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

The cop wrote on the ticket:
21453 (a) VC OBSERVE DRIVER NOT COME TO COMPLETE STOP AT LIMIT LINE TRI-LIGHT CONTINUED NORTH BOUND ON HILLHURST.

And I say that what he wrote is not possible to do.

It is impossible on a RED LIGHT to turn left from Franklin Av. into Hillhurst Av. Los Angeles 90027 at 8 PM. on any given evening, due to the abundant traffic in that intersection.
One would run over pedestrians in Franklin crosswalk then crash into either the southbound or the northbound lane of cars or both on Hillhurst.

I actually went back there and tried several times, since I got that ticket, to make that left turn, WITH A GREEN LIGHT without coming to a complete stop but I COULD NOT DO IT.
Every time I HAD TO STOP in the left-turn lane in Franklin Av. before being able to make the left turn into Hillhurst Av. due to the incoming traffic.
So with A RED LIGHT the scenario that the cop came with is just false, fictitious, dishonest, mistaken, untruthful etc.

My point is that I did not drive through that red light because ONE CANNOT RUN A RED LIGHT IN THAT INTERSECTION AND MAKE A LEFT TURN WITHOUT EITHER HAVING AN ACCIDENT OR RUNNING OVER A PEDESTRIAN OR BOTH.

In a regular trial I would challenge the prosecution to demonstrate to the jury how the infraction described on the ticked is feasible in reality, they would not be able to and I would win my case.
But in a traffic court, the judge and the jury are the same person, the driver is presumed guilty and to be a liar and the cop word will always prevail before a judge.

I would appreciate any legal opinion on how to handle that situation.

For the record I am an senior citizen disable and got 2 traffic tickets in my whole life. One 20 years ago for an U-Turn in a commercial zone and that one last week.

Thank you all.