3rd Stoplamp - CA

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state? California

I've reviewed the CVC and I don't see if it is required that the 3rd stoplamp on a car be functional. I *have* seen references to proper functioning based on Fed. regulations...

So, the question is - is a non-functioning 3rd stoplamp a "ticketable" offense in CA?


(No citation pending or anything - just a question that came up related to a friend's car.)

 

[JIMinCA]

I think if your third stop lamp doesn't work, you shouldn't worry about if it is actually against the law or not. If it doesn't work, you should go directly to the nearest police department and turn yourself in. You should demand a ticket and then pay your fine promptly. After all... your light didn't work... you should pay the price.

 

[Zigner]

I think if your third stop lamp doesn't work, you shouldn't worry about if it is actually against the law or not. If it doesn't work, you should go directly to the nearest police department and turn yourself in. You should demand a ticket and then pay your fine promptly. After all... your light didn't work... you should pay the price.

Yep - that's exactly what I told him - but he still asked me to post the question. I told him it was a waste of time, since his vehicle is obviously not safe to drive.

 

[CMLANDLORD]

Based on experience, if the police/chp officer deemed it a "hazard" the ticket will be issued. In the end, the light is broke, it is our responsibility as licensed drivers to have anything related to the safety of others fixed. Tail lights, blinker lights, anything and everything under the sky. It is a non-moving violation and I believe a $10 fine.

I recently got pulled over for not having my registration sticker affixed to my license plate. I had the sticker in the ashtray compartment of my car. I showed the officer, got out of the car and affixed it immediately. HE STILL ISSUED ME A TICKET. Go figure.

 

[Zigner]

Jim -

With that said...

A person should not break the law and then try to get out of it on a "technicality". If a person is cited for speeding (let's say 85 in a posted 70), then he should NOT try to "weasel" his way out of it. I have never advocated turning oneself in for every violation one may commit

I violated the law yesterday because I stopped about 1 foot past the limit line while the light was green...it turned red while I waited so I was in violation at that point. I did NOT receive a citation - lucky me! It doesn't change the fact that I broke the law.

 

[JIMinCA]

Jim -

With that said...

A person should not break the law and then try to get out of it on a "technicality". If a person is cited for speeding (let's say 85 in a posted 70), then he should NOT try to "weasel" his way out of it. I have never advocated turning oneself in for every violation one may commit

I violated the law yesterday because I stopped about 1 foot past the limit line while the light was green...it turned red while I waited so I was in violation at that point. I did NOT receive a citation - lucky me! It doesn't change the fact that I broke the law.

Your above post seems to contradict itself. You preach personal accountability, yet apparently it only applies to others. Seems to me that being charged could be construed as a "technicality".

Also, I don't really know what you mean by "technicality". I wish you would be more specific. I don't view anything I have promoted as being a "technicality". I view it as "the law".

For example:

I have promoted the use of discovery. The penal code uses the imperative "SHALL" when describing the prosecuting attorney's obligation to providing discovery. However, the Government Code offers the prosecuting attorney the discretion of deciding which cases to prosecute and not prosecute. Since I believe the prosecuting attorney would not intentionally violate the law, I think it is a reasonable assumption that his ignoring a discovery request could be interpreted as him exercising his discretion not to prosecute. In other words, the prosecuting attorney does not intend to "charge" the defendant.

You have criticized that this would constitute a "technicality". However, if the prosecuting attorney doesn't choose to prosecute, I don't see how that is any different than a cop who doesn't choose to write a ticket! Therefore, if a defendant who asks for a dismissal because the prosecuting attorney ignored his discovery request is "weasling" out of a ticket, then you have "weasled" out of your red light violation due to the "technicality" of a cop not writing a ticket. You broke the law and now you are using a "technicality" to avoid accountability.

 

[Zigner]

Your above post seems to contradict itself. You preach personal accountability, yet apparently it only applies to others.

No, what I preach is accepting the consequences for one's actions. My consequence was that I had to wait for the light to turn green again and then proceed through. HOWEVER, I have learned my lesson. I misjudged the amount of room for cars to stack up on the other side of this particular intersection. I will NOT have the same thing occur at this, or similar intersections. Had I received a citation for it, I would have requested traffic school, NOT a copy of the officers notes to try to trip the prosecution up

 

[JIMinCA]

No, what I preach is accepting the consequences for one's actions. My consequence was that I had to wait for the light to turn green again and then proceed through. HOWEVER, I have learned my lesson. I misjudged the amount of room for cars to stack up on the other side of this particular intersection. I will NOT have the same thing occur at this, or similar intersections. Had I received a citation for it, I would have requested traffic school, NOT a copy of the officers notes to try to trip the prosecution up

Seems like to words of a guilty conscience. Let's face it. You broke the law!!! Yet you seem to feel ok with your own "self accountability". I don't see how that pays your debt to society. If you practice what you preach... you should turn yourself in and pay for your actions rather than weasle out on a technicality.

 

[fairisfair]

Seems like to words of a guilty conscience. Let's face it. You broke the law!!! Yet you seem to feel ok with your own "self accountability". I don't see how that pays your debt to society. If you practice what you preach... you should turn yourself in and pay for your actions rather than weasle out on a technicality.

but stop by Jim's house and kick his @$$ first would you???

I mean if you are going to jail, it may as well be for something worthwhile.

 

[fairisfair]

What is the name of your state? California

I've reviewed the CVC and I don't see if it is required that the 3rd stoplamp on a car be functional. I *have* seen references to proper functioning based on Fed. regulations...

So, the question is - is a non-functioning 3rd stoplamp a "ticketable" offense in CA?


(No citation pending or anything - just a question that came up related to a friend's car.)

and of course on the people you want to answer your traffic questions standard list, you will find Carl at the top. and then way way way waaaaaaaaay down at the bottom in little bitty itty teensy little letters. . . . befitting I might add. . . . . . . . . . . . well you know the rest.

 

[Zigner]

Seems like to words of a guilty conscience. Let's face it. You broke the law!!! Yet you seem to feel ok with your own "self accountability". I don't see how that pays your debt to society. If you practice what you preach... you should turn yourself in and pay for your actions rather than weasle out on a technicality.

Jim - you're bordering on stupidity. Please post a link to ANY post (traffic citation related) where I said that anyone should just turn themselves in for a traffic violation.
I have been consistent in my position that, if someone is cited for something they are guilty of, they shouldn't try to weasel out of it. You and I have a very different opinion on this, and that's fine.

You're a smart guy - you know this to be true.

 

[CdwJava]

Based on experience, if the police/chp officer deemed it a "hazard" the ticket will be issued.

For what section? Since the third light is not covered under CVC 24252 (at least not that I have been able to determine), it can't even be issued under that section for failure to maintain required lighting devices sonce only TWO are required - the main pair.

In the end, the light is broke, it is our responsibility as licensed drivers to have anything related to the safety of others fixed. Tail lights, blinker lights, anything and everything under the sky. It is a non-moving violation and I believe a $10 fine.

They have to apply a code section, and I am not aware of any that exists for that middle light.

I recently got pulled over for not having my registration sticker affixed to my license plate. I had the sticker in the ashtray compartment of my car. I showed the officer, got out of the car and affixed it immediately. HE STILL ISSUED ME A TICKET. Go figure.

That was because the sticker was supposed to be affixed to the plate, not to the ashtray.


- Carl

 

[JIMinCA]

but stop by Jim's house and kick his @$$ first would you???

I mean if you are going to jail, it may as well be for something worthwhile.

Should I take this as a threat?

 

[JIMinCA]

Jim - you're bordering on stupidity. .

Just pointing out the stupidity of many of your posts.

Please post a link to ANY post (traffic citation related) where I said that anyone should just turn themselves in for a traffic violation.

Please post a link to ANY post where I suggested that you did that. This is typical Zigner... not responding to what is actually said, rather responding to his version of what was said. To be clear, I said that a cop not writing a ticket is no less of a technicality than the prosecuting attorney not pursuing prosecution.

I have been consistent in my position that, if someone is cited for something they are guilty of, they shouldn't try to weasel out of it.

Why would you have to be cited for weaseling to occur? You admitted that you broke the law, but you are not going to accept responsibility. That is absolutely contrary to everything that you complain about.

 

[Zigner]

Just pointing out the stupidity of many of your posts.

Please post a link to ANY post where I suggested that you did that. This is typical Zigner... not responding to what is actually said, rather responding to his version of what was said. To be clear, I said that a cop not writing a ticket is no less of a technicality than the prosecuting attorney not pursuing prosecution.


Why would you have to be cited for weaseling to occur? You admitted that you broke the law, but you are not going to accept responsibility. That is absolutely contrary to everything that you complain about.

Ok Jim...you're good for a chuckle today