PDA

View Full Version : Stop sign/limit line question/opinion


fullrearview
07-27-2011, 8:50 PM
So what is your definition/interpretation of a California stop?

Reason I ask, is one judge's definition is much different than what I'm sure yours and mine is. According to the judge, who we will call, "Dave," it is okay for a line of 5 cars to stop at a stop sign, as a group, then proceed through as a group. Meaning, everyone stops, but not individually at the limit line.

Dave dismissed the ticket against driver of car number five, who was stopped by CHP. Dave said, the driver stopped before he proceeded through the stop sign, as required by law, even though it was 20 yards from the limit line. Driver then proceeded through intersection at about 20 mph, not properly clearing the intersection. Mind you this is a busy intersection of two highways.

The CHP officer then stated, "I stopped just before I exited my driveway... Does that mean I get to roll through every stop sign the rest of the day?":D

Dave didn't answer and called the next case to order. Gotta hand it to CHP... Trollin' in court at its finest!

So what say you? Right or wrong?

I will say this... If he does it himself and refuses to charge someone with said infraction, I understand it. While I was patrolling with a broken windshield, I wouldn't stop anyone with a broken windshield... I'd find something else!;) However, could he be legislating from the bench?

Falconis
07-27-2011, 9:02 PM
Judge was wrong. God knows why he decided to be wrong.

Front bumper behind the limit line, full and complete stop. When I say behind, I mean within half a car length so you can clear the intersection.

fullrearview
07-27-2011, 9:14 PM
Judge was wrong. God knows why he decided to be wrong.

Front bumper behind the limit line, full and complete stop. When I say behind, I mean within half a car length so you can clear the intersection.

Exactly. By his definition, you only need to stop once the entire day.

Fjold
07-27-2011, 9:19 PM
Believe it or not in some states that is legal.

When I live in Massachusettes (1978) if you were the third car or further back in line and there was no cross traffic, you could proceed through the intersection (cautiously) without stopping.

tyrist
07-27-2011, 9:23 PM
Traffic judges are a strange group. I have seen them dismiss cases for the most absurd reasons. One Officer didn't state he was in full uniform during the stop and the judge dismissed. One Officer wore a suit without a tie and that caused 3 cases to get dismissed.

I guess it feels good to exercise your power.

TRICKSTER
07-27-2011, 9:33 PM
Traffic judges are a strange group. I have seen them dismiss cases for the most absurd reasons. One Officer didn't state he was in full uniform during the stop and the judge dismissed. One Officer wore a suit without a tie and that caused 3 cases to get dismissed.

I guess it feels good to exercise your power.


+1. I have seen some dismiss cases on a whim and others show extreme prejudice towards violators. Years ago, there was one in Walnut Creek traffic court that would find every good looking female "Not guilty" no matter what evidence the officer presented. The best one I saw was when the defendant's father appeared in place of the defendant stating that his son was unable to appear because he was in jail. The judge responded "Now how am I supposed to convict him if he isn't here".

Notorious
07-28-2011, 6:37 AM
Everything between a full stop and driving straight through the stop sign is a california roll. I pulled over a lady (using the term loosely), for doing what you guys said. She was the second car in a line and blew through the stop right behind the first car. The judge convicted.

I haven't had any bad experiences with traffic judges here. They've all been pretty straight and narrow.

Hopalong
07-28-2011, 8:08 AM
Maybe the judge is old and from Massachusetts, like me.

When I learned to drive in the 60's in Mass.

Three cars were allowed to go through a stop sign, after a complete stop.

Apparently that is not the case anymore.

When I moved to Ca. 36 years ago, I read up on the Ca. laws and realized that every car had to stop.

Seems to me that these things are spelled out, and that the judge was mistaken

http://masslawlib.blogspot.com/2011/05/can-second-and-third-cars-in-line.html

halifax
07-28-2011, 8:41 AM
Sorry, not LE but thought I'd post the CVC (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22450.htm) for us lay-people:

Stop Requirements
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 .

(b) The driver of a vehicle approaching a stop sign at a railroad grade crossing shall stop at a limit line, if marked, otherwise before crossing the first track or entrance to the railroad grade crossing.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a local authority may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution providing for the placement of a stop sign at any location on a highway under its jurisdiction where the stop sign would enhance traffic safety.

Amended Sec. 8, Ch. 630, Stats. 2007. Effective January 1, 2008.

MaHoTex
07-28-2011, 9:27 AM
Sorry, not LE but thought I'd post the CVC (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22450.htm) for us lay-people:

So how far back can be considered "at" the limit line?
1 inch?
1 foot?
10 feet?
If it is 10 feet, what about 11? Seems like the water becomes muddy.

I think I would have to agree with the judge on this one. If a line of cars stop AND there is no other traffic at the intersection, it's all good.

Falconis
07-28-2011, 9:38 AM
Have to be able to safely clear the intersection. Becomes a problem when it's a blind one and after that, it becomes a battle or articulation.

MaHoTex
07-28-2011, 9:42 AM
Ok, I saw you said "1/2 a car length" and be able to clear the intersection. 1/2 car length of a Smart car or 1/2 car length of a 1988 lincoln town car? :) That represents about a 50 feet difference there. ;)

And you are totally right about blind intersections. Heck, half of the time you have to pull your car 5 feet into the intersection before you can see if cars are coming. Well past the "limit line", now what would an office do? How does that play out?

Is the driver supposed to stop before the limit line and then "creep" into the intersection and stop again... BTW, I HATE limit lines.

fullrearview
07-28-2011, 9:58 AM
Is the driver supposed to stop before the limit line and then "creep" into the intersection and stop again... BTW, I HATE limit lines.

By letter of the law, yes... However, I see people roll through all the time (Under 3-4mph) and carefully clear the intersection. I'm okay with that as long as they clear it safely. And that includes a right hand turn, clearing the lane before them, not just traffic coming their way... Seen a few rear-enders because people didn't clear right in front of them.

Falconis
07-28-2011, 10:54 AM
A little common sense and a dash of judgement and I am usually ok :D. Either way, if you blow through a stop sign, I have been successful in the past arguing that stopping 5 car lengths back behind the limit line doesn't constitute a safe stop. Everything as always is dependent on the situation at hand. Now I have also had people blow through a stop sign in front of me (on duty) as a f**k you and try to argue their way out of it there and in the court room. They lost both times.

Now with the above judge, odds are I probably would have lost no matter what I said.

Ok, I saw you said "1/2 a car length" and be able to clear the intersection. 1/2 car length of a Smart car or 1/2 car length of a 1988 lincoln town car? :) That represents about a 50 feet difference there. ;)

And you are totally right about blind intersections. Heck, half of the time you have to pull your car 5 feet into the intersection before you can see if cars are coming. Well past the "limit line", now what would an office do? How does that play out?

Is the driver supposed to stop before the limit line and then "creep" into the intersection and stop again... BTW, I HATE limit lines.

BigDogatPlay
07-28-2011, 12:12 PM
Judge was wrong. God knows why he decided to be wrong.

Judges are never wrong.... just ask one. :D

Now if it's opinion and interpretation that a group of cars can stop and then proceed through as a group, then I know I'm going to be very careful about writing stop signs that might wind up before him.

Front bumper behind the limit line, full and complete stop. When I say behind, I mean within half a car length so you can clear the intersection.

Pretty much what the VC (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22450.htm) and common sense both say..... go figure. Although I always used to use the front wheels relative to the limit line as my gauge. :)

TRICKSTER
07-28-2011, 12:19 PM
Ok, I saw you said "1/2 a car length" and be able to clear the intersection. 1/2 car length of a Smart car or 1/2 car length of a 1988 lincoln town car? :) That represents about a 50 feet difference there. ;)

And you are totally right about blind intersections. Heck, half of the time you have to pull your car 5 feet into the intersection before you can see if cars are coming. Well past the "limit line", now what would an office do? How does that play out?

Is the driver supposed to stop before the limit line and then "creep" into the intersection and stop again... BTW, I HATE limit lines.

Yes. Stop at the limit line and proceed when safe. If you need to stop again, so be it.

MaHoTex
07-28-2011, 12:22 PM
Thanks Trickster.

jeep7081
07-28-2011, 12:25 PM
So how far back can be considered "at" the limit line?
1 inch?
1 foot?
10 feet?
If it is 10 feet, what about 11? Seems like the water becomes muddy.

I think I would have to agree with the judge on this one. If a line of cars stop AND there is no other traffic at the intersection, it's all good.

Interesting VC22450 doesn't how close or far from the limit line. Thus the reason the Judge ruled the way he did?

E Pluribus Unum
07-28-2011, 12:29 PM
It's funny to see LEOs on the other side of this issue... :)

As a veteran traffic defendant, it is much more common to receive it on the other end...

I like to make traffic proceedings follow the rules of evidence. I make sure the officer has brought certified documentation, and properly authenticates his supporting evidence before testifying about it.

These tactics often anger officers, and judges, which often makes the judge disregard rules of evidence he knows to be valid.

Traffic judges are often commissioners, and are not real judges. Many of them get off on the little power that's delegated to them. Traffic judges are often commissioners, and are not real judges. Many of them get off on the little power that's delegated to them. Traffic commissioners are to judges what security guards are to LEOs. :P

Falconis
07-28-2011, 12:46 PM
I've seen that done once. Judge disregarded the defendant and he went about business as he usually goes. Either way, it was overtime for me :)

It's funny to see LEOs on the other side of this issue... :)

As a veteran traffic defendant, it is much more common to receive it on the other end...

I like to make traffic proceedings follow the rules of evidence. I make sure the officer has brought certified documentation, and properly authenticates his supporting evidence before testifying about it.

These tactics often anger officers, and judges, which often makes the judge disregard rules of evidence he knows to be valid.

Traffic judges are often commissioners, and are not real judges. Many of them get off on the little power that's delegated to them. Traffic commissioners are to judges what security guards are to LEOs. :P

BigDogatPlay
07-28-2011, 3:39 PM
I like to make traffic proceedings follow the rules of evidence. I make sure the officer has brought certified documentation, and properly authenticates his supporting evidence before testifying about it.

At risk of taking this completely off the tracks, what type of proper certification would I need to present as evidence when I observe you failing stop for a posted stop sign on a public street or an off street parking facility where the Vehicle Code is enforced?

These tactics often anger officers, and judges, which often makes the judge disregard rules of evidence he knows to be valid.

Wouldn't anger me..... I'd be on overtime anyway. I'd think you would need to be a lot more worried than the judge.

Traffic judges are often commissioners, and are not real judges. Many of them get off on the little power that's delegated to them. Traffic commissioners are to judges what security guards are to LEOs. :P

They are indeed often commissioners.... who have the full power of a judge when on the bench. Next time you appear before one, see how far you get telling the commissioner they have little power and are to judges what security guards are to LEO's.

:)

I've seen that done once. Judge disregarded the defendant and he went about business as he usually goes. Either way, it was overtime for me :)

I've seen it a couple of times.... it never ends well for the defendant.

E Pluribus Unum
07-28-2011, 4:08 PM
At risk of taking this completely off the tracks, what type of proper certification would I need to present as evidence when I observe you failing stop for a posted stop sign on a public street or an off street parking facility where the Vehicle Code is enforced?

Limit line violations are unbeatable in court. I never fight them; I show up, plead stupid, and pay my fine.

This is also the case with 22349 cases as the law is absolute.

Primarily, the cases I fight are 22350 cases where officers think it is always illegal to go faster than a posted limit. I go to court with evidence of the conditions at the time of the citation which make my speed in excess of the posted limit "safe for conditions". I also make sure the officer has brought certified copies of all the things he needs in court (like a traffic survey). If this documentation is not provided, it is supposed to be dismissed. If it is brought, but it is not CERTIFIED and is only a photocopy, it is not supposed to be admitted under the best evidence rule. 95% of the time, the commissioner disregards this detail and allows the evidence improperly.

This whole process sometimes angers the judge and usually ends in a conviction. I then must seek retribution in appeal.

I never meant to infer that there would be any certified paperwork needed in a limit line violation; I was simply referring to commissioners flexing their muscles by allowing evidence in that proceduraly should not be allowed.


Wouldn't anger me..... I'd be on overtime anyway. I'd think you would need to be a lot more worried than the judge.

You'd be surprised. When defendants object to testimony or evidence in traffic court, it makes some officers and commissioners visibly agitated. They see traffic court as a well-oiled machine where officers come in, convicted defendants leave, and they call the next name. They see my actions as nothing more than an inconvenient delay in an attempt to get away with breaking the law.


They are indeed often commissioners.... who have the full power of a judge when on the bench. Next time you appear before one, see how far you get telling the commissioner they have little power and are to judges what security guards are to LEO's.

:)


I would never say that to a commissioner, because as I said, they do have power. I would never smart off to a dog catcher who has the ability to write me a ticket either....

Regardless, they are not judges. There is a pecking order even in the courts.


I've seen it a couple of times.... it never ends well for the defendant.

You have probably never seen a defendant like me... and you are right, it very rarely ends well in court... but a few months later when the appeals notice comes back dismissed, you would never see that either.

TRICKSTER
07-28-2011, 4:24 PM
You'd be surprised. When defendants object to testimony or evidence in traffic court, it makes some officers and commissioners visibly agitated. They see traffic court as a well-oiled machine where officers come in, convicted defendants leave, and they call the next name. They see my actions as nothing more than an inconvenient delay in an attempt to get away with breaking the law

And it sounds like they would be correct.
From your various post bragging about your court escapades, you seem to delight in breaking the traffic laws and then using technicalities in the law to get away with it.

E Pluribus Unum
07-28-2011, 4:31 PM
And it sounds like they would be correct.
From your various post bragging about your court escapades, you seem to delight in breaking the traffic laws and then using technicalities in the law to get away with it.

Not at all. When I've broken the law, I man up.

The problem we get into is the actual law.

Most officers that are not CHP have the mistaken impression that it is always illegal to go 55 in a 40 MPH zone. I've had MANY city cops testify to this on the stand and when they do its almost a sure win.

A posted speed limit is a calculated safe speed for average conditions on that particular roadway; it is not absolute. Just because a vehicle is traveling 55 in a 40 does not mean he deserves a ticket.

I am mindful of the law, and I drive within it. I rarely get a ticket, but when I do, it's usually because a beat cop "caught" me going faster than the posted limit during a time when the faster speed was warranted.

I've lost a few... but I win the bulk of them, not because I am exploiting a loophole, but because I am within the law.

VFX_man
07-28-2011, 4:38 PM
Hi all, a co-worker here in the San Francisco Presidio [now a National Park and governed by National Park Police] was given a ticket for failure to complete a full stop at a Stop Sign. According to the ticketing officer . . . a full stop = 3 seconds. Not been able to find that on "the books" but other people have had similar incidents.

Off topic: Now if they can only catch and ticket the bike riders who blow off the stop signs yet scream for Equal road rights :)

http://sfist.com/2011/07/15/speeding_cyclist_almost_kills_pedes.php

Cheers!

E Pluribus Unum
07-28-2011, 4:41 PM
Hi all, a co-worker here in the San Francisco Presidio [now a National Park and governed by National Park Police] was given a ticket for failure to complete a full stop at a Stop Sign. According to the ticketing officer . . . a full stop = 3 seconds. Not been able to find that on "the books" but other people have had similar incidents.


I've heard "complete stop" described as "cessation of forward motion".

I would consider this any cessation of forward progress, even for a microsecond, but that's just me. :)

[QUOTE=VFX_man;6858126]
Off topic: Now if they can only catch and ticket the bike riders who blow off the stop signs yet scream for Equal road rights :)

http://sfist.com/2011/07/15/speeding_cyclist_almost_kills_pedes.php

Cheers!

Or... riding on the sidewalk for that matter...

chewy352
07-28-2011, 6:23 PM
Here's a scenario for you LEOs. Car in front of me comes to a stop at limit line and then starts creeping forward. I pull up to the limit line and stop. The car in front of me is still in the intersection. I can see it is safe to procede from the limit line. The car in front of me goes and I follow right behind him.

Legal?

My argument is I made a full stop and could see that it was safe in both directions.

Notorious
07-28-2011, 6:45 PM
I would say you are good to go. The stop sign law talks about YOUR conduct and how you must come to a complete stop before proceeding through the intersection. It says nothing about a car in front of you or what your duties are when the guy in front of you is a dumbass.

Now, that being said, there are other laws about that which may apply such as tailgating or if you hit him from the back, then there is other civil issues between you guys.

However, you have met your burden as far as the stop sign goes if you come to a complete stop before the limit line and then proceeded through safely.

powerstrokemike
07-28-2011, 7:10 PM
I just wish the law enforcement had the power to enforce the law.. i see so many stop way past the line or roll thur it.. i worry about hitting them..

chewy352
07-28-2011, 8:28 PM
I would say you are good to go. The stop sign law talks about YOUR conduct and how you must come to a complete stop before proceeding through the intersection. It says nothing about a car in front of you or what your duties are when the guy in front of you is a dumbass.

Now, that being said, there are other laws about that which may apply such as tailgating or if you hit him from the back, then there is other civil issues between you guys.

However, you have met your burden as far as the stop sign goes if you come to a complete stop before the limit line and then proceeded through safely.

I always make sure I know what the guy is doing in front of me and stay back but just didn't see the point in waiting longer cause of the dumb***** in front of me.

Sounds like you've seen my scenario a couple times lol.

Thanks for your opinion and stay safe.

retired
07-28-2011, 9:20 PM
If there is no limit line or crosswalk, the driver shall stop at the entrance to the intersecting roadway

This section of the vehicle code, as posted by halifax, seems to answer the question as to where to stop your vehicle.

fullrearview
07-28-2011, 11:17 PM
Wow... I didn't think this thread would have so many posts. I am also surprised as long as it is, it's just a civil!

BigDogatPlay
07-29-2011, 10:16 AM
Limit line violations are unbeatable in court. I never fight them; I show up, plead stupid, and pay my fine.

Well played.... glad you saw that one coming. :)

You'd be surprised. When defendants object to testimony or evidence in traffic court, it makes some officers and commissioners visibly agitated. They see traffic court as a well-oiled machine where officers come in, convicted defendants leave, and they call the next name. They see my actions as nothing more than an inconvenient delay in an attempt to get away with breaking the law.

While I don't disagree with your observation about well oiled machines, I'd not be surprised. I've seen traffic court defendants do all kinds of odd things.

This is not to say that standing up for one's rights in a court proceeding is an odd thing. What is odd, in my experience, are those who think they know better than the court..... and attorneys as defendants in traffic court are often the worst.

;)

Regardless, they are not judges, and REAL judges regard traffic commissioners like LEOs regard security guards and dog catchers. There is a pecking order even in the courts.

Your opinion is yours and I don't disrespect it. For my sake I'll continue to address the commissioners as "your honor". There are pecking orders everywhere, to be sure. But at the end of the day all those people in black robes on the bench use the same restroom. They are all lawyers and all part of the same club. You and I are not part of that club.

You have probably never seen a defendant like me... and you are right, it very rarely ends well in court... but a few months later when the appeals notice comes back dismissed, you would never see that either.

I have seen defendants like you, I'm sure. And FWIW, I never lost a traffic case that I showed up for out of all the tickets I wrote over the years.

E Pluribus Unum
08-01-2011, 4:34 AM
Well played.... glad you saw that one coming.

I wasn't dodging... it's the truth. It's the officer's word v. the defendant and in order for a court to rule for the defense, he has to believe the officer lied; which aint gonna happen. This is true for any ticket like this, i.e. seatbelt, cell phone, red light, 22349, in that there is no subjective element: one either did it, or did not.


While I don't disagree with your observation about well oiled machines, I'd not be surprised. I've seen traffic court defendants do all kinds of odd things.


I was saying you might be surprised at is seeing how angry officers and commissioners get when one is defending his rights...


Your opinion is yours and I don't disrespect it. For my sake I'll continue to address the commissioners as "your honor". There are pecking orders everywhere, to be sure. But at the end of the day all those people in black robes on the bench use the same restroom. They are all lawyers and all part of the same club. You and I are not part of that club.


No argument there... I was simply pointing out that sometimes these Jr. Judges get on power trips more so than a normal judge.


I have seen defendants like you, I'm sure. And FWIW, I never lost a traffic case that I showed up for out of all the tickets I wrote over the years.

Then you must be CHP. In my experience, they are the only ones that can tout that kind of success rate in court. Either that, or you were county sheriff and never wrote tickets.. :)

P.S.
Thank you for your respectful presentation...

Andy Taylor
08-01-2011, 8:18 AM
This is quite an interesting thread. Here's another question:
What about two motorcycles riding side by side? Both pull up and stop at the limit line. Both procede when safe, but do so at the same time. Two vehicles going through the intersection at once.

oldsmoboat
08-01-2011, 8:27 PM
This is quite an interesting thread. Here's another question:
What about two motorcycles riding side by side? Both pull up and stop at the limit line. Both procede when safe, but do so at the same time. Two vehicles going through the intersection at once.
Lane sharing is legal.

BigDogatPlay
08-01-2011, 10:05 PM
I wasn't dodging... it's the truth.

Didn't think you were dodging. You saw where I was going with the question and answered it. ;)

Then you must be CHP. In my experience, they are the only ones that can tout that kind of success rate in court. Either that, or you were county sheriff and never wrote tickets.. :)

Neither. I just didn't write chicken <bleep>, I either saw a violation and wrote what I saw or I didn't. Can't write what you don't see is how I always played it. And I was always straight up with the violator, every time. I found that helps, a lot. Call me the whore with a heart of gold, I guess.

P.S.
Thank you for your respectful presentation...

Always happy to enjoy a good give and take. Appreciate your saying so.

tom2
08-01-2011, 10:23 PM
x2!


Judge was wrong. God knows why he decided to be wrong.

Front bumper behind the limit line, full and complete stop. When I say behind, I mean within half a car length so you can clear the intersection.

ironcross
08-02-2011, 2:32 AM
Okay... No offense guys. For those [Non-LEO] I don't get how you got your license. While my friend and my father don't give a rats *** about limit lines nor signaling.

Any who. Regarding limit lines. You are to stop you're vehicle as a whole behind the limit line. Meaning you're front bumper should NOT cross the limit line and are to make a COMPLETE stop for about 3 seconds. Which is the time it would take to check right, left and right again.

However you may make a complete stop behind the limit line and after you may pull up to check traffic beyond the limit line before your turn/ X-intersection.

Here is the definition of a limit line via VC 377 (http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc377.htm): A "limit line" is a solid white line not less than 12 nor more than 24 inches wide, extending across a roadway or any portion thereof to indicate the point at which traffic is required to stop in compliance with legal requirements.

Only thing I see missing from that definition is "If no limit line is present yet a crosswalk is. You must use the line closest to you of the X-Walk as the limit line".

Here is VC 22450 (http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22450.htm) Stop Requirements:

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 .

(b) The driver of a vehicle approaching a stop sign at a railroad grade crossing shall stop at a limit line, if marked, otherwise before crossing the first track or entrance to the railroad grade crossing.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a local authority may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution providing for the placement of a stop sign at any location on a highway under its jurisdiction where the stop sign would enhance traffic safety.

Amended Sec. 8, Ch. 630, Stats. 2007. Effective January 1, 2008.


An eight-sided red STOP sign indicates that you must make a full “STOP” whenever you see a STOP sign. Stop before entering a crosswalk or at a white limit line, which is a wide white line painted on the street. If a crosswalk or limit line is not painted on the street, stop at the corner.

Per DMV, if you're front tires had cross the limit line in to the intersection while on yellow and now red. You have entered legally. Meaning cross traffic has to wait/yield till you crossed the intersection even with a green. Yet there is conflicting things in the handbook. One part says if you entered on a green you've entered legally and another where it says do not block intersections. The lady I did my driving test said that if you've entered on a green and blocking, that the cross traffic shall yield as you had the right of way first.

I know, as I didn't get marked for "Running a Red" on my driving test. Like was yellow so I sped up and crossed as it would of been unsafe to slam on the brakes @50mph with vehicles behind me.

Solid Yellow–A yellow signal light means “CAUTION.” The red signal is about to appear. When you see the yellow light, stop if you can do so safely. If you cannot stop safely, cross the intersection cautiously.

oldsmoboat
08-02-2011, 5:51 AM
Okay... No offense guys. For those [Non-LEO] I don't get how you got your license. While my friend and my father don't give a rats *** about limit lines nor signaling.

Any who. Regarding limit lines. You are to stop you're vehicle as a whole behind the limit line. Meaning you're front bumper should NOT cross the limit line and are to make a COMPLETE stop for about 3 seconds. Which is the time it would take to check right, left and right again.

However you may make a complete stop behind the limit line and after you may pull up to check traffic beyond the limit line before your turn/ X-intersection.

Here is the definition of a limit line via VC 377 (http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc377.htm):

Only thing I see missing from that definition is "If no limit line is present yet a crosswalk is. You must use the line closest to you of the X-Walk as the limit line".

Here is VC 22450 (http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22450.htm) Stop Requirements:





Per DMV, if you're front tires had cross the limit line in to the intersection while on yellow and now red. You have entered legally. Meaning cross traffic has to wait/yield till you crossed the intersection even with a green. Yet there is conflicting things in the handbook. One part says if you entered on a green you've entered legally and another where it says do not block intersections. The lady I did my driving test said that if you've entered on a green and blocking, that the cross traffic shall yield as you had the right of way first.

I know, as I didn't get marked for "Running a Red" on my driving test. Like was yellow so I sped up and crossed as it would of been unsafe to slam on the brakes @50mph with vehicles behind me.
Go ahead and post the law for "make a COMPLETE stop for about 3 seconds".

Tripper
08-02-2011, 7:53 AM
It's look left then right then left again

And if that takes you 3 seconds, or 1 second each, you just allowed no telling how much traffic to approach that you did not see, very dangerous taking a full second to look any direction, you miss too much in the other directions

No where does it say 3 seconds, nor does it say how long to look any particular direction
Left/right/left again is simply a recommendation not law

Tripper
08-02-2011, 8:20 AM
Actually, there is a ref in the manual that suggests that it is important to stop within 5 feet of a crosswalk so that a blind person can hear you

RazzB7
08-02-2011, 8:54 AM
Judge was wrong. God knows why he decided to be wrong.

Front bumper behind the limit line, full and complete stop. When I say behind, I mean within half a car length so you can clear the intersection.

Front bumper or front tires?

I'll make this argument against front bumper: Let's say I'm coming up on an intersection and the light has turned yellow. As I am crossing the limit line, the light turns red. My front bumper has crossed the limit line, but my tires are behind it at time of red. I get stopped and try to make the argument that I was across the limit line because my bumper had made it across. I would probably lose that argument. So, if the bumper is not good enough for that definition, the opposite should be true.

Now, with all that said. That is not how I drive. I believe the limit line and associated crosswalk belongs to the pedestrian and my bumper has no business in it. I also would not attempt to cut a yellow light that close.

Just making a point. Point being, the law is ambiguous.

Razz

MaHoTex
08-02-2011, 9:15 AM
I always thought that, to be legal, you had to be 1/2 way across the intersection before the light turned red, not the limit line.

E Pluribus Unum
08-02-2011, 9:52 AM
I always thought that, to be legal, you had to be 1/2 way across the intersection before the light turned red, not the limit line.

Nope... as long as that front bumper gets over the line before it's red, you're good.

Falconis
08-02-2011, 1:43 PM
Nope... as long as that front bumper gets over the line before it's red, you're good.

Can you find me something to back that up with? I've been writing those tickets for years and winning. Is this something where the cop and judge are wrong?

Hopalong
08-02-2011, 2:17 PM
I was down at the local gas station the other morning where a lot of locals get coffee and gas on their way to work.

Guy says, "hey, that new motor in town gave me a ticket for stopping with my front wheels in the crosswalk".

This guy is in his 60's, a lifelong resident of the town, and a respectful cowboy.

He was pretty upset, and after we debated the issue, I don't blame him.

He drives a big one ton truck , like I do, loaded down with equipment and tools.

Although we don't drive fast, these trucks do not stop on a dime.

Now I've been driving for 43 years and I have never had a ticket.

But, I can see a scenario, like this guy had, where

You're damned if you don't, and damned if you do.

You're approaching an intersection when the light turns yellow

You've got a split second to decide if you can make it through or not

Not to mention where is your front bumper, tires, or whatever

So you go through, and the motor says you should have stopped

Or you brake hard, and stop with your front wheels in the crosswalk

Which also gets you a ticket.

The speed limit on this main street is 35 in some places, 40 in others.

What say you guys?

I wasn't there, "but for the grace of God go I"

I'd like to think that this is a perfect place to use some discretion

And cut this guy some slack

E Pluribus Unum
08-03-2011, 4:06 AM
I always thought that, to be legal, you had to be 1/2 way across the intersection before the light turned red, not the limit line.

Nope... as long as that front bumper gets over the line before it's red, you're good.

Can you find me something to back that up with? I've been writing those tickets for years and winning. Is this something where the cop and judge are wrong?

I hate red light runners, and have only accidentally ran them with very few exception. One of the tickets I fought and beat was a red light camera ticket where the picture clearly showed my car over the limit line with the light red. There was a video in court and it clearly showed that I had a yellow light and it turned red shortly after my car crossed the limit line.

I am not an attorney, and I am certainly not a judge, but I can read, and the law seems very clear to me:


21452. (a) A driver facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow
signal is, by that signal, warned that the related green movement is
ending or that a red indication will be shown immediately
thereafter.

21453. (a) A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall
stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the
crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then
before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an
indication to proceed is shown...

It would be impossible for someone to stop "at the limit line" after he has already passed it. There is nothing in the code about the vehicle being half-way through the intersection, only that when faced with a red light, he is to stop at the limit line.

Tacit Blue
08-03-2011, 11:25 PM
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT0BUe0Hn_128EFEBor0Zgmp53ObXfe1 _wD_agg5tRLtlnZXQgxwg

ironcross
08-03-2011, 11:29 PM
Go ahead and post the law for "make a COMPLETE stop for about 3 seconds".

There is no VC pertaining to the "3 Second Rule" yet back when I got my license. The Examiner state to me it takes about three (3) seconds to complete a stop and check traffic three (3) times. Which is recommended from the DMV. If you failed to do so on your license test, you would fail.

It's look left then right then left again

And if that takes you 3 seconds, or 1 second each, you just allowed no telling how much traffic to approach that you did not see, very dangerous taking a full second to look any direction, you miss too much in the other directions

No where does it say 3 seconds, nor does it say how long to look any particular direction
Left/right/left again is simply a recommendation not law

Again like above there is no VC stating a three (3) second nor a three (3) traffic check.

My point for the both of you's is that it is safe to stop for three (3) seconds while checking traffic. Again per the DMV License Driving test taker: "When approaching a stop sign or a red light that you can turn on. You should take the minimum of three (3) seconds after completing a dead stop, to check for traffic three (3) times. Which is about the time needed to come to a dead stop and check for traffic.

EX: Making a right turn at a stop sign or a red light (If no signage is posted preventing right turns on red). You should pull up to before the limit line and come to a dead stop. Check for traffic and pedestrians. After COMPLETING a DEAD stop, you may inch forward to check for traffic beyond the limit like and may enter traffic when safe to do so.

Same applies for going strait threw traffic.

Actually, there is a ref in the manual that suggests that it is important to stop within 5 feet of a crosswalk so that a blind person can hear you

Correct;

Important: Blind pedestrians rely on the sound of your vehicle to become aware of your vehicle’s presence; so it is important that you stop your vehicle within 5 feet of the crosswalk. Drivers of hybrid or electric vehicles must remain especially aware that the lack of engine noise may cause a blind pedestrian to assume there is not a vehicle nearby.

Follow this cue:
––When a blind person pulls in his or her cane and steps away from the intersection, this gesture usually means for you to go (additional information
regarding blind pedestrians can be found on pages 62 and 63).

Meaning before the crosswalk/limit line. If no limit line is marked the the crosswalk line closest to you becomes the limit line.

oldsmoboat
08-04-2011, 3:12 PM
There is no VC pertaining to the "3 Second Rule" yet back when I got my license. The Examiner state to me it takes about three (3) seconds to complete a stop and check traffic three (3) times. Which is recommended from the DMV. If you failed to do so on your license test, you would fail...
When in doubt, make stuff up?

E Pluribus Unum
08-05-2011, 1:46 AM
I always thought that, to be legal, you had to be 1/2 way across the intersection before the light turned red, not the limit line.

Nope... as long as that front bumper gets over the line before it's red, you're good.

Can you find me something to back that up with? I've been writing those tickets for years and winning. Is this something where the cop and judge are wrong?

I hate red light runners, and have only accidentally ran them with very few exception. One of the tickets I fought and beat was a red light camera ticket where the picture clearly showed my car over the limit line with the light red. There was a video in court and it clearly showed that I had a yellow light and it turned red shortly after my car crossed the limit line.

I am not an attorney, and I am certainly not a judge, but I can read, and the law seems very clear to me:


21452. (a) A driver facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow
signal is, by that signal, warned that the related green movement is
ending or that a red indication will be shown immediately
thereafter.

21453. (a) A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall
stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the
crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then
before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an
indication to proceed is shown...

It would be impossible for someone to stop "at the limit line" after he has already passed it. There is nothing in the code about the vehicle being half-way through the intersection, only that when faced with a red light, he is to stop at the limit line.

Is your long silence some sort of concession that both you and the judges have been wrong for years, or are you too busy out writing tickets to people who have crossed the limit line, but not yet reached the half-way mark? ;)

negolien
08-05-2011, 5:19 AM
Really it depends for me. I' have to admit I' am a habitual red light violater :eek:... ON the way to work theres a right hand turn at a 4 way. the light turns red and the people oncoming in the right lane from me turning left go first no u-turns allowed. Even though it's technically a red light violation I don't trip usually and do a quick scan because if people are following the law they're won't be an illegal u-turner crashing ionto me lol.

Falconis
08-06-2011, 1:04 PM
Too busy writing out tickets to notice. Thanks for the PM though. To be honest, I do wait for the flagrant violations. Not the half chance ones.

I've also had a similar case, no video though, where I won that one. I argued other factors into the case which is probably why I won. Factors being a danger to the pedestrians on the other side of the intersection and the fact the vehicle had to unsfely speed up blah blah blah. But you get the idea.

But I still do not concede. :D

But I will say this, sorry I am on drugs right now so I may have misunderstood. For some reason I took it as the front bumper being across the limit line, not before it before the light turns red.

Falconis
08-06-2011, 2:45 PM
Also, now that I think about it, we may have 2 sides of the same coin here. How far back were you when the light turned yellow, was it a stale yellow or a fast one. ehhh I think you get the idea.

E Pluribus Unum
08-07-2011, 1:55 AM
Too busy writing out tickets to notice. Thanks for the PM though. To be honest, I do wait for the flagrant violations. Not the half chance ones.

I've also had a similar case, no video though, where I won that one. I argued other factors into the case which is probably why I won. Factors being a danger to the pedestrians on the other side of the intersection and the fact the vehicle had to unsfely speed up blah blah blah. But you get the idea.

But I will say this, sorry I am on drugs right now so I may have misunderstood. For some reason I took it as the front bumper being across the limit line, not before it before the light turns red.

Also, now that I think about it, we may have 2 sides of the same coin here. How far back were you when the light turned yellow, was it a stale yellow or a fast one. ehhh I think you get the idea.

Speed limit was 55 so it was a long yellow. I was in my mustang and floored it to make the light, but was not speeding. I barely made it across the limit line when it turned red.... my front tires were on the limit line but had not yet entered the intersection, but my bumper was clearly past the line.

But I still do not concede. :D

Fair enough.... I tend to be a letter of the law man when it comes to a defense; it's either illegal, or it's not.. If I understood your position on the matter, it was that for many years you have issued citations for motorists who were not yet half-way through the intersection and that years of experience issuing citations, and working with judges have taught you this.... certainly if that is correct, somewhere in the vehicle code there should be some verbiage of "half way through the intersection...".

It just goes to show that there are MANY misconceptions about what the vehicle code says, and just because it has been done for years doesn't make it right; additionally, being a LEO or a judge does not make one an end all be all of the law.... but I'm sure you knew that.

Falconis
08-08-2011, 4:41 PM
Now that I am not so high on pain meds, I can probably type with a little more clarity. I will say your description of events could have gone either way depending on what was testified to. Even in the DMV handbook, yellow means slow down, not floor it so you can make the red light. That could be argued on safety grounds depending on your surroundings. Despite reds and stop signs, there is a vehicle code (California) section about not entering an intersection until safe to do so. I think it's under the yields sections. IF I were to have issued you a cite under the above conditions, the only thing I could think of was if you had ample time and distance to come to a stop while the light was yellow and was it safe for you to perform the action you did as described above (22350 CVC not withstanding).

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the actions above as I wasn't there. But I also know every cite I ever issued was correct, within spirit and letter. My rule of thumb on reds have always been did the car enter the intersection before the light turned red ( and I mean atleast half the car).

Like I said, I may have misunderstood an earlier post from you. I make mistakes on occasion.

But all in all, from your description, I probably would have cited you if I saw that violation and argued all factors seen in the area including the fact whether or not you had ample time and distance to stop before the intersection. You are arguing your (if I am correct) that your front bumper barely crossed the limit line when the light turned red. That would indicate that you had plenty of time to stop if the light was a stale yellow as opposed to a quick one. I may be wrong, you may be wrong. But I would be comfortable in citing you and filling my ovetime slip for court.

EDIT: Disclaimer - I'm also not a traffic camera. I may or may not see how close to or over the limit line you were when said light turned red.

ironcross
08-09-2011, 2:13 AM
When in doubt, make stuff up?

Sorry, no. I am not here to make stuff up nor ill-inform people. Contact you're local LE Traffic Division, and/or DMV office.

I contacted my Sheriff's Traffic SGT. While he only answered half of the question.

You've completed a stop when you feel the car completely settle. You brake, the forward motion has completely stopped and you feel the vehicle rock back and settle into place.


Here's this. Next time you approach a stop sign. Time yourself. See how long it takes for you to come to a complete stop, after the stop check both ways for pedestrians/traffic, then proceed SAFELY cross the stop sign/flashing red traffic light.

All I said was;

At the minimum per DMV reps and experience it should take no less than three (3) to five (5) seconds. To complete the task of coming to a complete stop, checking traffic/pedestrians, then crossing a stop sign/flashing red traffic light....