Ticket for Illegal U-Turn in Business District, VC 22102

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

I was driving in downtown San Francisco recently and received a ticket for VC 22102 :No person in a business district shall make a U-turn, except at an intersection, or on a divided highway where an opening has been provided in accordance with Section 21651. This turning movement shall be made as close as practicable to the extreme left-hand edge of the lanes moving in the driver s direction of travel immediately prior to the initiation of the turning movement, when more than one lane in the direction of travel is present.

I have a trial by written declaration due soon and was wondering the best way to approach making my argument. What happened was, I was driving and executed u-turn where I noticed a clear gap in the double yellow lines. Immediately afterwards I was pulled over and cited for an illegal u-turn. I am thinking of writing the following.

VC 22102 states "No person in a business district shall make a U-turn, except at an intersection, or on a divided highway where an opening has been provided in accordance with Section 21651". As there was a clear provided opening on the divided highway where I turned, I assert that no violation of VC 22102 had occurred. Furthermore, Section Code 21651 states that is is illegal to make a u-turn "Whenever a highway has been divided into two or more roadways by means of intermittent barriers or by means of a dividing section of not less than two feet in width, either unpaved or delineated by curbs, double-parallel lines, or other markings on the roadway". As there was no curbs, double-parallel lines, or any other markings or signs prohibiting a u-turn at the point in the road where I executed my turn, I firmly believe that no violation of VC 22102 took place. I respectfully ask for citation to be dismissed. I have attached photos of the gap in the double yellow lines where I made my turn.

Do you think this a good defense? Any advice is greatly appreciated here. Photos are attached below. Thank you in advance.


https://ibb.co/hzRO5K
https://ibb.co/bBSkKe
https://ibb.co/bBSkKe
https://ibb.co/hzRO5K

I'd quote the definition of divided highway (double parallel lines) and that this street meets that definition.
I'd then point out that there was a clear opening in the lines.
Good luck.

That defense won't hold water if the cop responds or shows up for court trial, because 21651 says it is unlawful "...(2) To make any left, semicircular, or U-turn with the vehicle on the divided highway, except through an opening in the barrier designated and intended by public authorities for the use of vehicles or through a plainly marked opening in the dividing section.' That opening was clearly not intended for U-turn, or to be there at all, but simply a result of poor road maintenance. But that's all you really have, and at least will give a pretense of defense. Give it a shot.

Hi EJay... same old, same old...
Yes, I saw that, but I don't think it's a "plainly marked opening". There's nowhere to turn left there, so why would they mark an opening? Rather, they just paved over it and never redrew the double lines. It's worth a try, though.

That’s not a divided highway and it isn’t an intersection so the uturn was unlawful.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

That’s not a divided highway and it isn’t an intersection so the uturn was unlawful.

---

Eh? What's not a divided highway. Both EJay's picture and the original posters show a divided highway. The original person has one set up by an island made by two sets of double lines. Ejays, has a planted median. Both ae sufficient.

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

Eh? What's not a divided highway. Both EJay's picture and the original posters show a divided highway. The original person has one set up by an island made by two sets of double lines. Ejays, has a planted median. Both ae sufficient.

---

The other pertinent section of law referred to


21651.

(a) Whenever a highway has been divided into two or more roadways by means of intermittent barriers or by means of a dividing section of not less than two feet in width, either unpaved or delineated by curbs, double-parallel lines, or other markings on the roadway, it is unlawful to do either of the following:


And from the section cited:

a) Whenever a highway has been divided into two or more roadways by means of intermittent barriers or by means of a dividing sectionof not less than two feet in width, either unpaved or delineated by curbs, double-parallel lines, or other markings on the roadway, it is unlawful to do either of the following:
———————————-




a section not not less than two feet in width. I see no two foot wide section delineating the lanes of opposing traffic.

that means the only allowable area for a u turn would be at an intersection. This is not an intersection either