Results 1 to 10 of 20

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Default Improper Turn at an Intersection, Lane Markings So Worn They Cannot Be Seen

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

    I was cited for traveling straight through an intersection that has been set up as a required left turn movement VC22101(d)
    The intersection has 3 lanes of travel in the direction I was going, 2 are required left turn movements and the 3rd (the right lane) allowed through traffic.
    The signal light did have an R73-6 sign posted.
    My approach to the intersection goes under a freeway that I was attempting to avoid entering.
    This intersection is fed by 4 through lanes upstream that become mandatory turn lanes, with only one through lane. The right most lane reduces into an on ramp lane prior to the intersection.
    The two left lanes become the mandatory movement lanes.
    Here is my argument:
    1) The upstream lanes have not been signed with post mounted R3-7 signs giving advanced warning of the turn requirement (there are pavement markings but this is a heavily congested route with lots of queuing)
    2) The green general info sign indicating the direction of the interstate and the interstate shield, with one white arrow, are mounted over the left most lane only, on the bridge, just prior to the intersection. (I lived in this area decades before and the intersection was just a one lane turn with the same general info sign mounted over that one lane)
    3) There is a large interstate shield painted on the bridge to the right, facing traffic, that is contradictory to the green general info sign. (added confusion)
    4) The white painted markings indicating where a lane should be for most of the approach (80%) to the intersection have been so heavily traveled, they are literally non-existent, gone. You can not tell what lane you are in, or how many lanes there are. Very poorly maintained.
    5) The green arrow on the signal light is functioning at about 15 to 20% of it's capacity.



    I really appreciate any thoughts on this.
    Thank you.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    LA LA Land
    Posts
    9,170

    Default Re: Improper Turn at an Intersection, Lane Markings So Worn They Cannot Be Seen

    Quote Quoting Jessie Contreras
    View Post
    My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: California

    I was cited for traveling straight through an intersection that has been set up as a required left turn movement VC22101(d)
    The intersection has 3 lanes of travel in the direction I was going, 2 are required left turn movements and the 3rd (the right lane) allowed through traffic.
    The signal light did have an R73-6 sign posted.
    My approach to the intersection goes under a freeway that I was attempting to avoid entering.
    This intersection is fed by 4 through lanes upstream that become mandatory turn lanes, with only one through lane. The right most lane reduces into an on ramp lane prior to the intersection.
    The two left lanes become the mandatory movement lanes.
    Here is my argument:
    1) The upstream lanes have not been signed with post mounted R3-7 signs giving advanced warning of the turn requirement (there are pavement markings but this is a heavily congested route with lots of queuing)
    2) The green general info sign indicating the direction of the interstate and the interstate shield, with one white arrow, are mounted over the left most lane only, on the bridge, just prior to the intersection. (I lived in this area decades before and the intersection was just a one lane turn with the same general info sign mounted over that one lane)
    3) There is a large interstate shield painted on the bridge to the right, facing traffic, that is contradictory to the green general info sign. (added confusion)
    4) The white painted markings indicating where a lane should be for most of the approach (80%) to the intersection have been so heavily traveled, they are literally non-existent, gone. You can not tell what lane you are in, or how many lanes there are. Very poorly maintained.
    5) The green arrow on the signal light is functioning at about 15 to 20% of it's capacity.



    I really appreciate any thoughts on this.
    Thank you.
    Way too many descriptors and qualifiers... Please post a Google Maps link to the intersection in question and the approximate time when this occurred. Thanks!

  3. #3

    Default Re: Improper Turn at an Intersection, Lane Markings So Worn They Cannot Be Seen

    This would be my approach to the intersection where the violation occurred, the Google car is in the left most lane, I was in the "center lane" if you can determine that. Keep in mind, this Google drive through occurred more than a year prior to my infraction and has over 60K cars a day traveling over it in this direction. The wear on the pavement markings is considerably more now than what is shown in the Google drive through. From this vantage point you also can see some of the other points I had mentioned...) Time of day was approx 10:00 A.M.

    https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Unive...54.82,,0,12.16

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    LA LA Land
    Posts
    9,170

    Default Re: Improper Turn at an Intersection, Lane Markings So Worn They Cannot Be Seen

    CVC 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.

    (d) When official traffic control devices are placed as required in subdivisions (b) or (c), it shall be unlawful for any driver of a vehicle to disobey the directions of such official traffic control devices.

    CVC 440.

    An "official traffic control device" is any sign, signal, marking, or device, consistent with Section 21400, placed or erected by authority of a public body or official having jurisdiction, for the purpose of regulating, warning, or guiding traffic, but does not include islands, curbs, traffic barriers, speed humps, speed bumps, or other roadway design features.

    You were cited in violation of subsection (d), which refers back to (b) and (c) whereas (c) is not applicable but (b) is. CVC 440 defines an "official traffic control device" as a sign or a marking -amongst other things-.

    Subsection (d) of 22101 prohibits any driver from disobeying an OTCD placed according to subsection (b); subsection (b) established two requirements for the type and number of OTCD which shall be placed, but it falls short from indicating a specific location for such devices. Specifically, for the center lane and since it is an extension of what was -at some point just before passing under the bridge- the straight through lane, and since it becomes a mandatory movement lane, the 'notice requirement" shall be given by erecting "a sign" and by your post, as well as from the link you posted it appears the sign is there. So for all intents and purposes, and according to the vehicle code, your notice was properly given and your citation is legit. In addition and no matter how faded, the arrow markings are there as well. The same applies for the left most lane, where as the two lane markers are sufficient notice, however the sign would be the icing on the cake there.

    Sorry, the way I see the MUTCD is it requires compliance with the design, color, size of OTCDs but when it comes to placement, you simply could not dictate a strict and specific standard and one that must be complied with each and every time. I am not one who believes that the MUTCD should override or add regulations when in fact those regulations are and should be decided by the state legislature. While there are sections and procedures in the MUTCD that are indeed regulatory and/or statutory requirements, this certainly is not it!

    Of course don't let my opinion stop you from contesting it, and more power to you if you can get the judge to agree with you. But to suggest that you have a valid case, I'd be lying to you to tell you "yes you have a case".

    Quote Quoting Jessie Contreras
    View Post
    My approach to the intersection goes under a freeway that I was attempting to avoid entering.
    Sorry, but why would that dictate that you had to be in the center lane or that you could not be in the right most lane?

    Quote Quoting Jessie Contreras
    View Post
    This intersection is fed by 4 through lanes upstream that become mandatory turn lanes, with only one through lane. The right most lane reduces into an on ramp lane prior to the intersection.
    That's not an accurate description. University Parkway is a 3 lane roadway, which upon approach to the intersection -prior to going under the bridge, the #3/rightmost lane becomes a mandatory right turn lane (feeding the N/B 215) which prohibits traffic from coming across the intersection and so University is now down to 2 lanes but shortly thereafter, the #1 lane splits into 2 lanes both of which become the left turn lanes of concern here, and the center lanes goes through the intersection and onto the second intersection while continuing to be a straight through lane.

    So while the intersection is in fact fed by 4 lanes, one of those lanes is a mandatory right turn lane and that leaves you with 2 other lanes one of which splits into 2 lanes for a total of 3. But never 4!

    Quote Quoting Jessie Contreras
    View Post
    1) The upstream lanes have not been signed with post mounted R3-7 signs giving advanced warning of the turn requirement (there are pavement markings but this is a heavily congested route with lots of queuing)
    1) Where do you get that it must be "post mounted"?
    2) the requirement under the VC (for the center lane which you were in) is for "a sign" and it is there. The advance warning is provided several times prior... Twice by way of pavement markings (arrows), once by way of "FWY ONLY" pavement marking prior to the #1 lane splitting as I described above. And yet another time by way of "FWY ONLY" pavement markings farther back. And in all honesty, I am not impressed by your "lots of queuing" at 10:00am. Unless you can justify that to the court with some sort of official traffic report showing high traffic volume at that time, there is no reason why you could not see the pavement markings but even if you didn't, there is no requirement for an advance warning in the vehicle code.

    Quote Quoting Jessie Contreras
    View Post
    2) The green general info sign indicating the direction of the interstate and the interstate shield, with one white arrow, are mounted over the left most lane only, on the bridge, just prior to the intersection. (I lived in this area decades before and the intersection was just a one lane turn with the same general info sign mounted over that one lane)
    Green signs are guide/advisory signs... They would have little to do with regulatory signs and prohibited or required movements!

    Quote Quoting Jessie Contreras
    View Post
    3) There is a large interstate shield painted on the bridge to the right, facing traffic, that is contradictory to the green general info sign. (added confusion)
    WOW... Seriously? You aren't this easily confused are you really? That isn't even an advisory sign... It clearly marks the bridge as being

    Quote Quoting Jessie Contreras
    View Post
    4) The white painted markings indicating where a lane should be for most of the approach (80%) to the intersection have been so heavily traveled, they are literally non-existent, gone. You can not tell what lane you are in, or how many lanes there are. Very poorly maintained.
    You should contact Caltrans' District 8 and request that they get that taken care of. Tell them you've already gotten in trouble for it.

    Quote Quoting Jessie Contreras
    View Post
    5) The green arrow on the signal light is functioning at about 15 to 20% of it's capacity.
    That probably relates to metering off of the Fwy entrance ramp too but at 10:00 in the AM? Let me buy into that for a minute... Let us assume that the left turn lanes were congested, one would assume you would have switched over to the right lane and continued straight through the intersection in a legal manner, so why didn't you?

  5. #5

    Default Re: Improper Turn at an Intersection, Lane Markings So Worn They Cannot Be Seen

    Considering your familiarity with the intersection, it'll be pretty obvious to the judge that you just wanted to avoid having to wait in the slow-moving right hand lane, so even if you convince him of your non-compliant signage theory, he could still decide against you. Or he might be sympathetic. I'm on your side, though, I can't figure out why that middle lane is left-turn only, considering it continues on the other side of the intersection. It makes no sense to me.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    LA LA Land
    Posts
    9,170

    Default Re: Improper Turn at an Intersection, Lane Markings So Worn They Cannot Be Seen

    Quote Quoting dustyCrockett
    View Post
    Considering your familiarity with the intersection, it'll be pretty obvious to the judge that you just wanted to avoid having to wait in the slow-moving right hand lane, so even if you convince him of your non-compliant signage theory, he could still decide against you.
    I agree with the general meaning of your statement, that the OP seems fairly familiar with the intersection (and hopefully the address on his license (and hence the address on his citation) is not four blocks away) and how this may work against him before the court, but I disagree that the right hand lane is the slow moving lane... My guess is that any congestion would clearly be in the left turn lanes which is further confirmed by some statements the OP made. For one, the right lane opens up into two lanes past the intersection, and you're not likely to see much of a back up in that flow.

    Quote Quoting dustyCrockett
    View Post
    I can't figure out why that middle lane is left-turn only, considering it continues on the other side of the intersection. It makes no sense to me.
    Simply to allow those two lanes to feed the freeway during rush hour times. If straight through traffic was allowed from the middle lane, you would have a mix of vehicles driving through there. With it being an exclusive left turn lane, it will reduce gridlock in the previous intersection before passing under the bridge.

    Those are my guesses.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Improper Turn at an Intersection, Lane Markings So Worn They Cannot Be Seen

    "That Guy"
    I would like to thank you for a thoughtful and reasonably well executed (first) response to my query. That took a bit of time to lay out and I want you to know it is appreciated.
    I never thought I would receive a response at that level, let alone from someone who would quote from the MUTCD.
    My purpose here is not to commiserate with OP's or complain about law enforcement as I have seen in other posts. If I blew, it I blew it, and I will take my lumps. However, it is in my nature to try and understand my mistakes so as not to repeat them AND to make sure that BOTH sides are playing by the rules. I have been as forthcoming as possible (while protecting my privacy) in this forum, not only for my own education but also to help other readers interested in this topic. I do admit to making a couple of errors in my initial post (# of lanes for one) and would like to correct and expand on a couple of those points I erred on.
    Not that this is all that important, but there has been some speculation (pontification) on the intentions of my lane choice so I will start there.

    I USED to live in this area approximately 20 years ago (yes, I have a completely different zip code now) when it was a 3 way stop at both intersections. Just prior to my moving away, signal lights were installed with a single left turn lane feeding the freeway and 2 straight through lanes (as Dusty Crockett noted). I have gleaned from friends that Cal-Trans changed the lane configuration about 7 or 8 years ago to the current configuration. So my "instinct" to travel straight through properly, was to (incorrectly) choose what appeared to be the center lane. (that last sentence may sound like I just incriminated myself, but I want to be as truthful as possible here and I honestly feel there are multiple failures of the TCD's and their application that led to my alleged infraction. That is what I wish to explore in this forum.) About 4 years ago a Wal*Mart and a Lowe's were built (respectively) behind the Jack-in-the-Box that is shown on the same corner as where my alleged infraction occurred. I can only guess that the reason for the change was because the two lanes allowed travelers through the intersection I was cited in, and then people would attempt to turn right causing both lanes to gridlock. By changing the lanes to the current configuration, one lane travels through allowing someone not intending to go to Wal*Mart or Lowe's to bypass the right lane and continue on. As to the "queuing" that occurs throughout the day, that comes from Cal-State California which is about a mile or so in the opposite direction I was traveling.
    My second error was in how I described the green arrow signal light stating that it was operating at "15 to 20% capacity" I should have indicated I was referring to it's luminosity, not the traffic flow it was allowing. Sorry.
    The next thing that got me was I misread the MUTCD and believed that a sign should have been posted PRIOR to my approaching the intersection.
    Here's what I read:
    "Page 62
    Guidance:
    03 When Intersection Lane Control signs are mounted overhead, each sign should be placed over the lane or a
    projection of the lane to which it applies.
    04 On signalized approaches where through lanes that become mandatory turn lanes, multiple-lane turns that
    include shared lanes for through and turning movements, or other lane-use regulations are present that would be
    unexpected by unfamiliar road users, overhead lane control signs should be installed at the signalized location
    over the appropriate lanes or projections thereof and in advance of the intersection over the appropriate lanes.
    05 Where overhead mounting on the approach is impractical for the advance and/or intersection lane-use signs,
    one of the following alternatives should be employed:
    A. At locations where through lanes become mandatory turn lanes, a mandatory movement lane control
    (R3-7) sign should be post-mounted on the left-hand side of the roadway where a through lane is
    becoming a mandatory left-turn lane on a one-way street or where a median of sufficient width for
    the signs is available, or on the right-hand side of the roadway where a through lane is becoming a
    mandatory right-turn lane.
    B. At locations where a through lane is becoming a mandatory left-turn lane on a two-way street where a
    median of sufficient width for the signs is not available, and at locations where multiple-lane turns that
    include shared lanes for through and turning movements are present, an Advance Intersection Lane
    Control (R3-8 series) sign should be post-mounted in a prominent location in advance of the intersection,
    and consideration should be given to the use of an oversized version in accordance with Table 2B-1.
    Section 2B.20 Mandatory Movement Lane Control Signs (R3-5, R3-5a, R3-7, and R3-20)"

    However, after reading the following.....

    Standard:
    01 If used, the Mandatory Movement Lane Control (R3-5, R3-5a, and R3-7) sign (see Figure 2B-4) shall
    indicate only the single vehicle movement that is required from the lane. If used, the Mandatory Movement
    Lane Control sign shall be located in advance of the intersection, such as near the upstream end of the
    mandatory movement lane, and /or at the intersection where the regulation applies.

    The operative word here being "OR"! As far as this goes, the signal mounted sign is all that is required, right?

    My one beef is how do you enforce a "mandatory turn lane" when the "lane" does not exist?
    As I stated before, the Google pic from over a year ago is showing a generous amount of white longitudinal paint in both lanes. (yes, the turn arrows are still legible at this time).

    One of the FIRST things mentioned in the MUTCD is:

    Section 1A.05 Maintenance of Traffic Control Devices
    Guidance:
    01 Functional maintenance of traffic control devices should be used to determine if certain devices need to be
    changed to meet current traffic conditions.
    02 Physical maintenance of traffic control devices should be performed to retain the legibility and visibility of
    the device, and to retain the proper functioning of the device.
    Support:
    03 Clean, legible, properly mounted devices in good working condition command the respect of road users.

    And I would REALLY like your take on this.

    Lastly, I would like to know what your thought was on the "contradictory Interstate shield" I mentioned. (You clipped your comment)
    The reason I mentioned it was because I had read the following and believe it qualifies:
    1A.08
    Page 4 2009 Edition - Revision 1
    Sect. 1A.08 to 1A.10 May 2012
    Standard:
    07 Signs and other devices that do not have any traffic control purpose that are placed within the highway
    right-of-way shall not be located where they will interfere with, or detract from, traffic control devices.
    Guidance:
    08 Any unauthorized traffic control device or other sign or message placed on the highway right-of-way by a
    private organization or individual constitutes a public nuisance and should be removed. All unofficial or nonessential
    traffic control devices, signs, or messages should be removed.

    As you can see I am attempting to formulate an argument that will show an improperly maintained and confusing approach, which led to my cite.
    That's why I also mentioned the placement and configuration of the guide sign.

    Once again, I wish to thank you for your response.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2

    Default Re: Improper Turn at an Intersection, Lane Markings So Worn They Cannot Be Seen

    dude if their isnt any lines in the street, how can they say that you were in the center lane EVEN IF YOU WERE?
    their isnt any separation of th two so if the lane dont exist then the sign in the intersection aint VALID. you could say that since their aint no separation that its just as reasonalble to expact the right lane to turn left too. you knowwhat imean? plus, all that stuff "that guy" says about the warning arrows and freeway only lanes...i dont see NONE of that stuff from the right lane ALL THE WAY BACK!
    you got winner dude
    i got one of these too, but their was graffittiall over the sign im goint to fight it.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Parking Violations: Parking in a Fire Lane With Confusing Markings
    By Red1 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-07-2012, 08:48 AM
  2. Traffic Lane Violations: Unsafe Left Turn (CVC 22107): Crossed Lane in a Dual-Left Turn Lane
    By bitfoo in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-22-2011, 07:26 PM
  3. Traffic Lane Violations: Improper Lane Change or Straddling Lane with Non-Injury Accident
    By TnWilliams in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-10-2011, 08:07 PM
  4. Traffic Lane Violations: Improper Turn from Wrong Lane
    By eaglecharter in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-25-2009, 11:33 AM
  5. Traffic Lane Violations: Intersection With No Markings
    By BigD_WV in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-01-2008, 11:37 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources