VC21453C Confusing lights and new to area.

[redlighttkts]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

Hi All,

Was driving the other night was completely confused by the bike signal lights which made it look like there was a green signal to turn, however last minute I saw the red actual turn sign and slammed the breaks. Unfortunately, in the pictures that were sent to me it look as if I entered the cross walk but did not pass the second line. According to the law this is illegal, however, I do not feel this was just because of confusing signage.

Facts

-New driver to the area
-Forward lights show green
-Bike trail lights show green (on left)
-Left turn light shows RED (on left)
-Left turn light very close to bike light which could like a green arrow (which is what I though it was showing)
-Late reaction due to confusion
-Photo shows vehicle stopped pass the first line of the crosswalk but not past the second line.

How should I proceed to fight this case, how does does the law work in the US? I just moved from Canada and all you have to do in court is show reasonable doubt. How does the system work here.

Was planning on the following arrangement's

-Due to the green lights showing clearly in the picture (on the left and right) while the red arrow cannot be seen I was going to argue that the complex lighting system was confusing and misleading.

I would go as far as saying the light WASN'T red due to the picture sent but I'm sure there are some that would show otherwise. Are more pictures allowed to be used in court than the 4 that are disclosed in the papers I received?

Any other tips?

This really pisses me off because I did stop for the light although delayed because of the confusion.

Also found some other info and here is a video (you can't see the plate but you can clearly see the green lights and how this is confusing)

[URL]http://i1071.photobucket.com/albums/u515/redlighttkts/th_vid1.jpg[/URL]


Quoting CVC 21451
(a) A driver facing a circular green signal shall proceed straight through or turn right or left or make a U-turn unless a sign prohibits a U-turn. Any driver, including one turning, shall yield the right-of-way to other traffic and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk.

CVC 21451 does NOT say "unless a red arrow prohibits the movement". So, as far as I can see, as long as you yielded to other traffic and pedestrians, the left turn should have been permissible. Haha, you gotta love it!

OP, I think you'll lose, but it is an interesting argument. I'd love to see the look on the judge's face when you explain it.

 

[asiny]

Facts

-New driver to the area

Unimportant

-Forward lights show green

Unimportant- You were not going forward.

-Bike trail lights show green (on left)

Bike Trail- it was not in your lane.

-Left turn light shows RED (on left)

Your lane was indicated with a RED light.

-Left turn light very close to bike light which could like a green arrow (which is what I though it was showing)

What you think is unimportant- only what it was showing.

-Late reaction due to confusion

Unimportant- your confusion is your own issues.. not the courts.

-Photo shows vehicle stopped pass the first line of the crosswalk but not past the second line.

Unimportant- You entered the crosswalk.

I just moved from Canada and all you have to do in court is show reasonable doubt. How does the system work here.

Same way- but you being confused is not reasonable doubt.

-Due to the green lights showing clearly in the picture (on the left and right) while the red arrow cannot be seen I was going to argue that the complex lighting system was confusing and misleading.

It's your place to prove the lights are 'confusing and misleading'. You being confused is not proof- how would you present this?

I would go as far as saying the light WASN'T red due to the picture sent but I'm sure there are some that would show otherwise. Are more pictures allowed to be used in court than the 4 that are disclosed in the papers I received?

Are there other pictures? Usually red light camera only take enough images as needed, they don't record 24-7

Also found some other info and here is a video (you can't see the plate but you can clearly see the green lights and how this is confusing)

[URL]http://i1071.photobucket.com/albums/u515/redlighttkts/th_vid1.jpg[/URL]

Odd question... is this the actual violation photo of you and your vehicle?

HighwayMan will be along- he knows the road better than most.

 

[redlighttkts]

First thanks for the replies...

Sorry if you watch this video it will clearly show that #1

vid1.mp4 video by redlighttkts - Photobucket

There is a green amber circle light in the same lane as me, #2 there isn't a light for every lane if that is the argument. #3 the red arrow is actually BEFORE the intersection and is not visible by me 10 feet before the intersection. However, after that point another light becomes visible.

In the video evidence, you can clearly see the proximity of the green light to the red arrow which actually did confuse me.

So how I was thinking of creating a defense was as follows.

Approaching the intersection, I clearly slow as if to stop however, confused by the Green light I disengage my brakes. After a short time I realize that the amber light was not directed at me since there was a red arrow visible on a secondary light in close proximity. Establishing the need to stop I checked my rear view mirror and noticed there was other vehicles following very closely so I gradually applied my breaks as I feared other drivers following would not be able to stop in time.

I was thinking the 1-2 punch may be the best chance I have by talking about the confusing proximity of the light and the safety issue of cars not being able to stop behind me.

I know it's a crap shot but I don't see any other way to win this type of ticket..... Unless I was able to make the evidence inadmissible based on some technical detail.

 

[redlighttkts]

Ok I've been doing a lot of reading on CA law.

Since this is an automated system that took the pictures, could I also fight the ticket on the bases of mechanical upkeep and accuracy?

Like the old radar gun trick where you ask if the gun is calibrated and when ect...

I was thinking of preparing a defense that also included the upkeep and maintenance of the machine, operators training. If I can prove that the operator wasn't trained on how to use the system correctly or the machine wasn't serviced regularly I maybe able to win on thous grounds.

Any one have suggestions on where I can find maintenance intervals on the cameras used in san francisco... Or do I need to request disclosure on this (discovery) from the officer?

 

[ecmst12]

It appears from my googling that CA, like PA, considers a traffic camera violation to be a non-moving violation, like a parking ticket. It won't affect your license or your insurance. Personally, I think it's a waste of time fighting this over a $100 fine when you don't have a very good case to begin with (ignorance of the law is not an excuse, you should familiarize yourself with the local traffic signals before you start driving in an unfamiliar area).

 

[davew128]

It appears from my googling that CA, like PA, considers a traffic camera violation to be a non-moving violation, like a parking ticket. It won't affect your license or your insurance.

Well THATS not true.

 

[asiny]

Is it just me, or does it seem the camera goes off before the OPs vehicle actually cross the stop line? Although the 2nd flash was after the vehicle was at a complete stop after the line.

 

[ecmst12]

I didn't research the code in detail but the only penalty mentioned was the fine, not anything about points.

 

[redlighttkts]

Yeah it goes off before the line, because they claim it's the before and after...

It's a 480$ fine! which is WAY too fing much and it's a moving violation and will affect my insurance.

 

[ecmst12]

That must be with all the costs and fees added. The actual law says the penalty is a fine of $100.00.

If you go to court you may be able to get the charge reduced to something that will not affect your license or insurance. It may not reduce your fine - it may even INCREASE it. But it may save you money on insurance in the long run. An attitude of looking for mercy from the court while acknowledging your mistake will get you much, much farther than an attitude of "I didn't do anything wrong, your system sucks, I bet your machines don't even work".

 

[davew128]

I didn't research the code in detail but the only penalty mentioned was the fine, not anything about points.

Of course it didn't mention points. Because in CA, the points are automatic from the DMV for any moving violation unless the ticket is dismissed at court after completing traffic school. Points aren't assigned as a penalty for the specific offense, they assigned for any offense based on category.

 

[ecmst12]

I see. I didn't have time to read the entire code, I just looked up that section.

 

[redlighttkts]

So I went back to the intersection and there is no camera postings up. Does that mean I get an automatic win?

 

[ecmst12]

Why would there need to be a posting?

 

[Zigner]

Why would there need to be a posting?

Because it's required for red-light tickets in CA