Failure to Obey Traffic Sign "Right Lane Must Turn Right."

[mark.s]

Mark: please post exactly what the notes and location sections of your ticket say.

The location sections are noted, "S/B CHERRY AT BURNETT" at SGH, I'm assuming S/B is Seal Beach and SGH is Signal Hill.

[quirkyquark]

The location sections are noted, "S/B CHERRY AT BURNETT" at SGH, I'm assuming S/B is Seal Beach and SGH is Signal Hill.

Thanks. "S/B" means south-bound. I wanted to clarify that since heading north on Cherry towards Burnett or Crescent Heights, there are additional right-turn lanes which would make my argument inapplicable.

[mark.s]

Thanks. "S/B" means south-bound. I wanted to clarify that since heading north on Cherry towards Burnett or Crescent Heights, there are additional right-turn lanes which would make my argument inapplicable.

Ohhh, how dumb of me, haha. But thank you so much, I'm definitely going to use this in my argument. I still don't know how else I would violate a "right lane must turn right" traffic sign if I wasn't turning right from the left lane closest to it.

[quirkyquark]

I still don't know how else I would violate a "right lane must turn right" traffic sign if I wasn't turning right from the left lane closest to it.

Look at it another way: once you enter the "turn lane" portion (past the beginning of the solid white line), the sign (if required and appropriately posted) and the pavement arrows make a right turn MANDATORY. If you make any other movement once you've entered the turn lane---including going straight or changing lanes---you are in violation of the "traffic control device" (sign/arrows).

Assuming the sign was correctly posted, and you had passed it but immediately (and safely) changed to the lane to the left and then went straight, you could possibly make an argument to a sympathetic judge. But once you go straight across the intersection, you're toast. It's also unsafe because, often, that right turn lane is "dropped" at the intersection and there is one fewer lane ahead.

[mark.s]

Look at it another way: once you enter the "turn lane" portion (past the beginning of the solid white line), the sign (if required and appropriately posted) and the pavement arrows make a right turn MANDATORY. If you make any other movement once you've entered the turn lane---including going straight or changing lanes---you are in violation of the "traffic control device" (sign/arrows).

Assuming the sign was correctly posted, and you had passed it but immediately (and safely) changed to the lane to the left and then went straight, you could possibly make an argument to a sympathetic judge. But once you go straight across the intersection, you're toast. It's also unsafe because, often, that right turn lane is "dropped" at the intersection and there is one fewer lane ahead.

Yeah, I did change lanes to the left and then went straight, not going straight from the right turn lane passing the intersection. Could it also be an argument that I attempted to make the lane change at the intersection before Burnett where the right turn sign was posted incorrectly and the cop made it difficult to switch to the left lane? here's a picture of that intersection, on this picture, the circle could indicated where I was at and the cop could be the arrows where he made it difficult for me to complete the lane change and could my friends in the car be witnesses to testify this?

[That Guy]

But the sign cannot be placed there ....

True... However, a sing need not be posted at all!!!

when an existing lane turns into a right-turn only lane!

That requirement only applies if the citation was issued for 22101(d).
OP has confirmed citation was issued for 21461!

Here is 21461(a)

VC 21461. (a) It is unlawful for a driver of a vehicle to fail to obey a sign or signal defined as regulatory in the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, or a Department of Transportation approved supplement to that manual of a regulatory nature erected or maintained to enhance traffic safety and operations or to indicate and carry out the provisions of this code or a local traffic ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to a local traffic ordinance, or to fail to obey a device erected or maintained by lawful authority of a public body or official.

Here is the VC definition of a "Traffic Control Device"...

VC 440. An "official traffic control device" is any[/U] sign, signal, marking, or device, consistent with Section 21400, placed or erected by authority of a public body or official having jurisdiction, for the purpose of regulating, warning, or guiding traffic, but does not include islands, curbs, traffic barriers, speed humps, speed bumps, or other roadway design features.

The marking, in this case, is the Right Turn Arrow that is painted on the pavement.

It must be placed "150-300 feet" before the turn, usually at or near the point where the dashed white line turns solid.

The satellite image on Google Maps is obviously old, as you can see the lot on the south east corner of Cherry and Barnett was not even developed as of yet... And back then, the white line and the pavement marking was approximately 80+feet. It sure would not fit ^that^ standard but we don't know what signs if any, were posted back then. Because once you get down to street level, the images a more recent...

This is the point in your post where you added language from sction 2B-21 of the 2010 MUTCD, I think before we get to that section, we should look into sction 2B-20 just before it:

Section 2B.20 Intersection Lane Control Signs (R3-5 through R3-8)

Standard:

Intersection Lane Control signs, if used, shall require road users in certain lanes to turn, shall permit turns from a lane where such turns would otherwise not be permitted, shall require a road user to stay in the same lane and proceed straight through an intersection, or shall indicate permitted movements from a lane.

Note the "... IF USED..." part.

Then it goes on to define "Intersection Lane Control signs" in 3 categories:

Intersection Lane Control signs (see Figure 2B-4) shall have three applications:

A. Mandatory Movement Lane Control (R3-5, R3-5a, and R3-7) signs;
B. Optional Movement Lane Control (R3-6) sign; and
C. Advance Intersection Lane Control (R3-8 series) signs.

And it's obvious that in this case, the one the would be used, is the same regulatory sign shown in the figure Quirky posted.


You will also note that it states:

Intersection Lane Control signs may be omitted where:
A. Turning bays have been provided by physical construction or pavement markings, and
B. Only the road users using such turning bays are permitted to make a similar turn.

Note that it is not specific as to which Intersection Lane Control sign, A, B or C.... Meaning ALL of them maybe omitted.

And the last relevant comment in Section 2B-20 is that warning sign "MAY" be used and in this case, it was.

Advance Intersection Lane Control (R3-8, R3-8a, and R3-8b) signs may be installed at the intersection.

Now, moving on to Section 2B-21, are you sure Quirky, that you have the correct version?

Simply because the Section 2B-21 in mine and in setting the STANDARD for thr R3-7 sign, it starts with:

Section 2B.21 Mandatory Movement Lane Control Signs (R3-5, R3-5a, and R3-7)
Standard:
If used, Mandatory Movement Lane Control (R3-5, R3-5a, and R3-7) signs (see Figure 2B-4) shall indicate only those vehicle movements that are required from each lane and shall be located where the regulation applies.

That to me, says there is not mandate to use the regulatory sign. There are no element in 21461 stating that only if a "sign" is posted, instead, it provides the alternative of a road marking.

On both sides, the rightmost lane becomes a mandatory right-turn lane (note the signs).

True, it does become a mandatory turn lane. and the signs, in the example figure are duly noted, yet it appears that non of them are required!

(they assume that if a new lane appears and you change to it, you did so because you saw the arrows).

Well, the other valid assumption is that if you remained in that lane, you noticed the arrows, realized you were not turning, you would get out prior to entering the intersection!

Some additional FACTS:
(1) He doesn't have to admit it but in reality, he is not disputing the presence of the markings (arrows on the pavement)
(2) He is not saying he didn't see them;
(3) He is not disputing the fact that he had sufficient time to move out of the lane... In fact, if you look at the first picture he posted, his claim s that h got out of the right turn only lane LONG BEFORE to entering the intersection... Something tells me that the officer will testify differently!

You can try and manipulate the new images to the point where it appears that the white line marking the Right turn Only Lane begins to the leading edge of the crosswalk, and I get approximately 230 feet.

You can obviously argue that the officer indicated a "Failure to obey a SIGN".... I'm not too optimistic about that though! Alternatively, you can assume that the judge is ignorant to the specific language in the MUTCD, that he won't notice qualifier such as "If used and "signs maybe omitted"... I would't bet on it!

Could it also be an argument that I attempted to make the lane change at the intersection before Burnett where the right turn sign was posted incorrectly and the cop made it difficult to switch to the left lane? here's a picture of that intersection, on this picture, the circle could indicated where I was at and the cop could be the arrows where he made it difficult for me to complete the lane change and could my friends in the car be witnesses to testify this?

Do you have properly functioning brakes in your car and if so, why did you not simply slow down a little, until you had room to merge over!!!

Also, at that point in time, why were you trying to merge left if you did not know that the lane turns into a Right Turn Only lane?

And one more, did you not say that after you passed Crescent heights, the cop slowd down and got behind you again... Did you not? So why did you not merge then?

[jk]

Yeah, I did change lanes to the left and then went straight, not going straight from the right turn lane passing the intersection.

Ok, I need some clarification. When reading your original post and the close follow ups, I believed your explanation to be that you remained in the right hand lane but went straight through the intersection at Crescent Heights. Are you now saying you moved to the next lane to the left prior to crossing the intersection at Crescent Heights?

So I figured, maybe he'd give me more room, that didn't happen, so I slowed down more instead, but he was still in my way to switch, so I figured, I'd just stay in the right lane. So after passing the light, which appeared to be Crescent heights, I noticed that the slow car in front of me was turning right, keep in mind that since I didn't witch to the left lane,

I believe the ticket is for crossing Crescent Heights while in the right turn lane and not for being in the right turn lane until after the beginning of the solid white line immediately before Cherry Ave.

[themadnorwegian]

Can the OP clarify whether he drove through the intersection in the right turn only lane? If he didn't, then what law did he break by changing lanes out of the turn lane so that he could proceed through the intersection? IIRC, the OP also stated that he had a passenger. If this comes down to the word of the OP versus the officer, that additional witness will come in handy.

[jk]

Can the OP clarify whether he drove through the intersection in the right turn only lane? If he didn't, then what law did he break by changing lanes out of the turn lane so that he could proceed through the intersection? IIRC, the OP also stated that he had a passenger. If this comes down to the word of the OP versus the officer, that additional witness will come in handy.

passengers in the vehicle are not only not good witnesses for the defense, they are often the best witness for the prosecution. Testimony by such a witness is usually disregarded due to the relationship between the driver and themselves would not allow a truly objective and honest statement. They also tend to say dumb things like "he tried to move to the other lane but couldn't because (put any excuse you choose here)". That is a guaranteed conviction because it is testifying he did break the law as the cop claimed.

The cop, on the other hand, is considered to be a very good witness as they do not have a vested interest in the prosecution of the ticket. In other words; a cop on the stand is worth more than two (non-officers) in the car.

[quirkyquark]

True... However, a sign need not be posted at all!!!
...
The marking, in this case, is the Right Turn Arrow that is painted on the pavement.
...
That to me, says there is not mandate to use the regulatory sign. There are no element in 21461 stating that only if a "sign" is posted, instead, it provides the alternative of a road marking.
...
True, it does become a mandatory turn lane. and the signs, in the example figure are duly noted, yet it appears that non of them are required!

If I'm understanding this correctly, TG, your argument is that unless the citation is for 22101, the sign is not required. The "device" violated is the pavement arrow marking, and that's enough for 21461?

Well, the sign is mandatory:

Standard:
Where through lanes approaching an intersection become mandatory turn lanes, lane-use arrow markings (see Figure 3B-21(CA)) shall be used and shall be accompanied by standard signs. Lane use, lane reduction, and wrong-way arrow markings shall be designed as shown in Figure 3B-21(CA).

Arrows:
Standard:
Where a turning movement is mandatory, an arrow marking accompanied by a regulatory sign shall be used. However, when an additional clearly marked lane is provided for the approach to the turning movement, the sign is not required. Refer to CVC 22101.

Support:
Normally, pavement word and symbol markings supplement standard signing.

--------------

(3) He is not disputing the fact that he had sufficient time to move out of the lane... In fact, if you look at the first picture he posted, his claim s that h got out of the right turn only lane LONG BEFORE to entering the intersection... Something tells me that the officer will testify differently!

Yeah, I did change lanes to the left and then went straight, not going straight from the right turn lane passing the intersection.

It doesn't matter. Per 3B.19, when required, arrows-and-signs MUST be together (and the signs must be placed according to 2B.21). Call it a "combined" traffic control device, if you will. In such a situation, just the arrows or arrow + misplaced sign is NOT an official traffic control device.

Note that the MUTCD does NOT designate any pavement marking symbol as regulatory. (This is different from the VC regulating any movement referred to by such a pavement symbol.) So, the arrows by themselves are not defined as a regulatory traffic control device, meaning 21461 cannot apply to the arrows by themselves. (This interpretation means that if you disobeyed an arrow w/o a sign in a separate turn lane, as allowed by VC 22101, you would technically be not guilty of VC 21461, but would be of VC 22101)

QUOTE=[CA MUTCD 2010, Section 3B.19 Pavement Word and Symbol Markings]
Support:
Word and symbol markings on the pavement are used for the purpose of guiding, warning, or regulating traffic [this is different from regulatory]. Symbol messages are preferable to word messages. Examples of standard word and arrow pavement markings are shown in Figures 3B-20 3B-20(CA) and 3B-21 3B-21(CA).

Normally, pavement word and symbol markings supplement standard signing.
[/QUOTE]

The latest MUTCD expands upon this, saying:

QUOTE=[CA MUTCD 2012, Section 3B.20 Pavement Word, Symbol, and Arrow Markings]
Support:
Word, symbol, and arrow markings on the pavement are used for the purpose of guiding, warning, or regulating traffic. These pavement markings can be helpful to road users in some locations by supplementing signs and providing additional emphasis for important regulatory, warning, or guidance messages, because the markings do not require diversion of the road user’s attention from the roadway surface. Symbol messages are preferable to word messages. Examples of standard word and arrow pavement markings are shown in Figures 3B-23 3B-23(CA) and 3B-24 3B-24(CA).

Normally, pavement word and symbol markings supplement standard signing.

Option:
Word, symbol, and arrow markings, including those contained in the “Standard Highway Signs and Markings” book (see Section 1A.11), may be used as determined by engineering judgment to supplement signs and/or to provide additional emphasis for regulatory, warning, or guidance messages. Among the word, symbol, and arrow markings that may be used are the following:
[/QUOTE]

Finally, crossing a solid white line is, of course, not illegal (it's just "discouraged").

---------

The other interesting thing I noticed is that the arrows seem shorter than the shortest arrow (8 ft. high) the MUTCD mandates:


3B.19 is pretty specific about only using arrows in the figure ("shall be designed as shown in Figure...").

Additionally:

Turn Lane Arrows:
Standard: One directional arrow, a minimum of 2.44 m (8 ft) in length, shall be placed in the center of each turning lane near the point of entrance.
Option:
High approach speeds may justify the use of a longer arrow. Two or more arrows may be placed in long turning lanes.

The feet scale is 20 ft high. It's obvious that the arrow is about 5 ft, nowhere near 8 ft. One more bullet for your TBD!

---

In your TBD, I do not recommend making any affirmative defenses (i.e., excuses) --- the cop didn't give me room, etc. etc. Just make all the legal/MUTCD arguments. If you lose, get a copy of the cop's TBD which will tell you exactly what you're accused of, and then you can come up with a defense for the trial de novo.