k**u
发帖数: 10502 | 1 【 以下文字转载自 Automobile 讨论区 】
发信人: kuku (小黄猫), 信区: Automobile
标 题: Re: 加州高速警察疯了-更新：撤销罚单，钱退回了
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Jul 16 15:20:46 2015, 美东)
下面是偶给法官写的，供大家参考。
xx(month) xx(date),2015
Trial by Written Declaration regarding citation xxxxxxxxx
Your Honor,
My written declaration is as follows. I declare under penalty of perjury
that this statement is true and correct. In addition to this statement and a
copy of the citation, there are 13 exhibits attached. Each exhibit has a
number for reference. The relevant information is also circled or
highlighted. The photos on the exhibits are from Google Earth, and have been
verified by another drive-by observation for their accuracy.
At about xx(time) on xx(day), xx(month and date), 2015, I entered I5
Northbound from xxx(road), xxx(city) (point A on exhibit 2). I climbed and
accelerated through the on-ramp, then changed lane into the freeway at point
C. I was pulled over by a CHP officer right after the lane change. The
officer told me that the reason he stopped me is that there is a “
regulatory sign” requiring me to exit. He gave me a citation then let me go.
I later drove the same segment of the freeway to review the road signs. The
findings are illustrated on exhibits 3 through 6. Exhibit 3 shows what a
driver sees after the end of the on-ramp. Four (4) signs are present: the
partially covered “Detour Ahead”, “Through Traffic Merge Left”; a
diamond-shaped “Right Lane Must Exit” on yellow background (more on this
later), and a sign with slippery graphics. After the slippery sign, the next
signs are the green overhead information signs about xxx(road) (exhibit 6).
The violation on the citation reads: “VC21461 (a) OFFICIAL TRAFFIC SIGN OR
SIGNAL”.
California Vehicle Code 21461(a) reads: It is unlawful for a driver of a
vehicle to fail to obey a sign or signal “defined as regulatory” in the
federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Device, or Department of
Transportation… (rest of the text omitted. See exhibit 1 for complete text.
)
There is no word “OFFICIAL” in the code text, but I will consider it
interchangeable with the word “regulatory” there. I also understand that
the manual should be the California adopted version: California MUTCD.
The officer’s remark and the citation text both point to the “Right Lane
Must Exit” sign (exhibit 4). No other possible regulatory sign was present.
I will therefore focus the rest of my declaration on the validity of this
sign (subject sign).
Per California MUTCD, regulatory series shall use rectangular shape (exhibit
7). The subject sign has a diamond shape, therefore does not meet the
requirement of a regulatory sign on shape.
Also, regulatory signs shall use black, blue, red, or white as background
colors (exhibit 8). The subject sign has a yellow background, therefore does
not meet the requirement of a regulatory sign on color.
The only legal “Right Lane Must Exit” sign shall be sign R18A (CA) (
exhibit 9), with a rectangular shape and white background. The subject sign
has a diamond shape and yellow background. It’s not a regulatory sign,
therefore.
A driver shall be allowed to rely on the shape and color to decide the type
of the traffic sign ahead before he/she can read the text. The subject sign
therefore would be reasonably expected to be recognized as a warning sign
because of its conformance on shape and background color. An example is W73
(CA) (Exhibit 12). It has very similar language: “Right Lane Exit Ahead”;
and it’s a warning sign.
Furthermore, California MUTCD says that “The R18A (CA) sign shall be placed
at the beginning of the 8 inch solid white line approaching the exit ramp”
(exhibit 10 and 11). The subject sign is located 725 feet before the
required location (exhibit 5). It should also be noted that CA DOT Highway
Design Manual requires a minimum of 2000 feet weaving length for freeway
entry/exit (exhibit 13). Given the already inadequate total available
dimension, it would be extremely unreasonable and dangerous to require
drivers to weave into the freeway within 660 feet (the distance between
point A and B), even if a valid R18A(CA) sign were to be installed at point
B and to be enforced.
Your Honor, the subject sign has wrong shape, wrong color, and wrong
location to be deemed a valid “regulatory sign”. The charge against me,
therefore, is unfounded. I kindly request the court to dismiss the case
based on the findings and reasoning presented above.
Faithfully yours,
小黄猫 | k**u
发帖数: 10502 | 2 上面是我写的书面辩论。
写得多了些，当然结果达到了，罚单被撤销了。
大律师们给提提写作上的意见，比如从法律辩论的角度来讲，前半部分（色彩和形状不
对）已经很清楚的情况下，后半部分的追打（位置、长度等）是否有必要。
a
【在 k**u 的大作中提到】
: 【 以下文字转载自 Automobile 讨论区 】
: 发信人: kuku (小黄猫), 信区: Automobile
: 标 题: Re: 加州高速警察疯了-更新：撤销罚单，钱退回了
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Jul 16 15:20:46 2015, 美东)
: 下面是偶给法官写的，供大家参考。
: xx(month) xx(date),2015
: Trial by Written Declaration regarding citation xxxxxxxxx
: Your Honor,
: My written declaration is as follows. I declare under penalty of perjury
: that this statement is true and correct. In addition to this statement and a
|
|
