[viggen]

I just looked up 21453 (c):

c) A driver facing a steady red arrow signal shall not enter the
intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow and, unless
entering the intersection to make a movement permitted by another
signal, shall stop at a clearly marked limit line, but if none,
before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection,
or if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain
stopped until an indication permitting movement is shown.

It seems it's talking about intersection, but I wasn't in an intersection?

Tough one to call....a lawyer might be able to get you out of it, but that would cost you more $$$.

If he is using 21453 he would be considering the white double line a "marked limit line".

21453.  (a) A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision (b).

However, it appears the intersection has a marked limit line on the other side of the tracks. So the dual white lines are used to mark stopping points before the tracks.

Vehicle Code 22451 deals with railroad crossings:

22451.  (a) The driver of any vehicle or pedestrian approaching a railroad or rail transit grade crossing shall stop not less than 15 feet from the nearest rail and shall not proceed until he or she can do so safely, whenever the following conditions exist:
 
(1) A clearly visible electric or mechanical signal device or a flagman gives warning of the approach or passage of a train or car.
(2) An approaching train or car is plainly visible or is emitting an audible signal and, by reason of its speed or nearness, is an immediate hazard.
(b) No driver or pedestrian shall proceed through, around, or under any railroad or rail transit crossing gate while the gate is closed.
(c) Whenever a railroad or rail transit crossing is equipped with an automated enforcement system, a notice of a violation of this section is subject to the procedures provided in Section 40518.

(1) and (2) do not apply, there was no warning lights or visible train, so you should not have been restricted to the 15 feet limitation.

So...if you feel like arguing it....I would say go after 21453, say those double white lines do not represent the marked limit lines of the intersection. The police would have to change the violation to 22451, and I don't know if they can do that after the ticket is written.

But...just my opinion...and I am certainly no lawyer.

[viggen]

It was either talk radio on public radio or jerry was a race car driver by primus.

What song were you listening to when you got pulled over?

[Bob in St. Louis]

"Breaking the Law" by Judas Priest.   

[viggen]

"Breaking the Law" by Judas Priest.   

I didn't break any laws!  At least I don't think I violated the 21453 (c) code if I am reading it correctly.

[galyons]

I just looked up 21453 (c):

It seems it's talking about intersection, but I wasn't in an intersection?

I think someone is grasping at straws!    An intersection is a place where things intersect, such as where two or more roads cross. In this case a street and a railroad.

Cheers,
Geary

[Bob in St. Louis]

I didn't break any laws!  At least I don't think I violated the 21453 (c) code if I am reading it correctly.

I checked the lyrics for "Breaking the Law", and there's no reference to "21453", so maybe you're ok after all. 

[RDavidson]

Yup, there should be more signage indicating where the double white lines are and to keep clear of that area in case the light turns red.  There's just no time for driver to react after the light turns yellow to clear the area.

And, if you're implying that the city clearly does not care about public safety in this situation, then I agree with you.  I don't even know whether any trains still run on those tracks, but, if there is, then cars are seriously in danger of getting run over because of the lack of effective signage.  It makes me a bit angry that the cops know this to be a potential hazard and instead of saving lives by correcting the signage instead they profit of it.

Ticket prices here are exorbitant.  My wife's coworker got caught going 35 in a 30 and had to pay $350.  But, at least his is a moving violation.  I am not sure whether mine is even a moving one.

Couldn't agree more. While you apparently violated the law, so are droves of others at that same spot. If anything, this should be a red flag to the court that providing better signage is necessary (for safety). Then the stupid cops can go about doing their real job serving the public, not preying on them. You'll probably still have to pay, but perhaps the amount can be lessened. Just bring your photos and be extra polite to the judge or whoever you meet to resolve this.

[Bob in St. Louis]

That's what I was trying to say (in fewer words). 

[viggen]

Is there a definitive definition for intersection at least in purview of traffic codes?

Wiki doesn't include "rail" or "tracks" as part of the definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersection_%28road%29

Based on the wording used in the code, intersection seems to be applied only to roads?

I think someone is grasping at straws!    An intersection is a place where things intersect, such as where two or more roads cross. In this case a street and a railroad.

Cheers,
Geary

[viggen]

Couldn't agree more. While you apparently violated the law, so are droves of others at that same spot. If anything, this should be a red flag to the court that providing better signage is necessary (for safety). Then the stupid cops can go about doing their real job serving the public, not preying on them. You'll probably still have to pay, but perhaps the amount can be lessened. Just bring your photos and be extra polite to the judge or whoever you meet to resolve this.

I think I will do that.  If anything, I hope they fix the signage if trains still use those tracks. If not, hope they remove the ridiculous lines that serve no purpose.  And, hopefully, I can get my bail amount reduced.

[Sparky14]

There are two intersections at play here...road/railroad, followed by road/road

21453 says for a red light, you must stop at the marked limit line. The red light is for the road/road intersection, so the limit line is the crosswalk in this case. Check....he did that.

The posted sign says do not stop on tracks. Check....he didn't stop on the tracks.

22451 says you have to stop at least 15 feet from a railroad track IF the warning signs are lit, gates down, train in sight, etc. This is the road/rail intersection. None of the IFs are in play here. So, he should not have the 15 feet rule applied. The dual white lines are supposed to be a visual aid to the 15 foot requirement.

I think the police offer has incorrectly applied 22451 here. And he apparently wrote the violation against 21453, saying the marked limit line was the dual white line, which is incorrect IMO.

[jazzcourier]

I had a similar moving violation in Southern California and when you get in front of the judge the first thing he is going to ask the officer is "how was he"? Hopefully this cop wrote so many tickets he won't recall your "attitude" to the judge. Anybody who does not sit on their hands and smile and treat the cop with the ultimate dignity is someone with an attitude. If he calls you "argumentative" you are screwed and you will have your fine and no doubt online traffic school to keep those insurance rates down. You got caught in a trap and from what you say you are not the only one who did not read the fine print of the law. You are required to know all these laws, no matter how arcane this one appears to be. That police department has a good thing going with that double yellow line and I am sure they get a good laugh out of that little cash cow. Do yourself a favor and let this one go, pay the fine, take the rap, pay the dues and put it behind you.

[bladesmith]

Never go to court and pay the fine, if you are able. 

Get a lawyer,  it will cost double the fine, and lowered to a parking ticket. 

Don't let it go on your record and pay the cost for years, thru higher insurance costs.

Pay double now and put it in the past.

[orientalexpress]

What song were you listening to when you got pulled over?

F u k the police by NWA 

[twitch54]

bummer, from your pics provided that is one poorly laid out intersection for sure. I'm assuming though that the traffic light has a long enough 'yellow' so as to get through or safely stop short of the RR tracks ? When the RR circuit is triggered for an approaching train does the light remain green (in the direction away from the tracks) so as to assure no blockage on the tracks ?

The above combined with local Cops (borderline useless to begin with) is truly a 'Cluster F#%k'

Remember this though, imagine what the poor engineer of an approaching train feels like when he sees vehicles parked on the tracks !

[RDavidson]

I had a similar moving violation in Southern California and when you get in front of the judge the first thing he is going to ask the officer is "how was he"? Hopefully this cop wrote so many tickets he won't recall your "attitude" to the judge. Anybody who does not sit on their hands and smile and treat the cop with the ultimate dignity is someone with an attitude. If he calls you "argumentative" you are screwed and you will have your fine and no doubt online traffic school to keep those insurance rates down. You got caught in a trap and from what you say you are not the only one who did not read the fine print of the law. You are required to know all these laws, no matter how arcane this one appears to be. That police department has a good thing going with that double yellow line and I am sure they get a good laugh out of that little cash cow. Do yourself a favor and let this one go, pay the fine, take the rap, pay the dues and put it behind you.

I've paid fines in the past, uncontested, when I knew I was in the wrong. Just bent over and took them. Sometimes took them double to keep insurance in check. I was sore for awhile, but moved on. I'm sure most of us on AC can relate.
In this case, I think the OP has reason to contest the charges and he has every right to do so. After all, laws wouldn't be what they are if (responsible) citizens aren't given a voice in the matter. Even if the charges don't get dropped or reduced, maybe his actions will change the situation at that intersection. At the least, he'll walk away knowing he did what he could (short of hiring a lawyer)......and maybe he won't feel as bent over and sore as the rest of us have who have been in similar situations.

BTW : He was listening to Public Enemy's Fight the Power then 911 is a Joke

[JerryM]

Based on my career, I've made dozens of appeals to California citations. The easiest of all appeals is when the Issuer cites the wrong Code of Law.

It is noted that it is difficult to read exactly what the Officer wrote. In Court, you will be well informed of the charge/s against you. Either ask for an extension or plead Not Guilty if you feel the Officer has simply cited the wrong Code.

If you plead Not Guilty, you are entitled to perform Discovery. Discovery is a surprisingly simple letter that will get you every single possible piece of evidence that *may* be used against you. Including the Officer's perception of you (or lack thereof).

Upon receipt of Discovery, you can decide if you want to continue to Trial, or if you want to pay the fine, pay traffic school, and move on.

All of the appeal methods will require your time, and only you can decide what that is worth. Filing and Discovery fees apply. Court dates may also require time away from work, which should also be considered. Lastly, it is prudent to remember that Traffic Court juries are typically populated by 12 people that didn't know how to get out of jury duty.

Best of luck,

Jerry

[thunderbrick]

Good points, all, but if you do go to court state your case in a friendly, upbeat manner.  Don't get pissy. 

Better still, pray that the defendant ahead of you is an asshole, be especially nice.  It's worked for me a few times.

No, BISL, I wasn't the asshole, asshole.

[Bob in St. Louis]

  

[viggen]

Thank you for all your replies.  I decided to hand it over to a professional and just got off the phone with him.  He will be going to court for me.