23 Apr 09 06:21, Roger Nelson wrote to Roy Witt:


 RW>> No...I stayed where I had stopped and then proceeded. I couldn't see
 RW>> the 'limit line' and so there was no way I could move forward and
 RW>> stop again without over/under estimating where it actually was. My
 RW>> arguement was that the statute doesn't specify how close or how far
 RW>> and how long one has to 'stop' at the limit line. Since I was within
 RW>> 3 feet of it, I didn't need to stop twice at the same stop sign. Had
 RW>> he not lied saying that I didn't stop at all, was the kicker.

 RN> I thought the limit line ws an imaginary line where your car's nose
 RN> should come to rest after a complete stop and that's generally before
 RN> the crosswalk.

In California and here in Texas, there's a solid white line painted on the
roadway. It's probably a foot to 18" wide and extends across all lanes of
the right hand side of the road. This is before the cross-walk lines, if
they exist.

 RN>   I don't see how the judge could side with the cop over something as
 RN> vague as that.  I mean, the cop would have to be standing at the curb
 RN> watching from a distance of 3'.  I believe they want us to stop twice
 RN> here in that situation, but it's not enforced. Here, they're more
 RN> intent on catching speeders and motorists without proof of insurance.

Apparently this intersection had 'California Stops' violations going on
for some time. He was there (I saw him) in plain site and I didn't think I
was in error in my stop. Needless to say, he heard plenty about it from me
on the spot. In fact, he was still writing his notes when I left.

                R\%/itt




--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000