Illegal U-Turn in "Business" District

[dilipr]

What is the name of your state? CA

I received a ticket under VC 22102, "Illegal U-Turn in a Business District". I had been stuck in a non-moving line of traffic for 30 minutes on a 4 lane stretch of highway on Cabrillo Blvd. in Santa Barbara that is divided by a single double-yellow line (2 lanes in each direction). I had visibility for 200 feet in both directions and made my U-turn from the left-hand lane into the shoulder of the opposing traffic lane, and there were no cars in the opposing traffic lane. I was pulled over along with another truck who had done the same thing by a cop who was in line behind both of us and made the U-turn also to get us both.

First of all, I didn't think that there was anything illegal or wrong about it, I was safely exercising a choice not to stay a prisoner in the line.

This is the issue I have: In studying the laws, I found that 22102 makes it illegal to turn in a business district, but 22105 makes it legal to cross a double-yellow line in a non-residential, non-business district, provided there is 200 feet of visibility in both directions. I measured and got more than 200 in each direction. On studying a zoning map of Santa Barbara, I found that the particular stretch of highway that I got pulled over at is marked P-R (parks & recreation). Does that invalidate the use of 22102? Or are parks & recreational area considered a "business district"?

If anyone can assist, I would greatly appreciate it.

Originally Posted by dilipr

What is the name of your state? CA

I received a ticket under VC 22102, "Illegal U-Turn in a Business District". I had been stuck in a non-moving line of traffic for 30 minutes on a 4 lane stretch of highway on Cabrillo Blvd. in Santa Barbara that is divided by a single double-yellow line (2 lanes in each direction). I had visibility for 200 feet in both directions and made my U-turn from the left-hand lane into the shoulder of the opposing traffic lane, and there were no cars in the opposing traffic lane. I was pulled over along with another truck who had done the same thing by a cop who was in line behind both of us and made the U-turn also to get us both.

First of all, I didn't think that there was anything illegal or wrong about it, I was safely exercising a choice not to stay a prisoner in the line.

This is the issue I have: In studying the laws, I found that 22102 makes it illegal to turn in a business district, but 22105 makes it legal to cross a double-yellow line in a non-residential, non-business district, provided there is 200 feet of visibility in both directions. I measured and got more than 200 in each direction. On studying a zoning map of Santa Barbara, I found that the particular stretch of highway that I got pulled over at is marked P-R (parks & recreation). Does that invalidate the use of 22102? Or are parks & recreational area considered a "business district"?

If anyone can assist, I would greatly appreciate it.

U-Turn in Business District
22102. No person in a business district shall make a U-turn, except at an intersection, or on a divided highway where an opening has been provided in accordance with Section 21651. This turning movement shall be made as close as practicable to the extreme left-hand edge of the lanes moving in the driver's direction of travel immediately prior to the initiation of the turning movement, when more than one lane in the direction of travel is present.
[url]http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22102.htm[/url]


Unobstructed View Necessary for U-Turn
22105. No person shall make a U-turn upon any highway where the driver of such vehicle does not have an unobstructed view for 200 feet in both directions along the highway and of any traffic thereon.
[url]http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22105.htm[/url]


You have misquoted the law: "In studying the laws, I found that 22102 makes it illegal to turn in a business district, but 22105 makes it legal to cross a double-yellow line in a non-residential, non-business district, provided there is 200 feet of visibility in both directions."

22105 makes nothing legal; it prohibits u-turns on a highway unless you have a clear view 200 feet either way.

[CdwJava]

Ditto to what SJ had to say ... and ...

The zoning map is irrelevant ... here is the relevant Vehicle Code section:

235. A "business district" is that portion of a highway and the
property contiguous thereto (a) upon one side of which highway, for a
distance of 600 feet, 50 percent or more of the contiguous property
fronting thereon is occupied by buildings in use for business, or (b)
upon both sides of which highway, collectively, for a distance of
300 feet, 50 percent or more of the contiguous property fronting
thereon is so occupied. A business district may be longer than the
distances specified in this section if the above ratio of buildings
in use for business to the length of the highway exists.

If you want to contest it, bring it all to court.

- Carl

you broke the law pay up, city/state will thank you

[dilipr]

Carl,

Apparently you were the only one who understood my question. I do believe that the DMV regulation you quoted puts me in the right, as this stretch of highway is bounded for at least 1 mile by water on one side and a cliff on the other. There are no buildings. I also had clear visibility with 0 cars in the oncoming traffic lane for at least 250 feet in both directions when I made the turn.

Thank you,

Dilip

Originally Posted by dilipr

Carl,

Apparently you were the only one who understood my question. I do believe that the DMV regulation you quoted puts me in the right, as this stretch of highway is bounded for at least 1 mile by water on one side and a cliff on the other. There are no buildings. I also had clear visibility with 0 cars in the oncoming traffic lane for at least 250 feet in both directions when I made the turn.

Thank you,

Dilip

I think you need to re-read Carl's post again, especially this part: "...A business district may be longer than the distances specified in this section if the above ratio of buildings in use for business to the length of the highway exists...."

[dilipr]

Okay, but how far to you go to measure this usage, expecially in an area zoned by the city as Parks & Recreation? I don't mean to use any legal loopholes, I think the issue is plain and simple whether or not a U-Turn is completely illegal in this situation or legal provided the visibility and safety guidelines are met. The officer did not say that I crossed unsafely or without sufficient visibility, he only said that I crossed a double-yellow line, and then cited me on 22102. I think anyone who intentionally breaks the law should get their punishment, but I did not do it intentionally, nor do I believe that I broke the law. I believe he cited me on a vehicle code that has no application here.

As a side note, is this a forum to discuss legal issues, or a forum to beat up on anyone who got a ticket? I don't refer to anyone specifically but to those who do not discuss the matter at hand, rather use it as an excuse for the latter. If it's the latter, I will politely excuse myself. I don't have an issue with accepting that I am in the wrong, provided that someone can prove to me that I am wrong. For that I ask that responders stick to debating the facts of the issue. It will greatly aid me in assessing whether I have a valid case or not.


Thank you in advance for your cooperation,

Dilip

[dilipr]

I also want to clarify that the zoning changes where the last building finishes and takes up a considerable amount of space.

Originally Posted by dilipr

Okay, but how far to you go to measure this usage, expecially in an area zoned by the city as Parks & Recreation? I don't mean to use any legal loopholes, I think the issue is plain and simple whether or not a U-Turn is completely illegal in this situation or legal provided the visibility and safety guidelines are met. The officer did not say that I crossed unsafely or without sufficient visibility, he only said that I crossed a double-yellow line, and then cited me on 22102. I think anyone who intentionally breaks the law should get their punishment, but I did not do it intentionally, nor do I believe that I broke the law. I believe he cited me on a vehicle code that has no application here.

As a side note, is this a forum to discuss legal issues, or a forum to beat up on anyone who got a ticket? I don't refer to anyone specifically but to those who do not discuss the matter at hand, rather use it as an excuse for the latter. If it's the latter, I will politely excuse myself. I don't have an issue with accepting that I am in the wrong, provided that someone can prove to me that I am wrong. For that I ask that responders stick to debating the facts of the issue. It will greatly aid me in assessing whether I have a valid case or not.


Thank you in advance for your cooperation,

Dilip

I hope Carl will come back on here and help clear up some of your CA issues.

BTW, you do not have to intend to commit a traffic violation.

You either made an illegal u turn or not? Fight it in court is your right.

[wirry1422]

I have no idea about your specific issues, but i do agree that the board has degenerated into a forum where "regulars" like to put posters "in their place" so to speak. While i have only been posting here a relatively brief time, i have been reading the boards for over a year, and i have seen a definite change in tone from the knowledgeable members, from that of assistance, to a much more accusatory tone. I would simply like to remind the regular members that many of the people on the boards are here simply to receive legal input on their traffic or other citations, not to be the basis for rude and patronizing judgements and short snide remarks. I for one appreciate all the legitimate advice that is exchanged on a regular basis, but i also know that that advice would retain much more credibility if it were delivered in a neutral way.

Originally Posted by wirry1422

I have no idea about your specific issues, but i do agree that the board has degenerated into a forum where "regulars" like to put posters "in their place" so to speak. While i have only been posting here a relatively brief time, i have been reading the boards for over a year, and i have seen a definite change in tone from the knowledgeable members, from that of assistance, to a much more accusatory tone. I would simply like to remind the regular members that many of the people on the boards are here simply to receive legal input on their traffic or other citations, not to be the basis for rude and patronizing judgements and short snide remarks. I for one appreciate all the legitimate advice that is exchanged on a regular basis, but i also know that that advice would retain much more credibility if it were delivered in a neutral way.

I think OP has been treated excellently in this thread.

Did I miss something?

[CdwJava]

It is possible that the stretch of open area would be considered "business district" per the vehicle code. It is also possible that the officer intended to cite you for one of the other U-turn sections and cited you for the wrong one. Ultimately it will be up to a judge to decide.

Since the Vehicle Code does not address the issue of zoning, per se, the fact that the local governing body does not classify the stretch of road as "business" or "commercial" is not relevant.

Depending on the situation, I might have come up with some better section to cite. It could be that this was not the best section to cite.

Bring the argument to court and let the judge decide. However, keep in mind that arguing the improper section is not a guarantee of success ... some judges aren't keen on perceived technicalities. And technicalities CAN reach both ways.

- Carl

As per business district? Is there businesses that occupy that section of road? Is it continuous as where you were cited from in either direction? Just a start of the questions the officer will ned to answer in court. Also the judge may take into consideration the divided lines if they change from 1 to the other wher you u turned.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by itsacatsworld

As per business district? Is there businesses that occupy that section of road? Is it continuous as where you were cited from in either direction? Just a start of the questions the officer will ned to answer in court. Also the judge may take into consideration the divided lines if they change from 1 to the other wher you u turned.

That is not how a "business district" is defined in the CA Vehicle Code:

235. A "business district" is that portion of a highway and the
property contiguous thereto (a) upon one side of which highway, for a
distance of 600 feet, 50 percent or more of the contiguous property
fronting thereon is occupied by buildings in use for business, or (b)
upon both sides of which highway, collectively, for a distance of
300 feet, 50 percent or more of the contiguous property fronting
thereon is so occupied. A business district may be longer than the
distances specified in this section if the above ratio of buildings
in use for business to the length of the highway exists.

Whether the area of this event would fit that definition, I couldn't say.

- Carl