Full stop to turn right on green light
Rick Leeland
Do we need to make a full stop behind the line to turn right on a
green light? My daughter got a ticket for not making the full stop,
but her driving instructor told her that there is no need to, just
pause and watch for cars and pedestrians. I observed the traffic on a
green light today and found NOBODY stop at the green light to turn
right, they simply drove slowly and turned with caution. Do we have a
law that nobody follow? Is this one of those silly laws that everyone
knew is wrong and simply ignored since sudden stop at green might
cause collision? Thanks for any input to this puzzle.
Rick Leeland
This sounds like a good suggestion, but is it written in the traffic
law? I think the key is whether she needs to make a FULL STOP or not to
turn right on green. She does drive carefully and always yield to the
pedestrians.
Thanks!
Real Name wrote:
> In article <ae2f70cb.02020...@posting.google.com>,
> She needs to come to a full stop if a pedestrian is trying to cross in
> front of her with the green light.
Nathan Nagel
Where are you? I've never heard of such a law. Was it a full green or
a green arrow? (not that it matters, AFAIK everywhere I've lived you
don't have to stop for either.)
nate
Snow
had to do was pause look for pedestrians and continue, unless there is in
fact a right turn light, many busy intersections have right turn lights as
well, so the on coming traffic can make a left turn. If she was turn right
on red then yes she would have to come to a full stop before turning.
Check your local state laws with regards to turning right on greens, and
find out if this intersection has separate right turn lights, if it does
then she may have jumped the gun and turned when she shouldnt have. If it
doesnt have right turn lights then the cop was wrong just try to convince
the cop of that though.
Snow...
Rick Leeland
I am in Santa Clara county of California. It is a full green light.
It seems to be a obscure law that nobody ever pays attention to in
California (maybe other states as well) since it will totally disrupt the
flow of traffic on green. But according to the San Jose police officer,
it exists. I will go to court soon to appeal since my daughter is getting
conflicted message regarding what to do, and I hope the judge will see
that it is all not her fault that she does not know about this obscure
law. Based on this law, the city can give 1 million citations a day.
Please advice.
Rick Leeland
Is this common sense language or legal language, I need to go to court
soon, I need to know whether this is written law. Thanks!
Real Name wrote:
> In article <3C5F194A...@yahoo.com>,
> Rick Leeland <rickl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Real Name wrote:
> >
> > > In article <ae2f70cb.02020...@posting.google.com>,
> > > rickl...@yahoo.com (Rick Leeland) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Do we need to make a full stop behind the line to turn right on a
> > > > green light? My daughter got a ticket for not making the full stop,
> > > > but her driving instructor told her that there is no need to, just
> > > > pause and watch for cars and pedestrians. I observed the traffic on a
> > > > green light today and found NOBODY stop at the green light to turn
> > > > right, they simply drove slowly and turned with caution. Do we have a
> > > > law that nobody follow? Is this one of those silly laws that everyone
> > > > knew is wrong and simply ignored since sudden stop at green might
> > > > cause collision? Thanks for any input to this puzzle.
> > >
> > > She needs to come to a full stop if a pedestrian is trying to cross in
> > > front of her with the green light.
> >
> > Hi Real Name,
> >
> > This sounds like a good suggestion, but is it written in the traffic
> > law? I think the key is whether she needs to make a FULL STOP or not to
> > turn right on green. She does drive carefully and always yield to the
> > pedestrians.
> > Thanks!
>
> If there's no pedestrian trying to cross, it is not necessary (or
> desirable) to stop. If there is, you must stop.
David Jensen
Rick Leeland <rickl...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<3C5F1C3C...@yahoo.com>:
>Hi Nathan,
>
> I am in Santa Clara county of California. It is a full green light.
>It seems to be a obscure law that nobody ever pays attention to in
>California (maybe other states as well) since it will totally disrupt the
>flow of traffic on green. But according to the San Jose police officer,
>it exists. I will go to court soon to appeal since my daughter is getting
>conflicted message regarding what to do, and I hope the judge will see
>that it is all not her fault that she does not know about this obscure
>law. Based on this law, the city can give 1 million citations a day.
>Please advice.
>
Was there a pedestrian in the crosswalk? If so she must stop and let the
pedestrian through before continuing with the right turn. The ticket
tells you exactly what the violation is for. Look at the reference and
look it up in the statutes so you know exactly what this is about.
Rick Leeland
No, there is no separate right turn light there, just regular green light.
I had a feeling that there may be a clause to ask a FULL STOP in Califnornia,
but I have heard anyone who can confirm this. If there is such law, it is even
more disburbing since either we have a police that misinterpretes the law or we
have a law that nobody cares, in either case we have a disfunctioning system.
Thanks!
John F. Carr
Real Name <real...@invalid.org> wrote:
>In article <ae2f70cb.02020...@posting.google.com>,
> rickl...@yahoo.com (Rick Leeland) wrote:
>
>front of her with the green light.
The concept of stopping on green is so odd that I must wonder
whether the green light is a red ball plus green arrow. In
that case, cars need not stop or yield to pedestrians unless
the pedestrian started on a WALK signal. Pedestrians may not
cross on a green arrow.
(The newsgroups line includes ca.driving but the message doesn't
specify a location; I am assuming a U.S. state other than California.)
Rick Leeland
No, there is no pedestrian involved. She is all alone at a simple
traffic light that is green all along, she pause and turned right slowly and
got a ticket. There is NOBODY there except the police car. This occurred in
San Jose, California. Thanks for the reply!
Rick Leeland
Hi Snow,
No, there is no separate right turn light there, just regular green
light. I have a feeling that there may be a clause to ask for a FULL STOP in
California but I have not heard anyone who can confirm this. So either we have
a police that misinterprets the law or we have a law that nobody know or care,
in either case the system malfunctioned.
Thanks!
David Jensen
>Hi David,
>
> No, there is no pedestrian involved. She is all alone at a simple
>traffic light that is green all along, she pause and turned right slowly and
>got a ticket. There is NOBODY there except the police car. This occurred in
>San Jose, California. Thanks for the reply!
Were you in the car with her?
Rick Leeland
By the way, it was late and there was no pedestrian there when my
daughter got a ticket. She was all alone in the traffic light with the police
car. It is a simple green light, she slowed down, paused, turned right slowly
and got cited for not making a FULL STOP.
Real Name wrote:
> In article <3C5F194A...@yahoo.com>,
> Rick Leeland <rickl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Real Name wrote:
> >
> > > In article <ae2f70cb.02020...@posting.google.com>,
> > > rickl...@yahoo.com (Rick Leeland) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Do we need to make a full stop behind the line to turn right on a
> > > > green light? My daughter got a ticket for not making the full stop,
> > > > but her driving instructor told her that there is no need to, just
> > > > pause and watch for cars and pedestrians. I observed the traffic on a
> > > > green light today and found NOBODY stop at the green light to turn
> > > > right, they simply drove slowly and turned with caution. Do we have a
> > > > law that nobody follow? Is this one of those silly laws that everyone
> > > > knew is wrong and simply ignored since sudden stop at green might
> > > > cause collision? Thanks for any input to this puzzle.
> > >
> > > She needs to come to a full stop if a pedestrian is trying to cross in
> > > front of her with the green light.
> >
> > Hi Real Name,
> >
> > This sounds like a good suggestion, but is it written in the traffic
> > law? I think the key is whether she needs to make a FULL STOP or not to
> > turn right on green. She does drive carefully and always yield to the
> > pedestrians.
> > Thanks!
>
Rick Leeland
Thanks for all the input! Anyone knows about California traffic
law and knows whether we have a FULL STOP clause regarding turning right
on simple green light when there is no pedestrian involed? Thanks!
Rick Leeland
No, it is a simple green light without any kinds of arrow. There is
not a soul within two miles except a police car. She saw the police and got
scared, so she decided to follow exactly what she was told in driving
school and she got a ticket. Thanks!
Sam Smith
sign, and was rear-ended. The cop tried to ticket me. I thought this
was unfair and unjust, so I went down to the local library and had a
good look at the statutes. Turns out, they were in my favor, and the
court referee dismissed the case against me as soon as I presented mine.
The statute number is probably written on your daughter's ticket. Take
a look at what it says...you've got nothing to lose.
UrsusArctos
David Jensen
>Hi all,
>
> Thanks for all the input! Anyone knows about California traffic
>law and knows whether we have a FULL STOP clause regarding turning right
>on simple green light when there is no pedestrian involed? Thanks!
What does the ticket say?
Rick Leeland
No I was not. She was all alone.
Patti Beadles
exactly what law it is that you broke (there should be a CVC number
somewhere on it) and then read that section.
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles |
pat...@gammon.com | You are sick. It's the kind of
http://www.gammon.com/ | sick that we all like, mind you,
or just yell, "Hey, Patti!" | but it is sick.
Kevin McMurtrie
law is. The CA vehicle code is online so you can look it up too.
It's possible that your daughter misunderstood the citation or the cop
is a crackpot. I've met (and nearly collided with) plenty of crackpot
officers in Santa Clara County.
In article <3C5F1C93...@yahoo.com>,
Rick Leeland
Thanks for the reminder! It is VC 21453A, and no explanation was
given on the ticket. I havn't found it online yet.
Rick Leeland
Good thinking! It is VC 21453A. I havn't found it online yet.
Chris Lawrence
> Thanks for the reminder! It is VC 21453A, and no explanation was
> given on the ticket. I havn't found it online yet.
CVC 21453(a), per http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=21001-22000&file=21450-21468
"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, except as provided in subdivision
(b)."
The ticket was issued for failing to stop at a red light, not a green
light. Either someone is horribly confused, color blind, or there's
something hinky going on.
Chris
--
Chris Lawrence <ch...@lordsutch.com> - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/
Rick Leeland
I just got the ticket from my car, the code is VC 21453A. I will try to look
it up online. Thanks!
James Lin
news:ae2f70cb.02020...@posting.google.com...
> Do we need to make a full stop behind the line to turn right on a
> green light?
Since you're in San Jose, CA, you're covered by the California Vehicle Code.
I would go to
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
check off "Vehicle Code", search for "right turn" or something similar, and
start looking through the search results. I did my own search, and came up
with this section:
21451. (a) A driver facing a circular green signal shall proceed
straight through or turn right or left or make a U-turn unless a sign
prohibits a U-turn. Any driver, including one turning, shall yield
the right-of-way to other traffic and to pedestrians lawfully within
the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk.
It doesn't say anything about making a full stop. Of course, maybe some
other part of the Vehicle Code does, so you'll have to do a more thorough
search than I did.
Good luck,
- Jim
--
James Lin
jl...@ugcs.caltech.edu
Rick Leeland
Many thanks for finding this code! It sounds like a red light violation, but she was turning right on a green light. Would she violate this law if she was turning right on a red light?
James Lin
> Good thinking! It is VC 21453A. I havn't found it online yet.
Here is what that section says (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html)
* * *
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, except as provided in subdivision
(b).
(b) Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, a driver,
after stopping as required by subdivision (a), facing a steady
circular red signal, may turn right, or turn left from a one-way
street onto a one-way street. A driver making that turn shall yield
the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk
and to any vehicle that has approached or is approaching so closely
as to constitute an immediate hazard to the driver, and shall
continue to yield the right-of-way to that vehicle until the driver
can proceed with reasonable safety.
* * *
In other words, the police officer thinks your daughter didn't stop at a
*red* light, or he doesn't know what he's doing. If he told your daughter
she should have stopped before turning right on *green*, you should be able
to get this ticket thrown out easily.
Rick Leeland
Much obliged! You people really helped! I tried to call my daughter to get
more details, but she is at volunteer work right now and could not be reached.
I feel much better now that I know there is no such thing as FULL STOP turning
right on a simple green light.
Thanks!
Rick Leeland
My worst fear is that I might have heard it wrong and she was turning
right on a red light, then she is doomed. I am crossing my fingers right now
before I can find her on the phone. Thanks!
David Jensen
>Many thanks for finding this code! It sounds like a red light violation, but she was turning right on a
>green light. Would she violate this law if she was turning right on a red light?
Yes, it is a violation not to stop at the red light before turning. It
is a very common violation and carelessness in this area is a serious
risk to pedestrians and other drivers.
She may have told you that the light was green, but I'll be impressed if
she can persuade the judge that it was.
Rick Leeland
Yes that is my worst fear right now. She is a very honest girl but she might be panic and got
confused about the situation. I will clear this up with her today.
Thanks!
Joe Bramblett, KD5NRH
wrote:
>Hi,
>
> Do we need to make a full stop behind the line to turn right on a
>green light? My daughter got a ticket for not making the full stop,
>but her driving instructor told her that there is no need to, just
>pause and watch for cars and pedestrians. I observed the traffic on a
>green light today and found NOBODY stop at the green light to turn
>right, they simply drove slowly and turned with caution. Do we have a
>law that nobody follow? Is this one of those silly laws that everyone
>knew is wrong and simply ignored since sudden stop at green might
>cause collision? Thanks for any input to this puzzle.
What state? What city? Is there a traffic code section or city
ordinance number listed on the ticket? If not, have you called the
court to ask them exactly which law she's accused of violating?
Joe Bramblett, KD5NRH
kd5...@kd5nrh.net
Rick Leeland
This is in San Jose, California. The code is CV 21453a:
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, except as provided in subdivision
(b).
(b) Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, a driver,
after stopping as required by subdivision (a), facing a steady
circular red signal, may turn right, or turn left from a one-way
street onto a one-way street. A driver making that turn shall yield
the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk
and to any vehicle that has approached or is approaching so closely
as to constitute an immediate hazard to the driver, and shall
continue to yield the right-of-way to that vehicle until the driver
can proceed with reasonable safety.
People have told me that only turning right on red needs to make FULL
STOP. There is a possibility that her memory might not be accurate
regaring the green light. I'll ask her about it tonight.
Thanks!
Joe Bramblett, KD5NRH
<rickl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Hi Kevin,
>
> I just got the ticket from my car, the code is VC 21453A. I will try to look
>it up online. Thanks!
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, except as provided in subdivision
(b).
If the cop admits it was green, then this ticket is crap.
Joe Bramblett, KD5NRH
kd5...@kd5nrh.net
Chuck.K
Rick Leeland wrote:
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> I just got the ticket from my car, the code is VC 21453A. I will try to look
> it up online. Thanks!
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, except as provided in subdivision
(b).
Based on the VC violation, she blew a RED light, not a green light.
Not much chance of arguing it in court, as the LEO will state she ran
the red (or more likely, failed to come to a COMPLETE STOP, known as a
California roller) at the red light.
His word against hers. Who do you think the Judge will believe?
Chuck
Snickerdo
You'd be suprised. In Ontario, judges give the benifit of the doubt to the
person fighting the violation in court, since they took the time off work
(or whatever) to come into court and actually fight the ticket. Most of the
time jusdges in Ontario will either totally throw out a ticket or reduce the
fine to zero if you actually take it to court.
Arif Khokar
> Hi John,
>
> No, it is a simple green light without any kinds of arrow. There is
> not a soul within two miles except a police car. She saw the police and got
> scared, so she decided to follow exactly what she was told in driving
> school and she got a ticket. Thanks!
If you have a steady circular green light, you do have the right of way
through the intersection if taking a right turn or going straight
(assuming no cross traffic is left over from the previous light cycle).
If you're taking a left turn, you have to yield to oncoming traffic.
Most states (I guess) have a home page along the format
http://www.state.xx.us, where xx would be the two letter state
abbreviation. You should be able to find traffic code somewhere on the
site and cross reference the ticket with the code your daughter was
cited for violating. That should clarify your questions as to what she
was actually charged with.
If it does turn out that this was a bogus cite, you should easily get it
tossed out in court.
CLSNOWYOWL
From: rickl...@yahoo.com (Rick Leeland)
Date: 2/4/102 6:08 PM EST
Message-id: <ae2f70cb.02020...@posting.google.com>
Hi,
Do we need to make a full stop behind the line to turn right on a
green light? My daughter got a ticket for not making the full stop,
but her driving instructor told her that there is no need to, just
pause and watch for cars and pedestrians. I observed the traffic on a
green light today and found NOBODY stop at the green light to turn
right, they simply drove slowly and turned with caution. Do we have a
law that nobody follow? Is this one of those silly laws that everyone
knew is wrong and simply ignored since sudden stop at green might
cause collision? Thanks for any input to this puzzle. ]]]]
Actually, if there is a pedestrian trying to cross in one of two directions
within the path of the car even though you are making a right turn on a green,
the pedestrian actually has the right of way (according to the DMV handbook).
Now, I have a question for you. What was the speed your daughter was clocked at
when she was making the turn and did she make any effort to even slow down
before or during turning or did she accelerate during the turn?
I ask this because the officer may not have ticketed your daughter for the fact
she made a right turn on a green without stopping. He may have ticketed her for
making an unsafe turn. Perhaps, a little bit more analysis might reveal that
her speed in the process of making a turn (much over 15 mph) may have been
unsafe, especially if she made a lane change without signalling immediately
afterward.
D. Stussy
> Do we need to make a full stop behind the line to turn right on a
>green light? My daughter got a ticket for not making the full stop,
>but her driving instructor told her that there is no need to, just
>pause and watch for cars and pedestrians. I observed the traffic on a
>green light today and found NOBODY stop at the green light to turn
>right, they simply drove slowly and turned with caution. Do we have a
>law that nobody follow? Is this one of those silly laws that everyone
>knew is wrong and simply ignored since sudden stop at green might
>cause collision? Thanks for any input to this puzzle.
A green light means GO, not stop, so no stop is required at all, unless there
is a RED RIGHT ARROW also present.
Timothy J. Lee
Arif Khokar <akhok...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>If you have a steady circular green light, you do have the right of way
>through the intersection if taking a right turn or going straight
Right turn on green has to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk.
The pedestrians may enter on the same green light, going parallel
to straight through vehicle traffic.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
Arthur L. Rubin
> She needs to come to a full stop if a pedestrian is trying to cross in
> front of her with the green light.
Incorrect. She needs to avoid the crosswalk while the pedestrian
is crossing. She does not need to come to a full stop.
--
Arthur L. Rubin 216-...@mcimail.com
Snow
when I was involved in an accident<quick synopsis>
Stopped at red light,, when light turns green, I proceed through
intersection.<headed north>
the offending party was west bound,, ran the red light, and collided with
me, hard enough to flip my 92 Safari van onto the drivers side, and push me
30 feet into a light stand.
He totaled both of our vans <his was a voyager>
Cops charged him with reckless <due his speed and running the red light>
5 months later he went to court and got off with failing to come to a
complete stop..
Snow...
Snow
sort of a set-up type scam??
Snow...
Snow
walk clear, but infact by the time she actually started turning the light
went yellow. A number of places do class yellow lights as stop <even though
it is a cautionary for upcoming red> Green= Go, Yellow= Stop/perpare to
stop, Red= Stopped/no go.
Snow...
Matthew Russotto
Rick Leeland <rickl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Hi Nathan,
>
> I am in Santa Clara county of California. It is a full green light.
>It seems to be a obscure law that nobody ever pays attention to in
>California (maybe other states as well) since it will totally disrupt the
>flow of traffic on green. But according to the San Jose police officer,
>it exists. I will go to court soon to appeal since my daughter is getting
>conflicted message regarding what to do, and I hope the judge will see
>that it is all not her fault that she does not know about this obscure
>law. Based on this law, the city can give 1 million citations a day.
>Please advice.
The citation should have the exact number of the law. Post it, and/or
look it up on a CA law web site. There have been cases where an officer
cited someone for something which wasn't illegal.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrus...@speakeasy.net
=====
Dmitry is free, but the DMCA survives. DMCA delenda est!
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
Matthew Russotto
Rick Leeland <rickl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Hi Sam,
>
> Good thinking! It is VC 21453A. I havn't found it online yet.
That's running a RED light.
Timothy J. Lee
D. Stussy <kd6...@att.net> wrote:
>A green light means GO, not stop, so no stop is required at all, unless there
>is a RED RIGHT ARROW also present.
Or a pedestrian in the crosswalk.
David J. Greenberger
> Real Name wrote:
>
> > She needs to come to a full stop if a pedestrian is trying to cross in
> > front of her with the green light.
>
> Incorrect. She needs to avoid the crosswalk while the pedestrian
> is crossing. She does not need to come to a full stop.
Similarly, one need not stop at a red light. One must only refrain from
entering an intersection protected by a red light.
As a practical matter, one must often come to a complete stop in either
case.
--
David J. Greenberger
New York, NY
Alex Rodriguez
rickl...@yahoo.com says...
>
>Hi,
>
> Do we need to make a full stop behind the line to turn right on a
>green light? My daughter got a ticket for not making the full stop,
>but her driving instructor told her that there is no need to, just
>pause and watch for cars and pedestrians. I observed the traffic on a
>green light today and found NOBODY stop at the green light to turn
>right, they simply drove slowly and turned with caution. Do we have a
>law that nobody follow? Is this one of those silly laws that everyone
>knew is wrong and simply ignored since sudden stop at green might
>cause collision? Thanks for any input to this puzzle.
Read the ticket. They will list the law your daughter supposedly broke.
Go to your library and look up the law. That way you can be sure of
what she is being accused of doing.
--
-----------------
Alex __O
_-\<,_
(_)/ (_)
Chuck.K
Snickerdo wrote:
> You'd be suprised. In Ontario, judges give the benifit of the doubt to the
> person fighting the violation in court, since they took the time off work
> (or whatever) to come into court and actually fight the ticket. Most of the
> time jusdges in Ontario will either totally throw out a ticket or reduce the
> fine to zero if you actually take it to court.
Ontario CANADA?
Or
Ontario California USA?
If Canada, I could believe it, as the legal system in Canada isn't quite
as screwed as that in the US. If California, then I don't believe,
having sat through any number of cases.
Chuck
Chuck.K
CLSNOWYOWL wrote:
>
> Actually, if there is a pedestrian trying to cross in one of two directions
> within the path of the car even though you are making a right turn on a green,
> the pedestrian actually has the right of way (according to the DMV handbook).
>
> Now, I have a question for you. What was the speed your daughter was clocked at
> when she was making the turn and did she make any effort to even slow down
> before or during turning or did she accelerate during the turn?
>
> I ask this because the officer may not have ticketed your daughter for the fact
> she made a right turn on a green without stopping. He may have ticketed her for
> making an unsafe turn. Perhaps, a little bit more analysis might reveal that
> her speed in the process of making a turn (much over 15 mph) may have been
> unsafe, especially if she made a lane change without signalling immediately
> afterward.
Here we go AGAIN!
Does Birdbrain EVER actually READ the freaking posts?
Chuck
Christopher Green
At the risk of splitting hairs, the California law does read "stop".
Other jurisdictions may have it "do not enter"; but you are right, the
practical difference is negligible.
--
Chris Green
Brandon Sommerville
I'm going to assume Canada since he's posting from a .ca address.
--
Brandon
You're just jealous because the little voices talk to ME.
Remove ".gov" to e-mail
John David Galt
> desirable) to stop. If there is, you must stop.
If there is, you must yield, but you can and should still go up to the
line of the crosswalk the pedestrian is in. Then you can complete your
turn after the pedestrian has gone by, even if the light has changed by
then.
Snickerdo
> when I was involved in an accident<quick synopsis>
> 5 months later he went to court and got off with failing to come to a
> complete stop..
No. Not soft, just willing to always side with the person who actually goes
to court to argue the case, rather then just plead gaily. As I said before,
most of the times the judges will give the benefit of the doubt to the
citizen who is willing to loose a day of work/school/whatever to fight the
case, whereas the majority of people who are guilty just plead and pay a
fine.
Barry Twycross
<sno...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
California (where the original incident happened)) doesn't. Yellow
light is just to tell you red is comming.
--
Barry
Ba...@netbox.com <http://www.netbox.com/barry>
------
(I should put something down here).
Barry Twycross
Leeland <rickl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Do we need to make a full stop behind the line to turn right on a
> green light? My daughter got a ticket for not making the full stop,
> but her driving instructor told her that there is no need to, just
> pause and watch for cars and pedestrians. I observed the traffic on a
> green light today and found NOBODY stop at the green light to turn
> right, they simply drove slowly and turned with caution. Do we have a
> law that nobody follow? Is this one of those silly laws that everyone
> knew is wrong and simply ignored since sudden stop at green might
> cause collision? Thanks for any input to this puzzle.
I've read this thread and nothing is making sense. You shoudln't stop
at a green light, green means go, stopping is silly. The only reason to
stop would be if a pedestrian was in the cross walk.
I do wonder if the cop saw the hesitation at the light, but didn't see
the light. Assumed it was red because of the hesitation and wrote out a
red light citation. Just a theory, but that would make more sense than
anything else going on here.
Tim Phelps
"Rick Leeland" <rickl...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> Do we need to make a full stop behind the line to turn right on a
> green light?
Obviously, from the posts, there is not such thing as requiring to make a
full stop on a green light when making a right turn. But this does makes me
wonder: Is it illegal to make a *full* stop on a *green* light before making
a right turn when the crosswalk is clear of pedestrians and such?
David J. Greenberger
(Warning: Much hair splitting follows.)
I don't see any practical distinction whatsoever. The California law is
probably worded to require stopping before reaching the intersection
(however that's defined) if the light is red. One way to accomplish
that is to stop before the intersection. Another way is to simply not
reach the intersection while the light is red, by slowing down, by
turning at the prior intersection or at a driveway, or the like.
Similarly, if a pedestrian is crossing in one's path, one may stop for
the pedestrian, slow down for the pedestrian, or (depending on the
specific law) turn behind the pedestrian. In either case, the effect of
the law, regardless of how it's worded, is to require the driver to
refrain from entering a particular space (the intersection or the
crosswalk, respectively) during a particular time (while the red light
is illuminated or while a pedestrian is in the crosswalk, respectively).
Garth Almgren
> "Rick Leeland" <rickl...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>> Do we need to make a full stop behind the line to turn right on a
>>green light?
>>
>
> a right turn when the crosswalk is clear of pedestrians and such?
>
Revised Code of Washington only talks about going on green, not
stopping. I'm sure most other states and provinces would be similar.
They might be able to get you for impeading traffic, but only if the cop
were being really mean. <shrug>
--
~/Garth
'83 V6 GL Hatch (AKA V6stang)
http://www.v6stang.com/v6stang/
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/v6stang
ChrisCoaster
> Hi,
>
> Do we need to make a full stop behind the line to turn right on a
> but her driving instructor told her that there is no need to, just
> pause and watch for cars and pedestrians. I observed the traffic on a
> green light today and found NOBODY stop at the green light to turn
> right, they simply drove slowly and turned with caution. Do we have a
> law that nobody follow? Is this one of those silly laws that everyone
> knew is wrong and simply ignored since sudden stop at green might
> cause collision? Thanks for any input to this puzzle.
_______
That's the STUPIDEST damn law I ever heard, and it certainly wouldn't
work with the way people drive here in Stamford, CT. The body shops
would make a mint in a boom trade!
-ChrisCoaster
John David Galt
No, but like any other needless waste of time, it ought to be illegal if it
blocks other people.
Snow
Snow
Snow...
Arthur L. Rubin
I have a friend who claims she got a ticket for running a yellow
light.
But she's confused about a lot of other things, too.
As for a substantive comment, (ignoring the fact that her ticket
was for failure to come to a complete stop before a right turn on
red, as you have), if she was turning right, and there was a
pedestrian in the parallel crosswalk, she should have pulled into
the intersection (but short of the parallel crosswalk) on green,
and then completed the turn when the pedestrian was clear of
the crosswalk.
Arthur L. Rubin
> Similarly, one need not stop at a red light. One must only refrain from
> entering an intersection protected by a red light.
For a stop sign, or "right turn on red", you DO need to come to
a full stop before proceding.
da...@pebble.org
> Sorry should have clarified more. Yes Ontario, Canada.
Oh, so that explains why your message was cross-posted to
california.driving (ca.driving).
- Dan
Sherman Potter
news:ae2f70cb.02020...@posting.google.com...
> Hi,
>
> Do we need to make a full stop behind the line to turn right on a
> but her driving instructor told her that there is no need to, just
> pause and watch for cars and pedestrians. I observed the traffic on a
> green light today and found NOBODY stop at the green light to turn
> right, they simply drove slowly and turned with caution. Do we have a
> law that nobody follow? Is this one of those silly laws that everyone
> knew is wrong and simply ignored since sudden stop at green might
> cause collision? Thanks for any input to this puzzle.
There is no need to stop, ever, at a green light. Stopping at a green light
is something morons do.
Snickerdo
That's your opinion. Many would disagree with you, including me. In
Canada, we choose not to give cops ultimate un-challenged power, and it
should be the same in the US too.
N. W. Perry
"Arthur L. Rubin" wrote:
> I have a friend who claims she got a ticket for running a yellow
> light.
>
> But she's confused about a lot of other things, too.
It could have happened in certain state. For instance, Massachusetts law requires
a stop on yellow, if safe to do so. By comparison, New York's more permissive law
allows motorists to pass a yellow light, if possible (without violating other
laws such as speeding of course). A subtle distinction, but the MA version allows
the citation described above.
N. W. Perry
Sherman Potter wrote:
> There is no need to stop, ever, at a green light. Stopping at a green light
> is something morons do.
It is also implicitly forbidden under the California statute cited numerous
times elsewhere in this thread. The wording is to the effect of "traffic facing
a green signal shall proceed..."; not "may" proceed, but "shall".
Robert Briggs
You do seem to have some *stupid* laws over your way.
According to that, if I'm ever at a Californian green light and an
ambulance running blues and twos wants to cross my path then I am
*required* to proceed, thus blocking his way!
Sherman Potter
news:3C62D796...@BITphysics.orgBUCKET...
I'll give you that: Yielding to emergency vehicles on their way to an
emergency in progress, or a pedestrian in the crosswalk going with the
light, are the only 2 situations where stopping at a green light are
anything less than idiotic.
Christopher Green
Not quite. In that case, I have two requirements: (1) to proceed,
because of the green light (CVC 21451); but also (2) to yield to the
emergency vehicle (CVC 21806). In practice, if not necessarily in the
often-zany California laws, yielding right of way to an emergency
vehicle or to avoid an accident is always proper. So there is a legal
conundrum that has no practical import.
I've always thought that the law against not proceeding on a green
light was there to provide grounds for a traffic stop when a driver
was so intoxicated or distracted he didn't notice that the light was
green.
--
Chris Green
Jeff Bishop
news:c31fa7b1.02020...@posting.google.com...
>
> I've always thought that the law against not proceeding on a green
> light was there to provide grounds for a traffic stop when a driver
> was so intoxicated or distracted he didn't notice that the light was
> green.
If so, it's a pretty silly law. Can't they stop anyone who is obviously
intoxicated or distracted, whether they catch them violating a separate
statute or not?
Arthur L. Rubin
> There is no need to stop, ever, at a green light.
Actually, that's not quite correct, either. Remember the
"anti-gridlock" law in California? The browser I use
to read news is to primative to get to the CA vehicle
code, but my recollection is that it forbids entering
an intersection if there's not enough room on the
far side to leave it.
I actually almost got caught in an intersection
once, and probably would have been found in
violation if a policeman was there. When I
entered the intersection, there was room in
the lane I was in (right lane of 3). However,
cars in the number 1 and number 2 lane both
shifted right to number 2 and number 3, and
the only free space was in the number 1 lane
which I couldn't get to.
Fortunately, the traffic ahead started moving
before the light changed, but....
Christopher Green
They don't go around wearing signs saying "I'm drunk" or "I'm not
paying attention". Except in flagrant cases, it's not obvious until
they come to law enforcement's attention by doing something silly,
like sitting stopped at a green light at 2 in the morning.
--
Chris Green
C.R. Krieger
news:4gR78.11184$Xw.14...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Yeah but most times the Ontario judges are way too soft.. Take a look
at
> when I was involved in an accident<quick synopsis>
>
> Cops charged him with reckless <due his speed and running the red
light>
> complete stop..
Apparently you fail to understand the logic and economics of plea
bargaining and the separation of the civil and criminal/traffic legal
systems. Any lawyer worth hiring for a case like this would simply tell
the prosecutor that the case will be defended 'vigorously' (read:
expensively) in order *not* to have a legally binding finding of fault
for his client in any later *civil* action. There's no way the state
can recoup, from the penalties available, the cost of a trial for
reckless driving. Therefore, they cut a revenue-generating (as opposed
to revenue-*losing*) deal. That leaves the insurers' lawyers to argue
the full liability issues in the case between these parties.
I often tell clients that, as satisfying as seeing someone go to jail
might be, it does them not one bit of good (and often hinders the
ability to pay) in getting paid back for whatever it was the offender
did to them. Better to let the criminal justice system do as it will
and *win* the civil suit.
--
C.R. Krieger
"Don't argue with 'em, dear; they're beneath our dignity." - W.C. Fields
Matthew Russotto
C.R. Krieger <war...@lakefieldDOT.net> wrote:
>
>Apparently you fail to understand the logic and economics of plea
>bargaining and the separation of the civil and criminal/traffic legal
>systems. Any lawyer worth hiring for a case like this would simply tell
>the prosecutor that the case will be defended 'vigorously' (read:
>expensively) in order *not* to have a legally binding finding of fault
>for his client in any later *civil* action. There's no way the state
>can recoup, from the penalties available, the cost of a trial for
>reckless driving. Therefore, they cut a revenue-generating (as opposed
>to revenue-*losing*) deal. That leaves the insurers' lawyers to argue
>the full liability issues in the case between these parties.
But C.R., for this to work, it would mean that the traffic code was
about revenue and not justice, and we all know THAT isn't the case.
>I often tell clients that, as satisfying as seeing someone go to jail
>might be, it does them not one bit of good (and often hinders the
>ability to pay) in getting paid back for whatever it was the offender
>did to them. Better to let the criminal justice system do as it will
>and *win* the civil suit.
You'd never make it as a divorce lawyer... sometimes it ain't what you
get, but how much the other guy loses :-)
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrus...@speakeasy.net
=====
Dmitry is free, but the DMCA survives. DMCA delenda est!
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
Robert Briggs
> I've always thought that the law against not proceeding on a green
> light was there to provide grounds for a traffic stop when a driver
> was so intoxicated or distracted he didn't notice that the light was
> green.
Here in the UK, I think sitting at a green light for what a cop judged
top be an inordinate time would be adequate justification for a traffic
stop and a breath test.
If the driver was judged to have caused unjustifiable delay to the
fellow behind him, I guess the formal charge would be one of
"inconsiderate driving", although the cop might well settle for a
warning.
Joseph T. Adams
: On 4 Feb 2002, Rick Leeland wrote:
:> Do we need to make a full stop behind the line to turn right on a
:>green light? My daughter got a ticket for not making the full stop,
:>but her driving instructor told her that there is no need to, just
:>pause and watch for cars and pedestrians. I observed the traffic on a
:>green light today and found NOBODY stop at the green light to turn
:>right, they simply drove slowly and turned with caution. Do we have a
:>law that nobody follow? Is this one of those silly laws that everyone
:>knew is wrong and simply ignored since sudden stop at green might
:>cause collision? Thanks for any input to this puzzle.
: A green light means GO, not stop, so no stop is required at all, unless there
: is a RED RIGHT ARROW also present.
Or a pedestrian, although that wasn't an issue here.
Joe
Joseph T. Adams
AFAIK, blocking the normal and lawful flow of traffic is *always*
illegal in Ohio.
Unfortunately, that law is very seldom enforced, unless it contributes
to an accident, and even then only rarely.
As an aside, if someone stops for no lawful reason and you hit him,
then in most cases, you are *both* guilty. You can't legally follow
any closer than the distance required to safely stop. It is presumed
that you did try to stop, so the fact that you couldn't means you were
following too closely. However, the driver in front who stopped for
no lawful reason can be cited too. Note that, especially in wooded
areas, small animals frequently attempt to cross streets, and people
will usually attempt to avoid hitting them if they can do so safely.
As far as I know that is perfectly legal, and if in such an area, one
ought to expect that and behave accordingly.
Joe
Joseph T. Adams
: "Rick Leeland" <rickl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
"Ever" is much too strong a word.
You must stop if you cannot safely proceed, for instance if there is a
pedestrian in the crosswalk, or any obstruction in the intersection,
or in icy conditions if one cannot be certain of intersecting drivers
(or one's self) being able to stop in time to avoid a collision.
Joe
Jeff Bishop
> On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 04:37:02 GMT, "Jeff Bishop"
> >intoxicated or distracted, whether they catch them violating a separate
> >statute or not?
>
> They don't go around wearing signs saying "I'm drunk" or "I'm not
> paying attention". Except in flagrant cases, it's not obvious until
> they come to law enforcement's attention by doing something silly,
> like sitting stopped at a green light at 2 in the morning.
That was my point. Sitting stopped at a green light at 2 in the morning is
obviously silly, whether it's legal or not.
KAR120C
A red light or stop sign requires a FULL STOP. That is, all foreward momentum
must cease. The car must stop AND rotate back to a complete rest position.
Two seconds look to the left. Two seconds look to the right. One second look
to the left. Five seconds total. Then proceed. This is the TECHNICAL
standard used for a full stop.
Anything less gives probable cause for an LEO to issue a "failure to obey a
traffic control device" citation.
There is much variation in how much discretion LEO's use. Some have a
reasonable amount of tolerance. Others are ticket writers.
It sounds like your daughter met one of the ticket writer types.
In article <ae2f70cb.02020...@posting.google.com>,
rickl...@yahoo.com says...
Michael R. Kesti
>Yes. She deserved the ticket, at least technically.
Hmmmm...
>A red light or stop sign requires a FULL STOP. That is, all foreward momentum
>must cease. The car must stop AND rotate back to a complete rest position.
OK.
>Two seconds look to the left. Two seconds look to the right. One second look
>to the left. Five seconds total. Then proceed. This is the TECHNICAL
>standard used for a full stop.
If it's a standard it must be specified somewhere. Can you cite where?
>Anything less gives probable cause for an LEO to issue a "failure to obey a
>traffic control device" citation.
>
>There is much variation in how much discretion LEO's use. Some have a
>reasonable amount of tolerance. Others are ticket writers.
>
>It sounds like your daughter met one of the ticket writer types.
I suppose so, but she is reported to have been facing a green light rather
than a red light or stop sign.
--
========================================================================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mke...@gv.net | - The Who, Bargain
Joe Bramblett, KD5NRH
<Je...@Bishop.fakedomain.net> wrote:
>> They don't go around wearing signs saying "I'm drunk" or "I'm not
>> paying attention". Except in flagrant cases, it's not obvious until
>> they come to law enforcement's attention by doing something silly,
>> like sitting stopped at a green light at 2 in the morning.
>
>That was my point. Sitting stopped at a green light at 2 in the morning is
>obviously silly, whether it's legal or not.
Yet you'd be amazed by the number of people who stop for a flashing
yellow around here...and honk at anyone who dares to pass them while
they're doing it.
Joe Bramblett, KD5NRH
kd5...@kd5nrh.net
http://www.kd5nrh.net
Joe Bramblett, KD5NRH
wrote:
>Two seconds look to the left. Two seconds look to the right. One second look
>to the left. Five seconds total. Then proceed. This is the TECHNICAL
>standard used for a full stop.
Uh...sure. You try a five second stop at a sign with no cross traffic
around here. That'll get a cop's attention pretty quick.
Arthur L. Rubin
> Note that, especially in wooded
> areas, small animals frequently attempt to cross streets, and people
> will usually attempt to avoid hitting them if they can do so safely.
> As far as I know that is perfectly legal, and if in such an area, one
> ought to expect that and behave accordingly.
In urban residential areas, small pets frequently attempt to
cross streets....
Arthur L. Rubin
>
> Yes. She deserved the ticket, at least technically.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. It was claimed the light was green.
> A red light or stop sign requires a FULL STOP. That is, all foreward momentum
> must cease. The car must stop AND rotate back to a complete rest position.
OK.
> Two seconds look to the left. Two seconds look to the right. One second look
> to the left. Five seconds total. Then proceed. This is the TECHNICAL
> standard used for a full stop.
None of this is accurate. I've heard 3 seconds, but there is no time
requirement if it could be seen that the roadway was clear before
the car reached the intersection.
***Dave's House Of Hip-Hop***
>FIVE SECONDS?!?!?!? Some people honk at me if i've stopped for 'one'
second! If I were behind someone who's stopped for five seconds I
assume they're either a dolt or they are having mechanical trouble.
More often than not it's the former. If it takes five seconds for one
to determine that it's safe to proceed, then they shouldn't be allowed
to operate a motor vehicle. Sheesh!>
Joel Garry
Don't forget, if some sort of traffic control person directs you to. Some
of them do some real idiotic directing, too. I got a ticket once (at an
uncontrolled intersection) where a crossing guard held the stop sign behind
her fat body, then directed a cop who hadn't seen the incident to give me
a ticket. Furbishiner judge found me guilty, too, even with the cop admitting
he didn't see me do anything wrong.
Saw an odd effect a few days ago. Coming up to a red light, opposing traffic
have green, as does opposing left turn lane. Firetruck/ambulance box comes
up through opposing traffic (some of which cluelessly don't get out of the
way, of course), proceeds on its way. Light turns green for me and about
3 or 4 cars in front of me, then immediately turns yellow and red before
the 2 cars in front of me can get there. Wondering if the blue strobe set
off the cross street sensor.
jg
--
These opinions are my own.
http://www.garry.to Oracle and unix guy.
mailto:joel-...@nospam.home.com Remove nospam to reply.
Joel Garry
"He blew his mind out in a car" was a real incident. There is a picture of
the guy sitting in the back seat of a psychedelic 62 Buick convertible,
Tara Browne, heir to Guiness fortune, p 110 of "I Want To Take You Higher"
history from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. The song actually refers to
his fatal auto accident.
I'd speculate the law goes back to many years ago, when with new-fangled
light-only signals it just wasn't obvious that "green means go." Before
that, there were signals that would raise physical signs, or policemen
would direct you, or everyone would just drive every which way.
Joel Garry
>Yes. She deserved the ticket, at least technically.
>
>A red light or stop sign requires a FULL STOP. That is, all foreward momentum
>must cease. The car must stop AND rotate back to a complete rest position.
What in the world is "rotate back to a complete rest position?"
Brandon Sommerville
>On Sat, 09 Feb 2002 04:36:40 -0000, KAR120C <nos...@spamdecoy.com> wrote:
>>Yes. She deserved the ticket, at least technically.
>>
>>A red light or stop sign requires a FULL STOP. That is, all foreward momentum
>>must cease. The car must stop AND rotate back to a complete rest position.
>
>What in the world is "rotate back to a complete rest position?"
As you brake hard you've got forward momentum, when you come to a
complete stop the car sort of settles back.
I try and avoid that action by easing up on the brakes as I come to a
stop.
--
Brandon
You're just jealous because the little voices talk to ME.
Remove ".gov" to e-mail
Nathan Nagel
It does?
Oh, I forgot, some people drive cars with suspensions that actually move
:)
nate
(H&R/Koni suspension on the Scirocco, I dare you to make that car dive!)
John F. Carr
KAR120C <nos...@spamdecoy.com> wrote:
>Yes. She deserved the ticket, at least technically.
>
>A red light or stop sign requires a FULL STOP. That is, all foreward momentum
>must cease. The car must stop AND rotate back to a complete rest position.
>
>Two seconds look to the left. Two seconds look to the right. One second look
>to the left. Five seconds total. Then proceed. This is the TECHNICAL
>standard used for a full stop.
>
>Anything less gives probable cause for an LEO to issue a "failure to obey a
>traffic control device" citation.
In the south (specifically, the Fifth Circuit court of appeals) a five
second stop at a stop sign has been held to be suspiciously long,
giving police cause to stop your car. See
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/00/00-50757-cr0.htm
Joel Garry
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>>
>> Joel Garry wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 09 Feb 2002 04:36:40 -0000, KAR120C <nos...@spamdecoy.com> wrote:
>> >>Yes. She deserved the ticket, at least technically.
>> >>
>> >>A red light or stop sign requires a FULL STOP. That is, all foreward momentum
>> >>must cease. The car must stop AND rotate back to a complete rest position.
>> >
>> >What in the world is "rotate back to a complete rest position?"
>>
>> As you brake hard you've got forward momentum, when you come to a
>> complete stop the car sort of settles back.
>>
>> I try and avoid that action by easing up on the brakes as I come to a
>> stop.
So if I jam on the parking brake so the car stays raked, I haven't stopped?
Cool!
>> --
>> Brandon
>>
>> You're just jealous because the little voices talk to ME.
>>
>> Remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
>
>It does?
>
>Oh, I forgot, some people drive cars with suspensions that actually move
>:)
>
>nate
>
>(H&R/Koni suspension on the Scirocco, I dare you to make that car dive!)
But does it lift the inside rear wheel? :-)
I always thought it would be funny to have an autocross with little plastic
fire-hydrants instead of cones for cars that do that!
"Ve _meant_ for zem to do zat! Ve control ze camber! Ve control ze caster!
Zoon the cheometry vill be ourz! You don't vant cupholderz, you vill drive!"
Michael R. Kesti
>On Sun, 10 Feb 2002 03:12:36 GMT, Nathan Nagel <njn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>>>
>>> Joel Garry wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Sat, 09 Feb 2002 04:36:40 -0000, KAR120C <nos...@spamdecoy.com> wrote:
>>> >>Yes. She deserved the ticket, at least technically.
>>> >>
>>> >>A red light or stop sign requires a FULL STOP. That is, all foreward momentum
>>> >>must cease. The car must stop AND rotate back to a complete rest position.
>>> >
>>> >What in the world is "rotate back to a complete rest position?"
>>>
>>> As you brake hard you've got forward momentum, when you come to a
>>> complete stop the car sort of settles back.
>>>
>>> I try and avoid that action by easing up on the brakes as I come to a
>>> stop.
You can reduce and even minimize that action that way, but, unless your
car has completely solid "suspension", including its tires, you cannot
completely eliminate it.
>So if I jam on the parking brake so the car stays raked, I haven't stopped?
I doubt that your parking brake locks up your suspension.
David J. Greenberger
> David J. Greenberger wrote:
>
> > Similarly, one need not stop at a red light. One must only refrain from
> > entering an intersection protected by a red light.
>
> For a stop sign, or "right turn on red", you DO need to come to
> a full stop before proceding.
Reread what I wrote. If one refrains from entering an intersection
protected by a red light (whether by stopping or by other means), one is
clearly not turning right on red. I don't see why you bring in stop
signs at all; since stop signs never turn green, the only way to avoid
an upcoming stop sign is to turn off the road before reaching it.
--
David J. Greenberger
New York, NY