Is this Texas "no left turn" sign correctly placed?

The "Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices" states "If No Left Turn (R3-2) signs (see Figure 2B-3) are used, at least one should be placed either over the roadway, at the far left corner of the intersection, on a median, or in conjunction with the STOP sign or YIELD sign located on the near right corner.". My son got a ticket for disobeying a "no left turn" sign that was posted about 300 feet from the intersection. Here is a link to the situation:
78729 - Google Maps
Can he win this in court, particularly representing himself?

Where is the sign?

this is a rerun. Already had this discussion months ago. The turn sign is in reference to the traffic coming down that particular ramp. I suspect it is to prevent the traffic coming down that ramp from blocking traffic behind them as they would try to navigate clear across all the lanes to be able to turn left at the intersection just ahead.

The Occultist said:

Where is the sign?

Click to expand...

The sign is located on the right hand side of the road and from google maps it looks like it might be around 300 feet from the intersection. It is intended to tell traffic in the right hand lane that it is illegal to turn left and that is why it is not place at the intersection. The left lanes are allowed to make a left turn. The question is whether the placement is incorrect according to the law I cited and therefore its placement is arguable in court.

justalayman said:

this is a rerun. Already had this discussion months ago. The turn sign is in reference to the traffic coming down that particular ramp. I suspect it is to prevent the traffic coming down that ramp from blocking traffic behind them as they would try to navigate clear across all the lanes to be able to turn left at the intersection just ahead.

Click to expand...

Good observation, justalayman. The thing is my previous take on this was to argue the wording of the sign. It says "from ramp". My new take on fighting this is to say the sign is placed incorrectly according to the law. I'm wondering whether that is a good defense.

at least one should be placed either over the roadway, at the far left corner of the intersection, on a median, or in conjunction with the STOP sign or YIELD sign located on the near right corner."

Click to expand...

should means it is not required but strongly suggested; must or shall means it is required.

you also left this part out:

Turn Prohibition signs should be placed where they will be most easily seen by road users who might be
intending to turn.

Click to expand...

you should also notice that the TMUCTD also wrote this at the beginning of the section you are citing:

Guidance:

Click to expand...

so, what that means is: the sign is not mandatory. It is to be placed where they would be most likely to be seen by those it is intended for. This is not the requirements for installation of signs but MUCTD's suggested placement and use of signs.

then, your cited section refers to the actual intersection. Obviously you would not put the sign in question at the intersection as it is not intended to address traffic at the intersection.

justalayman, your arguments do seem reasonable and I would much rather hear it in a forum than from a lawyer or a judge in court. I guess my son will go to trial before a judge and hope the officer doesn't show up.

BTW, We have managed to get several continuances having heard that delaying might help. We even got one continuance before the judge on the grounds that we didn't know that I couldn't represent him. I didn't feel so bad when the judge mentioned that law students often make the same mistake (thinking they can represent their friends). Lucky for us, because the police officer did show up. He's got one more chance that the police officer won't show up. I think we'll just take the plea bargain if he does. Through all of this we have found that the prosecuting attorneys (at least here in Austin, TX) wait to see if the officer shows up and if he does, they offer you the plea bargain one last time, a no lose situation for going to trial before a judge (other than the loss of time, but that's paid back in what we've learned).

Here is my take on that sign, and as it was pointed out that the TMUTCD used the word "guidance" and I will take justalayman word for that since I have not read it. However, usually in the federal MUTCD which all states are mandated to follow sign placement is not a guidance especially one that ticket can be written for, they usually have to conform to the standards and many times they state where they must be placed and what other information can be included with a sign, like time restrictions, however, I am not sure I ever seen from a ramp so that alone my not be valid.

However, that sign seems a bit confusing at best, obviously you can not make a left turn anywhere around where the sign is placed since the road is divided. However, 500 ft down the left most lane can make a left turn, so unless your son made a left turn from that right lane (ramp) then he did nothing wrong.

However, base on the fact they have a solid white line from the ramp to the intersection tells me you can not ever change lanes until you pass the intersection. Since I did not read the other post about this subject, I am assuming your son probably came down the ramp, crossed the solid white line then proceeded to the left lane and made a left turn, or at least moved to one of those left most lanes and proceed. In which case he did not make a left turn form the ramp lane either.

If that is what happen I would say the state was attempting to keep traffic on the ramp on the right most lane until after the intersection and attempted to do so by putting up a no left turn from ramp sign since most people cross solid white lines all the time and thought that people would understand that if you came down the ramp you can not move left to make the left turn at the intersection.

Maestro64 said:

...the fact they have a solid white line from the ramp to the intersection tells me you can not ever change lanes until you pass the intersection.

Click to expand...

Thanks Maestro64 for the post. The solid white is interesting. It may be intended to keep traffic in that lane (the right lane), but it is definitely not intended to keep traffic out of that lane. In other words, it is OK for cars to change from a left lane into the right lane in order to make a right turn. Right turns are not prohibited at that intersection. BTW, in Texas it is not illegal to cross a solid white line. It's just discouraged. Crossing a solid yellow line on the other hand is definitely ticketable offense.

pekowski said:

Thanks Maestro64 for the post. The solid white is interesting. It may be intended to keep traffic in that lane (the right lane), but it is definitely not intended to keep traffic out of that lane. In other words, it is OK for cars to change from a left lane into the right lane in order to make a right turn. Right turns are not prohibited at that intersection. BTW, in Texas it is not illegal to cross a solid white line. It's just discouraged. Crossing a solid yellow line on the other hand is definitely ticketable offense.

Click to expand...

I know there is debate on whether you can cross a solid white line. There is no law that specifically says you can or can not cross it. However, many states have laws that say you can not change lanes or must stay in your lane of travel or stay between the "Lines" because if you go outside those lines you can be cited for failure to maintain your lane. Also they have laws that say you can only pass where the lane is broken, either white or yellow broken lines.

I was told my traffic engineers that when you see a solid white line like one in the picture you are required to stay in your lane of travel and not to change lanes for any reason. You see it at stop lights now and many times on road construction they paint the dotted lines solid and usually there may or may not be a sign that say stay in your lane, you will also see solid white lines in tunnels.

So when you see a solid line like that, there is an expection that you do not switch lanes of travel, until the line is broken again.

To your point, cars moving left to right is okay in this case but moving right to left does not seem to be okay. Since a lane change is not a left turn then that should be okay. But in your son's case, did he change lanes or did he proceed to make a left turn 500ft down the road.

I would say that a no left turn sign that is places 500 ft prior to the intersection is not a valid placement of the sign. Also you could state your son merged left which seems to be allowed, and merge left 2 times then made a left turn and once in the far left lane there was no sign that said that that point there was no left turned allowed sign.

It is splitting hairs but I would say the intent of the sign is not clear, and MUTCD clears states that signs must be clear and understandable to the average driver and must conform to the standards and I would say that signs falls outside the standards and the intent is open to interruption.