Well, this is the best answer I've seen so far. Luckily for me, there is no sidewalk at this location, nor are there any markings on the pavement either. I've also been to traffic court and watched other cases. It's amazing what gets thrown out on trivial inaccuracies of how the violation was written up. I'm pondering how likely it is for the judge to ask me specifically if I broke 316.125 (2), even though I wasn't charged with it. Your answer supported my suspicion. Thanks. It's dissappointing to other posters' reaction to this thread. I'm not looking for people to tell me how right I am, just a sensible interpretation of what the law is trying to say.Pock said:As has been said, subsection 1 says that you don't have to stop, only yield. Subsection 2 says you have to stop.
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.