Stop Sign Ticket

Hi, I was wondering if someone could advise me on the way to proceed in my traffic case. This is a failure to stop at a stop sign ticket.

Basically, I cruised through a stop sign at the end of a highway offramp. The offramp basically makes a 90 degree right-hand curve over the course of a few hundred feet, so it's very difficult to see the stop sign until you're right on top of it. Also, the stop sign is next to three other signs, one of which masks the shape of the stop sign until you're very close. Lastly, the offramp has only one lane and no shoulder. Here's a link to the location.

I submitted a trial by written declaration and used the necessity defense per CVC 21462. Included were pictures of the offramp showing that the stop sign can't be readily seen until you are very close (~100 feet), and that stopping before the line would require you to slam on the brakes, causing an unsafe driving condition on a one-lane offramp (there were cars very near me). It was interesting to note that, after I got the ticket and the cop drove off, I saw 5 other cars to the exact same thing as I did. That's a pretty good indication to me that there's something wrong with the offramp or the signage placement. (I bet the cops know this too and use this offramp to knock out a few tickets every month.)

Of course the guilty verdict came back almost immediately. I was offered traffic school.

I did some more research and it seems that there are a variety of defenses in the trial de novo should I choose to have one:

1) Replay of necessity defense, showing that almost everyone blows through the sign
2) Attack legitimacy of Stop Sign (the placement does not adhere to the DOT manual for signage placement)
3) Attack of cop's position/ability to see position of stop

At this point I'm just thinking about traffic school, but was hoping to get some advice from some of the experts on here.

Thanks in advance for the help!

How does "I didn't see a stop sign" transform into "It was necessary to my safety or the safety of others to ignore the stop sign"? And quite obviously the officer did see you go through the stop sign - and it's something you must admit doing in order for a "necessity defense" to have even the slightest relevance - so I don't know why you think "The officer couldn't see me" will get you anywhere.

If you have a bona fide defense based upon the MUTCD, or other state laws or regulations, to the placement or design of the stop sign, that's the way I would go.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

How does "I didn't see a stop sign" transform into "It was necessary to my safety or the safety of others to ignore the stop sign"? And quite obviously the officer did see you go through the stop sign - and it's something you must admit doing in order for a "necessity defense" to have even the slightest relevance - so I don't know why you think "The officer couldn't see me" will get you anywhere.

If you have a bona fide defense based upon the MUTCD, or other state laws or regulations, to the placement or design of the stop sign, that's the way I would go.

---

This is the sequence.

1) The stop sign is not visible until a car is a few feet away because the sign does not comply with the MUTCD.

2) A driver cannot stop before the line once the Stop sign is cited, because it is not safe to slam on the brake on a one-lane off ramp at the prevailing speed.

OR

The officer couldn't have seen me.

If you use your Google Maps link, and "backup" up the ramp, you will notice the words "STOP AHEAD" painted on the pavement, plus a warning sign on the righthand side of the road. These are clearly visible and should be sufficient warning that there REALLY is a stop sign at the bottom of the ramp -- which, I might add, clearly looks like a T-intersection, so you should probably "expect" some kind of traffic control signal or sign. Plus, you can see the sign from about halfway down the ramp.

Furthermore, as far as I can tell, this sign DOES comply with the MUTCD.

Quote:

---

Quoting MUTCD

---

Section 2B.06 STOP Sign Placement
Standard:
The STOP sign shall be installed on the right side of the approach to which it applies. When the STOP sign is installed at this required location and the sign visibility is restricted, a Stop Ahead sign (see Section 2C.29) shall be installed in advance of the STOP sign.
The STOP sign shall be located as close as practical to the intersection it regulates, while optimizing its visibility to the road user it is intended to regulate.

---

Without a measuring tape, it would also appear to meet the minimum height (7 feet) and distance from the side of the road (2 feet). If I am wrong, please tell me which MUTCD section is violated.

Personally, I think that neither your "necessity" nor MUTCD defense holds water, especially in light of the warnings -- which the officer will probably mention. I'd concentrate of the officer's perspective -- try to find out EXACTLY where the officer was and show that he/she did not have a clear enough view to establish your failure to stop. If not, traffic school sounds pretty good.

Barry

Quote:

---

Quoting blewis

---

Without a measuring tape, it would also appear to meet the minimum height (7 feet) and distance from the side of the road (2 feet). If I am wrong, please tell me which MUTCD section is violated.

Personally, I think that neither your "necessity" nor MUTCD defense holds water, especially in light of the warnings -- which the officer will probably mention. I'd concentrate of the officer's perspective -- try to find out EXACTLY where the officer was and show that he/she did not have a clear enough view to establish your failure to stop. If not, traffic school sounds pretty good.

Barry

---

I did a little closer reading of the MUTCD section and found that the signage placement rules are a little fuzzy. Here are the relevant sections from the current manual.

"Signs requiring different decisions by the road user shall be spaced sufficiently far apart for the required decisions to be made reasonably safely. One of the factors considered when determining the appropriate spacing shall be the posted or 85th-percentile speed."

Does not seem to be the case here, as there are three signs placed within 2-3 feet of each other. (The STOP sign, gas arrow sign, and highway interchange sign)

"For ground-mounted signs, the minimum lateral offset should be 3.7 m (12 ft) from the edge of the traveled way. If a shoulder wider than 1.8 m (6 ft) exists, the minimum lateral offset for ground-mounted signs should be 1.8 m (6 ft) from the edge of the shoulder."

Almost certainly not the case here.

"Lesser lateral offsets may be used on connecting roadways or ramps at interchanges, but not less than 1.8 m (6 ft) from the edge of the traveled way."

This is borderline. It would depend on the definition of "travelled way" (does it end at the lane line or the edge of the asphalt?) and a measuring tape.

"In areas where lateral offsets are limited, a minimum lateral offset of 0.6 m (2 ft) may be used."

I don't think the lateral offset is limited here.

Any ideas? I think the reason I'm so inclined to fight this is that it seems like the offramp is a blatant trap that takes advantage of poor signage. The cop had his blinkers on maybe 10 ft down the roadway on the right (I didn't even make it into that Mobil station on the right), so he had to have been waiting.

Bump. Anyone have any ideas?

Quote:

---

Quoting johncena

---

To beat a stop sign ticket quickly and simply without fighting with the officer or judge just takes some key knowledge of the stop sign law and a near perfect stop sign ticket defense.

---

Hey everyone - I took another look at the intersection and realized that I may have another defense: the stop line is completely faded in the lane that I was in. The link below shows the intersection; I was in the turn lane, and the stop line was completely faded. (It looks fine in the Google Maps picture but is definitely not visible in real life)

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...248.3,,0,12.61

I think that, combined with the stop sign nonconformity is pushing me to take this case to trial.

Any objections?

I still do not believe ANY of your arguments holds water. The STOP sign meets the requirements of MUTCD Section 2A-1 for a roadside sign in a business of residential district (7 feet high, 2 feet from the curb) -- and judging by the Google Maps photo, this could certainly be classified as a "business district".

The other sections of the MUTCD referring to spacing between signs does NOT refer to the three signs at your intersection. That refers to lateral spacing. For example, a "speed zone ahead" sign CANNOT be followed 10 feet later by a "35 MPH" sign -- when you're in a 55 zone. The spacing must be appropriate to the posted or 85% speed.

As far as the faded STOP line, CVC 22450 states:

Quote:

---

Quoting CVC 22450

---

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.

---

So, even if the line had never been painted, you are STILL required to stop "at the entrance to the intersecting roadway."

I keep thinking that traffic school is your best option.

Barry

Quote:

---

Quoting blewis

---

I still do not believe ANY of your arguments holds water. The STOP sign meets the requirements of MUTCD Section 2A-1 for a roadside sign in a business of residential district (7 feet high, 2 feet from the curb) -- and judging by the Google Maps photo, this could certainly be classified as a "business district".

---

Well this looks like an issue that a judge may have to decide...it's certainly not clear cut.

FWIW, I looked up the zoning map for that area and it's ambiguous.

http://psbweb.co.kern.ca.us/UtilityP...ps/Z099_16.tif

Also, if you look at the roadway depictions in the section you cited, you'll see that the "RURAL DISTRICT" depiction more closely matches the actual roadway than the "BUSINESS OR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT" depiction (there is an elevated curb in the business/residential example, while the actual roadway and the rural depiction have no curb).

But thanks for calling out that specific section - I wouldn't have even noticed the differences between the rural and business requirements unless you had cited them.

Well, it's hard for me to tell from the picture, but it sure LOOKS like a curb. It starts at the top of the ramp and continues around the corner and down the street. In fact, you can see it clearly on the ramp, just where the guard rail ends.

I mean, your whole argument, that the sign in not in a proper position, fails when you take into account the STOP AHEAD sign on the ramp, the STOP AHEAD lettering on the pavement on the ramp, the clearly visible STOP sign (even from the fuzzy Google Map pictures), and the big STOP letters on the pavement at the STOP line. Add to that the fact that you are entering a T-intersection. What would you have done had you been turning LEFT? Just blown right into the intersection because you "couldn't see the STOP sign?"

But, good luck, I hope you can pull it off. Oh, and I would leave out the STOP line argument completely.

Barry