Should I fight a 21453 traffic violation?

[loe_in_626]

I got a ticket in my state of California. I came to an intersection and stopped before i made a right turn, in fact i had to wait for 2 cars to go by before proceeding. I got a chance when the next car was about 100 yards away, at the moment I didnt take into consideration that the streets were wet due to rain, and that my car was rear wheel drive, with limited slip differential (rear wheel with the least amount of weight is the one that spins). Well when i made the turn, the one wheel with the least weight lost traction, thus causing my car to rev up higher and most likely cause the attention of the officer that was in the gas station on my right side. After i finished the turn and the traction loss (approx 3.5 sec) after the initial turn, there was a car right of my tail. I though to my self....1 either that was the car about 100 yards away who might have been speeding, 2. the car had plenty of time to brake but is one of those people who "nobody should merge in front of them" and didnt brake until he was riiiiight behind me. or 3, right after i made the turn there was a car on the left lane who changed lanes in the middle of the intersection because his lane was going real slow (i know this because after i finished the turn i caught up to the "leader of the left lane pack" that was only going about 25mph and passed him.

Okay now, so i got stopped 2 blocks away, and the officer asked me "do you know why i stopped you", i said i got an idea, was it back there when i made that one right turn, "yeah" he said. I explained how i lost traction and couldnt speed up as fast as i had too. He returned with the 21453 citation, he said it was for unsafely merging onto oncoming traffic. I counlt read his writing, so i went home and researched the defenition for the citation, and it stated it was failure to stop at a red or flashing red light. Hello, i had to wait for 2 cars before i made that turn!

I have a feeling that the officer hear my car revving pretty high and loud, got his attention, saw a car right behind me, and made his assumption that i cut that car off.

I appreciate any advice on where to take this from now, fight the ticket? and if so, how, what explanation or route should i take?

Thank you!What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[Zigner]

21453. (a) A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall
stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the
crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then
before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an
indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision
(b).
(b) Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, a driver,
after stopping as required by subdivision (a), facing a steady
circular red signal, may turn right, or turn left from a one-way
street onto a one-way street. A driver making that turn shall yield
the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk
and to any vehicle that has approached or is approaching so closely
as to constitute an immediate hazard to the driver, and shall
continue to yield the right-of-way to that vehicle until the driver
can proceed with reasonable safety.
(c) A driver facing a steady red arrow signal shall not enter the
intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow and, unless
entering the intersection to make a movement permitted by another
signal, shall stop at a clearly marked limit line, but if none,
before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection,
or if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain
stopped until an indication permitting movement is shown.
(d) Unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as
provided in Section 21456, a pedestrian facing a steady circular red
or red arrow signal shall not enter the roadway.



You're not just supposed to stop, you're supposed to STAY stopped until you have yielded the right of way.

 

[loe_in_626]

Thx for reply

Actually I just found that out yesterday, but you made it much more clearer. I might use this definition in court, because I did feel the car approaching was far enough for me to make a safe turn, and even if I gave the benefit of the doubt to the cop, I was then only partially to blame, maybe I can get the fine cut in half.

By the way, where did you find this definition?

 

[FlyingRon]

The fact that you "felt" you could make it is immaterial.
The car with the right of way shouldn't have to brake to have someone running the red light "merge" in front of them. "Partially to blame" means 100% guilty here.

 

[loe_in_626]

Did not mention some important observations

When I was looking at the incoming traffic, I saw that the upcoming vehicle was a large white SUV, when I made the turn I noticed it was a compact car behind me. Therefore, I believe it was a car that switched lanes in the middle of the intersection who got right behind me. I also went back to the location, took some pictures and realized that the officer who was parked in the gas station had no view of the intersection from where he was positioned. In trial I could ask him to describe the vehicle that was behind me. I can show the pictures of the intersection to the judge and state that the officer couldn't of seen what really happened.

 

[Zigner]

When I was looking at the incoming traffic, I saw that the upcoming vehicle was a large white SUV, when I made the turn I noticed it was a compact car behind me. Therefore, I believe it was a car that switched lanes in the middle of the intersection who got right behind me. I also went back to the location, took some pictures and realized that the officer who was parked in the gas station had no view of the intersection from where he was positioned. In trial I could ask him to describe the vehicle that was behind me. I can show the pictures of the intersection to the judge and state that the officer couldn't of seen what really happened.

Good luck in your attempt to show the court that, since you couldn't SEE the oncoming car, it somehow relieved you of your duty to yield.

 

[loe_in_626]

Correction

Good luck in your attempt to show the court that, since you couldn't SEE the oncoming car, it somehow relieved you of your duty to yield.

I saw the oncoming car perfectly. However it was not that car who ended up right behind me. It was a smaller compact car who I believed changed onto the right lane at the same time or right after I made the turn, So he must of initiated that turn in the middle of the intersection. Also I said it was the officer's intersection view who was completely obstructed.

 

[Zigner]

I saw the oncoming car perfectly. However it was not that car who ended up right behind me.

Which means you DIDN'T see the car. Gotcha.

 

[loe_in_626]

Correct

So, you are saying it was still my fault that I did not see a car who was making a lane change onto my right lane AFTER i made the turn? Even, if his lane change was illegal? (in the middle of the intersection?)

 

[Zigner]

So, you are saying it was still my fault that I did not see a car who was making a lane change onto my right lane AFTER i made the turn? Even, if his lane change was illegal? (in the middle of the intersection?)

Feel free to prove the lane change. You are required to yield to all vehicles who are close enough to present a hazard. If the vehicle was in the left lane and you started the turn in to the right lane, you're leaving all of what, 8" for the vehicle to get by you?

 

[loe_in_626]

Wow

So even if the right lane had no upcoming vehicles, I still have to yield until there are no vehicles on either lanes to proceed? And if i can actually prove that the vehicle that got behind me had made an illegal lane change, and thus the only reason I got in-front of him, would I be able to get my ticket fee cut in half?

 

[Zigner]

So even if the right lane had no upcoming vehicles, I still have to yield until there are no vehicles on either lanes to proceed? And if i can actually prove that the vehicle that got behind me had made an illegal lane change, and thus the only reason I got in-front of him, would I be able to get my ticket fee cut in half?

There are no "discounts" for traffic violations. You failed to yield.

You MAY get a sympathetic judge who lowers the fine.

I would suggest that, if available, you should take traffic school, as you really have no apparent defense to the claim.

 

[Zigner]

So even if the right lane had no upcoming vehicles, I still have to yield until there are no vehicles on either lanes to proceed?

After re-reading this, I can see you have a basic misunderstanding of what it means to "yield". Please research the term in several places. You will find that, if your movement interferes with other drivers, you have not yielded.

 

[loe_in_626]

Thx for the info

I actually talked to an "attorney" online. (whether he is an actual attorney, i don't know, but he is up on "justanswer.com" with a 98% approval rating) and he said I could make a defense case if I can prove that my lane change was safe. He also said that I also can set up a defense as only partially to blame for and get fine decreased.

My final though is that, its BS that I get blamed for something that could of been executed perfectly, but because of some person who switched lanes where they clearly weren't supposed to, I get the fine. Whether the law is with me or against me, I'm fighting the ticket)

Appreciate all the feedback!

 

[Zigner]

I actually talked to an "attorney" online. (whether he is an actual attorney, i don't know, but he is up on "justanswer.com" with a 98% approval rating) and he said I could make a defense case if I can prove that my lane change was safe. He also said that I also can set up a defense as only partially to blame for and get fine decreased.

My final though is that, its BS that I get blamed for something that could of been executed perfectly, but because of some person who switched lanes where they clearly weren't supposed to, I get the fine. Whether the law is with me or against me, I'm fighting the ticket)

Appreciate all the feedback!

Did you ask the 98% attorney HOW you can prove your lane change was safe, when it obviously caused another vehicle (one that you were required to yield to) to yield to YOUR movement?

Good luck. Just keep in mind that you may not have the chance for traffic school once you lose.