• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Help with Red Light "Violation"

kangaroo said:
the rule is past the limit line without accelerating before the red light.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. The rule is past the limit line before the light turns red (i.e., if it's red, you have to stop at the limit line). It doesn't say anything about accelerating. Here's the applicable Vehicle Code Section.

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).

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21453.htm
 
Ozymandias said:
And to add to what Ironbutt just said... you MUST clear the intersection before the light turns red. That's why you were in violation. Thanks for helping to balance the bloated and over spending budget. :twofinger
Click to expand...
I'm open to being corrected by someone that knows better, but I believe this is incorrect. As long as you enter the intersection before it goes red, you are in the clear.
 
monstermonster said:
No, it's not. The rule is past the limit line before the light turns red (i.e., if it's red, you have to stop at the limit line). It doesn't say anything about accelerating. Here's the applicable Vehicle Code Section.

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).

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21453.htm
Click to expand...

note the word "before"
 
I agree with monstermonster's initial post. But the problem is the OP never mentions where he was in relation to the limit line/crosswalk.

He talks about a/the "turn" and the "middle of the turn." Considering he is on a Rebel, which could mean he is a newbie rider, he could have been going slow enough that as he crossed the limit line (which I believe is the lower line of a crosswalk), the stale yellow turned to red. So his front wheel might have crossed the limit line on the yellow but his rear wheel crossed on the red. Which means he turned on a red light without stopping. At least that's what I recall from similar discussions in the LEO forum.
 
Would just like to point out that using brakes in a turn will not make one "lose control" if done correctly.

And, one should know how to so it correctly if riding a motorcycle!


Good luck OP.
 
Ssskid said:
First there was just red and green, but that didn't give enough notice to stop, so yellow was introduced. But people treat the yellow as green, so they added multiple seconds where both lights are red. Now people treat the two seconds after the light turns red as if it were green. What's next? A fourth color on stoplights? A fifth? A full minute of silence while we wait for traffic to clear?

The left-turn scenario wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for people going straight who were treating the yellow light as a green light.

So now stopping at a yellow light is dangerous because the person behind you is probably hitting the accelerator just as you hit the brake.

Even if not it's not an actual danger (yes I do watch where I'm going) every day I'm on the road at least once I have to wait two or three seconds after the light turns green to let cars go past. Why? Because there are no consequences to "pushing it". It's crap.

All that said, I wish the OP the best of luck with the case. Just because I'm grousing about "there oughtta be a law" like an old man chasing kids off his lawn doesn't mean that the law shouldn't be enforced as it is. If he entered the intersection when the light was yellow it's a shame if he has to pay.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you there, Ssskid.
People now (many of them responding to this post) view the yellows as the 'optional greens' and just go through. When I was taught to drive it was conveyed that the yellow was a warning to stop, and that you should slow down and stop if you could. If it was unsafe to do so, you should proceed through the intersection.

That is the safest way to drive, and it is the way I still practice, regardless of how the law is actually enforced. If more people drove that way, we would all be safer, but since that isn't the case, I have to be on guard for idiots and jackass speeding up to clear the yellows everyday. Just one more thing to get ya.

Put this in perspective of the OP. Why such a hurry? If it was a yellow and you slowed down and stopped safely, you would have 5-6 hours of your life back, not to mention any potential fees you get dinged on. Seems like that could have been the smartest decision of all.

Good luck with your case.
 
Just be glad we're not up on Eugene, OR. Up there, they don't have the 2-second delay between red one way and green the other. Of course, people actually STOP when the light turns yellow rather than gun it through... :rolleyes
 
WTF is with all the negative energy and judgement on this thread? Here's a fellow motorcyclist asking for your help and support. If you don't want to provide that, just STFU and move on to the next thread.

I believe him that he was in the intersection on the yellow. There is nothing really wrong with that, so long as he's checked the intersection carefully and it's clear. And from a legal perspective, there's no law against it unless he's cited for gridlock.

His main problem is putting reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge. I would first, at trial, make sure I had a real judge, not a traffic "referee." You do that by recusing the referee, which you have a right to do in California. This has the benefit of requiring a rescheduling, which means you have a second shot at the cop not showing, and you get a real judge who knows the rules of evidence and how to run a real trial, not a kangaroo court designed to extract as much money in as short a time possible. I agree, however that it's going to be mostly a your work against his situation, which you'll probably lose.

Finally, have you ordered "Fight Your Ticket" from Nolo.com? You should. Or just call Scotty Storey!
 
Case dismissed! *dance for joy*

Thanks everyone for your replies and insight. I was fully prepared to go into battle if I needed to >.<
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top