Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    11

    Default Invalid No Left Turn Sign - Failure to Obey Traffic Control Signal

    My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: North Dakota, City of Dickinson.

    This changeable message sign was installed to alleviate traffic congestion caused by people turning left during periods of higher traffic. It turns on/off at specific times of the day. I hate when people block traffic trying to turn left at this intersection. However, if no one is around, I'll make the left turn. Well, at 7:40am on a Sunday with no traffic, I made the turn and there he was, parked a couple blocks down at the carwash waiting to pick off some idiot like me.

    I've never seen a sign like this and have always questioned its validity and enforceability. It doesn't look like an official sign; it looks like a Lite Brite, with little red dots forming the words NO LEFT TURN. As far as I can tell from the resources below, not only is it not enforceable, the sign is illegal.

    My court date is February 23, 2012. I was instructed to visit with the City Prosecutor ASAP. It didn't seem like a good idea to me, because they would be able to better prepare the case against me.

    After receiving the name of the prosecutor, court date and paperwork, I walked across the hall to the main office of the City Hall. I asked what the procedure was for an open records request and they looked at me like I was from Mars. They had no clue what I was talking about. There was running around, trying to find someone to help and I was given the name and number of the person to contact. Guess what? It's the City Prosecutor. Is that weird?

    Any advice on how to proceed (besides simply paying it, because that's no fun) would be great.





    MUTCD Page 325, Section 2L.01, Description of Changeable Message Signs, number 05:

    Blank-out signs that display only single-phase, predetermined electronic-display legends that are limited by their composition and arrangement of pixels or other illuminated forms in a fixed arrangement (such as a blank-out sign indicating a part-time turn prohibition, a blank-out or changeable lane-use sign, or a changeable OPEN/CLOSED sign for a weigh station) should comply with the provisions of the applicable Section for the specific type of sign, provided that the letter forms, symbols, and other legend elements are duplicates of the static messages as detailed in the “Standard Highway Signs and Markings” book (see Section 1A.11). Because such a
    sign is effectively an illuminated version of a static sign, the size of its legend elements, the overall size of the sign, and placement of the sign should comply with the applicable provisions for the static version of the sign.

    Our sign does not appear in the book or in our state's supplemental signs. Local ordinance specifies that signs must conform with the ND manual. It should be a symbol.

    Page 327, 2L.04 Design Characteristics of Changeable Message Signs, number 15:

    If a black background is used, the color used for the legend on a changeable message sign should match the background color that would be used on a standard sign for that type of legend, such as white for regulatory, yellow for warning, orange for temporary traffic control, red for stop or yield, fluorescent pink for incident management, and fluorescent yellow-green for bicycle, pedestrian, and school warning.

    Our sign is red lettering; should be white.

    North Dakota Century Code, Chapter 39-13 Traffic Signs (http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t39c13.pdf)

    Page 1:

    39-13-06. Authority to adopt manual on uniform traffic-control devices.
    The director shall adopt a manual and specifications for a uniform system of traffic-control devices, consistent with the provisions of law, for use upon all highways and streets in this state. Such uniform system must correlate with and so far as possible conform to the system set forth in the most recent edition of the manual promulgated as a national standard by the federal highway administrator.

    39-13-07. Uniform traffic-control devices on all streets and highways.
    No traffic-control devices, including markings, signs, and signals, may be used on any street or highway which do not conform to the standards of design and location as prescribed in the manual and specifications for a uniform system of traffic-control devices. The director and local authorities, on streets and highways under their respective jurisdiction, shall place such devices as are deemed necessary to regulate, warn, and guide traffic.

    39-13-08. No traffic-control device to be manufactured or sold which does not conform.
    No person, firm, corporation, or limited liability company may sell or offer for sale to street and highway authorities, and no such authorities may purchase or manufacture any traffic-control device which does not conform to the manual unless specifically approved by the director.

    North Dakota Supplemental Manual for Standard Highway Signs (http://1.usa.gov/ztiUgc)

    Page 6, Chapter 23 Dickinson Municipal Code (http://bit.ly/zHthv5)

    Official Traffic-Control Devices. All signs, signals, markings and devices not inconsistent with this chapter placed or erected by authority of a public body or official having jurisdiction, for the purpose of regulating, warning or guiding traffic.

    It is inconsistent with this chapter, therefore is not an official traffic control device.

    Page 16:

    The city engineer or any person authorized by the governing body shall place and maintain traffic-control signs, signals, traffic preemption devices and devices when and as
    required under the traffic ordinances of the city to make effective the provisions of such ordinances, and may place and maintain such additional traffic-control devices as he may deem necessary to regulate traffic under the traffic ordinances of the city or under state law, or to guide or warn traffic. (Ord. No. 866, § 1.)

    Sign does not meet city ordinances or state law, which follows MUTCD.

    Page 16:

    Section 23.16.020 Specifications
    All traffic-control signs, signals and devices shall conform to the specifications approved by the state highway commissioner pursuant to North Dakota Century Code, section 39-13-06. All signs and signals required hereunder for a particular purpose shall, so far as practicable, be uniform as to type and location throughout the city. All traffic-control devices so erected and not inconsistent with the provisions of state law or this article shall be official traffic-control devices.
    (Ord. No. 866, § 1.)

    Page 18:

    The driver of any vehicle shall obey the instruction of any official traffic-control device applicable thereto placed in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, unless otherwise directed by a traffic or police officer, subject to the exceptions granted the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle in this chapter.

    It's not an official device.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    11

    Default Re: Invalid No Left Turn Sign - Failure to Obey Traffic Control Signal

    To clarify, I thought I'd proceed with an open records request to see why this particular sign was chosen, where it was purchased and why it doesn't conform to the standards.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    19,901

    Default Re: Invalid No Left Turn Sign - Failure to Obey Traffic Control Signal

    You expect them to have a record that says why the sign was chosen and why it isn't compliant? That's unlikely to exist. If you're lucky you'll find out where the sign was procured.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    11

    Default Re: Invalid No Left Turn Sign - Failure to Obey Traffic Control Signal

    No, I'm not looking for a document or part of a document that says, "WE CHOSE A NON-CONFORMING DEVICE BECAUSE..." If the city engineer or other authorized body presented this to the City Commission for approval, I would expect to see a summary of the discussion in the meeting minutes. If several different devices were presented, maybe it will show that a CMS that matches a static sign was available, but they chose the Lite Brite version because it was cheaper. Also, I'm not sure who maintains this intersection. The northbound road, the one which has the sign in question, is state highway 22 north and south of the town. At this intersection, it's known as 3rd Ave W, which I'm assuming is the City's responsibility to place signs and such, but maybe not. I was pulled over by the Dickinson Police Department, not the Highway Patrol.

    Maybe the potential information obtained from an open records request isn't important or maybe it's unlikely to gain valuable information. In addition to advice on my interpretation of the MUTCD, state code, local ordinances, the photos of the sign and intersection that I posted and how/if it helps my case moving forward, I am wondering if this open records request is worth it, assuming that I'm fighting the ticket.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    19,901

    Default Re: Invalid No Left Turn Sign - Failure to Obey Traffic Control Signal

    I don't even believe that much paper trail exists.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    11

    Default Re: Invalid No Left Turn Sign - Failure to Obey Traffic Control Signal

    Okay, so maybe it's not even worth trying to find the trail, if it exists?

    Any other thoughts about whether or not this sign is enforceable? I don't see how it is. If I'm expected to follow the law to the letter, the City should be expected to follow the standards to the letter.

    I know it doesn't work that way, as I found out this summer when I was subpoenaed to appear as a witness in a two-hour trial that shouldn't have even happened because the guy took well over 14 days to post bond (to which the Court acknowledges) after running into me and receiving a failure to yield ticket. But the judge felt that because the defendant was old, he ought to be able to make up the rules himself and the municipal court is able to make up their own rules, separate from the State.

    Because I'm 50 or 60 years younger than that guy, can I plead ignorance? I mean, this guy has 80 years of life experience, so I'd argue that he should know that he has 14 days to post bond or he's automatically guilty. If an 80 year old guy, who has been involved in many court cases doesn't know the law, how should I be expected to know? (I'm being a smartass, no answer required.)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    OH10
    Posts
    17,019

    Default Re: Invalid No Left Turn Sign - Failure to Obey Traffic Control Signal

    It sounds like it is deemed a temporary traffic control sign.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    LA LA Land
    Posts
    9,170

    Default Re: Invalid No Left Turn Sign - Failure to Obey Traffic Control Signal

    The fact that it was highly likely that it was installed by the regulatory responsible makes it legal even if there is a more expensive sign...

    Quote Quoting northwave305
    View Post
    Any other thoughts about whether or not this sign is enforceable? I don't see how it is.
    You have not shown that it isn't enforceable... And don't expect the officer to bring along stacks of reports in an attempt to convince you that it is official. This will require an affirmative defense and you bringing forth any basis as to why it isn't enforceable. And so far, you haven't come close... Let me start from the top...

    Quote Quoting northwave305
    View Post
    Guess what? It's the City Prosecutor. Is that weird?
    Not if it is a municipal code violation or you are being tried in a municipal court.

    Quote Quoting northwave305
    View Post
    MUTCD Page 325, Section 2L.01, Description of Changeable Message Signs, number 05:

    Blank-out signs that display only single-phase, predetermined electronic-display legends that are limited by their composition and arrangement of pixels or other illuminated forms in a fixed arrangement (such as a blank-out sign indicating a part-time turn prohibition, a blank-out or changeable lane-use sign, or a changeable OPEN/CLOSED sign for a weigh station) should comply with the provisions of the applicable Section for the specific type of sign, provided that the letter forms, symbols, and other legend elements are duplicates of the static messages as detailed in the “Standard Highway Signs and Markings” book (see Section 1A.11). Because such a
    sign is effectively an illuminated version of a static sign, the size of its legend elements, the overall size of the sign, and placement of the sign should comply with the applicable provisions for the static version of the sign.

    Our sign does not appear in the book or in our state's supplemental signs. Local ordinance specifies that signs must conform with the ND manual. It should be a symbol.

    Page 327, 2L.04 Design Characteristics of Changeable Message Signs, number 15:

    If a black background is used, the color used for the legend on a changeable message sign should match the background color that would be used on a standard sign for that type of legend, such as white for regulatory, yellow for warning, orange for temporary traffic control, red for stop or yield, fluorescent pink for incident management, and fluorescent yellow-green for bicycle, pedestrian, and school warning.

    Our sign is red lettering; should be white.
    Looks to me like ND chooses not to comply with the FHWA MUTCD nor does it amend one into its own version. Instead it chooses to develop and regulate on its own and following its own guidelines which would be in the two manual linked on ^that page^.

    Quote Quoting northwave305
    View Post
    North Dakota Century Code, Chapter 39-13 Traffic Signs (http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t39c13.pdf)

    Page 1:

    39-13-06. Authority to adopt manual on uniform traffic-control devices.
    The director shall adopt a manual and specifications for a uniform system of traffic-control devices, consistent with the provisions of law, for use upon all highways and streets in this state. Such uniform system must correlate with and so far as possible conform to the system set forth in the most recent edition of the manual promulgated as a national standard by the federal highway administrator.
    And all that says is that the director shall put together a manual that follows as close as possible the Federal MUTCD.

    That doesn't mean the MUTCD has any authority.... The state manual does!

    Quote Quoting northwave305
    View Post
    39-13-07. Uniform traffic-control devices on all streets and highways.
    No traffic-control devices, including markings, signs, and signals, may be used on any street or highway which do not conform to the standards of design and location as prescribed in the manual and specifications for a uniform system of traffic-control devices. The director and local authorities, on streets and highways under their respective jurisdiction, shall place such devices as are deemed necessary to regulate, warn, and guide traffic.

    39-13-08. No traffic-control device to be manufactured or sold which does not conform.
    No person, firm, corporation, or limited liability company may sell or offer for sale to street and highway authorities, and no such authorities may purchase or manufacture any traffic-control device which does not conform to the manual unless specifically approved by the director.

    North Dakota Supplemental Manual for Standard Highway Signs (http://1.usa.gov/ztiUgc)

    Page 6, Chapter 23 Dickinson Municipal Code (http://bit.ly/zHthv5)

    Official Traffic-Control Devices. All signs, signals, markings and devices not inconsistent with this chapter placed or erected by authority of a public body or official having jurisdiction, for the purpose of regulating, warning or guiding traffic.

    It is inconsistent with this chapter, therefore is not an official traffic control device.
    You made a huge leap there... You went from a provision from the MUTCD (which aren't directly relevant) to "its inconsistent, therefore it is not official".....

    Being inconsistent with the MUTCD is not a valid argument because the MUTCD is not enforced. What is enforced is the "North Dakota Supplemental Manual for Standard Highway Signs". However, the link you provided there is to a document that was published May 1, 1990, and I am seeing at least one revision mentioned here!

    Re-read the definition of "Official Traffic-Control Devices" and you'll see that just because it is not specifically listed and described, does not mean that it is inconsistent! Meaning a... sign... not inconsistent with this chapter (i.e. there is no provision declaring this one sign or any of its components as unusable ir improper or illegal) which is placed or erected by authority of a public body or official having jurisdiction, for the purpose of regulating, warning or guiding traffic.

    Go to

    39-13-07. Uniform traffic-control devices on all streets and highways. No traffic-control devices, including markings, signs, and signals, may be used on any street or highway which do not conform to the standards of design and location as prescribed in the manual and specifications for a uniform system of traffic-control devices. The director and local authorities, on streets and highways under their respective jurisdiction, shall place such devices as are deemed necessary to regulate, warn, and guide traffic.

    And even then, you can find the "standard of design" and location standard for "no left turn sign" and say: "this sign does not meet the standards"... Which maybe true... However, the sign was chosen by the regulatory authority with the ability to decide which devices should be used and which shouldn't...

    You can either that it is their responsibility to ensure the same standard for all devices to facilitate the movement of traffic, inform the public through the use of signs/signals/markers that are not confusing... Well, which would you rather have?

    A) The "standard black arrow/white background/red diagional line through the circle - along with the time period when the restriction is on prohibiting the turn" sign, but it really is difficult to see the time restrictions; or

    B) A sign that simply says "No Left Turn" when the turn is prohibited (and its off when the turn is allowed)!

    Quote Quoting northwave305
    View Post
    Any other thoughts about whether or not this sign is enforceable? I don't see how it is. If I'm expected to follow the law to the letter, the City should be expected to follow the standards to the letter.
    They did follow the letter of the law; Now its your turn... The sign says "No Left Turn"... And which part of that did you interpret into "yield to oncoming traffic, if any"?

    You can try to beat the issue to death if you choose... My view has always been and will continue to be (in spite of a recent wave of MUTCD based not guilty plea stories on this forum) that your case boils down to an attempt to negotiate a plea bargain (since we know there is a prosecutor in your case)... In other states where there are no prosecutors present to negotiate with, it is simply a "guilty with an explanation" and hope the judge will sympathize. But to hope for an outright dismissal, best of luck to you and yes, I'd probably shoot for the same... But not with any measurable rate of succeeding!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    11

    Default Re: Invalid No Left Turn Sign - Failure to Obey Traffic Control Signal

    Quote Quoting That Guy
    View Post
    You have not shown that it isn't enforceable... And don't expect the officer to bring along stacks of reports in an attempt to convince you that it is official. This will require an affirmative defense and you bringing forth any basis as to why it isn't enforceable. And so far, you haven't come close... Let me start from the top...
    I was planning to bring the papers.

    Guess what? It's the City Prosecutor. Is that weird?
    Not if it is a municipal code violation or you are being tried in a municipal court.
    I meant is it weird that the City Prosecutor would also handle an open records request? Or do you mean it's not weird?

    Quote Quoting That Guy
    View Post
    Looks to me like ND chooses not to comply with the FHWA MUTCD nor does it amend one into its own version. Instead it chooses to develop and regulate on its own and following its own guidelines which would be in the two manual linked on ^that page^.
    I thought this page meant that ND has adopted it, since on this page, under the "Has your State adopted the 2009 MUTCD?" column, it says "YES.": http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/natl_adopt_2009.htm Also, the manuals that you referenced do not contain the "NO LEFT TURN" sign.

    Quote Quoting That Guy
    View Post
    Being inconsistent with the MUTCD is not a valid argument because the MUTCD is not enforced. What is enforced is the "North Dakota Supplemental Manual for Standard Highway Signs". However, the link you provided there is to a document that was published May 1, 1990, and I am seeing at least one revision mentioned here!
    If the MUTCD is not enforced, then what is the North Dakota Supplemental Manual supplementing? Why does this manual regarding DMS, CMS and VMS signs reference the MUTCD several times? http://www.dot.nd.gov/divisions/main...Guidelines.pdf

    I'm not seeing the revision for the SMSH, but plenty of changes to the "Design Manual," which is a separate manual that "provides a convenient guide for NDDOT policies, procedures, and design values that are presently recommended for road and bridge designers." I didn't see anything about regulatory signs here, other than technical specifications for mounting them, wiring them, etc. The link on this page http://www.dot.nd.gov/manuals/manuals-publications.htm points to a 1994 version of the SMSH. The cover page says 1990, but on the upper left corner of the Table of Contents, it says 3/29/1994.

    The link to the standard drawings is broken, but here's the link: http://www.dot.nd.gov/dotnet2/view/stddrawings.aspx.

    And what about this:

    39-13-08. No traffic-control device to be manufactured or sold which does not conform.
    No person, firm, corporation, or limited liability company may sell or offer for sale to street and highway authorities, and no such authorities may purchase or manufacture any traffic-control device which does not conform to the manual unless specifically approved by the director.

    As far as I can tell, and let me know if anyone can find something to the contrary, this sign DOES NOT conform to the state manual because it's not included in this manual. That letter-only sign is not listed in the manual. Would I need to contact the State asking "the director" to provide documentation saying that the City Engineer contacted the director and that the sign was approved? I doubt they are able to supply that information, so then what?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    11

    Default Re: Invalid No Left Turn Sign - Failure to Obey Traffic Control Signal

    I rescheduled the date because I'm sick. The pretrial conference is scheduled for 3/1/2012.

    At what point to I make a motion for the ticket to be dismissed on the grounds that the traffic control device is not enforceable? Do I lead with that and, using the references above, demonstrate why it isn't? Or do I show the references and conclude with asking for it to be dismissed? Do I make this case at the pretrial conference?

    That Guy, or anyone else, I'm not sure how I have not demonstrated that the sign is not enforceable. In fact, it seems that the City is in violation of North Dakota Century Code by purchasing this sign. I'm still not seeing where I am making huge leaps in my argument, but would appreciate any help seeing any holes.

    1. City of Dickinson Municipal Code, Section 23.16.020 Specifications (referenced above) - The device does not conform to the specifications approved by the state highway commissioner pursuant to North Dakota Century Code, section 39-13-06, is inconsistent with the provisions of state law and this article and therefore is not an official traffic control device as defined here.

    2. A supplemental manual on uniform traffic-control devices for the State of North Dakota has been adopted, but this sign does not appear in that manual (NDCC 39-13-06). This manual must correlate with and so far as possible conform to the system set forth in the most recent edition of the manual promulgated as a national standard by the federal highway administrator, but this device does not conform to the national standards either (NDCC 39-13-06).

    3. This device does not conform to the standards of design and location as prescribed in the manual and specifications for a uniform system of traffic-control devices and therefore cannot be used on any street or highway (NDCC 39-13-07).

    4. NDCC 39-13-08 states that no traffic-control device to be manufactured or sold which does not conform and explicitly says that no authorities may purchase a non-conforming device.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Lights, Signs and Traffic Controls: Failure to Obey Traffic Control Device (No Left Turn Signal)
    By yutinghu in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-29-2011, 11:13 AM
  2. Lights, Signs and Traffic Controls: Disobeyed Posted Traffic Sign, Failure to Obey Traffic Control Device
    By billybob in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-15-2009, 11:55 PM
  3. Lights, Signs and Traffic Controls: Fail to Obey Traffic Control Device, Left Turn on Green Light
    By Nizich in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-24-2009, 10:36 AM
  4. Lights, Signs and Traffic Controls: Failure to Obey Traffic Control Signal in Washington State
    By howzzat in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-12-2009, 09:07 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources