Regulations for School Zone Lights and Cameras in Washington State

[overcast]

My question involves a speeding ticket from the State of: Washington.

I am trying to find out what the governmental regulations are regarding signs, camera's and flashing lights in a schoolzone.

In my case there is first a sign (school zone, 20mph when light at crosswalk is flashing), followed by a camera at 60ft , then a crosswalk, then the flashing light (at 240 ft from the sign). Yes, the light is past the crosswalk.

Somehow I thought that the light had to coincide with the sign and marked the beginning of the speedzone.

In my case I saw the sign, wondered for a few seconds what flashing light the sign is talking about and got my picture taken. Had the light been on top of the sign it would have drawn attention to it. It takes (at the 30 mph speed limit) 2 seconds from the moment you can read the sign until you pass the camera, then another 4+ seconds to pass the light. If there are larger vehicles around the light will be invisible from the moment you see the sign until well beyond the camera.

I went back there and watched from a parking lot how many people had problems there. 1 out of 10 is a conservative number.

This set-up here is a classic example of a speed trap and a cash cow for the city. And I wonder it's legality.

[colemac65]

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.440 this defines school zone


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.63.170 And this statute governs the use of automated traffic cameras. school zone, red lights etc...

[overcast]

I was looking for something that specifies where the signs, lights and camera's have to be located, minimum distances etc.

To me it sounds rediculous to install a flashing light PAST a crosswalk, and give drivers 2 seconds to read a sign, find what light it is mentioning and hit the brakes to lose 10 mph before the picture is taken. Durng my observation there most people unfamiliar with the area hit the brakes the moment the picture is being taken.

It seems that the minimum distance of this paticular schoolzone is already 60' shorter than the required 300'. But then again, I measured it from an mapquest picture with the scale provided. I don't know if this would hold up in court.

[BrendanjKeegan]

If you don't know if it will hold up in court, you can always subpoena an expert witness. But I would advise against subpoenaing ANYONE.

Go to the site and measure it. Legitimately measure it.

Then while you're under oath, you should say something to the effect that on this date, at this time, that you went and measured the distance from the sign to the camera and the camera turned out to be ____ feet shorter than the required 300 feet.

If you say that under oath, the judge must believe you. Make a motion to suppress and it should be granted. Your pictures will always help, too.

A quick anecdote: A couple months ago I was watching one of my colleagues litigate a case for their client. It was a case involving a HOV lane violation on 520. All he said was, "Your honor, I recently drove past this place on 520 and noticed that at the place the officer pulled my client over, or at least it says so on the NOI, the carpool lane is part of an on ramp and therefore this on ramp is not a part of the HOV lane for at least 1000 feet." He made a motion to suppress and a motion to dismiss and that was that. He didn't even give a date or time.

Hope that helps.

Brendan

[jjb]

Perhaps the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices part 7 will be of some help...
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part7/part7_toc.htm

[BrendanjKeegan]

Perhaps the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices part 7 will be of some help...
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part7/part7_toc.htm

I don't know whether the particular municipality that this case resides within has adopted the MUTCD.

It would be wise to check that. As of now, I wouldn't use it, unless you know that it has been adopted.

Brendan

[blewis]

It doesn't really matter whether the particular municipality has adopted the MUTCD or not. The State of Washington HAS adopted it. It, therefore, is applicable in EVERY municipality and county. Changes that have been adopted to the Federal MUTCD as it applies to school zones can be found starting in WAC 468-95-330 through -360.

But, remember, MOST things in the MUTCD are "guidelines", not "standards".

Barry

[BrendanjKeegan]

It doesn't really matter whether the particular municipality has adopted the MUTCD or not. The State of Washington HAS adopted it. It, therefore, is applicable in EVERY municipality and county. Changes that have been adopted to the Federal MUTCD as it applies to school zones can be found starting in WAC 468-95-330 through -360.

But, remember, MOST things in the MUTCD are "guidelines", not "standards".

Barry

Oh, Wow. I didn't even see that. You learn something new everyday.

However, the statutes that you have pointed to are all amendments to the State's adoption of the MUTCD. If you do use it in your defense, you should be sure that none of it has been amended in the WAC.

Brendan

Oh... and be sure that you're looking at the 2003 edition pursuant to

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=468-95-010

[overcast]

Thanks for all the info guys. I hope to have the ammunition to fight this thing. We will know more in a few weeks.