Solaris

that my turn signal was on while the sign was in view. The police officer may recall this and then I'm in a world of $hit. That's what I get for being the one driver out of 1,000 in NJ who actually signal well before the intersection or at all. Thanks for the info. You think I should mention other states' codes? I live in PA, so should I argue that their standard is what I expect of all intersections?

Clues

1. Try to find out if NJ has similar codes about the placement of the signage. Someone at NJDOT might help. send e-mails to Russo and Livingston. Tell them that you are a concerned citizen and you think that the current sign placement is dangerous to pedestrians and you're looking for a code that may help you to convince the town to change the location of the sign..

2. If you cannot find such code, copy the documents and hightlight the relevant parts as evidence.

3. At court, you should explain to the judge that as you approached the intersection, you were focused on the traffic signal as well as cars going through the intersection. When you came to a stop at the red light, you looked for a 'No Turn On Red" sign. After not seeing a sign, you made the right.

4. State that based on codes found in other states, you feel that the intersection is not signed effectively, which makes for a dangerous situation. Explain that you would like to enter the three documents as evidence to show that other state traffic departments recognize the importance of the placement of "No Turn On Red" signs that allow the driver of a car IN POSITION to make the turn to see the sign.

5. Finally, if you are so inclined, go back to the intersection with a video camera and let it run for a while. If you can find a period where a significant number of people make the offending right turn, then you can introduce that into evidence that the signage in ineffective.

btw, i am not a lawyer - this is just my opinion and common sense...

Solaris

that if the intersection was certified at one point and 1 sign is present, it is most likely within code. I figured this was the case since the statute on this particular sign is so vague. The statutes use the term "near" and the only real measurements are for height. Also, the part about having it on the signal head or post is just a suggestion. It's like the DOT really doesn't care what the municipalities do. Since it is a suggestion in the statute, I suppose that still supports my argument of an unsafe intersection.