BimmerFest BMW Forum banner
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
212 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
OK, see if you can make sense of these two very similar sub-sections of Florida's traffic law concerning vehicles approaching a public highway from private property.

Bold highlights are mine.
316.125 Vehicle entering highway from private road or driveway or emerging from alley, driveway or building.--

(1) The driver of a vehicle about to enter or cross a highway from an alley, building, private road or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching on the highway to be entered which are so close thereto as to constitute an immediate hazard.

(2) The driver of a vehicle emerging from an alley, building, private road or driveway within a business or residence district shall stop the vehicle immediately prior to driving onto a sidewalk or onto the sidewalk area extending across the alley, building entrance, road or driveway, or in the event there is no sidewalk area, shall stop at the point nearest the street to be entered where the driver has a view of approaching traffic thereon and shall yield to all vehicles and pedestrians which are so close thereto as to constitute an immediate hazard.
So, your honor, what's the difference between (1) and (2) ?

I've been charged with "Failure to obey a Traffic Control Device" because I didn't stop where by office's parking lot meets the highway.

Firstly, there is no stop sign. Secondly, section (1) above seems to indicate that only a yield is required, not a stop. Section (2), however, mandates a stop.

Which one applies?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,150 Posts
Will_325i said:
OK, see if you can make sense of these two very similar sub-sections of Florida's traffic law concerning vehicles approaching a public highway from private property.

Bold highlights are mine.

So, your honor, what's the difference between (1) and (2) ?

I've been charged with "Failure to obey a Traffic Control Device" because I didn't stop where by office's parking lot meets the highway.

Firstly, there is no stop sign. Secondly, section (1) above seems to indicate that only a yield is required, not a stop. Section (2), however, mandates a stop.

Which one applies?
Well, strictly speaking the ultimate question is whether your place of employment is within an established residential or buisness district. If yes, then a stop was mandated.

The other thing to consider is how court cases have been ruled by the higher Florida courts based on these two sections if an appeal was made from a lower court. Although the sections make a distinction with respect to surrounding area, the higher court may have judged the case independent of this caveat and subsequently altered the view of the law making all scenarios involving egress from a private to a public road warranting a full stop.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
10,856 Posts
The answer is that you shoudl go to court, say your sorry, point out that the code was confusing and that you won't ever do it again.
 

·
Empowered Consumer
Joined
·
4,042 Posts
Seems to me that you're taking the term Yield out of context in the first ruling. I read this to mean that you must yield the right of way, AND you must come to a complete stop.

Alex
 

·
Do the interns get Glocks
Joined
·
9,324 Posts
Sounds like the second one is better defined. So if you were leaving an office complex it sounds like the second one would apply due to the wording:

within a business or residence district
Just a guess. It really depends on the judge. I have seen a couple of judges that would side with the officer no matter what the statute said. While others are more level headed.

If you plan to fight the ticket and represent yourself it would be worth your time to sit in on a court session prior to your court date to asses his style and disposition.
 

·
///Mpty pockets
Joined
·
1,963 Posts
Stop and yeild to traffic.

Do like Nick said and go to court, admit you screwed up, and hope for the best.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
212 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
BahnBaum said:
Seems to me that you're taking the term Yield out of context in the first ruling. I read this to mean that you must yield the right of way, AND you must come to a complete stop.

Alex
In Section 1 it is very clear that a yield is the ONLY thing required. I read other sections and if a stop and then yield are required, it is expressly written so. When an actual yield (only) is required, no mention of a mandatory stop exists. Of course for yields the laws state that one "must be prepared to stop" if traffic requires.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
212 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Does anyone think the judge is apt to dismiss the case because no "traffic control device" exists on this corner, even though the officer claims there is one?
 

·
Format c:\*.* /y
Joined
·
1,321 Posts
Section one just says that you must yield to traffic on the highway, that you have no right-of-way. Section two is saying where you need to come to a stop before entering said highway. Yielding has nothing to do with stopping or not, it just means that in this case highway traffic has right-of-way, you can't just make your stop and proceed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
212 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Tangent said:
Section one just says that you must yield to traffic on the highway, that you have no right-of-way. Section two is saying where you need to come to a stop before entering said highway. Yielding has nothing to do with stopping or not, it just means that in this case highway traffic has right-of-way, you can't just make your stop and proceed.
I don't think that's it. If what you're saying is true then there's absolutely no reason to have section (1).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
212 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
bren said:
Isn't it just common sense to stop before entering any roadway? :confused:
Not necessarily, no. I don't know where you got that idea.

Ex. I don't know if you have circular driveway or what, but in my case every morning I back up my car from my garage, drift/drive in reverse down my driveway at a crawling speed, and traverse the sidewalk and curb on my way to the street. (already visually checked if there's traffic). I do NOT bother to stop at the sidewalk or curb.

AFAIK, that's not illegal?
 

·
///Mpty pockets
Joined
·
1,963 Posts
Will_325i said:
Not necessarily, no. I don't know where you got that idea.

Ex. I don't know if you have circular driveway or what, but in my case every morning I back up my car from my garage, drift/drive in reverse down my driveway at a crawling speed, and traverse the sidewalk and curb on my way to the street. (already visually checked if there's traffic). I do NOT bother to stop at the sidewalk or curb.

AFAIK, that's not illegal?
Sure it is. Section 2 that you posted above clearly describes that situation.
:tsk:
 

·
Rest in peace, Coach
Joined
·
9,106 Posts
Funny. Will_325i posts "You be the judge", we all returned the guilty verdict and clearly read it as a violation, yet he still comes back with whatever faulty logic he has to "defend" his ticket.

If you ask me to "be the judge" and read the rules, I'd say pay the fine and move along. Fight it if you want, Will, but most of us here think it's a losing cause as the statute is pretty darn clear to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,397 Posts
I conur you were legitimately busted because #2 applies. Had you been in a rural area, you'd have some room for reasonable doubt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,836 Posts
It's a revenue enhancement ticket. The judge will laugh at you. Pay the fine and move on.
 

·
M Mad
Joined
·
10,476 Posts
MD law is easier, it says that entering from a private road or parking lot or similar the driver must STOP AND YIELD. All in one section.

If you don't like it, go to court. When I got a ticket for this in MD< that's what I did (I yielded but didn't stop) I got probation before verdict, pay court costs, go and sin no more.
 

·
Format c:\*.* /y
Joined
·
1,321 Posts
Will_325i said:
I don't think that's it. If what you're saying is true then there's absolutely no reason to have section (1).
Sure there is. If there was only section 2 you could come to a stop at the appropriate place and then just pull out into traffic. Section one assigns right-of-way to cars on the highway. Without section 1 it could be treated as a 4-way intersection with no stop signs or signals where everybody is legally responsible to watch for everybody else. With it in place it places the responsibility on the driver exiting the private driveway or alley.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
My experience is, that traffic judges really love to have ticketed drivers come into court and start quoting verbatim from the motor vehicle code.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
Will_325i said:
what's the difference between (1) and (2) ?
As has been said, subsection 1 says that you don't have to stop, only yield. Subsection 2 says you have to stop.

Will_325i said:
I've been charged with "Failure to obey a Traffic Control Device" because I didn't stop where by office's parking lot meets the highway.
It wouldn't surprise me if, in this case, the "sidewalk" is a "traffic control device," because the statute you quoted uses the sidewalk as a boundary requiring certain behavior. I have a friend, though, who was let off from a traffic ticket that cited the wrong section--eg, he didn't violate section 102 as on the citation, and while he did violate section 101 that wasn't what he was being prosecuted for. But if you are charged with a violation of 316.125(2), and you were in a business or residential district, and you failed to stop before entering a highway, then you violated the law. If you still want to to challenge it--if you want to challenge it regardless--I highly recommend contacting an attorney experienced in such matters.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top