Speeding unawares after turning from the terminating road of a T-junction This is a follow-up question for &quot;Ambiguous speed limit after passing a T-junction&quot; (59728). The original question asks what the speed limit is, in the 20 metres after the intersection and before the 60-sign. This question asks whether ignorance of this speed limit is a valid defence. We again consider the intersection between Fitzgerald St and Angove St in North Perth, Western Australia (left-hand traffic). This is a T-junction, with Fitzgerald St being the continuing road and Angove St being the terminating road. Dale M's answer to the original question establishes that: The speed limit along Fitzgerald St northbound is 40 km/h (pink), beginning at the 40-sign before the intersection, all the way up to the 60-sign erected 20 metres after the intersection. Only after this 60-sign does the speed limit become 60 km/h (green). The existence of a side road with a 50 km/h limit (blue) is irrelevant. Now suppose that Bob approaches on Angove St and turns left into Fitzgerald St northbound. Bob knows nothing about the earlier 40-sign, but sees only the 60-sign, and concludes either: The speed limit on Fitzgerald St is immediately 60 km/h, since the 60-sign is consistent with all of Fitzgerald St being a 60-zone (which was indeed the case before 2016); or The speed limit on Fitzgerald St is immediately 50 km/h, since the 20 metres up to the 60-sign is an unsigned portion of a built-up area. Therefore, after completing the left turn, Bob drives through the final 20 metres of the 40-zone believing that it is either a 60-zone or a 50-zone. (Yes this is difficult, but I think just doable with a powerful car by starting with a wide left turn into right lane at 35 km/h.) Does Bob have a valid defence if issued with a speeding infringement? If yes, suppose that Alice drives along Fitzgerald St northbound, straight through the intersection, clocking a speed of 60 km/h within the final 20 metres of the 40-zone. Would infringing Alice require proving that she did not turn left from Angove St like Bob did?
Bob has no defense Speeding in western-australia, as it is throughout australia, is a strict liability offense. That means that intention to or knowledge that you are breaking the law is not required. Don’t know the limit? Doesn’t matter, you are still legally obliged to comply. However, all the way up the chain, from the police officer, through the administrative arm to the judge, each person has discretion to waive the infringement notice. Basically, they can do that if they don’t think it’s “fair” on Bob in the circumstances. Given that Bob managed to reach 40+km/h within 20m of a more than 90 degree corner I think the infringement notice is very fair. Negligent Driving is possibly the more appropriate offense. However, it’s possible to imagine circumstances where waiving the infringement notice is fair. For example, if a speed limit sign has been removed or completely obscured by foliage or a parked vehicle and Bob could show he was not familiar with the area. The question on Alice is, from above, moot.
The only really authoritative source of answers is a court interpreting the laws on an as applied basis (and there are many U.S. traffic laws, one in every state and sometimes additional local ones, not a single U.S. traffic law). An answer from a government official or police department is not authoritative, although it may be informative of how the official in question would enforce the law.
Washington state dedicated a section of their code to explicitly make this illegal (to install it, not just use it). RCW 46.37.685(1)(b) says It is unlawful for a person to have an installed license plate flipping device on a vehicle, use technology to flip a license plate on a vehicle, or use technology to change the appearance of a license plate on a vehicle. and it is illegal to sell them. Georgia does not seem to have a specific law on the topic, but the same effect holds under GA Code §40-2-41, which says: Unless otherwise permitted under this chapter, every vehicle required to be registered under this chapter, which is in use upon the highways, shall at all times display the license plate issued to the owner for such vehicle, and the plate shall be fastened to the rear of the vehicle in a position so as not to swing and shall be at all times plainly visible... It shall be the duty of the operator of any vehicle to keep the license plate legible at all times. No license plate shall be covered with any material unless the material is colorless and transparent. No apparatus that obstructs or hinders the clear display and legibility of a license plate shall be attached to the rear of any motor vehicle required to be registered in the state. We can start with the question of whether the vehicle must be registered: yes, it does. Then we can ask if "which is in use upon the highways" is true. This is not obvious, because that clause could be interpreted as meaning "which is at some time or other in use upon the highway", or else as "at those times when it is in use upon the highway". I strongly suspect that the courts would find in favor of the first interpretation, not the second, especially since the law also says that you must "keep the license plate legible at all times" (not "at all times when you are on the highway"). Finally, a plate flipper clearly "hinders the clear display and legibility of a license plate", and the law prohibits the attachment of such device, not just its use. So obscuring your license plate is just not legal.
This varies from state to state. Here's a representative statute: Any driver or operator of a motor vehicle who, having been given a visual or audible signal by a peace officer directing such driver or operator to bring his vehicle to a stop, willfully fails or refuses to obey such direction, increases his speed, extinguishes his lights, or otherwise flees or attempts to elude the officer. See 625 ILCS 5/11-204. For a first offense, IL calls it a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year and $2.5K. but on the third offense it becomes a felony punishable by up to 3 years and a $25K fine. If the signal was meant for you, then the divided highway is a moot point so long as you realize it was for you (which might be established by you turning off the road into some neighborhood where you have no business). united-statesillinois
This simply indicates that the lane the arrow is pointing to is reserved for the use of bicycles. Typically such a sign would be mounted on a pole near the curb, so that the arrow would point to the rightmost lane of the road. Another version of the sign exists with an arrow pointing straight down. This one is designed to be mounted on a cantilevered pole, so that it is directly above the bike lane in question. Where the bicycle lane is immediately adjacent to the curb, the ground-mounted version of the Reserved Bicycle Lane sign (Rb-84A OTM) should be installed. In cases where the bicycle lane is not adjacent to the curb, such as when a parking lane is present, the overhead mounted version of the Reserved Bicycle Lane sign (Rb-84 OTM) may be considered. If used, the overhead sign should be installed on a cantilever and centred above the designated lane, every 200 m or where visibility obstructions warrant. The cantilevered signs are not required after every intersection. (All images and quotes taken from the Ontario Traffic Manual.)
I should have done my research properly, hopefully this will be indexed and be helpful to someone else in the future. The specific legislation is The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 regulation 98: Stopping of engine when stationary 98.—(1) Save as provided in paragraph (2), the driver of a vehicle shall, when the vehicle is stationary, stop the action of any machinery attached to or forming part of the vehicle so far as may be necessary for the prevention of noise. (2) The provisions of paragraph (1) do not apply— (a) when the vehicle is stationary owing to the necessities of traffic; (b) so as to prevent the examination or working of the machinery where the examination is necessitated by any failure or derangement of the machinery or where the machinery is required to be worked for a purpose other than driving the vehicle; or (c) in respect of a vehicle propelled by gas produced in plant carried on the vehicle, to such plant.
I believe the answer you seek can be found by searching for the terms &quot;(desired state name) statutes pedestrian crossing.&quot; In the case of the state of Florida, there are references to the situation you describe. Some of it appears slightly contradictory, but the ones that apply are not ambiguous: (10) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (12) No pedestrian shall, except in a marked crosswalk, cross a roadway at any other place than by a route at right angles to the curb or by the shortest route to the opposite curb. The contradictory portion appears thus: (11) Between adjacent intersections at which traffic control signals are in operation, pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk. There appears to be no reference regarding distances between adjacent intersections. It's unreasonable for one to be expected to walk a half mile (0.8 km) if there's a mile between intersections. There's an area nearby in which the traffic control signals are spaced about that distance apart. Cities may have specific regulations regarding such activities.
Despite the lengthy background, the only question seems to be: Can a police officer lie about a consequence of a traffic violation they charge you with? As a matter of constitutional law in the United States, that answer is generally &quot;yes.&quot; States can impose more limitations if they like. Only a small minority of states actually do so. Incidentally, an attorney, such as a deputy district attorney, is not allowed to lie about the consequences of a traffic violation, or anything else (even in extreme circumstances like a hostage situation). This violates the rules of professional conduct applicable to all attorneys. This sounds like a classic &quot;driving while black&quot; situation and is probably involves unconstitutional discrimination by a government official, although proving that in an individual case is virtually impossible.