Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 49
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    15

    Default Ticket Due to Conflicting Traffic Control Devices

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

    I just received a ticket for violation of CVC 21461 Obedience by Driver to Official Traffic Control Devices. I was in a left hand turn only lane as indicated by a painted arrow and solid white lines marking the pavement. At the intersection there is a no left hand turn sign for certain times of day (this was during the time when a left hand turn was prohibited). So it was legal for me to enter the lane (no signs stating it was illegal to enter the lane), but once there I had no legal options for moving my car. I can't drive the wrong way against traffic, and as I was in a left hand turn only lane it would be illegal for me to go straight or turn right. So I made the left turn as it was the safest option and I promptly received a ticket.

    I have a call in to the engineering department of the city, I only told them that I was subject to conflicting traffic control devices in their city. It is basically entrapment since it was legal for me to drive my car to the position, but illegal for me to proceed in any manner. I was forced to do something illegal. It is akin to having a one way street that leads to a dead end. Any advice as how to proceed and get this ticket dismissed?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: Actual Conflicting Traffic Control Devices

    It wasn't illegal for you to move back to the straight through lane and go through the intersection.

    Your argument has no merit.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    15

    Default Re: Actual Conflicting Traffic Control Devices

    Maybe I didn't make myself clear about where my car was situated. I was already up to the entrance to the intersection so unless you know of a way of making a car move sideways there was no way for me to get into the straight/right hand turn lane before entering the intersection. Attempting to move over while going into the intersection would have resulted in me going straight through the intersection from the left hand only lane which I assume is illegal.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: Actual Conflicting Traffic Control Devices

    Quote Quoting ikiller
    View Post
    Maybe I didn't make myself clear about where my car was situated. I was already up to the entrance to the intersection so unless you know of a way of making a car move sideways there was no way for me to get into the straight/right hand turn lane before entering the intersection. Attempting to move over while going into the intersection would have resulted in me going straight through the intersection from the left hand only lane which I assume is illegal.
    You can argue all you want but you were not allowed to turn left. Your only action would be to re-enter the straight through traffic. It is sure to be a better argument that you didn't see the sign until you were so close to the intersection that you had to change lanes as you traveled through the intersection rather than; I chose to ignore the "no left turn" sign.


    going straight through the intersection from the left hand only lane which I assume is illegal.
    I never said anything about going straight through the intersection from the left turn lane. Surely you had room to initiate returning to the straight lane and completing it well before crossing the intersection.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    15

    Default Re: Actual Conflicting Traffic Control Devices

    Hello sir,

    Thanks for the replies. Your continued argument that I must have had enough room to get back into the straight lane is simply wrong. Yes I could have initiated a lane change while entering the intersection but I still would have been entering the intersection from the a left hand turn only lane. Does getting a single tire into another lane constitute being in that lane and not in the other? My major question is how can it be legal to have a left hand only turn land that you can't turn left in? The markings on the road state a left hand turn is the only option. The markings don't indicate it is a left hand turn only or lane change initiation lane.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    3,577

    Default Re: Actual Conflicting Traffic Control Devices

    The only valid argument that you might have, as I see it, is that the signage was insufficient. You would have to show that there were no signs prohibiting a left turn that were visible until you ENTERED the INTERSECTION. Otherwise, as JK stated, if, after entering the left turn lane, but before you reached the intersection, you COULD see the prohibiting sign, you should have re-merged back into the thru-traffic lane (crossing a solid white line is not prohibited). Why not post the location of the intersection (streets and city), so we can see for ourselves using Google Maps. There are rules and guidelines about WHERE signs should be posted. If the signs are not in the proper locations, you may have an argument.

    Barry

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    CT & IL
    Posts
    5,273

    Default Re: Actual Conflicting Traffic Control Devices

    I think that the poster has a valid argument to go left or go straight (even crossing a solid white line). You'll have to show the judge the markings & sign postings for him to understand --- maybe a nice google map photo showing the markings and signage & all other traffic control devices and markings.

    The question is : which takes control -- a sign or a marking --- and how would people know this fact? Judges are not idiots but some can be unreasonable.

    Too bad no trial by jury is available in CA -- no jury would convict.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    15

    Default Re: Actual Conflicting Traffic Control Devices

    Thanks for the reply,

    Unfortunately this intersection was changed recently and the google street view is not up to date. I will return to the location this evening and see where all the signs are. I understand the argument that I should have been informed that a left turn was illegal so that I had enough time to exit the lane, but I believe this argument itself is not valid since I was under no legal obligation to leave the lane.

    I am simply stating that there are conflicting traffic control devices. It does not matter how I chose to interpret them or what various actions I could have taken, the problem is that there exists a left hand turn only lane in which you cannot make a left turn. My argument is that it is perfectly legal for a driver to enter this left hand turn lane and get up to the intersection, and after that point the driver has no legal choice. That is the issue. Forget everything that happened up to that point, what is a driver supposed to do once they are at an intersection in a left hand only turn lane and are facing a sign that says no left hand turn. There is no legal option, and the driver has not broken any laws in getting to this point.

    This would have not been an issue if there was a sign that said "No entering the left hand turn lane during these hours....", then there would be no legal way for a driver to get in this position. This is along the lines of your argument that the signage was insufficient. My main question is how can a situation where two traffic control devices contradict each other exist? I have looked through the MUTCD and it does not reference a left hand turn only lane with time limits at all (it treats the cases as seperate), and makes not reference to conflicting control devices probably since it is obvious that they shouldn't exist.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    CT & IL
    Posts
    5,273

    Default Re: Actual Conflicting Traffic Control Devices

    Well, go and make up a spreadsheet or powerpoint slide illustrating the intersection. You should do this defense during cross-examination - if the cop admits to the signage & markings then request an acquittal after the state rests...you do not want to take the stand if you don't need to. You can show the cop an illustration w/o it being admitted into evidence (just say you are trying to lie the foundation for its admittance)...once you completed your cross, then admit it into evidence as exhibit A.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: Actual Conflicting Traffic Control Devices

    I understand the argument that I should have been informed that a left turn was illegal so that I had enough time to exit the lane, but I believe this argument itself is not valid since I was under no legal obligation to leave the lane.
    then I guess you were relegated to waiting in that turn lane until such time it was again legal to make a left hand turn.

    It does not matter how I chose to interpret them or what various actions I could have taken, the problem is that there exists a left hand turn only lane in which you cannot make a left turn.
    except when the sign says you cannot. So, I guess any place there is a road, regardless of what other signs are posted, you have a legal right to drive on that road. That is what you are arguing here.

    My argument is that it is perfectly legal for a driver to enter this left hand turn lane and get up to the intersection, and after that point the driver has no legal choice. That is the issue
    .
    Forget everything that happened up to that point, what is a driver supposed to do once they are at an intersection in a left hand only turn lane and are facing a sign that says no left hand turn. There is no legal option, and the driver has not broken any laws in getting to this point.
    show me a law the prevents a person from leaving the left turn lane and entering the flow of traffic going straight through the intersection.

    This would have not been an issue if there was a sign that said "No entering the left hand turn lane during these hours....", then there would be no legal way for a driver to get in this position. This is along the lines of your argument that the signage was insufficient. My main question is how can a situation where two traffic control devices contradict each other exist?
    I have looked through the MUTCD and it does not reference a left hand turn only lane with time limits at all (it treats the cases as seperate), and makes not reference to conflicting control devices probably since it is obvious that they shouldn't exist.
    California VCV deals with it. There are no conflicting control devices.

    Regulation of Turns at Intersection

    22101. (a) The Department of Transportation or local authorities in respect to highways under their respective jurisdictions, may cause official traffic control devices to be placed or erected within or adjacent to intersections to regulate or prohibit turning movements at such intersections.

    (b) When turning movements are required at an intersection notice of such requirement shall be given by erection of a sign, unless an additional clearly marked traffic lane is provided for the approach to the turning movement, in which event notice as applicable to such additional traffic lane shall be given by any official traffic control device.

    (c) When right- or left-hand turns are prohibited at an intersection notice of such prohibition shall be given by erection of a sign.
    Obedience by Driver to Official Traffic Control Devices

    21461. (a) It is unlawful for a driver of a vehicle to fail to obey a sign or signal defined as regulatory in the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, or a Department of Transportation approved supplement to that manual of a regulatory nature erected or maintained to enhance traffic safety and operations or to indicate and carry out the provisions of this code or a local traffic ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to a local traffic ordinance, or to fail to obey a device erected or maintained by lawful authority of a public body or official.

    (b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to acts constituting violations under Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500) of this division or to acts constituting violations of a local traffic ordinance adopted pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500).

    Amended Sec. 1, Ch. 203, Stats. 2004. Effective January 1, 2005.
    V C Section 21462 Obedience to Traffic Control Signals

    Obedience to Traffic Control Signals

    21462. The driver of any vehicle, the person in charge of any animal, any pedestrian, and the motorman of any streetcar shall obey the instructions of any official traffic signal applicable to him and placed as provided by law, unless otherwise directed by a police or traffic officer or when it is necessary for the purpose of avoiding a collision or in case of other emergency, subject to the exemptions granted by Section 21055.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Lights, Signs and Traffic Controls: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
    By gmonte201 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-07-2011, 09:00 AM
  2. Traffic Court Issues: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
    By charles2 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-07-2010, 05:50 PM
  3. Lights, Signs and Traffic Controls: Failure to Obey Traffic Control Devices
    By ciggy1986 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-06-2010, 05:39 PM
  4. Lights, Signs and Traffic Controls: Contradictory Traffic Control Devices
    By eugene_traveler in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-11-2008, 08:54 AM
  5. Speeding Tickets: Speeding Ticket Reduced To Obedience To Traffic Control Devices
    By Staples in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-03-2008, 12:02 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources