Re: Traffic Ticket in California :
Even if I did agree, as I approched the turn and started checking for traffic from the opposite direction, the lack of a sign seen from a distance does not somehow magically make the other two signs disappear, does it?
Seriously, Quirky... The way I drive, and assuming I did not see a sign from afar and yet saw one or two when I arrived at the intersection, I am not going to feel entitled to a free pass on a violation... What I WILL end up doing is -even if I do know for a fact that the MUTCD RECOMMENDS 3 signs, the CVC only REQUIRES ONE- driving to the next intersection to see if I can turn... And believe it or not, if I find that it is prohibited then I might make 3 right turns to get back in an south west direction... Instead of making an illegal left turn, getting caught and spending any effort fighting it! Maybe I am STUPID that way!
TMN suggested an application of "the reasonable man" rule in a similar situation in a different thread.
That is how the judge will look at this one: is it reasonable to assume that a reasonable driver would have not seen the two signs posted in the median simply because he did not see a sign from afar?
Answer: HELL NO!!!
Recommended NOT required...
The requirement -BY LAW- is that there be ONE SIGN... Here, You have two!
OK, back to the top...
1) I am not getting the part how this is a state highway, presumably falling under Caltrans' jurisdiction, meaning Caltrans is responsible for the design and implementation of any traffic control plans, which means that those signs were installed by Caltrans.... But how did Caltrans install those signs without Caltrans' approval?
2) When the discusion was centered around 21461, I could see how the Ordinance + approval + study argument might fly... I mean it is all mentioned in the code section. The citing officer amended the citation to 22101(d)... which makes no mention of "ordinance" or "approval" or "thorough investigation"...
3) Makes it simple: DOT or local authority decide they want to prohibit any movement on any highway, whether it is justified or simply for ****s and giggles, they can do so by posting, at minimum, one sign prohibiting such movement. If you, Mr Driver, decide to disobey that sign, don't come back to the judge whining about how you didn't see the sign... because it is there TWICE!
4) Why is the sign "not regulatory"? CVC 440 says if it is defined in the MUTCD as regulatory, then it is regulatory and it is an OTCD... Figutr 2B-3 from the MUTCD shows:
Bottom right corner is the same R3-18 sign that is posted twice at that intersection, which is listed under Table 2B-101(CA). California Regulatory Signs on page 2B-109 of the 2010 California MUTCD !
I am right 97% of the time... Who cares about the other 4%!