No Right Turn on Red Ticket, VC 22101(D)

[California student]

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

Hi everyone,

So, apparently there's a "No right turn on red" sign on an off ramp I rarely take (Link goes to street view, yes I know it doesn't help that the sign is right there, but c'est la vie). I was driving pretty much on autopilot, stopped at the red, looked left, let traffic clear, and made the turn. As such, I was stopped and written for 22101(d). According to at least one thread (link, there's an open question that it may not apply to a conditional prohibition (no turn on red). Does anyone have any further knowledge on the applicability of 22101(d) on "No turn when red" signs?

I know the fine comes out to the $230 range ($35 base fine) and I'm eligible for traffic school (no convictions on my record). Also the Quirky Night School argument is in play again (first Monday, which is 8 days away), and in a location where it has worked before. I promise to actually file this time when the ticket is finally entered into the system in about a month. I also promise to update this thread with any final decisions.

[That Guy]

So, apparently there's a "No right turn on red" sign on an off ramp I rarely take...

No... No.... that is not just an "apparently".... That is an APPARENTLY!!!


J/K, of course.... ACTUALLY, I AM NOT... HOW COULD YOU MISS THAT HUGE FREAKING SIGN!!!

c'est la vie...

Mais oui, la vie suce parfois!

According to at least one thread (link, there's an open question that it may not apply to a conditional prohibition (no turn on red). Does anyone have any further knowledge on the applicability of 22101(d) on "No turn when red" signs?

Interesting you should bring that thread up from the archives... The answer to your question is "no one knows".... That was me being a bit too creative, perhaps. And as far as that thread, stopped posting at the OP's request before she disclosed the location of the violation, and the TBD she ended up submitting was simply based upon the timing of the yellow phase and trapping a driver in "no man's land" if caught by a yellow. So the argument you're asking about never really developed nor made it into the TBD. And even if it did, the dismissal for lack of prosecution obviously takes away from any answer to the validity of the argument. the OP won at the TBD stage simply because the officer never filed a TBD.

That being said, if you were doing a TBD, I would suggest that you use that as a secondary argument. however, for it to even to resemble a valid argument, you would have to do a long winded "statutory construction" presentation.

I know the fine comes out to the $230 range ($35 base fine) and I'm eligible for traffic school (no convictions on my record).

I guess this simply validates the whole "easy come, easy go" philosophy.. You had,... what?... 2 Easy dismissals in less than 2 months.... (Not envious, I mean more power to you if you can get this one to go away too)...

Also the Quirky Night School argument is in play again (first Monday, which is 8 days away), and in a location where it has worked before.

Well, hell... Do you know if the same Judicial Officer is always doing Traffic Arraignments? (I am assuming your last dismissal was at the arraignment, correct?

If he/she is, then obviously you're doing that before anything else! (not that there appears to be much else you can do... I mean Quirky is not around to come up with an "MUTCD is the LAW" defense for you.... (I'm not making fun... I am just saying)!

I promise to actually file this time when the ticket is finally entered into the system in about a month.

Well, I don't think you ever posted any details so ^that^ is meaningless as far as I am concerned!

I also promise to update this thread with any final decisions.

You better!

[California student]

Bringing up the MUTCD, I might have a defense using it.

The indications for a No Right on Red sign are listed as the following in the 2012 manual.

A. Inadequate sight distance to vehicles approaching from the left (or right, if applicable);
B. Geometrics or operational characteristics of the intersection that might result in unexpected conflicts;
C. An exclusive pedestrian phase;
D. An unacceptable number of pedestrian conflicts with right-turn-on-red maneuvers, especially involving
children, older pedestrians, or persons with disabilities;
[strikethrough]E. More than three right-turn-on-red accidents reported in a 12-month period for the particular approach;[/strikethrough] or
F. The skew angle of the intersecting roadways creates difficulty for drivers to see traffic approaching from
their left.

-Page 80
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/si...12/Part2AB.pdf
Warning, large-ish PDF file.

Choice E has a line through it, which I can't replicate with the forum software. That leaves the only possible ones being C (highly doubtful since there's no cross walk going over the main road as it's marked "no pedestrian crossing," thus no reason for an exclusive phase), D (don't see it, to be honest the nearest school is a block away on a different street), and E which no longer applies. So it's off to call the city engineering department today.


Also the response to the Quirky Defense last time I used it, it was that he didn't think it worked for a demurrer, but gave me a pity dismissal ("it's just a traffic infraction"). He also never read the copy I had for him in court.

[That Guy]

Bringing up the MUTCD, I might have a defense using it.

So it's off to call the city engineering department today.

If you've read any of Quirky's MUTCD arguments, you've read my counter arguments which briefly stated, go as follows: The one single lawful requirement that ANY court (even on appeal) will be interested in (under MOST circumstances -including this one-) is that the vehicle code requires that ONE sign be posted. I firmly believe that unless you can prove otherwise, even the sign posted at the light-post across on the far sidewalk, is sufficient to establish a prohibited act. But please, as I tell everybody it is your case, run it your way! For your sake, I hope your night court stint works for you again and that way you would not have to get ^this^ desperate...

Now, in honor of Quirky... LOL I will play along for an MUTCD minute....

Rather than jumping to the 2012 MUTCD (do you know for a fact that this intersection was designed AFTER January 2012 (the date the 2012 manual was released)?

I was going to suggest that you consider reading the relevant section of the 2010 MUTCD, particularly the bottom of page 2B-50 (specifically, the underlined sentence below:

STANDARD

No Right Turn on Red (R13A(CA)) or No Left Turn on Red (R13B(CA)) signs (see Figure 2B-19 2B-19(CA)) shall be used to prohibit a right turn on red (or a left turn on red from a one-way street to a one-way street).

Option:

A symbolic NO TURN ON RED (R10-11) sign (see Figure 2B-19) may be used as an alternate to the R10-11a and R10-11b signs.

Guidance:

If used, the NO TURN ON RED sign should be installed near the appropriate signal head.

A NO TURN ON RED sign should be considered when an engineering study finds that one or more of the following conditions exists:
A. Inadequate sight distance to vehicles approaching from the left (or right, if applicable);
B. Geometrics or operational characteristics of the intersection that might result in unexpected conflicts;
C. An exclusive pedestrian phase;
D. An unacceptable number of pedestrian conflicts with right-turn-on-red maneuvers, especially involving children, older pedestrians, or persons with disabilities; and

(actually that "and" should have been deleted simply because "E" which apparently was part of the 2006 MUTCD, was deleted when the 2010 version was published).


HOWEVER, in looking to see if there was another closer light-post, and as it turns out there *IS*, that too (appears to have) has a "No right turn On Red" sign on it as well.

That makes for a total of THREE signs and it digs you deeper and farther into more difficulties arguing inadequate signage!

Of course, you need not mention this third one, although under similar circumstances, you'd find me disclosing it (much to the demise of my case) simply because you don't know if the judge is personally familiar with that particular intersection.

From there, I think it would be interesting to see a Traffic and Engineering report, however with as convoluted an intersection as this one is, I find it difficult to believe that the decision was made to restrict freeway off-ramp traffic for some minor reason.

But then it occurred to me... As you're facing BACKWARDS looking at the off ramp, you can see a path that runs along the south side of the off-ramp/behind the sound wall. It is a bike lane/pedestrian trail... And that is your "unusual circumstance" which dictates that engineering judgement can be utilized to vary for the norm! In fact, if you mark two points, "A" and "B" and click on the walking man in the dialog box, you get an overhead view of your "walking directions" (as opposed to driving directions) -marked with the blue line- and how it wraps around and comes through to N. Towne Ave. the green line marks the bike path in that area!

Also the response to the Quirky Defense last time I used it, it was that he didn't think it worked for a demurrer, but gave me a pity dismissal ("it's just a traffic infraction"). He also never read the copy I had for him in court.

Well, is it always the same judicial officer conducting arraignments at that courthouse? If it is, I'd be apprehensive about casually walking in with yet another ticket expecting another break. If you intend on using that as a demurrer (never mind what he said about it not being a demurrer), I'd make it official, filed, request a hearing date... etc! That way if you choose to appeal it later, you have not given up your right to do so!

[groove502]

Haha OP, I'm very sorry, but that is MY sign. They placed that sign there after I got a ticket there because of an obscure sign and fought by TBD and won. More on this later when I'm actually at a computer.

edit: OK, back at my main desktop. From my records, I got my ticket on November 21, 2007. Fought by TBD on April 18, 2008.

I don't have the HUGE packet of documents from my public records request to Caltrans with me. I will upload relevant sections when I do get home. From memory, the signs went up because of a high rate of accidents with bikes and pedestrians in the bike lane that crosses that intersection. The signs in front of the intersection moved TWICE after my citation.

This picture is after the first move. Originally, it was placed below the "No ped xing" sign, which was covered by passing traffic most of the time. When I took these pictures on March 25, 2008, the sign had moved to the top of the post. Very shortly after my successful TBD, they placed that sign right on center island. So if you're going to refer to the MUTCD, it'll have to be the 2006 edition right? There is a 2009 and a 2012 correct?





Additionally, the sign on the FAR right is blocked by the soundwall right up until you reach the intersection. The way the right turn lanes are laid out here really prevent you from seeing this sign, and I see that they still haven't done anything about it, which might ok because that new sign is in everyone's face. Probably will have to refer to the MUTCD to see if it validly fits all criteria.



And yes, as mentioned above, I just like to think of it as MY sign after all this. But really, who knows how many people fought their tickets and won like I did...

Also, just curious, but how did you get pulled over? My officer was on a motorcycle parked on that bike lane behind the soundwall. My bail amount was $159.

[California student]

Mine was a CHP patrol car. I honestly don't know where he came from since I wasn't looking for anyone and I first noticed him when he pulled up on my tail. He lit me up when I merged from the number 1 lane to the number 2 lane to let him pass.

I haven't had a chance to talk to Claremont Engineering yet, so I don't know when the most recent study was done.

I don't see how the bike path would change anything. It's far enough away that you should see anyone waiting at the crosswalk to begin with. However, the ETS would solve that mystery too.


EDIT:
Also, they can't use bicycles to place the signs as bicycles are specifically not considered a pedestrian per CVC 467 (pedestrian defined).

Edit number 2: Just checking, the ETS is CalTrans, not Claremont?

[groove502]

I'll scan my packet of documents tomorrow at work in the feeder. From glancing at them again, they didn't do it based on bicycles. It was for pedestrian safety. The original plan was going to be "Watch for pedestrian" signs and etc, but it was decided to put the "no turn on red" signs instead. They also know about VC 21650.1, and explicitly state that bicycles should WALK across the offramp.

Again, these documents are already 4 years old. By all means, send a public records request off to Caltrans to get everything to date. District 7 is what you're looking for. Don't know if she is still there, but my documents were sent by Tara Griffith, Public Records Coordinator.

[groove502]

Here is the Caltrans packet.

http://www.4shared.com/office/yKKW0e..._I-210_EB.html

[California student]

Thanks! Given how this week is going, I'll probably end up talking to Caltrans next week to see if this is the most current one.

After going through the package, I think there are serious issues with the justification. They keep coming back to bicyclist safety as the major concern. However bicyclists are not pedestrians (CVC 467) and are not included in the indications for a "no turn on right" sign. The fact that it keeps being mentioned means that any statistics used are fundamentally flawed and overstate the case for the signs given the definitions used in the California Vehicle Code.

The other big issue is that the comment section for the 2007 "Traffic Investigation Report" (PDF page 12) lists the official reason as the 12 accidents, which isn't an indication for the sign under the current standard, as well as the 2006 Ca MUTCD (Link. Large PDF, PDF page 154. Document page 2B-48). While accidents are listed as a part of the Federal Highway Administration's MUTCD, the strikeout indicates that it is not applicable to California's MUTCD (PDF page 18, document page I-4).

Alternatively I could be reading the CA MUTCDs wrong.

[That Guy]

Thanks! Given how this week is going, I'll probably end up talking to Caltrans next week to see if this is the most current one.

Haven't looked through the docs yet but clearly, a very nice gesture by groove to scan all that ...

Obviously, nothing wrong with calling them and inquiring... However if I were you, I would still submit a request for a new set of documents. Simply because if you decide or find the need to use any of those documents, submitting evidebce and representing it as "the most recent/current -this-that-or-the-other- which I received from Caltrans on May/day/2012" and enclosing the cover letter to further authenticate it would add more credibility to your argument as opposed to submitting a 4 year old report without anything to confirm the date it was obtained.... or any of it to use, it would look much more legit if it was submitted with a cover letter dated in May of 2012 instead of sometime back then.

Oh, and not to worry, I have plenty to say about the rest of your post... I will leave that for later though!