Right Turn Red Light Violation

[Aodhhan]

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: San Diego, California, intersection of Genesee & North Torrey Pines Rd.

Hi, I recieved in the mail a right-turn red light ticket, with the VC21453 violation (failure to stop at red traffic signal). I have been flashed several times at this location already but this is the first time I got a ticket.

The thing is at this intersection you have to somewhat creep across the white lines in order to sufficiently look at the incoming traffic from the left, therefore the it can trigger a flash if you are trying to creep up over the line to look for traffic. Combined with the sudden flash of the camera late at night, this can be very disorienting when you are trying to look out for traffic.

My question is, do you think this (in addition to the recent People vs. Borazakian ruling in LA) sufficient basis enough (if I plead NG) in court?

Also, I was wondering what the traffic school options were. I have received a speeding ticket (also in CA) more than 18 months ago that I attended traffic school for, is traffic school still an option for this case?

Thanks for your time.

[Melvon]

Hi,

I forgot to mention, the name on the citation (whom the vehicle is registered to) isn't my name. If so, are you legally obligated to say who was actually driving the car?

[Zebulon]

Does your ticket say "Notice to Appear" somewhere? Are you pictured in the photograph that was taken by the camera? What kind of error was on the citation? Were you driving the car, but you're not the registered owner? Or are you saying that you're the registered owner, but they misspelled your name?

If you were driving the car, you can't testify that it wasn't you.
That's perjury.
However, if the ticket was sent to the registered owner, who wasn't driving the car, then there's no legal requirement that the registered owner identify the driver.
See the "It's Not Me" section of HighwayRobbery for more details on that.
If this is just a simple error with how your name is spelled, it's unlikely to matter, since the camera should have also taken a photograph of you.

[Johnston]

The registered owner of the vehicle that is stated on the citation is not the one pictured in the photograph. The ticket was sent to under the name of the registered owner. There was no spelling error or anything, it was a completely different name (than who was driving).

[Odakota]

Quoting bosun120



Correct me if I'm wrong, but the traffic school every 18-month option is counted towards the date of which you last attended traffic school, not the date which you received the last citation?







As far as I know, traffic school eligibility has always been dependent upon the violation dates for two citations being 18 months or more apart. Basing it on a conviction date to conviction date basis would give some people the opportunity to possibly delay adjudication of their cases until a time that is past the 18 months from a prior. Nothing inherently wrong with that aside from the fact that it may not work out that way for everyone. And that would make it unconstitutional.

That said, there have been several changes in the traffic school program and whether that has changed the basis for the eligibility period, I don't know. You can call the DMV and ask them, I suppose!

[Maed]

Quoting bosun120



The registered owner of the vehicle that is stated on the citation is not the one pictured in the photograph. The ticket was sent to under the name of the registered owner. There was no spelling error or anything, it was a completely different name (than who was driving).







Is it me or do you sound like you're talking in code ^here^?

Who are you in all of this? The person named on the citation is the one required to appear.

[Anscom]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the traffic school every 18-month option is counted towards the date of which you last attended traffic school, not the date which you received the last citation?

[Joanie]

I had been studying the Not Me area, even though its helpful data, one warning I observe is the fact that when the judge requires you who are another motorists of the authorized automobile (observe that they don't clearly request to recognize the particular individual within the picture, just who another motorists are), how might one answer that?

[Galchobhar]

Estimating bosun120<br />
<br />
The truth is only at that intersection you've to notably slip over the bright outlines to be able to adequately consider the incoming traffic in the remaining, and so the it may induce a display if you should be attempting to slip up within the point to consider traffic.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The display isn't induced since you slip up -after creating a full-stop- to check on cross-traffic. The display is induced since you didn't stop upon method of the restriction point - then after coming to a complete end, you are able to actually move through to check on for people and cross-traffic and move through your change if it's clear.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Estimating bosun120<br />
<br />
Combined with unexpected display of the camera overdue during the night, this is often really disorienting when you're attempting to consider traffic.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The display is disorienting. However the display doesn't trigger one to devote the violation, The display happens CONSEQUENTLY OF you doing the violation!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Estimating bosun120<br />
<br />
Our issue is, do you consider this (along with the current People vs. Borazakian judgment in LA) adequate foundation enough (easily beg NG) in courtroom?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
With "this", you've provided nothing that'll suffice to ignore. For Borazakian, nicely, anybody could make these reasons and wish the courtt may bite...<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Estimating bosun120<br />
<br />
Additionally, I had been thinking exactly what the traffic school choices were. I've obtained a racing citation (likewise in California) over 18 weeks before that I joined traffic institution for, is traffic school nevertheless a choice for this situation?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
When you have joined traffic institution to get a quotation that you had obtained (quotation dated) inside the 18-month time before the day this quotation was released, then NO, you may not be eligible for traffic school!

[Healleah]

The judge can only just force one to reply that issue should you state. Within the "Minute action, extended..." portion of Not Me, it claims:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Estimating highwayrobbery.net<br />
Stating just the proper phrases is essential - a judge cannot drive one to determine who it's within the picture, if you don't quit your to not state - by testifying. Therefore, you might want to prevent producing claims the judge may consider to become account, such as for instance, "I had been not operating the vehicle," and sometimes even "it isn't me!"<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
It seems like you advise the judge that you simply have not quit your to not state, and will not reply the question.