Stop Sign Ticket, CVC 22450

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: CA (I blew a stop sign)

Okay, my situation is that I was driving in a single lane, two way side street and made a right turn into a parking lot. Prior to turning into the parking was a stop sign I did not see or notice. After the fact, I could see the stop sign was there as well for opposing traffic. My contention is I simply didn't see it and feel I'm only guilty human error because I didn't do anything intentional or cause harm. Now if I slowed to stop, but failed to stop completely as I saw the stop, etc...then I guess I would be guilty because I knew what I was doing. But in this case, I didn't do anything on purpose. To fine me for human error is nothing more than taking advantage of all our faults as human beings, so I think my case should be dismissed. On more thing, I told the officer I didn't see the sign and he replied "it's pretty visible" which I now agree it is pretty visible but it also got me thinking "pretty" doesn't mean fool proof. In any case, fines tickets are like lessons, but there is no lesson that can correct simple human error, so what can I do about this ticket rather than feel victimized and just paying it?

Take pictures of the intersection, street, and approach to the stop sign. Then make the case you didn't see the stop sign.

Then you are found guilty by the judge, unless there is serious sign posting errors with the stop sign. Point is, you are guilty (at least by your admission). Human error does not seem to be a viable defense. I think the "pretty visable" comment is more sarcasim on the officers part. Either that or it was a nice way of him saying you should have seen it.

Thanks for that info (I will photo the stop) although the cop's comment was not mean as sarcasim because we agreed the sign is set off to the right more than typical (stop sign height is much higher than normal and also inset to the right side of the side walk unusally more than normal which both conditions made it difficult to notice from inside my car). The judge may say stop is written on the pavement (in white) before the stop line, but I will also argue a car was crossing in front of me from the left (at the intersection where I presumed right of way) and so my attention was on the vehicle turning in front of me.

Quote:

---

Quoting rick92647

---

... the sign is set off to the right more than typical (stop sign height is much higher than normal and also inset to the right side of the side walk unusally more than normal which both conditions made it difficult to notice from inside my car).

---

None of which will get you a not guilty verdict. Any and all pleas related to these sort of sign variations should always be a "guilty with an explanation" which is precisely what you're offering here. Doing so at the arraignment might get you a fine reduction. Wasting the court's time and the officer's time by going through TBD and maybe even a trial will likely negate any possibility of a reduced fine and possibly no longer having the traffic school option!

Quote:

---

Quoting rick92647

---

The judge may say stop is written on the pavement (in white) before the stop line, but I will also argue a car was crossing in front of me from the left (at the intersection where I presumed right of way) and so my attention was on the vehicle turning in front of me.

---

So, again, you're being inattentive and you think that is a lawful excuse!

What if it was a red light that you failed to notice? Do you think that will lessen your liability to any pedestrians that you ran over? Or to a diver /passenger of another vehicle that you broadsided?

Thanks for all that but you're missing the point...I was looking straight ahead and if there were a light ahead, another car (as there was), ped x-ing, etc, I would have seen all that and did with respect to another car entereing the intersection. Again, the stop sign was too far to the right (I'd say eight feet from the curb) and unusually high, well beyond my field of vision inside my car. However, if I did cause an accident (as you say inattentive), that's why we have insurance to make people whole again. Not sure what you're saying with reference to initials TBD but traffic school isn't option since I have a CDL. My defense will be improper placement of a stop sign, it is obvious that the placement wasn't part of the original planning but a poorly placed afterthought. In order to see the sign upon approach you'd have to be looking outside the boundries of the road and curb, beyond the sidewalk and into the grass approximately 8' feet from the street--I've seen signs like that mean for bicyclist, and pedestirans. The motorcycle cop was parked curbside ajacent to the intersection monitoring this particular stop and it's now obvious to me he knew its faults for a driver to see (a money-maker for the city). Given the special circumstances while I was there, I had an unfair opportunity to see the sign. I had an rude driver from behind following too closly, a car turning in front from the left, and a stop sign outside the normal field of vision that if you blinked you'd missed. With my story and pictures, I feel I have a very strong case. I'm sure anybody could see the sign without the extra circumstances, but there is no doubt 99% will also say that is an odd placement for a stop sign. Thank you for your thoughts.

You know Sniper... That is a great quote you have in your signature... Quite fitting with some of these threads!!!

Quote:

---

Quoting rick92647

---

Thanks for all that but you're missing the point...I was looking straight ahead and if there were a light ahead, another car (as there was), ped x-ing, etc, I would have seen all that and did with respect to another car entereing the intersection. Again, the stop sign was too far to the right (I'd say eight feet from the curb) and unusually high, well beyond my field of vision inside my car. However, if I did cause an accident (as you say inattentive), that's why we have insurance to make people whole again. Not sure what you're saying with reference to initials TBD but traffic school isn't option since I have a CDL. My defense will be improper placement of a stop sign, it is obvious that the placement wasn't part of the original planning but a poorly placed afterthought. In order to see the sign upon approach you'd have to be looking outside the boundries of the road and curb, beyond the sidewalk and into the grass approximately 8' feet from the street--I've seen signs like that mean for bicyclist, and pedestirans. The motorcycle cop was parked curbside ajacent to the intersection monitoring this particular stop and it's now obvious to me he knew its faults for a driver to see (a money-maker for the city). Given the special circumstances while I was there, I had an unfair opportunity to see the sign. I had an rude driver from behind following too closly, a car turning in front from the left, and a stop sign outside the normal field of vision that if you blinked you'd missed. With my story and pictures, I feel I have a very strong case. I'm sure anybody could see the sign without the extra circumstances, but there is no doubt 99% will also say that is an odd placement for a stop sign. Thank you for your thoughts.

---

Oh, OK... I am the one who's missing the point... Sounds to me like you have all the answers... Good luck in court

Thank you, again.

Quote:

---

Quoting rick92647

---

Not sure what you're saying with reference to initials TBD but traffic school isn't option since I have a CDL.

---

If having a CDL allows you to keep your job, you should discuss this with a lawyer.

Quote:

---

Quoting rick92647

---

With my story and pictures, I feel I have a very strong case. I'm sure anybody could see the sign without the extra circumstances, but there is no doubt 99% will also say that is an odd placement for a stop sign.

---

I disagree completely. You're admitting that you committed the infraction, which isn't a defense at all. Moreover, you're attempting to argue that you didn't see the stop sign at the same time that you're saying that most reasonable people would have seen the sign. The court is going to judge whether most reasonable people could have seen the sign, and whether your behavior was similar to that of a reasonable driver. You're not making a very convincing argument for either. Here's the section of the vehicle code that you were cited under:

Quote:

---

Quoting VC 22450

---

(a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop at a limit line, if marked, otherwise before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection.

If there is no limit line or crosswalk, the driver shall stop at the entrance to the intersecting roadway.

---

Notice that the above doesn't say anything about your field of vision, other drivers, the placement of the sign, extra traffic on the road, people following you too closely, human errors, or mistakes. Either you stopped for the stop sign or you did not. There's really nothing else to it. The judge will rightfully ask you about that white line and "STOP" being written on the pavement. I've watched a couple of traffic court judges shred defendants who have silly excuses for ignoring these markings.

If you're going to argue that the placement of the stop sign doesn't conform to the regulations, it would help if you actually looked at the regulations.

Quote:

---

Quoting CA-MUTCD 2012, Section 2A.18, p. 118

---

The minimum height, measured vertically from the bottom of the sign to the top of the curb, or in the absence of curb, measured vertically from the bottom of the sign to the elevation of the near edge of the traveled way, of signs installed at the side of the road in business, commercial, or residential areas where parking or pedestrian movements are likely to occur, or where the view of the sign might be obstructed, shall be 7 feet.

---

There's no maximum height, but the minimum is 7 feet.

Quote:

---

Quoting CA-MUTCD 2012, Section 2A.19, p. 119

---

For post-mounted signs, the minimum lateral offset should be 12 feet from the edge of the traveled way. If a shoulder wider than 6 feet exists, the minimum lateral offset for post-mounted signs should be 6 feet from the edge of the shoulder.

<...>

On conventional roads in areas where it is impractical to locate a sign with the lateral offset prescribed by this Section, a lateral offset of at least 2 feet may be used.

A lateral offset of at least 1 foot from the face of the curb may be used in business, commercial or residential areas where sidewalk width is limited or where existing poles are close to the curb.

---

The minimum lateral offset of the sign from the side of the road can be anywhere from 1 to 12 feet. Again, no maximum listed.

Quote:

---

Quoting CA-MUTCD 2012, Section 2B.10, p. 138

---

The STOP or YIELD sign shall be installed on the near side of the intersection on the right-hand side of the approach to which it applies. When the STOP or YIELD sign is installed at this required location and the sign visibility is restricted, a Stop Ahead sign shall be installed in advance of the STOP sign or a Yield Ahead sign shall be installed in advance of the YIELD sign.

<...>

STOP or YIELD signs should not be placed farther than 50 feet from the edge of the pavement of the intersected roadway.

---

The only maximum given here is that the stop sign can't be farther than 50 feet from the edge of the pavement of the intersected roadway. There is a regulation if the visibility of the stop sign is restricted. In that case, a warning that a stop is ahead should be posted. Although there's nothing in the vehicle code about this, this seems like your only possible defense. It's still not a good one.

Quote:

---

Quoting CA-MUTCD 2012, Section 2C.36, p. 281

---

Standard:
The Advance Traffic Control symbol signs (see Figure 2C-6) include the Stop Ahead (W3-1), Yield Ahead (W3-2), and Signal Ahead (W3-3) signs. These signs shall be installed on an approach to a primary traffic control device that is not visible for a sufficient distance to permit the road user to respond to the device (see Table 2C-4). The visibility criteria for a traffic control signal shall be based on having a continuous view of at least two signal faces for the distance specified in Table 4D-2.

Support:
Permanent obstructions causing the limited visibility might include roadway alignment or structures. Intermittent obstructions might include foliage or parked vehicles.

Guidance:
Where intermittent obstructions occur, engineering judgment should determine the treatment to be implemented.

---

The regulations still give engineers a lot of latitude for using their judgement, which is going to be hard to argue against. However, the table listed in 4D-2 gives the following minimum sight distances:

20mph - 175ft
25mph - 215ft
30mph - 270ft
35mph - 325ft

If the sign isn't visible from this distance away, then as per table 2C-4, a warning sign needs to be posted at least 100ft before the stop sign. This seems like your only hope, but you admit that you could see the sign. It sounds like you really don't have any defense. Since you have a CDL, I would talk to a real lawyer who deals with these kinds of cases for commercially licensed drivers.

Thanks madnorwegian, you really overwhelmed me with your posting which is appreciated. I have to tell you that I already looked at the 2009 FHWA MUTCD on the internet and found the same information as you have written--I have concluded the Stop sign is placed within legal limitations except I do not feel it was placed "as close as practical" as the regs call, subjective I know. As for my situation, I stated in the very beginning I am guilty by reason of human error. Unfortunately, that will likely not excuse the violation since being human is not an excuse. So, here I'm going to pay a fine and get a point against my driving record for commiting a human error, which pisses me off. Of course, others like ThatGuy will say I would have caused an accident, etc for being inattentive, but that was not the case if you read my previous postings. Human limitations did not permit me to see the sign within the window of opportunity because instead I was distracted by other drivers and had a restricted view from inside my vehicle. My wife and I were visiting the area home shopping, which as a first time guest in their city I hoped for a break, but nope! Needless to say we won't be buying a home around there as this may be a blessing in disguise. All I can say is watch out for motorcycle cops all over Rancho Santa Margurita...

Quote:

---

Quoting rick92647

---

My wife and I were visiting the area home shopping, which as a first time guest in their city I hoped for a break, but nope! Needless to say we won't be buying a home around there as this may be a blessing in disguise. All I can say is watch out for motorcycle cops all over Rancho Santa Margurita...

---

LOL. Really? You are going to base a home buying decision on the fact that you won't be excused from traffic laws as long as you don't break them "on purpose?" If that is your criteria, I think you are going to have a hard time finding a house in ANY community.

You seriously think that "I did it, but I didn't mean to" is a reasonable defense? Remember the old Eagles song, "Life in the Fast Lane?"..."He didn't see the stop sign. Took a turn for the worst." So, if you change lanes and collide with an adjacent vehicle that was in your "blind spot," you shouldn't be held responsible for the collision? If your jamming to a peppy song on the radio and, in your exuberance, speed up to 45 in a 25, you should be excused from the ticket? Because, after all, it's not like you did it on purpose!