Are Lane Markings Traffic Control Devices
I'm curious as to how a cop would show that OP had violated this subsection of 22101:
(d) When official traffic control devices are placed as required in subdivisions (b) or (c), it shall be unlawful for any driver of a vehicle to disobey the directions of such official traffic control devices.
"Official" left-turn "traffic control device" was red. At no point did OP (1) move into the intersection & (2) manifest left-turn movement.
Perhaps he violated some other CVC (such as "improper use of a left-turn lane"). But he's NOT charged with a "lane violation." Sub-section (d) is exclusively about "official traffic control devices." And that sub-section does NOT define a "traffic lane" as an "official traffic control device." Although OP most likely committed a CVC infraction, he doesn't appear to have violated the CVC with which he's charged.
******EDIT******
Reviewed OP's video again. With his right signal blinking, OP moved from left-turn lane to "straight ahead" lane, when significant room existed between both his vehicle & one behind him. So he did NOT violate CVC 22107 (Unsafe Lane Change).
Quote:
No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...ctionNum=22107.
Re: Fighting a Red Light Camera Ticket, VC 22101(D) Pursuant to Section 21455.5
Quote:
Quoting
EJay
The argument of the state is that the driver disobeyed the markings on the ground/the white and black regulatory sign showing that vehicles in that lane must turn left and can not proceed straight through the intersection.
It is defined in the CA vehicle code under "official traffic control device" which points to 21400 which points to CAMUTCD. When you read CAMUTCD you will find that both a white arrow painted on the ground and the black and white sign can be regulatory in nature.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...VEH§ionNum=440.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...H§ionNum=21400.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/cam...d2014rev3.html
Some members here disagree with this but my interpretation is that pursuant to CVC 440 and 21400, "official traffic control devices" must be consistent with CA DOT standards. This includes those set forth by CA MUTCD. If the markings were not consistent with CA MUTCD, the OP could possibly use this as a defense too.
OP should argue "policy" behind the red-light camera at that intersection. It's NOT to punish/discourage what he did. Instead, the point is to prevent serious t-bone accidents, ones likely to result in death/serious injury/substantial property damage. Carefully moving from a left-turn lane to a non-turn lane (while signaling) is generally unlikely to end in any accident. And, even if an accident were to occur, it would almost always be trivial compared to what would happen if a vehicle were to perform an illegal turn in front of a vehicle barreling straight ahead.
Re: Fighting a Red Light Camera Ticket, VC 22101(D) Pursuant to Section 21455.5
Ha! You're clearly wrong on that point. In many situations, a literal/plain meaning of a law would lead to an unintended (if not absurd) outcome. That's what would happen here, since CA legislature has apparently defined virtually every little part of an intersection as an "official traffic-control device." Make a low-risk, mistake of fact (as OP did) & you're facing a hefty fine meant to punish/discourage a high-risk activity. This situation is a textbook case of "technical law" gone haywire and is, therefore, why courts (occasionally) entertain "policy" arguments. T
Ironically, you flipped the ethical part of this issue. A judge would actually act unethically if he were to adopt a strict interpretation of "official traffic-control device," since doing so would create an equivalence between (1) moving temporarily to a left turn lane to create an opening for an ambulance, and (2) turning in front of somebody, while he were traveling towards a green light at 50+ mph. (1) is "pro-social." But (2) is "anti-social." Yet, under your interpretation of law, each behavior requires identical punishment.
*******EDIT******
OP:
Call police dept.
Explain what happened ("Moved out of way of ambulance coming up fast from behind me. Thought it was about to activate its emergency lights. Afterwards, I signaled, moving carefully from left-turn lane to non-turn lane")
Then ask that ticket be amended to CVC 38300: "Failure to obey traffic control devices." That's a "no point" moving violation. Fine is $238.
If you're shot down, do TBD. Make whatever "technical" arguments apply (See highwayrobbery.net). Also argue "policy," saying that this is an unusual situation, one where you technically violated a law out of altruism. Then ask for a dismissal. Also say, "if a dismissal is unavailable, I ask that the charge be reduced to CVC 38300, with a fine of $238 assessed."
From now on, wait for an emergency vehicle to active its emergency lights, BEFORE you yield. :D
Re: Fighting a Red Light Camera Ticket, VC 22101(D) Pursuant to Section 21455.5
What does the yellow light have to do with squat. 22101(d) has to do with going straight in a left turn only lane. Even if the light was green he's guilty.
Re: Fighting a Red Light Camera Ticket, VC 22101(D) Pursuant to Section 21455.5
Quote:
We are talking about a left arrow painted on the ground and/or a white sign with a left arrow showing only left turns are permitted in that lane. These are official traffic control devices as defined by the CVC and regulated by CA DOT (OP should verify because if not that is a defense). It was the legislature's intent, when writing 22101, for drivers to be sanctioned with an infraction if official traffic control devices regulating turning movements are disobeyed. The definition of "official traffic control device" is intentionally broad because it is used all throughout the vehicle code. Drivers would not be in violation of 22101 if they disobeyed any aspect of an intersection- only those regulating turning movements.
It was the CA legislature's intent to create a ridiculously overly broad definition of "official traffic-control device," so as to prevent unintended loopholes, and to let CA's judiciary determine when to allow narrow exceptions.
Quote:
Arguments with policy are not suited for the courtroom and it is beyond the scope of the judiciary to rule based on such arguments. Sure the court will consider extreme examples where application of the law would create prejudice or have unintended consequences but even then the courts will provide legal basis using a fundamental law such as a constitutional provision. Here the defendant would be hard-pressed to make such an argument. Generally speaking the courts rule based upon the law that was in place and leave the policy arguments for the legislature.
Policy arguments are not suited for the judiciary? wtf? If you have a policy argument, you have to contact a legislator, hoping he'll gather up enough votes to change an existing law that works well 95% of the time? LOL! That's absurd and is not how things are done in practice. Practically speaking, judges entertain policy arguments, while not formally acknowledging them. Instead of explicitly stating that a case is being dismissed/reduced based on policy grounds, a court is likely to say something like, "Dismissed, interest of justice," or "Court does not find probable cause for CVC XXXXX, but does find probable cause for CVC XXXXX (a lesser charge). Defendant is ordered to pay $XXX.XX. Next." That way, a defendant doesn't get hosed, and the apple cart is not upset. Get what I'm saying?
Quote:
The ambulance, from what the OP has so far posted, did not have it's emergency lights activated. Therefore it does not matter if it were an ambulance or a regular vehicle. If in both instances the driver was cited and convicted of 22101 each behavior would likely have a similar punishment.
It does matter, since an emergency vehicle COULD lead a hyper-cautious driver into a "mistake of fact," whereas an ordinary vehicle could not, as long as it didn't resemble an emergency vehicle in a substantial way. Emergency vehicle/look-alike emergency vehicle = possible basis for mistakenly moving to a left-turn lane. Ordinary vehicle (not behaving bizarrely) = no basis for a sudden movement to a left-turn lane.
Quote:
It's interesting to note though, the driver has not been accused of an illegal lane change into or out of the turn lane. The driver has been accused of not following the left turn only signs/markings, so (2) would likely receive a different cite.
That's because he was nailed by an automated-enforcement machine. It always treats any "disobedience" of an "official traffic device" as a violation of a single CVC. No doubt that setup works well 95/100 times. But this case is anomalous. A human needs to intervene here, using practical judgement.
Quote:
It seems to me like your gut feeling is pointing towards an "affirmative defense" such as the "sudden emergency doctrine" or some other defense that would justify the otherwise illegal action. Take a look into these you would probably enjoy the read. I don't think they would apply here but in a more extreme situation an affirmative defense may.
It would not technically apply. But something like "sudden emergency doctrine---mistake of fact" would. But, of course, I doubt such a nuance exists. So "rough justice" is necessary here, at least until OP persuades CA lawmakers to create various idiosyncratic versions of legal doctrine.
Re: Fighting a Red Light Camera Ticket, VC 22101(D) Pursuant to Section 21455.5
Quote:
Are you saying that the sign and the arrow are not or should not be official traffic control devices?
I'm saying that, in this situation, going left against a red, left-turn arrow is what's of paramount importance, since such disobedience is what could lead to a collision involving death/horrific injury/major property damage. A mere change from a left-turn lane to a green-lighted, non-turn lane, is a trivial disobedience, one that presents little risk of calamity.
Quote:
Policy arguments are not suited for the judiciary? wtf?
That is correct.
That's opinion, NOT fact. There are differing schools of thought on this very issue.
C. Institutional Competence Arguments
The third major category of policy arguments
is “institutional competence.”
These are arguments about which branch of government
(generally the judiciary or the legislature) should
address a particular issue.
The goal at the heart of
institutional competence arguments is the fair and
efficient running of the legal system, as well as the
maintenance of the constitutional separation of
powers. While it is generally understood that
legislatures create new law and courts apply the
law and resolve disputes, there is a gray area that
makes room for institutional competence
arguments.
The gray area is a product of the common law
method in American legal decision making, even
in cases involving positive law (i.e., statutes and
constitutions). Under the common law method,
judges have the power to fill in gaps in the law and
formulate new rules. Thus, judges have a degree of
legislative power, creating the potential for
arguments over whether an issue is better suited to
the courts or the legislature.
An argument that an issue is better suited for
the courts focuses on the nature of courts as
institutions set up for resolving individual disputes
and dealing with complex factual issues. The
argument would emphasize the court’s ability to
be responsive to changing circumstances, and to
be objective. In addition, the court has a unique
ability to entertain witnesses and make objective
determinations of credibility. Finally, this
argument would emphasize the court’s freedom
from the political constraints faced by the
legislature. Because courts combine all of these
abilities, the legal issue is best resolved by a court.
The argument that the legislature is better
suited to resolve an issue focuses on similar
concerns. This argument asserts that courts are not
competent to resolve the issue because resolution
involves a change in the law, which is within the
legislature’s province. The legislature is better able
to reflect changes in public opinion, and to hold
hearings and gather complex and varied facts that
may not be relevant in the context of litigation.
Allowing the court to create law on such an
important issue would threaten the separation of
powers.
https://info.legalsolutions.thomsonr...ter-2001-5.pdf
Quote:
If there is a legal basis for such a ruling obviously the court will use that but if there is no legal basis, which using the reasoning you gave there isn't, that is what must be done if you want the rulings to change. You can try to make a policy argument on your speeding ticket. I've never heard of that working. It's not supposed to at least. Some judges are considerate of the reality of the situation but in their head there still should be a legal basis. Courts are not allowed to make rulings because "that's a bad law for this particular scenario"
It's just impractical for OP to tackle his problem legislatively, since CA's legislature is horribly bureaucratic. He needs a result NOW, not in 10 years.
Will he get a court to state that the CVC in question is "bad law for his situation"? Absolutely not. But he might get an implicit acknowledgment, via a no-point moving violation for "sign disobedience" & a reduced fine. Why is there even a "no-point" version of sign disobedience? Sometimes that's what's just.
Quote:
I also agree and think it is B.S. that there wasn't a human there present for the violation itself and if there had been the citation may not have been issued. Unfortunately at this point this won't work as a defense.
Actually, OP should say exactly that in his TBD. "If a traffic officer had been present, he most likely wouldn't have stopped me, since I had done something minor, and something that local motorists do a hundred times a day, without incident. But, if there had been a stop, I could've explained my situation. In most situations, the traffic officer would've given me just a warning, since his primary function is to punish motorists who act out of impatience, or distraction, not to punish drivers who mistakenly yield for an emergency vehicle." Worth a shot for a reduction to a non-point moving violation.
Quote:
The mistake being what? that he thought the lights were on when they weren't? I don't know what the test is for mistake of fact in CA but I would imagine this would fail the test. Maybe not. Try and find the case law which establishes this. It could potentially be a defense. That not something I am familiar with. An issue I see though is that even if the lights were on the driver was supposed to go to the right curb, not the left.
A vehicle-code violation is a "general-intent crime," right? His mistake must've been reasonable.
https://www.kenneylegaldefense.us/cr...-mistake-fact/
So ambulance came up fast, and sunlight hit the overhead light, making them look lit. Seem reasonable? maybe. IDK.
Yes, vehicles are supposed to go right. But sometimes (especially in LA County cities) there are tons of vehicles parked curb-side. So, if a driver were to move right, he'd slam into another vehicle that had nowhere to go.
Quote:
Yea I get what your saying. Some might. Not the defense I would use for this though, especially if my goal was dismissal. If the policy is actually bad policy I would mention it by talking about the legislature's intent but in this case that argument is rather weak.
I said he should split his TBD into 2 sections: Technical Arguments & Policy Argument(s). He might not even have any strong technical arguments, however. Therefore, even a "weak" policy argument would give him something to work with.
He'll need it. These automated-enforcement tickets are a scam. Even good technical arguments are routinely rejected, since filling gov't coffers often trumps law/justice. Ironically, cops can blow red lights with reckless abandon, since law-enforcement officers get confidential plates. :pig: