From kevina  Mon Aug 21 19:18:08 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA08501 for kevina; Mon, 21 Aug 1995 19:18:08 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!news.erinet.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!tcsi.tcs.com!agate!news.ucdavis.edu!toadflax!auyeung
From: auyeung@toadflax.cs.ucdavis.edu (Tak Auyeung)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Running a red light
Date: 21 Aug 1995 18:34:48 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of California, Davis
Lines: 10
Distribution: ca
Message-ID: <41ajk8$7i0@mark.ucdavis.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: toadflax.cs.ucdavis.edu
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 347
Apparently-To: kevina


Does anyone knows what exactly is running a red light?  According to
"Fight your ticket and win", if the car is already in the intersection
when the light turns red, it is not "running a red light".  I was
already 2/3 through the intersection when the light turns red, was that
still running a red light?  BTW, it happened in SF.

Thanks!

--Tak

From kevina  Mon Aug 21 19:20:06 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA08908 for kevina; Mon, 21 Aug 1995 19:20:06 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e1a.megaweb.com!mail.megaweb.com!kennystar
From: kennystar@megaweb.com (KENNY MORSE)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Running a red light
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 14:46:02
Organization: Megaweb
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <41autv$r7m@news-e1a.megaweb.com>
References: <41ajk8$7i0@mark.ucdavis.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: @www_3_16.gnn.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: GNN Messenger 1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Length: 1656
Apparently-To: kevina


In article <41ajk8$7i0@mark.ucdavis.edu> Tak Auyeung wrote:
>
>Does anyone knows what exactly is running a red light?  According to
>"Fight your ticket and win", if the car is already in the intersection
>when the light turns red, it is not "running a red light".  I was
>already 2/3 through the intersection when the light turns red, was that
>still running a red light?  BTW, it happened in SF.
>
>Thanks!
>
>--Tak
>

Tak---

As much as I respect David Brown and his book (and often
suggest it to people), here, we differ.

CVC 21453(a)'s KEY provision...the one that gets the MOST people
hearing the world GUILTY is this: the word "FACING".

If you are caught FACING a solid red signal, then they can cite you
for running the light.  This virtually means that if your car hsa NOT
exited the intersection, and you are left facing the signal, THAT will
get you the ticket.  There is NO LAW in California against goint
through a yellow light...it's just that most people think a yellow light
means SPEED UP!!!! (see my t-shirt with THAT design on my homepage).
Is it defensible? Sure, but you MUST know how to present the case!!!

Here is how it is enforced in a practical sense....if the cop thinks you could
have stopped in time for the light, and you didn't, you're gonna get
the ticket.  If your FRONT TIRES have passed the limit line of the 
intersection when the light was GREEN or GREEN CHANGING TO
YELLOW, you have broken NO law.  BUT.....if you enter when it is
YELLOW and it changes to RED before you cleared the intersection, 
then you might get 21453(a).

Hope this helped.

Kenny Morse
Mr. Traffic
http://www.usbusiness.com/mr_traffic.html



From kevina  Tue Aug 22 14:27:36 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id OAA11066 for kevina; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 14:27:36 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!in2.uu.net!globalcenter.net!nntp-hub.barrnet.net!rmstar.efi.com!bdt.com!mbmac.dial-up.bdt.com!user
From: marty_bose@bdt.com (Marty Bose)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Running a red light
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 20:26:40 -0700
Organization: my personal PPP account
Lines: 20
Distribution: ca
Message-ID: <marty_bose-2108952026400001@mbmac.dial-up.bdt.com>
References: <41ajk8$7i0@mark.ucdavis.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mbmac.dial-up.bdt.com
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 794
Apparently-To: kevina

In article <41ajk8$7i0@mark.ucdavis.edu>, auyeung@toadflax.cs.ucdavis.edu
(Tak Auyeung) wrote:

->Does anyone knows what exactly is running a red light?  According to
->"Fight your ticket and win", if the car is already in the intersection
->when the light turns red, it is not "running a red light".  I was
->already 2/3 through the intersection when the light turns red, was that
->still running a red light?  BTW, it happened in SF.

The last time I checked, the purpose of a yellow light was to warn you
that a red light was imminent, and that the definition of a red light
involved not being in the intersection when the light turned red.  By that
definition, you did indeed run a red light.

But as they say, your mileage may vary .......

Marty

-- 
A relevant signature is an oxymoron.

From kevina  Sat Aug 26 02:51:02 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id CAA03244 for kevina; Sat, 26 Aug 1995 02:51:01 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!itnews.sc.intel.com!yoyodyne
From: jreece@sousa.sc.intel.com (John Reece)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Running a red light
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 95 19:39:10 GMT
Organization: Not an Intel spokesman
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <41dbou$cs_004@itnews.intel.com>
References: <41ajk8$7i0@mark.ucdavis.edu> <41autv$r7m@news-e1a.megaweb.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: yoyodyne.sc.intel.com
X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #3
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 795
Apparently-To: kevina

In article <41ajk8$7i0@mark.ucdavis.edu> Tak Auyeung wrote:
>>
>>Does anyone knows what exactly is running a red light?  According to
>>"Fight your ticket and win", if the car is already in the intersection
>>when the light turns red, it is not "running a red light".  I was
>>already 2/3 through the intersection when the light turns red, was 
that
>>still running a red light?  BTW, it happened in SF.

Which is having a crackdown on red-light running.  They
are even putting cameras at intersections.

I've noticed the incidence of light running increasing
in the past decade.  Not necessarily the drunken, 
high-speed kind.  Mostly commuter types who think
they've waited long enough and then cruise
slowly through long after yellow has turned
to red.




John Reece
Not an Intel spokesman


From kevina  Sat Aug 26 02:51:17 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id CAA03301 for kevina; Sat, 26 Aug 1995 02:51:15 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.scruz.net!usenet
From: Pete Johnson <pete@sei.com>
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Running a red light
Date: 25 Aug 1995 16:18:24 GMT
Organization: Silicon Engineering
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <41kt4g$sl6@news.scruz.net>
References: <41ajk8$7i0@mark.ucdavis.edu> <41autv$r7m@news-e1a.megaweb.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.202.174.26
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4m)
X-URL: news:41autv$r7m@news-e1a.megaweb.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Length: 3498
Apparently-To: kevina

kennystar@megaweb.com (KENNY MORSE) wrote:
>
>CVC 21453(a)'s KEY provision...the one that gets the MOST people
>hearing the world GUILTY is this: the word "FACING".
>
Here is the text of 21453(a):

21453.  (a) A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall
stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the
crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then
before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an
indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision
(b).

>If you are caught FACING a solid red signal, then they can cite you
>for running the light.  This virtually means that if your car hsa NOT
>exited the intersection, and you are left facing the signal, THAT will
>get you the ticket.  There is NO LAW in California against goint
>through a yellow light...it's just that most people think a yellow light
>means SPEED UP!!!! (see my t-shirt with THAT design on my homepage).
>Is it defensible? Sure, but you MUST know how to present the case!!!

It seems from the text of 21453(a) that facing the signal would only apply
if you had not passed any of the stopping points.  It would not seem reasonable
to think that you could stop at a line behind your current location when the
light changes to red and you are suddenly "facing" a red.

If you were required to stop on red, and being in the intersection while
the light turns, then the code covering yellow lights would mention this.
Here is the text of 21452.

21452.  (a) A driver facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow
signal is, by that signal, warned that the related green movement is
ending or that a red indication will be shown immediately
thereafter.
   (b) A pedestrian facing a steady circular yellow or a yellow arrow
signal, unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as
provided in Section 21456, is, by that signal, warned that there is
insufficient time to cross the roadway and shall not enter the
roadway.

>Here is how it is enforced in a practical sense....if the cop thinks you could
>have stopped in time for the light, and you didn't, you're gonna get
>the ticket.  If your FRONT TIRES have passed the limit line of the 
>intersection when the light was GREEN or GREEN CHANGING TO
>YELLOW, you have broken NO law.  BUT.....if you enter when it is
>YELLOW and it changes to RED before you cleared the intersection, 
>then you might get 21453(a).

What you describe here actually was part of 21452(b) as originally enacted.
V.C.1935 section 476(b) required vehicular traffic facing yellow to stop
before entering the nearest crosswalk or at a marked line, but if the stop
could not be made in safety, to be driven cautiously through the intersection.

These provisions were dropped by a 1945 amendment.

Finally, this of course only applies to California.  I have no idea what
the rules are in other states.  I would imagine that most officers would
not give you a ticket for entering on yellow, and then changing to red
while you were in the intersection.  In addition, I would imagine that
any officer who would issue a 21453(a) violation in this case would testify
to the judge that you entered on red regardless of the actual facts, and
the judge would not believe that you entered on yellow unless you had
some serious supporting evidence (ie. videotape).

-- 
Pete Johnson					pete@sei.com
Silicon Engineering, Inc.			http://www.sei.com
269 Mt. Hermon Road, Suite 207			(408) 438-5331 x 111
Scotts Valley, CA 95066


From kevina  Sat Aug 26 02:52:12 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id CAA03478 for kevina; Sat, 26 Aug 1995 02:52:12 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.scruz.net!usenet
From: Pete Johnson <pete@sei.com>
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Running a red light
Date: 25 Aug 1995 16:18:24 GMT
Organization: Silicon Engineering
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <41kt4g$sl6@news.scruz.net>
References: <41ajk8$7i0@mark.ucdavis.edu> <41autv$r7m@news-e1a.megaweb.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.202.174.26
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4m)
X-URL: news:41autv$r7m@news-e1a.megaweb.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Length: 3498
Apparently-To: kevina

kennystar@megaweb.com (KENNY MORSE) wrote:
>
>CVC 21453(a)'s KEY provision...the one that gets the MOST people
>hearing the world GUILTY is this: the word "FACING".
>
Here is the text of 21453(a):

21453.  (a) A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall
stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the
crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then
before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an
indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision
(b).

>If you are caught FACING a solid red signal, then they can cite you
>for running the light.  This virtually means that if your car hsa NOT
>exited the intersection, and you are left facing the signal, THAT will
>get you the ticket.  There is NO LAW in California against goint
>through a yellow light...it's just that most people think a yellow light
>means SPEED UP!!!! (see my t-shirt with THAT design on my homepage).
>Is it defensible? Sure, but you MUST know how to present the case!!!

It seems from the text of 21453(a) that facing the signal would only apply
if you had not passed any of the stopping points.  It would not seem reasonable
to think that you could stop at a line behind your current location when the
light changes to red and you are suddenly "facing" a red.

If you were required to stop on red, and being in the intersection while
the light turns, then the code covering yellow lights would mention this.
Here is the text of 21452.

21452.  (a) A driver facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow
signal is, by that signal, warned that the related green movement is
ending or that a red indication will be shown immediately
thereafter.
   (b) A pedestrian facing a steady circular yellow or a yellow arrow
signal, unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as
provided in Section 21456, is, by that signal, warned that there is
insufficient time to cross the roadway and shall not enter the
roadway.

>Here is how it is enforced in a practical sense....if the cop thinks you could
>have stopped in time for the light, and you didn't, you're gonna get
>the ticket.  If your FRONT TIRES have passed the limit line of the 
>intersection when the light was GREEN or GREEN CHANGING TO
>YELLOW, you have broken NO law.  BUT.....if you enter when it is
>YELLOW and it changes to RED before you cleared the intersection, 
>then you might get 21453(a).

What you describe here actually was part of 21452(b) as originally enacted.
V.C.1935 section 476(b) required vehicular traffic facing yellow to stop
before entering the nearest crosswalk or at a marked line, but if the stop
could not be made in safety, to be driven cautiously through the intersection.

These provisions were dropped by a 1945 amendment.

Finally, this of course only applies to California.  I have no idea what
the rules are in other states.  I would imagine that most officers would
not give you a ticket for entering on yellow, and then changing to red
while you were in the intersection.  In addition, I would imagine that
any officer who would issue a 21453(a) violation in this case would testify
to the judge that you entered on red regardless of the actual facts, and
the judge would not believe that you entered on yellow unless you had
some serious supporting evidence (ie. videotape).

-- 
Pete Johnson					pete@sei.com
Silicon Engineering, Inc.			http://www.sei.com
269 Mt. Hermon Road, Suite 207			(408) 438-5331 x 111
Scotts Valley, CA 95066


From kevina  Sat Aug 26 02:52:19 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id CAA03505 for kevina; Sat, 26 Aug 1995 02:52:18 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e1a.megaweb.com!mail.megaweb.com!kennystar
From: kennystar@megaweb.com (KENNY MORSE)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Running a red light
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 11:56:14
Organization: Megaweb
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <41l6gh$mmn@news-e1a.megaweb.com>
References: <41ajk8$7i0@mark.ucdavis.edu> <41autv$r7m@news-e1a.megaweb.com> <41kt4g$sl6@news.scruz.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: @www_5_191.gnn.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: GNN Messenger 1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Length: 4520
Apparently-To: kevina


In article <41kt4g$sl6@news.scruz.net> Pete Johnson  wrote:
>kennystar@megaweb.com (KENNY MORSE) wrote:
>>
>>CVC 21453(a)'s KEY provision...the one that gets the MOST people
>>hearing the world GUILTY is this: the word "FACING".
>>
>Here is the text of 21453(a):
>
>21453.  (a) A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall
>stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the
>crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then
>before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an
>indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision
>(b).
>
>>If you are caught FACING a solid red signal, then they can cite you
>>for running the light.  This virtually means that if your car hsa NOT
>>exited the intersection, and you are left facing the signal, THAT will
>>get you the ticket.  There is NO LAW in California against goint
>>through a yellow light...it's just that most people think a yellow light
>>means SPEED UP!!!! (see my t-shirt with THAT design on my homepage).
>>Is it defensible? Sure, but you MUST know how to present the case!!!
>
>It seems from the text of 21453(a) that facing the signal would only apply
>if you had not passed any of the stopping points.  It would not seem reasonable
>to think that you could stop at a line behind your current location when the
>light changes to red and you are suddenly "facing" a red.
>
>If you were required to stop on red, and being in the intersection while
>the light turns, then the code covering yellow lights would mention this.
>Here is the text of 21452.
>
>21452.  (a) A driver facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow
>signal is, by that signal, warned that the related green movement is
>ending or that a red indication will be shown immediately
>thereafter.
>   (b) A pedestrian facing a steady circular yellow or a yellow arrow
>signal, unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as
>provided in Section 21456, is, by that signal, warned that there is
>insufficient time to cross the roadway and shall not enter the
>roadway.
>
>>Here is how it is enforced in a practical sense....if the cop thinks you could
>>have stopped in time for the light, and you didn't, you're gonna get
>>the ticket.  If your FRONT TIRES have passed the limit line of the 
>>intersection when the light was GREEN or GREEN CHANGING TO
>>YELLOW, you have broken NO law.  BUT.....if you enter when it is
>>YELLOW and it changes to RED before you cleared the intersection, 
>>then you might get 21453(a).
>
>What you describe here actually was part of 21452(b) as originally enacted.
>V.C.1935 section 476(b) required vehicular traffic facing yellow to stop
>before entering the nearest crosswalk or at a marked line, but if the stop
>could not be made in safety, to be driven cautiously through the intersection.
>
>These provisions were dropped by a 1945 amendment.
>
>Finally, this of course only applies to California.  I have no idea what
>the rules are in other states.  I would imagine that most officers would
>not give you a ticket for entering on yellow, and then changing to red
>while you were in the intersection.  In addition, I would imagine that
>any officer who would issue a 21453(a) violation in this case would testify
>to the judge that you entered on red regardless of the actual facts, and
>the judge would not believe that you entered on yellow unless you had
>some serious supporting evidence (ie. videotape).


Pete.....

Thanks for your ambitious post.

No, as I said.....it is enforced exactly as I laid it out.

If there is a trial, and there is a YELLOW light involved, the officer says
the words "Stale yellow" on the stand...not necessarily asserting that a
solid red was involved before the defendant entered the intersection.

Now, as you have suggested, there are defenses IF...big IF...you
know how to present a case, but, as you also said....when it comes
to your word against the officer....they come to court as a professional
with a badge and a uniform and no real reason to lie.  You, you come
as lying pond scum, with every reason in the world to lie your head off.

A court where one is virtually guilty until proven innocent has MEGA problems.
The court that is the opposite has Mega problems, so imagine the quagmire
of traffic court.  Most people have NO clue what to do, and on my homepage
next month, I will discuss How To Fight A Ticket in this system weighted 
against you.

Kenny Morse
Mr. Traffic
http://www.usbusiness.com/mr_traffic.html



From kevina  Sat Aug 26 02:52:24 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id CAA03532 for kevina; Sat, 26 Aug 1995 02:52:24 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!news.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!noc.netcom.net!news.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.campus.mci.net!calweb!pagesat.net!nntp-server.caltech.edu!news.claremont.edu!paris.ics.uci.edu!library.ucla.edu!info.ucla.edu!ucsbuxb.ucsb.edu!ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu!not-for-mail
From: 6500robu@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Robert Underwood)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Running a red light
Date: 22 Aug 1995 11:15:56 -0700
Organization: University of California, Santa Barbara
Lines: 14
Distribution: ca
Message-ID: <41d6ss$kb7@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu>
References: <41ajk8$7i0@mark.ucdavis.edu> <marty_bose-2108952026400001@mbmac.dial-up.bdt.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 447
Apparently-To: kevina


If the light is still yellow when you enter the intersection, you
did not run the red light.  In fact, if the other direction enters
the intersection before you've made it across, they have broken a
law.  Source: traffic school quiz given by the officer teaching the
class.  Yes, I said officer.

rob

-- 
*  Rob Underwood   *  Fleming House Alum '93  
*  6500robu@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu
*  http://www.ece.ucsb.edu/student/grad/underwood/default.html


From kevina  Sat Aug 26 02:52:33 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id CAA03558 for kevina; Sat, 26 Aug 1995 02:52:32 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!in1.uu.net!spool.mu.edu!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!ico.net!news.zeitgeist.net!bdt.com!miwok!news.wco.com!news.divi.com.!ren!adamg
From: adamg@divi.com (Adam Goldberg)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Running a red light
Date: 23 Aug 1995 02:18:18 GMT
Organization: DiviCom Inc.
Lines: 26
Distribution: ca
Message-ID: <41e35a$b5e@tesla.divi.com>
References: <41ajk8$7i0@mark.ucdavis.edu> <marty_bose-2108952026400001@mbmac.dial-up.bdt.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ren.divi.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1073
Apparently-To: kevina

Marty Bose (marty_bose@bdt.com) wrote:
> In article <41ajk8$7i0@mark.ucdavis.edu>, auyeung@toadflax.cs.ucdavis.edu
> (Tak Auyeung) wrote:

> ->Does anyone knows what exactly is running a red light?  According to
> ->"Fight your ticket and win", if the car is already in the intersection
> ->when the light turns red, it is not "running a red light".  I was
> ->already 2/3 through the intersection when the light turns red, was that
> ->still running a red light?  BTW, it happened in SF.

> The last time I checked, the purpose of a yellow light was to warn you
> that a red light was imminent, and that the definition of a red light
> involved not being in the intersection when the light turned red.  By that
> definition, you did indeed run a red light.

I know for a fact that the law in Michigan, anyway, is that you have
the right to _enter_ an intersection while the light is yellow; that
is, if it turns red over your head, you're ok.

Of course, it's also illegal to speed up to beat the red, so you can
always be cited for that.

Adam

--
"What?  No Geek Code!"

From kevina  Sat Aug 26 02:53:21 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id CAA03651 for kevina; Sat, 26 Aug 1995 02:53:21 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!news.sprintlink.net!in2.uu.net!nntp.crl.com!pacbell.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!parc!news.cp10.es.xerox.com!news
From: dhowell.es_cp8@xerox.com (Dan Howell)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Running a red light
Date: 25 Aug 1995 01:09:26 GMT
Organization: Xerox Corporation, El Segundo CA
Lines: 36
Distribution: ca
Message-ID: <41j7s6$qb5@news.cp10.es.xerox.com>
References: <41ajk8$7i0@mark.ucdavis.edu>
Reply-To: dhowell.es_cp8@xerox.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: butthead.cp10.es.xerox.com
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2001
Apparently-To: kevina

In article <41ajk8$7i0@mark.ucdavis.edu>, auyeung@toadflax.cs.ucdavis.edu (Tak Auyeung) writes:
> 
> Does anyone knows what exactly is running a red light?  According to
> "Fight your ticket and win", if the car is already in the intersection
> when the light turns red, it is not "running a red light".  I was
> already 2/3 through the intersection when the light turns red, was that
> still running a red light?  BTW, it happened in SF.

This is correct.  If you were already in the intersection before the light
turned red, you did not violate VC 21453.  In court, it will be your word vs.
the cop's, so your strategy, if you decide to fight it, should be to cross-examine
the officer in such a way as to convince the judge that he did not observe your
vehicle first *entering* the intersection *after* the light turned red.  The
"Fight Your Ticket" book has some good cross-examination questions to use for
this purpose.

Be careful with your own testimony.  I saw one person get convicted because
she testified that she was driving 35 mph, entered the intersection before it
turned *yellow*, and observed the light turn *red* before she left the
intersection.  According to the officers testimony, the cross road was about
50 feet wide.  The yellow light would have had to have been less than 1 second
in length for her to have observed what she claimed at the speed she claimed.
Yellow lights are usually 3 seconds and the officer testified that the yellow
light in this case was working properly and was approximately 3 seconds.  The
judge therefore said that her testimony was unreliable and convicted her based
on the officers testimony.

By the way, don't confuse this with VC 22526, which prohibits entering an
intersection, even if the light is green, if there is not enough room to clear
the intersection.  This is the "anti-gridlock" law and it is not a moving violation
that goes on your record and does not count against you as a "point".

-- 
Dan Howell  <dhowell.es_cp8@xerox.com>



