Left Turn Ticket, but No Sign Prohibiting Turns

[fg0118]

My question involves traffic court in the State of: California, Los Angeles county

I was on my way to take my final exam at 8am. While waiting on the median to make a left to my school, a 5-0 flashed his light. I proceeded and made a safe left turn, pulled over and then he told me that I made an illegal left run. I told him that I assumed that I can make a left turn there because there is no sign at all indicating that I cannot make a left turn to that little intersection. He just told me that double solid line should be enough to tell drivers that left turn is not allowed. It wasn't my first time making a left turn but it's my first time getting pulled over by doing so. I've seen people make a left turn there, another reason why I assumed it is safe and legal.

Other Info:
I go to CSU-Northridge
I'm on Nordhoff St. going east making a left to Matador Way(the road/street was just created/added less than a year)
4 lane road(2 each side) with a wide a median
No "do not enter sign" No "no left turn sign"

And yes....he made me late for my exam [:/]


Questions:
Have anyone got a similar ticket recently?
Is trial by declaration an option?
been trying to look for a good example but cannot find one similar to my case

Thank you in advance!

[cbg]

Don't know the answer to your questions but I'm curious as to why you think the school you go to is relevant. The law is not different for CSU students (Northridge or not) than it is for other CA citizens.

[blewis]

I'm assuming you were cited for CVC 21651, which states:

21651. (a) Whenever a highway has been divided into two or more roadways by means of intermittent barriers or by means of a dividing section of not less than two feet in width, either unpaved or delineated by curbs, double-parallel lines, or other markings on the roadway, it is unlawful to do either of the following:

(1) To drive any vehicle over, upon, or across the dividing section.

(2) To make any left, semicircular, or U-turn with the vehicle on the divided highway, except through an opening in the barrier designated and intended by public authorities for the use of vehicles or through a plainly marked opening in the dividing section.

(b) It is unlawful to drive any vehicle upon a highway, except to the right of an intermittent barrier or a dividing section which separates two or more opposing lanes of traffic. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (c), a violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor.

(c) Any willful violation of subdivision (b) which results in injury to, or death of, a person shall be punished by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code, or imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not more than six months.

Interestingly, the aerial view from Google Maps shows the uncompleted intersection, but the street view clearly shows that there is no break in the "barrier".

Sorry, I don't see a defense for you, but I'm not all that familiar with CA traffic laws.

Barry

[ptatohed]

Don't know the answer to your questions but I'm curious as to why you think the school you go to is relevant. The law is not different for CSU students (Northridge or not) than it is for other CA citizens.

I don't think there is any implication that CSU students have different laws than other citizens. Explaining where he was driving is helpful. I don't think that if he had said he was turning into the Vons parking lot when he got a ticket, you'd ask him why his choice of grocery store is relevant.

I'm assuming you were cited for CVC 21651, which states:



Interestingly, the aerial view from Google Maps shows the uncompleted intersection, but the street view clearly shows that there is no break in the "barrier".

Sorry, I don't see a defense for you, but I'm not all that familiar with CA traffic laws.

Barry

I agree. In addition to the dual/parallel double-yellow (I believe you'd typically be allowed to make a left if it were a single double-yellow), there is clearly a white (8"?) channelizing line for the west-bound traffic right turn pocket which you should not cross.

What is interesting is he lit you up before you actually made the left.

Good luck.

[fg0118]

I'm assuming you were cited for CVC 21651, which states:



Interestingly, the aerial view from Google Maps shows the uncompleted intersection, but the street view clearly shows that there is no break in the "barrier".

Sorry, I don't see a defense for you, but I'm not all that familiar with CA traffic laws.

Barry

Thank you for the response. Definitely not the info I want to hear/read though
So I know I did break the traffic law since it is a yellow double solid line just before a main intersection but a sign should still be posted to let commuters know right?


Do you think it's not worth trying to go for trial by declaration? Thanks!

Don't know the answer to your questions but I'm curious as to why you think the school you go to is relevant. The law is not different for CSU students (Northridge or not) than it is for other CA citizens.

I simply pointed that out to say or show that I'm pretty familiar around the area and go to that area very often. I wasn't just passing by or visiting the area. I don't remember saying anything about being excused just because I am a student in the school where I got the citation. I suppose I should just remove that info in my original post, I'm new here so don't know how this forum works. Thank you for your input.

[That Guy]

Thank you for the response. Definitely not the info I want to hear/read though
So I know I did break the traffic law since it is a yellow double solid line just before a main intersection but a sign should still be posted to let commuters know right?

No... The double solid yellow lines on both sides of the dividing section simulate a segment of roadway that you cannot not enter drive through or cross, as if it were a raised median. So he lit you up for driving over what represents an island/an unpaved section of highway... etc. No sign is needed to warn against that!

The description of the regulation under 21651 states:

Whenever a highway has been divided into two or more roadways by means of intermittent barriers or by means of a dividing section of not less than two feet in width, either unpaved or delineated by curbs, double-parallel lines, or other markings on the roadway, it is unlawful to do either of the following:

(1) To drive any vehicle over, upon, or across the dividing section.

(2) To make any left, semicircular, or U-turn with the vehicle on the divided highway, except through an opening in the barrier designated and intended by public authorities for the use of vehicles or through a plainly marked opening in the dividing section.

And you violated both! But specific to your question about a sign, the code only requires roadway marking. If a sign was required it would state such requirement in the code section.

For example, CVC 21655 requires that signs be posted:

21655.

(a) Whenever the Department of Transportation or local authorities with respect to highways under their respective jurisdictions determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that the designation of a specific lane or lanes for the travel of vehicles required to travel at reduced speeds would facilitate the safe and orderly movement of traffic, the department or local authority may designate a specific lane or lanes for the travel of vehicles which are subject to the provisions of Section 22406 and shall erect signs at reasonable intervals giving notice thereof.

---

In addition to the dual/parallel double-yellow (I believe you'd typically be allowed to make a left if it were a single double-yellow), there is clearly a white (8"?) channelizing line for the west-bound traffic right turn pocket which you should not cross.

The OP made a left turn onto Matador Way which is over 100 feet BEFORE getting anywhere close to the white lines. Either way, there is no prohibition against crossing the white lines into or our of the left turn pockets. Furthermore, had the opening for Matador way been across from where the left turn pockets are and where the double solid yellow lines are, then there would be no prohibition against making a left turn there.

What is interesting is he lit you up before you actually made the left.

Interesting in what way?

The OP had already violated 21651(a)(1) by being where he was and for "driving a vehicle over/upon the dividing section" at the time he got lit up, even before he made the left turn. When he made his left turn, he violated 21651(a)(2) as well.

You should stick to speeding citations... Then again, you don't seem to get those either!

[ptatohed]

No... The double solid yellow lines on both sides of the dividing section simulate a segment of roadway that you cannot not enter drive through or cross, as if it were a raised median. So he lit you up for driving over what represents an island/an unpaved section of highway... etc. No sign is needed to warn against that!

The description of the regulation under 21651 states:

Whenever a highway has been divided into two or more roadways by means of intermittent barriers or by means of a dividing section of not less than two feet in width, either unpaved or delineated by curbs, double-parallel lines, or other markings on the roadway, it is unlawful to do either of the following:

(1) To drive any vehicle over, upon, or across the dividing section.

(2) To make any left, semicircular, or U-turn with the vehicle on the divided highway, except through an opening in the barrier designated and intended by public authorities for the use of vehicles or through a plainly marked opening in the dividing section.

And you violated both! But specific to your question about a sign, the code only requires roadway marking. If a sign was required it would state such requirement in the code section.

For example, CVC 21655 requires that signs be posted:

21655.

(a) Whenever the Department of Transportation or local authorities with respect to highways under their respective jurisdictions determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that the designation of a specific lane or lanes for the travel of vehicles required to travel at reduced speeds would facilitate the safe and orderly movement of traffic, the department or local authority may designate a specific lane or lanes for the travel of vehicles which are subject to the provisions of Section 22406 and shall erect signs at reasonable intervals giving notice thereof.

---

The OP made a left turn onto Matador Way which is over 100 feet BEFORE getting anywhere close to the white lines.
Not true sir. The channelizing lines are at the intersection of Nordhoff and Matador clearly showing right-in, right-out only. Not sure where you get 100'. But, then again, this wouldn't be the first time you have been "confidently wrong". Either way, there is no prohibition against crossing the white lines into or our of the left turn pockets. Left turn pocket?? Furthermore, had the opening for Matador way been across from where the left turn pockets are and where the double solid yellow lines are, then there would be no prohibition against making a left turn there. There are no left turn pockets and, again, the entrance is striped for right-in, right-out only.



Interesting in what way?

Interesting in that he was lit up (and later cited) for a left turn in which he hadn't yet made.
The OP had already violated 21651(a)(1) by being where he was and for "driving a vehicle over/upon the dividing section" at the time he got lit up, even before he made the left turn. When he made his left turn, he violated 21651(a)(2) as well.

You should stick to speeding citations... Then again, you don't seem to get those either! You're right, I don't get them plural...... but I did get one in Nov '12. :P In which I am currently appealing.

...

[That Guy]

You still can't figure out how to use quotes and properly respond on a forum?

Not true sir. The channelizing lines are at the intersection of Nordhoff and Matador clearly showing right-in, right-out only. Not sure where you get 100'. But, then again, this wouldn't be the first time you have been "confidently wrong".

"Channelizing lines"? Where do you get that term from?

If you're talking about the white lines inside of this dividing section, the pattern that those white lines are drawn in are referred to as "cross hatching". But those have nothing to do with the prohibition of crossing/driving over that dividing section. The prohibition against driving over that section, again, comes from 21651(a)(1) and it is mandated by using double solid lines. Not because of the white lines. No matter how wide they are in such a pattern. This makes you "ignorantly wrong".

Interesting in that he was lit up (and later cited) for a left turn in which he hadn't yet made.

You can repeat it as many times as you want. he was not lit up for a left turn he hadn't made. The code section clearly indicated it is a violation to drive over the dividing section. He was lit up for doing so. He could have gotten out to his right. In fact at that point in time, and once he saw emergency lights behind him and even without the siren, he should have slowly exited to the right, merged to the right side of the roadway to see if the cop would follow or possibly let him go. When he still went ahead and committed a second violation, the cop had a choice on what to cite him for!

but I did get one in Nov '12. :P In which I am currently appealing.

You had two chances at that citation, A TBD and a TDN... And you failed at both. And so what if you're currently appealing? When you have no grounds to appeal, an appeal is simply a way for you to continue living in your denial, and to prolong your own agony. Of course its your story and you can report its outcome as you wish. I promise, I'll pretend to believe you when you come back to say you won your appeal.

[fg0118]

No... The double solid yellow lines on both sides of the dividing section simulate a segment of roadway that you cannot not enter drive through or cross, as if it were a raised median. So he lit you up for driving over what represents an island/an unpaved section of highway... etc. No sign is needed to warn against that!

And you violated both! But specific to your question about a sign, the code only requires roadway marking. If a sign was required it would state such requirement in the code section.

For example, CVC 21655 requires that signs be posted:

21655.

(a) Whenever the Department of Transportation or local authorities with respect to highways under their respective jurisdictions determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that the designation of a specific lane or lanes for the travel of vehicles required to travel at reduced speeds would facilitate the safe and orderly movement of traffic, the department or local authority may designate a specific lane or lanes for the travel of vehicles which are subject to the provisions of Section 22406 and shall erect signs at reasonable intervals giving notice thereof.

This totally sucks. To be honest, I always look around to check if there are popo's around coz a part of me knows that I am doing something wrong. It just happens that I always see other drivers/student make a left turn in the same intersection and never got cited. Again, I exit the same way and see people enter the road/street by making a left turn from Nordhoff St. Should've followed my instinct since I am always kind of nervous whenever I go in the median.

So I suppose I cannot even quote any regulation/CVC that can make my TBD/TDN look presentable? I mean I have nothing to loose if I go that route coz there's still a chance that the 5-0 might not respond back???

Thank you all for all the help so far! I really appreciate it. It takes me a while to understand them but totally my fault for being new to all this.

- - - Updated - - -

And is it acceptable to include to my TBD/TDN a statement saying that the intersection was recently added and not even 1 year old? I honestly don't remember when the street was added but it might even be less than 6 months prior to my citation. But I seriously think a sign or 2 would be very helpful if they really want people to obey the law -_- or may be they're still waiting for more people to get a ticket, so they can invest for the signs......$283 each

[That Guy]

And is it acceptable to include to my TBD/TDN a statement saying that the intersection was recently added and not even 1 year old? I honestly don't remember when the street was added but it might even be less than 6 months prior to my citation. But I seriously think a sign or 2 would be very helpful if they really want people to obey the law -_- or may be they're still waiting for more people to get a ticket, so they can invest for the signs......$283 each

You're not going to get a sign as the related law does not require one. And whether the intersection is a year, six months or six days old, roadway markings prohibit you from driving over or across the delineated section. People who prefer not to get cited would abide by the laws as they stand without requiring that they be informed of every mandate and prohibition.

By the way, you're dreaming if you think your $283 would cover the cost of posting up a sign reminding you not to turn left where you got cited previously. Besides, where would you post your sign? The way you describe everyone turning there, that sign would be down in less that a week. This however: 2013 CALIFORNIA DMV Driver Handbook - California Department of Motor Vehicles is much less costly for the State... Read it, understand it, or have no one to blame but yourself the next time you see red/blue lights in your rear view mirror.

I mean I have nothing to loose if I go that route coz there's still a chance that the 5-0 might not respond back???

The chance he might not respond is slimmer that the chance of you prevailing on merit, and you have nothing to go on. And what if he does respond? Then you've lost the chance to automatically qualify for traffic school.

So let's see... Bet on the slim single digit chance that he might not respond, and be guaranteed an insurance premium increase for 3 years, or play it safe and face the reality that your guilt is unquestionable here!

And just so you know, there have been cases where people were in fact convicted even without the officer submitting a TBD... I went through a long explanation just the other day about the Trial By Written Declaration Process