"hypothetical" moving violation
Thread Starter
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,351
From: pompous douchebag
Car Info: $200,000 sports car
"hypothetical" moving violation
lets say that, hypothetically, someone was given a moving violation for driving in a bike lane for more than 200 ft.
the ticket does not specify an address, but an intersection.
per the CVC, it is legal to drive in a bicycle lane up to 200 ft before exiting the road or turning at an intersection.
hypothetically, would it be worth said persons time to submit trial by written declaration paperwork on the grounds that the location of the violation stated on the ticket was in fact within 200 feet of the intersection (regardless of actual location or distance driven) because the stated location IS the intersection?
the ticket does not specify an address, but an intersection.
per the CVC, it is legal to drive in a bicycle lane up to 200 ft before exiting the road or turning at an intersection.
hypothetically, would it be worth said persons time to submit trial by written declaration paperwork on the grounds that the location of the violation stated on the ticket was in fact within 200 feet of the intersection (regardless of actual location or distance driven) because the stated location IS the intersection?
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Always fight the man.
Mrs. dbtuned won her "failure to yield to a ped in a X walk" citation via writ dec.
Would have cost a metric assload as the officer put the safe speed as 0 mph.
Mrs. dbtuned won her "failure to yield to a ped in a X walk" citation via writ dec.
Would have cost a metric assload as the officer put the safe speed as 0 mph.
Registered User
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,017
From: Sac/Dublin CA
Car Info: Silver 09 STI
21209. (a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in a bicycle lane established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207 except as follows:
(1) To park where parking is permitted.
(2) To enter or leave the roadway.
(3) To prepare for a turn within a distance of 200 feet from the intersection.
(b) This section does not prohibit the use of a motorized bicycle in a bicycle lane, pursuant to Section 21207.5, at a speed no greater than is reasonable or prudent, having due regard for visibility, traffic conditions, and the condition of the roadway surface of the bicycle lane, and in a manner which does not endanger the safety of bicyclists.
if the location states the correct intersection and the officer documented your direction of travel on his notes, i dont think you have much of a chance of getting off based on the location alone. now the officers perception of 200 feet might be a different story.......
(1) To park where parking is permitted.
(2) To enter or leave the roadway.
(3) To prepare for a turn within a distance of 200 feet from the intersection.
(b) This section does not prohibit the use of a motorized bicycle in a bicycle lane, pursuant to Section 21207.5, at a speed no greater than is reasonable or prudent, having due regard for visibility, traffic conditions, and the condition of the roadway surface of the bicycle lane, and in a manner which does not endanger the safety of bicyclists.
if the location states the correct intersection and the officer documented your direction of travel on his notes, i dont think you have much of a chance of getting off based on the location alone. now the officers perception of 200 feet might be a different story.......
VIP Member
iTrader: (8)
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,755
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Car Info: 02 Subaru WRX w/ JDM Spec C
I have measured out distances before for center lane merging. It doesn't work:
A: What you say where you entered and exited is speculation.
B: Where the officer says you entered and exited is his observation.
Depending on the judge, officer usually wins.
A: What you say where you entered and exited is speculation.
B: Where the officer says you entered and exited is his observation.
Depending on the judge, officer usually wins.
Registered User
iTrader: (9)
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,451
From: Sacramento, CA
Car Info: 1996 Mustang GT/2013 Outback Limited
21209. (a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in a bicycle lane established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207 except as follows:
(1) To park where parking is permitted.
(2) To enter or leave the roadway.
(3) To prepare for a turn within a distance of 200 feet from the intersection.
(b) This section does not prohibit the use of a motorized bicycle in a bicycle lane, pursuant to Section 21207.5, at a speed no greater than is reasonable or prudent, having due regard for visibility, traffic conditions, and the condition of the roadway surface of the bicycle lane, and in a manner which does not endanger the safety of bicyclists.
(4) Stop breaking the law as$hole
if the location states the correct intersection and the officer documented your direction of travel on his notes, i dont think you have much of a chance of getting off based on the location alone. now the officers perception of 200 feet might be a different story.......
(1) To park where parking is permitted.
(2) To enter or leave the roadway.
(3) To prepare for a turn within a distance of 200 feet from the intersection.
(b) This section does not prohibit the use of a motorized bicycle in a bicycle lane, pursuant to Section 21207.5, at a speed no greater than is reasonable or prudent, having due regard for visibility, traffic conditions, and the condition of the roadway surface of the bicycle lane, and in a manner which does not endanger the safety of bicyclists.
(4) Stop breaking the law as$hole
if the location states the correct intersection and the officer documented your direction of travel on his notes, i dont think you have much of a chance of getting off based on the location alone. now the officers perception of 200 feet might be a different story.......
Thread Starter
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,351
From: pompous douchebag
Car Info: $200,000 sports car
21209. (a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in a bicycle lane established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207 except as follows:
(1) To park where parking is permitted.
(2) To enter or leave the roadway.
(3) To prepare for a turn within a distance of 200 feet from the intersection.
(b) This section does not prohibit the use of a motorized bicycle in a bicycle lane, pursuant to Section 21207.5, at a speed no greater than is reasonable or prudent, having due regard for visibility, traffic conditions, and the condition of the roadway surface of the bicycle lane, and in a manner which does not endanger the safety of bicyclists.
if the location states the correct intersection and the officer documented your direction of travel on his notes, i dont think you have much of a chance of getting off based on the location alone. now the officers perception of 200 feet might be a different story.......
(1) To park where parking is permitted.
(2) To enter or leave the roadway.
(3) To prepare for a turn within a distance of 200 feet from the intersection.
(b) This section does not prohibit the use of a motorized bicycle in a bicycle lane, pursuant to Section 21207.5, at a speed no greater than is reasonable or prudent, having due regard for visibility, traffic conditions, and the condition of the roadway surface of the bicycle lane, and in a manner which does not endanger the safety of bicyclists.
if the location states the correct intersection and the officer documented your direction of travel on his notes, i dont think you have much of a chance of getting off based on the location alone. now the officers perception of 200 feet might be a different story.......
If the officer had written an address on the ticket, there would be a reference point some distance from the intersection which could be measured.
not that any of this matters... I just need a semi plausable reason to list on my trial by written declaration paperwork. i have a source which tells me that RCPD does not pay for officers to do this sort of paperwork.
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
The intersection is correct and that is my point. I cannot go back and measure the distance from the intersection to the location of my violation, because per the ticket, the intersection IS the location of my violation. And the intersection is obviously within 200 ft of the intersection.
If the officer had written an address on the ticket, there would be a reference point some distance from the intersection which could be measured.
not that any of this matters... I just need a semi plausable reason to list on my trial by written declaration paperwork. i have a source which tells me that RCPD does not pay for officers to do this sort of paperwork.
If the officer had written an address on the ticket, there would be a reference point some distance from the intersection which could be measured.
not that any of this matters... I just need a semi plausable reason to list on my trial by written declaration paperwork. i have a source which tells me that RCPD does not pay for officers to do this sort of paperwork.
Right up a nice matter of fact letter stating this; one page will suffice.
Registered User
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,017
From: Sac/Dublin CA
Car Info: Silver 09 STI
The intersection is correct and that is my point. I cannot go back and measure the distance from the intersection to the location of my violation, because per the ticket, the intersection IS the location of my violation. And the intersection is obviously within 200 ft of the intersection.
If the officer had written an address on the ticket, there would be a reference point some distance from the intersection which could be measured.
not that any of this matters... I just need a semi plausable reason to list on my trial by written declaration paperwork. i have a source which tells me that RCPD does not pay for officers to do this sort of paperwork.
If the officer had written an address on the ticket, there would be a reference point some distance from the intersection which could be measured.
not that any of this matters... I just need a semi plausable reason to list on my trial by written declaration paperwork. i have a source which tells me that RCPD does not pay for officers to do this sort of paperwork.
your best argument is going to be that you were within 200 feet of the intersection when you moved to the bike lane. thats assuming its even close and you didnt ride the bike lane for like a quarter mile.
Thread Starter
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,351
From: pompous douchebag
Car Info: $200,000 sports car
it doesnt work that way. the violation occurred at the intersection, obviously your idea of "at" is different then the officer's or the court's. we dont use addresses or GPS coordinates for this kinda stuff. as long as the officer took good notes on your direction of travel, he knows exactly where it happened and will testify to it. "not paid" and "not paid overtime" are very different. most departments will have you do trial by dec's on your normal shift, while you are still getting paid, and they dont take that long to do anyways. we cannot be required to do work related paperwork off the clock.
your best argument is going to be that you were within 200 feet of the intersection when you moved to the bike lane. thats assuming its even close and you didnt ride the bike lane for like a quarter mile.
your best argument is going to be that you were within 200 feet of the intersection when you moved to the bike lane. thats assuming its even close and you didnt ride the bike lane for like a quarter mile.
i'll try the 200ft argument i guess, but I really have no reference point other than my recollection as to where I entered the lane.
Churro Aficionado
iTrader: (38)
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 54,661
From: IG - @thomas.teammoist
Car Info: IG - @TEAMMOISTOFFICIAL
