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

[slayvoff]

i did wait until last minute to mail my decision in though, so that's probably why. kinda lame you have to pay the fine anyway, if i were to win would they pay me back or give me my check back?

lostintime what do you think about my situation? i am fully aware i did break the law, i have no real legal defense, but i mean i do think i have a compelling reason that the sign is simply poorly placed and poorly lit to see ahead of time. i do have other pictures other than just what i posted but yeah i have to strain my eyes to even find the sign and i know it's there. just not a practically placed sign.

kinda funny, when i went to take pics i saw someone else do an illegal uturn at the same spot. /facepalm


edit: also am i supposed to plead guilty or not guilty? bc i am admitting i did it, but i'm contesting the placement of the sign. i just don't want to say guilty and have the judge be like well ok, done and done, we keep yo money sucka

[lostintime]

It's going to be difficult. So the ticket says arraignment/court for the same date? And that date is 4 1/2 months after the ticket??

[slayvoff]

well it's actually about 4 months, happened mid january. so yes it says arraignment and trial monday at 3

[That Guy]

So first, you called it a car...

And by the time my car ...

Then you wanted me to pretend you're a little car...

Pretend I am this little charcoal colored car.

And now you're saying you were driving an SUV...

when driving in an SUV...

Oh, and good idea on the follow up going back to the "car"....

.... that by the time my car is fully turned and straight on the road...

See, you're kind of sharp... And to suggest you missed a sign

At any rate, it is starting to -figuratively- stink in here... Not sure if its the BULL*** or if LostHisMind needs his diaper changed again! So I'm going to get through this quickly and I'm out!

Its not 2.5 meters and signs don;t have to conform to you! Sorry!

Oh you can trust that I am not the one who is not getting it! You should contact Caltrans and Public Works and ask them if they would try developing a sign that will reach through yuour window and smack you upside thge head. It seams that is what you need to be able to comply!

And I did not ignore any part of your quotation, I don't know if it is voluntary the norm for you but you're being obtuse about the fact that parked vehicles DO NOT BLOCK THE SIGN. You're free to try and convince the judge that they do... If you try to act sincere about it, that may what tips the scale on the sympathy issue!

Your test has ZERO value, and in reality is inadmissible. There is no basis to it, there is no way to confirm your results and even if you could prove any of it, it is still not a valid defense! You made an illegal turn immediately after passing the sign prohibiting it. You got caught and got cited. Exactly the way it is supposed to happen! Oh, and you have a video? Really!!!! I wonder why you didn't post it! But only chose to post one of several pictures you claim you took.

Similarly, your picture is worthless as well. It cannot be authenticated and it would be a piece of cake to manipulate a camera's settings to produce a dark picture like what you've taken there!

But even if it can be authenticated, even if that picture is truly representative of the lighting conditions on that street (even though it is not... It can't be with STREET LIGHT # 1 just south of the sign, ..., and STREET LIGHT # 2 directly across the street form it... Although street lighting does not qualify as a category for sign illumination, the point here is that intersection is not as dark as you're trying to make it out to be! See, it is stunts like this that was tried time and again, over and over again by greedy, selfish, short sighted people looking for their own benefit that ended up making "the defendant's word worth crap" and "the officer's word word gold"! SO as you're standing in court Monday, watching the judge shake his head at people's stories, remember this part!

There is no requirement to have lighting on the type of sign in question here! At least I know I cannot find any requirement that would offer you a dismissal as a remedy if there are no lights on a sign!

When the engineer is hired to make such decisions, then you can be sure that his decisions matter. You are free to contact the city with a complaint about that sign telling them how you think it should be different. I'm sure they'll look into it... But ill they change it? Who knows. They're not obligated to! But even if they did change it, it will provide you with ZERO help for your citation. Simply because at the time you were cited, the sign was posted the law requires that a TCD be posted where it can be seen by a reasonable person.. You would think that if it was as bad as you're making it out to be, then that would be the reasonable presumption and the responsible agency would make the change.

This thread has gone full course and back a coule of times.. The answer here should have been limited to "you can plead guilty with an explanation and hope for a fine reduction"... That still is my opinion but I thought I'd oblige you with a detailed response, and some answers to your questions to help you understand what reality is. As it turns out, I am the one who doesn't get it!

Last but not least, unless you request a trial and an arraignment on the same day, then you'r appearance on Monday is only for your arraignment!

lostintime what do you think about my situation?

lostintime couldn't tell you his opinion if he could come up with one... He simply trolls the forum posting meaningless idiotic gibberish that has zero benefit or value!

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!

Still haven't learned your lesson, have you? Still wanna chase me around talking smack and proving to everyone who can read what a true full fledged idiot you are!

First, I feel sorry for whoever put you in charge of their affairs... You're not the post police, and you certainly aren't second guessing my opinions because you have a clue... Not my job to figure out why, all I will say is that it is creepy! Whether I mention an issue or not is of my own choosing. I don't have to conform to your standards (sorry, I don't stoop to that level) and I certainly am not anybody's attorney. I don't owe anyone a guaranteed dismissal! You can claim I want everyone to lose but that is your ignorance speaking. If you can begin to understand what I am posting then we'll talk. Hasn't happened yet!

I don't know what the "#7" reference is in regards to, but again, just another sign of your mental instability and how it affects your behavior!

Last but not least, No "defense" should be avoided... Trying to lie and bullshit the court and the prosecutor like you did in your case, is likely to backfire in your face.... And fact is, in your case, it sure did!

I am done here... I've said all I can say... And offered more than I should. Good luck, and do let us know how it turned out! I can only guess what the outcome will be!

[slayvoff]

someone's parents didn't love them enough lol. i don't have the energy to reply to all of your points. when i said pretend i am that charcoal car, i meant that's the position i turned from, i was in no way saying i drive some shitty little car, and i did not realize i was speaking to the post police. if that was the case i would have specified SUV from the start.


anyway, my original plan was to plea guilty and explain the situation of what happened because i am not contending the fact that i made a u-turn at said location.

[lostintime]

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!

You intentionally avoided any mention of speedy trial laws - which you very know apply in CA for traffic violations. Of course, there are specific provisions, but you are pretty knowledgeable about CA traffic laws and do have the ability to help this person, you simply don't want to. With this 4 1/2 month timeframe, it should at least be examined.

You say you have no "vested interest", yet you spend hours per week here writing diary entries to strangers expounding your desire (in great detail, I should add) to see them found guilty! Pure, unmitigated, unbridled, unabashed guilt! And nothing more!

All your posts...have one underlying mantra...

Let the chickens come home to roost!

[slayvoff]

yeah lostintime, so it'll be a little over 100 days since i was issued the ticket that i will have my arraignment and court trial. is there something here with these speedy trial laws that can get me out of my ticket or something? i know that my reply to the court when i got the ticket in the mail was due by april 10th, and i got it in and then they mailed me this saying may 7th


but ya i have always been planning on pleading guilty and getting a reduction, or completely out of it if possible. this whole thread has been about my explanation and trying to voice my side effectively. considering they charged me ****ing $250 for this i better get a reduction, that is an obscene price

[lostintime]

So they waited all this time, then combined the arraignment with the court date? Was this on tribal land or something?? Although there is probably some provision that allows it (if that's the case) - there always is.

[slayvoff]

lol so it seems. well anyway it doesnt matter cause that's the situation, which i don't mind. get this all over with.

[slayvoff]

also, i had to laugh to myself when i read that comment about how my pictures will be dismissed because they could have been doctored. come on man this is a traffic ticket lol, not a murder case going to the supreme court. and with there being no overhead lights (the nearest was 58 feet away i measured), it is not hard to believe that it was pitch black right there. i just think it's amusing how serious and melodramatic you are being. i mean sure i appreciate the advice you gave but at a certain point you just became a dick to be frank and instead of trying to help it's like you're going to great extents to try to prove why i am wrong. as the guys on espn would say....c'mon man