Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 39
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    15

    Default No Left Turn Sign Does Not Appear to Comply with MUTCD

    Fact 1: One individual No Left Turn sign is mounted on the right side of the road at a T intersection within a residential area.

    MUTCD reads:

    Figure 2B-4 Movement Prohibition and Lane Control Signs and Plaques

    If No Left Turn (R3-2) signs (see Figure 2B-4) are used, at least one should be placed over the roadway, at the far left-hand corner of the intersection, on a median, or in conjunction with the STOP sign or YIELD sign located on the near right-hand corner.

    Question: Would a ticket likely be thrown out raising this as a defense?

    Fact 2: No Left Turn Sign has a qualifying sign below it at a height of 6 feet which reads:

    4-6 PM Except Weekends & Holidays

    MUTCD requires signage to be mounted at a minimum of 7 feet for residential areas under Illustration C:

    https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r...s/fig2a_02.gif

    Question: Are the signs required to be posted at a minimum height starting with the lowest sign or only the primary sign?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    18,826

    Default Re: No Left Turn Sign Does Not Appear to Comply with MUTCD

    First, you have to tell us what state you are in.
    Then say what you were charged with.


    Most states don't make failure to comply with MUTCD exculpatory for violations.

    That page you linked only gives "examples" not requirements.

    You've not given enough information to say if the sign complies or not. The minimum height in some cases is five feet. It's seven feet in other cases.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    16,668

    Default Re: No Left Turn Sign Does Not Appear to Comply with MUTCD

    It would also help if you give us the street location or a link to google street view for that location so we can see what the sign placement actually looks like.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    168

    Default Re: No Left Turn Sign Does Not Appear to Comply with MUTCD

    Quote Quoting flyingron
    View Post
    Most states don't make failure to comply with MUTCD exculpatory for violations.
    Really? Please show why you think that judges in most states can enforce compliance to pink stop signs, or any sign that does not comply with the MUTCD.

    CA has an agreement with the DOT to comply. Therefore it is a requirement and not a choice.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,269

    Default Re: No Left Turn Sign Does Not Appear to Comply with MUTCD

    It is because there are few statutes that mandate that an offense cannot be charged if the associated signage does not comply with California MUTCD regulations. While it is generally a valid argument that can be made at court, there are few statutes that require such conformity as an element of the offense.

    The point being, the CVC does not always specify that a sign must meet certain requirements before the offense may be charged. One can always make that argument, and may be capable of making it successfully.

    Now, what the code and the MUTCD in the OP's state might require is the more telling question.
    **********
    Retired Cal Cop Sergeant & Teacher

    Seek justice,
    Love mercy,
    Walk humbly with your God

    -- Courageous, by Casting Crowns ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkM-gDcmJeM

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    18,826

    Default Re: No Left Turn Sign Does Not Appear to Comply with MUTCD

    My statement is correct and all the ensuing drivel is immaterial until the poster comes back and explains:

    1. What state he is located in
    2. What he is charged with (or why he thinks the sign hight issue is relevant).

    You've not indicated ANY state where MUTCD unconditionally gets you out of a ticket. In every state I've lived in, it's purely a recommendation to the guys building the highways.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    164

    Default Re: No Left Turn Sign Does Not Appear to Comply with MUTCD

    Cogito, your argument is simply a "Why not try it, it might work" type basis. IF you fail to stop at a nonconforming, in your opinion, stop sign, and cause an accident or serious injury or death... well...

    Maybe your insurance company will refuse to pay on that basis. I don't think the other parties Ins. co will buy it though.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    15

    Default Re: No Left Turn Sign Does Not Appear to Comply with MUTCD

    Quote Quoting flyingron
    View Post
    First, you have to tell us what state you are in.
    Then say what you were charged with.


    Most states don't make failure to comply with MUTCD exculpatory for violations.

    That page you linked only gives "examples" not requirements.

    You've not given enough information to say if the sign complies or not. The minimum height in some cases is five feet. It's seven feet in other cases.
    Been charged with failure to obey an official traffic control device.

    The controlling statute states:

    "No provision of this Act for which official traffic-control devices are required shall be enforced against an alleged violator if at the time and place of the alleged violation an official device is not in proper position and sufficiently legible to be seen by an ordinarily observant person."

    My understanding is that proving that this threshold has not been met is indeed exculpatory insofar as the law is concerned. However, given human judgment and error maybe the MUTCD is not given its proper and due weight by most traffic court judges. This would only be known by those with relevant courtroom experience.

    Facts:

    1. Sign is not currently placed in the far left-hand corner of the intersection as required by MUTCD.
    2. Sign previously had been compliantly placed with MUTCD in the far left-hand corner of the intersection sometime in the last 2 years based on Google Maps history.
    3. MUTCD compliant sign was removed sometime in the last two years.
    3. Citation was issued AFTER MUTCD compliant signage was removed.
    4. Current signage is in the right hand corner at 6 ft height which is not in conformity with either height or placement requirements of MUTCD.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    18,826

    Default Re: No Left Turn Sign Does Not Appear to Comply with MUTCD

    Am I to understand from your statutory quote that you are in Illinois? We've been asking this since day one because every state is different.

    If you're not in Illinois, what you wrote is irrelevant.

    But even if you are, that law doesn't say "failure to comply with MUTCD is a free pass." In fact, it doesn't even say that "properly placed" is limited to accordance, but you can probably legitimately make that argument since Illinois does follow MUTCD if the non-conforming sign was errected recently.


    FWIW, the Illinois supplement to the law says:
    With the issuance of this manual, any newly installed traffic control devices should, as much
    as practical, be in conformance with the standards contained herein. Existing stocks of
    signs conforming to the previous manual may be used for replacement purposes, but shall
    be replaced with conforming signs by the target compliance dates established by the FHWA
    which are listed in the Introduction to the MUTCD.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    15

    Default Re: No Left Turn Sign Does Not Appear to Comply with MUTCD

    Quote Quoting flyingron
    View Post
    Am I to understand from your statutory quote that you are in Illinois? We've been asking this since day one because every state is different.

    If you're not in Illinois, what you wrote is irrelevant.

    But even if you are, that law doesn't say "failure to comply with MUTCD is a free pass." In fact, it doesn't even say that "properly placed" is limited to accordance, but you can probably legitimately make that argument since Illinois does follow MUTCD if the non-conforming sign was errected recently.


    FWIW, the Illinois supplement to the law says:
    With the issuance of this manual, any newly installed traffic control devices should, as much
    as practical, be in conformance with the standards contained herein. Existing stocks of
    signs conforming to the previous manual may be used for replacement purposes, but shall
    be replaced with conforming signs by the target compliance dates established by the FHWA
    which are listed in the Introduction to the MUTCD.
    I do appreciate your perspective and insight regarding the details. So that I understand your statement correctly can you clarify the following:

    "it doesn't even say that "properly placed" is limited to accordance"

    Isn't the language of the statute speaking specifically to this point?

    I think I see your point. However as a counter point, by what other measure could "properly placed" be understood?

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Lights, Signs and Traffic Controls: Violating a No Left Turn Sign in a Left Turn Lane
    By xslim12 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-28-2013, 07:13 AM
  2. Traffic Lane Violations: Detour Sign Indicated to Turn Left - Given Ticket for Improper Left Turn
    By Jose08 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-02-2012, 12:46 PM
  3. Lights, Signs and Traffic Controls: Cited for Turning Left when Right Turn Only Sign Posted - Obstructed Sign
    By jVerg in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-06-2012, 01:01 PM
  4. Lights, Signs and Traffic Controls: Disobey Traffic Control Device (Left Turn Only Sign) by Making a U Turn
    By stedi73 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-13-2010, 02:21 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources