Does a speeder have the right of way? You’re driving the speed limit in a U.S. state with an absolute speed limit (e.g., Florida). You need to change lanes. A vehicle behind you in that lane is exceeding the speed limit. Who has the right of way? (Note: No vehicles were harmed in the making of this question. No one hit anything.)
The vehicle occupying the lane has right of way i.e. if you merge and cause a collision, you are liable. The fact that the other driver was in breach of the road rules as well as you is immaterial. If you rephrased the question to be "A vehicle behind you in that lane is exceeding the speed limit - can I exceed the speed limit too?" you would see why. "Because they were breaking the law I should be allowed to" is not a defence that has any prospect of being successful. The law says you must give way when merging, so give way when merging.
California Vehicle Code Section 21453 (b) regulates right turns on red: Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, a driver, after stopping as required by subdivision (a), facing a steady circular red signal, may turn right, or turn left from a one-way street onto a one-way street. A driver making that turn shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to any vehicle that has approached or is approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard to the driver, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to that vehicle until the driver can proceed with reasonable safety. No exception is made for intersections where bicycles can go straight, so I conclude that right on red is legal in that case as well. Logically: it is legal to turn right on red from a lane where all traffic must turn right, and it is also legal from a non-turn-only lane where all traffic is allowed to either turn right or go straight. There is no reason for this intermediate case, where some vehicles may go straight and others may not, to be different from the two extremes. Especially since, when the light is red, neither bicycles nor cars nor anything else should be going straight through the intersection.
According to 11.72.240 of the Seattle Municipal Code, entitled Moving vehicle to avoid time limit: No person shall move and repark a vehicle on either side of a street within the same block in order to avoid a parking time limit regulation specified for either side of the street in that particular block.
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.
You have the right to notify the owner of the car of their vehicular trespass and the consequences of that. You do not have the right to damage the car in giving said notice. You have the right to offer to clean the gum off whatever part of the car you stuck the notice to. If you succeed in cleaning it,the other party will not have a legal cause of action, in all likelihood, since there is no damage (though with a bit of imagination they might come up with some 'missed business opportunity' loss). The court would probably find your choice of sticker to be negligent (put the notice under the wipers? use painter's tape -get some if you don't have any). The rationale 'we had no other choice' holds no water: there are alternatives. 'Criminal Damages' is a concept in UK law, but it relates to willful damage such as vandalism, not accidents. It would be an issue if you had planned to cause damage, but that seems not to be the case here.
The legal question here is whether police have an enforceable power to enjoin a person from visiting a particular person or from entering a particular jurisdiction (especially the one where they have police powers). The obligation to obey police orders generally ends at matters regarding arrest, traffic orders, or crowd control. Freedom of travel is a fundamental constitutional right, along with freedom of association. That does not mean that you can go absolutely anywhere you want and do anything you want with whoever you want, but it does mean that any restriction have to be encoded in law, and such laws have to pass strict scrutiny. Any enforceable legal restrictions would have to emanate from the courts.
2201.4 Upon a roadway so designated for one-way traffic, a vehicle shall be driven only in the direction designated at all or such times as shall be indicated by official traffic control devices. I'm failing to see the "... except when pulling over for the police" subclause. Equally there is no "... unless you think you should" subclause. If you choose to have a hearing the evidence will show unambiguously that you drove the wrong way in a one way street and you will testify as to your reasons for doing so. For you to avoid the violation you would need to convince the examiner that a) you are telling the truth and b) that your mindset is in any way relevant. Unless the officer clearly directed you to pull into that spot, the decision to do so appears to be yours. I'd pay the fine if it was me.
The Kentucky restriction against "hit and run" is KRS 189.580, which says that The operator of any vehicle, whose vehicle…is involved in an accident …shall immediately stop and ascertain the extent of the injury or damage and render reasonable assistance Notice that the legal requirement is for the operator to do something: the law requires nothing of the vehicle itself. Supposing that you are correct that the vehicle was operated by someone who hit and ran, then if the police gain suspicions that such is the case, and if those suspicions are reasonable, then then could obtain a warrant to obtain evidence from the vehicle, which could be used against the operator. The fact that you (might) now own the vehicle would not transfer legal responsibility to you – responsibbility goes with the actor, not the instrument.