Evading traffic control.....

[RickA]

Has ANYONE ever heard of "evading traffic control"?

Driving home this evening I came upon a "smallish" line of traffic at a stop sign.
This spedific part of my route always has a line of traffic. To the right, just before the stop sign, is an entrance to what used to be a business. I "generally" turn into this parking area to "cut" around the line. Up till this evening there was never any problems.

I had committed to doing this when I saw the town police, not knowing what was going on I was asked if I was using this to get around the traffic. I told him that I was, he then told me to park in one of the spaces. Well, knowing what that meant, I waited for him to return with the ticket. I asked him if this was a town ordinance and he said it was, AND that it was a state ordinance as well. The fine will be 107FRN's, payable through the mail.

Has ANYONE ever heard of this?

My first thought is who informed you of your duty to proceed through a stop sign, when there is an easier way? This is like saying you have to use main street every day to get to work.

Were there any signs up at the "cut through" saying "no thru traffic" ?

C'mon.

What state are you in? [duh. I see Virginia, now.]

Do you have Marc Stevens book?

If not, GET IT NOW. www.adventuresinlegalland.com

If you need convincing that you need to get the book, listen to the audio on his site.

First thing I'd do if I were you is go to the law library and pull the annotated statute for the one alleged broken.

HB

[RickA]

Were there any signs up at the "cut through" saying "no thru traffic" ?

None that I saw. Admitedly I never thought to prior, or post.

My first thought is who informed you of your duty to proceed through a stop sign, when there is an easier way?

Obviously no one has, I had never even heard of such.

First thing I'd do if I were you is go to the law library and pull the annotated statute for the one alleged broken.

Here is what I have found: § 46.2-833.1. Evasion of traffic control devices.

It shall be unlawful for the driver of any motor vehicle to drive off the roadway and onto or across any public or private property in order to evade any stop sign, yield sign, traffic light, or other traffic control device.

[test]

Below is the info about that crap for Florida.

I have never tried what is in the following link but I like the way it looks, I think it is just an example and it needs tweaking, the same for the second link:

http://www.rochesterlaw.org/insidepg.../rejectnot.htm

http://www.rochesterlaw.org/insidepg/files/negaver.htm

Another approach could be this one:

http://forum.suijuris.net/showthread.php?t=1684



The 2004 Florida Statutes

Title XXIII
MOTOR VEHICLES

Chapter 316
STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL

View Entire Chapter

316.074 Obedience to and required traffic control devices.--

(1) The driver of any vehicle shall obey the instructions of any official traffic control device applicable thereto, placed in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, unless otherwise directed by a police officer, subject to the exceptions granted the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle in this chapter.

(2) No person shall drive any vehicle from a roadway to another roadway to avoid obeying the indicated traffic control indicated by such traffic control device.

(3) No provision of this chapter for which official traffic control devices are required shall be enforced against an alleged violator if at the time and place of the alleged violation an official device is not in proper position and sufficiently legible to be seen by an ordinarily observant person. Whenever a particular section does not state that official traffic control devices are required, such section shall be effective even though no devices are erected or in place.

How do they know people do it "in order to avoid". Are they able to read the "driver's" real motives? Some one might argue he/she likes to drive by a certain beautiful building/tree.

I live in Florida and have known that law for ages. Now I'm awakening and wonder if their "presuming" you are doing it "in order to avoid" is legal. May these policemen read your mind and penalize you for that?

Originally Posted by RickA

I had committed to doing this when I saw the town police, not knowing what was going on I was asked if I was using this to get around the traffic. I told him that I was

You need to get the book. www.adventuresinlegalland.com

Your first mistake was admission. Admission trumps evidence.

HB

[RickA]

How do they know people do it "in order to avoid".

To be factual about this incident, I was TRYING to avoid the TRAFFIC. I understand that the sign is there to regulate the traffic, but had there NOT been a line I would have gone to the sign then turn.

My reason for going around is due to those in line turning left. If EVERYONE in that line were turning right EVERYTIME it would not take as long to move that line along.

[test]

Eureka wrote:

How do they know people do it "in order to avoid".

They don't, so they ask you and in this case

RickA wrote:

I was asked if I was using this to get around the traffic. I told him that I was

He confessed to it so they proceeded with the traffic ticket.

Most of the time they ask you "Do you know why I stopped you?", if you say you do, you just "confessed" to commiting the "crime" or infraction then how will you be able to take that back later at the court?

In another forum I read this answer to the cop's questions:

"Is it true that anything I say will be used against me?"

Or the other day I was stopped and this is how it went:

http://forum.suijuris.net/showthread.php?t=2194

Originally Posted by RickA

To be factual about this incident, I was TRYING to avoid the TRAFFIC. I understand that the sign is there to regulate the traffic, but had there NOT been a line I would have gone to the sign then turn.

My reason for going around is due to those in line turning left. If EVERYONE in that line were turning right EVERYTIME it would not take as long to move that line along.

Ohhh, My bad. and good eye on your part. You are gonna be good at this. Understand, I was shooting from the hip, trying to be constructive. (Pulling foot from mouth)

There is a difference in "traffic" and "traffic signal".

If I were you, knowing what I know now, I would file an affidavit immediately into the file of the case, serve all parties, and give them ten days to rebut by certified mail to my mailing location, and state clearly that I heard the officer ask if I was using the cut through to avoid traffic, and I clearly was unaware that I had any duty to not avoid "traffic" and that upon looking at the statute, I can find no duty imposed upon me to not avoid traffic.


I would then include the definitions for traffic and traffic signal, and offer them a chance for rebuttal.

HB

Originally Posted by test

"Do you know why I stopped you?"

To ask me to confess to a crime?