Fail to yield to oncoming vehicle (21803a).. on a roundabout

[Jimb0_o]

Fail to yield to oncoming vehicle (21803a).. on a roundabout California

I would like opinions on if I should fight this ticket or not. Last time I fought a ticket in traffic court I lost, loosing my chance to receive traffic school as well as having my fine doubled. It was a rainy night and I lost traction at an intersection, but I regained control. It was almost like an unexpected drift. The officer cited me for crossing a double yellow line, which was false.. just not possible, and the judge took their side throwing the officer bones in the courtroom. My opinion, in the past, neither here nor there... Anyways

So I only want to fight this ticked if I have a sure chance at winning. I don’t want a repeat of what happened before. I still feel wronged about the past events. Onto the more recent topic and ms paint PICTURE INCLUDED!!

The weather was clear and sunny and time was close to 2pm. I was traveling northbound towards a roundabout (I’m the red car). During my approach to the roundabout I was applying breaks slowing my speed down from the roads limit and was roughly at 15 miles per hour coming from a 35mph zone (officer marked my speed as 20-25mph with a safe speed of 5mph…) coming toward my direction was a small semi-like truck towing a 10-12 foot trailer (purple truck). The truck had his right turn indicator on and when I saw him initiating his turn, toward my direction, I felt there was no longer a need to stop, feeling I could no way impede his right of way and safely enter the roundabout. There was a sheriff on my left, coming from the west, who appeared to be stopped at the yield (the red cut away expedition). I recall looking to my left in the direction of the stopped sheriff SUV when I entered the roundabout and was unable to see his vehicle because it was obstructed by the box trailer the truck was towing. This is also how I made my decision to not come to a stop and continue through the roundabout.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y16...g?t=1256251856

I continued through the roundabout exiting northbound. The sheriff entered the roundabout after the truck and followed me out. The SUV was roughly 25-35 feet behind me upon his exit and turned on his lights. I immediately turned onto the side of the road, rolled down my windows, and turned off my car.

The officer said that I failed to yield for his vehicle. He also said that the car following me almost failed to yield as well, but that car was able to apply his breaks in time. The sheriff said that this other car would have hit him if he hadn’t stopped. His explanation of roundabout laws was a bit sketchy to me saying that as soon as a vehicle enters the roundabout all other vehicles must yield for that vehicle, which I did. I understood that, but the rest sounded like it was meant for one car at a time. From what I understood that officer’s argument is that I entered the roundabout after he did and that he had the right of way because of that. My argument is that I didn’t come to a complete stop and continued through the roundabout because the truck was turning in my direction, and being unable to see any oncoming traffic, making it safe for me to enter.

All opinions are good opinions. Like I said I only want to fight this if I will win. I have a point on my record from my previous loss, and do not want two. If there is a possibility I will loose, I don’t want to chance it. I will also try a trial by declaration first.

[I_Got_Banned]

Originally Posted by Jimb0_o

The officer said that I failed to yield for his vehicle. He also said that the car following me almost failed to yield as well, but that car was able to apply his breaks in time. The sheriff said that this other car would have hit him if he hadn’t stopped.

What the other car did or didn't do is not in any way relevant to your alleged violation...

Originally Posted by Jimb0_o

His explanation of roundabout laws was a bit sketchy to me saying that as soon as a vehicle enters the roundabout all other vehicles must yield for that vehicle, which I did. I understood that, but the rest sounded like it was meant for one car at a time.

Well... Here's CVC 21803

CVC 21803

(a) The driver of any vehicle approaching any intersection which is controlled by a yield right-of-way sign shall, upon arriving at the sign, yield the right-of-way to any vehicles which have entered the intersection, or which are approaching on the intersecting highway close enough to constitute an immediate hazard, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to those vehicles until he or she can proceed with reasonable safety.
(b) A driver having yielded as prescribed in subdivision (a) may proceed to enter the intersection, and the drivers of all other approaching vehicles shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle entering or crossing the intersection.

Originally Posted by Jimb0_o

From what I understood that officer’s argument is that I entered the roundabout after he did and that he had the right of way because of that.

If that is how he testifies, then that leaves you with having to raise some doubt as to the accuracy of his statement... He says you didn't yield, you say you did yield.... You catch my drift!

[Jimb0_o]

In response to CVC 2108:

This is what I have dug up. It's on the internet so there is no way to test the validity of the thing.

"In a traffic circle, the traffic IN the circle has right of way and any entering traffic MUST yield to them if needed. The rules of a 4 way stop intersection have no applicability to this type of intersection.

So, it gets down to; what action did the officer have to take due to you entering the circle? If he had to slow to avoid hitting you, you are at fault. If he had to change lanes (if a multiple lane circle intersection), you are at fault."

This sounds pretty good. Because a roundabout is not really a 4 way intersection. The explanation sounds solid. If that is the case however, then it's my word against the officer's on whether or not I impeded his right of way, or if he was still waiting for the truck to pass while I entered the roundabout or even if we entered at the same time. This is what I fear. I understand that officers pull many people over a day, so how well will he remember this incidence two months from now? I know the truck was there and I will recall it every day until it's done with. So how well will the officer remember the incident? and how much truth will turn into guessing or false recollection.. which the judge will take as truth.

[I_Got_Banned]

Originally Posted by Jimb0_o

This is what I have dug up. It's on the internet so there is no way to test the validity of the thing.

"In a traffic circle, the traffic IN the circle has right of way and any entering traffic MUST yield to them if needed. The rules of a 4 way stop intersection have no applicability to this type of intersection.

So, it gets down to; what action did the officer have to take due to you entering the circle? If he had to slow to avoid hitting you, you are at fault. If he had to change lanes (if a multiple lane circle intersection), you are at fault."

I have a feeling I know exactly where you got that quote... But I'm not going on a search for it. I will simply say that what you posted there, is one way to look at it...

However, if you read the vehicle code section quoted above, you'll notice that it says nothing about the officer having to take any action whatsoever. 21803(a) only speaks of the requirement (of the other driver) having to yield to a vehicle that is already inside the roundabout.

So, in other words, the question that must be answered is not what action did the officer take or not take, the question that must be answered is whether you entered the roundabout after the officer entered it from your left, or did you enter the roundabout

As for your other questions... All I will say is that the officer will make notes about the alleged violation after issuing the citation. How will he testify in court, What will he say or how will he justify citing you? Only he can answer those questions.

You can do an Informal Discovery Request, get copies of his notes so as to get an idea about how he will testify.

[Jim_bo]

Jimbo (cool name, by the way...), Have you looked at the definition of the word "intersection"??

365. An "intersection" is the area embraced within the prolongation
of the lateral curb lines, or, if none, then the lateral boundary
lines of the roadways, of two highways which join one another at
approximately right angles or the area within which vehicles
traveling upon different highways joining at any other angle may come
in conflict.

It defines intersection as two or more roads that form an angle of some degree. An angle is formed by two lines that cross. At a roundabout, the two lines never cross, rather they become tangents of the circle. To be ridiculous, if this is an intersection, then you could say the Washington DC beltway is an intersection. It is the same thing... only bigger. Personally, I don't believe that section of the vehicle code is applicable to a roundabout. As you stated, the rules for a roundabout differ greatly from the rules of an intersection. As IGB mentions, there are multilaned roundabouts. Which lane must yield to the other while IN the roundabout? It doesn't say. Clearly, this statute is intended for the traditional American intersection of two or more roads that come together at a point to form an angle. I don't know of a section of the VC that specifically talks about the rules of a roundabout... but they are so rare that the legislature may have overlooked them. Who knows....

It's an interesting argument. It will probably fail as your last time for fighting a traffic ticket is fairly indicative of the traffic court judge's willingness to impartially apply the law.

[FlyingRon]

The circle is a road in it's own right. Each road where it meets the circle is an intersection.

Tangent isn't the right word here.

The traffic on the circle has right of way over those on the connecting roads.
While it's hard to tell just what happened here, if you were to believe the poster he is innocent. Of course generally the cop wins in the he-said/he-said type arguments. His only hope is that the cop describes what happens in the same way and the rule of law is pointed out that there is no violation.

[HighwayMan]

Originally Posted by Jimb0_o

... My argument is that I didn’t come to a complete stop and continued through the roundabout because the truck was turning in my direction, and being unable to see any oncoming traffic, making it safe for me to enter...

Don't you think it was unsafe to proceed if you couldn't see around the truck? How could you be certain the roadway was free of other traffic?

[Jim_bo]

Originally Posted by FlyingRon

The circle is a road in it's own right. Each road where it meets the circle is an intersection.

Tangent isn't the right word here.

Good point.

[Jim_bo]

Originally Posted by HighwayMan

Don't you think it was unsafe to proceed if you couldn't see around the truck? How could you be certain the roadway was free of other traffic?

Why would it be?? The truck blocked his view, but it also blocked any traffic. Therefore, if the truck was actually turning, he DID yield.

However, reality is sad. It is likely that this will turn into the he said/she said that Ron describes. In that case, the defendant always loses... whether he was wrong or not.

[HighwayMan]

Originally Posted by Jim_bo

Why would it be?? The truck blocked his view, but it also blocked any traffic. Therefore, if the truck was actually turning, he DID yield.

The OP never said it was a one lane traffic circle. I've never seen a one lane traffic circle.

Although that doesn't make it the norm for the entire country, I was commenting based on my experience.

[Jimb0_o]

Jim. You hit it on the nose. This is the exact point I'm trying to make.

When approaching the roundabout while I slowed down, I could see the white SUV stopped at the roundabout to my left waiting for the truck to pass. When I got to the roundabout I could not see the stopped sheriff's vehicle because the trailer was blocking it. I knew he could not enter because he was blocked by the passing truck. The truck started to turn towards my direction while still blocking the officer with it's trailer. I felt it was safe because of this and felt there was no way I could have impeded traffic.

I thought this is what roundabouts are for.. this very example.

The truck was turning towards me, I was not impeding his right of way because he was merging in my direction just like the pic shows

The trailer was blocking the Officer's SUV so he could not enter the roundabout yet. How could I impede his right of way if his entrance was blocked?

This is why I entered the roundabout without coming to a complete stop. This is what I want to contest.

[HighwayMan]

If that's the case then how did the deputy even see you?

[Jimb0_o]

This is why I wish I could get access to the video tape from the sheriff's SUV. If I could get that I could see what he saw and it would be all done with. They have those camera's in there for a reason, there should be a way I could get a copy of it..

My personal opinion is that he was having a bad day. I believe that when the trailer passed him he followed it out and saw me going too. I didn't see his perspective and I wish I could. All I know is what I saw and make conclusions from that.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by Jimb0_o

This is why I wish I could get access to the video tape from the sheriff's SUV. If I could get that I could see what he saw and it would be all done with. They have those camera's in there for a reason, there should be a way I could get a copy of it..

Why do you think the camera was running at the time you committed the violation (hint: In all likelihood, it wasn't.)

[Jimb0_o]

I thought they were always running..

I don't know how the camera goes on and off. I always assumed that they were always on. All I know about them is that in some instances they make good television.