fighting a ticket for running a stop sign

I got a ticket for running a stop sign and am thinking about contesting
it using the Trial by Written Declaration thing. I'm trying to figure
out if I have a valid argument or not.

Here is what happened:

"There was a large construction vehicle parked just a few yards in
front of the stop sign which blocked it from my view. I was going below
the speed limit as I approached the intersection. By the time I passed
the construction vehicle and saw the stop sign, it was too late for me
to come to a complete stop before entering the intersection."

Is this considered a valid argument? Or am I still considered guilty?

Thanks for your time and help.

Probably still guilty. But perhaps the judge will order the municipality to
place the stop sign in a location where it cannot be hidden by other
vehicles.

"hi" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I got a ticket for running a stop sign and am thinking about contesting
> it using the Trial by Written Declaration thing. I'm trying to figure
> out if I have a valid argument or not.
>
> Here is what happened:
>
> "There was a large construction vehicle parked just a few yards in
> front of the stop sign which blocked it from my view. I was going below
> the speed limit as I approached the intersection. By the time I passed
> the construction vehicle and saw the stop sign, it was too late for me
> to come to a complete stop before entering the intersection."
>
> Is this considered a valid argument? Or am I still considered guilty?
>
> Thanks for your time and help.
>

In article .com>,
hi > wrote:
>I got a ticket for running a stop sign and am thinking about contesting
>it using the Trial by Written Declaration thing. I'm trying to figure
>out if I have a valid argument or not.
>
>Here is what happened:
>
>"There was a large construction vehicle parked just a few yards in
>front of the stop sign which blocked it from my view. I was going below
>the speed limit as I approached the intersection. By the time I passed
>the construction vehicle and saw the stop sign, it was too late for me
>to come to a complete stop before entering the intersection."
>
>Is this considered a valid argument? Or am I still considered guilty?

Sounds reasonable to me but I'm not a judge.

The Uniform Vehicle Code says that signs may not be enforced
unless they are in a proper position and visible to a reasonably
observant driver. The sign must be mounted at least seven feet
high to be visible over cars ("proper position") and parking is
prohibited close to an intersection. It happens in your case
that the redundancy built into the system failed because you
found an unusually tall vehicle parked in an unusual place.

--
John Carr )

In article .com>,
says...
>
>
>I got a ticket for running a stop sign and am thinking about contesting
>it using the Trial by Written Declaration thing. I'm trying to figure
>out if I have a valid argument or not.
>
>Here is what happened:
>
>"There was a large construction vehicle parked just a few yards in
>front of the stop sign which blocked it from my view. I was going below
>the speed limit as I approached the intersection. By the time I passed
>the construction vehicle and saw the stop sign, it was too late for me
>to come to a complete stop before entering the intersection."
>
>Is this considered a valid argument? Or am I still considered guilty?

Did you come to a complete stop when you did see the stop sign?
---------------
Alex

>>
>>Here is what happened:
>>
>>"There was a large construction vehicle parked just a few yards in
>>front of the stop sign which blocked it from my view. I was going below
>>the speed limit as I approached the intersection. By the time I passed
>>the construction vehicle and saw the stop sign, it was too late for me
>>to come to a complete stop before entering the intersection."
>>
>>Is this considered a valid argument? Or am I still considered guilty?
>
> Did you come to a complete stop when you did see the stop sign?
> ---------------
> Alex
>

What, and risk getting another ticket for blocking the intersection? He was
already in the intersection. Whether he cut anybody off or not, the safest
thing to do at that point would be to keep going. If you are not supposed
to BE in the intersection, get the frick out of it. Don't stop and block
the intersection while you ponder what an idiot you are.

I'd say the OP has a valid argument if he was driving through an area that
he was not familiar with. If a ticket was written, it should have been
written to the driver of the large construction vehicle that was illegally
parked. On the other hand, if the intersection is a few blocks from the
address listed on the OP's driver's license, I think the judge would be wise
to find the OP responsible and make him pay up. -Dave

<snip>

Sorry.

Is my server missing articles, or has Judy somehow missed this thread?
I'd expect it to be all over this.


--

The last song I started on my PC was: Linkin Park - Plc.2 Mie Haed - Reanimation
K:\Audio\Linkin Park\Reanimation\07 - Plc.2 Mie Haed.mp3
This is track 172 of 281 in the current playlist.

Thanks for your responses. The intersection was a couple miles from my
home. However, I am new to the area so I was unfamiliar with the roads.
I guess I'll add that extra info into my statement of facts and
hopefully the judge will be lenient on me.

> I'd say the OP has a valid argument if he was driving through an area that
> he was not familiar with. If a ticket was written, it should have been
> written to the driver of the large construction vehicle that was illegally
> parked. On the other hand, if the intersection is a few blocks from the
> address listed on the OP's driver's license, I think the judge would be wise
> to find the OP responsible and make him pay up. -Dave

What all of you are missing is that you're assuming judges make their
rulings based on facts and common sense.

Might as well flip a coin to figure out if you'll get a ticket or not.

"hi" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Thanks for your responses. The intersection was a couple miles from my
> home. However, I am new to the area so I was unfamiliar with the roads.
> I guess I'll add that extra info into my statement of facts and
> hopefully the judge will be lenient on me.

I'd suggest calling the Clerk of Court and asking if you can speak to the DA
before the trial and explain your case. He may dismiss it. Alternately, try
to speak to the DA the morning of the trial. The last time I got a ticket,
they lined everyone up early and asked how we were pleading. I plead not
guilty. All the guilty people were told to go pay the fines. The innocent
people were told to wait for their case to be called. At the first morning
break, I was called over to the DA. My case involved a chain collision. I
was charged with failure to stop to avoid a collision with a vehicle then
stopped in the roadway. The DA said if I could prove my insurance paid for
the car in front of me the charges would be dismissed. I did so and the
charges were dismissed. Later I found out I could have handled this all
before the trial. These days the police in my area don't even issue tickets
for cases like mine. They just provide a police report and leave it up to
the insurance companies to fight it out. BTW, the guy that hit me in the
rear in the same chain got to pay for my rear end damage. I was not as smart
as the guy in front of me. He claimed I pushed him into the car in front of
him (a lie) and so I had to pay for the damage to both ends of his car, and
the rear of the car in front of him. If I had been as dishonest, I could
have just blamed it all on the car that hit me in the rear. On the other
hand, I guess I was lucky. I was in a Jensen-Healey and was hit by a Pontiac
Bonneville. The car in front of me was a crummy Toyota, that was leaking
gas, but there was no fire. I drove away from the accident. They had to tow
the Toyota away. The Pontiac drove away as well. The car in the very front
was a Mazda. It drove away as well. The Toyota folded up like a cheap deck
chair. Oh what a feeling.

Anyhow, the DA probably doesn't want to tie up court time with cases like
yours. I'd say there is a good chance you could handle the whole thing
before the big day.

Ed

> hand, I guess I was lucky. I was in a Jensen-Healey and was hit by a
> Pontiac
> Bonneville. The car in front of me was a crummy Toyota, that was leaking
> gas, but there was no fire. I drove away from the accident. They had to
> tow
> the Toyota away. The Pontiac drove away as well. The car in the very front
> was a Mazda. It drove away as well. The Toyota folded up like a cheap deck
> chair. Oh what a feeling.
>

Yes. The Toyota did the best job of protecting the occupants of the
vehicle. In a collision like you described, the most serious injuries are
going to happen in vehicles that transfer force of impact to occupants.
Vehicles that ABSORB forces of impact (such as the toyota that folded up
like a cheap deck chair) are going to protect their occupants much better.
Have trouble visualizing this? Run as fast as you can at a brick wall.
Don't stop until the brick wall stops you. How you feeling now? Ok, now
repeat. But this time, run as fast as you can at a mattress propped up
against a brick wall. The Toyota is the mattress. Other vehicles can be
the brick wall. The technical term is "crumple zones". The Toyota had
them, apparently the other vehicles didn't. Or, they didn't perform as well
in the collision. The toyota folded up, because it was DESIGNED to fold up.
My own vehicle (a mitsubishi galant) saved my life in a similar circumstance
several years ago when I was rear-ended hard while stopped in traffic.
Because it folded up like a cheap deck chair, I walked away totally
unharmed. Well, I had a stiff neck for a few days. That tells me in any
vehicle without crumple zones, I likely would have LOST MY HEAD. Oh, but
the car probably would have fared better than my mitsubishi did, if the car
I was driving didn't have crumple zones. Me, I'm thinking it's better to
have to buy a new car than to have to buy a new head. -Dave (seriously
thinking of buying a Toyota now)