Illegal U-Turn at Night, With a Poorly Placed, Poorly Lit Sign

[slayvoff]

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

So I am going to court to fight my ticket next Monday and would like to develop as strong of a case as possible and need help.

Ticket occurred at 10:00 PM after missing the left turn onto a street I meant to go to. So I went up to the next intersection. I saw there was a no u-turn sign there, so turned left onto that side street where I would make a u-turn and then turn right back onto the street I was currently on.

So I turned left to avoid the illegal u-turn. Now I am on the small street, and there were some little bumps in the middle of the road so once they ended I made my u-turn (the illegal one, apparently the no u-turn sign was in the middle where the bump-dividers were). turned right back onto the main street and noticed the cop lights etc etc, got my ticket....

There was absolutely no lighting on that sign, and furthermore the sign is posted less than 1 foot off the ground, not at eye level or anything. So that combined with poor lighting and me doing my good driver duty to look around and make sure no cars were running the intersection, led me to completely miss the no u-turn sign on the ground. And by the time my car would have made the full turn and my headlights would be shining on the sign in theory, the sign would already be in the lower left corner spot of my vision where I am not looking. Also there were no other cars in the area, unsure if any of the extraneous information matters because it's me vs. the sign.

I don't know if this would help my case, that on the main road where I really wanted to make the u-turn, I saw the no u-turn sign, and so made the left turn onto a side street where I then made the illegal u-turn. Like it shows I wasn't intending to do anything wrong, idk maybe appeal to the judge's sympathy?


Do I have a strong case? How can I make it stronger?

[That Guy]

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

So I am going to court to fight my ticket next Monday and would like to develop as strong of a case as possible and need help.

Ticket occurred at 10:00 PM after missing the left turn onto a street I meant to go to. So I went up to the next intersection. I saw there was a no u-turn sign there, so turned left onto that side street where I would make a u-turn and then turn right back onto the street I was currently on.

So I turned left to avoid the illegal u-turn. Now I am on the small street, and there were some little bumps in the middle of the road so once they ended I made my u-turn (the illegal one, apparently the no u-turn sign was in the middle where the bump-dividers were). turned right back onto the main street and noticed the cop lights etc etc, got my ticket....

There was absolutely no lighting on that sign, and furthermore the sign is posted less than 1 foot off the ground, not at eye level or anything. So that combined with poor lighting and me doing my good driver duty to look around and make sure no cars were running the intersection, led me to completely miss the no u-turn sign on the ground. And by the time my car would have made the full turn and my headlights would be shining on the sign in theory, the sign would already be in the lower left corner spot of my vision where I am not looking. Also there were no other cars in the area, unsure if any of the extraneous information matters because it's me vs. the sign.

I don't know if this would help my case, that on the main road where I really wanted to make the u-turn, I saw the no u-turn sign, and so made the left turn onto a side street where I then made the illegal u-turn. Like it shows I wasn't intending to do anything wrong, idk maybe appeal to the judge's sympathy?


Do I have a strong case? How can I make it stronger?

What code section were you cited for?

And post a Google-Maps link to the location of your left turn/u-turn/sign... Anything that will give us a better idea of gauging what you can/cannot see.

[slayvoff]

Violation 1 VC-21461A-l

This is a google map of it


Pretend I am this little charcoal colored car. I made a left here, then a u-turn just up after the no u-turn sign near the ground. This is the day time of course, notice no lighting so that little sign a foot off the ground over there is impossible to see in the pitch black night. Plus I am more focused about oncoming traffic and maknig a safe turn than to look down at the ground for a potential sign. If I wanted to make an illegal u-turn I would have done it on this made road (highway 9) because I believe there is that no u-turn sign there, where I made the left.

[slayvoff]

also, how difficult are these cases to win? and how long will i have to tell my story etc? like will i be rushed do you think or have plenty of time? i'm kind of nervous

[That Guy]

This is a description of the guidelines offered in the MUTCD.

The figures shown in the California MUTCD are typical or example applications of the traffic control devices to illustrate their use and manner. Criteria for position, location, and use of traffic control devices in the figures are furnished solely for the purpose of guidance, understanding and information, and are not a legal standard. Engineering judgment must be used to apply these guidelines to the typical or example applications, or adjust them to fit individual field site conditions. The California MUTCD is not intended to be a substitute for engineering knowledge, experience or judgment.

And then it goes on to describe section headings such as: Standard, Guidance, Option...

then it adds:

For all purposes, regardless of the text heading, any sentence containing the verb shall or MUTCD text edited to the verb shall, shall be considered a Standard. Similarly, any sentence containing the verb should or MUTCD text edited to the verb should, shall be considered Guidance and any sentence containing the verb may or MUTCD text edited to the verb may, shall be considered an Option.

However, the term "shall" in the MUTCD does not equate to the term "shall" used in statutes and code sections in the vehicle code, for example.


The standards for a "No-U-Turn" sign are described under Section 2B.19 Turn Prohibition Signs (R3-1 through R3-4, and R3-18), which starts on page 2B-18 of the 2010 CA-MUTCD. However, the standards/guidelines/options listed there do not describe the current circumstances (a no-u-turn sign prohibiting u-turns at midblock as opposed to the end of a block/i.e. at an intersection) ...

So in this case, what maters (based on VC 21461)(a) is as follows:

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.

As long as the officer can describe that a sign is posted prohibiting a turn, and that you made a u-turn at that location, then its pretty much a straight shot... Not much to argue or debate. You can sit here and analyze the code section and you'll find that the sign used (shown on Google Maps) is in fact an R3-4 sign described under section 2B.19 and it is also listed under Table 2B-101(CA). California Regulatory Signs. Additionally and per VC section 41101, the court can presume that the sign was erected, maintained and originally authorized by the California Dept of Transportation or the local (city/county) public works department. That makes it valid, lawful and enforceable. You can try to rebut that presumption but you would need what is described as competent evidence which, short of a letter from Caltrans and/or the city saying "we did not erect that sign and don't know who did", you're not going to get anywhere and I doubt it was erected by some random person, so you're not likely to get such a letter!

As for orientation of the sign, its height, position, location... etc, all of those are side issues that originally came down to the engineer and a term used in that first paragraph above called:

Engineering Judgment—the evaluation of available pertinent information, and the application of appropriate principles, experience, education, discretion, Standards, guidance, and practices as contained in this Manual and other sources, for the purpose of deciding upon the applicability, design, operation, or installation of a traffic control device. Engineering judgment shall be exercised by an engineer, or by an individual working under the supervision of an engineer, through the application of procedures and criteria established by the engineer. Documentation of engineering judgment is not required.

I can take a few guesses here but putting up that sign on a 6' to 7' pole in the center of the roadway there would make it a deadly weapon... The way it is now, someone hits it, they can drag it under their car through the entire neighborhood, who cares! Also, if it was posted at a 6' of 7' height, the first person getting cited will claim "I was looking to see when the bumpy center divider bumps ended so ?I can make my u-turn, so I wasn't looking high up, I didn't see the sign".

In fact you've said the same thing...

Now I am on the small street, and there were some little bumps in the middle of the road so once they ended I made my u-turn..

well, if you're looking to see "when they ended", then it got to a point when you were staring the sign in its face!!!

But there is more, in your version, you actually contradict yourself... In your first post you said:

... that combined with poor lighting and me doing my good driver duty to look around and make sure no cars were running the intersection...

And then same paragraph, one sentence later, you say:

... Also there were no other cars in the area,

And then in your next post you say:

Plus I am more focused about oncoming traffic and maknig a safe turn than to look down at the ground for a potential sign.

What "oncoming traffic"? There isn't any oncoming traffic if there are no cars in the area!

As for the lighting issue, regulatory signs are required to be painted with reflective material that reacts to the minimal amount of light. And with this sign being directly at or near the level of your headlights, it doesn't take much to turn it into a torch light, so that excuse isn't going to work either!

I'm not posting any of this to embarrass you, but to show you how you could screw yourself in court. Even without the contradictions and mistakes, you really have no defense!

If I wanted to make an illegal u-turn I would have done it on this made road (highway 9) because I believe there is that no u-turn sign there, where I made the left.

Really, compared to the officer's testimony that he saw you make an illegal U-Turn against a posted sign, whether you did so on the main street or on a side street, there is no potential for you to raise any doubt. In fact with the sign in such an odd position, I find it more difficult to avoid it that it is to miss seeing it.

But let me go back to the excuses for a second... This entire situation boils down to a "guilty with an explanation" plea at the arraignment. meaning you plead guilty, admit that you either saw the sign, or pretend that you didn't (either way, its an excuse), sound remorseful and ask the judge for sympathy, and hope he will cut you a break and lower your fine, then you will take traffic school to avoid the violation point and call it a day.

If by "going to court to fight my ticket next Monday" you mean this is your first appearance, then I recommend you do ^that^. If you actually plead not guilty and are going to trial on Monday, then it might be too late for the fine reduction (you probably already posted full bail), and depending on the judge it might also be too late for traffic school although you might get that chance immediately before the trial. If you do get the offer, I would take it and run unless you are not concerned about insurance premium. If you're not concerned, wait it out to see if the officer appears, if he doesn't move for a dismissal assuming the judge doesn't dismiss on his/her own!

Good luck!

also, how difficult are these cases to win?

With what you lack in merit to your arguments, I would say it is pretty difficult!

Again, you are basically saying "yes, I committed the violation, but I did not see the sign"!

and how long will i have to tell my story etc? ? like will i be rushed do you think or have plenty of time?

to be honest, and not to make you even more nervous, and this may depend on whether courts are busy in your county or not, but usually, traffic court usually moves fairly quickly. You will be allowed an opportunity to cross examine the officer after he testifies and or to testify on your own behalf. Normally, I would say refrain from doing so simply because you are likely to make the mistakes I alluded to above. In this case, and though this (in my opinion) should have come at the arraignment, you may want to explain your version to the judge... If you do decide to do that, keep it short and simple... And prioritize your statements from most important to least important because it will come a time when the judge will likely cut you off at some point when he's heard enough.

i'm kind of nervous

It is understandable. it is challenging and intimidating. But it is an experience and I can tell you that regardless of the outcome, going through it will be like lifting a huge weight of your shoulders! You might feel ticked off later if you lose, but really when yo realize you never had a chance, you won't let that part bother you much!

[slayvoff]

I should clarify some points. I was paying attention to oncoming traffic on the highway (the main road where I turned left onto the small street, where I proceeded to do the u-turn). When I said no other cars in the area, I meant none coming towards me or from behind on the small street after I made the left turn.

Also, the sign is placed so soon after the turn, that by the time my car is fully turned and straight on the road, the sign is next to me. I tested it last night and paid attention to this. so the headlight argument isn't really so valid here.

Additional information I have to add: I did not execute my u-turn until about 4 car lengths after the sign, long after the bumps ended. unsure if that matters, but I did so because there were cars parked on the sides of the street and I had to wait until I had room.

I found this in the CA Dept. of Transportation's document on traffic signs on their website:

"In business, commercial and
residential areas where parking and/or pedestrian
and bicycle movement is likely to occur or where
there are other obstructions to view, the clearance
to the bottom of the sign should be at least 2.1 m."

furthermore, prior to that it states: Signs should be
located in a manner that optimizes nighttime
visibility and minimizes the effects of mud spatter."


This placed sign violates all of these standards.

Here is a picture I took last night of the intersection which has no lighting:

edit: pic is sideways, but this is taken from across the street, the sign is in like the lower middle of the picture when you tilt your head to the left.


do cops usually show up to this or no? also, how is this cop going to really give any testimony...idk if it's just me but I have a hard time believing he will honestly remember the events of a night 4 1/2 months ago of some kid doing an illegal u-turn on a side street.

[That Guy]

I should clarify some points. I was paying attention to oncoming traffic on the highway (the main road where I turned left onto the small street, where I proceeded to do the u-turn). When I said no other cars in the area, I meant none coming towards me or from behind on the small street after I made the left turn.

In other words, once you made the left turn and before you made the U-turn, nothing was distracting you from seeing the sign...


Edited to remove the comment re an illegal left turn... as I zoomed back out (after posting) I see that there is a left turn pocket... I also see that the sign I was looking art previously: (THIS SIGN) is prohibiting the U-Turn (around that small island) AND the Left Turn (into the parking lot to the left).

Also, the sign is placed so soon after the turn, that by the time my car is fully turned and straight on the road, the sign is next to me.

Well,do you not check for cars blocking the roadway before you make a left turn one could only hope that anyone making that left turn? How about pedestrians crossing across Massel? And when you turn do you close your eyes as you're in the process of turning (no, I'm still not buying that it was so dark (even with your headlights shining in that general direction)?

You can argue that point all you want but when it comes down to it, anyone who has a minute and a clue would disagree with you, simply because you're not making sense...
I think we can establish that if your headlights are "legal" and "aligned properly", and if that is true then they are likely pointing forward and down, correct?
So you begin to make your turn, I don't know how many feet that opposing lane is but I can only assume that once you're across it that you are facing the sign and are parallel to it. No, your headlights aren't directly shining on it, but the light beam is at about its same height (vertically) and a foot or two away from it (horizontally)- and you're saying you could not see it.
Instead of its current position and height, you're suggesting that if it were posted at the 2.1 meter height (Approximately 6' 11"... Let us say 7') you'd be able to see it better...
Well, in that case, your headlight beam will still be a foot or two away from it horizontally... But it will be several feet away from it vertically! How is that going to be better?


All that aside, there is a reason (maybe several) why it is placed where it is... All of that would be in a traffic study conducted either as part of the initial construction of the intersection or as it went through several changes, or as a response to community and driver complaints.... That is public information and while you could have requested it from the public works agency, the fact that you came here a mere week before your trial left you little time to have any reasonable expectation of receiving anything in return. I could sit here and speculate as to why, but really what would that change? Not much. Same holds true for the officer. He is not under any obligation to justify the sign or the reasons why it is where it is. But only to testify that it is there and that he witnessed you in violation of it.

I tested it last night and paid attention to this. so the headlight argument isn't really so valid here.

I'm not sure which headlight argument isn't valid... But you tested it how?

Additional information I have to add: I did not execute my u-turn until about 4 car lengths after the sign, long after the bumps ended. unsure if that matters, but I did so because there were cars parked on the sides of the street and I had to wait until I had room.

I don't know how that changes much!

I found this in the CA Dept. of Transportation's document on traffic signs on their website:

"In business, commercial and
residential areas where parking and/or pedestrian
and bicycle movement is likely to occur or where
there are other obstructions to view, the clearance
to the bottom of the sign should be at least 2.1 m."

How does "parking and/or pedestrian and bicycle movement" block your view of the sign? How would that block ANYONE's view of the sign? Clearly, that provision refers to signs installed on a sidewalk or the side of the road where vehicles or bicyclists are between you and the sign and may potentially block the sign. Even with that provision, decision to deviate form such standards and guidelines aren't made for the heck of it, they are made randomly. They are made because the engineer felt it is a best approach under the circumstances.

furthermore, prior to that it states: Signs should be
located in a manner that optimizes nighttime
visibility and minimizes the effects of mud spatter."

Again, I still am not convinced how a higher sign would have improved your chances of seeing it! Who knows, maybe the judge will!

This placed sign violates all of these standards.

"Violates" is a but too extreme when in reality, and before any of these guidelines anyone reading the MUTCD will come across this (Page 1A-5 of the 2010 CA-MUTCD:

I'll underline the pertinent portions that clearly contradicts your conclusion!

Section 1A.09 Engineering Study and Engineering Judgment

Standard:
This Manual describes the application of traffic control devices, but shall not be a legal requirement for their installation.

Guidance:
The decision to use a particular device at a particular location should be made on the basis of either an engineering study or the application of engineering judgment. Thus, while this Manual provides Standards, Guidance, and Options for design and application of traffic control devices, this Manual should not be considered a substitute for engineering judgment.
Engineering judgment should be exercised in the selection, and application and replacement of traffic control devices, as well as in the location and design of the roads and streets that the devices complement.
Jurisdictions with responsibility for traffic control that do not have engineers on their staffs should seek engineering assistance from others, such as the State transportation agency, their County, a nearby large City, or a traffic engineering consultant.

Support:
Refer to CVC 627 for definition and requirements of “Engineering and Traffic Survey”. It is also abbreviated in this manual as E&TS.

Here is a picture I took last night of the intersection which has no lighting: [IMG].....[/IMG].

edit: pic is sideways, but this is taken from across the street

So you take a picture from across the street, with no lighting whatsoever, and this is supposed to simulate you driving within feet of the sign with headlights on!

Your point is what?

, the sign is in like the lower middle of the picture when you tilt your head to the left.

OK, so even from that distance and without any sort of lighting whatsoever, you still make out a traffic sign... Does it not make you curious to look at it in hopes you could figure out what it indicates? After all, we should all know that signs that have a white background are "regulatory" in nature... Meaning they are used to either prohibit an action or mandate one!

do cops usually show up to this or no? also, how is this cop going to really give any testimony...idk if it's just me but I have a hard time believing he will honestly remember the events of a night 4 1/2 months ago of some kid doing an illegal u-turn on a side street.

Do they show up? They're supposed to. Will yours show up? I have no idea.

4 1/2 months is nothing compared to citations that are dragged on for multiples of that time. Officers write basic notes to remind them of key points of what they witnessed, where what was said... It happens, many times a day... In courts all around the country! Yours is no exception!

Again, I have no vested interest in the outcome either way and you're free to try all your theories regardless of how off I think they are. I simply think that your average seasoned judge can tell what's real and what's bull. Some might give you some leeway and be sympathetic, others might simply shut you down if they get the impression that you are simply making excuses.. And as I stated up top, nothing you've offered here is a viable defense; only excuses!

[lostintime]

When was your arraignment? Speedy trial laws apply in CA for traffic citations.

"That Guy" knows this, but he won't mention the possibility of it - because he wants everyone to lose

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125894

#7, obviously upset that someone wants to use this defense. Any defense should just be avoided! Let the chickens come home to roost!

[slayvoff]

when driving in an SUV by the time you complete the turn and your headlights are anywhere near lighting the sign, the sign is already blocked by the front left hood of the car. a 2.5m sign would be eye level and right in line of sight. i am unsure why you don't get that. something in your line of sight is much easier to see and realistic to be seen than a sign youd have to sit up in your seat and crane your neck around the hood of your car to see, even if you knew it was there.


and you ignored the first part of my quotation which was the most significant..."In business, commercial and residential areas where parking and/or pedestrian and bicycle movement is likely to occur". this is a business area and parking is occuring on the street all around, and considering there is a crosswalk so clearly pedestrian/biking traffic. since the quotation uses an or statement, only one condition needs to be met which this does. and i am fully aware it is not required to be placed that high, but it is a standard and a guide for a reason. because shit like this happens otherwise and signs are difficult to see.

and i tested your argument about the sign being visible via my headlights by filming the turn from my car and showing that by the time the left turn is completed, you are already at the sign with it out of vision, and while turning left, the sign would be blocked by the part of the car separating the windshield and the driver's side window.


the point of the picture from a distance is that the officer wrote on the ticket that it is a well lit area. are you kidding me? there are no streetlights, no artificial lighting whatsoever.


and at the end of the day, simply because one engineer makes a judgment call as to where a sign should be placed, does not make it right. i would suggest making the bumps in the middle of the road extend further back and place the sign a bit higher, or at least further back so your headlights can spot it ahead of time. make the median a little thicker so you have more room to place it higher safely. idk, i'm not a public works official, but there are many better methods.

just because one person said it should be this way doesn't mean it's the best and should be revisited. i'm sure you can agree with that. and sure, when you break everything down and don't consider real time a factor, maybe it looks worse. but in real time, you pull up to a turn, wait for a window to go when oncoming traffic dies for a moment, make your turn, and boom. don't have 2 minutes to sit there scanning the dark night for signs. that is simply impractical and unrealistic.

When was your arraignment? Speedy trial laws apply in CA for traffic citations.

"That Guy" knows this, but he won't mention the possibility of it - because he wants everyone to lose

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125894

#7, obviously upset that someone wants to use this defense. Any defense should just be avoided! Let the chickens come home to roost!

i just read my ticket, my arraignment AND court trial are both monday at 3 PM

[lostintime]

4 1/2 months for arraignment, and court is then combined with arraignment? Seems odd.