockbrokers in history had average returns in the area of %16. The Stop and Shop super market chain on the east coast is considered to be almost god like due to the fact that they have an average annual ROI of 5%, where as most other major chains in the area are below %1.
You have no idea what you're talking about.

You're talking about a business that generates a profit on what it produces. "Profit" being the amount of money made after ALL expenses incurred with production have been covered. Municipal service agencies do not produce profits.

In the case of traffic enforcement, no "profit" is made, since the costs are far exceeded by the amount of revenue generated.

Your 22% return figure is NOT the profit. It's the percentage of the fine amount actually recieved by the municipality. They have to cover all costs incurred from that amount. The rest goes to the State, the court system, the Jail fund, the Crime Lab fund, etc etc.

If you have such an objection to monetary fines being levied for traffic infractions, such that you claim they are nothing more than revenue generation... Tell us how we should punish offenders instead of imposing fines. We currently have three legally acceptable methods of punishing violators:

1. We could Jail them. This results in costs passed directly to property taxpayers. Would you really support jailing speeders?

2. We could sanction their driver's licenses more harshly than we currently do. This would result in many more unlicensed drivers on the road than there are now, and higher profits for insurance companies, in increased premiums.

3. We can fine them.

Which would you prefer?
 

Rincon3

Junior Member
Curt581 said:
You have no idea what you're talking about.

You're talking about a business that generates a profit on what it produces. "Profit" being the amount of money made after ALL expenses incurred with production have been covered. Municipal service agencies do not produce profits.

In the case of traffic enforcement, no "profit" is made, since the costs are far exceeded by the amount of revenue generated.

Your 22% return figure is NOT the profit. It's the percentage of the fine amount actually recieved by the municipality. They have to cover all costs incurred from that amount. The rest goes to the State, the court system, the Jail fund, the Crime Lab fund, etc etc.

If you have such an objection to monetary fines being levied for traffic infractions, such that you claim they are nothing more than revenue generation... Tell us how we should punish offenders instead of imposing fines. We currently have three legally acceptable methods of punishing violators:

1. We could Jail them. This results in costs passed directly to property taxpayers. Would you really support jailing speeders?

2. We could sanction their driver's licenses more harshly than we currently do. This would result in many more unlicensed drivers on the road than there are now, and higher profits for insurance companies, in increased premiums.

3. We can fine them.

Which would you prefer?

22% is not a figure I came up with, rather one of the officers in this thread. And even if 0% was returned to the issuing department, the fine would still offset the cost of the system, a system that costs the same in the case of tickets being issued or not.

I also never said I was against fining offenders, there has to be some punishment for infringing on other peoples rights to prevent it from occurring. I simply said that ticketing is encouraged, through various ways (the most ridiculous of which would be the quota system), and pressure is put on the system as a whole to bring in revenue from fines. That is a poor mentality, and yet it is so ingraned in the system as a whole that it is almost entirely bypassed and looked over. That is not a new revelation. I guarantee you this, if fines generated no revenue, and only cost, they would not exist.

And the problems with the system returning so little of the fine to the issuing department is a problem with the system, and is due to it NOT being run with the encouraging factors of private business in mind.

But live with whatever opinion and understanding of money and how it works you wish. Personally I'm going to keep mine, because in mine, my true assets pay for my expenses, and my budget is not designed around making sure it is all spent every year.

Municipal service agencies do not produce profits.
The sad thing is that you use that as an argument, instead of seeing it as a problem.
 

Curt581

Senior Member
Rincon3 said:
And even if 0% was returned to the issuing department, the fine would still offset the cost of the system, a system that costs the same in the case of tickets being issued or not.
Yup, I was right. You don't know what you're talking about.

I'd like to find ONE municipal agency that 'breaks even' on any traffic enforcement system.
I also never said I was against fining offenders, there has to be some punishment for infringing on other peoples rights to prevent it from occurring
How can you, on one hand, claim fining offenders as nothing more than revenue generation, and on the other hand support the same system because there has to be a way to punish offenders?

Or is it just revenue generation when it's levied against YOU ?
I guarantee you this, if fines generated no revenue, and only cost, they would not exist.
Really?

Then explain the existence of the Jail/Prison/Correctional System.

How much revenue do they generate?
And the problems with the system returning so little of the fine to the issuing department is a problem with the system, and is due to it NOT being run with the encouraging factors of private business in mind.
Your arguments are gibberish.

The whole purpose of limiting what percentage of fines are received is to ensure that traffic enforcement does NOT become a profit making venture.

If any such system were run like a private business as you suggest, do you think the push for revenue generation would increase or decrease?

Don't you think the first thing management would do in such a 'business' would be to remove any and all discretion from line officers in whether or not to cite a driver?
But live with whatever opinion and understanding of money and how it works you wish. Personally I'm going to keep mine, because in mine, my true assets pay for my expenses, and my budget is not designed around making sure it is all spent every year.
Obviously, I'm not going to convince you of anything. I'm just trying to point out the immense gaping holes and blatant contradictions in your arguments.

You have no understanding whatsoever of municipal or police agency budgets.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top