• 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.

Theoretical question on CVC 21453(c) - Turn against red arrow

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

ruble502

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

No, I didn't get a ticket, but I noticed a tempting situation near my workplace and am curious if I can take advantage of it.

Near the local strip mall is an intersection that is still under construction. The right turn lane is governed only by a pair of lights that have red arrows. There are no signs that say "No turn on red" in writing, or red circles with the right turn symbol crossed out. I have never seen such a setup without an accompanying sign before. I imagine not many people would even know what a red arrow means without the additional prompting.

Is there anything in the state engineering code that requires such signs, thereby giving a legal loophole to make that turn on red (after stopping)? And yes, I know the CVC by itself doesn't mention such a requirement. 21453(c) reads:

"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."
 


Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

No, I didn't get a ticket, but I noticed a tempting situation near my workplace and am curious if I can take advantage of it.

Near the local strip mall is an intersection that is still under construction. The right turn lane is governed only by a pair of lights that have red arrows. There are no signs that say "No turn on red" in writing, or red circles with the right turn symbol crossed out. I have never seen such a setup without an accompanying sign before. I imagine not many people would even know what a red arrow means without the additional prompting.

Is there anything in the state engineering code that requires such signs, thereby giving a legal loophole to make that turn on red (after stopping)? And yes, I know the CVC by itself doesn't mention such a requirement. 21453(c) reads:

"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."
I don't know what you think is unclear. If there is a red arrow, you cannot enter the intersection. It's taught in driver's ed. All my kids know it. My wife knows it. I know it. My 81 year old friend knows it. Maybe you need a remedial course?
 

PaulMass

Member
It may just work, but I don't think a cop will buy it. You'll need to go to court and see if the judge buys it.

Let me know how that turns out for you.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
It may just work, but I don't think a cop will buy it. You'll need to go to court and see if the judge buys it.

Let me know how that turns out for you.
No, it will not "work" - the law is clear. If there is a red right-arrow, then you cannot turn right. Period.
 

ruble502

Junior Member
The right on red is from part (a) and requires a circular red.
Very useful to know, thanks for that.

As for the "remedial" comment...I've never seen a right arrow without a sign before. The intersection is under construction so maybe they haven't had time to install additional signs. I credit myself with enough cleverness to even think that such signs might be required, thereby making it technically legal to go through. I have been proven wrong and that's that. There's no need to get snarky.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Very useful to know, thanks for that.

As for the "remedial" comment...I've never seen a right arrow without a sign before. The intersection is under construction so maybe they haven't had time to install additional signs. I credit myself with enough cleverness to even think that such signs might be required, thereby making it technically legal to go through. I have been proven wrong and that's that. There's no need to get snarky.
With a red arrow, the sign is not required...not in the slightest.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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