Failure to Obey Sign on a Bike, Can You Be Cited for VC 21461(A)

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

I was recently biking home on a sidewalk that is closed off by buildings (meaning there was no street around). I came up to a cross street with a crosswalk and stop signs for cars going both ways. After stopping and looking both ways i biked across the crosswalk back onto the closed sidewalk when an officer in the intersection requested me to turn around. He pointed out a sign on the opposite side of the crosswalk that said 'Walk Bike in Crosswalk' and cited me for a 21461(a). The sign itself was a small yellow square sign and i cannot find it anywhere in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The sign also had been tagged and stickered and was hard to read. additionally the sign was on the right crosswalk and i was on the left. the trees separating the two crosswalks blocked my view of the sign itself. When asking the officer why the sign was at this intersection and not the other 5 all the students pass on the way and he could not give me a clear answer. I have read other posts that say a 21461(a) cannot be given as a standalone violation. Does that apply to a bike as well? does this violation even apply to a bike going from closed sidewalk across a crosswalk and onto another closed sidewalk? if the sign is covered and i cant see it how can i get a ticket for it? thanks for your help. I have pictures and videos of the intersection itself and the sign if it will help in answering my questions. Thanks

Yes, the violation can apply to a cyclist (see CVC 21200).

No, he does not have to cite others for the violation against you to be valid.

Yes, if the sign is sufficiently obstructed and/or not posted properly you might have a defense against the violation.

Was the sign square or diamond-shaped? In other words, did it have a corner pointed up, or was it flat on the top?

the sign was a rectangle with rounded corners. The dimensions are about 1ft tall by 1.5 ft wide and sits at about eye level on the opposite crosswalk from the one i was crossing. The sign has a yellow background with black lettering and a black trim. it says "walk bike in crosswalk". Do you know how much the ticket will cost? why i am so passionate about contesting it is the officers sit there daily and watch students bike through as their main concern is the drivers that run the stop sign. The officers asked myself and 2 other guys to come over to their car and let 5 or 6 girls bike through. I have asked officers posted at that intersection before what the law was because the sign contradicts what they are allowing thousands of students do daily. In my opinion it would be more effective to ask students to walk their bikes in mass rather then picking a few guys out of a crowd to write tickets to. all that teaches me as a citizen is to bike faster and ignore the police when they ask me to turn around and come up to their car. That is not a message i would think police officers want to convey to citizens. And again because the sign was posted at eye level and on the opposite crosswalk my view was obstructed by the trees dividing the two crosswalks. I looked through the 850 page manual that details all the street signs and was unable to find any state approved sign that says "walk bikes in crosswalk". why are bikers allowed to bike through all the other crosswalks in the commute but not this one? i saw this ticket as a way for the officers to reach their quota (if a quota exists). it was also odd they were only ticket men and letting the beautiful women through. Once again the sign itself is a small rectangle and matches no other road sign i have seen before. Thanks for your prompt response and help. I have no problem paying the fine its minimal but i just paid a $300 ticket for going 75 in the carpool lane on the freeway with all the other cars which was quite ridiculous. I just want to understand what the laws are as i believe they are just ticketing students because they believe we will just pay the fine and not investigate the legality of their ticket. I looked at VC 21200 and it states any bikes on a highway. i went from sidewalk to crosswalk back to sidewalk and was not in a bike lane or anything.

Quote:

---

Quoting mkohl

---

the sign was a rectangle with rounded corners. The dimensions are about 1ft tall by 1.5 ft wide and sits at about eye level on the opposite crosswalk from the one i was crossing. The sign has a yellow background with black lettering and a black trim. it says "walk bike in crosswalk". Do you know how much the ticket will cost?

---

^This^ is the ONLY part that is relevant to your defense in this case.

Now, if the sign is a yellow background (with black lettering) then it is an "warning sign" and NOT a "regulatory sign". Since 21461(a) applies to obeying "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", then you are not in violation of failing to obey a regulatory sign.

What you'll have to do is Google the "federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices" (or better yet, the "California supplement" to that manual) look up the definition of "regulatory", make a copy of those pages, include them along with a picture of the actual sign at that particular crosswalk (and one that shows some identifying features of that intersection/portion of the roadway (like a street name sign))... and use that in your defense.

All the other talk about 6 girls crossing and not getting cited, 75mph in the HOV lane... etc, will NOT, under any circumstances work in your defense. So skip it...

Good luck!

Edited To Add: Search for the "2010 CA MUTCD", and start your research by looking at "Table 2A-4(CA)" on "Page 2A-23"...

Quote:

---

Quoting mkohl

---

why are bikers allowed to bike through all the other crosswalks in the commute but not this one?

---

Don't know. Ask the city planning department. I imagine it had to do with some other issues - perhaps cyclists tagging pedestrians.

Quote:

---

i saw this ticket as a way for the officers to reach their quota (if a quota exists).

---

Quotas are blatantly unlawful in CA.

Quote:

---

I looked at VC 21200 and it states any bikes on a highway. i went from sidewalk to crosswalk back to sidewalk and was not in a bike lane or anything.

---

Unless this was private property, it was a highway.

360. "Highway" is a way or place of whatever nature, publicly
maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of
vehicular travel. Highway includes street.

Review That Guy's excellent advice on the matter. Look to see if the sign comports to the requirements ... which is why I asked about the sign. If the sign does not comply with the regulations, you may be able to beat this with a a trial by written declaration.

If the sign is not listed as an 'allowable sign' in the Cal MUTCD or ammendments, 21461(a) should not apply.

Interesting that police say you can "beat" the citation, when in fact it is a not a valid cite... kinda a mindset. When defendants win they 'beat it'...when officers win justice prevails. :)

A

PS Post a picure of the sign and I'll search....

Quote:

---

Quoting adam_

---

Interesting that police say you can "beat" the citation, when in fact it is a not a valid cite... kinda a mindset. When defendants win they 'beat it'...when officers win justice prevails.

---

Oh, brother ... Beat: to overcome in a contest; defeat.

I guess I will avoid common vernacular in the future so as not to obfuscate my meaning. :rolleyes:

here is the sign at is seen right in front of the crosswalk. i was however on the parallel crosswalk on the other side of the street and could not see the sign from my side as there was a DPS booth and many trees in the way. Additionally as you can see the sign itself has been pretty well trashed. let me know what you think of the sign because the ticket amount is $250 and thats insane for doing something myself and 50,000 other students do daily. I found the sign description and it is listed as a warning sign. can they write tickets for signs intended to warn you? or what does that all mean? https://email.usc.edu/attach/IMG0003...10223-1527.jpg

It does not look like it complies with the MUTCD ... it certainly does not appear to conform to any sign I've seen

cannot see an image nor a link to an image... firefox ssue?

It still is a yellow sign and as such, it is not regulatory.... Therefore, one cannot be cited for failing to comply... at least not in violation of 21461.

Quote:

---

Quoting adam_

---

cannot see an image nor a link to an image... firefox ssue?

---

Click on quote... and from there copy the link and paste it in a new browser tab/window.

Edit... ^that won't work on the link provided by OP (broken link)... OP had posted another link but I think it may have been deleted by a Mod because it was on his Facebook page....

Quote:

---

Quoting mkohl

---

here is the sign at is seen right in front of the crosswalk. i was however on the parallel crosswalk on the other side of the street and could not see the sign from my side as there was a DPS booth and many trees in the way. Additionally as you can see the sign itself has been pretty well trashed. let me know what you think of the sign because the ticket amount is $250 and thats insane for doing something myself and 50,000 other students do daily. I found the sign description and it is listed as a warning sign. can they write tickets for signs intended to warn you? or what does that all mean? https://email.usc.edu/attach/IMG0003...10223-1527.jpg

---

OP, I cannot see the picture, but here is the basic outline of what you must do.

I assume the ticket includes an indication of the sign you didn't obey?

When you fight the ticket, you need to establish- for the court- what sign the officer is alledging. If it is a written trial, use the ticket to say "they cited me for this 'walk bike sign' and it is not a regualtory sign, it is advisory"... if it is an in-person trial, use the ticket AND ask the officer.
Establish it is not in the MUTCD. Take a picture of it. State it is not a listed sign. At trial you can have the MUTCD and ask the offcier to find it. Or ask him to give you the sign designation number.
You might also subpoena the local traffic authjority and ask them for the engineering study and ordinances that establish this as a regulatory sign. They may say 'there is none". Fine, their failure to provide this could then be used by you claim there is no such finding and therefore the sign is not a regulatory sign.

or you can hope for the best, but CA needs $$$. Do not think that judges will be 'common sense' or will agree this is a BS ticket. I had the same ticket and the judge fought tooth and nail to convict...

It is also one point on your drivers license.

A

lets see if this works. its a very beat up sign but it says "walk bike in crosswalk". here is the link

http://www5.snapfish.com/snapfish/sl...27_2103064027/

the ticket just says all my info and "21462 (a) Vc. Failed to obey official traffic sign" and says nothing about what sing but thats the only one present.

a bike ticket is one point on my license? the officer verbally told me that it would not be and i had 3 witness present for that. does that change anything?

this link should work for the sign. How would i go about "subpoena the local traffic authority" is there a e-mail or number i can call. I have the newspaper at my school backing this and wants to do a story on it as cops sit there all the time and sometimes let students ride and other times ticket them so students have no idea what the laws are.

on another note this is an amazing website and i have no idea who you guys are but is there a way to donate or something to you guys for giving this advice. i would never be able to put all this together without you all. Do you think i have a shot at this case. I just did traffic school for a speeding ticket and cant afford a point on my record as that would ruin my insurance.

1. No facebook account, so my daughter pulled it up.

2. Sign is not a regulatory sign. It is advisory. YOU need to develop an argument as to why the evidence will show that 21461(a) does not apply.

3. Anything the cop said is of ZERO value. first, the judge will assume all 3 witnessses are lying, and most importantly (b) the cop and judge have no influence on what the DMV does. 21461(a) is a one point moving violation. I've had two in the last 2 years, both bad cites, won both times.

Where was this? What are your deadlines/timelines?

Quote:

---

Quoting mkohl

---

lets see if this works. its a very beat up sign but it says "walk bike in crosswalk". here is the link

http://www5.snapfish.com/snapfish/sl...27_2103064027/

the ticket just says all my info and "21462 (a) Vc. Failed to obey official traffic sign" and says nothing about what sing but thats the only one present.

a bike ticket is one point on my license? the officer verbally told me that it would not be and i had 3 witness present for that. does that change anything?

this link should work for the sign. How would i go about "subpoena the local traffic authority" is there a e-mail or number i can call. I have the newspaper at my school backing this and wants to do a story on it as cops sit there all the time and sometimes let students ride and other times ticket them so students have no idea what the laws are.

on another note this is an amazing website and i have no idea who you guys are but is there a way to donate or something to you guys for giving this advice. i would never be able to put all this together without you all. Do you think i have a shot at this case. I just did traffic school for a speeding ticket and cant afford a point on my record as that would ruin my insurance.

---

OK so should i limit my argument to simply the fact that the sign is advisory and not a regulatory sign therefore 21461(a) does not apply.and there is no need to expand it to include other laws detailing the legality of bikes on sidewalks and how a crosswalk is an extension of the sidewalk therefore i am allowed to ride my bike through the crosswalk?

I have received the mail notice and have 2 possible boxes to check, "court trial" or "trial by declaration". I am assuming one is an in person trial and the other is a written declaration. which is the more effective way to argue my case. One part of me says an in person trial is better as that involves the cop taking his time off to appear. However the closest trial date is sometime in november of 2011.... another part of me says trial by deceleration will allow me to present lots of evidence and quotes from the laws in a formal fashion.

In regards to the location here is a snapfish link to a google map of the intersection and a breakdown of everything in the area. Clearly i will have to take detailed photos on the site to present but this should be good for your analysis. (http://www5.snapfish.com/snapfish/sl...27_2103064027/) You may need to click next as both the old photo and new one are on the same album. The location is the intersection of W 30th street and University Ave in Los Angeles CA, 90007

Let me know anything else you need to better understand the situation and help me out. Thanks again for all this. this is truly an amazing website and i am happy their are such good people willing to donate their time to others.

I would not limit your argument to that ... it is an affirmative defense as posted signs are considered valid ... have a picture of the sign & ask the cop if this was the sign though , if you go to trial ... I would recommend trial in this case but its up to you .. the sign is not going to change ... if you give the cop an opportunity to see your argument then he may say "there are other signs"..I have had this happen ... the cop & I got into a fist fight after court ... I was not happy about his lying. I got my pound of flesh.

Quote:

---

Quoting mkohl

---

OK so should i limit my argument to simply the fact that the sign is advisory and not a regulatory sign therefore 21461(a) does not apply.and there is no need to expand it to include other laws detailing the legality of bikes on sidewalks and how a crosswalk is an extension of the sidewalk therefore i am allowed to ride my bike through the crosswalk?

I have received the mail notice and have 2 possible boxes to check, "court trial" or "trial by declaration". I am assuming one is an in person trial and the other is a written declaration. which is the more effective way to argue my case. One part of me says an in person trial is better as that involves the cop taking his time off to appear. However the closest trial date is sometime in november of 2011.... another part of me says trial by deceleration will allow me to present lots of evidence and quotes from the laws in a formal fashion.

In regards to the location here is a snapfish link to a google map of the intersection and a breakdown of everything in the area. Clearly i will have to take detailed photos on the site to present but this should be good for your analysis. (http://www5.snapfish.com/snapfish/sl...27_2103064027/) You may need to click next as both the old photo and new one are on the same album. The location is the intersection of W 30th street and University Ave in Los Angeles CA, 90007

Let me know anything else you need to better understand the situation and help me out. Thanks again for all this. this is truly an amazing website and i am happy their are such good people willing to donate their time to others.

---

You were cited for not obeying a regulatory sign,. Period.

Nothing else matters. ( It COULD be illegal to ride in a crosswalk, but since you were not cited for this hypothetical crosswalk violation there is no need to defend against anything not on the ticket.)

Break down the citation, and the specific elements in 21461(a). The root is that you disobeyed a sign. So argue the sign.

I was cited for 21461(a), specifically passing when the sign said "Do Not Pass"...but there were still two lanes and a dashed line. I argued the sign was improperly placed, and in fact the CA MUTCD says the sign MUST be placed where the lane actually ends. Dismissed.

Have you downloaded and perused the California MUTCD???? You MUST have this. I've made some excerpts below.

Quote:

---

Section 2A.05 Classification of Signs

Standard:
Signs shall be defined by their function as follows:
A. Regulatory signs give notice of traffic laws or regulations.
B. Warning signs give notice of a situation that might not be readily apparent.
C. Guide signs show route designations, destinations, directions, distances, services, points of
interest, and other geographical, recreational, or cultural information.

---

and

Quote:

---

Section 2B.01 Application of Regulatory Signs
Standard:
Regulatory signs shall be used to inform road users of selected traffic laws or regulations and
indicate the applicability of the legal requirements.
Regulatory signs shall be installed at or near where the regulations apply. The signs shall clearly
indicate the requirements imposed by the regulations and shall be designed and installed to provide
adequate visibility and legibility in order to obtain compliance.
Regulatory signs shall be retroreflective or illuminated to show the same shape and similar color
by both day and night, unless specifically stated otherwise in the text discussion of a particular sign or
group of signs (see Section 2A.08).
The requirements for sign illumination shall not be considered to be satisfied by street, highway, or
strobe lighting.
Standard:
Orders, ordinances and resolutions by local authorities which affect State highways shall be approved by
Department of Transportation.
Support:
Signs required for enforcement are normally placed by, and at the expense of, the authority establishing the
regulation.
Refer to CVC 21461 for failure to obey a regulatory sign.

---

Here is one key point:

You are note hoping the judge will recognize this is a bad cite. You are PROVING in your documents/case that you are right. Essentiallly you want you argument and submission to stand on its own.
accused o
Also, PRINT OUT table 2B.101 and 2B.102 that lists the "regulatory signs" and state the sign you are accused of violating is not listed and therefore cannot be a regualtry sign.

I'd to a written TBD, then when they find you guilty, file for a de novo. Don't give up after the written one.