Dorrk Dot Com

A few months ago I was ticketed for improper use of a left turn lane in Sherwood, Oregon. Even though I used the lane for a left turn, the citing officer felt that the turn was not sufficiently “immediate;” that is, I entered the turn lane too early. For this egregious offense against ORS811.346, I faced a fine of $242. Remember the days of $70 tickets? Those are long gone.

I felt that the leftward arrow painted in the turn lane approximate to my entry, 100 yards from the turn, was sufficient ground to contest the ticket, and when I looked up the cited statute, I found no reference to or guideline for judging the proper distance at which to enter a left turn lane:

811.346 Misuse of special left turn lane; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of misuse of a special left turn lane if the person uses a special left turn lane for anything other than making a left turn either into or from the special left turn lane.

(2) A person who turns into a special left turn lane from an alley, driveway or other entrance to the highway that has the special left turn lane is in violation of this section if the person does anything other than stop in the lane and merge into traffic in the lane immediately to the right of the person’s vehicle.

(3) As used in ORS 811.345 and this section, a “special left turn lane” is a median lane that is marked for left turns by drivers proceeding in opposite directions.

(4) The offense described in this section, misuse of a special left turn lane, is a Class B traffic violation. [1997 c.468 §2]

A filed my written testimony by mail, and a month later was offered the chance to expunge the offense and fine from my record by taking a 40-minute online traffic course. Annoying, but fair enough. But wait: it costs $100 to take the course!

Since the court’s written response to my testimony made no reference to my arguments against the citation, pointing only to my clean record in its offer of waiver, I called to complain and was offered the opportunity to talk to the judge for clarification this morning.

He agreed with me on (almost) all points, but told me to stuff it.

The judge first explained that Oregon’s traffic laws are vague, and pointed to this specific status as “a model of unclarity.” Despite that, he said that a “common sense” interpretation of the law supported the officer’s citation. When he said that there are many tickets given for this very offense at the exact same turn, I asked if that didn’t suggest that “common sense” was exactly the opposite of his interpretation? And if the law is unclear, and the markings on the road aid that confusion, should the ultimate responsiblity really fall in the citizen? Or should a law be clarified before it is enforced so frequently? He simply said he wasn’t changing his judgement. I asked if I had any other recourse, and he said I could appeal his decision, for which there is a non-refundable fee of nearly $300 — more than the potential fine — or I could take the $100 traffic course.

Wait, it turns out there is an additional, previously undisclosed $40 fee for the traffic course, increasing the cost of expunging the offense to $140.

I’m going to take the course, but I’m not happy about it. If it sounds like a racket — vague laws and controls open to interpretation (except by citizens) and enforced by mounting fines and discouraging fees — it may be. The 2005-2006 Budget for the City of Sherwood explains:

Fines, interest and other
Other revenue includes fines for traffic infractions and other
violations handled by the Municipal Court. These fines are
budgeted at $340,000, have increased $50,000 annually
since 2002-03.

Tags: 1 Comment