My question pertains to traffic tickets in the state of: California
This subject has come up several times in various threads and it usually pollutes the thread with irrelevant information so I figured I would start a new one where we can discuss this.
These are just some thoughts of mine. I am curious what everyone's opinion is.
21400.(a) (1) The Department of Transportation shall, after consultation with local agencies and public hearings, adopt rules and regulations prescribing uniform standards and specifications for all official traffic control devices placed pursuant to this code, including, but not limited to, stop signs, yield right-of-way signs, speed restriction signs, railroad warning approach signs, street name signs, lines and markings on the roadway, and stock crossing signs placed pursuant to Section 21364.
Per vehicle code section 21400 (a) (1), the Department of Transportation has been assigned the authority to adopt the rules and regulations which have been placed pursuant to the Vehicle Code.
In the CA MUTCD document, on the very first page, it reads:
The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (California MUTCD) is published by the State of California,
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and is issued to adopt uniform standards and specifications for all official traffic
control devices, in accordance with Section 21400 of the California Vehicle Code.
So for all extensive purposes this manual is the set of rules and regulations the DOT has adopted.
I think most would agree on this.
What we are concerned with in this thread however is how these standards affect the applicability and validity of specific vehicle code violations.
For example, Lets say The City of San Jose installs a stop sign that is both circular in shape and purple in background color but still contains the word "STOP" in white writing. Someone then runs the stop sign and is cited as violating 22450
22450. (a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop at a limit line, if marked, otherwise before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection.
If there is no limit line or crosswalk, the driver shall stop at the entrance to the intersecting roadway.
Would the driver have a valid defense in court if he proved that the sign was not in compliance the current CA MUTCD?
I personally believe that yes he would but I'm not sure I've been able to convince myself why.
21401.
(a) Except as provided in Section 21374, only those official traffic control devices that conform to the uniform standards and specifications promulgated by the Department of Transportation shall be placed upon a street or highway.
The traffic control device that was placed did not conform to the the uniform standards and specifications. Therefore that particular traffic control device was in violation of Veh 21401. But I'm not so sure this could be used as a defense because the code is worded almost to ensue that in this situation The City of San Jose is in violation of the vehicle code for installing such a sign.
Perhaps a more valid argument would be that the DOT has established what a "stop sign" is. This is shown in their manual and its supplements. They have been given the authority the make this definition by 21400. Therefore, a circular purple sign that says STOP isn't a "stop sign". Since what was at the intersection wasn't a "stop sign" the driver did not violate the vehicle code.
What do you guys think?
What would be your defense if you received this citation? Assume the judge is so stupid he/she doesn't know what a stop sign is supposed to look like according to CA MUTCD. (as is the case with other types of signs)
This subject has come up several times in various threads and it usually pollutes the thread with irrelevant information so I figured I would start a new one where we can discuss this.
These are just some thoughts of mine. I am curious what everyone's opinion is.
Quote:
21400.(a) (1) The Department of Transportation shall, after consultation with local agencies and public hearings, adopt rules and regulations prescribing uniform standards and specifications for all official traffic control devices placed pursuant to this code, including, but not limited to, stop signs, yield right-of-way signs, speed restriction signs, railroad warning approach signs, street name signs, lines and markings on the roadway, and stock crossing signs placed pursuant to Section 21364.
Per vehicle code section 21400 (a) (1), the Department of Transportation has been assigned the authority to adopt the rules and regulations which have been placed pursuant to the Vehicle Code.
In the CA MUTCD document, on the very first page, it reads:
Quote:
The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (California MUTCD) is published by the State of California,
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and is issued to adopt uniform standards and specifications for all official traffic
control devices, in accordance with Section 21400 of the California Vehicle Code.
I think most would agree on this.
What we are concerned with in this thread however is how these standards affect the applicability and validity of specific vehicle code violations.
For example, Lets say The City of San Jose installs a stop sign that is both circular in shape and purple in background color but still contains the word "STOP" in white writing. Someone then runs the stop sign and is cited as violating 22450
Quote:
22450. (a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop at a limit line, if marked, otherwise before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection.
If there is no limit line or crosswalk, the driver shall stop at the entrance to the intersecting roadway.
I personally believe that yes he would but I'm not sure I've been able to convince myself why.
Quote:
21401.
(a) Except as provided in Section 21374, only those official traffic control devices that conform to the uniform standards and specifications promulgated by the Department of Transportation shall be placed upon a street or highway.
Perhaps a more valid argument would be that the DOT has established what a "stop sign" is. This is shown in their manual and its supplements. They have been given the authority the make this definition by 21400. Therefore, a circular purple sign that says STOP isn't a "stop sign". Since what was at the intersection wasn't a "stop sign" the driver did not violate the vehicle code.
What do you guys think?
What would be your defense if you received this citation? Assume the judge is so stupid he/she doesn't know what a stop sign is supposed to look like according to CA MUTCD. (as is the case with other types of signs)
How California Mutcd Applies to Enforecment of the Vehicle Code in California
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire