Is a red arrow equivalent to a red light? Scenario: A traffic light with a standard red yellow green array, and a second red yellow green ARROW array. Example: In the picture, the green arrow is on, but the red light is on, meaning you may turn left, but not go straight (presumably because the green arrow is on for the opposing traffic as well). But it will also occur that the green light will be on, but the red arrow will be on. I've been in plenty of situations like that where there is no oncoming traffic. Now, I've had a former judge in NY traffic court tell me that in that scenario, the red arrow is NOT the same as a red light, it's a sign that you do not have the right of way. If the main light is green, and there is no oncoming traffic, and you may turn safely, you are allowed to turn left. Is that correct?
There is a national standard that requires states to treat traffic control signals in a consistent manner. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways defines nationwide standards for all roads open to public travel. States were required to adopt this standard as their legal State standard by 2012 or have in place a State standard that is in substantial conformance with the National Manual. In this manual you can find the standards for all traffic control devices, how they're to be placed and their meaning. Section 4D.04 Meaning of Vehicular Signal Indications, section 3C, describes what CIRCULAR RED and RED ARROW are meant to indicate (the bottom of page 451): Vehicular traffic facing a steady RED ARROW signal indication shall not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow and, unless entering the intersection to make another movement permitted by another signal indication, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line; but if there is no stop line, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection; or if there is no crosswalk, then before entering the intersection; and shall remain stopped until a signal indication or other traffic control device permitting the movement indicated by such RED ARROW is displayed. When a traffic control device is in place permitting a turn on a steady RED ARROW signal indication, vehicular traffic facing a steady RED ARROW signal indication is permitted to enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow signal indication, after stopping. The right to proceed with the turn shall be limited to the direction indicated by the arrow and shall be subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a STOP sign. Later in the same document, page 453, the language is more direct and indicates that turning shall not be permitted when facing a RED ARROW signal indication except as outlined above where other devices permit the movement: A steady RED ARROW signal indication shall be displayed when it is intended to prohibit traffic, except by a pedestrian signal head, from entering the intersection or other controlled area to make the indicated turn. Except as described in Item C.2. in Paragraph 3 of Section 4D.04 [the quoted text provided above], turning on a steady RED ARROW signal indication shall not be permitted. Unless there are other traffic control devices (signs) allowing it, one may not enter an intersection when facing a red arrow. Of course, someone authorized to direct traffic can override the traffic control devices. You can examine the standards adoption practice of the various states to see how any particular state has implemented the standard. New York, in particular, has adopted the national standard along with a State supplement. As an example supplement, New York's supplement for "Application of Steady Signal Indications" deals with protected U-turn movements where right turn on red is permitted by inserting the following language: If a protected U-turn movement is provided, and right turns on red are allowed from the conflicting approach from the left, a RIGHT TURN ON RED MUST YIELD TO U-TURN (R10-30) sign (see Section 2B.54) may be used to advise road users making the right turn on red of the operation.
I doubt that you will find an official answer to that question. No law allows you to block passing (even if passing is illegal). Therefore, you must allow passing. There are laws against obstructing traffic. Japanese law addresses this, defining obstructing progress as starting to move or continuing to move in circumstances that would likely cause another vehicle or streetcar to have to suddenly change speed or direction in order to avoid danger You'd have to specify how you intend to &quot;not let&quot; a person pass you, but I can't imagine what you could do that would not be &quot;obstructing progress&quot;. A recent anti-road rage law allows license revocation for violation.
It's illegal to (temporarily) break an item The commercial car park owner may not aim the camera at Alice garden. However, even if it does so, breaking the camera or damaging it is still illegal - as one of the various forms of destruction/damaging of property colloquially called vandalism. Do note that the very article and the clasification of laser OP links to points out that *even a low-powered &quot;pet-safe&quot; IIIb/3R laser leaves out burnt-out pixels with a pinkish surrounding. These might not be enough to prevent identification when not aiming the laser into the camera, but they are damage to the sensor. The very article also describes how the camera damage progresses even after exposure, possibly due to the high power lasers. However, even if no such damage occurs, the owner of the camera is (temporarily) deprived of its legal uses while the laser is pointed on it, which is in many jurisdictions enough to count as theft.
Barring any specific statute the relevant law is the tort of negligence. To succeed Alice must prove Bob: had a duty to Alice, breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct (generally the standard of a reasonable person), the negligent conduct was, in law, the cause of the harm to Alice, and Alice was, in fact, harmed or damaged. She will probably succeed on 1, 3 and 4 where she will struggle is with 2. It seems that Bob did everything a reasonable person could do to avoid the accident. The only possible hope is that not knowing that bridges freeze first might be something a qualified NZ driver should know and that he breached his duty by not knowing if that is something the judge considers reasonable. The traffic warning is irrelevant and untested (and untestable) hearsay and should be excluded from evidence.
In general, yes, police could do this. I am not aware of any US state or locality which requires an officer to execute a stop as soon as a traffic violation is observed. Whether the police would act in such a way is another question, but in some areas maximizing citation revenue is a high priority, so police in such areas might act in such a way. If police think a person's actions are &quot;suspicious&quot; and think that the person might be involved in some crime more serious than a traffic violation, it would be common procedure to follow without making a stop or arrest to get a better idea of what the person was doing. Many police I have encountered seem seriously concerned to stop someone driving in what they consider an unsafe way as quickly as possible, and so stop violators promptly, but I don't say that motivates all police all the time.
Stop: possibly The standard for initiating a traffic stop is named after Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968): Terry stop. The standard is rather simple: Initiating the stop only requires reasonable suspicion. If their computer claims that the driver's license of the car owner is expired or suspended, that is reasonable suspicion to at least stop the car to check if the owner is driving it and if the license really is expired. Arrest: possibly To facilitate an arrest, the next level of scrutiny is needed: probable cause. Generally, there is little requirement on when a police report is to be written, but contemporary reports (at the same time or close to) are typical. Example of rising through the ranks Alice, 16 years old, dent in the fender from a fenderbender. That is not even a warning's worth and does not rise reasonable suspicion. Bob cop's computer still reads the license plate and Bob gets a flashing light: the car owner's license is expired. That is reasonable suspicion that there is an offense if the owner and Alice are the same person. But Bob needs to verify that. The reasonable suspicion can go away if for example the car was owned by Charles, a 60-year-old gentleman, then the suspicion that Alice's license is expired goes away. But the stop in itself was reasonable! Bob starts the ticket after stopping Alice, then passes the car to get to Alice. Looking in he sees that behind Alice lies a box stamped &quot;Top Secret - US President's Eyes Only&quot; all over. Bob arrests Alice for the probable cause of possibly possessing those documents illegally. The documents were in plain sight, so no search was needed btw.
The rules about use of lights, and keeping hands on the steering wheel are not new, but they may have been rephrased. It has always been the case that you should be in proper control of the vehicle (both hands on the wheel), and not to use the lights for thanking, or for inviting. Here are two extracts from the 1999 edition of The Highway Code. Flashing headlights. Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights in an attempt to intimidate other road users. If another driver flashes his headlights never assume that it is a signal to go. Use your own judgement and proceed carefully. Once moving you should keep to the left, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise. The exceptions are when you want to overtake, turn right or pass parked vehicles or pedestrians in the road keep well to the left on right-hand bends. This will improve your view of the road and help avoid the risk of colliding with traffic approaching from the opposite direction keep both hands on the wheel, where possible. This will help you to remain in full control of the vehicle at all times The recent changes concern vulnerable road users, and their priority.
In general, people have less expectation of privacy in cars than in their homes. To challenge a search and/or seizure under the Fourth Amendment, a person must have standing - the right to sue (that is, you must have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place where the search happened; if you didn't, no standing - can't claim your privacy was violated if you had no privacy). The US Circuit Courts are split on the issue of unauthorized rental drivers and whether they have the same reasonable expectation of privacy as the authorized driver of a rental car would have. Some Circuits allow the unauthorized driver to challenge a car search if the authorized driver gave them permission. Some Circuits look only at the agreement and if the driver isn't authorized on that, they're out of luck. The 6th Circuit is more case-by-case, with a presumption that driver can't challenge the search that can be overcome based on the facts. (All this info from US v. Haywood, 324 F.3d 514) There's a current case before the Supreme Court (argued January 9, 2018), Byrd v. US, on this very issue. This SCOTUSblog page has a lot of information on the case. Edited to add: Texas is in the Fifth Circuit, which follows the rule that unauthorized drivers don't have standing to challenge a search/seizure even with the authorized driver's permission to drive the car; unauthorized drivers of rental cars don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy because they lack a possessory interest in the car and/or they're violating the rental agreement. Basically, even though it seems the cops' stop of the car would've violated the Fourth Amendment if he were the authorized driver, since this happened in Texas, he's not going to be able to challenge the stop. IMO, this is incredibly unjust especially when the cops admitted there was no probable cause, so hopefully the Supreme Court makes this rule obsolete and allows unauthorized drivers to exercise their Fourth Amendment rights. Some law review articles on the topic of unauthorized rental drivers: "Hertz and the Fourth Amendment" "Resolving a Three-Way Circuit Split"