Trenton, NJ One-Way Streets

[jeffandnicole]

Every sign shown here is erroneous:  http://goo.gl/maps/Z98pa

Why?  Pan/rotate to the right a little bit.  The street is a one-way going the opposite direction. You can't legally enter the roundabout from this direction.

[NE2]

Every sign shown here is erroneous:  http://goo.gl/maps/Z98pa

Why?  Pan/rotate to the right a little bit.  The street is a one-way going the opposite direction. You can't legally enter the roundabout from this direction.

Uh what? You can turn left out of the exit from the courthouse parking garage.

It may also be legal to bike southwestbound along the sidewalk and switch to the road where it becomes two-way.

[jeffandnicole]

The striping is incorrect based on the permitted use of the roadway.

The street name is Livingston Street.  Per City of Trenton traffic code: http://ecode360.com/attachment/TR0722/TR0722-014m%20Schedule%20XII.pdf, on Page 5, Livingston Street is one way eastbound.  The coding of the web address suggests it was updated in 2014.  The page itself was updated in 2009.  Any Trenton ordinances since 2009 do not appear to touch on making any part of Livingston two-way, from what I could locate online.

As for bicyclists, they are legally supposed to follow the rules of the road.  Thus, bikes can't ride the sidewalk, and can't enter the road the wrong way.

[NE2]

So I'm supposed to carry around a book of ordinances and check each street before I turn down it? I think not.

As for bicyclists, they are legally supposed to follow the rules of the road.  Thus, bikes can't ride the sidewalk,

[citation needed]
http://www.nj.gov/transportation/commuter/bike/faqs.shtm

While riding a bicycle on a sidewalk is not prohibited by New Jersey statutes, some municipalities have passed ordinances prohibiting bicycle traffic on certain sidewalks.

[jeffandnicole]

So I'm supposed to carry around a book of ordinances and check each street before I turn down it? I think not.

You can keep it next to the book of state laws.  Doesn't matter if you know the law, but you must abide by the law.

As for bicyclists, they are legally supposed to follow the rules of the road.  Thus, bikes can't ride the sidewalk,

[citation needed]

See further down regarding "bikes can't ride the sidewalk".  In the meantime...

Citation: 

TITLE 39        MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC REGULATION

New Jersey State Statute:  39:1-1, Words and phrases defined:

"Driver" means the rider or driver of a horse, bicycle or motorcycle or the driver or operator of a motor vehicle, unless otherwise specified.

http://www.nj.gov/transportation/commuter/bike/faqs.shtm

While riding a bicycle on a sidewalk is not prohibited by New Jersey statutes, some municipalities have passed ordinances prohibiting bicycle traffic on certain sidewalks.

I noticed your copy/paste function didn't work properly.  I'll show you the entire passage: 

"While riding a bicycle on a sidewalk is not prohibited by New Jersey statutes, some municipalities have passed ordinances prohibiting bicycle traffic on certain sidewalks. This prohibition is usually posted. It should be noted, that sidewalks are for pedestrians. Riding on sidewalks can cause conflicts with pedestrians and, like wrong way riding, can lead to crashes since it places bicyclists in situations where others do not expect them. Except for very young cyclists under parental supervision, sidewalks are not for bicycling."

So I will grant you that operating a bicycle on a sidewalk is not prohibited.  But unless a child is riding a bicycle thru this area, the bicyclist should be on the street. And as the bicycle is operated by a driver, the driver must follow the rules of the road.

[NE2]

blah blah blah

Show me where it's illegal to ride on the sidewalk in Trenton.

[jeffandnicole]

If there is a Speed Limit 50 sign posted, but the law on the books says it's supposed to be 40, what's the enforceable limit?

If it's striped and signed for two-way traffic (and for the left turn from the driveway), it's de facto legal regardless of what the de jure law says.

So if a random line painter paints an arrow leading you onto the wrong way of I-95, then it's de facto legal?

Since there's also a one-way sign pointing the other way, you are now picking and choosing which signs you believe are legal.  While you may want to say it's legal because there's signs and striping going into the roundabout, a driver involved in a head-on collision will point to the one way sign.

If it's decided by the cop...and then the judge...that the street was one way, the person in violation of going the wrong way will have to settle it with the property owner of the lot; even if the property owner of that lot is the city or county (since that parking lot is attached to a court house, it may be city or county property).

[NE2]

It's consistently signed and striped to allow you to turn left out of the parking garage. Quit acting like an idiot.

[Kacie Jane]

Since there's also a one-way sign pointing the other way, you are now picking and choosing which signs you believe are legal.  While you may want to say it's legal because there's signs and striping going into the roundabout, a driver involved in a head-on collision will point to the one way sign.

I couldn't get a good angle on street view, and thought the one way sign might have been for traffic coming out of the opposite driveway. If it's on Livingston, it would still be correct that it's one way on one side of the intersection with the driveway, though I admit this is a stretch. However, it's also a stretch to say I'm picking and choosing, given that you're picking the only sign that says it is one-way, and every other sign says it's two-way.

If the driver in the head on collision points to the one-way sign, the other driver need only point to the yellow lines that the first driver must have been on the wrong side of. Let the litigation beginulate!

(Though I'm having difficulty figuring out how a head-on collision would occur. If it's immediately after/before the driveway, the driver turning out of the driveway would be at fault for not letting traffic clear. If it's closer to the roundabout, the driver coming off the roundabout hasn't seen the one-way sign yet -- and has seen the yellow lines -- so what are they basing their assumption on?)

P.S. to Jake: my example was meant to be a hypothetical in reference to this conversation, not an actual example on Washington or anywhere else.

[Roadrunner75]

From this view (looking out from the driveway with the left and right turn lanes), it looks like the "One Way" sign is showing that the alley across the street is one way coming out (sign perpendicular to the street, or at least angled mostly in that direction):
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.216571,-74.763929&spn=0.001049,0.837021&cbll=40.216571,-74.763929&layer=c&panoid=FDdBT0kEpGX2y6vFBr0Njw&cbp=12,317.29,,0,10.95&t=m&z=11
However, the "Do Not Enter" sign now provides a conflict, facing the street.  Looks like somebody screwed up with that sign installation.

[corco]

If there is a Speed Limit 50 sign posted, but the law on the books says it's supposed to be 40, what's the enforceable limit?

If it's striped and signed for two-way traffic (and for the left turn from the driveway), it's de facto legal regardless of what the de jure law says.

What's the context of the question? I've never seen Washington post a speed limit above what the law books say it's supposed to be.

Was the phrase, "...unless otherwise posted..." written anywhere in that law?  That's how Massachusetts words its various speed laws.

Example: by the book, its (MA) speed on divided highways is 50, unless otherwise posted.

The law (here) allows for adjustments within a city, when a study proves the limit is too low, or when the secretary of transport approves an increase.

My original comment looks a bit daft now. I should have said "I've never seen Washington post a speed limit on a high-speed road that was higher than what the state allowed (50 for county roads, 60 for state highways).

Plenty of 65 zones in Eastern Washington, and Washington law allows a maximum speed of 70 on any state highway, but Washington speed limits are set at the discretion of the state highway department, not by statute, so the posted speed is legal as long as it is below 70. Washington law does not distinguish between interstates and other state highways anywhere.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.410

That being said, Idaho and Montana both have firm speed limits. A court case came out of Idaho a few years ago regarding this, actually. Latah County, Idaho got in trouble for posting SPEED LIMIT 35 signs where the speed limit is actually 55. Most county roads in Idaho actually have 55 speed limits, even though the posted speed may be lower. Same with Montana and 70. Best not to exceed the signed speed though just in case the speed limit was actually legally lowered through a traffic investigation that rural counties can never afford to do. http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/sep/22/official-idaho-law-overrides-counties-speed-limit-/

[NE2]

PS Jecole: if you can't bike on the sidewalk, what the fuck is this (horribly designed) shit?

[corco]

If there is a Speed Limit 50 sign posted, but the law on the books says it's supposed to be 40, what's the enforceable limit?

If it's striped and signed for two-way traffic (and for the left turn from the driveway), it's de facto legal regardless of what the de jure law says.

So if a random line painter paints an arrow leading you onto the wrong way of I-95, then it's de facto legal?

Since there's also a one-way sign pointing the other way, you are now picking and choosing which signs you believe are legal.  While you may want to say it's legal because there's signs and striping going into the roundabout, a driver involved in a head-on collision will point to the one way sign.

If it's decided by the cop...and then the judge...that the street was one way, the person in violation of going the wrong way will have to settle it with the property owner of the lot; even if the property owner of that lot is the city or county (since that parking lot is attached to a court house, it may be city or county property).

If you really want to be that dense about it, 14-3.2 of the Trenton city code does not actually define what a one-way street is. Just says "One-way streets designated. The streets or parts of streets described in Schedule XII attached to and made a part of this chapter are hereby designated as one-way streets in the direction indicated."

The code does state that wherever words are not defined, the definitions section of Title 39 Subsection 1 of the Revised Statutes of New Jersey apply...but look, those don't define a one-way street either. The one-way street is defined in Title 39 Subsection 4, and that subsection sure enough does require that municipalities adopt by ordinance or resolution a list of one way streets, which frankly seems like an asinine piece of code clutter. I've never seen that before in my life.

That being said, even if for some reason a judge was loony enough to want to uphold a ticket based on something that is clearly intended to be legal which won't happen since I'd bet judges turn left onto that street all the time since it's by a county courthouse, you could make an equally ridiculous argument that one-way streets aren't defined in the portion of statute (Title 39, subsection 1) noted in the city of Trenton code and that would probably get the ticket thrown out.

The code also says "Upon a highway or roadway properly designated and signed for one-way traffic, a vehicle shall be driven only in the direction designated."- in this case it is certainly not properly signed for one-way traffic, so I think you could actually make an argument that is just as ridiculous as yours that the entire segment of street from Warren to Broad outlined in the city ordinance is actually a two way street.

Part of the job of a judge is to weigh intent against statute where things aren't clearly defined. Clearly the intent is to allow for the street to be two-way for that half block or so, regardless of what statute says.

[roadman65]

I have seen signs that direct you to left turns that are not allowed as well as that "RAHWAY" sign on NJ 27 SB at Cherry Street in Elizabeth that was there for decades long after Cherry was made a one way still directing NJ 27 SB motorists for Rahway into a one way street.

Then at Ford Avenue in Woodbridge Township at US 1 a New Brunswick sign was still in place after the left turn prohibition was put into place heading NB on Ford saying that "New Brunswick" is to the left on US 1 (which it is, but you have to go around a reverse jug handle to make that left) where now you cannot make the left turn legally.

Also New Jersey showing directions of routes on their overhead street blades is also in place where left turns are not allowed such as on Stuyvesant Avenue in Union at NJ 82.  Left turns were always never allowed at that intersection, but NJDOT has it showing NJ 82 W and E with arrows even to the left where one cannot make the left turn either to go West or East on Route 82.

The thing is follow the sign and a cop most likely will tell you "There is also a NO LEFT TURN sign there as well" and that is the main governing device with safety.  Remember Traffic Control Devices are more law than guide signs as shields and directional signs are not considered for safety, but as an aide.

[NE2]

On the other hand, can you turn left onto the roundabout since it's not listed in the statute?

[corco]

On the other hand, can you turn left onto the roundabout since it's not listed in the statute?

Amusingly, I can only find one place in the state statutes where traffic circles or roundabouts are even mentioned, and they're not defined.

http://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2013/title-39/section-39-4-183.12

The New Jersey driver's manual says "There are no set rules for driving into, around and out of a traffic circle in New
Jersey. Common sense and caution must prevail at all times. In most cases, the circle’s historically established traffic flow pattern dictates who has the right-ofway. If a major highway flows into and through the circle, it usually dominates the
traffic flow pattern and commands the right-of-way. Traffic control signs, such as stop or yield signs, at the entrances to the circle also govern which motorist has the right-of-way. Never enter a traffic circle without checking all signs and determining the intentions of the motorists already moving within the circle."
http://www.state.nj.us/mvc/pdf/Licenses/Driver%20Manual/Chapter_4.pdf

So, sure, if we're going by jeffandnicole's insanely literal interpretation of statute, turn left.

[Zeffy]

PS Jecole: if you can't bike on the sidewalk, what the fuck is this (horribly designed) shit?

Believe me, bicyclists in Trenton don't really give a crap about whatever the law says. Trenton police have a lot more things to worry about than cyclists going the wrong way or doing other petty things compared to what usually goes on at night. One cut me off one time as I was attempting to turn onto US 1 North from William Trent Place. He didn't care.

But other than that, of course you can bike on the sidewalk. I've seen many do it in the Downtown area.

As for the roundabout, I'd argue that since there is a yellow line, you can clearly turn left as long as you do it before the crosswalk where it becomes a 2-way split to head onto Broad Street.

[roadman65]

Common sense is right.  Look at US 15 Business in Gettysburg, PA where Lincoln Square acts as a roundabout at the junction with US 30.  Going in both directions on US 15 Business you have  a US 30 shield with a double headed arrow beneath it to show the two directions the route takes through the intersection.  Yet to make the left on US 30 one most go counterclockwise around the square to do it, nonetheless they do it!  Even though the sign says its okay to go directly left, common sense prevails there as people know that it means left, but still you have to enter the traffic flow of the square.

[jeffandnicole]

If there is a Speed Limit 50 sign posted, but the law on the books says it's supposed to be 40, what's the enforceable limit?

If it's striped and signed for two-way traffic (and for the left turn from the driveway), it's de facto legal regardless of what the de jure law says.

So if a random line painter paints an arrow leading you onto the wrong way of I-95, then it's de facto legal?

Since there's also a one-way sign pointing the other way, you are now picking and choosing which signs you believe are legal.  While you may want to say it's legal because there's signs and striping going into the roundabout, a driver involved in a head-on collision will point to the one way sign.

If it's decided by the cop...and then the judge...that the street was one way, the person in violation of going the wrong way will have to settle it with the property owner of the lot; even if the property owner of that lot is the city or county (since that parking lot is attached to a court house, it may be city or county property).

If you really want to be that dense about it, 14-3.2 of the Trenton city code does not actually define what a one-way street is. Just says "One-way streets designated. The streets or parts of streets described in Schedule XII attached to and made a part of this chapter are hereby designated as one-way streets in the direction indicated."

The code does state that wherever words are not defined, the definitions section of Title 39 Subsection 1 of the Revised Statutes of New Jersey apply...but look, those don't define a one-way street either. The one-way street is defined in Title 39 Subsection 4, and that subsection sure enough does require that municipalities adopt by ordinance or resolution a list of one way streets, which frankly seems like an asinine piece of code clutter. I've never seen that before in my life.

A) Many common terms aren't defined.  "Speed Limit" isn't defined.  "The" isn't defined.  So if you want to argue to a judge that 'speed limit' and 'one way' aren't defined, go for it.  He will probably tell you to look up the definition of 'guilty'.

B) You've never seen it because you probably have never looked it up.  But roads can't be signed nilly-willy.  If a road is going to be declared a one-way road, it has to be approved by the town/city/county/state. Same with speed limits: NJ has code detailing every single speed limit, and the boundaries of that speed limit.  Every other town/city/county/state in this country has it defined as well.  NJ makes it fairly easy to locate it online.

That being said, even if for some reason a judge was loony enough to want to uphold a ticket based on something that is clearly intended to be legal which won't happen since I'd bet judges turn left onto that street all the time since it's by a county courthouse, you could make an equally ridiculous argument that one-way streets aren't defined in the portion of statute (Title 39, subsection 1) noted in the city of Trenton code and that would probably get the ticket thrown out.

The code also says "Upon a highway or roadway properly designated and signed for one-way traffic, a vehicle shall be driven only in the direction designated."- in this case it is certainly not properly signed for one-way traffic, so I think you could actually make an argument that is just as ridiculous as yours that the entire segment of street from Warren to Broad outlined in the city ordinance is actually a two way street.

Part of the job of a judge is to weigh intent against statute where things aren't clearly defined. Clearly the intent is to allow for the street to be two-way for that half block or so, regardless of what statute says.

Maybe the plan was to convert it to a two way road.  If it never happened, it's not legal. 

There's been many a law created with the intent to allow something.  But no doubt you are familiar with the term 'Loophole', meaning someone found a way around the law.  Doesn't matter what the intent was - if the law allows it...or doesn't allow it - the law rules the day.

In the end, will a cop stop someone for entering the circle? Probably not. 
Will a cop stop someone for going 66 in a 65?  Probably not. 
Will a cop give a ticket to someone parked an inch further from the curb than permitted?  Probably not. 

But 'Probably not' doesn't mean ever.

You can all argue as much as you want about literal interpretation of the law.  If you wanted to fight a ticket, no doubt you would be looking up same said literal interpretation.

[jeffandnicole]

NE2: You do know that I conceded the sidewalk issue to you half a page ago, right?  I imagine that since you can't find anything else about the actual subject at hand, you'll just keep going back to the sidewalk issue.  We all know if I was wrong about entering that roundabout, you would've pointed that out a long time ago.

So I will grant you that operating a bicycle on a sidewalk is not prohibited.

[jeffandnicole]

PS Jecole: if you can't bike on the sidewalk, what the fuck is this (horribly designed) shit?

Believe me, bicyclists in Trenton don't really give a crap about whatever the law says. Trenton police have a lot more things to worry about than cyclists going the wrong way or doing other petty things compared to what usually goes on at night. One cut me off one time as I was attempting to turn onto US 1 North from William Trent Place. He didn't care.

But other than that, of course you can bike on the sidewalk. I've seen many do it in the Downtown area.

I've seen many people exceed the speed limit.  Doesn't mean you can do it though.

[NE2]

You are wrong about it being illegal to turn left out of the garage.

[jeffandnicole]

You are wrong about it being illegal to turn left out of the garage.

[citation needed]

[corco]

A) Many common terms aren't defined.  "Speed Limit" isn't defined.  "The" isn't defined.  So if you want to argue to a judge that 'speed limit' and 'one way' aren't defined, go for it.  He will probably tell you to look up the definition of 'guilty'.

B) You've never seen it because you probably have never looked it up.  But roads can't be signed nilly-willy.  If a road is going to be declared a one-way road, it has to be approved by the town/city/county/state. Same with speed limits: NJ has code detailing every single speed limit, and the boundaries of that speed limit.  Every other town/city/county/state in this country has it defined as well.  NJ makes it fairly easy to locate it online.

A) The state statute does define one way street and speed limit (though not in the definitions section). The town ordinance does not reference the proper locations where those terms are defined. This frequently happens in town ordinances though it shouldn't, and I agree that it would not likely be cause for a judge to throw out a case, but the argument could and probably would be made.

B) is absolutely not true. It is apparently true in New Jersey, but I know Montana's code inside and out because I deal with the relationship between municipal codes and state statute as part of my job on a daily basis in this state and know for certain that one-way streets are allowed to be adopted by a municipality's administrative decision, not one that is required to be coded in statute, ordinance, or resolution. Baseline speed limits are hard coded in Montana law, but changes to speed limits determined after a traffic investigation do not have to be, though the local government would have to present the results of that traffic investigation if they were defending a speeding ticket. Same is true in Idaho in most cases. Don't make absolute statements when you aren't sure what you are talking about.

The code also says "Upon a highway or roadway properly designated and signed for one-way traffic, a vehicle shall be driven only in the direction designated."- in this case it is certainly not properly signed for one-way traffic, so I think you could actually make an argument that is just as ridiculous as yours that the entire segment of street from Warren to Broad outlined in the city ordinance is actually a two way street.

Part of the job of a judge is to weigh intent against statute where things aren't clearly defined. Clearly the intent is to allow for the street to be two-way for that half block or so, regardless of what statute says.

Maybe the plan was to convert it to a two way road.  If it never happened, it's not legal. 

There's been many a law created with the intent to allow something.  But no doubt you are familiar with the term 'Loophole', meaning someone found a way around the law.  Doesn't matter what the intent was - if the law allows it...or doesn't allow it - the law rules the day.

In the end, will a cop stop someone for entering the circle? Probably not. 
Will a cop stop someone for going 66 in a 65?  Probably not. 
Will a cop give a ticket to someone parked an inch further from the curb than permitted?  Probably not. 

But 'Probably not' doesn't mean ever.

You can all argue as much as you want about literal interpretation of the law.  If you wanted to fight a ticket, no doubt you would be looking up same said literal interpretation.

Yes, a cop can give a ticket for something they shouldn't give a ticket to. It's a judge's job to read the statutes and look at the intent and make a determination.

In the end, yes, this is what judges are for, but it's not right to say "it's illegal" which is what you said, when there is clearly a gray area. The road is not signed for one way traffic, which appears to be half of the requirement that enables one way streets in New Jersey.

[jeffandnicole]

A) Many common terms aren't defined.  "Speed Limit" isn't defined.  "The" isn't defined.  So if you want to argue to a judge that 'speed limit' and 'one way' aren't defined, go for it.  He will probably tell you to look up the definition of 'guilty'.

B) You've never seen it because you probably have never looked it up.  But roads can't be signed nilly-willy.  If a road is going to be declared a one-way road, it has to be approved by the town/city/county/state. Same with speed limits: NJ has code detailing every single speed limit, and the boundaries of that speed limit.  Every other town/city/county/state in this country has it defined as well.  NJ makes it fairly easy to locate it online.

B) is absolutely not true. It is apparently true in New Jersey, but I know Montana's code inside and out because I deal with the relationship between municipal codes and state statute as part of my job on a daily basis in this state and know for certain that one-way streets are allowed to be adopted by a municipality's administrative decision, not one that is required to be coded in statute.

Where did I say it's required to be coded in statute?  I think I said "If a road is going to be declared a one-way road, it has to be approved by the town/city/county/state", which is the EXACT SAME THING you said.