Failed to stop 21453

[Antigone*]

Anyway, there were other things in my post you could respond to instead of trying to find something to troll me over. However, given that you aren't an attorney and probably have no experience or knowledge of the field, I can see why you chose your topic.

Could i get community service in lieu of a fine.
Is saying my car was malfunctioning a valid defense.

etc.


I guess. i could probably argue this, but I have school.

Happy trolling.

Nope, California doesn't need your service. They need your cash.

 

[CdwJava]

Also if you read the law it says, "Stop until it is safe to proceed." If you read what I posted instead of, what I'm assuming you did, looking for something you could troll me about, you'd realize I did stop. i just didn't come to a complete stop. It was safe to turn. i had the right of way. There could've been no pedestrians or cross traffic -- Hence, green arrow.

A "stop" is a "complete stop."

You either stopped or yu did not. You admit, "i just didn't come to a complete stop." Ergo, you failed to stop as required under CVC 21453(a).

Your stop argument has no merit and will lose because you dd NOT come to a complete stop as required. had you stopped (completely) then proceeded when clear, you'd have been fine. That's not what you did.

 

[CdwJava]

Could i get community service in lieu of a fine.
Is saying my car was malfunctioning a valid defense.

Community service is available in some counties for traffic offenses, but not all.

And, no, a malfunctioning vehicle is NOT a valid defense. It might serve only to exacerbate things as your actions may have been seen as predictable and thus preventable.

Besides, what mechanical defect would prevent you from coming to a complete stop? Are you rally going to claim brake failure? Do you have the receipts to show an overhaul of the brakes?

 

[ababab]

I have seen people ran over because inattentive drivers simply blow through the right-on-red. I have seen accidents caused by this.

I understand that you don't have the mental comprehension to understand an entire post, but it was literally impossible for there to be any pedestrians in any intersection due to the fact that two lanes were turning left.

Furthermore there couldn't have been a car because there is a no u-turn sign.

Besides, what mechanical defect would prevent you from coming to a complete stop? Are you rally going to claim brake failure? Do you have the receipts to show an overhaul of the brakes?

i didn't know how bad it was until i started driving. As I already stated, that was my first day driving.
The transmission slips when it changes gears, eventually slipping into neutral. If i had come to a complete stop I may have been unable to continue driving.

A "stop" is a "complete stop."

The definition is not clear in this regard. It says, "Any cessation of movement." that is not the same as, "Cessation of any movement."
I stopped blinking while I made the turn, not blinking is a cessation of the movement of my eyelids, a cessation of the movement of my eyelids is a form of, "Any cessation of movement;" ergo, by not blinking, I stopped.
lol.
In fact the phrase, "Any cessation of movement makes absolutely no sense.

I don't know maybe Zinger or whatever that guys name is quoted the wrong thing.

Stop or Stopping

587. "Stop or stopping" when prohibited shall mean any cessation of movement of a vehicle

Is that the correct definition of stopping? It doesn't seem right. Why would, "Stop or stopping" be prohibited?

You either stopped or yu did not. You admit, "i just didn't come to a complete stop." Ergo, you failed to stop as required under CVC 21453(a).

this claim requires the previous premise to be true that a stop is a complete stop.
However, I see no evidence defining a stop as a complete stop.

ALSO I LOOKED AT THE vIDEO FROM THE PHOTO ENFORCEMENT THING. I'M NOT SURE IF I GOT THE TICKET FOR NOT COMING TO A COMPLETE STOP OR BECAUSE I WAS SLIGHTLY OVER THE LIMIT LINE WHEN I DID StOP.

 

[Zigner]

I understand that you don't have the mental comprehension to understand an entire post, but it was literally impossible for there to be any pedestrians in any intersection due to the fact that two lanes were turning left.

Furthermore there couldn't have been a car because there is a no u-turn sign.



i didn't know how bad it was until i started driving. As I already stated, that was my first day driving.
The transmission slips when it changes gears, eventually slipping into neutral. If i had come to a complete stop I may have been unable to continue driving.



The definition is not clear in this regard. It says, "Any cessation of movement." that is not the same as, "Cessation of any movement."
I stopped blinking while I made the turn, not blinking is a cessation of the movement of my eyelids, a cessation of the movement of my eyelids is a form of, "Any cessation of movement;" ergo, by not blinking I stopped.
lol.
In fact the phrase, "Any cessation of movement makes absolutely no sense.

I don't know maybe Zinger or whatever that guys name is quoted the wrong thing.


Is that the correct definition of stopping? It doesn't seem right. Why would, "Stop or stopping" be prohibited?

Stopping is the cessation of movement. Cessation means discontinuation. Not partial discontinuation. I am really sorry that you are unable to comprehend this.

 

[ababab]

From what I understand things have to be clearly defined in the law.

That's why lawyers exist who find loopholes and errors in the writing of laws. And why people spend inordinate amounts of time clearly defining and logically constructing a law so that there aren't any loopholes.
The law doesn't just "Assume" things, which is basically what you are telling me.
I thought this was a law forum where somebody might be able to give me advice, but apparently its more, "StFU and pay your fine" advice.

 

[ababab]

So, Zigner, did you quote me the right definition or was it wrong? Can you use your vast amounts of mental comprehension to explain to me whether or not that law is actually defining stopping or prohibiting stopping?

here's what you quoted in case you forgot:

CVC 587. "Stop or stopping" when prohibited shall mean any cessation of
movement of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, except when
necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with
the direction of a police officer or official traffic control device
or signal.

What do you think Zigner.

 

[Zigner]

So, Zigner, did you quote me the right definition or was it wrong? Can you use your vast amounts of mental comprehension to explain to me whether or not that law is actually defining stopping or prohibiting stopping?

here's what you quoted in case you forgot:


What do you think Zigner.

The law I quoted stated what stopping was. The reason you are confused is that the law I quoted was relating to stopping where prohibited (ie: at the side of the street when a "no stopping" sign is present.) However, it still defines what a stop is. You stated that it wasn't defined in law...I showed that you are wrong.

I still don't see how you can think that "almost stopping" is somehow the same as "stopping"...

 

[ababab]

So you used a law which prohibits stopping to explain what it actually means to stop.

let me ask you this.
In this definition of stopping, "ANY cesSATION OF MOVeMENT," do you think it prohibits only complete stops?
Wouldn't it be just as illegal to come to almost a complete stop if you were in the middle of traffic?
For example, to slam on your brakes, and skid out, but before the skid ended you continue movement. That is not a complete cessation of movement, but I bet it would be covered by this law, because it is a type of "Any cessation of movement."

and again, "Any cessation of movement" is too ambiguous to have any meaning. It is poorly worded to the point of amphiboly.

I still don't see how you can think that "almost stopping" is somehow the same as "stopping

Because it is not clearly defined? Come to a stop. A stop of what? Stop pushing the gas? I did that.

Anyway. Really what you are doing is focusing on the one part of the post you can troll me about. Which I suppose is acceptable, but you're going to have to deal with having an insufficient argument until you can furnish an appropriate definition.

for example, here is a definition from the dictionary:
to restrain, hinder, or prevent (usually followed by from ): I couldn't stop him from going.

But does HINDER mean to cause a complete stop, or to slow them down?

FURTHERMORE, its unclear whether or not I did come to a complete stop. I could've came to a complete stop for .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000008 ms. Is that a complete stop? It probably wouldn't be obvious that such a stop was a stop if i did perform such a stop.

 

[Zigner]

The section I quoted defined STOPPING. Seriously, stop driving. And be careful when you walk, as you have trouble with the most basic of concepts.

 

[ababab]

The definition of stopping wasn't clear. The phrase, "Any cessation of movement" is not a clear concept of stopping. Cessation of what movement?

Maybe you don't understand how the law works.

I don't think you should be on an advice forum. You're just a troll and it's obvious when your first post is, "YOU HAVE HALLUCINATIONS."

Look at your responses in other threads. They are, frankly, retarded and trollish. Look at your response in the speeding thread:

You WERE "truly" speeding no matter HOW you look at it

Yet even I, somebody who is so horrible at driving knows, that speed limits aren't absolute. You're supposed to drive at whatever is a safe and reasonable speed and travel with the flow of traffic, which might sometimes be above the speed limit. In fact you can get in trouble for hindering the flow of traffic. Oh look, the word hinder. To slow the flow of traffic, not to cause it to come to a complete stop. hmm
I would suggest that you don't post on advice forums. You're just looking for an excuse to feel self-righteous and to put others down, while giving no actual advice.

 

[proud_parent]

Reality check.

What constitutes a "stop" under CVC 21453 is a well-settled matter of law, even though you fail to understand it. You freely admit that you turned right on a red light and did not make a complete stop at the limit line prior to doing so. You violated the law.

As CdwJava wrote in post #19, the arguments you have presented here are completely without merit and will do you absolutely no good in court.


You should consider traffic school.

 

[ababab]

Furthermore there is this problem:

587. "Stop or stopping" when prohibited shall mean any cessation of movement of a vehicle

That word, "WHEN" is a qualifier. It could mean that, when stopping is not prohibited, stopping could have another definition.
Which could actually go against one of my arguments above.
Not that I expect you to pick up on such subtle interpretations.

Regardless of if it goes against my argument, that definition of stopping only applies "WHEN PROHIBITED."

Nice try.

 

[CdwJava]

i didn't know how bad it was until i started driving. As I already stated, that was my first day driving.
The transmission slips when it changes gears, eventually slipping into neutral. If i had come to a complete stop I may have been unable to continue driving.

Good luck arguing that one. You can try, but it won't fly.

So, how much did the repairs cost you? Do you have the mechanic's report to bring you with you court?

The definition is not clear in this regard. It says, "Any cessation of movement." that is not the same as, "Cessation of any movement."

Are you a teenager? or are you intentionally being thick.

To CEASE something is to stop, to end, to no longer do it. To cease movement is to no longer be moving. Moving even a little bit is NOT a cessation of movement. The section does not say you need only slow down, it says you must come to a stop ... a cessation of movement.

However, I see no evidence defining a stop as a complete stop.

Well, except for the Vehicle Code which defined it quite nicely. All because you do not understand what a cessation of movement means does not mean you will not be held accountable for failing to do so. And, the section you were cited for that says STOP. Not "slow down," but STOP.

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).​

The term SHALL STOP is a mandate, not a suggestion. And to STOP is to cease all movement. If they did not intend for you to STOP they would have used the conditional term, "may" in front of "stop" or simply said slowing and yielding was appropriate. The legislature did not. They said STOP. And, to the rest of the world, the world STOP is clear in its meaning. You are free to make whatever arguments you want, but this will be a waste of time.

About all you can hope for is that no one will show who can identify you as the subject in the photo, or that the court drops all camera citations for that day for some reason. Your only realistic defense will be to challenge the cameras ... no easy task.

So,. when you go to court, bring up that argument of yours claiming that the word "stop" is too vague and that you complied with the intent of the code section. Good luck with that one.

 

[proud_parent]

So,. when you go to court, bring up that argument of yours claiming that the word "stop" is too vague and that you complied with the intent of the code section. Good luck with that one.

Oh, and don't forget the argument that "there couldn't have been a car because there is a no u-turn sign".

Because everyone obeys traffic control devices.