U-Turn Violation

[Tommy4]

Hello folks and thanks in advance for any input you may have regarding this situation. I have 2 questions.

Last night I received a citation for a "prohibited and or inproper turn", using RCW 46.61.290/295:

290-Doesn't really adress u-turn situations. It adresses right and left turns
using intersections, left turn lanes and the freedom for local municipalities
to mark accordingly.

295-"(1) The driver of any vehicle shall not turn such vehicle so as to proceed in the opposite direction unless such movement can be made in safety and without interfering with other traffic".

(2) No vehicle shall be turned so as to proceed in the opposite direction upon any curve, or upon the approach to or near the crest of a grade, where such vehicle cannot be seen by the driver of any other vehicle approaching from either direction within five hundred feet.
-----------------------------------------------------

As for (1), there was absolutely NO oncoming traffic and same direction traffic was close to a block behind me. I was safe. And as per (2) there was no curve, no grade or crest. All flat and open with unubstructed view.

There are also no markings whatsoever indicating it is illegal to make a U-turn at that spot.

1) This seems like a no brainer but would I have to worry about bruising an ego or is this not a recommended argument?

2) On a citation that has a space for Defendants signature, isn't the defendant supposed to sign it? Can the officer write "copy served" on that line and leave it at that?

Thanks again for any input and I look forward to learning and hopefully contributing meaningfully in the future.

[blewis]

I would suggest submitting a discovery request to see what's in the officer's sworn statement. That might give you a clue as to WHY you were even given the citation. Oh, the requirement to have a defendant "sign" the citation was eliminated about three years ago.

Barry

[Tommy4]

Thanks Barry. Read this a few days ago on the fly & didn't have time to respond.
If I may ask, why did they discard the need for defendants signature? Do you know on what grounds? Just curious

[blewis]

As far as the underlying reason for removing the signature requirement, I have no idea. You can read the bill for yourself. You'll see that ALL references to a defendant's signature have simply been removed.

Barry