Ticket Due to Conflicting Traffic Control Devices

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

I just received a ticket for violation of CVC 21461 Obedience by Driver to Official Traffic Control Devices. I was in a left hand turn only lane as indicated by a painted arrow and solid white lines marking the pavement. At the intersection there is a no left hand turn sign for certain times of day (this was during the time when a left hand turn was prohibited). So it was legal for me to enter the lane (no signs stating it was illegal to enter the lane), but once there I had no legal options for moving my car. I can't drive the wrong way against traffic, and as I was in a left hand turn only lane it would be illegal for me to go straight or turn right. So I made the left turn as it was the safest option and I promptly received a ticket.

I have a call in to the engineering department of the city, I only told them that I was subject to conflicting traffic control devices in their city. It is basically entrapment since it was legal for me to drive my car to the position, but illegal for me to proceed in any manner. I was forced to do something illegal. It is akin to having a one way street that leads to a dead end. Any advice as how to proceed and get this ticket dismissed?

It wasn't illegal for you to move back to the straight through lane and go through the intersection.

Your argument has no merit.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear about where my car was situated. I was already up to the entrance to the intersection so unless you know of a way of making a car move sideways there was no way for me to get into the straight/right hand turn lane before entering the intersection. Attempting to move over while going into the intersection would have resulted in me going straight through the intersection from the left hand only lane which I assume is illegal.

Quote:

---

Quoting ikiller

---

Maybe I didn't make myself clear about where my car was situated. I was already up to the entrance to the intersection so unless you know of a way of making a car move sideways there was no way for me to get into the straight/right hand turn lane before entering the intersection. Attempting to move over while going into the intersection would have resulted in me going straight through the intersection from the left hand only lane which I assume is illegal.

---

You can argue all you want but you were not allowed to turn left. Your only action would be to re-enter the straight through traffic. It is sure to be a better argument that you didn't see the sign until you were so close to the intersection that you had to change lanes as you traveled through the intersection rather than; I chose to ignore the "no left turn" sign.

Quote:

---

going straight through the intersection from the left hand only lane which I assume is illegal.

---

I never said anything about going straight through the intersection from the left turn lane. Surely you had room to initiate returning to the straight lane and completing it well before crossing the intersection.

Hello sir,

Thanks for the replies. Your continued argument that I must have had enough room to get back into the straight lane is simply wrong. Yes I could have initiated a lane change while entering the intersection but I still would have been entering the intersection from the a left hand turn only lane. Does getting a single tire into another lane constitute being in that lane and not in the other? My major question is how can it be legal to have a left hand only turn land that you can't turn left in? The markings on the road state a left hand turn is the only option. The markings don't indicate it is a left hand turn only or lane change initiation lane.

The only valid argument that you might have, as I see it, is that the signage was insufficient. You would have to show that there were no signs prohibiting a left turn that were visible until you ENTERED the INTERSECTION. Otherwise, as JK stated, if, after entering the left turn lane, but before you reached the intersection, you COULD see the prohibiting sign, you should have re-merged back into the thru-traffic lane (crossing a solid white line is not prohibited). Why not post the location of the intersection (streets and city), so we can see for ourselves using Google Maps. There are rules and guidelines about WHERE signs should be posted. If the signs are not in the proper locations, you may have an argument.

Barry

I think that the poster has a valid argument to go left or go straight (even crossing a solid white line). You'll have to show the judge the markings & sign postings for him to understand --- maybe a nice google map photo showing the markings and signage & all other traffic control devices and markings.

The question is : which takes control -- a sign or a marking --- and how would people know this fact? Judges are not idiots but some can be unreasonable.

Too bad no trial by jury is available in CA -- no jury would convict.

Thanks for the reply,

Unfortunately this intersection was changed recently and the google street view is not up to date. I will return to the location this evening and see where all the signs are. I understand the argument that I should have been informed that a left turn was illegal so that I had enough time to exit the lane, but I believe this argument itself is not valid since I was under no legal obligation to leave the lane.

I am simply stating that there are conflicting traffic control devices. It does not matter how I chose to interpret them or what various actions I could have taken, the problem is that there exists a left hand turn only lane in which you cannot make a left turn. My argument is that it is perfectly legal for a driver to enter this left hand turn lane and get up to the intersection, and after that point the driver has no legal choice. That is the issue. Forget everything that happened up to that point, what is a driver supposed to do once they are at an intersection in a left hand only turn lane and are facing a sign that says no left hand turn. There is no legal option, and the driver has not broken any laws in getting to this point.

This would have not been an issue if there was a sign that said "No entering the left hand turn lane during these hours....", then there would be no legal way for a driver to get in this position. This is along the lines of your argument that the signage was insufficient. My main question is how can a situation where two traffic control devices contradict each other exist? I have looked through the MUTCD and it does not reference a left hand turn only lane with time limits at all (it treats the cases as seperate), and makes not reference to conflicting control devices probably since it is obvious that they shouldn't exist.

Well, go and make up a spreadsheet or powerpoint slide illustrating the intersection. You should do this defense during cross-examination - if the cop admits to the signage & markings then request an acquittal after the state rests...you do not want to take the stand if you don't need to. You can show the cop an illustration w/o it being admitted into evidence (just say you are trying to lie the foundation for its admittance)...once you completed your cross, then admit it into evidence as exhibit A.

Quote:

---

I understand the argument that I should have been informed that a left turn was illegal so that I had enough time to exit the lane, but I believe this argument itself is not valid since I was under no legal obligation to leave the lane.

---

then I guess you were relegated to waiting in that turn lane until such time it was again legal to make a left hand turn.

Quote:

---

It does not matter how I chose to interpret them or what various actions I could have taken, the problem is that there exists a left hand turn only lane in which you cannot make a left turn.

---

except when the sign says you cannot. So, I guess any place there is a road, regardless of what other signs are posted, you have a legal right to drive on that road. That is what you are arguing here.

Quote:

---

My argument is that it is perfectly legal for a driver to enter this left hand turn lane and get up to the intersection, and after that point the driver has no legal choice. That is the issue

---

.

Quote:

---

Forget everything that happened up to that point, what is a driver supposed to do once they are at an intersection in a left hand only turn lane and are facing a sign that says no left hand turn. There is no legal option, and the driver has not broken any laws in getting to this point.

---

show me a law the prevents a person from leaving the left turn lane and entering the flow of traffic going straight through the intersection.

This would have not been an issue if there was a sign that said "No entering the left hand turn lane during these hours....", then there would be no legal way for a driver to get in this position. This is along the lines of your argument that the signage was insufficient. My main question is how can a situation where two traffic control devices contradict each other exist?

Quote:

---

I have looked through the MUTCD and it does not reference a left hand turn only lane with time limits at all (it treats the cases as seperate), and makes not reference to conflicting control devices probably since it is obvious that they shouldn't exist.

---

California VCV deals with it. There are no conflicting control devices.

Quote:

---

Regulation of Turns at Intersection

22101. (a) The Department of Transportation or local authorities in respect to highways under their respective jurisdictions, may cause official traffic control devices to be placed or erected within or adjacent to intersections to regulate or prohibit turning movements at such intersections.

(b) When turning movements are required at an intersection notice of such requirement shall be given by erection of a sign, unless an additional clearly marked traffic lane is provided for the approach to the turning movement, in which event notice as applicable to such additional traffic lane shall be given by any official traffic control device.

(c) When right- or left-hand turns are prohibited at an intersection notice of such prohibition shall be given by erection of a sign.

---

Quote:

---

Obedience by Driver to Official Traffic Control Devices

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.

(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to acts constituting violations under Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500) of this division or to acts constituting violations of a local traffic ordinance adopted pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500).

Amended Sec. 1, Ch. 203, Stats. 2004. Effective January 1, 2005.

---

Quote:

---

V C Section 21462 Obedience to Traffic Control Signals

Obedience to Traffic Control Signals

21462. The driver of any vehicle, the person in charge of any animal, any pedestrian, and the motorman of any streetcar shall obey the instructions of any official traffic signal applicable to him and placed as provided by law, unless otherwise directed by a police or traffic officer or when it is necessary for the purpose of avoiding a collision or in case of other emergency, subject to the exemptions granted by Section 21055.

---

I think you are missing the fact that the turn only lane pavement markings are a legal traffic control device, that when used properly don't require an actual left hand turn only sign. (22101. (b)). So in fact there are conflicting control devices, one as defined by 22101. (b), and the second as defined by 22101. (c). Your references don't show that California allows or disallows conflicting traffic control devices. You state that "California VCV deals with it. There are no conflicting control devices. ", but the reference you gives details both of those devices without explaining which one takes precedence when they are both present.

But then you argue that in fact the two devices aren't conflicting, because a left hand only turn lane does not mean left hand turn only. Unfortunately you have not provided any references for this argument. I agree that it is legal to cross a solid white line, and it is legal to change from a left hand turn only lane into an adjacent lane over said line. The problem is that that a lane change is impossible to make in zero feet of distance. So please explain how one can legally enter an intersection from a left hand turn lane and go straight through since this is at the heart of your argument.

"show me a law the prevents a person from leaving the left turn lane and entering the flow of traffic going straight through the intersection."

You yourself have already shown this law. Namely 22101. (b) indicates that marked pavement is a traffic control device that can indicate a required turning movement (with or without an additional left turn only sign). Then 2146 (a) states a driver must obey trafic control devices. Boom there you go, I have shown you the law. If you are in a left hand turn lane and you don't have the ability to change lanes before entering the intersection you must obey the turning movement indicated by the pavement markings.

I really appreciate your efforts, it helps me hone my argument. And yes I agree that the only legal thing one could do would be wait until the time changes to a legal turn time, but then you might be violating some other law of stopping or parking on a roadway.

Well, we've given you our opinions. However, I do wish you luck, and I hope you'll return and let us know how you fared -- one way or the other.

Barry

Ok some more information:

I have spoken to a lady from the city engineering department, and she says that the current setup is in a trial phase, and they they are planning on reevaluating. She stated that this is the only such situation in the city where there is a left only turn lane with restricted left hand turn hours. She would not give any justification for conflicting devices except that it was a problem location and they didn't have many options. They can't make the lane left and straight as it may create a queuing problem.

I then drove past the location and the signage does not appear to follow the MUTCD guidelines. This is a two way, two lane road, (one lane each way), and the no left turn signs are on the far side of the intersection on both the left and right sides of the road. The MUTCD says:
"On two-way two lane roads (one lane each direction), the No Left Turn symbol sign shall be placed on the near right corner and far left corner facing traffic approaching the intersection."

Which indicates that the sign on the right was in the wrong location.

Besides these facts I ask you to once again consider the existence of a left turn only lane where you are prohibited from turning left. I can't think of another example of this ridiculousness in California. I would love to have a traffic engineer outside look at this and give his opinion.

I would still like to hear jk's rebuttal.

Quote:

---

Quoting ikiller

---

I would still like to hear jk's rebuttal.

---

for what? You think you have a winning argument so go for it. Since you want to cling to your argument, then you were simply required to remain at the intersection until such time it was again legal to make a left turn.

Not sure of your latest post concerning MUTCD guidelines but if the sign placement does not fit the bill, then there is your out. Other than that, it will be considered less egregious to return to the straight through lane than making a left turn during the prohibited times.

jk,

I appreciate your response, and I do enjoy a spirited debate, I hope I didn't offend. Obviously I do think I have a logical argument but you were so adamant that it was flawed that I was hoping that we could clarify our differences of logic. Even though I think I have an OK case there are still things I would like to clear up before I go before the court. So let me re-frame the discussion on a few key items/questions:

1. Is it specifically against the law to have conflicting traffic control devices. (I can't find any mention, you seem to think it is taken care of in the CVC but you didn't explain your logic you just pasted a excerpt).

2. Are you allowed to enter an intersection from a left hand turn lane without turning left? (We might have exhausted this discussion, but you asked for an argument based on law and I gave it to you and you did not respond to my attempt.)

3. Could I really get off just by one of two signs being in the wrong location? (Seems crazier than my original argument.)

Again, I appreciate your passion and thoughts on the subject. Your logic may be more in line with that of a typical "let's get this done" judge, so that is why I wish to continue the conversation.

thanks!!

Quote:

---

Quoting ikiller

---

1. Is it specifically against the law to have conflicting traffic control devices. (I can't find any mention, you seem to think it is taken care of in the CVC but you didn't explain your logic you just pasted a excerpt).

---

You won't find any law that forbids it (not as far as I can find), but that does not mean it should happen.

Quote:

---

Quoting ikiller

---

2. Are you allowed to enter an intersection from a left hand turn lane without turning left?

---

It is my opinion that once you enter the turning lane, you are forbidden from exiting that lane until your turn is complete regardless of whether you decide to exit that lane BEFORE or AFTER you enter the intersection (pass the limit line/crosswalk///etc). Under the circumstances, I will buy into the argument that a lane change BEFORE you enter the intersection is a lesser evil than doing so from within... But that too, in my opinion would be up to the discretion of the officer to cite or not, and the discretion of the judge to convict or not!

Quote:

---

Quoting ikiller

---

3. Could I really get off just by one of two signs being in the wrong location?

---

Again, it would be up to the discretion of the judge... So all this arguing back and forth is not going to provide you with any definitive answer. You may argue your case before one judge on one day and win, then make the same argument to a different judge and lose. And it is my belief that neither judge would be wrong! It will depend on what the officer will testify to and how you argue your case.

I'll post this here as a reminder that the standards, guidance and options offered in the MUTCD are not necessarily the LAW, and that more often than not, "engineering judgment" based on differing design elements maybe the deciding factor, even if it does not conform to the criteria listed therein:

From page 1A-5 of the 2010 California MUTCD:

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.

So your comment that "the sign on the right was in the wrong location" is not a fair statement. Idealy, one could argue that the sign should be posted prior to the opening pocket for the left turn lane, but without seeing the intersection itself, it may not be a practical location for doing so.

It is highly doubtful that the decision to place the sign in its current location was made randomly or just because "it fits".... It was probably placed there as a "best option" call by the engineer based on traffic flow, intersection design, visibility, amongst other factors.

What you might try and do is to obtain a copy of the traffic and engineering report for that intersection... Assuming that the details as to why the sign(s) were posted as they were are included in the report, that "MAY" offer you some leeway in arguing your point.

ikiller; do you have the section of the MUTCD dealing with this type of sign?

I realize that you have already stated that this is a fairly new sign that is yet to appear on Google Maps... Still, can you post a link to the intersection in question? If you decide to do that, please include your direction of travel.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

ikiller; do you have the section of the MUTCD dealing with this type of sign?

---

I too am curious about that citation ikiller included in his post... Couldn't find it in the 2010 version...

Hey guys,

Your input is very helpful. As for the MUTCD section, it is in the standard MUTCD and in the California version here is a link to the relevant California MUTCD page:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/si..._mutcd2010.htm

the document in question is part 2 "Signs" (direct link):
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/si...2010/Part2.pdf

Look at page 61 in your pdf viewer, it should include the following statement regarding Turn prohibition signs:

"Standard: The NO TURNS (R3-3) sign shall be used in advance of an intersection to indicate that turns are prohibited.
Guidance: On a two-way street, one sign should be used at the near right corner and one sign at the far right corner, facing
approaching traffic."

In my case both signs were on the far corners of the intersection.

I drove the stretch today (sorry I will still hold off on the exact location until I take pictures), and there were two streets in a row that intersected the road I was traveling that had left hand turn restrictions based on the time of day. So before the first intersection (it was a T with the intersecting road coming from the left and ending on the road being traveled), this intersection was proceeded with two no left turn signs. Immediately after this is a second intersection (the problem intersection), this has both of the no left turn lane signs on the far side of the intersection which contradicts the MUTCD.

Hope this helps. If you have any guidance on how my argument is presented I would appreciate it. I was thinking of getting the engineering report, and then presenting to the court that there was no reason to not follow the MUTCD guidance on sign location (upon viewing the intersection there really is no reason that the the sign is on the far side of the intersection, I think they got so involved in the politics of this intersection that they ignored basic engineering practice).

Then I would follow that with my argument that there is indeed two contradictory traffic control devices as defined by CVC 22101, one a pavement marking indicating a required turning motion, and the second a pair of signs that prohibit the same turning motion.

Any advice on how to present the actual arguments and supporting evidence would be great.

- ikiller

You would want to get the officer to testify to the markings & signage of the intersection ... so take pictures of the intersection & ask the officer questions that would support your case. Then after the state rests, you can ask for an acquittal and cite the federal regulations & state regs (you don't have to question the officer in respect to these). Just hand the officer a picture & ask questions related to the pictures (if the prosecution objects to the pictures, just say that you are trying to lay a foundation for the admittance of the pictures into evidence). Once you get the officer to testify to the facts of the signage & markings then you may wish to end cross examination. Recommend that you write you ? down and proceed from there..if you want ot ask the cop some backround questions to start may be done (about his education, etc.) I usually do ask these type of questions just to get on the record that the officer does not know the actual subject matter that he is trying to get you convicted on - you can ask if he is a traffic engr, etc.

Also, you should know that the officer cannot go and try to introduce new subject testimony after he has already testified for the state - he can be re-examined on your cross questions but cannot start saying new matters as the state could have brought this up before they ended the examination of their witness.

And during his testimony, feel free to object to any legal conclusions he states ... just say "objection you honor, request to strike the legal conclusion made by the officer".. he can only testify to what he heard or saw, not any conclusions based on his observations.

Quote:

---

Quoting ikiller

---

Look at page 61 in your pdf viewer, it should include the following statement regarding Turn prohibition signs:

"Standard: The NO TURNS (R3-3) sign shall be used in advance of an intersection to indicate that turns are prohibited.
Guidance: On a two-way street, one sign should be used at the near right corner and one sign at the far right corner, facing
approaching traffic."

In my case both signs were on the far corners of the intersection.

---

This is an R3-3 sign:

http://www.myparkingsign.com/img/lg/...ign-X-R3-3.gif
And the "standard/guidance/option" for that sign alone maybe different than when it is supplemented by an R10-20aP sign which would typically look like this:

http://www.trafficsign.us/100/reg/r10-20a.gif

It is also possible that the sign in question is an R3 sign

http://www.smokingsigns.com/img/lg/X...ign-X-R3-2.gif
... supplemented by an R10-20aP (showing the time restriction).... Or it could be an R33 (CA) or an R33a(CA) both of which consist of one sign that displays a no turn arrow AND the time restriction (I could not find a direct online link to either one)...

Quote:

---

Quoting ikiller

---

sorry I will still hold off on the exact location until I take pictures

---

:rolleyes:
Well, then sorry but you're doing this backwards. You should be looking at the sign in question, searching the MUTCD for the guidance that is related to that particular sign, trying to come up with an argument that may or may not justify your being inattentive/confused and hoping the judge will agree. INSTEAD, you're going from "wanting a dismissal", to your argument that there is "conflict" and that the signs are "wrong", to fishing for a paragraph in the MUTCD that may (or may not) legally justify your argument, and then applying that argument to the sign in question. (You might not be able to fit a square peg in a round hole).

Even then, (and I repeat), the MUTCD is there to offer a uniform standard of the color/shape/size of traffic control devices. When it comes to "placement" of such devices, more often than not, that is predicated more on "engineering judgment" than a specific "requirement" that a particular device (shall) MUST be posted in a specific manner.

So when you feel comfortable posting the actual sign in question, then come back and let us know.

Yup you are right that it was a R33a. But from my reading of the MUTCD, the R33a is an optional alternative to the an R3-2 and a attached time limit sign. Thus the placement of the R33a should follow the same standard as the R3-2.

Standard: On two-way two lane roads (one lane each direction), the No Left Turn (R3-2) sign shall be placed on the near right corner and far left corner facing traffic approaching the intersection.
...
Option:
When the movement restriction applies during certain time periods only, the following Turn Prohibition signing alternatives may be used and are listed in order of preference:
A. Changeable message signs or internally illuminated signs that are lighted and made legible only during the restricted hours.
B. A supplemental plate stating the applicable hours and days prohibited, mounted below the sign. The No Left Turn Specific Hours (R33(CA) and R33A(CA)) signs (see Figure 2B-3(CA)) may be used if left turns are prohibited during certain time periods.

The intersection in question is the result of a very long and drawn out political process in which the engineers were stuck with making conflicting sides as happy as possible while not messing up traffic. There are bunch of documents online which go over all of the alternative routing and control strategies at this intersection and I think the engineers got so caught up in the process that they neglected the basics such as sign placement, and the fact that conflicting traffic control devices are sure to create confusion. The current setup is supposedly in a trial phase and they are supposed to look at the design again.

Thanks.

You're either not reading what's been posted or you are simply dismissing that which does not conform to your “theory”.

Quote:

---

Quoting ikiller

---

Yup you are right that it was a R33a. But from my reading of the MUTCD, the R33a is an optional alternative to the an R3-2 and a attached time limit sign. Thus the placement of the R33a should follow the same standard as the R3-2.

Standard: On two-way two lane roads (one lane each direction), the No Left Turn (R3-2) sign shall be placed on the near right corner and far left corner facing traffic approaching the intersection.
...
Option:
When the movement restriction applies during certain time periods only, the following Turn Prohibition signing alternatives may be used and are listed in order of preference:
A. Changeable message signs or internally illuminated signs that are lighted and made legible only during the restricted hours.
B. A supplemental plate stating the applicable hours and days prohibited, mounted below the sign. The No Left Turn Specific Hours (R33(CA) and R33A(CA)) signs (see Figure 2B-3(CA)) may be used if left turns are prohibited during certain time periods.

---

AGAIN... The ONLY requirement that each device (SHALL) MUST conform to a specific standard is that which relates to size/color/shape. Furthermore, "Optional alternative" and "standard placement" are (AGAIN) NOT legal requirements. INstead, those revert back to "engineering judgment"/decisions based on a number of different factors. So without reading the entire engineering survey and short of subpoena-ing the engineer to appear in court to testify on your behalf to elaborate on his opinion and decision, all of this back and forth about what you think and what would be ideal in your opinion (or mine, for that matter) is meaningless!

In other words, and pursuant to VC 21461(a), if the Traffic control device itself meets the definition of a “regulatory sign” as defined in the MUTCD, then for all intents and purposes, it can be placed ANYWHERE the engineer sees fit as long as it is likely to be seen by any reasonable (attentive) driver. Just because you did not see it (or chose to ignore it just like you've ignored most counter arguments in this thread), does not necessarily mean that it was "wrong" or "improperly posted".

Quote:

---

Quoting ikiller

---

The intersection in question is the result of a very long and drawn out political process in which the engineers were stuck with making conflicting sides as happy as possible while not messing up traffic. There are bunch of documents online which go over all of the alternative routing and control strategies at this intersection and I think the engineers got so caught up in the process that they neglected the basics such as sign placement, and the fact that conflicting traffic control devices are sure to create confusion. The current setup is supposedly in a trial phase and they are supposed to look at the design again.

---

And let me guess... You're not comfortable linking any of these numerous documents. Regardless, you should understand that an online document, and without laying the proper foundation as to its source and the accuracy of its content is not likely to help you prove anything.

Regardless of how you look at it, it is my opinion that the arguments you presented here in this thread amount to nothing but a "guilty with an explanation" plea. In other words, even while you standing there in court pleading your case and regardless of how you word it, you are simply saying "yes, I violated the direction of a traffic control device as defined in the MUTCD and in violation of VC 21461(a)... BUT that was because I didn't see it or (worse yet) chose to ignore it". With that said, and at the end of the day, the result (as I previously stated) will mainly depend on whether the judge is feeling sympathetic or not.

Here you go:

First and D street in San Rafael CA

Here is a page with public reports:
http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/Gover...ions_Study.htm

Here is a layout from google maps with signage added:
http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/3891/slide1yi.jpg

I have looked through the city council meeting agendas and it is stated that when they approved this that it is supposed to be temporary and trial in nature and it was supposed to be reviewed within 9 months. I was then unable to find any more meetings that referenced it after this (approved Dec 15 2008).

Here is the staff report presented to the city council:
http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/ccfil...y%20report.pdf

Here is the resolution:
http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/ccfil...ic%20Study.pdf

I do understand that the placement is up to the discretion of the engineers, but it is clear that they are not following the standard best practice from the manual. So unless they provide justification for this decision it could be argued that the sign in question was not in the optimal location for conveying information to drivers in a timely manner. I am familiar with engineering work and if you stray from best practices it should be justified and documented. And yes I am going to try to get my hands on all of the real engineering documents and plans. Any advice as how to do this?

I also took pictures at the scene today and the left hand R33a sign is obstructed by a tree when you are in the turn lane. Also note that at the previous intersection the signs are placed according to the MUTCD standard.

Everybody got so hung up on the MUTCD issues, I really think the bigger issue is the multiple conflicting traffic control devices (Turn only pavement markings, turn only sign, and no left hand turn signs). I challenge anyone to locate another intersection with a turn only lane in which you are not allowed to turn during certain times. It is just not something a driver expects to see because it defies logic. Unfortunately this is not discussed at all in the CVC or in the MUTCD.

By the CVC definitions there are two traffic control devices which indicate a required turning motion to the driver, and there are two traffic control devices which indicate that that required turning motion is prohibited. The MUTCD does speak about general design principles such as using as few signs as possible and using them in a way that clearly conveys information so that drivers can react in a timely and appropriate manner (MUTCD 1A.09, 2A.03, 2A.04).

My argument would be I was guilty by entrapment (probably not the correct term), I saw a traffic control device that required me to make a turning movement but I did not see the conflicting signage (this is what happened and what I told the officer). The conflicting traffic control devices create a situation where a law abiding citizen could get stuck in a position where they can't proceed legally (it is not illegal to enter the left turn only pocket and proceed to the entrance of the intersection). Also the traffic control devices are likely to cause confusion due to their conflicting messages and due to the placement of some of these devices such that they are are not located optimally for relaying the information clearly and in a timely manner (contrary to MUTCD guidelines, that is if there is no compelling reason given by the engineer).

As an alternate argument I could just repeat to the judge, "I was in a left turn only lane, I was following an official traffic control device which indicated a required turning movement. CVC 22101(b)" How can it be illegal to make a left hand turn in a left hand turn only lane?

Thanks again for your input.

Of course things could look completely different now but based on what I see on Google Maps view "of First and D St in San Rafael" the southeast corner already has 2 signs on it (a "crosswalk caution sign" and a "bike lane direction" Advisory sign) so assuming that those 2 signs are still there and to create less confusion, avoid a cluster**** of signage and to ensure that the sign is not posted too high or too low... etc, are all likely reasons that the "no left turn" time restriction sign was posted at the north east corner instead. Second guessing the engineer's decision might or might not get you what you seek. So again, final outcome will be up to the judge!

None of those linked documents are relative to the placement of the sign. If anything at all, those documents are indicative of the fact that this prohibition and the related signage, have been in place for a while now. Which would lead me to believe that if it created such a conflict that it would have been changed either at the end of the "trial period" or shortly thereafter. So if it were me, I would avoid using those in my defense. You might find some info addressing it in the actual engineering report/survey that addresses placement (which you can request from that same department) but I can't make any promises.

Quote:

---

I do understand that the placement is up to the discretion of the engineers...

---

Glad we got that point across.

Quote:

---

I also took pictures at the scene today and the left hand R33a sign is obstructed by a tree when you are in the turn lane.

---

Are you saying that you could not see either sign prior to entering the left turn lane? Either way, take a picture of that and show it to the judge... It might help you out.

Quote:

---

Also note that at the previous intersection the signs are placed according to the MUTCD standard.

---

The previous intersection is a 3 way intersection (the sign in question is posted at a 4 way intersection)... I can't see any other signs posted on the right side (opposite of Frances St) so as I see it, they had more options regarding location.

You certainly can voice your dissatisfaction with regards to the placement of the sign by contacting city's Dept Of Public Works. Just keep in mind that even if the sign is moved, removed or replaced, it will have little impact on your previously issued citation.

I honestly think that this thread has run its course... So with that, I wish you good luck and, please, do let us know how it works out!

The MUTCD states that the right sign shall be placed at the near right corner. I work in traffic engineering, and deal with placing signs. When the MUTCD tells me how something 'shall' be, I damn well do it.

Arguing that issue is probably your strongest bet. Call the public works department and ask the traffic engineer for documentation on why it wasn't located on the near right corner.

They could have moved the pedestrian sign. MUTCD requires that sign to have a downard diagonal arrow if it is at the crosswalk (Section 2C.41, another shall).

Yeah.. throw that left turn only sign at the judge as well. They are telling you once you are in that left lane, you have to turn left, but you can't see the signs telling you that you can't turn left because they are obstructed and not placed at proper locations per California MUTCD.

I guess if you are in that left turn lane you have to wait 12 hrs before turning. Ha! The photo will be enough together the the MUTCD regulations (state regs incorporate the MUTCD -- but road is likely a federal road anyway) ... but it is, after all, traffic court; anything is possible .. try to get this introduced into evidence for possible appeal.

Quote:

---

Quoting pofshrimp

---

The MUTCD states that the right sign shall be placed at the near right corner. I work in traffic engineering, and deal with placing signs. When the MUTCD tells me how something 'shall' be, I damn well do it.

Arguing that issue is probably your strongest bet. Call the public works department and ask the traffic engineer for documentation on why it wasn't located on the near right corner.

They could have moved the pedestrian sign. MUTCD requires that sign to have a downard diagonal arrow if it is at the crosswalk (Section 2C.41, another shall).

Yeah.. throw that left turn only sign at the judge as well. They are telling you once you are in that left lane, you have to turn left, but you can't see the signs telling you that you can't turn left because they are obstructed and not placed at proper locations per California MUTCD.

---

I'll just point out that in OTHER threads here, people have been cited for leaving a "left turn only" lane, and going straight...and posters (I think one has posted in this thread) have excoriated them for 'failing to turn left since you entered the intersection in that lane'. I find it interesting that you are being told you should have departed the left turn lane.

Good work with the MUTCD, and thanks to pofshrimp. Get your ducks in a row, do not hesitate to compel local traffic officials to testify if needed for the case.

A

I have talked to the traffic engineering department and I have been informed that no engineering was performed that was not included in the links above. I was given the plans that were sent out to bid for the project and they have no explanation for not following CAMUTCD. In fact it appears that there was no design process at all for the traffic control devices at this intersection. You can find an interesting discussion of this issue at the the Federal Highway Administration site: http://knowledge.fhwa.dot.gov/cops/O...25783600172B27

I also found that the traffic engineers failed to follow the CAMTUCD mandate:
"After a sign has been erected, observations should be made to determine
if the desired effect on traffic has been achieved."CAMUTCD 2A.03

I also believe that they failed to follow the basic Principles of
Traffic Control Devices CAMUTCD 1A.02:

"C. Convey a clear, simple meaning;
D. Command respect from road users;"

Even more egregious then city council resolution that authorized the intersection changes states:

"The City Council directs Public Works staff to conduct necessary
studies, collect data and report back to City Council within nine (9) months
after its implementation"

Also the resolution states:

"This shall be a temporary, trial program and not a permanent change to
traffic operations in this area without future Council action."

The intersection was implemented in August of 2009. When I inquired about this the engineering staff claimed that they were short staffed and have not completed the report but they were still expecting to evaluate the intersection in the future.

The authority to implement traffic control devices is given to the city engineer by City code:

The city traffic engineer shall have the power and duty to place and maintain or cause to be placed and maintained official traffic control devices when and as required under this title to make effective the provisions of said title.

(b)

Whenever the Vehicle Code requires for the effectiveness of any provision thereof that traffic control devices be installed to give notice to the public of the application of such law the city traffic engineer is hereby authorized to install or cause to be installed the necessary devices subject to any limitations or restrictions set forth in the law applicable thereto.

(c)

The city traffic engineer may also place and maintain or cause to be placed and maintained such additional traffic control devices as he may deem necessary to regulate traffic or to guide or warn traffic, but he shall make such determination only upon the basis of traffic engineering principles and traffic investigations and in accordance with such standards, limitations and rules as may be set forth in this title or as may be determined by ordinance or resolution of the City Council.

According to my reading of this the traffic engineers have violated the municipal code of the city by not making determinations based upon engineering principles and in violation of the city Council resolution instructing them to evaluate the intersection and not make it permanent until authorized by a further city council resolution.

Also included:
5.16.020 - When traffic control devices required for enforcement purposes.

No provision of the Vehicle Code or of this title for which signs are required shall be enforced against an alleged violator unless appropriate signs are in place and sufficiently legible to be seen by an ordinarily observant person, giving notice of such provisions of the traffic laws.

So with all of those juicy facts, how do I go about compelling the traffic engineer to testify? It seems that with these facts that they would be very hostile to my case.

Here is one tactic.

Have a friendly meeting with the city traffic engineer. See if you can convince him that you are a good guy, that this is an unfortunate event, sure you understand there are budget constraints, etc, but it would sure help if he might reach out to the police department and suggest that due to signage confusion, perhaps this case might be dropped in the interest of justice.

Just a WAG, but it might be an easier path for all involved. Probably idealistic.

To compel testimony you subpoena the official, listing why their testimony is essential. You also list the records you want them to produce in advance- and include records that they've said do not exist: that way you get it on the record that you asked, and can point to it as missing. They cannot assert that the reports were done, but they didn't bring them, etc.

I fell into the exact same position, with getting a citation in the same place, recently. I would like to know the outcome of the citation, as I also feel that it was unjust to be cited.
Thanks

Hate to bring up an old topic, but it was an interesting read.

@pofshrimp:
If that intersection was stop-controlled only on the side streets, there's no way they should move that pedestrian crossing sign. This is just an example of an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing that hasn't been updated to current standards (most likely to funding issues). I am surprised that they didn't upgrade the crossing when they upgraded the rest of the intersection. I also work in traffic engineering, and my agency does adhere to the MUTCD as closely as possible, but I think the placement of the No Left Turn signs is reasonable as I would give more priority to an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing. It's more of an engineering judgement thing.

@adam:
I believe the issue regarding "leaving the left turn lane and going straight" is a bit different in this situation (in California at least). When the other posters are being cited, I believe they entered a left-turn pocket (from which they can legally make a left-turn) and have gone past the left-turn pocket and entered the intersection (past the limit line or back of crosswalk). Once they entered the intersection, they are legally obligated to complete their left-turn. At that point, if law enforcement sees you go straight, they'll pull you over.

In this situation, the driver could have pulled into the left-turn pocket, saw the sign on the far left of the intersection and merged back into through traffic. If the signs were properly made and unobstructed, there is no way that the driver should not have been able to see that far left no turn sign prior to entering the intersection. I'm sure that even if you were pulled up all the way up to the limit line in the left-turn pocket and technically merged through the limit line or back of crosswalk back into through traffic, the law enforcement official would have been understanding if you explained your situation.

Quote:

---

Quoting pofshrimp

---

The MUTCD states that the right sign shall be placed at the near right corner. I work in traffic engineering, and deal with placing signs. When the MUTCD tells me how something 'shall' be, I damn well do it.

---

So you're saying that because the STANDARD for this sign states that it SHALL be placed at the near right corner because there is No Other Option with regards to placement...

Interestingly enough, the MUTCD say otherwise.

From Page I-2 of the 2010 California MUTCD (FHWA’s MUTCD 2003 including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) -Dated January 21, 2010-

Quote:

---

Text Headings
....

....

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.

Standard:
When used in this Manual, the text headings shall be defined as follows:

1. Standard—a statement of required, mandatory, or specifically prohibitive practice regarding a traffic control device. All standards are labeled, and the text appears in bold type. The verb shall is typically used. Standards are sometimes modified by Options.

2. Guidance—a statement of recommended, but not mandatory, practice in typical situations, with deviations allowed if engineering judgment or engineering study indicates the deviation to be appropriate. All Guidance statements are labeled, and the text appears in unbold type. The verb should is typically used. Guidance statements are sometimes modified by Options.

3. Option—a statement of practice that is a permissive condition and carries no requirement or recommendation. Options may contain allowable modifications to a Standard or Guidance. All Option statements are labeled, and the text appears in unbold type. The verb may is typically used.

4. Support—an informational statement that does not convey any degree of mandate, recommendation, authorization, prohibition, or enforceable condition. Support statements are labeled, and the text appears in unbold type. The verbs shall, should, and may are not used in Support statements.

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.

---

Let me combine those bolded sentences from the MUTCD text:

+ "Standards are sometimes modified by Options"

+ "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".

No offense, but I think I'll follow the direction of the MUTCD, and I'll stick to my opinion (and I quote):

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

AGAIN... The ONLY requirement that each device (SHALL) MUST conform to a specific standard is that which relates to size/color/shape. Furthermore, "Optional alternative" and "standard placement" are (AGAIN) NOT legal requirements. INstead, those revert back to "engineering judgment"/decisions based on a number of different factors.

---

Either way, thank you for your input!

Your tedious construction of your argument- that "shall" doesn't apply because of the items you clipped- is only applicable to the FIGURES. If the text has a 'standard' and within that standard they say "shall" then it MUST be at least what the text says it shall be.

And when there is an engineering finding to the contrary to the MUTCD, that must be documented by whomever overruled the MUTCD requirement.

There are many, many standards for placement of signs in the MUTCD. Not just size, shape and color

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

So you're saying that because the STANDARD for this sign states that it SHALL be placed at the near right corner because there is No Other Option with regards to placement...

Interestingly enough, the MUTCD say otherwise.

From Page I-2 of the 2010 California MUTCD (FHWA’s MUTCD 2003 including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) -Dated January 21, 2010-



Let me combine those bolded sentences from the MUTCD text:

+ "Standards are sometimes modified by Options"

+ "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".

No offense, but I think I'll follow the direction of the MUTCD, and I'll stick to my opinion (and I quote):



Either way, thank you for your input!

---

Thanks for commenting Bruin....

Quote:

---

Quoting bruinPE

---

the law enforcement official would have been understanding if you explained your situation.

---

WHen was the last time you found an officer with citation pad who was 'understanding'? :)

@adam:
Touche about some law enforcement officials, but I think you would have a much more defensible position if you went to traffic court in my given scenario. And dare I say it, I work with CHP fairly often and most seem to be reasonable (although they aren't carrying a citation pad when I work with them :P).

Also, while it is true that the MUTCD does set the standard for traffic control devices in terms of # of signs, sign size, angle of mounting, mounting height, etc, it certainly gives engineers a lot of leeway in the actual placement of signs/pavement markings/etc. The MUTCD is not going to say that a sign SHALL(must) be exactly at a specific X'-Y' location. Rather, it'll give a range of locations or a minimum or a maximum, hence, the engineering judgement portion.

Quote:

---

Quoting adam_

---

Your tedious construction of your argument- that "shall" doesn't apply because of the items you clipped- is only applicable to the FIGURES. If the text has a 'standard' and within that standard they say "shall" then it MUST be at least what the text says it shall be.

---

I'm sorry that the "tedious construction of my argument" made it too difficult for you to comprehend! It wouldn't be the first time you proved how obtuse you can be!

And yes, I did "clip" a couple of paragraphs simply because they had very little to do with pofshrimp's claim that "if the MUTCD says it Shall be done, he better damn well do it"... Which is clearly NOT true!

In reality, I only needed to post the "Standards are sometimes modified by Options". sentence. But I also decided to throw in references of how "engineering judgement" plays a big role in decisions regarding placement of signage.

Quote:

---

Quoting adam_

---

If the text has a 'standard' and within that standard they say "shall" then it MUST be at least what the text says it shall be.

---

AGAIN, re-read the definition of "Standard" and you'll see that although it uses terms such as "required", "mandatory" and "Shall", it also clearly states that "Standards are sometimes modified by Options". Which is what I have been stating all along in this thread!

Quote:

---

Quoting adam_

---

And when there is an engineering finding to the contrary to the MUTCD, that must be documented by whomever overruled the MUTCD requirement.

---

If the MUTCD allows the engineer to use his judgement with regards to sign placement, then how can it be "contrary to the MUTCD"?

Are you even reading the gibberish that you're posting?

Quote:

---

Quoting adam_

---

There are many, many standards for placement of signs in the MUTCD. Not just size, shape and color

---

Referring to "Standard", "placement" and "size, shape and color":

1. Standards: From the quote I cited from the MUTCD: "Standards are sometimes modified by Options", and
2. Placement (meaning position and location) From the quote I cited from the MUTCD: "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."
3. Size, shape and color: those have nothing to do with placement. "Size, shape and color" MUST meet the definition of, and the criteria for a sign to be defined as "regulatory". If it is a regulatory sign, the engineer CANNOT alter its size/shape/color, however, he can deviate from the standard of its placement based on his knowledge, experience or judgment.

It really isn't that difficult to comprehend... Take your time and read it S-L-O-W-L-Y if you have to!!!

Quote:

---

Quoting bruinPE

---

Also, while it is true that the MUTCD does set the standard for traffic control devices in terms of # of signs, sign size, angle of mounting, mounting height, etc, it certainly gives engineers a lot of leeway in the actual placement of signs/pavement markings/etc. The MUTCD is not going to say that a sign SHALL(must) be exactly at a specific X'-Y' location. Rather, it'll give a range of locations or a minimum or a maximum, hence, the engineering judgement portion.

---

Thank you bruinPE... And welcome aboard! Your knowledge and expertize could surely come in handy here (and not just in this thread)... So hopefully, you'll stick around!

I'm no lawyer and I don't pretend to know what the MUTCD makers exactly intended with all of this text below, but my basic interpretation is this:

Engineers are obligated by law to install traffic control devices on public roadways in accordance with standards and specifications found in the MUTCD. In ordinary situations, if an engineer wants to put in a traffic control device, they better follow the standards found in the MUTCD. However, the makers of the MUTCD realize that there are specific cases in the real world that cannot be adequately standardized by any printed manual. Thus, engineering judgement comes into play. The engineer must then design the traffic control devices to maximize the safety of pedestrians and motorists while maintaining orderly traffic flow.


Standard:
When used in this Manual, the text headings shall be defined as follows:
1. Standard—a statement of required, mandatory, or specifically prohibitive practice regarding a traffic control device. All standards are labeled, and the text appears in bold type. The verb shall is typically used. Standards are sometimes modified by Options.


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.


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. Pg 1A-14

Quote:

---

Quoting bruinPE

---

I'm no lawyer and I don't pretend to know what the MUTCD makers exactly intended with all of this text below, but my basic interpretation is this:

Engineers are obligated by law to install traffic control devices on public roadways in accordance with standards and specifications found in the MUTCD. In ordinary situations, if an engineer wants to put in a traffic control device, they better follow the standards found in the MUTCD. However, the makers of the MUTCD realize that there are specific cases in the real world that cannot be adequately standardized by any printed manual. Thus, engineering judgement comes into play. The engineer must then design the traffic control devices to maximize the safety of pedestrians and motorists while maintaining orderly traffic flow.


Standard:
When used in this Manual, the text headings shall be defined as follows:
1. Standard—a statement of required, mandatory, or specifically prohibitive practice regarding a traffic control device. All standards are labeled, and the text appears in bold type. The verb shall is typically used. Standards are sometimes modified by Options.


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.


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. Pg 1A-14

---

Then would not the natural extension be that any sign can be used for anything they wish, and one can always say "engineering judgement" was used, but it was never documented? How can you have a 'standard' if at the end of the day 'anything goes'?

(Welcome to the forum and thanks for your inputs....)

That guy-

You are now sub-quoting your inital quote to leave out the key item: Namely that the discalimer you cited was that FIGURES in the mutcd are examples and not requirements. You are attempting to string together this caveat with other clips to say something else:

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

2. Placement (meaning position and location) From the quote I cited from the MUTCD: "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."

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

But this is your life: Argue to the point of distraction, pick smaller and smaller issues that you can win. Enjoy.

Quote:

---

Quoting adam_

---

Then would not the natural extension be that any sign can be used for anything they wish, and one can always say "engineering judgement" was used, but it was never documented? How can you have a 'standard' if at the end of the day 'anything goes'?

---

Anything doesn't go. If you want to install a traffic control device and the standards placed upon it by the MUTCD are feasible, you had better do it. However, in those special cirumstance where you have to vary from the guidance of the MUTCD, it has to be within reason, be defensible, and be of good engineering judgement. Another engineer should be able to take a look at your work and determine the reasoning behind a certain design choice. If there's something that's blatantly wrong, that same engineer should be able to tell as well.

Let's take the OP's example.

As an engineer, we want to restrict the left-turn movement during particular times. To do so, we would need to use the R33a sign or its equivalent. According to the MUTCD, the standards indicate that the R33a sign (well, the MUTCD actually refers to the R3-2 I believe, but R33a is just a modification of it) shall be placed on the far left corner and the near right corner. However, in the OP's example, there is also an uncontrolled pedestrian crosswalk on the near approach. This means per the MUTCD, engineeers are obligated to have a pedestrian crossing sign (and supplemental plaque which they lack in this case) as close to the crosswalk as possible.

Now, as an engineer, you have a dilemma. The MUTCD states that you shall have a R33a sign on the near side right corner. However, the MUTCD also states that you shall have a pedestrian crossing sign on the near side right corner too. The MUTCD also strongly suggests that you don't want to have too many signs near each other, since drivers tend to have an information overload and get confused. So what do you do?

As an engineer, I would prioritize at this intersection. What is more important? Calling attention to a potential pedestrian crossing at the intersection or restricting a vehicle attempting to make a left-turn? For me, I would pick calling attention to a potential pedestrian crossing since you already have an additional R33a sign on the far left corner. So what to do with that second darn R33a sign? Either place the R33a sign before the intersection (but you still run into that same issue of calling away attention from the pedestrian crossing) or place it on the far side. The engineer in this case, picked the far right side.

Now, I don't particularly like the design of this intersection overall and would have re-designed it differently, but that's a whole separate issue.

Quote:

---

Quoting adam_

---

That guy-

You are now sub-quoting your inital quote to leave out the key item: Namely that the discalimer you cited was that FIGURES in the mutcd are examples and not requirements. You are attempting to string together this caveat with other clips to say something else:

---

Once again, I am sorry that my posts tend to be too complicated for you to comprehend. You can either leave them alone and find something/someone else to pick on... Or you can continue to prove how dense and thick headed you are. Your choice!

Quote:

---

Quoting adam_

---

Then would not the natural extension be that any sign can be used for anything they wish, and one can always say "engineering judgement" was used, but it was never documented? How can you have a 'standard' if at the end of the day 'anything goes'?

---

Case in point: ^this^ is your response to bruinPE's 2nd attempt to clarify the matter to you. He even makes a 3rd attempt after your post and yet, I think it would be safe to assume that you still haven't the slightest clue as to what he's talking about.

Conclusion: The common denominator between "you" not understanding my posts, and "you" not understanding his posts is "YOU"! And yet you want to point the finger at ME for "sub-quoting a discalimer (sic) about FIGURES being examples and not requirements and caveat to say something else"??? How about you get a clue first... If and when you're EVER able to do that, let me know and we'll discuss this further!

Quote:

---

Quoting adam_

---

But this is your life: Argue to the point of distraction, pick smaller and smaller issues that you can win.

---

And this is your life: Argue despite the obvious fact that you're distracted (or too dense), even though I break it down into smaller and smaller issues in hopes that you can begin to understand!

You should probably stick to your convoluted theory of a big conspiracy between judges and cops against the public, as thats seems to be your ONLY "out" to most, if not all issues that are discussed on this forum!

Quote:

---

Quoting adam_

---

Enjoy.

---

You make it WAY too easy... So keep it up!