DescentBB

I was driving south bound on 12th street, which is a one way street. It has about 5 lanes. The far left lane is closed to traffic, and it is for northbound commuter train only, the second lane from the left is shared by auto traffic and south bound train traffic. I approached E Street in this left lane, preparing to make a left hand turn across the train tracks, when a north bound train approached and caused the left turn signal to turn yellow and then red as I was entering the intersection. I waited until it passed then made my left hand turn after the train went by. The other lights started to turn yellow as I was stuck in the intersection. According to my understanding, a vehicle making a left hand turn in an intersection that turns yellow and red must wait for oncoming traffic to pass before exiting the intersection. The policeman that was directly behind my truck decided to pull me over and cite me for running a red turn light. I am wondering if I should pay the $124.00 fine and attend traffic school, or attempt to fight this.

Does anyone know if you can still attend traffic school after losing a challenge of the infraction? The money isn't the big thing, it's the fact that I would have to take time out for work one way or another. Either way, I much prefer the cheapest solution in the long run, which is, having no points go on my record to really fubar my insurance.

I always thought that if you were in the intersection before the light changed, and then it changed, you had the right to complete your turn.

I've done this in front of cops before and never have been ticketed.

wow, coincidentally i was just thinking about this same traffic rule yesterday while being driven around.

if you are already ON the traffic intersection when the arrow starts to turn amber or red then you are fine. you are supposed to wait until the opposing traffic stops and then you go across on the red (since you are already in the middle of the intersection).

if you enter the intersection on the amber/red arrow, then you are fine.

so the cop is saying that you ENTERED the intersection when it was amber/red. but you're saying that it was green (or if amber, you didn't have time to stop, so it's still legal) when you entered.

correct?

I may have entered it just as it was turning yellow, or red. I can't remember too well. Thinking how it would be his word against mine, I'd say I would lose the fight. But if I did lose the fight, would I still have the option of attending traffic school?

well if you entered while it was red then yeah, you ran a red light. that's bad.

don't know about traffic school sorry (different country).

I'm inclined to think that I am guilty of the infraction. It's not hard to make that mistake when trying to turn and a train is coming your way and you enter the intersection expecting to be able to go once it passes.

That's not the problem. I pulled over as soon as the cop lit up and beeped his siren briefly. I'm not one of those people you see on Wildest Police Videos lol. After all, the infraction is very inexpensive according to California traffic code.

Traffic school is my best option I believe.

There should be a phone number on the ticket you recived. You could best direct that question to them. Unless someone on here from your state knows.

I'd fight it for the chance that you dont have to pay anything or attend traffic school. It depends how nice the cops are in your area.

I say give it a fight and tell them what happened. However, dont get passive and automatically declare yourself guilty just because some cop said so. Tell what happened and why you though it was right, and dont be a sissy while telling your story and surrendering yourself (You think lawyers do that for their defendants?). Only you know what you really did. So give a compelling yet truthfull account, and dont feel intimidated just because a cop threw the book at you. If you are going to give a whinny-whiny-I-surrender talk like you did here you will definately loose.

Grow a pair and fight it. What that guy ^^^ said.

I will fight it only if I have the option of going to traffic school if I lose. Otherwise, $124 is a bargain to keep my insurance record clean.

Get a lawyer and fight it. Most times you can get out of the ticket.

#1 get a lawyer and fight it
#2 In Florida, you can go to court on a ticket and still get traffic school if you lose, but in some states they will only let you opt for traffic school if you don't take it to a trial stage.

You can fight it yourself, w/o a lawyer, but then you have to appear personally, and probably won't get treated as good as w/ a lawyer (some States actually go easier if a lawyer isn't involved...from my recollection, CA is NOT one of them. They throw the book at you for having the nerve to not just roll over and pay) Of course if you're not cocky, just genuinely "not understanding the problem I thought I was doing the right thing", the judge often will give you traffic school in addition to the fine anyway And no points, always a plus

i don't understand. if he broke the traffic law, then why are you guys suggesting he fight it?
if he broke the law, he's gonna have to LIE about it to get outof it, no?

Because we have this thing called a 'presumption of innocence'....and something else called 'reasonable doubt'.

Basically he can get his penalty reduced if he goes to the trouble of fighting it, even if he loses.

Besides, it actually sounds like he might have been in the right here. The law is that if you're in the intersection when the light changes to red, you're allowed to turn.

And it sounds like there's some gray area here, so IMO challenging the citation is valid, not a cynical move on his part to reduce his penalty.

presumption of innocence? why would a court be presuming you are innocent when even you yourself do not believe it to be the case. as i said, you would have to lie for the court to be presuming you are innocent.

taking a citation to court when you are confident that you are in the wrong clogs up the court system.

Did you ever think roid, that the reason we are suggesting him to fight it, is mayby because he DIDNT break the law?

Technically, you're not supposed to be *in* the intersection at all, you're supposed to stop on the white line at the intersection, and go when there's room. That's just mostly ignored, by people and pi..police.

...At intersections with a red stop arrow, you're right Testi, however if he entered the intersection legally (ie: the light was green), and an unsafe condition caused him to stop...should he stay stopped? Turn when it is safe? Back up out of the intersection? To me, that's a gray area. I would presume he should continue when it is safe. But I'm not sure.

...At intersections with a green turn arrow but no red stop arrow (ie, green arrow turns to green light), it is legal to enter the intersection, and turn when it is safe, EVEN IF THE LIGHT TURNS RED, cross traffic is obliged to yield the right of way to you before they may go.

Roid wrote:why would a court be presuming you are innocent?

It's a judicial fiction which we Americans cling to In fact, it's one of the rights we fought for in 1776.

Besides, 'going to court' on a ticket is usually a fast painless in-and-out procedure where you deal with an appointed officer of the court such as a magistrate, rather than with a judge, unless you take it to a jury, in which case the courts WILL throw the book at you because you just wasted their time. It's an effective deterrent, and a workable system.

I know I'd fight this ticket if I got it.

Just for the record: I have gotten 2 tickets in the last year, to which I pleaded "no contest" and took traffic school as I was undoubtedly in the wrong in both instances. I drive 20-30k miles per year for work...so I suppose it was inevitable, but the illegal u-turn was just stupidity. I didn't even do it on purpose. Flat didn't see the sign in front of my face.

(b) A driver facing a green arrow signal, shown alone or in combination with another indication, shall enter the intersection only to make the movement indicated by that green arrow or any other movement that is permitted by other indications shown at the same time. A driver facing a left green arrow may also make a U-turn unless prohibited by a sign. A driver shall yield the right-of-way to other traffic and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk.

"shall enter the intersection only to make the movement indicated by that green arrow "

Cailfornia is bad on this cause intersections were getting tied up. Least when I was stationed there they popped people for this a lot

Linky http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21451.htm


Here is a link to the page before it with more rules... Was it a two lane turn there it says you can go 200ft into I think

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocd11c2a3.htm

red as I was entering the intersection..... The policeman that was directly behind my truck decided to pull me over and cite me for running a red turn light.

Sounds about right, get the online traffic class...

At most, if I decide it's in my best interest to attend traffic school and get it behind me, then I'm only looking at a $100 fine, a $24 court fee, and whatever the cost of the traffic school is. This will avoid any points on my record and insurance fee hikes. In the long run its the cheapest surefire way out.

On the other hand, I plan on returning to that very intersection, parking someplace to safely view it, and wait for a train to pass by and watch the lights again. Perhaps I missed something the first time I was thru there. If it looks like I could have legally been in the intersection when the train first approached, maybe getting a traffic lawyer isn't such a bad idea.

Don't bother fighting. You will lose. Cop's word = gold

They will lie, too. It doesn't matter what happened or you think happened. He will say you went into the intersection when it was red.

Go to traffic school.

It happens where when a train is about to enter your intersection, the lights can get goofy cus it didnt anticipate the trigger that was tripped about a half mile from the intersection. That happens often where I live as there is a major road that runs parallel with the train tracks. The lights may turn green, but when a train is comming by it will quickly switch back to stop the traffic.

Birdseye wrote:Don't bother fighting. You will lose. Cop's word = gold

They will lie, too. It doesn't matter what happened or you think happened. He will say you went into the intersection when it was red.

Go to traffic school.

Cops are incapable of mistakes, huh?

Top Wop wrote: Cops are incapable of mistakes, huh?

Yep. Unless yous gots lots of money and a good lawyer. Good luck otherwise.

Lobber wrote:I may have entered it just as it was turning yellow, or red. I can't remember too well. Thinking how it would be his word against mine, I'd say I would lose the fight. But if I did lose the fight, would I still have the option of attending traffic school?

Psst! Patrol cars have video cameras mounted on the dash. Its not just your word against his.

That is true. It is also true that those cameras do not activate until the lights and sirens come on, and those didn't go on until we both made the left hand turn away from the intersection and he pulled me over.

Lobber wrote:That is true. It is also true that those cameras do not activate until the lights and sirens come on, and those didn't go on until we both made the left hand turn away from the intersection and he pulled me over.

Did you check to see if there was a camera at that intersection? It could be on tape via that as well.

I can check next time I visit Sacramento.

WarAdvocat wrote:

Roid wrote:why would a court be presuming you are innocent?

It's a judicial fiction which we Americans cling to In fact, it's one of the rights we fought for in 1776.

i asked why the court would be assuming innocence if THE DEFENDANT doesn't even assume innocence.

is this purposeful mistaking and misquoting of what i'm saying your way of trying to piss me off?

...

happy thoughts happy thoughts.

I like your pictures roid, especially the peenies sticking out behind the titties!

On this particular matter, I would pay the hunderd bucks and go home. If you wanted to get back at them you could go to the police station, ask to use they bathroom, and then take one on the toilet seat.

Man that would be fun. And it'd smell good too.

If I understand this correctly, the light changed to amber or red after you were physically in the intersection?

Now... if you were stuck in the middle of the intersection when the train was goin by (god forbid you try to win a battle against a train), and the light changed to red.. you'd be a fool to just sit there and waited for the light to turn green again if oncoming traffic started to bear down on you.

I wonder if this cop tickets highway tractors (Semis) for the same reason.

Yes, I believe that is what happened.

Got my first court date: November 17th.

The bail (fine) for the infraction is NOT $100, but $351! That website lied to me!

So anyways, I am going to go ahead and fight it. I found out from the clerk that even if I lose the case, I can still take traffic school and avoid the points, but not the fees.

Next update, a couple weeks.

Talk to one of them lawyers that gives free consultations.

Good luck!

I hope you win, but don't count on it. Like Birdseye said, cops usually don't lose. A friend of mine got a speeding ticket once for accelerating 100 yards before the speed limited changed to 55 from 35. He was nailed at 45 AFTER the sign and cited for speeding. He fought it and lost.

Fight it, lose, go to traffic school. Thus is the cycle of those ticketed in California... Just hope he doesn't respond to the challenge. If they don't hear from him, the victory defaults to you.

Went to my arraignment today, pleaded NOT GUILTY to "Crossing the limit line on a red" and got a trial date on December 22.

More to come a month from now.

I looked at your scan at the top and thought:

Why do all cops have chicken-scratch for handwriting? I had a ticket once and could not make out at all what he wrote on it.

CONCLUSION:

I went to my court date today, and guess what, all the wondering, all the thinking about how I was going to argue my case, all the worrying about forgetting to take pictures of the street corners and intersection, and lacking a write up of a diagram of what all happened, was for naught.

The officer failed to show.

I won by default. Looks like I won't have to worry about any $381 dollar fine or traffic school or anything.

I did learn alot by listening to the other cases that were heard, especially by one of a fellow who was driving 83 mph in the number one lane on a freeway, and was spotted by a traffic enforcement plane going the other way. Since he appeared to be moving so much faster than the rest of traffic, it caught their attention and he was convicted of speeding, even though he claimed it was "the other car that sped past me." Bottom line: If you're going to speed, don't make yourself stand out by going excessively faster than the rest of traffic.

Other cases heard were all lost by the defendants: including a man who wore a pauncho and claimed he had his seat belt on underneath the pauncho and the movement of putting on the seat belt seen by the officer was really him pulling it out from under the pauncho. A woman was convicted of doing a "California Stop" at a stop sign. A latino fellow was convicted of crossing a solid white line on an offramp from a turning lane to a middle lane.

In every single case it all boiled down to the officers' word against the defendants' word, and in every case the defendant lost. Every time. The only people who won were myself, and a lady who was caught driving alone in an HOV lane. We were both given "Christmas" Presents by the officers by their lack of presence in the court room. GET IT? HAHAHA

I don't celebrate christmas, but I don't mind winning a case by default either. Whoopie.