Got a ticket for running a red light. Now I know why.

[d_stilgar]

I'm from Moscow, ID and a few weeks ago my wife and I were spending the day in Spokane, WA. We were driving to the mall when I encountered a very strange intersection. There was a bridge ahead, so the upcoming intersection could not be seen. To compensate for this, the city of Spokane put up one of those "signal ahead" signs and some indicators to tell you the status of the upcoming light. I saw the warning indicator start to blink red so I started to slow down (for an intersection presumably 100 or so feet ahead).

This is confusing because a blinking red light is a standard US symbol for a stop sign. It was then that I realized that the signal ahead sign was not warning of some unseen intersection 100-150ft ahead, but of an intersection literally one car length after hidden by the shadow of the bridge.

It was at this point, decelerating but traveling at 31mph, that I decided that slamming on my breaks would only result in a dangerous stop with me in the middle of the intersection and that continuing through the intersection would be the safest course of action.

About a week later I get a ticket in the mail. Luckily, there's a video so you can all see how strange this intersection is.
Y0SXgomw7Rk

If you want to see the intersection in google maps you can type in "S Division and E Sprague Spokane WA" and go to street view. Something to note here is that a simple solution to this problem would be to put up signs displaying the distance to the intersection.

http://modsandends.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/aproach-to-intersection-copy_800x453.jpg

[Snowman]

Your gonna have to rip the vid or something or post your pin and stuff haha.

[d_stilgar]

All fixed.

[d_stilgar]

Youtube video up.

[Snowman]

I would have ran it as well more than likely, hard to really tell from this angle.

[Drum Thumper]

I've been to Spokane a couple of times, and I hate that f**king intersection,.

[d_stilgar]

I looked up RCW 46.61.050 to see exactly what it said after reading the officer's testimony. I'm think I'm going to contest this by mail based on provision 2 which reads,

"(2) No provision of this chapter for which official traffic control devices are required shall be enforced against an alleged violator if at the time and place of the alleged violation an official device is not in proper position and sufficiently legible or visible to be seen by an ordinarily observant person. Whenever a particular section does not state that official traffic control devices are required, such section shall be effective even though no devices are erected or in place."

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.050

In layman's terms it's saying that if the ordinarily observant person can't see the signs then it's not their fault if they don't follow them. It also says, "sufficiently legible." I think there's enough improper use of different signs and indicators to make a strong argument that legibility is almost impossible at this intersection and that you have to know about it ahead of time to be aware of its location.

[SXRguyinMA]

I'd fight it, it's worth a shot at least. but the you've got to go back to WA for the court date though :facepalm:

[d_stilgar]

I can contest by mail, which is what I'm going to do. I'll send in some images to help with my case and list all the reasons why the devices were not clearly visible or legible to me, the ordinarily observant person.