Red Light Ticket After Being Confused by Traffic Lights

[zazzn]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

Hi All,

Was driving the other night was completely confused by the bike signal lights which made it look like there was a green signal to turn, however last minute I saw the red actual turn sign and slammed the breaks. Unfortunately, in the pictures that were sent to me it look as if I entered the cross walk but did not pass the second line. According to the law this is illegal, however, I do not feel this was just because of confusing signage.

Facts

-New driver to the area
-Forward lights show green
-Bike trail lights show green (on left)
-Left turn light shows RED (on left)
-Left turn light very close to bike light which could like a green arrow (which is what I though it was showing)
-Late reaction due to confusion
-Photo shows vehicle stopped pass the first line of the crosswalk but not past the second line.

How should I proceed to fight this case, how does does the law work in the US? I just moved from Canada and all you have to do in court is show reasonable doubt. How does the system work here.

Was planning on the following arrangement's

-Due to the green lights showing clearly in the picture (on the left and right) while the red arrow cannot be seen I was going to argue that the complex lighting system was confusing and misleading.

I would go as far as saying the light WASN'T red due to the picture sent but I'm sure there are some that would show otherwise. Are more pictures allowed to be used in court than the 4 that are disclosed in the papers I received?

Any other tips?

This really pisses me off because I did stop for the light although delayed because of the confusion.

[quirkyquark]

Well, our shared roots of law lie in the common law, eh, so reasonable doubt is as good here as across the border.

But what you're arguing seems to be a litany of excuses...the pictures leave NO doubt that you broke the law.

Please post the exact intersection/location and where the confusing lights were. Also post he pictures with any personal info redacted if possible. Realize that your best chance of beating this is to play attorney and use some legal defenses. See highwayrobbery.net and other threads in this forum for more info.

Yes, they can use more pictures and/or video than the ones they sent you; typically they will disclose their existence beforehand though because such shenanigans may be reversible error on appeal.

[zazzn]

Some stuff to add... The vid ( no worries cannot see the plates) and some arguments from another forum, on another case similar.... But clearly you can see 3 blaring green lights which overpower the red arrow.

You can see I break, hesitate because I'm unsure, then break again hard....




Quoting CVC 21451
(a) A driver facing a circular green signal shall proceed straight through or turn right or left or make a U-turn unless a sign prohibits a U-turn. Any driver, including one turning, shall yield the right-of-way to other traffic and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk.

CVC 21451 does NOT say "unless a red arrow prohibits the movement". So, as far as I can see, as long as you yielded to other traffic and pedestrians, the left turn should have been permissible. Haha, you gotta love it!

OP, I think you'll lose, but it is an interesting argument. I'd love to see the look on the judge's face when you explain it.

Yeah I don't see how I can really refute the evidence, to be honest, because it's right there other than claiming it wasn't me, but they have my face plastered all over one of the pictures. However, i'm absolutely cheesed because of the how retarded this intersection is... It was at Fell St turning on to Masonic.

[quirkyquark]

But clearly you can see 3 blaring green lights which overpower the red arrow.

The red is reasonably clear to me, but then again, you are a new driver. Google Street View doesn't show any cameras on Fell eastbound at Masonic; must be a new installation. You should check the Photo-Enforced signs are appropriately posted.

CVC 21451 does NOT say "unless a red arrow prohibits the movement". So, as far as I can see, as long as you yielded to other traffic and pedestrians, the left turn should have been permissible. Haha, you gotta love it!

OP, I think you'll lose, but it is an interesting argument. I'd love to see the look on the judge's face when you explain it.

The problem is that when multiple lanes/multiple signals are involved, it's VC 21454 ("Lane Use Control Signals") that's operative, and it clearly tells you not to enter a lane when its "indication" is red. Put another way, if you're in a mandatory left-turn lane, you are no longer "facing" the circular green.

Yeah I don't see how I can really refute the evidence,

You don't refute it, you argue that the evidence is NOT admissible because of various legal technicalities. No evidence, no conviction.

[zazzn]

Something else I was looking into was what is the definition of a corsswalk... If there isn't a law that states exactly what a crosswalk is how can 21453c be valid since these two painted lines could mean anything.

The red is reasonably clear to me, but then again, you are a new driver. Google Street View doesn't show any cameras on Fell eastbound at Masonic; must be a new installation. You should check the Photo-Enforced signs are appropriately posted.



The problem is that when multiple lanes/multiple signals are involved, it's VC 21454 ("Lane Use Control Signals") that's operative, and it clearly tells you not to enter a lane when its "indication" is red. Put another way, if you're in a mandatory left-turn lane, you are no longer "facing" the circular green.



You don't refute it, you argue that the evidence is NOT admissible because of various legal technicalities. No evidence, no conviction.

I'm not a new driver, just new to California. The red is visibly. but very confusing since there are 3 bight green lights that drown out the red arrow, and the green bike light that you cannot see on the video or pictures.

One thing I learned from my friend that is a police officer in Canada is that you cannot go in on one argument and expect to win, you have to attack from many angles. I just don't know of any other angles other than the fact that the light is not clearly visible in the allotted space. I believe the install was new as well since you cannot see any of it on google maps. What signage must be there? Just the photo enforced intersection or whatever it is normally?

[quirkyquark]

Something else I was looking into was what is the definition of a corsswalk... If there isn't a law that states exactly what a crosswalk is how can 21453c be valid since these two painted lines could mean anything.

Law defining crosswalk.

In any case, 21453 states that even if there is nothing, "...shall stop...before entering the intersection".

I'm not a new driver, just new to California. The red is visibly. but very confusing since there are 3 bight green lights that drown out the red arrow, and the green bike light that you cannot see on the video or pictures.

Maybe they drive differently in Canada, but if you were going to turn left the two "bright green" lights on the right half shouldn't have mattered. If you use this "crowded out" argument a judge is quite likely to tell you to have your eyesight checked...

What signage must be there? Just the photo enforced intersection or whatever it is normally?

Yes, check threads, google or VC for details.

For legal angles that have a legitimate chance of success, read People v. Khaled (2010) 186 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1, People v. Goldsmith (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 and People v. Borzakian (2012) CA CofA, 2nd Dist., in that order. Borzakian is from a higher court than the other two, so supersedes them in part; it disapproves in part of Goldsmith and approves of Khaled.

[zazzn]

Yeah I realize the judge could say check your eyes, and I could argue that I did, as I received a California licence which requires NO aids such as glasses. However, I know this is a uphill battle.

I really don't think I can argue this case just plea my case by the sounds of it based on the fact of the proximity of the additional amber lights, the unfamiliar surroundings, and confusion that ensued because of all the signals.... I know this will admit guilt and which means it's an instant loss unless they are compassionate.

Thanks for the help quirky, going to check the intersection and photograph it now

... Something I just though about, is has there been any cases which determine the authenticity of videos or digital photos? Specifically, how do I know they haven't been tampered with? Anyone have any experience going down this road?

Something else I was thinking was the following....

So how I was thinking of creating a defense was as follows.

Approaching the intersection, I clearly slow as if to stop however, confused by the Green light I disengage my brakes. After a short time I realize that the amber light was not directed at me since there was a red arrow visible on a secondary light in close proximity. Establishing the need to stop I checked my rear view mirror and noticed there was other vehicles following very closely so I gradually applied my breaks as I feared other drivers following would not be able to stop in time.

I was thinking the 1-2 punch may be the best chance I have by talking about the confusing proximity of the light and the safety issue of cars not being able to stop behind me.

I know it's a crap shot but I don't see any other way to win this type of ticket..... Unless I was able to make the evidence inadmissible based on some technical detail.

[SB11]

Any other tips?

You need to go read this thread I just made: Red Light Cameras Lose Big Case In California

[That Guy]

You need to go read this thread I just made: Red Light Cameras Lose Big Case In California

I think you may have missed post #6 from a week ago:

For legal angles that have a legitimate chance of success, read People v. Khaled (2010) 186 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1, People v. Goldsmith (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 and People v. Borzakian (2012) CA CofA, 2nd Dist., in that order. Borzakian is from a higher court than the other two, so supersedes them in part; it disapproves in part of Goldsmith and approves of Khaled.