Right Turn Only Sign, CVC 21461(A)

[rlawson]

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: California

I turned left exiting a shopping center parking lot onto a 4 lane street with a painted center divider. At the driveway exit from the shopping center there was a posted sign "Right Turn Only" which I assumed was placed there by the shopping center in an attempt to avoid traffic backing up into their parking lot during heavy traffic periods. Investigating the origin and source of the sign, I have discovered that this sign format has been deleted in the current MUTCD dated 1/21/2010 replacing the English Language sign with a sign with a right arrow graphic -- R11(CA) is replaced by R3-5R, although there is no target compliance date. Is this sufficient to argue reasonable doubt as to the requirement to comply? BTW, I was visiting California still driving on out of state license (NY) and therefore not familiar with CA traffic regulations.

[That Guy]

I turned left exiting a shopping center parking lot onto a 4 lane street with a painted center divider. At the driveway exit from the shopping center there was a posted sign "Right Turn Only" which I assumed was placed there by the shopping center in an attempt to avoid traffic backing up into their parking lot during heavy traffic periods. Investigating the origin and source of the sign, I have discovered that this sign format has been deleted in the current MUTCD dated 1/21/2010 replacing the English Language sign with a sign with a right arrow graphic -- R11(CA) is replaced by R3-5R, although there is no target compliance date. Is this sufficient to argue reasonable doubt as to the requirement to comply?

Not by any stretch... Especially when the deletion is as recent as it is.

The better idea though is to look into the authority that posted that sign and if it is in fact the retail store/lot owner then you may have a valid argument that it is unenforceable.

BTW, I was visiting California still driving on out of state license (NY) and therefore not familiar with CA traffic regulations.

Hmmm... In what language are regulatory signs posted in New York State?

[quirkyquark]

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: California

Please post details of your citation (code violated, who the authority was, etc.)

I have discovered that this sign format has been deleted in the current MUTCD dated 1/21/2010 replacing the English Language sign with a sign with a right arrow graphic -- R11(CA) is replaced by R3-5R, although there is no target compliance date. Is this sufficient to argue reasonable doubt as to the requirement to comply?

The old sign is actually R41(CA). It was originally deleted in the 2003 MUTCD which was effective May 20, 2004 (see page 6 of 2003 change list. Find the date the sign was installed and this may be helpful since new signs typically must conform to the MUTCD then in effect. As TG indicated, also find out who installed the sign, because VC 21465 prohibits private entities from placing signs which "imitate" official ones.

If the sign was placed by some public entity, go and find who maintains the parking lot roads. Because: according to the 1996 Traffic Manual, which was the last one in effect before the 2003 MUTCD, page 4-59 states:

The Right Turn Only sign (R41) shall be used where a right turn at an intersection is mandatory. On one-way roads, dual installations shall be made. See CVC 22101.

The Vehicle Code defines:

365. An "intersection" is the area embraced within the prolongations of the lateral curb lines, or, if none, then the lateral boundary lines of the roadways, of two highways which join one another at approximately right angles or the area within which vehicles traveling upon different highways joining at any other angle may come in conflict.

and "highway" as:

360. "Highway" is a way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Highway includes street.

If the road you were on, which met the 4-lane street, is PRIVATE property and not publicly maintained, it's NOT a highway which makes the meeting point NOT an intersection and therefore you have an argument that sign R41(CA), whoever/whenever installed, is not "valid". (precisely articulating this requires knowledge of the exact code section you were cited for)

[bruinPE]

If the road you were on, which met the 4-lane street, is PRIVATE property and not publicly maintained, it's NOT a highway which makes the meeting point NOT an intersection and therefore you have an argument that sign R41(CA), whoever/whenever installed, is not "valid". (precisely articulating this requires knowledge of the exact code section you were cited for)

Not quite.

Traffic Devices on Private Road or Driveway
21360. Local authorities in their respective jurisdictions may, within the reasonable exercise of their police power and subject to Section 21353, place and maintain official traffic control devices to regulate traffic at the intersection of a highway and a private road or driveway. Official traffic control devices may be erected at or near such intersection, except no such device shall be erected upon a private road or driveway without consent of the owner thereof. When official traffic control devices are installed and in operation, the private road or driveway shall be deemed a highway only for the purpose of determining the existence and location of an intersection.

OP needs to find out if the local jurisdiction installed it or had the property owner install it as a condition of allowing the development to open.

[quirkyquark]

OP needs to find out if the local jurisdiction installed it or had the property owner install it as a condition of allowing the development to open.

Thanks bruinPE, I stand corrected. It's great to have a CA city engineer on here.

[bwcondie]

I too received a citation for violating an obsolete R41(CA) sign. I was wondering if this approach would be successful.

I cannot tell if the sign is valid as the sign does not exist in the MUTCD2003 including Revisions 1 & 2. I am unable to review the sign drawing to determine if the sign size and letter size/spacing meets the legal specification.

Also, just down the street I found a "No Right Turn" R16B(CA) that is deleted WITH a 1/1/2010 compliance date. I intend to argue that the city I was cited in is negligent in updating their signage.

[That Guy]

I too received a citation for violating an obsolete R41(CA) sign. I was wondering if this approach would be successful.

I cannot tell if the sign is valid as the sign does not exist in the MUTCD2003 including Revisions 1 & 2. I am unable to review the sign drawing to determine if the sign size and letter size/spacing meets the legal specification.

Also, just down the street I found a "No Right Turn" R16B(CA) that is deleted WITH a 1/1/2010 compliance date. I intend to argue that the city I was cited in is negligent in updating their signage.

Please start your own thread, and include information about the code section you were cited for and the circumstances it all happened under.

[quirkyquark]

I cannot tell if the sign is valid as the sign does not exist in the MUTCD2003 including Revisions 1 & 2. I am unable to review the sign drawing to determine if the sign size and letter size/spacing meets the legal specification.

See my link to the 1996 Traffic Manual in one of the posts above. It contains specifications and samples for R41(CA). As TG said, make your own thread if you need more help.