No left turn citation - Chicago- Partially in-operable signs

[MrErico]

I'm seriously thinking of fighting this citation.

I did, in fact make a left turn in a posted "No Left Turn" intersection ....

......but the two main signs across the intersection denoting the "No Left Turn" were the kind that are supposed to light up at night. One light/sign was completely inoperable and the other was partially inoperable - meaning the illumination was about as bright as a candle behind a window. Clearly, the second sign is missing some of its bulbs. This happened in a large six-way intersection so the un-lit or partially unlit signs were easy to miss. Furthermore, the signs are not made with reflective material so they are meant for either day-time viewing or night-time illumination viewing. The signs are the old fashioned back-lighted box type.

There is, in fact, a standard reflective third sign posted prior to the intersection which I missed. In fact, I didn't even see the refelctive sign the second time around (I returned to see how I missed the signs). One of my passengers pointed the sign out and the and the fact it was partially obscured by a "Historic Neighborhood" sign.

I plan on returning tomorrow night to snap some pictures of all three signs.

Just wondering if this seems like something worth pursuing and what my chances are.

I'm wondering if I should focus my argument primarily on the inoperable sign(s). Proving the obstruction of the standard reflective sign placed prior to the intersection might be difficult - depending how the photo is taken. Whithout having the photo in hand as I write this I'm assuming it is partially obscured and perhaps even visible at some point. The question is would two out of 3 in-operable signs be enough to sway a judge? Or do I need to focus on ALL signs.

 

[army judge]

Traffic courts are governmental revenue scams. John Citizen rarely gets anything from traffic court, except a fleecing.

Why not take traffic school? At least you get what you've been promised.

 

[MrErico]

I'd rather stick needles in my eyes than sit through traffic school. Did it once - never again. If I didn't feel I had a case I would just pay the fine.

I've had good out-comes the few times I've gone to court. Once for a speeder I felt I didn't deserve - the judge tossed mine and the one other guy who plead not-guilty out of 100 plus people who plead guilty. He didn't even want to hear my argument (at least he was nice enough to wait till the other suckers cleared the courtroom before he tossed ours). Another time I fought a bogus parking ticket in my small home-town and won.

The few times I was rightfully pinched I took it on the chin and paid. 20 years ago I got nicked by an air-plane for 90 in a 55 - paid it. But now I watch for circling Cessnas.

This time I feel like, if the city wants to enforce no-turns, they should properly maintain their signs. The question remains: how to best approach this.

 

[army judge]

Traffic school has changed.
You can take it via the Internet from the comfort of your home, office, or anywhere; even via your smartphone.

Good luck.

 

[bluemann33]

I'd rather stick needles in my eyes than sit through traffic school. Did it once - never again. If I didn't feel I had a case I would just pay the fine.

I've had good out-comes the few times I've gone to court. Once for a speeder I felt I didn't deserve - the judge tossed mine and the one other guy who plead not-guilty out of 100 plus people who plead guilty. He didn't even want to hear my argument (at least he was nice enough to wait till the other suckers cleared the courtroom before he tossed ours). Another time I fought a bogus parking ticket in my small home-town and won.

The few times I was rightfully pinched I took it on the chin and paid. 20 years ago I got nicked by an air-plane for 90 in a 55 - paid it. But now I watch for circling Cessnas.

This time I feel like, if the city wants to enforce no-turns, they should properly maintain their signs. The question remains: how to best approach this.

Take your pictures in court with you and use all three excuses, the sign being blocked, the lighting was faulty. The worst that can happen is that you are found guilty and pay your fines. the best case is that it gets thrown out....its worth a shot. Good luck.

 

[mightymoose]

Yes, take your argument to court if you like- but do so without plainly admitting to the violation as you did here. Simply argue the faulty equipment, and produce photos that prove the signs were too dark to see.

 

[MrErico]

Take your pictures in court with you and use all three excuses, the sign being blocked, the lighting was faulty. The worst that can happen is that you are found guilty and pay your fines. the best case is that it gets thrown out....its worth a shot. Good luck.

I drove past again today and STILL didn't see the fixed reflective sign. My passenger last night claims it was there but I made two passes today and didn't see it. If it's there is sure is woefully obscured (there is a bunch of trees and banners on the corner). Either way that sign is a non-issue. I'll get a good obscured picture if it exists.

My main concern is the in-operable signs. I feel like pictures as suggested above AND any governing statutes would do the trick.

I'm wondering if it is typical for states to set the minimum standards for signage. It seems to me if the sign is meant to be lit it should be lit. Especially absent any reflective backing.

How would I find out if Illoinois has minimum standards for signage and what would the statutes look like?

 

[MrErico]

Yes, take your argument to court if you like- but do so without plainly admitting to the violation as you did here. Simply argue the faulty equipment, and produce photos that prove the signs were too dark to see.

I don't think my argument will be the signs are too dark to see. Because they are not. I won't come out and say this nor will I, as you suggested, admit my violation even though I don't think my admission(s) would be germane (I really can't deny I made the turn, can I? And my photos WILL show a visible sign regardless of illumination. That said, I believe in "dummying up" when prudent).

My argument will be as follows (and I would appreciate anyone chiming in if I am on the right or wrong track):

1.) As near as I can tell, municipalities within Illinois have to maintain minimum prescribed state standards regarding signage. (this is still an assumption as I haven't narrowed this state statute down. The Illinois statutes pertain to "highways" for sure but I think they also govern municipality minimums. I'm basing my assumptions on news reports of Chicago being in violation of state standards in the past)

2.) Illinois uses, as their guide, the "Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways"

Can't post a link to the Illinois statute

3.) The "Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways" reads (in part) as follows regarding regulatory signs:

Regulatory signs shall be retroreflective or illuminated to show the same shape and similar color by both day and night, unless specifically stated otherwise in the text discussion of a particular sign or group of signs (see Section 2A.08).

The requirements for sign illumination shall not be considered to be satisfied by street, highway, or strobe lighting.
4.) The signs in question are neither retroreflective or illuminated. One is partially illuminated and not working properly.

5.) The type of signs used do not conform to the "Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways" in that they are not the universal "red circle with slash" type signs. The signs posted say "no left turn" spelled out in normal block letters .... this type of sign more closely resembles the guidance for a "No Turn" sign. Again, I can't post links or images.

I'll point out to the judge that I'm not trying to be some sort of armature attorney and nit-pick their signs. Rather, I'm a conscientious driver with an excellent driving record and excellent eyesight who didn't see the signs due to their lack of adequate illumination and somewhat confusing format.

 

[mightymoose]

I don't think my argument will be the signs are too dark to see. Because they are not. .

If that is true, then I expect you will lose your argument. If the sign was visible to you, then you can not very well argue that you couldn't see it, regardless of the light.

 

[MrErico]

If that is true, then I expect you will lose your argument. If the sign was visible to you, then you can not very well argue that you couldn't see it, regardless of the light.

I guess you are missing my point.

1.) I'm not going to walk in to court and say the signs are plainly visible to a conscientious driver approaching a large busy intersection under night-time driving conditions. They are not.

2.) But even a hard to see sign is still visible. The fact that I will be bringing a picture of the signs to court will show that.

3.) The signs do not conform to state and city laws requiring either illumination or "retroreflectiveness". For this reason, the signs were easy to miss by a conscientious driver approaching a large intersection during night-time driving conditions.

Sure, traveling back to the intersection the second, third and fourth time while LOOKING for the signs you WILL see the signs. But there is a reason the state mandates minimum size, illumination/reflectiveness and placement of REGULATORY signs. Furthermore, the state mandates certain STANDARD REGULATORY signs to be used for "no left turns".

To use an exaggerated example: Would a driver be just as guilty of disregarding a regulatory sign if the sign was printed in blue ink written in cursive on a black background ? Of course not. If the driver, after receiving a citation, drove back around to the intersection and admitted he could read the sign on a SECOND glance that wouldn't make the sign any more legal. Would it?

I pretty much have the state statutes and guidelines as they pertain to national guidelines figured out. I was hoping for some guidence from an attorney/lawyer to help LINK the required guidelines to municipal codes. I'm on ths city's website and I may have that figured out.

 

[MrErico]

If that is true, then I expect you will lose your argument. If the sign was visible to you, then you can not very well argue that you couldn't see it, regardless of the light.

Here is the relavent city code regarding regulatory signs in the city of Chicago:

All traffic- control devices placed and maintained pursuant to the traffic code shall conform to the manual and specifications approved by the State of Illinois Department of Transportation and shall so far as practicable be uniform as to type and location throughout the city. All traffic-control devices so erected and not inconsistent with the provisions of state law or this Code shall be official traffic-control devices.

 

[MrErico]

The only part I'm not 100 percent sure on is this section mentions a "manual". I've yet to find any manual. This section DOES say the signs need to comply with the national code posted up-thread.

Here is the relavent Illinois law:

(625 ILCS 5/11‑301) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11‑301)
Sec. 11‑301. Department to adopt sign manual.
(a) The Department shall adopt a State manual and specifications for a uniform system of traffic‑control devices consistent with this Chapter for use upon highways within this State. Such manual shall include the adoption of the R 7‑8 sign adopted by the United States Department of Transportation to designate the reservation of parking facilities for a person with disabilities. Non‑conforming signs in use prior to January 1, 1985 shall not constitute a violation during their useful lives, which shall not be extended by other means than normal maintenance. The manual shall also specify insofar as practicable the minimum warrants justifying the use of the various traffic control devices. Such uniform system shall correlate with and, where not inconsistent with Illinois highway conditions, conform to the system set forth in the most recent edition of the national manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways.
(b) Signs adopted by the Department to designate the reservation of parking facilities for a person with disabilities shall also exhibit, in a manner determined by the Department, the words "$100 Fine".
(c) If the amount of a fine is changed, the Department shall change the design of the signs to indicate the current amount of the fine.
(Source: P.A. 88‑685, eff. 1‑24‑95; 89‑533, eff. 1‑1‑97.)

 

[MrErico]

The "Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways" reads (in part) as follows regarding regulatory signs:

Regulatory signs shall be retroreflective or illuminated to show the same shape and similar color by both day and night, unless specifically stated otherwise in the text discussion of a particular sign or group of signs (see Section 2A.08).

The requirements for sign illumination shall not be considered to be satisfied by street, highway, or strobe lighting.