Violation of new "no right turn" sign

[rebols823]

A few weeks ago, I was driving in my neighborhood in Los Angeles, California at 8:30am and made a right turn where I often do. I was promptly herded over by 2 policemen who had been tucked behind a building and given a ticket. Apparently, a "no right turn from 7-10am" sign had been posted there while I was out of town (as a student, I was away for the 6 week summer. I had followed a tall u-haul truck right through the turn and failed to see the newly posted sign.

I found out later from a local shop owner that the police are out there every morning raking in violators of the new signs, which were posted about a month or so ago. It is not a very busy intersection and I see no reason for the sign (except maybe to detour people around a ritzy neighborhood)

So my questions are: 1) do I have any defense via/claim to a grace period for the new signs (which I had seen for the first time when I got the ticket), and 2) are there any laws against entrapment that would apply here?

Many thanks for your help.

Rebecca

 

[Zigner]

So my questions are: 1) do I have any defense via/claim to a grace period for the new signs (which I had seen for the first time when I got the ticket), and 2) are there any laws against entrapment that would apply here?

Many thanks for your help.

Rebecca

1) No

and

2) No

 

[free_spirit_etc]

I don't think those defenses would work. But if you honestly didn't see the sign - you could protest that IF the sign isn't posted correctly.

I got a ticket for running a stop sign a long time ago. I didn't know it was there. What bothered me was that I drove around the block LOOKING for it (after the ticket) and STILL missed it.

It was non-reflectorized - and set way over to the side of the road - and a reflective "truck route" sign is what caught your headlights.

I wrote to the city - not so much to fight the ticket - but to inform them - Hey! You have a stop sign out there that people can't see at night - and that can be kind of dangerous.

They wrote me back and admitted they knew it was a problem - but that they weren't going to replace the sign with a reflective one because they were going to be redoing the whole road within the next YEAR - and the stops signs would be replaced with lights.

I was aggravated because even when aware of the problem and the danger the city chose to do nothing about it.

SO I took picutres and fought the ticket. The judge told me I was guilty a couple of times - but I finally got him to look at the pictures and the letter.

So he asked the prosecutor to find the laws that regulated signs - to show what type they had to be - how close to the road - etc.

The prosecutor didn't really want to do that - so he said the letter from the city pretty well said the city was at fault.

The ticket was dismissed - and more importantly - the city put up a new reflective stop sign in a location you could see. So maybe some accidents were avoided - even if the city lost some revenue from ticketing people from running their semi-invisible stop sign.

So - if the sign isn't located in a place where it is clearly visible - you could check to see if it meets the standards for how signs need to be posted. I know you said a Uhaul was blocking it - but you didn't say where the Uhaul was.

Free

A few weeks ago, I was driving in my neighborhood in Los Angeles, California at 8:30am and made a right turn where I often do. I was promptly herded over by 2 policemen who had been tucked behind a building and given a ticket. Apparently, a "no right turn from 7-10am" sign had been posted there while I was out of town (as a student, I was away for the 6 week summer. I had followed a tall u-haul truck right through the turn and failed to see the newly posted sign.

I found out later from a local shop owner that the police are out there every morning raking in violators of the new signs, which were posted about a month or so ago. It is not a very busy intersection and I see no reason for the sign (except maybe to detour people around a ritzy neighborhood)

So my questions are: 1) do I have any defense via/claim to a grace period for the new signs (which I had seen for the first time when I got the ticket), and 2) are there any laws against entrapment that would apply here?

Many thanks for your help.

Rebecca

 

[rebols823]

Thanks for your perspectives.

 

[Maestro64]

I agree with free_spirit_etc about the signs, All signs are required to meet the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2003r1/pdf-index.htm

These are federal laws that all states must adopted in order to get their highway funds. They clearly state how a sign must be place and how it should look and so on. First is the sign does not comply they the ticket can not be enforced

No provision of this title for which official traffic-control devices are required shall be enforced against an alleged violator if at the time and place of the alleged violation an official device is not in proper position and sufficiently legible to be seen by an ordinarily observant person.

This text come from the standard and most all states have written this into their own statutes, so if you can locate CA traffic control requirements and show the sign placement doest not meet the required you ticket should be dismissed.

On the grace period, again this varies by state but most have some sort of grace period requirement. So if you can find when the sign was place and if CA has a grace period requirement and you were within the grace period then it should be dismissed. I suspect the grace period is over that why they are there every day. But I found it interesting they are hiding behind the building that kind of smack of a little unethical.

Lastly, to your point about a truck in front of you blocking the view of the sign, I would see if you can take a picture of that situation to show how the sign is not visible under all situations.

 

[You Are Guilty]

On the grace period, again this varies by state but most have some sort of grace period requirement.

Really? I have never heard of this. Do you have a link for any state?

 

[Zigner]

But I found it interesting they are hiding behind the building that kind of smack of a little unethical.

Yeah, it sure does! How DARE a police officer try to find a little shade

Lastly, to your point about a truck in front of you blocking the view of the sign, I would see if you can take a picture of that situation to show how the sign is not visible under all situations.

Please explain your reasoning...if the OP was following so closely behind another vehicle that she couldn't see around, causing her to miss seeing the sign, how would that be the city's fault?

 

[Maestro64]

rebols823

I found the CA requirement on signs and traffic control devices.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/mutcdsupp/supplement.htm

It looks they adopted the Fed Requires exactly and have their only supplements to the requirements.

 

[Maestro64]

Really? I have never heard of this. Do you have a link for any state?

Yeah it part of the MUTCD, and the thousands of pages of interruptions and opinions they handed down over the years. They have advised and recommend that anytime a traffic control device be added, changes or deleted that warnings be put up or other indications to the public that a change was made. Specifically, with red lights, if it is new they state the light should blink yellow for a period of 30 days before it is used. They have other similar recommendations for various traffic control devices.

Oh and the fact that a state accepts highway funds from the Fed they are bound to these laws and recommendations unless they write their own specific requirement which CA has done by including their supplement.

So there is rules on grace periods and they do vary by state, in my location not only do they put in some type of warning of a change they are even required to put it in the newspaper (you can argue whether a newspaper is effective these days)

 

[Maestro64]

Please explain your reasoning...if the OP was following so closely behind another vehicle that she couldn't see around, causing her to miss seeing the sign, how would that be the city's fault?

Who said they were following too closely, you assuming something here I did not read. They could have simply be at the intersection stopped and the truck was blocking their view. What if the sign was across the street and the truck was crossing in front of the sign, I can think up a number of real possibilities why a sign was blocked.

Now is this the fault of the city, maybe or maybe not, depends if the placement is in accordance to the MUTCD. Again you and I are not there so you can not make the determination. I am just offering a person information for them to think about and do their own research and draw their own conclusions.

 

[Zigner]

Who said they were following too closely, you assuming something here I did not read. They could have simply be at the intersection stopped and the truck was blocking their view. What if the sign was across the street and the truck was crossing in front of the sign, I can think up a number of real possibilities why a sign was blocked.

Now is this the fault of the city, maybe or maybe not, depends if the placement is in accordance to the MUTCD. Again you and I are not there so you can not make the determination. I am just offering a person information for them to think about and do their own research and draw their own conclusions.

Maestro - did you READ the OP?

I had followed a tall u-haul truck right through the turn and failed to see the newly posted sign.

OP clearly states that she did not see the sign because she just followed the truck through the intersection.

 

[Maestro64]

Maestro - did you READ the OP?



OP clearly states that she did not see the sign because she just followed the truck through the intersection.

They did say too closely, that was your interruption's, I have been behind trucks going slowly and no closer than 30 or 50 feet and could not see over them or around them, and before you say that was two close, 50 feet is well beyond the 2 second rule for following at low speeds and plenty of time and distance to stop if something happens.

Truck do play a hazard on the road especial when you trying to judge what is going on ahead. I personally have gotten into the habit of not going through interesting and left turns when following a truck since many time I can not see the light when you're creeping throw in slow traffic. I now wait for the truck clears the traffic control devices before I proceed.

The government does know this is hazard and they are trying to make changes so people can see the lights and stuff even if they are behind the truck.

 

[Zigner]

They did say too closely, that was your interruption's, I have been behind trucks going slowly and no closer than 30 or 50 feet and could not see over them or around them, and before you say that was two close, 50 feet is well beyond the 2 second rule for following at low speeds and plenty of time and distance to stop if something happens.

Tell you what - show me the "2 second rule" in the code book. You won't find it, because that's a "rule of thumb" designed to help people understand the distance they should be following. However, the law states (and I'm paraphrasing) that you need to leave enough time/room to respond to road conditions, including the ability to respond to traffic control devices. Our OP WAS following too closely.

(You sound alot like another poster whom I haven't seen for a while - You aren't pepe are you?)

 

[HomeGuru]

Tell you what - show me the "2 second rule" in the code book. You won't find it, because that's a "rule of thumb" designed to help people understand the distance they should be following. However, the law states (and I'm paraphrasing) that you need to leave enough time/room to respond to road conditions, including the ability to respond to traffic control devices. Our OP WAS following too closely.

(You sound alot like another poster whom I haven't seen for a while - You aren't pepe are you?)

**A: I agree and where is pepe?

 

[Maestro64]

Actually the traffic code says for CA

21703. The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon, and the condition of, the roadway.

No were does it take in consideration traffic control devices and there is nothing in their code that say anything about following to close and traffic control device, they do not even mention sight distance. Not even in their defensive training classes CA do the connect following distance and traffic control devices only about the cars around them and what they might happen if you follow too closely.

However the MUTCD does talk about sight distances relative to normal traffic speed and road hazards such as trees, hills and curves but never talks about vehicles as visual hazard. But they do recognize other vehicles as a visual hazard playing a rule in how traffic control devices should be placed, but those changes are still being discussed and approved.

And no I am not your friend