Using the mutcd as a defense to a right-turn-only violation – page 4 electricity storage association

You are still missing the point which is whether a sign that is otherwise properly posted by an agency with jurisdiction but does not conform precisely with MUTCD specifications is legally enforceable. If a sign was posted at the proper height but over time is no longer at the proper height by a few inches, does that make it non-enforceable and all tickets written in violation of it void? If a sign is supposed to have letters of a certain size but due to an error in the printing process they are 1/4" smaller, does that make the sign invalid? Clearly these sign’s intent are clear and their visibility and readability are not compromised and they are otherwise legally placed, so is there a law so strict that they are unenforceable?

What others have asked for and you have not provided is the LAW (please provide exact citation or case law reference) in CA that states that signs that do not conform with the CA MUTCD are not enforceable. CA has a law that mandates what the signs should be but that does not necessarily mean that non-conforming signs are null and void.

You are still missing the point which is whether a sign that is otherwise properly posted by an agency with jurisdiction but does not conform precisely with MUTCD specifications is legally enforceable. If a sign was posted at the proper height but over time is no longer at the proper height by a few inches, does that make it non-enforceable and all tickets written in violation of it void? If a sign is supposed to have letters of a certain size but due to an error in the printing process they are 1/4" smaller, does that make the sign invalid? Clearly these sign’s intent are clear and their visibility and readability are not compromised and they are otherwise legally placed, so is there a law so strict that they are unenforceable?

What others have asked for and you have not provided is the LAW (please provide exact citation or case law reference) in CA that states that signs that do not conform with the CA MUTCD are not enforceable. CA has a law that mandates what the signs should be but that does not necessarily mean that non-conforming signs are null and void.

The questions put to a Traffic Engineer I stated earlier would cast great doubt on the enforceability of such a sign, IMO. You minimize the non-compliance of such a sign by saying it is off by 1/4". I am referring to a gross inconsistency of signage or placement after a State’s agreed upon compliance to the CA MUTCD. Furthermore, I am not suggesting that a novice could force a judge to drop charges because of an inconsistency. I am questioning whether a competent trial lawyer using all of his skills could get a citation dismissed under these terms.

Nothing in the MUTCD makes violating a sign or other design per se exculpatory when it comes to violations. You can certainly argue that MUTCD sets standards that if a sign doesn’t comply with may have been confusing, or lacking visability, or whatever and then it’s a matter for the judge to decided. However, you can’t say "This sign is not in compliance with MUTCD and therefore it can’t be enforced." That law is not there.

Again, the tower thing has a specific federal preemption, it is not the case that all federal laws automatically preempt local laws. Further, even if such preemption existed for the MUTCD (which it does not), there’s no FEDERAL law or regulation that says failure to comply with the stanards for signage makes violations of such signage unenforceable EVEN if you were cited for a federal violation (which does in deed happen on federal lands like National Parks/Parways and Military/government properties).

(a) 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 Devices, or a Department of Transportation approved supplement to that manual of a regulatory nature erected or maintained to enhance traffic safety and operations