Left hand turn at sold green light; Florida

Started by mike florida, June 18, 2017, 04:51:50 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

mike florida

I found informative comments on this website after a google search and wanted to see if I could receive advice here. If I post this in the wrong section, please let me know and I'll try to correct it.

My wife recently received a ticket for "careless driving-blocking an intersection" while yielding to traffic at a solid green light in an intersection for a left turn. (I've spent over 20 years driving around the country with no moving violations or accidents and I taught my wife from China how to drive.) I called the police department to better understand their thinking and a Sargent informed me that if the light had turned red while she was in the intersection, it is an illegal turn. But the light did not even turn yellow. The officer that ticketed my wife claims she must wait behind the stop line for a gap in traffic. Traffic was not obstructed on the other side of the intersection she was turning into. We have police dash cam video to prove the road was not obstructed on the road she turned onto. I'm just worried the judge will also think it is illegal to wait in an intersection to make the left turn if both police officers believe it. I can only find two Florida statues that pertain to this and both suggest to me my wife did not violate any Florida laws. (316.2061 Stop when traffic obstructed.) (316.075 Traffic control signal devices.) Right or wrong, we need to know either way because we live in Florida.

I'm wondering if anyone here knows of any specific law in Florida that more thoroughly explains this left turn at light situation? Here is the thread I was reading that brought me here. https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16291.50

Any and all advice is appreciated! Thanks in advance!


mike florida

Correct, the traffic was not obstructed on the "other side" of the intersection she was turning left at. She waited "in" the intersection yielding to right of way traffic. Unfortunately, the officer did not turn on his dash cam until he started making the stop, so it was after her turn was completed. But the video does show the road she turned onto was not "obstructed", meaning she was allowed to enter the intersection when the light turned green (as I interpret the statue).

Thank you, UCFKnights. If I had to guess, maybe the officers are being encouraged to prevent intersections from being obstructed, but not paying close attention to how they become obstructed. The ticket was in the city of Gainesville and there are certain parts of the city, like near I75, where people block the intersections during rush hour because they enter when traffic is backed up, trying not to get 'caught' at the stop line before the light turns red again. I guess we'll show up to court and hope the judge interprets the law like you explained it! It makes perfect sense to me.

vdeane

Quote from: mike florida on June 18, 2017, 06:17:53 PM
Unfortunately, the officer did not turn on his dash cam until he started making the stop, so it was after her turn was completed.
How convenient.  I'm not sure that's a coincidence.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

jeffandnicole

Don't necessarily think the judge will side with the cop. And as mentioned, cops will usually agree with each other publicly.

In this case, a cop shouldn't have been able to stop someone because *maybe* something would happen.  Taken another way, a cop can't pull someone over for speeding simply because he was accelerating and may eventually exceed the limit.

What was the actual number of the violation, which would be a code similiar to the link you provided.

And also...just to give a heads up...Bazoo tends to favor mass transit and other non-vehicular modes of travel, and thus is a bit argumentative when it comes to what this group is about. I wouldn't necessarily trust his comments on stuff like this. Granted, all any one of us can do is provide opinions, but in my personal opinion, the cop stopped your wife on a basis of a theory of what could happen, not what did happen.

BTW...depending on the recording system used, cameras actually run at all times. (A cop won't reveal that though.) You can file an official request to get that video thru Florida's public information request form.

1995hoo

Quote from: vdeane on June 18, 2017, 07:09:57 PM
Quote from: mike florida on June 18, 2017, 06:17:53 PM
Unfortunately, the officer did not turn on his dash cam until he started making the stop, so it was after her turn was completed.
How convenient.  I'm not sure that's a coincidence.

Methinks you should have put the word "not" after the word "that's."
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

mike florida

All kinds of good advice here. Thanks!

The violation number is only 316-1925 https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/316.1925
But he wrote, "careless driving/blocking the intersection". I do not see how she was "endanger(ing) the life, limb, or property of any person". Good point to address the officer with. Thank you!

We did request and receive the dash camera video but it started about the time he turned on his lights, after her turn. But from where he was sitting, 'if' the camera was on before he made the stop, it should have recorded the entire turn in question with the traffic light in the back ground. I will call police records back to see if there is more video before the stop. I was reading online, some police cars do not run their cameras all the time because of the space/expense to store the data. But now you have me curious! I will call records back to see if there is more video. If the entire turn in question is on video, and as my wife describes (and I know her to be very honest and accurate), it should be an easy case to win. I worry not knowing what the officer will say in court for his reason, if we have no video of the violation.

jakeroot

#6
Baloo and I have argued about waiting in the intersection on several occasions, the most recent starting with this post here: https://goo.gl/TVdFCW. He is a staunch critic of waiting in the intersection. I think he's a fool; he must waste a lot of fuel, if he drives at all.

While I'm not familiar with Florida Law, my understanding with turning left at a green light is that pulling forward and turning after the light turns red is absolutely legal, that you have the right of way over traffic facing a red light (as you entered on a green light), and that it's often times the only way to turn left at an intersection. And that's pretty much the end of it. Obstruction laws apply when the destined street is full and cannot accomodate additional vehicles (and you end up sitting in the crosswalk or intersection). An officer trying to extend that law to apply to any cars that simply clear the intersection after their light turns red, is in my opinion, in the wrong, and is failing to comprehend the point of the "obstruction" law.

UCFKnights

Quote from: mike florida on June 18, 2017, 06:17:53 PM
Correct, the traffic was not obstructed on the "other side" of the intersection she was turning left at. She waited "in" the intersection yielding to right of way traffic. Unfortunately, the officer did not turn on his dash cam until he started making the stop, so it was after her turn was completed. But the video does show the road she turned onto was not "obstructed", meaning she was allowed to enter the intersection when the light turned green (as I interpret the statue).

Thank you, UCFKnights. If I had to guess, maybe the officers are being encouraged to prevent intersections from being obstructed, but not paying close attention to how they become obstructed. The ticket was in the city of Gainesville and there are certain parts of the city, like near I75, where people block the intersections during rush hour because they enter when traffic is backed up, trying not to get 'caught' at the stop line before the light turns red again. I guess we'll show up to court and hope the judge interprets the law like you explained it! It makes perfect sense to me.
Unfortunately, that is one of the key areas of the state that is known for ticketing for profit, not caring if you are violating any statute or not. I know several people who've gotten "driving too fast for conditions" when they aren't even speeding, on a sunny day, and its in the county that has had AAA's billboards warning you of unreasonable speed traps. My understanding is it has gotten better after a bit of legislative action to reduce the ticketing for profit (requirements that a maximum percent of revenue for the department comes from tickets), but its still bad there.

I know a few officers at GPD and ACSO, and they do not typically control the cameras and they are triggered by one of the following:
- Driving over 80 MPH
- Turning on their emergency lights
- A button that they wear
- Some officers now have sensors that cause certain loud noises or removing their gun or taser from the holster trigger it.

Given that... its very unlikely the camera was recording before the lights went on in the vehicle.

7/8

Quote from: jakeroot on June 18, 2017, 09:13:30 PM
Baloo/Bazoo and I have argued about waiting in the intersection on several occasions, the most recent starting with this post here: https://goo.gl/TVdFCW. He is a staunch critic of waiting in the intersection. I think he's a fool; he must waste a lot of fuel, if he drives at all.

While I'm not familiar with Florida Law, my understanding with turning left at a green light is that pulling forward and turning after the light turns red is absolutely legal, that you have the right of way over traffic facing a red light (as you entered on a green light), and that it's often times the only way to turn left at an intersection. And that's pretty much the end of it. Obstruction laws apply when the destined street is full and cannot accomodate additional vehicles (and you end up sitting in the crosswalk or intersection). An officer trying to extend that law to apply to any cars that simply clear the intersection after their light turns red, is in my opinion, in the wrong, and is failing to comprehend the point of the "obstruction" law.

:clap: I hate it when people don't go into the intersection on the green (unless it's a really small intersection). It definitely improves efficiency when 1 or 2 people can make their left turn on the yellow or red. Otherwise, you have to wait until the green turn signal (assuming there is one)! In Ontario, people will not be impressed if you stay behind the line for no reason.

roadman65

People do this alot in Orlando and wait behind the stop bar and in most cases think the permissive turn is a protected one and sit there when the opposite direction is clear.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

jakeroot

Quote from: 7/8 on June 18, 2017, 10:12:21 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 18, 2017, 09:13:30 PM
Baloo/Bazoo and I have argued about waiting in the intersection on several occasions, the most recent starting with this post here: https://goo.gl/TVdFCW. He is a staunch critic of waiting in the intersection. I think he's a fool; he must waste a lot of fuel, if he drives at all.

While I'm not familiar with Florida Law, my understanding with turning left at a green light is that pulling forward and turning after the light turns red is absolutely legal, that you have the right of way over traffic facing a red light (as you entered on a green light), and that it's often times the only way to turn left at an intersection. And that's pretty much the end of it. Obstruction laws apply when the destined street is full and cannot accomodate additional vehicles (and you end up sitting in the crosswalk or intersection). An officer trying to extend that law to apply to any cars that simply clear the intersection after their light turns red, is in my opinion, in the wrong, and is failing to comprehend the point of the "obstruction" law.

:clap: I hate it when people don't go into the intersection on the green (unless it's a really small intersection). It definitely improves efficiency when 1 or 2 people can make their left turn on the yellow or red. Otherwise, you have to wait until the green turn signal (assuming there is one)! In Ontario, people will not be impressed if you stay behind the line for no reason.

Same situation in Vancouver (Canada in general is quite good about this). Sometimes you'll only have room for two or three cars, but four or five cars will go after the light changes. The last two probably ran the light, but it's accepted behaviour. It really helps with traffic flow, particularly when the left turn has a protected phase (8 or 9 cars with the green arrow, plus three or four after the light goes red = gigantic through-put improvement).

Washington State is kind of an odd case. Seattle drivers are very good about pulling into the intersection, but the outer-lying suburbs are hit and miss. I get pretty worked up if I'm second from the front and I don't make the light.

Jet380

This is probably irrelevant, being a jurisdiction on the other side of the world, but since it's potentially about interpretation of a similar law, I'll post it here:

In Western Australia, it is legal to wait in the intersection to complete a right (against oncoming traffic) turn. The main roads authority says this on their website in relation to blocking an intersection:

QuoteA yellow box is painted on the road to show the extent of an intersection and indicate an area where drivers should not stop.  You may only enter a yellow box intersection when your exit is clear and there is enough space on the other side of the intersection for your vehicle to clear the box completely without stopping.

Drivers who are turning right can stop at an intersection if their turn is prevented by oncoming traffic until it is safe for the turn to be completed.  Drivers must not simply follow the car in front through a yellow box as they must not enter the yellow marked area unless your exit from the intersection is clear.

So even at specially marked 'box' intersections, we don't consider waiting to turn to be an obstruction.

That said, I have heard that it is not legal to have more than one car queuing in the intersection for a right turn - as the rear car is 'blocked' by the front car. Could it be that your wife followed another car into the intersection?


mike florida

@Jet380 She was the only car turning left. No one in front of her or behind her. As I suspected, it appears to me it was a 'bad' ticket. But choosing to take it to court is still risky because we could end up leaving there with the ticket plus court costs. Right now she should have the option for adjudication to be withheld if the pays the $159 fine plus takes a 4 hour online driving course that will cost additional money. It feels like a shakedown! Not a good feeling!

Thanks for your input!

jeffandnicole

Court is always an uncertainty, no matter what.  I looked around online at the Florida Driver's Manual, but they were silent on the issue.  Also, modern engineering practices take this left turning into account - there's an all-red phase whenever the light turns red specifically to clear out any traffic that is waiting to turn out of the intersection.

If it was me, I would take it to court.  I'm using NJ as an example here...they generally will talk to you beforehand about a plea bargain.  You can consider that if the fine and points are right (low fine, no points, IMO).  Personally, I think you have a pretty good case though, based on the fact that the ticket was based on a theoretical case of blocking an intersection, and not on actually blocking it, and in no other way was she careless in operating the vehicle.  The worse case is you pay the court costs also, although I'm not sure how much they'll cost you if you lose ($30 or so maybe?).

To use an irrelevant NJ example again: We have countless intersections that are only one lane wide, with no turn arrow, and lots of traffic.  If we weren't permitted to move past the stop line to wait to make a left turn, traffic would be backed up for a long, long distance.  And then you run into another violation: Obstruction of traffic!  But that's what you get in an old state where buildings were built just a feet away from intersecting corners!

roadfro

I would agree with the bottom to take the ticket to court. If your wife can cite the applicable law and explain how the situation did not violate the law, I would think a judge would throw it out, or at least let it be argued down to a lesser, non-moving violation.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 19, 2017, 08:52:58 AM
Also, modern engineering practices take this left turning into account - there's an all-red phase whenever the light turns red specifically to clear out any traffic that is waiting to turn out of the intersection.

The "all-red" isn't exactly an all way red time–the signal timing term is the "red clearance interval" It is a predetermined amount of red time appended to the end of a phase before any conflicting traffic phases can begin. So it's not something designed specifically for this turning movement, as a red clearance follows every signal phase movement. But it is a designed to give ANY traffic still in the intersection a little extra time to clear–this can include permissive lefts waiting for a gap, but also other things like thru traffic or pedestrians.

It should also be noted that a red clearance interval is not a given at all modern intersections. While it is a standard parameter in most NEMA signal controller and there are ITE guidelines for determining this an adequate amount of clearance time, it can come down to agency policy also. Some signals may be set for a negligible red clearance internal of 0.25 seconds or less.



LG-D850

Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

kalvado

Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 19, 2017, 08:52:58 AM


If it was me, I would take it to court.  I'm using NJ as an example here...they generally will talk to you beforehand about a plea bargain.  You can consider that if the fine and points are right (low fine, no points, IMO).  Personally, I think you have a pretty good case though, based on the fact that the ticket was based on a theoretical case of blocking an intersection, and not on actually blocking it, and in no other way was she careless in operating the vehicle.  The worse case is you pay the court costs also, although I'm not sure how much they'll cost you if you lose ($30 or so maybe?).
I would try to point out that  law on a ticket is not applicable - since specific "do not block the box" law being quoted. Maybe find another state where pull to center is explicitly OK, and where "do not block the box" law also exists?

As for court fees... As far as I understand, many places can get you something like $50 ticket, $150 surcharge and $200 fee. Just because. 

jakeroot

Quote from: roadfro on June 19, 2017, 04:10:40 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 19, 2017, 08:52:58 AM
Also, modern engineering practices take this left turning into account - there's an all-red phase whenever the light turns red specifically to clear out any traffic that is waiting to turn out of the intersection.

The "all-red" isn't exactly an all way red time–the signal timing term is the "red clearance interval" It is a predetermined amount of red time appended to the end of a phase before any conflicting traffic phases can begin. So it's not something designed specifically for this turning movement, as a red clearance follows every signal phase movement. But it is a designed to give ANY traffic still in the intersection a little extra time to clear–this can include permissive lefts waiting for a gap, but also other things like thru traffic or pedestrians.

(I've always found all-red phases to be rather interesting; I've done a little research on them before, and below is a summary of what I've found):

South Africa's traffic signal manual (from SANRAL, the primary road agency in South Africa) calls for a two-second all-red phase at the end of each through phase. This, in combination with the yellow interval, is called the "intergreen" period, which is defined as "the yellow signal interval plus the all-red interval. This is the safety period between the end of one green light signal and the start of another green light signal that gives right of way to a conflicting traffic stream." It's basically designed to clear cars that were waiting in the intersection.

(Before reading on, remember that South Africa drives on the left, so right-turn movements cross traffic)

Explained further... (the rhetoric used here is unlike any other official manual that I've ever read) (~6.12)

"The yellow period provides an indication that a red light signal will be displayed shortly, allowing the driver to stop if possible. The all-red (or clearance) period provides for a clearance time of the junction · Ideally, a yellow period should give sufficient warning to allow drivers to stop safely, even under adverse weather conditions. When such a driver is too near the junction to stop safely, sufficient time should be provided for the driver to enter the junction on yellow, and to clear the junction during the all-red period · The ideal requirements, however, can result in relatively long yellow periods. Drivers tend to abuse long yellow periods, using the yellow as effective green that can result in unsafe conditions. A more pragmatic approach is therefore recommended in which the yellow period is reduced and the all-red period correspondingly increased, while effectively providing the same intergreen period · The reduced yellow period may result in drivers entering a junction during the all-red period being prosecuted unfairly. It is therefore recommended that an enforcement tolerance should be provided and that law enforcement should only commence during the last one second of the all-red interval."

Later on (~6.13.5), the manual establishes (emphasis mine) that "the parameters required for establishing traffic signal timings are starting lost time, the number of vehicles that turn during the intergreen period and the saturation flow rate per lane". It goes on to say that "The number of vehicles Ii that can turn during the intergreen period (per cycle, per lane) is usually calculated as follows"...

"For right-turn movements, a value of Ii is usually taken as 1 vehicle per cycle at very narrow junctions, 2 vehicles per lane per cycle at average sized junctions, and 3 vehicles per lane per cycle at wide junctions."

Anyways, understanding the above, I emailed my traffic engineer friend (from Washington State) to ask him if he took into account vehicles turning during the yellow and red phases when determining the maximum traffic flow of a left turn signal. His explanation:

Quote
[S]ome American literature refers to the concept of using the intergreen/clearance time to clear turning movements as being a "sneaker" .  Many agencies assume 2 sneakers per cycle (per lane).  Here in the Northwest, my observations suggest that drivers are relatively timid in using clearance time for a permitted left, and so I assume only 1 sneaker per cycle.  Even that is more aggressive than many drivers, and this is also a function of how aggressively drivers push the yellow time on the opposing through movement.  My sense is the overuse of protected lefts and WSDOT's history of using insanely long cycle lengths (WSDOT's Design Manual used to call for optimizing cycle lengths using Webster's formula, which can easily generate cycle lengths in excess of 300 seconds), has trained drivers here to test the limits of clearance times (yellow + all-red) rather than risk waiting a whole other cycle.  As such, the clearance time for through movements tends to get used almost exclusively by through movements on saturated approaches, leaving little to no time for sneakers.

To answer your question more completely, I do not explicitly allow for clearing sneakers in calculating clearance times for through phases.  In fact, I don't even buy into use of the ITE formula for calculating clearance times (especially all-red times) as I believe that it only encourages drivers to adapt to longer clearance times.  However, I won't shorten them, because there is a driver expectancy issue created by other agencies, and lack of conformance to that expectancy may imperil drivers unnecessarily.  That said, I will lengthen clearance times if there is a pattern of collisions that would suggest it would help reduce collision history.  As far as capacity calculations, I tend to use the default values (mostly because we don't have the resources to collect that kind of data) for what the Highway Capacity Manual calls "lost time" , which attempts to capture the loss of capacity between signal phases and usually possesses an eerie resemblance to total clearance times.

UCFKnights

Quote from: mike florida on June 19, 2017, 08:13:48 AM
@Jet380 She was the only car turning left. No one in front of her or behind her. As I suspected, it appears to me it was a 'bad' ticket. But choosing to take it to court is still risky because we could end up leaving there with the ticket plus court costs. Right now she should have the option for adjudication to be withheld if the pays the $159 fine plus takes a 4 hour online driving course that will cost additional money. It feels like a shakedown! Not a good feeling!

Thanks for your input!
Its a shakedown for sure... but just so you are aware, in the areas where they frequently do it, they don't really desire to give you points in court as they don't want you to lose your license when they keep doing this to you and get more money from you... getting you to stop driving stops their ability to ticket you. Its very common for them to leave off the points even if you are adjudicated guilty (which you might not be).

The course also gets rid of points, but places a time restriction on when you can do it again and a lifetime restriction on how often you can do it.

7/8

Re: jakeroot's post.

I find it funny that the WSDOT engineer considers one car turning on intergreen "more aggressive than many drivers". Page 44 of Ontario's OTM Book 12 says that "two vehicles are considered to be able to clear the intersection on the amber", which seems to reasonably match my experience here. I wonder why Washington state drivers don't take more advantage of the left during intergreen? I could see that getting on my nerves if I ever get to drive out there :colorful:.

I personally think that South Africa's approach sounds realistic :thumbsup:

jakeroot

Quote from: 7/8 on June 19, 2017, 10:56:31 PM
Re: jakeroot's post.

I find it funny that the WSDOT engineer considers one car turning on intergreen "more aggressive than many drivers". Page 44 of Ontario's OTM Book 12 says that "two vehicles are considered to be able to clear the intersection on the amber", which seems to reasonably match my experience here. I wonder why Washington state drivers don't take more advantage of the left during intergreen? I could see that getting on my nerves if I ever get to drive out there :colorful:.

It's a regional thing in the US. Some states just aren't good at it. It gets on my nerves all the time. With that said, some cities are good at it. Seattle drivers are very good about pulling forward. The suburbs aren't as good.

BTW he's a city engineer, he doesn't work for WSDOT (not that you would have known). I'm not sure what their methodology is.

roadfro

Quote from: jakeroot on June 19, 2017, 11:03:16 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on June 19, 2017, 10:56:31 PM
Re: jakeroot's post.

I find it funny that the WSDOT engineer considers one car turning on intergreen "more aggressive than many drivers". Page 44 of Ontario's OTM Book 12 says that "two vehicles are considered to be able to clear the intersection on the amber", which seems to reasonably match my experience here. I wonder why Washington state drivers don't take more advantage of the left during intergreen? I could see that getting on my nerves if I ever get to drive out there :colorful:.

It's a regional thing in the US. Some states just aren't good at it. It gets on my nerves all the time. With that said, some cities are good at it. Seattle drivers are very good about pulling forward. The suburbs aren't as good.

BTW he's a city engineer, he doesn't work for WSDOT (not that you would have known). I'm not sure what their methodology is.

The regional differences are quite interesting (for example, a 300-second cycle length seems absurd to me–last I knew for sure, max cycles around the very congested Las Vegas Strip area were still 180 seconds). I guess it all depends on what kind of experience the signal timing team has, what research/methodologies they buy into, etc.


(Apologies to the OP...my last post unintentionally hijacked the thread.)
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

bzakharin

I don't know what the law in NJ is, but I don't enter the intersection to wait to turn left unless I see a break in the oncoming traffic coming up. That means I might still end up turning on red, but it's a lot less likely. Plus I have an excuse to tell the cops if it happens. However, I see plenty of people just entering the intersection on solid green, so if it's legal, I might start to do it myself.

jakeroot

^^^

I don't really give it that much thought, to be honest. I just pull out, and turn when safe, or after the light turns red. A city near me uses lagging left turns almost exclusively, and I pull out even at those, especially if I'm the only car, so I can avoid tripping the lagging protected turn, so as to maximize the green time for oncoming traffic, at least in most cases.

One of the main reasons for pulling forward (other than to avoid missing the light, if at a leading left) is so that my turns aren't so long. This is less of an issue when there's no median, but I like to complete as much of the turn as I can before I start to cross oncoming lanes. If the nose of my car is nearly perpendicular with the lane that I'm turning into, I can very quickly turn left and cross traffic much quicker than if I were starting from the stop line. Nevermind that my visibility of traffic is a lot better when I pull forward.

briantroutman

Perhaps the differing opinions on this issue are in part due to regional differences in the driving environment and the attitudes of motorists.

In urban areas, particularly in the Northeast, it's not uncommon to encounter busy four-way intersections with no dedicated turn lanes and no protected turn phase. As has been observed, if at least one car didn't pull out into the intersection waiting to make a left turn–and then complete that turn during the yellow-to-red phase–no one would be able to make any left turns at all through large swaths of the day. Simultaneously, pulling out into the intersection sends a message to oncoming motorists that you're determined to complete your turn during the current cycle. You may have to force your left turn to dissuade a would-be red light runner, but you have no choice: The drivers on the intersecting street are already starting to move their feet from the brake to the accelerator, not when their light turns green, but when your light turns yellow.

I'm not saying that any of the above is necessarily desirable, legal, or safe, but it's nonetheless a fact of life in many urban areas.

mike florida

I would find it MORE dangerous to "aim" for a gap in traffic from back at the stop line while hoping I do not need to change my mind to yield and risk getting a ticket, than waiting in the intersection to complete my turn over a shorter distance. (there is no dedicated green arrow at this intersection as an option if you miss the solid green)

I talked to an attorney friend and she cautioned me about trying to fight the ticket. I've never done it and my wife has not either. The attorney said it will be a "cattle call" and we could end up spending hours there. Court fees if the officer shows up and we lose could be $100+ dollars. With our schedules I may just need to pay them off to go away. Feels like paying "protection money". I'm probably going to let it go. It's eating me up more than it's worth.

I'll do a follow up here when it is settled. I've read all the comments! Thank you, everyone! (even Baloo  :poke:)



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.