My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: California
I received ticket after exiting from a private driveway (Costco parking lot) onto a private road (maintained as part of a large shopping center). At the exit from the driveway there was a R1-1 ("STOP") sign posted and below it, on the same pole, was a small R41 ("RIGHT TURN ONLY") sign posted. Through a Public Records request from the city, I received copies of plot plans for a mall update that were approved in August 2008 ... which were implemented the following year. This particular driveway exit was included in these plans. It shows the removal of an exisiting R1-1 sign from a light pole and an installation of a new R1-1 sign on it's own pole. It also calls for the re-striping of the pavement with "STOP" and the removal of any conflicting striping. No mention of installing a R41 sign.
In doing research, I found that the old R41 (CA) sign was originally deleted in the 2003 MUTCD which was effective May 20, 2004 and replaced with the R3-5 (R) graphic arrow sign. Since plans approved in 2008 make no mention of installing a mandatory lane control sign it was obviously placed there sometime after that. And, additional Public Records requests for changed to signing at this location resulted in "No records found". Therefore, it would be my conclusion that this is not a valid traffic control sign. Also, further research showed that "No items other than retroreflective strips or official traffic control signs shall be mounted on the fronts or backs of STOP or YIELD signs supports." (MUTCD 2B.10.06) Since this was not a "official traffic control sign" at the time it was mounted ... it is not in compliance with this section.
I was cited under: 21461. (a) It is unlawful for a driver of a vehicle 1. 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, 2. or to fail to obey a device erected or maintained by lawful authority of a public body or official.
Is it a valid argument that this sign was not and is not "regulatory" as defined in the MUTCD and therefore is not enforceable? And that is ignoring the fact that it was not installed or maintained by "lawful authority of a public body or official". Any additional strength in pursuing (arguing) that this was an exit from a private driveway onto a private road?
I received ticket after exiting from a private driveway (Costco parking lot) onto a private road (maintained as part of a large shopping center). At the exit from the driveway there was a R1-1 ("STOP") sign posted and below it, on the same pole, was a small R41 ("RIGHT TURN ONLY") sign posted. Through a Public Records request from the city, I received copies of plot plans for a mall update that were approved in August 2008 ... which were implemented the following year. This particular driveway exit was included in these plans. It shows the removal of an exisiting R1-1 sign from a light pole and an installation of a new R1-1 sign on it's own pole. It also calls for the re-striping of the pavement with "STOP" and the removal of any conflicting striping. No mention of installing a R41 sign.
In doing research, I found that the old R41 (CA) sign was originally deleted in the 2003 MUTCD which was effective May 20, 2004 and replaced with the R3-5 (R) graphic arrow sign. Since plans approved in 2008 make no mention of installing a mandatory lane control sign it was obviously placed there sometime after that. And, additional Public Records requests for changed to signing at this location resulted in "No records found". Therefore, it would be my conclusion that this is not a valid traffic control sign. Also, further research showed that "No items other than retroreflective strips or official traffic control signs shall be mounted on the fronts or backs of STOP or YIELD signs supports." (MUTCD 2B.10.06) Since this was not a "official traffic control sign" at the time it was mounted ... it is not in compliance with this section.
I was cited under: 21461. (a) It is unlawful for a driver of a vehicle 1. 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, 2. or to fail to obey a device erected or maintained by lawful authority of a public body or official.
Is it a valid argument that this sign was not and is not "regulatory" as defined in the MUTCD and therefore is not enforceable? And that is ignoring the fact that it was not installed or maintained by "lawful authority of a public body or official". Any additional strength in pursuing (arguing) that this was an exit from a private driveway onto a private road?
Traffic Lights, Signs and Controls: CVC 21461a - "Right Turn Only" - Unauthorized Sign
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire