Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I honked the horn at an impending disaster as a minivan pulled a suicide lane change into my lane on the 101. Mom was swatting at the kids from the driver's seat, great situation. When we exited at Scottsdale road, the mom was nice enough to screech up beside me and unleash a torrent of merchant marine type language at me, never mind that I didn't do anything except let her know with my horn that she was about to crash into me. Life goes on, right?
Kids weren't in seat belts either. Wonderful. And she's yelling at me... Mom proceeded to screech her tires and fly down Scottsdale Road, just to get her picture taken as she tore past the Scottsdale Police van parked south of Mayo Blvd. I got a good laugh out of that but I stayed away from her at the next stoplight. You never know what people will do.
Having said all of this, I have to wonder what made people so self centered. Then they get angry at their own stupid actions and take it out on others. That may just be a problem in the West--seems worse out here than back east. But I think it is getting to be a problem everywhere.
This sounds like the same situation that my boyfriend ran into a few months ago and in the same exact area of the 101. How weird. I wonder if it's the same yelling and swatting mother?
Location: 5 miles from the center of the universe-The Superstition Mountains
1,084 posts, read 5,788,573 times
Reputation: 606
Quote:
Originally Posted by nitram
aj661
ARS 28-645-A1 does not apply in my wife's situation. It does not even come close to addressing it.
ARS 28-772 does and if you have any doubts then the officer who wrote the ticket, Officer Gerry Lee of the Phoenix Police Motor Traffic Patrol would be the one you need to address your concerns and opinion to, and also the court system. We only try to follow the rules. Apparently the police have different opinions than the courts, or cannot agree within themselves. Judges seem to agree with whatever an officer says is the gods truth. That we cannot control. And since other officers in the valley seem to agree with our scenario, not yours, then all drivers need to beware.
God speed, thanks for your service.
28-772.
Vehicle turning left at intersection
The driver of a vehicle within an intersection intending to turn to the left shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle that is approaching from the opposite direction and that is within the intersection or so close to the intersection as to constitute an immediate hazard.
And that is what the policeman and the court said to my wife. She did not yield to the oncomming vehicle and that constituted a hazard situation. If she stayed stopped and let the violater continue, then there would have been no accident, so say's the judicial system.
I said I was done but I'll add one more comment. Besides, in looking back over what I've posted before, my dyslexia is showing: Although I copied and pasted the correct statute, I refered to the number wrong. It is 28-645-1a, not 645A1
28-645-1a not only addresses the scenario, it deals specifically with it:
28-645. Traffic control signal legend
A. If traffic is controlled by traffic control signals exhibiting different colored lights or colored lighted arrows successively one at a time or in combination, only the colors green, red and yellow shall be used, except for special pedestrian signals carrying a word legend. The lights shall indicate and apply to drivers of vehicles and pedestrians as follows: 1. Green indication: (a) Vehicular traffic facing a green signal may proceed straight through or turn right or left unless a sign at that place prohibits either turn. Vehicular traffic, including vehicles turning right or left, shall yield the right-of-way to other vehicles and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk at the time the signal is exhibited.
Read the bold and underlined text above. Turning vehicles must yield to vehicles LAWFULLY within the intersection. Period.
If the driver KNOWS for sure a car is going to run the red light should he/she yield to them? Of course! That's common sense.
But if that driver turns and someone suddenly decides to floor it and in so doing runs the red light, should that driver, making a legal left turn, be punished? Of course not! Or a more likely scenario, the drivers view is partially obstructed by vehicles across the intersection. The driver waits for the light to turn red before completing the turn but gets hit by a red light runner they could not see. Should that driver, making a legal left turn, be punished? Again, the answer is of coursenot!! And that is what this law is for.
There are numerous overlaps within the statues. 28-772 and 28-645-1a is one example. There are also conflicting statutes. Again, this is one example.
As I said before, 28-772 is intended for use at intersections with no traffic control for two directions. Intersecting rural roads and many city side streets are two examples.
645-1a is specific to intersections controlled by a traffic signal.
When there is such an overlap, or conflict, the officer taking enforcement action needs to apply the most appropriate statute. 772 is general in it's verbiage. It speaks of "an intersection".
Judges: some are good, some are not. Either way, they have no obligation to help a defendant with their case. And yes, they will generally side with an officer in traffic cases when there is nothing but one person's word against another. The officer should have nothing to gain by not being honest, whereas the defendant does. Being a judge doesn't mean they've memorized the law book either. When that docket number is called, it's probably the first time the judge has seen the complaint (ticket). If the citation is written for 28-772 rather than 28-645-1a, he'll reference 772 if need be, but he isn't going to peruse all of Title 28 looking for a more applicable statute. I know of only one judge who knows that book inside and out and he was an Administrative Law Judge for MVD before becoming a JP. Officers learn pretty quick they need to have their **** together before testifing in his court.
I still like to think that the majority of officers hold themselves to a higher standard than the general public. Police Officers are (in most cases), human too. Their personal life experiences, bias, beliefs, etc. can and sometimes do come into play in how they interpret and enforce the law.
One of my personal pet peeves was how some officers differentiated between the letter of the law as apposed to the spirit of the law. Example: You know Arizona has a seatbelt law. It's a good law and I believe it should be on the books, but it doesn't go far enough. In AZ, it is a secondary violation, meaning an officer cannot stop a car just to take seatbelt enforcement. There must be a primary violation. Many officers will look for absolutely anything to justify the stop, even if it means stopping the vehicle for 2 miles per hour over the limit or a chip in the windshield. They see no problem with that even though they may not even look at speeder wearing his seatbelt unless he's 10+ miles over. Is it legal? Yes, but I felt it was wrong to alter my normal enforcement standards just to hang a seatbelt cite on somebody and score brownie points with the sergeant. It goes against the spirit of the law as it is currently written. The only place I would stop someone for 2 mph over was a school zone.
I don't mean to sound rude, but just because a city officer, Phoenix, Glendale or elsewhere says something relating to traffic is so, it ain't gospel in my book. IF I had doubts about traffic law, I wouldn't ask a city cop. Just for the record, I did three years with Tempe. But when it comes to traffic or collision related matters, I'll take my DPS training and experience any day.
I think this topic has been beaten to death, so I'll quit and return it to the subject of the OP. (also pretty much beaten to death)
I said I was done but I'll add one more comment. Besides, in looking back over what I've posted before, my dyslexia is showing: Although I copied and pasted the correct statute, I refered to the number wrong. It is 28-645-1a, not 645A1
28-645-1a not only addresses the scenario, it deals specifically with it:
28-645. Traffic control signal legend
A. If traffic is controlled by traffic control signals exhibiting different colored lights or colored lighted arrows successively one at a time or in combination, only the colors green, red and yellow shall be used, except for special pedestrian signals carrying a word legend. The lights shall indicate and apply to drivers of vehicles and pedestrians as follows: 1. Green indication: (a) Vehicular traffic facing a green signal may proceed straight through or turn right or left unless a sign at that place prohibits either turn. Vehicular traffic, including vehicles turning right or left, shall yield the right-of-way to other vehicles and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk at the time the signal is exhibited.
Read the bold and underlined text above. Turning vehicles must yield to vehicles LAWFULLY within the intersection. Period.
If the driver KNOWS for sure a car is going to run the red light should he/she yield to them? Of course! That's common sense.
But if that driver turns and someone suddenly decides to floor it and in so doing runs the red light, should that driver, making a legal left turn, be punished? Of course not! Or a more likely scenario, the drivers view is partially obstructed by vehicles across the intersection. The driver waits for the light to turn red before completing the turn but gets hit by a red light runner they could not see. Should that driver, making a legal left turn, be punished? Again, the answer is of coursenot!! And that is what this law is for.
There are numerous overlaps within the statues. 28-772 and 28-645-1a is one example. There are also conflicting statutes. Again, this is one example.
As I said before, 28-772 is intended for use at intersections with no traffic control for two directions. Intersecting rural roads and many city side streets are two examples.
645-1a is specific to intersections controlled by a traffic signal.
When there is such an overlap, or conflict, the officer taking enforcement action needs to apply the most appropriate statute. 772 is general in it's verbiage. It speaks of "an intersection".
Judges: some are good, some are not. Either way, they have no obligation to help a defendant with their case. And yes, they will generally side with an officer in traffic cases when there is nothing but one person's word against another. The officer should have nothing to gain by not being honest, whereas the defendant does. Being a judge doesn't mean they've memorized the law book either. When that docket number is called, it's probably the first time the judge has seen the complaint (ticket). If the citation is written for 28-772 rather than 28-645-1a, he'll reference 772 if need be, but he isn't going to peruse all of Title 28 looking for a more applicable statute. I know of only one judge who knows that book inside and out and he was an Administrative Law Judge for MVD before becoming a JP. Officers learn pretty quick they need to have their **** together before testifing in his court.
I still like to think that the majority of officers hold themselves to a higher standard than the general public. Police Officers are (in most cases), human too. Their personal life experiences, bias, beliefs, etc. can and sometimes do come into play in how they interpret and enforce the law.
One of my personal pet peeves was how some officers differentiated between the letter of the law as apposed to the spirit of the law. Example: You know Arizona has a seatbelt law. It's a good law and I believe it should be on the books, but it doesn't go far enough. In AZ, it is a secondary violation, meaning an officer cannot stop a car just to take seatbelt enforcement. There must be a primary violation. Many officers will look for absolutely anything to justify the stop, even if it means stopping the vehicle for 2 miles per hour over the limit or a chip in the windshield. They see no problem with that even though they may not even look at speeder wearing his seatbelt unless he's 10+ miles over. Is it legal? Yes, but I felt it was wrong to alter my normal enforcement standards just to hang a seatbelt cite on somebody and score brownie points with the sergeant. It goes against the spirit of the law as it is currently written. The only place I would stop someone for 2 mph over was a school zone.
I don't mean to sound rude, but just because a city officer, Phoenix, Glendale or elsewhere says something relating to traffic is so, it ain't gospel in my book. IF I had doubts about traffic law, I wouldn't ask a city cop. Just for the record, I did three years with Tempe. But when it comes to traffic or collision related matters, I'll take my DPS training and experience any day.
I think this topic has been beaten to death, so I'll quit and return it to the subject of the OP. (also pretty much beaten to death)
Yes I agree, beaten to death, but need to make one thing a little more clear. The 'lawfully' you quote pertains to 'pedestrians' being 'lawfully' in the crosswalk. That's the way everyone here is interpreting it. It doesn't say lawfully after the word vehicle. I know it's nitpicking, but that's what I've been told.
Location: 5 miles from the center of the universe-The Superstition Mountains
1,084 posts, read 5,788,573 times
Reputation: 606
Quote:
Originally Posted by nitram
Yes I agree, beaten to death, but need to make one thing a little more clear. The 'lawfully' you quote pertains to 'pedestrians' being 'lawfully' in the crosswalk. That's the way everyone here is interpreting it. It doesn't say lawfully after the word vehicle. I know it's nitpicking, but that's what I've been told.
Done. I'll PM you before someone 'orders a hit' on both of us
Even though I'm not a fan of Bush either, I think it's pretty narrow minded to blame the bad driving on Bush supporters. What about all the vehicles with leftover "Kerry/Edwards '04" stickers, or "Obama in '08" stickers? I've gotten behind my share of those vehicles (many of which are SUVs, by the way) ... and they always seem to move soooooo SLLLLOOOOWWWW! Funny how those Dems with SUVs think driving slower and impeding the flow of traffic will save gas & help the environment ... but they drive big gas guzzling SUVs that belch out more particulates than the average car. Doesn't anybody see the irony?!
Anyway, political affiliation shouldn't matter. Bad drivers come in all shapes and sizes. And those of you who whine about being cut off on a regular basis: think about how fast or slow you're driving. If you're one who chugs along in the HOV lane with a convoy of cars trailing behind you, then you are moving too slow, and you need to move to the far right lane. But if you insist on driving slow in the left lane & people pass you on the right or cut you off, then you deserve what you get. Sorry, but those are the facts of life on the roads.
The other evening my daughter and her coworker were coming up to a stop sign and a ditz was digging in her purse instead of looking ahead and plowed into the back of his beautiful new car. She jumps out of hers and said "Oh silly me, look what I did." She left the scene after giving them her insurance information, but not once did this idiot even ask them if they were hurt. What a world. I think Josh, she was a real estate agent. Should we consider all real estate agents morons behind the wheel? I think not.
sorry to bring this back up, but i came across the thread while googling the "Vehicle turning left at intersection" arizona law. i was in an accident with a car that was turning left at a yellow light as i was entering the intersection at the yellow light. according to witnesses, the light was red when i entered the intersection, so i was cited for failure to stop for red light, and the accident was my fault. i took a defensive driving class today to get this citation taken off my record, and we were told basically what has been argued here... that the person turning left must give right of way to any oncoming traffic, even if they run a red light. seems silly, but in my case, this seems that it would make the accident the other person's fault. not sure if i should do something about this, or if it would be too much of a hassle...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
