California Vehicle Code 21801(a) -- Subjective at best. Need Your Help!
Bradley T. Cozine
Are there any viable defenses for a law as subjective as this?
21801. (a) The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left or
to complete a U-turn upon a highway, or to turn left into public or
private property, or an alley, shall yield the right-of-way to all
vehicles approaching from the opposite direction which are close
enough to constitute a hazard at any time during the turning
movement, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to the
approaching vehicles until the left turn or U-turn can be made with
reasonable safety.
(b) A driver having yielded as prescribed in subdivision (a), and
having given a signal when and as required by this code, may turn
left or complete a U-turn, and the drivers of vehicles approaching
the intersection or the entrance to the property or alley from the
opposite direction shall yield the right-of-way to the turningvehicle.
I and opposing traffic were stopped at a traffic signal and I had my
indicator on for a left turn. The opposing traffic made no motion to go at
the change of the light, so I proceeded. No traffic had entered the
intersection. I was then stopped in violation of 21801(a).
Please advise via e-mail if possible.
mailto:br...@industrystandard.com
Thank you,
Brad.
Randall S. Davis
I would recommend that you pay the fine. The vehicle proceeding in the
opposite direction as the light changes are "close enough to constitute a
hazard . . . during the turning
movement" and you must "yield the right-of-way to the
approaching vehicles until the left turn or U-turn can be made with
reasonable safety."
R Scott
Bradley T. Cozine wrote:
snip code covering action below...
> I and opposing traffic were stopped at a traffic signal and I had my
> indicator on for a left turn. The opposing traffic made no motion to go at
> the change of the light, so I proceeded. No traffic had entered the
> intersection. I was then stopped in violation of 21801(a).
>
See if this makes sense...
When you have to cross through on-comming traffic, THEY have the
right-of-way.
That you say the "opposing traffic made no motion to go" makes no
difference cause they still hade the right of way, unless the traffic
light indicated otherwise.
Usually a traffic light will signal when you have the right to cross
into on-comming traffic, by displaying a left green arrow for you while
a red light, which you can't see, faces the opposing traffic.
Did you get a green light? If no, I think I'd find you guilty :}, pay
the fine.
Rick
The Viper
> Bradley T. Cozine wrote:
>
> snip code covering action below...
>
> > I and opposing traffic were stopped at a traffic signal and I had my
> > indicator on for a left turn. The opposing traffic made no motion to go at
> > the change of the light, so I proceeded. No traffic had entered the
> > intersection. I was then stopped in violation of 21801(a).
>
> Usually a traffic light will signal when you have the right to cross
> into on-comming traffic, by displaying a left green arrow for you while
> a red light, which you can't see, faces the opposing traffic.
>
> Did you get a green light? If no, I think I'd find you guilty :}, pay
> the fine.
A LARGE number of traffic signals here in California don't have left turn
lights. The cop might NOT show up at the trial. . . If the opposing traffic
wasn't going to move, and you didn't move either, perhaps you could have been
cited for obstructing traffic. Perhaps the other driver should have been. Was
there traffic behind the opposing traffic?
This is only my opinion, I am not an attorney!
Steve Woods
I second that. You can't believe the number of times a vehicle has cut in
front of me whilr I started to go into the intersection. I'm sure they
would all try to argue that I "hadn't moved yet."
Randall S. Davis wrote in message <35994ED1...@slip.net>...
>I would recommend that you pay the fine. The vehicle proceeding in the
>opposite direction as the light changes are "close enough to constitute a
>hazard . . . during the turning
>movement" and you must "yield the right-of-way to the
>approaching vehicles until the left turn or U-turn can be made with
>reasonable safety."
>
>Bradley T. Cozine wrote:
>
>> Are there any viable defenses for a law as subjective as this?
>>
>> 21801. (a) The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left or
>> to complete a U-turn upon a highway, or to turn left into public or
>> private property, or an alley, shall yield the right-of-way to all
>> vehicles approaching from the opposite direction which are close
>> enough to constitute a hazard at any time during the turning
>> movement, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to the
>> approaching vehicles until the left turn or U-turn can be made with
>> reasonable safety.
>> (b) A driver having yielded as prescribed in subdivision (a), and
>> having given a signal when and as required by this code, may turn
>> left or complete a U-turn, and the drivers of vehicles approaching
>> the intersection or the entrance to the property or alley from the
>> opposite direction shall yield the right-of-way to the turningvehicle.
>>
>> I and opposing traffic were stopped at a traffic signal and I had my
>> indicator on for a left turn. The opposing traffic made no motion to go
at
>> the change of the light, so I proceeded. No traffic had entered the
>> intersection. I was then stopped in violation of 21801(a).
>>
Doug Lytle
Have you already attended traffic school? If you are eligible (i.e., you
haven't gone to traffic school within a certain time period), traffic school
will prevent the ticket from going on your record, thereby reducing the points
on your record which lead to increased insurance rates.
Irmengard Rapier
traffic school is one of the biggest ripoffs in the judicial system.
it is one big waste of time. if you have bad drivers out there what's the problem with
making the, have driving lessons to correct their problems instead of entertaining them
for 8 hours????????/
Irmengard Rapier
duh????
The Viper
Irmengard Rapier wrote:
Yes, we do have bad drivers on the streets, highways, and biways. But we also have bad
cops!
Shep
Since the state owns your car in trust, you gotta play by their rules, no
matter how ridiculous. If your car is paid off, why not revoke the trust
and make yourself immune to the whole group of car and traffic regs?
Irmengard Rapier wrote in message <359FCD21...@tdl.com>...
>My "duh" comment had to do with the previous post which stated that we have
bad drivers
>out there as well as bad cops.
-_-_-_-
>Maybe I missed something here but we are over regulated up to our
>eyeballs.
>
>Irma.
Steve Woods
Paying offf your car would not make you immune in California or any onther
state. State does not own you car in trust.
Steve
Shep wrote in message ...