First ticket in over 10 years...

[wheatonFJR]

Right turn on red after stop. Stretching a yellow is taking a risk and this time you lost. Unless there's video it's your word against his and he'll win. (trust me on this)
Respect for the red has gotten so bad over the past decade (or more) that stricter enforcement is usually embraced by motorcyclists.

I'm all for nailing people who BLOW a red light...not this chickenshit.

I don't embrace this at all.

 

[Auburn]

If you did not fully clear the intersection under the yellow (before the red) then technically you were in violation of the red light.

This is an incorrect statement (at least here in Washington and I suspect California too). If you enter the intersection under a yellow light, you have entered the insection under a legal movement. If you enter after the light has turned red without stopping, then you are guilty.

To carry this further, if you enter under a yellow, and are in a slow moving vehicle, such as a semi-truck, and the other direction gets a green, the other direction has to yeild to you so you can clear the intersection before they can go. If they don't and there is an accident, they are at fault, not the semi (or you).

The reason for the yellow is to provide a "delema" zone for drives to make a decision to stop and have enough distance to stop safely after they have crossed the advance vehicle detection loops (usually about 150-200 feet) prior to the stop bar. The distacne from the stop bar is based on the speed limit of the street. So if you are past the advance loops, the light turns yellow, and you cannont stop safely, it is expected by design, that you would proceed through the intersection and would have entered before the light turns red.

There is a lot of conspiracy theorist, that cities are shortening the yellow time to suuport red light cameras. The MUTCD (manual on unifrom traffic control devices) a federal publication sets the minimum yellow time of 3 seconds to a maximum of 6 seconds. The time gets longer as the advance loops move farther away from the stop bar as speeds increase. There is a lot of engineering that goes into where they go.

EDIT: here its the section of the 2003 Rev. 2 MUTCD that is currently in effect and applies:


Section 4D.26 Yellow Change and Red Clearance Intervals


Standard:

01 A steady yellow signal indication shall be displayed following every CIRCULAR GREEN or GREEN ARROW signal indication and following every flashing YELLOW ARROW or flashing RED ARROW signal indication displayed as a part of a steady mode operation. This requirement shall not apply when a CIRCULAR GREEN, a flashing YELLOW ARROW, or a flashing RED ARROW signal indication is followed immediately by a GREEN ARROW signal indication.


 
02 The exclusive function of the yellow change interval shall be to warn traffic of an impending change in the right-of-way assignment.
 

03 The duration of the yellow change interval shall be determined using engineering practices.


 
Support:
04
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part4/part4d.htm#section4D05Section 4D.05 contains provisions regarding the display of steady CIRCULAR YELLOW signal indications to approaches from which drivers are allowed to make permissive left turns.
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part4/part4d.htm#section4D05

 
Guidance:
05 When indicated by the application of engineering practices, the yellow change interval should be followed by a red clearance interval to provide additional time before conflicting traffic movements, including pedestrians, are released.
 
Standard:

06 When used, the duration of the red clearance interval shall be determined using engineering practices.


 
Support:
07 Engineering practices for determining the duration of yellow change and red clearance intervals can be found in ITE's "Traffic Control Devices Handbook" and in ITE's "Manual of Traffic Signal Design" (see
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part1/part1a.htm#section1A11Section 1A.11).
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part1/part1a.htm#section1A11

 
Standard:
08 The durations of yellow change intervals and red clearance intervals shall be consistent with the determined values within the technical capabilities of the controller unit.
 

09
The duration of a yellow change interval shall not vary on a cycle-by-cycle basis within the same signal timing plan.


 
10 Except as provided in
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part4/part4d.htm#section4D26_para12Paragraph 12, the duration of a red clearance interval shall not be decreased or omitted on a cycle-by-cycle basis within the same signal timing plan.
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part4/part4d.htm#section4D26_para12

 
Option:
11 The duration of a red clearance interval may be extended from its predetermined value for a given cycle based upon the detection of a vehicle that is predicted to violate the red signal indication.
 

12 When an actuated signal sequence includes a signal phase for permissive/protected (lagging) left-turn movements in both directions, the red clearance interval may be shown during those cycles when the lagging left-turn signal phase is skipped and may be omitted during those cycles when the lagging left-turn signal phase is shown.


 
13 The duration of a yellow change interval or a red clearance interval may be different in different signal timing plans for the same controller unit.
 

Guidance:



14 A yellow change interval should have a minimum duration of 3 seconds and a maximum duration of 6 seconds. The longer intervals should be reserved for use on approaches with higher speeds.



15 Except when clearing a one-lane, two-way facility (see <A href="
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part4/part4h.htm#section4H02https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part4/part4h.htm#section4H02">Section
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part4/part4h.htm#section4H024H.02) or when clearing an exceptionally wide intersection, a red clearance interval should have a duration not exceeding 6 seconds.
 
 
 

I would check out what the local law is, but I suspect the urban understanding is not what the law actually says.

 

[Bounce]

A contrarian view:Stopping on yellow will increase traffic congestion in metropolitan areas. Going on yellow helps keep traffic moving and benefits all road users. Stopping on red is mandatory.

Years ago I was reprimanded by a city dweller who was with me for not 'moving along' on yellow "You're just contributing to the problem when you slow, or worse - stop, on yellow" I was told. Traffic must "flow".

For the record: I'm with those who recco the OP get his day in court.

no disagreement from me on all of those. HOWEVER (watch it, buts and such invalidate everything that come before them): that was "old school" and so 20th century thinking. as MADD has changed the group mind about drinking and driving over the years, so to has the enforcement mind set changed over the years. err on the side of "conservative" or plan on playing the game.

re: day in court? OH HELL YEAH! Never give it to them for free. Make 'em work for it. Without tape (subpoena anyone?) or a witness for you, a you-v-him case will be your loss. In court though, you can often eat the fine but get a pass for it going on your record (traffic school, deferred adjudication). You're happy because your insurance doesn't go up. They're happy because they're more interested in your cash than anything else.

 

[exskibum]

I would file a "trial by declaration" first. If the cop's not a writer he won't complete his report. If he doesn't, you win by default. If he answers, you will likely lose. If you lose, you can request a trial de novo. Here, the cop will have to testify against you. You can ask questions and make closing argument.

BINGO!!! By far the best chances with this method in most minor citation cases in Calif. In the last 5 years, I'm 2 for 2 with this method, and I know that one of those acquittals was the result of the officer failing to submit a declaration because the judgment of acquittal specifically stated that as the reason. In the other I suspect the same, but I did have a better argument in that one and the judgment only said I was acquitted. It's much easier duty to show up at court for a LEO** than do what none likes to do -- paperwork to justify a pissant citation from months earlier.

In your declaration, you make the best argument you can that is honest -- like you first stated here, but maybe just state that you saw the light when you entered the intersection and it was yellow . . . and leave it at that. Research the VC section cited above about the rolling stop on red being the appropriate citation on the facts IF the light had been red, and not the citation the LEO gave you. Check to see if you have to slow or almost come to a stop for that, and if the facts you can honestly state support it, then make that argument as an alternative. Here's a link for California code sections (click Vehicle Code box and hit Search button):

https://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

Go out to the scene ASAP and observe the signal, time the light stages, take pics and make sure you have all the physical facts that might be useful in bolstering your declaration argument (or as attached exhibits) as contemporaneously with the citation as possible. Research the possibly applicable VC sections. Then when you get the notice from the court, plead not guilty, pay your fine and request a trial by declaration. I'd wait until the last day it can be returned and file it in person at the court (max delay but make sure it IS filed in time). When you get the declaration form, fill it out (I type up a double spaced attachment that I start on immediately upon having done the research and having decided upon my argument and then attach that with a "see attached Exhibit A" in their form). Your first draft may refer to the officer as a **** sucking ******* (hey, it's cathartic), but what you submit must be edited so that it is respectful and matter of fact -- no name calling or insinuating dishonesty on the officer's part, etc. File that declaration the last day, in person, but again -- make cure it gets filed on time. With each of those two submissions to the court, I write a brief cover letter (2 to 3 short paragraphs max) stating what it is that I'm enclosing for filing and stating that while I am innocent of the charges, if the court should disagree and find me guilty, I respectfully request that I be permitted upon conviction to enroll in a driver's training class, that I qualify and that I am uncertain when I need to pay those fees, so please advise. I also put a brief blurb about this in the conclusion of my declaration. (Their forms and instructions don't make that circumstance of pleading not guilty and applying for driver's training clear in terms of process and when payment for the class is required -- or at least they didn't the last time I did this in '06.) Filing it in person, you can tell the clerk that you are requesting the class if you should be convicted and point out that you have noted that request in your cover letter and declaration and ask her if there is anything else you need to do for that.

The prerequisite to all this is being polite to the LEO during the stop and not creating a reason for him to specifically remember you, write something about your demeanor on the citation or worse -- have a hard-on for you. He'll probably take the time to write declarations on those people, and it may include the colorful story of the encounter that you provided him. Per your retelling of your stop, it seems you have no such problem even if he had an attitude.

** I've heard, but cannot verify that they get 4 hrs at time and a half for showing up to testify.

Anyway, that's my 0.4 hours worth. Good luck.

 

[RenoJohn]

... a Folsom cop cited me today

I hate the fuzz .....freakin' pricks they are.

 

[puppychow]

Thank you for all the suggestions, I am going to be preparing my written declaration this weekend and taking pictures, drawing diagrams etc now when the event is fresh in my memory. I will wait till a couple days before the deadline to submit the written declaration at the court clerks window, just to give me one more day if they give me the run around.

I will also leave the color discrepancy of the car out of my written declaration, but try to use it in court if the written declaration doesn't work.

Thanks for the advice fellas, these bullies aren't robbing me without a fight!

 

[Crash Cash]

his claim on my ticket that I was driving a silver car (I was driving a black one)

Now THAT is a large error you (or a lawyer) can make major hay with, and opens the door to getting the ticket dismissed as incorrect, depending on the judge.

This is exactly why I pay for the legal aid benefit at work. I don't mind a ticket for doing X if in fact I did X, and I'll happily pay up, but some of the stuff the Florida cops pull out of their *** is incredible. It's probably a large reason Florida drivers suck so much.

For example, I got cited under the visor law, for having my visor up at a stoplight in the 105F heat. I didn't argue with the officer at all, I just brought up in court that the prescription glasses I was wearing (as required on my license) is an exception in the visor law, and it was thrown out. Plus the cop got a gunnery-sergeant-style ***-chewing by the judge.

My legal aid has gotten 3 out of 3 tickets dismissed. Another one was for 39 in a 35, when the cop was literally sitting under the only 35mph sign for miles.

 

[Crash Cash]

There is a lot of conspiracy theorist, that cities are shortening the yellow time to support red light cameras.

Not a "conspiracy theory" when it's true:

Cities Caught Illegally Tampering With Traffic Lights To Increase Revenue Of Red Light Cameras

Six US cities tamper with traffic cameras for profit

Italian red-light cameras rigged with shorter yellow lights

 

[rickysnickers]

... a Folsom cop cited me today

I hate the fuzz .....freakin' pricks they are.

How about keep your opinions to yourself. If you have nothing constructive to say, or type, then say nothing at all.

Rick

 

[bikesniffer]

Thank you for all the suggestions, I am going to be preparing my written declaration this weekend and taking pictures, drawing diagrams etc now when the event is fresh in my memory. I will wait till a couple days before the deadline to submit the written declaration at the court clerks window, just to give me one more day if they give me the run around.
I will also leave the color discrepancy of the car out of my written declaration, but try to use it in court if the written declaration doesn't work.

Thanks for the advice fellas, these bullies aren't robbing me without a fight!

right on puppy, never surrender without a fight, I'd do the same every time i feel that I'm being wronged

never been one to bow too easily to authority (uniforms have a tendency to corrupt the mind)

 

[Leskid]

He wrote me up for running a red light about a $400 ticket with fine plus B.S. fees and traffic school tacked on, at least I am eligible for traffic school. Needless to say I will be fighting it. Ticket Assassin here I come...

$400 for burning a yellow (barely)?!?!?!

That's at least one good thing about living in Quebec. Coming to a full stop, speed limits and the legal drinking age are all more like sugestions than rules.

Sorry to hear that puppychow - $400+++ is freaking ridiculous.

Quebec has rules? I thought they where all "Suggestions"

that's what I said! See highlighted passage above

Ah, I should cut you some slack. It's not nice to pick on people with dyslexia

How's that FRJ 0013 of yerz' running?

 

[lonerider]

A contrarian view:Stopping on yellow will increase traffic congestion in metropolitan areas. Going on yellow helps keep traffic moving and benefits all road users. Stopping on red is mandatory.

Years ago I was reprimanded by a city dweller who was with me for not 'moving along' on yellow "You're just contributing to the problem when you slow, or worse - stop, on yellow" I was told. Traffic must "flow".

For the record: I'm with those who recco the OP get his day in court.

Stopping on yellow (if there's time to get through the intersection) is a good way to get run into from behind. I'd take it to court and, at the last possible moment, ask for a postponement. Chances are the cop won't show up for it.

 

[Fred W]

If you did not fully clear the intersection under the yellow (before the red) then technically you were in violation of the red light.

This is an incorrect statement (at least here in Washington and I suspect California too). If you enter the intersection under a yellow light, you have entered the insection under a legal movement. If you enter after the light has turned red without stopping, then you are guilty.

Well, I have now learned my one thing for the day. I checked my local NH ordinances and the verbiage, though considerably shorter, says basically the same thing. I was taught that the law was the way I related it, but that may (must) be urban legend. Certainly a good thing to know. Thanks for the citations.

 

[dcarver]

If you did not fully clear the intersection under the yellow (before the red) then technically you were in violation of the red light.

This is an incorrect statement (at least here in Washington and I suspect California too). If you enter the intersection under a yellow light, you have entered the insection under a legal movement. If you enter after the light has turned red without stopping, then you are guilty.

Well, I have now learned my one thing for the day. I checked my local NH ordinances and the verbiage, though considerably shorter, says basically the same thing. I was taught that the law was the way I related it, but that may (must) be urban legend. Certainly a good thing to know. [SIZE=12pt]Thanks for the citations.[/SIZE]

Oh Jeesh Fred, you crack me up! :blink:

 

[Fred W]

Yeah, I kill myself sometimes...

 

[Auburn]

If you did not fully clear the intersection under the yellow (before the red) then technically you were in violation of the red light.

This is an incorrect statement (at least here in Washington and I suspect California too). If you enter the intersection under a yellow light, you have entered the insection under a legal movement. If you enter after the light has turned red without stopping, then you are guilty.

Well, I have now learned my one thing for the day. I checked my local NH ordinances and the verbiage, though considerably shorter, says basically the same thing. I was taught that the law was the way I related it, but that may (must) be urban legend. Certainly a good thing to know. Thanks for the citations.

I suspect it is true for almost all states, since they are required to adopt the MUTCD to receive their federal highways funds.

Glad I could help

 

[fjrchooser]

I got popped several years ago for something that actually belonged to another vehicle that looked vaguely similar.

I had a notorized document from one witness ,1 of 2 witnesses actually present with me, drawings and mail to prove address we had just left from as well as time stamped reciepts from our destination for an archery club match. It was physically impossible based on the drawings, testimony & destination for my vehicle to be doing 77 mph in a 45 at the point the infraction was observed.

It looked like I was still going to lose until the judge caught the officer in a blatant lie. Judge asked the officer if he ever lost sight of us until he pulled us over and he replied Boy Scout straight faced, " No your Honor ! ". My witness and I both gasped at the same time and I began to protest when the judge moved our trial to his chambers. Very lucky for the officer.

We had been stopped for the red light and observed the officer in a church parking lot reading the sports section of the Detroit News. I had just read the same and recognized the spread out double wide section blocking his view of us, hell the whole intersection he was monitoring. My witness had just been picked up at his residence on the opposite corner. The officer was also eating a chocolate eclair and drinking a coffee.

When the perp passed us at 80, the cop lost his donut chocolate side down and sweep his coffee off the dash with the newspaper when the radar went off. We were just crossing the intersection at 10 mph maybe and were laughing our ***** off - until we got pulled over 2 or 3 hills later. Cop refused to believe us at the time and ticketed us anyway.

Once in chambers the judge asked the officer once again if he ever lost sight of us and got the same reply with a cross my heart sign. Thats when I told the judge what we observed as the officer tried to turn his car around to exit the parking lot. The DA was smirking big time which was beginning to piss me off.

The judge told the officer he knew that road and also knew that if you weren't within 50 yards or so of another vehicle they did indeed drop out of sight repeatedly due to the terrain. He ruled for me and asked the officer to stay.

The DA walked us out and apologized for the officer. He said what clinched it for me with him was the officers nickname- Eclair.

I'm sure the documentation helped at least get the trail to that point. Even though it did seem the judge was going to back the officer anyway, I'm convinced you can't go in with too much data. Follow exskibums advice here on doing your homework beforehand.

 

[exskibum]

What pisses me off about these citations isn't usually the LEO writing it. Sometimes, but hey -- there are ******** in every business and profession. (Lord knows there are plenty in mine. ) Usually, the LEOs are just doing their job.

What pisses me off is the insurance companies' role. But for their influence and benefit in all of this, I'd most of the time just pay the fine and be done with it. I don't get many tickets, and every one I do get is for the same thing -- speeding. But since you lose at least one of the "good driver discounts" for three years on your auto and motorcycle insurance, and that can be for as much as 40% more in premiums for those 3 years, it makes fighting these things a priority for me, no matter what. The legislatures give them this right, the administrative agencies make the records available for them for that purpose, and the law enforcement departments get much of their RADAR and LIDAR equipment paid for by insurers out of the excess profit generated in this cozy process.

I'm not suggesting giving all violators a free pass by any means. And I'm not suggesting that LEOs aren't fulfilling a safety purpose. But for me, at least with respect to minimal to moderate speeding that is not endangering anyone, a warning or even seeing a LEO on the road monitoring traffic brings my mind back to checking the speedo more diligently. Having me fund my insurer's profit margins isn't adding anything to that. If I get caught doing 150, I'll understand why a warning isn't given, but the last one was on the FJR for a momentary 73 in a 55 because I was using the passing lane in an otherwise 2 lane highway with the LEO lying in wait with LIDAR at the end of the passing lane past the convenient crown in the road. (Hwy 50 east at Twin Bridges, just before it makes a right to go up that steep grade to Sierra at Tahoe.)

 

[CAJW]

... a Folsom cop cited me today

I hate the fuzz .....freakin' pricks they are.

How about keep your opinions to yourself. If you have nothing constructive to say, or type, then say nothing at all.

Rick

Hey, cut the old guy some slack. Anyone who refers to a LEO as the "fuzz" deserves some extra consideration.

Also, all of you guys are missing the point. LEOs are obviously targeting puppies for enforcement.

To my surprise a Folsom cop cited me today for failure to stop fully before executing a right hand turn at a red light. (EDIT - The bastage actually cited me for running the red light straight through, which I didn't, I made a right turn).

I am sure the Golden State thanks you for the contribution. I got nailed a couple years ago in Pleasant Hill for not stopping long enough, and there were no cars anywhere around me. Cha-Ching!

 

[puppychow]

That's cuz those LEO's were *******!