[tptacek]

They pull you over, and if you don't live in the immediate vicinity, you get a ticket. It's happened to me several times in Oak Park, and I live there!

You could say "none of your business". You'll get the ticket, and, if its really unjustified, you can go fight it in traffic court.

[trhway]

>They pull you over,

shouldn't they have at least some probable cause for pulling you over? And wouldn't lack of probable cause make the officer's case a "fruit of poisoned tree"?

and anyway, how about not living there, yet, say for example, having a girlfriend there or going for some appointment, like going to look at the bike somebody is selling or at a house for sale. My point is that without actually living in the neighborhood there may be plenty of reasons to drive there.

[tptacek]

1. No. 2. No. 3. Driving to your friend's house doesn't make you "through traffic", unless you're cutting across someone else's street.

[kinghajj]

"Sorry officer, I got lost and took a wrong turn. I'll make my way back to the main street."

[tptacek]

Yeah, they're just going to ticket you. Do you not get a lot of traffic tickets? The idea that you can HN-argue your way out of a ticket strikes me as the kind of thing you can only think if you haven't had a lot of contact with traffic cops. :)

I mean, you can definitely try to talk your way out of it, and if the cop is feeling friendly, you may succeed. But it's pretty much all down to how nice the cop is feeling.

Your argument is going to come down to "I made a wrong turn and missed the sign that said I can't drive down this block". It's not that much different from the "I didn't mean to drive the wrong way down this one way street".

[kinghajj]

I've never gotten a traffic ticket, actually. You might not be able to fight the cop, but a judge may be easier to sway. They have to show intent after all, no? I've read stories of people fighting such ordinances in court (not that that's a reliable source).

[bradleyland]

Traffic violations are, in most places, considered a general intent crime (versus specific intent). The bar for proving general intent is much, much lower than specific intent. The courts frequently hold that if you're driving the car, you are responsible for how fast you're going and where you end up. This makes the act of breaking a traffic law de facto intent. Only verifiable events outside of your control can get you off the hook consistently.

With respect to judges, you've got to remember that a traffic judge spends all day every day listening to people's excuses. "I got lost and took a wrong turn" is something they'll hear frequently in defense of tickets related to traffic control ordinances. In some jurisdictions, there are special administrative judges/magistrates who do exclusively this. They tend not to suffer fools.

I'm not saying that no one ever gets off on tickets like these, but if you look at the overturn rates for traffic violations, they're extremely low.

[tptacek]

I was mostly joking when I suggested you might fight the ticket in traffic court. Traffic court is a hilarious, terrible waste of time.

[tedunangst]

Traffic laws are generally strict liability. Your intentions, motives, knowledge, etc. are all irrelevant. You break it, you buy it.

[mikeash]

Getting lost doesn't remove your ability to read signs that tell you not to enter a particular street.

[berns]

But what do the signs say? I'm really curious. Can you visit a friend? Do the police escort you to your friends house?

[mikeash]

"I'm going to a friend's house. He is located at $ADDRESS."

If you're proposing this as a way to avoid a justified ticket by lying to the police, all I'll say is, good luck with that.

[tptacek]

"NO THROUGH TRAFFIC".

[kinghajj]

But what if you believed that the street was, in fact, the way to your destination (a friend's house)?

[tptacek]

This feels like a discussion in which "NO THROUGH TRAFFIC" signs are a proposal, something abstract, that doesn't exist. "NO THROUGH TRAFFIC" signs are everywhere, and they are routinely ticketed. If your friend lives on the street you're ticketed on, you probably won't get a ticket. If they don't, you probably will.

[kinghajj]

Well it seems that they're not universally enforceable, which is probably why some people are having difficulty accepting it.

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/12/no_through_traffic_signs...

[tptacek]

This is a nonsensical article. No Through Traffic signs aren't unconstitutional; they're enforced all over the place.

It's possible that this particular township didn't have laws on the books making the signs enforceable, and the police and residents put signs there anyways. But unless Alabama has a truly wacky state constitution, that problem is a city council meeting away from being fixed.

[mikeash]

I don't know. I suggest you ask a policeman or a judge.