Hey, there! Log in / Register
He fights the law and so far the law's winning
By adamg on Tue, 07/14/2009 - 12:47pm
David Schrag does not have twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, but he does have a video to explain why he shouldn't have gotten a ticket in Watertown for making an illegal left turn. It didn't work, however - he was found responsible, which means he paid a $50 filing fee to appeal the $35 ticket.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
I love this stuff...
This guy should have been fined $100 for crossing double yellow lines (ch. 89 s.4A).
I fought one in Lexington, once
It was for an illegal u-turn.
Problem was, there were no signs stating it was illegal and the "double yellow line" was completely obliterated for a substantial stretch before and after.
You can't be expected to just know what is supposed to be there. It has to be there. The ticket was thrown out at the first step.
this one looks like it was just painted though..!
I dont see how he stands a chance.
he doesn't, and this posted
he doesn't, and this posted from his blog is correct in his assessment:
The ticket was in Watertown
He was stopped in front of the Arsenal Mall in Watertown; the court, however, is in Waltham.
Fixed
Thanks.
i know that spot and it is
i know that spot and it is an illegal turn. normally there would be a break in the yellow lines, you wouldnt be crossing over two lanes, you wouldnt be entering a lane that you clearly have to be coming from the other direction to get into, and you wouldnt have the island jutting out. this overview shows where he did it and i think most people would agree its wrong:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=42.36...
in fact, the only reason to do it is agressive, impatient driving...
this street view shows even better how he was wrong!
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=42.36...
turns across double-yellows are completely permissible
i know that spot and it is an illegal turn. normally there would be a break in the yellow lines, you wouldnt be crossing over two lanes
Um, that's a load of crap. Drive along any double-yellow line in the country where there are businesses and residential driveways. None of them have breaks in the yellow lines for each.
Yellow lines mean no PASSING, not no turning.
http://knowledge.fhwa.dot.gov/cops/OpsPublic.nsf/d...
thats from NJ first of all,
but you cannot cross a solid line tecnically. Many places that means it may be impossible, but the way MA courts have always intrepreted the statute CH. 89, is that it is illegal to cross, turn over, park over or pass across a solid double yellow line. thats why you see double yellow lines in a lot of urban areas where you wouldn't be able to pass anyway.
Chapter 89: Section 4. Keeping to right while view obstructed
Section 4. Whenever on any way, public or private, there is not an unobstructed view of the road for at least four hundred feet, the driver of every vehicle shall keep his vehicle on the right of the middle of the traveled part of the way, whenever it is safe and practicable so to do, except that the department of highways may alter this provision by the use of restrictive pavement markings in areas of limited sight distance, at intersections and at obstructions in the highway, on state highways, on ways leading thereto and on all main highways between cities and towns; and may by permit, revocable upon notice, authorize cities and towns to alter said provision by the use of such restrictive pavement markings; provided, that such markings shall be in accordance with accepted standards of engineering practice; but, notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, every driver of a slow moving vehicle, while ascending a grade shall reasonably keep said vehicle in the extreme right-hand lane until the top of such grade has been reached.
Basically the state gives the City of Watertown the right to put down restrictive markings for the safe flow of traffic on local roads in Watertown. So instead of Watertown putting 'no left turn' signs every 25 yards, they put down restrictive markings (the double yellow lines).
Turns across double-yellow lines are illegal? Really?
If that was really true, you would not be able to get in or out of most driveways or side streets along Mass. Ave. in Arlington. It doesn't sound right to me.
I stand corrected. Under Mass. Law (Chapter 89, Section 1), it
is not illegal to make a left turn across a double yellow line to enter a private way.
However, IMO, the size and placement of the channelizing island makes it very clear to drivers that neither left turns into nor left turns out of that mall roadway are permitted. As proven by the person's own video, one cannot make a standard left turn into that driveway.
Unfortunatley, this whole episode appears to be yet another example of somebody trying to use a technicality to evade responsibility for being caught breaking the law.
yea but the side streets
should have a break in the solid yellow lines to indicate to a driver that they can turn left. And of course you have to get into private driveways as well. But mall parking lots are not considered private. They are considered "places where members of the public have access as invitees or licensees."
That is correct. However, AFAIK, this is a driveway to
the mall, and not a public street (although it looks like a regular street intersection). Therefore, it seems to meet the definition of "private way" - and is also probably why the island was installed to begin with.
I disagree.
mall parking lots are clear areas where citizens have access as invitees or licensees. Even some private ways have been classified in this category when the private way became an area to which public had access because it was regularly used to get to a commercial area (Comm. v. Hart, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 235 [1988])
Your points are spot on. However, my "private way" comment
was referring to who built and who maintains the roadway (and I doubt it is the City of Watertown), not whether the public has unrestricted access to it or not.
oh ok...
I was confused when you said it meets the definition of a private way. In terms of police enforcement it does not. In terms of who has to fix it, the mall does you are right.
I disagree with your disagreement
I think you're way off base here. The language about places where "members of the public have access as invitees or licensees" is in the Mass. OUI law. That law says you must not drive drunk on a public way, *or* in a place where "members of the public have access as invitees or licensees." The law doesn't say that such places *become* public ways. Anyhow, David's citation is not for OUI. So the 1988 case you cited is irrelevant.
89-1 says "The provisions of this section shall not be construed as prohibiting a vehicle from crossing a solid center pavement marking line or lines in making a left turn into or from a private way." There is no language about invitees or licensees. It simply says "private way." The RMV Driver's Manual provides further guidance: "Two solid yellow lines prohibit vehicles moving in either direction from crossing the lines to pass another vehicle. You may not cross these lines unless turning left when it is safe to do so."
I'm with David on this one. He made what was arguably a Masshole maneuver, but I don't think there's any law against it. (Heck, I've made that same left turn before, and didn't give it a second thought :-) If Watertown wants to prevent people from making left turns, they should build medians or put up "No Left Turn" signs. The existing traffic island in this case is not persuasive.
Its a lot more than OUI.
But I didn't mean to imply that police can enforce all laws in mall parking lots. But there are many laws that do apply in these places that do not apply on private ways. That 1988 case doesn't have to do with just OUIs. It has to do with what a Superior Court decided what a "right to public access way is".
Causing an accident in a mall parking lot is the same as if it happened on the street. The same goes for driving without a license, driving with a suspended license, operating to endanger, drag racing, and many other restricted way violations.
Common Law has dictated what 89-1 means for a long time. It means the statute doesn't need to say "no crossing yellow lines" in order for it to be illegal to cross double yellow lines. Courts have ruled on this probably hundreds of thousands of times already.
it's not CROSSING, it's TURNING
It means the statute doesn't need to say "no crossing yellow lines" in order for it to be illegal to cross double yellow lines. Courts have ruled on this probably hundreds of thousands of times already.
Turning is not crossing, go read the rest of the comments here, turning over a double yellow is SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED. Someone actually cites the specific MGL text.
crossing and turning are both illegal here
turning or crossing over double yellow lines are only specifically allowed into a PRIVATE WAY. And Mall parking lots are not defined as private ways in this state. Im telling you what courts have ruled on this during the hundreds of times if seen it appealed in court, not what you intrepetation of the law might be.
yeah, on further thought i
yeah, on further thought i didnt type out my response clearly. it is an illegal turn and on top of that he's crossing over double yellow to do it. not that one means the other...
however, i do believe in certain areas, that is why they have breaks in double yellow line, so that you can turn legally, i mean otherwise, when its just a 3-way intersection then no need for the break in paint
http://maps.google.com/maps?h
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=provincetown+f...
shows how double lines break to allow turning left onto public streets.
one could argue this entrance way to the mall is a public street.
Uh, looks to me like the next traffic light
has a protected left turn lane to let people turn into the Mall parking lot without worrying about opposing traffic. So, IMO, there was no legitimate reason for crossing both a double yellow line and an opposing left turn lane just to take a shortcut.
He is probably looking at the law literally
and doesn't know how courts have interpeted it.
The funniest part is he
The funniest part is he plans to appeal. Will he bring the same video, that conclusively demonstrates that he broke the law? I could see some sort of SNL skit coming out of this, where he is fined some additional amount for being an idiot.
Special bonus
Not only did he break the law the first time, but then he went and broke the law again, and videotaped himself doing so.
So the special bonus could be a second ticket based on the evidence he himself provided.
maybe it's the camera mount ...
But the guy looks like he has some real trouble holding his lane in the first place. Either the camera is jerking around, or he could use some time on the skid pad to iron out his steering precision issues. He didn't just cross the line to make the illegal turn.
You don't cross a double yellow - and that double yellow has not been scrubbed away like the fictitious one that I supposedly crossed in Lexington during the worst winter ever.
I guess this is what you get when your "rules test" is a complete joke and the driving test is non-comprehensive, very brief, and devised on the spot.
See, the problem is
He's holding the camera with his right hand and the wheel with his left.
That's not his fault. At all.
Masshole or Product of Society?
In a nation where EVERYTHING is labeled for exactly how they want you to drive/behave/etc., is he wrong to expect there to be a "No Left Turn" arrow or "Do Not Enter" at that entrance for westbound drivers? This isn't the best case, because he technically pulled off an illegal U-Turn (the lane he ended in was separate from the road and marked for right turns only for eastbound traffic...the only way he gets there from westbound is to essentially switch directions and turn off at the same time). But it's something to note where we've labeled EVERYTHING so much that when there isn't a label people don't use their common sense or feel like they *have* to challenge the general rule because "hey, you didn't say I couldn't".
So, to answer my own subject line: Masshole. BUT a somewhat convincing case can be made that he's just a product of overwrought dictation on every detail of life that we just rebel out in those chances where the chains were left off.
Not in Massachusetts
Actually, there are well known federal standards for signage - and MA and its municipalities think they don't apply to them.
When was the last time you saw a "right turn permitted on red" sign? There was a federal order for MA to remove ALL of those signs or face losing federal highway funding. Well, MOST of them were removed ... but some cities and towns mark EVERY intersection "no turn on red", which is also not standard - there has to be a clearly written justification within federal parameters. You also get intersections that give you a green arrow to make a right turn, but one that pits you against oncoming traffic. Green arrows NEVER mean that you yield.
More reasons that it is a lot of fun to drive around with my Dad, who actually knows what the rules are supposed to be for these things.
Clearly the federal law
Clearly the federal law allowing right turn on reds was created with midwestern suburbia in mind.
In an urban area, right turns on red should never be allowed. They are very dangeroud for pedestrians and bikes.
So I say, go mass
Actually, Right Turn On Red (RTOR) originated in
California (think LA and SF here) in the late 1960s, and was adopted by the Feds as a national standard in 1974.
Be reminded that RTOR does NOT give drivers absolute right of way. They still need to yield to pedestrians and bicyclists when turning.
hahaha, fat chance. Also,
hahaha, fat chance.
Also, please make a public service announcement that it is illegal to turn LEFT on red. I see at least four people do it every day between Harvard Square and Brookline on Harvard Street.
Chapter 89: Section 8.
you can turn left on red if
you can turn left on red if you are on a one way street and turning onto a one way street.
Depends
I'm not sure I know exactly what intersection you're talking about, anon. But you can legally make a left on red if both streets are One Way.
left turn on red
so few people know about that law, that Somerville has a sign at Summer St. and Cutter Ave. explicitly saying that you can make this turn on red.
Then follow the standard
I didn't say 'no turn on red' signs were never justified - I said that they have to be justified. You can actually fight a ticket if said community puts them up everywhere without any written backup and the intersection in question does not meet a certain threshhold of traffic volume.
Better
My favorite is the WAIT FOR GREEN LIGHT sign.
That's special, for Brookline drivers.
Glad I'm not the only one who thinks that's funny
I also like the signs in Bellevue WA that say:
RED = STOP
GREEN = GO
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
Right on red correction
What actually happened is that Mass would lose funding if it did not allow right on red. So the day this would have taken place, every intersection in the state (it seemed that way anyway) had a sign "no right on red" because the feds said right on red unless otherwise marked.
Over the next year, the state slowly removed most of the signs saying "no right on red," leaving in place those they deemed too dangerous for free moving right turns.
There were many worries about right on red, including how blind people were to get across the street. These have been addressed by better signage or sound-driven signals.
Arsenal Mall
They have two entrances. The guy could have gone another 50 yards and turned where he's supposed to turn. Fuck him.
Unrobed guy who introduced himself as Mr.-So-and-So...
Reminds me of when I filed a small-claims case; small-claims cases are heard by a clerk first, since many can be decided on the spot either by the defendant not showing up or blatantly admitting guilt.
First case gets called, and someone in a power suit with a folder of evidence walks up and starts off, "Your Honor, I would like to begin by--"
Clerk abruptly cuts off the plaintiff and says, "First of all, I am NOT Your Honor. They don't pay me enough to be Your Honor."
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
In my defense
Please see the comments I've made to my original blog post as well as this update.
in your defense you sound
in your defense you sound like a self centered jerk who is only concerned with protecting yourself from high costs of insurance.
i just drove by that same place and if the island isnt enough to deter you then the painted lines should be - they clearly mark that you should only be turning in from west bound side going right.
but you made your own decision and now you are going to waste the courts time and the taxpayers dollars because you won't own up to your mistake.
on top of that, is one moving violation going to kill your insurance that much? i've had two speeding tickets within 6 months of each other and it didnt affect my insurance
Self-centeredness is not a crime
The justice system has had opportunities to avoid wasting its own time. The cop could have given me a warning and the court officer could have sided with me on the appeal. And yes, one moving violation would have an impact on my insurance because I'm currently at the best possible insurance rating -- no tickets, no at-fault collisions. Maybe it didn't affect your premiums that much because you were already being penalized for a spotty driving record.
You really come off as an
You really come off as an asshole here. Basically, you're pissed that you got caught. Much like ignorance, hubris is not a valid defense.
"I'm currently at the best
"I'm currently at the best possible insurance rating"
haha, not for long....
Poster Child
for the Masshole Driver.
Credo: I don't know the rules, I can't be told the rules, I didn't even need to know the rules to get my license, and ticketing me is a crime against humanity! Obeying traffic laws is for children!
Bear in mind that when your whaaaaaambulance comes along, you are supposed to get out of the way.
Now
Now, I'm with Sock Puppet and others above. I hope you get a second ticket for your video evidence of having done it a second time after the fact.
You willfully neglected the entire point of the island and everything else...to what? Get into the lot a half second faster? The fact that you had to drive backwards up the road at an oblique angle and justify it as "just part of my turn" and then cross the double white shoulder lines which separate the eastbound right turn lane from the rest of the road...where is that EVER the case in a normal turn?
You're a weasel trying to mealy mouth your way out of a justified ticket because you were too stupid to realize there was a cop behind you watching your hijinks unfold. Also, if you're worried about your premiums changing, then you're either:
A) too stupid to realize the first minor traffic violation in the 5 years prior to your NEXT surcharge date doesn't assign any surcharge points in the SDIP merit-based plan discounts
OR
B) already have another violation using your single exception in the past 5 years...thus you were already cruising for losing your discount anyway because you're just a shitty driver to begin with. You got what you earned and were bound to get a second offense anyways. Go pound sand.
So, you tell us. Are you stupid and a Masshole, or just a Masshole? Either way, I hope they laugh you out of the courthouse $85 poorer and tagged with a violation on your record.
Wow, Kaz
Looks like I really hit a nerve with some folks. Is there a history of accidents at this intersection that I didn't know about? Yeah, I took a shortcut into a parking lot with nobody near me, and you're making it sound like I was flying down a residential street at 55 mph claiming there was no sign telling me to go slower.
As for the insurance Kaz -- if what you're saying is true about the single exception, then I'm ignorant and misinformed, not stupid. I was advised to fight the ticket by my insurance agent.
However, you have given me some good advice. I think I will go to the next hearing with photographic evidence only and leave the video at home.
You're welcome
SDIP Incentives and Your Policy, courtesy of mass.gov.
PS - I knew there was something I didn't like about you...
You're a Yankees fan.
and you're WRONG
That's the old SDIP plan. Under the new plan, points against your license NEVER go completely away. After a couple of years with a clean record, you get ONE point off prior violations. Even better, if you get a ticket again, ALL the points COME BACK, and then they NEVER go away.
In other words, you're done in for life by a single speeding ticket- 30%/year for the first few years, and then 15%/year for the rest of your life, for every ticket you've ever received.
Plus, a year or two ago you could challenge points with the merit board. That merit board has been shut down- the official party line now is "take it up with your insurance company" or "switch insurers." Except they all use exactly the same calculations for points on your license.
The last two years in MA have been the biggest handout to the insurance industry the country has ever seen.
SDIP is dead, long live SDIP?
From the site that Kaz cited: "With the introduction of managed competition on April 1, 2008, insurance companies are no longer required to use the SDIP to determine surcharges for at-fault accidents and traffic violations and apply credits for incident-free years. Instead, insurers may choose to develop their own merit rating plans or to continue using the SDIP."
So I think I'll take my insurance agent's advice on this one, as he is more likely than you or I to know exactly how a minor violation would affect me.
Your insurance agent and SDIP
Of course, I have no idea what insurance you have or whether they still use SDIP of their own volition or not. BUT, if I were an insurance agent, I'd tell you to fight it either way because a) it's no skin off my nose to do so, and b) if this is your first offense in 6 years and you don't fight it and use your exception, then for the next 6 years you better stay clean...or you're out of luck. If it's worth the time, money, and now online embarrassment for you to stomp your feet at the cops to avoid raising your premiums if you get into a second problem (or if they don't use the old SDIP rule system..a first problem), then as an insurance agent, I'm going to tell you to fight it as far as you want to take it.
So, of course they told you to fight it. They don't care either way, but if it keeps you happy with them because you win on appeal and your premium stays down, then they're happy too. If you lose, they can say, well, you fought the good fight. For them to tell you NOT to fight it...and then have your rate go up. I imagine that doesn't make for good customer relations, no?
So, the advice of your insurance agent...not worth much in terms of whether you should really be fighting it or not. Also, I'm well aware, anon, that SDIP is a voluntary system now. In fact, my previous insurance company in MD before moving to MA didn't care if I got 1 non-criminal offense per year. SDIP was an overwrought mess keeping out competition (thus, lower pricing) in the state and we're better off now than before. However, if companies still want to use the system, then it's worth knowing the actual rules, like having 1 exception per 6 years.
Good Plan
While the video may not earn you another ticket, it will out you as somebody who has trouble driving in a straight line.
I was observing 90-13
It would have been illegal for me to hold a camera while driving, so I put it on the dash. That is the cause of the shakiness, not my driving.
David..
Honestly, you are better off saying that you read the actual statute, and it was your intrepation that crossing a double yellow line there isnt illegal because you thought it was a private road or something to that extent. Dont say that there is no law, because common law (what judges intrepret statutes to mean) had been clearly laid out and decided that crossing double yellow lines is illegal in MA. And thats been done hundreds of thousands of times.
Some judges respect people who attempt to read the law and honestly make a mistake on an how they interpret it. Not everyone knows that laws don't have to be written to be actual laws.
But judges dont want to hear that the cop should have given you a warning first, or that since it wasn't dangerous you shouldnt have gotten a ticket. They also are not going to want to see that video. And I wouldn't bring photographic evidence either because all it shows is that there are actual double yellow lines.
Also don't say something to the effect of "there were no signs that said I couldn't turn, so I figured I could". Thats why the double yellow lines are there, so the city of watertown doesnt have to put 100 'no left turn' signs on arsenal street.
Also remember that this judge has probably seen a few hundred people already that have appealed tickets taking left turns over double yellow lines into commercial areas on Arsenal St., and that the cop has also probably written a few hudred tickets on Arsenal St. as well. Often times people come into court thinking they have a groundbreaking new angle on MA traffic laws. You simply dont here.
From what Ive heard the Watertown Police do some pretty decent enforcement based off public complaints throughout the whole town and the judges probably know that as well.
Thinking outside the lines
You've given me an idea. What we have here is a difference of interpretation. I was operating under the principle of "you can turn if it's safe unless expressly prohibited," and the cop, court, and most of you seem to be operating under the principle of "if it looks wrong, don't do it." Fair enough. I think reasonable people could fall on both sides of that line. I think a win-win resolution in this case would be for me to pay the city of Watertown whatever it costs to erect a NO LEFT TURN sign there and for the state to erase the violation from my record. I'm sure a Solomonesque solution like that is beyond the bounds of our current system, but if that could be arranged would it satsify you all?
I'm for it
I think that's an excellent suggestion. I doubt the judge will go for it, which is unfortunate; it seems to me that it's likely to be more complicated than just calling up some guy with a truck to go plant a sign, and the judge probably doesn't want to get involved with that. Perhaps someone here with better knowledge of city maintenance and the justice system can figure out the nuts and bolts of how that would work. But that is a punishment which truly fits the crime. The erection of the sign would make it less likely that someone else will do that there again. Sounds like a win-win. Suggest that, and good luck.
Thus bringing me full circle
If you erect a "No left turn" sign there, then it's exactly what I was saying in the beginning. Can you not use common sense to see that the turn you made was entirely against the point of the island, line painting, and EVERYTHING else going on for that stretch of road? You've basically admitted that you did what you *could* do in this situation but that you're aware of the intent of the traffic control devices in place...even as you've made numerous attempts to second-guess the intent you're already aware of. That intersection doesn't need a sign. Everybody knows that you go to the light to get into the lot. You're not special. Pay the fine and move on.
Sign, sign, everywhere a sign. Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?
No sign of the times
If there is one thing Massachusetts does NOT have a surplus of, it is road signs.
I still maintain that it is also common sense to make a left turn / U-turn / S-turn / J-turn / what have you whenever it is safe to do so unless expressly prohibited. It's not like I was tying up traffic behind me or impeding the progress of oncoming traffic. There were no pedestrians in sight. If I had been creating a hazard of any time I would swallow the ticket. But in this case I think the cop just said "that LOOKS illegal" and gave me the ticket without determining whether what I did actually WAS illegal.
again David...
The city of Watertown has those double yellow lines so they don't have to put up 'no left turn' signs a thousand times all over Arsenal St.
Offering to pay for the town to put up a sign might sound like you are tying to be reasonable, but Im going to say theres a 98% chance that any MA judge is not going to like it.
And although you point out that reasonable people could fall on both sides of the line, I think that most reasonable people know that you can't turn there, and you should turn a few hundred feet up at an easily visable entrance.
Double yellow doesn't mean no left turn
Pete, as has been pointed out several times, it is ALWAYS permissible to turn left across a double yellow, whether into a private or public way, UNLESS prohibited by other road markings. I'm not sure, but it may be that the only reason for breaks in double yellows at intersections is to indicate that it's permissible for cars on the side streets to turn left ONTO the double-yellowed street.
And while I agree that turning in at the next spot is a much better idea when there is traffic flowing in both directions, I don't think it's unreasonable to turn where I did when all the oncoming traffic is stopped at a light and I am clearly visible to them.
David
I have physically been in courtrooms hundreds of times and have seen how this law has been intrepreted by MA judges. I have also seen and read dozens of traffic law updates on how MA courts have ruled, intrepreted and analyzed various issues concerning chapter 89 and 90 of the MA general laws.
So no, it is not ALWAYS permissible to cross, turn across, pass, or touch double yellow lines.
Being visable to cars comming the other way might not be the reason why you can't turn left there. It may be because when cars stop in left lanes to make left turns, other vehicles behind them in the left lane have to either change lanes, or stop and wait for you to take that left turn. So by people turning there does several things, it disrupts the free flow of traffic, it forces vehicles to change lanes (sometimes dangerously) behind those vehicles, and it also adds to the distraction of vehicles possibly turning out of that parking lot.
Those double yellow lines ARE the markings towns and cities use to let drivers know that they cannot cross them, and like I said before, thats what MA courts have ruled those lines to mean.
I don't know what else to tell you. I dont know why you dont understand that courts in MA have intreped this chapter and section to mean that you cannot cross double yellow lines. It does not matter what you think the law should mean, it matters what the judicial system thinks it means.
(Pete) Nice
After reading through this whole thread, I just wanted to make comment on what a clear-headed and well-meaning comment this last one, by Pete, was. Nothing else; I just admire the effort to help.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com