Failure to Obey Traffic Sign in California

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

It is still a "regulatory sign"... Just like a Speed Limit sign (which are also White with Black letters)... Not and advisory sign (which are usually Yellow with black letters) nor an informational sign (which are usually Green with white letters (like a Freeway Exit sign)).


Don't take my comments personally. I only pointed out a discrepancy that might serve you no help as you stand there before the judge. That's all!

---

No, no, no! I didn't take offense. I really do appreciate your help. This is all very helpful to me in preparing for the trial.

I understand that all traffic signs must be obeyed, no matter the color, et cetera...but some events cannot occur simultaneously within a vacuum, so to speak. Thus my interest in uncovering some standard to obey the signs: instantaneously? If that is the case, then the CHP issuing officer shouldn't necessarily have made such a to-do about the method in which I merged. Or so it seems to my way of thinking...

Until I find a different answer, do you think I could make the assumption that we must obey all signs as fast as is reasonable, practicable and safe? Because I can argue the facts on that, if that is the case.

Anyway, really: thank you for your help. I rather appreciate you pointing out my inconsistencies and/or confusions here so that I can better prepare for and be very clear during trial. :)

Thank you!

Quote:

---

Quoting tess4today

---

I understand that all traffic signs must be obeyed, no matter the color, et cetera...but some events cannot occur simultaneously within a vacuum, so to speak. Thus my interest in uncovering some standard to obey the signs: instantaneously? If that is the case, then the CHP issuing officer shouldn't necessarily have made such a to-do about the method in which I merged. Or so it seems to my way of thinking...

---

If you want to read about signs and the regulations associated with them, then you might want to take a look at the "Manual For Uniform Traffic Control Devices". The MUTCD is published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

You will find that here: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/

You should also take a look at the California Supplement to that document which you will find here: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/...ifornia/ca.htm

Quote:

---

Quoting tess4today

---

Until I find a different answer, do you think I could make the assumption that we must obey all signs as fast as is reasonable, practicable and safe? Because I can argue the facts on that, if that is the case.

---

If that is your only argument then I don't see why you couldn't present it in court. However, I think that in addition to reasonable, practicable and safe, there is also "legal" and that to me, and by my understanding, means that once you get to a regulatory sign, you must obey what it states otherwise you can be cited for violating it.

Quote:

---

Quoting tess4today

---

Anyway, really: thank you for your help. I rather appreciate you pointing out my inconsistencies and/or confusions here so that I can better prepare for and be very clear during trial. :)

Thank you!

---

Glad you see it that way... ;)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here you go... Found this in the main document, although you might want to find something similar/more specific in the California Supplement:

Link: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2003r1...t2/part2b2.htm

Quote:

---

Section 2B.21 Mandatory Movement Lane Control Signs (R3-5, R3-5a, and R3-7)

Standard:

If used, Mandatory Movement Lane Control (R3-5, R3-5a, and R3-7) signs (see Figure 2B-4) shall indicate only those vehicle movements that are required from each lane and shall be located where the regulation applies. When the mandatory movement applies to lanes exclusively designated for HOV traffic, the R3-5c supplemental plaque shall be used. When the mandatory movement applies to lanes that are not HOV facilities, but are lanes exclusively designated for buses and/or taxis, the word message R3-5d and/or R3-5g supplemental plaques shall be used. The R3-7 word message sign shall be for ground mounting only.

If the R3-5 sign is ground mounted on a multi-lane approach, a supplemental plaque (see Figure 2B-4), such as LEFT LANE (R3-5b), HOV 2+ (R3-5c), TAXI LANE (R3-5d), CENTER LANE (R3-5e), RIGHT LANE (R3-5f), BUS LANE (R3-5g), or LEFT 2 LANES, indicating the lane with the appropriate movement shall be added below.

The Mandatory Movement Lane Control (R3-7) sign shall include the legend RIGHT (LEFT) LANE MUST TURN RIGHT (LEFT). The Mandatory Movement Lane Control symbol signs (R3-5 and R3-5a) shall include the legend ONLY.

Guidance:
Mandatory Movement Lane Control signs should be accompanied by lane use arrow markings, especially where traffic volumes are high, where there is a high percentage of commercial vehicles, or where other distractions exist.

Option:

The Straight Through Only (R3-5a) sign may be used to require a road user in a particular lane to proceed straight through an intersection.
When the Mandatory Movement Lane Control sign for a left-turn lane is installed back-to-back with a Keep Right (R4-7) sign, the dimensions of the Mandatory Movement Lane Control (R3-5) sign may be the same as the Keep Right sign.

Except for the R3-7 sign, Mandatory Movement Lane Control signs may be overhead or ground mounted.

The diamond symbol may be used instead of the word message HOV on the R3-5c supplemental plaque.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

If you want to read about signs and the regulations associated with them, then you might want to take a look at the "Manual For Uniform Traffic Control Devices". The MUTCD is published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

You will find that here: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/

You should also take a look at the California Supplement to that document which you will find here: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/...ifornia/ca.htm


If that is your only argument then I don't see why you couldn't present it in court. However, I think that in addition to reasonable, practicable and safe, there is also "legal" and that to me, and by my understanding, means that once you get to a regulatory sign, you must obey what it states otherwise you can be cited for violating it.

---

Thanks for the links. I found the first two this morning but was unable to find any clarification regarding my particular issue: how much time a motorist has to completely obey a sign such as this one.

If the legal argument is as you state it, 'that once you get to a regulatory sign, you must obey what it states otherwise you can be cited for violating it[,]" I would still be where I am: my word against his: I say I merged beforehand, he'll insist I did so after passing the sign.

I really think the issue, though, is the timing from seeing a sign versus 'passing' a sign. My argument will be in the absence of statutory explanation, as long as a motorist begins the action of obeying the sign before passing it, there should not be any citation issued as long as the lane change in this instance is completed by the time the car passes the sign. Since there is nothing in the statute, it may be open to judicial interpretation. That is why I brought up as a counter example the difference between a RIGHT LANE MUST EXIT sign and a STOP sign at an intersection. There are reasonable inferences in the differences between the two.

For example, if you had never been on that entrance/exit before and thus never had seen that sign, you wouldn't know until you are more than three-quarters of the way through that lane that there is a RIGHT LANE MUST EXIT sign for you to obey. The sign is located near the end of the exit lane.

It's clearly there to keep motorists who are in stuck in traffic trying to get on the highway from blocking those who need to exit it. Still, there must be a reasonable distance allowed to a motorist to use the lane as an entrance--because it is actually an entrance as well as as exit.

So then the question becomes if the entrance/exit lane is only to be used as one or the other, when does the entrance to the highway end and the exit begin? In other words, motorists look to signs to clear up such potential confusions. If you have 75 yards to safely merge and 25 to exit, then as long as you merge within that 75 yards, you shouldn't be cited. If you merge after the entrance "becomes" an "exit" at say 76 yards AND there is such a sign, you have missed your chance and you must exit or be cited. It would be capricious and unfair otherwise. And using this example, I contend that I was well within the legal limits to merge and so did so.

If the reason for the sign is to clear the lane of merging vehicles well before the exit so as to provide safe passage for those exiting the highway, then the sign should itself be moved from its spot at 75 yards (in the above example) to say 50 or even 40 yards into the lane. Then all those entering the highway would know they had to merge into the highway much sooner than instructed by the existing posted sign.

That the citing officer never made the sign an issue after waving me over but instead lectured me on my merging style, or lack thereof, just confused me all the more, to be honest.

Seems to me that this whole issue in this case turns on a definition which is not made clear by either the statute or the sign.

Thank you for the quote at the end--that was very helpful!

:)

Quote:

---

Quoting tess4today

---

Thanks for the links. I found the first two this morning but was unable to find any clarification regarding my particular issue: how much time a motorist has to completely obey a sign such as this one.

---

I quoted the MUTCD, underlined and bolded the part that states that with a mandatory movement lane control sign, the sign should be located where the regulation applies.

I realize a similar statement does not appear to be in the California vehicle code, however, the specific code section you were cited with specifically mentions the MUTCD and the associated federal requirements. Think of it this way, if the MUTCD does not apply to California, then none of the signs that you see on any of the roads would be considered legal, nobody would be cited, and we wouldn’t be here discussing any of this.

Quote:

---

Quoting tess4today

---

I really think the issue, though, is the timing from seeing a sign versus 'passing' a sign. My argument will be in the absence of statutory explanation, as long as a motorist begins the action of obeying the sign before passing it, there should not be any citation issued as long as the lane change in this instance is completed by the time the car passes the sign. Since there is nothing in the statute, it may be open to judicial interpretation.

---

A logical analogy for a description that does not exist in the statute. However, if that same statute refers you to a particular document thereby making such a document a reference for the judiciary to clarify such gray areas, then you can bet that it will meet the burden of being the regulatory authority. The MUTCD after all, sets the FEDERAL requirements for traffic signage, regulation and design. If you want to argue that those regulations do not fit in this case, you might get lucky by having a judge who is very understanding and much less strict than the ones I have appeared before.

Quote:

---

Quoting tess4today

---

That is why I brought up as a counter example the difference between a RIGHT LANE MUST EXIT sign and a STOP sign at an intersection. There are reasonable inferences in the differences between the two.

---

Although I agree that the drivers actions at a stop sign are quite different from those when he/she passes a Right Lane MUST Exit sign, from a regulatory stand point and as far as “when must you comply” both signs mean that you must comply prior to passing it.

Quote:

---

Quoting tess4today

---

For example, if you had never been on that entrance/exit before and thus never had seen that sign, you wouldn't know until you are more than three-quarters of the way through that lane that there is a RIGHT LANE MUST EXIT sign for you to obey. The sign is located near the end of the exit lane.

---

Without knowing what the length of that on ramp is and how far the sign is from or how soon it is viewable to the naked eye, I couldn’t argue that point. Again, just remember that just because you did not notice the sign while giving yourself enough time, does not necessarily mean that it cannot be viewed or that it is improperly placed.

You had your eye on the freeway traffic through your side window as well as by looking at your outside mirror to see when you can merge, so your inability to see the sign does not suggest that it is improperly placed nor does it imply that you need not comply with what it is regulating.

Quote:

---

Quoting tess4today

---

It's clearly there to keep motorists who are in stuck in traffic trying to get on the highway from blocking those who need to exit it. Still, there must be a reasonable distance allowed to a motorist to use the lane as an entrance--because it is actually an entrance as well as as exit.

---

You can argue proper placement of that sign or lack thereof by contacting CalTrans and requesting the engineering survey for that on ramp.
If they cannot justify its placement legally then that would prove that sign should not be there and by virtue of such a report from that agency stating that the sign should not be there, you get to have your case dismissed.

Quote:

---

Quoting tess4today

---

It's clearly there to keep motorists who are in stuck in traffic trying to get on the highway from blocking those who need to exit it. Still, there must be a reasonable distance allowed to a motorist to use the lane as an entrance--because it is actually an entrance as well as as exit.

---

Actually, it would seem to me that the entire length of the lane where the line is dashed, is considered part of the exit ramp.

As for the on ramp portion, it is limited by and does terminate once you reach the “Right Lane MUST Exit” sign…

Quote:

---

Quoting tess4today

---

So then the question becomes if the entrance/exit lane is only to be used as one or the other, when does the entrance to the highway end and the exit begin? In other words, motorists look to signs to clear up such potential confusions. If you have 75 yards to safely merge and 25 to exit, then as long as you merge within that 75 yards, you shouldn't be cited. If you merge after the entrance "becomes" an "exit" at say 76 yards AND there is such a sign, you have missed your chance and you must exit or be cited. It would be capricious and unfair otherwise. And using this example, I contend that I was well within the legal limits to merge and so did so.

If the reason for the sign is to clear the lane of merging vehicles well before the exit so as to provide safe passage for those exiting the highway, then the sign should itself be moved from its spot at 75 yards (in the above example) to say 50 or even 40 yards into the lane. Then all those entering the highway would know they had to merge into the highway much sooner than instructed by the existing posted sign.

---

Signs, are not randomly placed… like I said, the California Supplement of the MUTCD should tell you exactly where that sign needs to be placed.

Quote:

---

Quoting tess4today

---

Seems to me that this whole issue in this case turns on a definition which is not made clear by either the statute or the sign.

---

You were charged with violating a sign that states “Right Lane MUST Exit”. How much clearer than that can it be?

At any rate… here is your best chance at raising some reasonable doubt as far as the officer’s testimony is concerned.

First, I highly doubt that he will remember the issue as being an abrupt lane change and even if he did, it is not what you were charged with, so he won’t mention it or discuss it.

He will testify that he saw you merge onto the freeway from the on ramp after passing the sign in question.

What you need to do is to draw a diagram or take a picture or something of the sign, from your vantage point and possibly (WHILE SOMEBODY ELSE IS DRIVING) a picture looking back towards it from where the officer was standing.

Once he testifies, and when it comes time for you to cross examine him, ask him to pinpoint his location when he witnessed you committing the violation.

You can then produce the picture and ask him if he could really see your position relative to where the sign is from his vantage point.

Obviously, and from an angular point of view, and unless he was in line with the sign as soon as you passed the sign, then his ability to determine your position relative to the sign is questionable at best, if not extremely difficult.

Honestly, this is going to be your best strategy to raise some reasonable doubt… No guarantees it will get you out of the citation, but I seriously see it as your best chance.

Good luck!

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

<snip>

At any rate… here is your best chance at raising some reasonable doubt as far as the officer’s testimony is concerned.

First, I highly doubt that he will remember the issue as being an abrupt lane change and even if he did, it is not what you were charged with, so he won’t mention it or discuss it.

He will testify that he saw you merge onto the freeway from the on ramp after passing the sign in question.

What you need to do is to draw a diagram or take a picture or something of the sign, from your vantage point and possibly (WHILE SOMEBODY ELSE IS DRIVING) a picture looking back towards it from where the officer was standing.

Once he testifies, and when it comes time for you to cross examine him, ask him to pinpoint his location when he witnessed you committing the violation.

You can then produce the picture and ask him if he could really see your position relative to where the sign is from his vantage point.

Obviously, and from an angular point of view, and unless he was in line with the sign as soon as you passed the sign, then his ability to determine your position relative to the sign is questionable at best, if not extremely difficult.

Honestly, this is going to be your best strategy to raise some reasonable doubt… No guarantees it will get you out of the citation, but I seriously see it as your best chance.

Good luck!

---

Thanks for your help. Much appreciated, really. Would that I had come here weeks ago, alas! I agree that he will never recall the actual conversation that transpired or indeed the specifics of the citation and plan to use that against him when I produce the photos I have taken.

Still, I think my only real hope is that he does not show up!

But you've really helped me prepare better for trial.

Take care--I'll let you know what happens! :)

Quote:

---

Quoting tess4today

---

<Double SNIP> back at you!
I'll let you know what happens! :)

---

Please do!

Quote:

---

Quoting tess4today

---

one lawyer who knows just enough law to get most of it wrong. :D

---

Are you really? :eek:

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Please do!


Are you really? :eek:

---

no--it's a joke! but maybe I should change it lest I get in trouble for impersonating one...lol

Quote:

---

Quoting tess4today

---

no--it's a joke! but maybe I should change it lest I get in trouble for impersonating one...lol

---

Oh, I wasn't asking about the "attorney" part, I was asking about the "getting it worng part"... :p

J/K

I think if you don't go into court pretending you are one, you should be alright!

hey that guy! just wanted to let you know how my case turned out.
here's the story:

my citing officer was the only one to show up for 5 cases in the 3:30 calendar. irritating. moreover, I had gotten there early and walked into the gallery during the remainder of the 2:00 calendar, listened to the judge (an octogenarian lady judge) for about 1 minute before being escorted out by the bailiff. she scared me. I thought doom & gore would be my only result.

when we were finally called in, she was finishing up a case from the previous calendar and seemed quite sharp and fair all the same. my mood lifted.

it was 4:30 before my case was called, and a few minutes before it, she looked at me and said, "I'm sorry to have kept you waiting. I promise we'll get to you in a moment."

the officer was all courtesy and cordials, opening doors for me and such. he went to the witness box and I sat at the plaintiff's table.

she read the file and said out loud, oh, I know what this is about: that sign! she began to question the officer.

the judge asked him a bunch of questions about where he was located in relation to the sign. he gave her three conflicting answers. he even said he couldn't see the sign from his vantage point but then tried to argue that meant motorists passed it by the time they came into his view. so he made his location the central issue but then gave conflicting testimony as to his location (on the shoulder, at the gore point, east of the gore & off to the shoulder, and so on).

his testimony was so confusing that when I looked over my notes regarding what he had just testified to, I felt a little dizzy. each answer seemed more convoluted than the last. the judge started to get irritated with him and finally said, "you and I are not communicating!" then she looked at me and said, "but you and I are communicating," to which I nodded my head.

then she said, "you keep changing your answer. this is ridiculous. I'm entering a finding of not guilty."

the CHP officer was by this time bright red and clearly pissed off. the judge said to him, "I want you to come up here and I will show you on a map what you need to be able to say when you are asked questions about your location." at first he hemmed and hawed and she said, "You don't want to come up here? Are you mad? That's okay, I get mad, too." then he said he would come (he really had no choice: as we all know, if a judge wants to give you a lesson, you're gonna get a lesson even if you are a rather large, middle-aged CHP officer with an irksome quality that every syllable that falls from your mouth makes sense, even when all evidence suggests the contrary. ;))

as I left, walking on air, I turned to look back at the bench where the officer was receiving a cogent lesson in how to read a map and translate that into reasonable and reliable testimony.

thank you for all of your help, that guy. your comments and questions helped me to prepare the stronger defense regarding his vantage point in relation to the sign. and even though I never had to testify, I felt fully prepared if I had to, largely because of your help. thank you!

:)