So I received a bogus citation for an illegal turn. (City of Chicago. Rant) (photos).

[Hassin Bin Sober]

I got pulled over the other night and ticketed for "Illegal left turn. Posted"

I don't know what pisses me off more. The fact that the city is writing tickets at an intersection where the posted signs are in-operable (not illuminated) and/or completely obscured? Or the fact (I discovered when I googled this intersection) this intersection and its poorly placed/formatted signs have been discussed as far back as 2005.

Or the fact that the smart-assed cop had to ask "Didn't you see the THREE posted signs?"

No, in fact, I didn't see the "three" signs. And if the cop(s) spends any time frequenting this intersection, as I suspect she does, she would also know the signs are in-op and/or obscured.

One is completely obscured (Yes, there is a no left turn sign behind the historic district banner) I was driving at night but this photo was taken next day:



The other two signs are intended to be illuminated at night. One is completely in-operable and the other is partially illuminated. Not to mention neither sign conforms to federal guidelines pertaining to no left turns regulatory signs. It should be the universal type with the red slash through the arrow. Also, it should be reflective for night-time viewing if not self-illuminated.



Now I have to spend half a day in court defending myself for a ticket I'm pretty sure I will beat. But what about the other potentially hundreds of citation written at this intersection? When I was there taking photos, half the cars in line made the same left turn. The intersection is THAT poorly marked. There is a reason standard guidelines are established for regulatory signage. Non-standard signs are easy to miss.

I guess the writing has been on the wall for some time. With privatization of the commons, private parking meters, red-light traffic cameras, etc., it's clear the city/Daley doesn't give a shit about public safety. It's all about revenue. Daley even admitted one of the decision factors behind the boondoggle selling of the parking meters to Morgan Stanley was the city's reticence to raise parking fees through legislation. He said it would be better to turn us over to the private sector and let THEM raise the rent. The city even had the gall to admit hiring more code enforcement officers to inspect restaurants and bars - not because there has been some epidemic or ptomaine poisoning - no, because the city NEEDS THE MONEY.

I suppose things will get better under Mayor Emanuel.:rofl:

:rant:

[MineralMan]

1. In that bottom photo, I can clearly see a "No Left Turn"

sign, along with the arrow that angles to the right.

That, even though the photo is tiny. Were I driving, I'd have seen it for sure. I don't think you beat this ticket.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

5. My claim isn't that the sign is invisible. It's not.

Sure you can see it when you are specifically looking for it. Or when you are photographing it. Or maybe even when you drive through it at night as I did - you may or may not see it.


The fact remains the signs do not conform to the "Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways." AND they are inoperable or partially inoperable (not to mention obscured).

It's a regulatory sign which has to, by state law and municipal code, conform to the guidelines.

1.) It should be formatted as a left arrow with a slash through it.

2.) It should be either self-illuminated or retro-reflective in nature.

The arrow you see is for right turns on to the 45 degree street prior to the green light (it's a 5 way intersection). After that, the light goes all green and you are permitted to go straight. It's a large intersection. That's part of the problem and the reason for the photo that seems smallish (besides I shrunk it for DU). It's a larger than normal complex intersection that tends to "confuse" more than a simple 4-way intersection.

It's not my intention to play "gotcha" with the city as it pertains to the law - although I assume that's my right. I truly didn't register the sign as a no left regulatory sign. Neither did, I assume, the 20 plus cars that turned left when i was there taking pictures. Unless we are to assume they are all scofflaws.


Here is a properly lit no left turn sign. Although it is a little blurry (i was dodging a bus)and the paint is partially rubbed off, you can see what a properly illuminated sign looks like for comparison:

[MineralMan]

7. The thing is that I look at all the signs when I'm driving.

I do that especially when I'm driving in an unfamiliar area. As you say, that's a complicated intersection. But, I can read simple words on signs. Truly I can. And those signs clearly say "No Left Turn." I have no problem understanding what such a sign means. I have no problem obeying such signs, even if other drivers do not.

As I approach an intersection, I watch the traffic lights. If there is a No Left Turn sign above the traffic light, I can't see how I'd miss it. Really, I can't. I can see the signs even in your photo, so I'd certainly have seen them were I on the scene.

You will not beat this ticket. Pay it. Look more closely from now on at the signs. Sometimes you have to read them. Reading is FUNdamental.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

11. You say reading is fundamental but you entirely ignore where I pointed out the signs violate ...

... federal, state and municipal guidelines.

I'm sure you are a precision driver who uses geometric logic when driving. And I'm sure you are a black-belt in real life. But there is decades of study/history/facts behind signage standardization. And there are these things called laws pertaining to regulatory signage. Non-standardized broken signs cause confusion and therefore aren't enforceable.

I'm not going to apologize for missing a poorly illuminated improperly formatted sign.

We can have a pissing match about what a good driver you are and how I've never been in an accident in 30 years of driving or haven't had a ticket since 1986. But this isn't about your skills.

It's about a city who fails to follow the law and/or maintain its signs yet it still wants to issue citations based on those signs.

[Lance_Boyle]

2. I see both 'no left turn' signs in the bottom photo, directly above the red lights.

That is not obscured.

[MineralMan]

4. Seems pretty clear, doesn't it. Add the right-angling green

arrows, and it's pretty clear you're not supposed to turn left there. The OP said that it was nighttime, so that lower photo shows the signs clearly. I sure wouldn't use that photo to argue my case in court. That much I'm sure of.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

6. The light turns green after the arrow and permits straight thru.

I will not be bringing the photos to show the signs are not visible. The photos will show the signs are not illuminated per state law.

[MineralMan]

9. And, yet, they're clearly visible and readable. You will lose.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

12. You seem to have some superior knowledge as it pertains to traffic law.

Please enlighten me how the county judge will find for a city that fails to maintain the sign and/or use proper formatting.

[MineralMan]

16. Yah, well, you let us know how you do in court, OK?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

17. Duly noted, Internet "mouth"

[Hassin Bin Sober]

8. I never said those were obscured. They are not illuminated or partially illuminated.

They are not properly formatted - which leads to confusion.

[Lance_Boyle]

10. Those are the proper and legal signs in NC. If you can show that they are not legal in IL

you should have no trouble in court, other than the hassle of going there and sitting through it. Depending on what your time is worth, pay it and forget it may be the cheapest option.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

14. I don't plan on concentrating on the format of the signs.

The fact the bulbs are completely burned out in one sign and 75% burned out on the other and the first sign is 100% obscured will probably put me over the top.


from the applicable law:

Regulatory signs shall be retroreflective or illuminated to show the same shape and similar color by both day and night, unless specifically stated otherwise in the text discussion of a particular sign or group of signs (see Section 2A.08).

The requirements for sign illumination shall not be considered to be satisfied by street, highway, or strobe lighting.

[Scout]

21. yet they are perfectly readable in a poor quality photo

:shrug:

[Hassin Bin Sober]

26. Yet there are perfectly readable posts in this thread pointing out ...

... the law as it pertains to regulatory signs. And the logic of why signs need to be properly illuminated at night.

Let's see if we can work through this. I do this at the risk of talking to a wall and/or somebody who would rather make assholish "whiner" comments in their first post. But I'll take the risk that you are not some pimple-faced basement dweller with an axe to grind and shit to stir.

Let's, for starters, see if we can make the distinction between a properly illuminated sign (although the writing is rubbed off and my camera work is a little shaky - photography is hard work I guess):




And a sign that is INTENDED to be lighted but is not:



Next we can discuss why a sign needs to be reflective in nature OR illuminated. Keep in mind, in Chicago, there a several regulatory signs that are meant only to be obeyed when lighted.

[Scout]

27. :rofl:

"I do this at the risk of talking to a wall and/or somebody who would rather make assholish "whiner" comments in their first post. But I'll take the risk that you are not some pimple-faced basement dweller with an axe to grind and shit to stir."

:rofl:

[Lance_Boyle]

25. 'retroreflective'

Doesn't that just mean reflective paint? If so they probably meet that standard, although the city may need testimony other than the officer's to establish that the signs are indeed reflective.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

28. These signs are neither. That's the point.

I assume retro-reflective would be like a speed limit sign containing reflective paint.

These signs are white letters on translucent glass. Not reflective. I don't think I've ever seen a reflective paint that would also be translucent.

You can tell very clearly the sign is not reflective if you compare to the street name marker above:

[Scout]

3. quit whining and pay your ticket; the No Left Turn signs are clearly visible n/t

[deaniac21]

13. You are in Chicago....find out who your ward heeler is....

[Hassin Bin Sober]

15. Yes. I'll take it to the Alderman when I'm done.

[Roon]

18. I once ran a stop sign that was obscured by a big tree branch

I got t-boned and totaled my car. Ironically, a news station was there at the time of the accident doing a report on how dangerous that intersection is.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

23. The funny thing is I drove back twice the next day and STILL didn't see the obscured sign.

I had to get out and stand across the street to view the obscured sign.

As a matter of fact, I snapped a photo from the crosswalk across the street to show the judge the obscured sign is there:

[Roon]

24. Take it to trial! That's what I would do.

I didn't take my case to trial because I was being a scumfuck at the time, I was driving without insurance. So I lost before I even got to court.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

33. Definitely taking it to trial. If I didn't think I was in the right I would just pay the ticket ....

.... or take the class on-line. I haven't had a ticket in over 20 years so I could afford a conviction if I had to.

The more I think about this the more pissed off I get. There is a similar intersection in my neighborhood where just about everyone I know has been pinched for no left turn. It's now OK to make a left there so I can't compare the signage.

[Scout]

19. just because other people made the same left turn, does not mean it's poorly marked...

logic fail.

perhaps they saw the signs and simply ignored them.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

20. Whatsa matter. Yer other assholish comment didn't stir?

Now you wanna discuss logic?

[Scout]

22. :rofl: n/t

[Politicalboi]

29. I hope you win

I once was at a red light with a big sign that said no right on red. I very seldom exited that exit, so I missed the sign. Well lo and behold a CHP was right behind me. This was in the 80's where cops gave warnings. I told him I didn't see it, because I was watching him in my rear view mirror. LOL! As luck would have it, we heard wheels churping and he took off. I was lucky that day. What some forget is that the picture is still. If you were in traffic and saw others doing it, and you didn't know you couldn't do it, you probably wouldn't have seen the sign. Things are different when traffic is moving.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

30. I'm pretty confident I'll win.

Fortunately for me, the law is a little more complicated and specific than "whatsa matter? I can see it right dere in da picture, Duh, derrr"

And you are correct. It can sometimes be easy to miss a sign in traffic. Despite what the internet black-belt-drivers say. At least with a properly illuminated sign you have a fighting chance.

After I was pulled over I immediately went back around to see how I missed the signs. I kinda sorta remember SEEING the signs but not having them register as something I needed to worry about. I almost feel like they registered as part-time one way or do not enter signs meant for thru drivers. It's an odd shaped intersection so those signs "feel" like they belong to that street they straddle. The street funnels down from a wider commercial strip to the more residential street you see in the photos.

Funny story. My friend who I took with me the next day when I brought my camera told me she got a ticket at the same intersection last year. Like your story, she was next to a cop. The cop says he tried to wave her off but she turned anyway. She then tried to argue with the cop "why would I intentionally break the law when you were right there?" Now she's pissed she didn't go back around to see the main sign was obscured and fight the ticket.

I found blog postings from 2005 regarding that intersection and how poorly it's marked. The blogs were in reference to how un-safe the crosswalk is because it doesn't account for the "illegal" turns.

[WillowTree]

31. Uh huh.

The sign directly above the stop light isn't white lettering on glass, it's clearly black lettering on a white background and it says "NO LEFT TURN". Virtually everyone who's posted to this thread was able to see and read that even in a small, not particularly clear photo. What part of that wording could possbly be considered unclear?

I don't know if you've ever been to traffic court downtown, but I have and really, the chances that you'll beat that ticket are very slim, particularly if you take your pictures with you as evidence. That being said, stranger things have happened so good luck.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

32. I never said the signs were un-readable.

My argument is they are illegal and un-enforceable as posted when I was cited.

I understand everyone in this thread can read make out the signs in the photo. So can I. I could also make them out on my second pass through the intersection.

That said, I also understand an unusually high number of people in this thread would probably MISS the signs under normal night-time driving conditions.

I also understand a substantially LOWER amount would fail to obey the signs if the signs were properly displayed, formatted and illuminated.

Sorry, I meant black lettering on white translucent NON-reflective glass/paint.

Relevant City Code linking regulatory signs to state/federal guidelines:
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/chicago_il/municipalcodeofchicago?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:chicago_il
All traffic- control devices placed and maintained pursuant to the traffic code shall conform to the manual and specifications approved by the State of Illinois Department of Transportation and shall so far as practicable be uniform as to type and location throughout the city. All traffic-control devices so erected and not inconsistent with the provisions of state law or this Code shall be official traffic-control devices.

National guidelines for reflectiveness:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2003r1r2/part2/part2b1.htm
Regulatory signs shall be retroreflective or illuminated to show the same shape and similar color by both day and night, unless specifically stated otherwise in the text discussion of a particular sign or group of signs (see Section 2A.08). The requirements for sign illumination shall not be considered to be satisfied by street, highway, or strobe lighting.

Uniformity of signage. My belief is not 100% that I am correct here in saying the block letter signs are not conforming and enforceable due to their lack of "red circle slash" format. It will certainly be my argument that the non-recommended sign format added to confusion. The fact the signs were inoperable will make their enforceability a moot point.

Note the recommended "no left format" That's the format the city is using everywhere else AND it is the format of the 100% obscured sign I noted up-thread.

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno-overview.htm
The MUTCD contains the national standards governing all traffic control devices. All public agencies and owners of private roads open to public travel across the nation rely on the MUTCD to bring uniformity to the roadway. The MUTCD plays a critical role in improving safety and mobility of all road users.
The MUTCD is the law governing all traffic control devices. Non-compliance of the MUTCD ultimately can result in loss of federal-aid funds as well as significant increase in tort liability.

The guidance on turns seems to indicate no left turn MUST be formatted with arrow and red slash. The NO turns sign is block lettered only...... BUT, as I read it, MUST include the red/slash sign elsewhere in the intersection:

If No Left Turn (R3-2) signs (see Figure 2B-3) are used, at least one should be placed either over the roadway, at the far left corner of the intersection, on a median, or in conjunction with the STOP sign or YIELD sign located on the near right corner.

Except as noted in the Option, if NO TURNS (R3-3) signs (see Figure 2B-3) are used, two signs should be used, one at a location specified for a No Right Turn sign and one at a location specified for a No Left Turn sign.