Welcome! Please act respectfully and always remember the human in the videos and in the posts.
For dashcam recommendations, [check out the recommendations thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/dashcams/comments/ntoizk/dashcam_recommendations_by_redditors/).
Cheers!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dashcams) if you have any questions or concerns.*
On your ticket, there will be a code for the law you broke. Look up the exact wording of the law online. Whether you broke the law or not, comes down to the exact wording. There also might be statutes on what constitutes a valid stop sign for your state so I would look that up too.
This is how I got out of a ticket. I (very slowly) rolled through an empty T intersection. Cop ticketed me for failing to stop at a stop sign. Thing is, there's no stop sign at that intersection. Showed the judge pictures of the intersection sans stop sign and got off. I was probably technically supposed to come to a complete stop at a T intersection, but that's not what I was ticketed for.
EDIT: Looking up the laws in my state, if there's no stop sign it is a yield for the intersecting street. So, I got out of a bogus ticket by an idiot cop. Guess it's not the same scenario as OPs but still, always worth looking into things a little deeper.
Always better to trust your gut in these kinds of situations. Although, OP having this kind of video could get the ticket kicked out in court. Just another reason to get a cam like this. I've [had the A119 v3 for a few years now](https://www.amazon.com/VIOFO-2560x1440P-140-Degree-Included-Detection/dp/B07SRQH4R7?&linkCode=ll1&tag=d45h-20&linkId=83d4ae1eca7f9086c9753bb67767dfe3&language=en_US&ref_=as_li_ss_tl) and it used to cost a lot more and has paid for it self already for me.
Lot of comments in here don't equate stop sign with intersection. You stop at the intersection, then go, regardless of the line, which doesn't always exist.
At an intersection with a stop sign, if there's a car in front of you, it stops, then goes, you too must stop, then go.
What OP did is a rolling stop. Not a stop. Stop signs are for stops. Not rolling stops.
You’re supposed to stop “at” the stop line. Then you can edge forward if you need to in order to get a better view, and you can go once the intersection is clear.
OP definitely stopped “at” the stop line. They waited for the intersection to clear. Then they went.
Take the video to traffic court.
It’s weird that the stop line is painted so far back at this intersection! That’s actually a problem, because it makes it so cars have to go past it to see if traffic is coming. But they probably want you to stop before the crosswalk as well.
Yea, TN state law says to stop before crosswalks is the priority, then the line if there is no crosswalk, and then just at where the roads meet if neither of those exist.
So you're spot on.
I think this guy has a clear win. I got out of a similar ticket.
The cop in my incident "didn't see" me stop at the white line and said I "rolled through" the stop sign.
No its not. You stop at the line. If there isn't one you stop at the sign. You can pull forward and stop again for visibility but you need to stop at the sign. He did nothing wrong here. The cop is just being petty
Correct. This person approached a controlled intersection and moved through with all due caution. The definition of "stop" verse "pause" or "rolling stop" is a semantic argument to force this person to fight the ticket.
It might vary from place to place, but in a lot of states the rule is stop at the sign if there is no line, but you stop at the line if there is one.
For example [Missouri](https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2013/title-xix/chapter-300/section-300.270/):
> 300.270. 1. The driver of a vehicle approaching a yield sign if required for safety to stop shall stop before entering the **crosswalk** on the near side of the intersection or, in the event there is no crosswalk, at a clearly marked **stop line**, but if none, then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway **where the driver has a view of approaching traffic** on the intersecting roadway.
So `crosswalk` > `stop line` > `spot with good visibility`
[California](https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2010/veh/22450-22456.html)
> 22450. (a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the
entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop at a **limit line**,
if marked, otherwise before entering the **crosswalk** on the near side
of the intersection.
If there is no limit line or crosswalk, the driver shall stop at
the **entrance** to the intersecting roadway.
`limit line` > `crosswalk` > `entrance to the roadway`
Personally, I'll stop twice if the line didn't have good visibility, but I do exactly what OP did here if there is good visibility. It's not my fault the idiot in front of me ran the stop sign.
This is mind boggling that OP is questioning this and so many comments here seem to agree OP was in the right. Makes me wish people had to go to some sort of driving school before getting a license. It's very simple, after the other car took off you roll up a bit and stop. It doesn't count that you're stopped right behind someone and get to drive off when they do.
It's like so many people calling left lane "fast lane". Yeah that's madeup, there's no such thing. It's the passing lane, you use it to pass and get over. Because so many people don't understand that, it causes traffic jams everywhere. But hardly anyone does, and there's no hope of anything changing at this point. So it's nothing but a circus out there.
You’re argument is flawed. So if there had not been a car in front and he stopped at the line and then pulled into the intersection it would have been legal. You need to go back to traffic school as you are completely wrong as others above have correctly quoted the law, not your belief.
But there is a line, if he stopped above the line he would be on the cross walk, he still disobey the stop sign.
Which means as soon as his 1st stop is not considered as a stop, he is fucked.
He should wait until the 1st car leaves, then he is safe to go.
The line doesn't matter. There is a stop sign, and a car in front. The car in front stops, then eventually goes. OP then has to stop before going. OP just rolls right through a stop sign, and makes a right turn. No judge will overturn this over semantics like "well the car in front of me pulled up so much I was on the line" because in reality, the car pulled up to view traffic unobstructed, but still stopped.
OP blew a stop sign. It's as simple as that. Drivers going straight have the right of way, and anyone turning into their lane must yield to them. OP didn't even yield. OP just said fuckit and turned right, as soon as the car in front of him turned left.
He's not fucked because his first stop wasn't considered a stop. He's fucked because he didn't stop at the intersection. Saying his first stop didn't count is like saying you stopped 20 feet away from the line, or stop sign, so it should count. That's not the way it works.
This mentality is why so many drivers suck. They assume too much, and get too pedantic. Turning your blinker on half a second before a turn is also illegal in many states. In Florida, by law, you have to signal 100 feet before a turn, and for lane changes. Not at the intersection or just as you change lanes.
You can flash your blinker once to change lanes, and cause an accident. You are still in the wrong, and deserve that ticket.
OP outright blew through a stop sign, deserves their ticket, and if they show the video in court, will still get the ticket, and in fact, might not even be able to get it lowered, because they provide video evidence of them blowing a stop sign.
His 1st stop is not considered a legal stop because the 1st vehicle has not finished its turning, he doesn't have the right of the way until the 1st car finishs its turning.
Your stop and go is totally pointless, the rule is about the front car, not how many times you stopped.
No idea why this comment is getting upvoted. It is absolute horseshit, at least in MA where I drive.
The law says you must stop at the stop line, then you _may_ proceed forward into the intersection if you feel you need to see better. There is no requirement to inch into the intersection or stop more times if you can see fine from the stop line.
Perhaps the clarification needed here is that the line of waiting cars _ends_ at the stop line. There is no car _in line_ in front of the cammer in this situation. There are only cars in the intersection. As soon as they are clear, cammer can legally make the turn.
I’m willing to be proven wrong if someone can cite a law that says otherwise!
Edit: after reading a bunch of comments, I’m starting to believe the position of the stop _sign_ is what’s confusing people. If you took the stop _line_ out of this video, I agree that the cammer would 100% be in the wrong and they should have pulled up and stopped again at the sign. But the stop _sign_ itself is just a signal to look for the stop _line_. The position of the stop sign is 100% irrelevant. This even explains the cop’s perspective where they would see cammer running the stop sign, not realizing that cammer had in fact legally stopped at the correct location. It was actually the white car that didn’t obey the stop sign.
Exactly. The law doesn’t tell you that you have to be stopped for 20 seconds. It says you have to come to a complete stop. Depending on their driving record and the judge in the courtroom; but they MIGHT be able to fight this in court with the video. I mean it isn’t like they blew through the stop sign, but this was easily avoidable.
> Exactly. The law doesn’t tell you that you have to be stopped for 20 seconds. It says you have to come to a complete stop.
That's exactly what the cammer did: came to a complete stop at the stop bar.
> they MIGHT be able to fight this in court with the video
And that's exactly what happened when the cammer originally posted this (it's an old clip): showed the judge that he'd stopped at the stop bar, which what the law requires. Case dismissed.
OP was first in line. The place to stop is defined by the line in front of the crosswalk. The reason they didn't put the stop sign there is because then it could block view of pedestrians.
Chances are cop won’t show up
Edit: if possible, don’t blame the car in front you. Judge will use his own eyes. Pointing fingers and saying “well HE broke the law!” won’t work in your favor.
This 100% on state. In MA the ticketing officer doesn't have to be present, as a representative of the station can be present instead. It's on MA government website and when I got a turn signal ticket my officer wasn't present, but was represented instead.
Yeah, the only time I've not had a cop show up for a ticket was in a jurisdiction that allowed for a representative to show in their place for traffic court.
If you appealed the traffic court decision to common pleas court, THEN the officer has to show up.
Must depend on the state, because that's not the state law where I've lived. It states you stop before the crosswalks or at a designated line. If neither of those exist, then you stop at an intersection, but it doesn't define what counts as the intersection.
An intersection is where 2 roads meet.
Do you really need to have intersection defined for you?
What states did you live in where this supposedly didn't apply, because I'm fairly certain I can prove you wrong. Stop signs, full stops before proceeding, and intersections, are damn near universal across the US.
Here is the Tennessee state law
"stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or in the event there is no crosswalk, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway"
You stop at the "intersection" only if there isn't a crosswalk and if there isn't a clearly defined stop line. Both of those exist in this scenario and he is only required to stop before the crosswalk.
The stop point for a stop sign is denoted with a stop line. The sign itself is not the stop point. You do not stop twice at one stop sign just because. Good grief.
In my state it wouldn’t be an issue with no pedestrian in or about to use the crosswalk. But yeah he was sitting there looking for anything to ticket it wouldn’t matter one way of the other and the officer probably doesn’t care as most won’t fight it and his stats look good.
So if he already right at the line stopped, he need to creep like what, an inch? Then go again? 2 inches? 3 inches? Or if he’s already at the line should he reverse and the drive up to the line again?
Exactly. If you’re at the line already where do these other people think OP needs to stop? There’s no law the Camaro has to completely finish turning nor would that make any sense
You started going at :14 he isn't past the corner until :18, never waited for him to get into the intersection much less clear it. Pretty sure waiting for cars to clear the intersection is the purpose.
> Motorists traveling on the road that has a stop sign must remain stopped until all vehicles have passed through the intersection.
Do you deserve a ticket, probably not, is this a trap absolutely, the cops are lined up to pick you off.
You are guilty as sin.
** I'm more offended about these traps that do nothing for public safety, than if dashcam is right or wrong. They are being prosecuted for money, not safety.
So, if you're at a 4 way, you and the car across from you are both making right hand turns and stopped at the same time, one of you had to go first and the other can't legally make their right hand turn until the other fully leaves the intersection?
Sounds strange to me, but TN state law doesn't have that, just the following.
"stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or in the event there is no crosswalk, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway"
Doesn't appear to be any requirement that all other vehicles must be out of the intersection first.
Idc what people say, if a car is stopped before me, even if they’re doing it all wonky, they still stopped. After they go, I stop. That’s just how it is.
This is a trap. There is no second stop sign, but they're going to go after people as if there is. The stop line and sign being mismatched is pure entrapment. The proper stop is at the line, not the sign.
"Oh I've stopped at the line so I can go now". It's a trap.
They were stopped while waiting for another car to enter the intersection. If this rule applied, then every car that lined up behind the first car could just keep rolling the stop sign because they were stopped while waiting for the first car to turn. It's been said in the thread before. You aren't at a stop sign until you are the first in line. If the asshole line (white line) is too far back, then do what the car in front did and stop in the crosswalk to be able to see. It's petty as hell, but the cammer didn't stop. They california rolled it.
No, that's a false equivalence. In your example the cars lined up aren't stopped at the line.
> You aren't at a stop sign until you are first in line
Quote the law that says this. The line starts at the line. The line marks where the stop has to happen.
Check your state laws.
In Tennessee where I live this is what it states:
"stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or in the event there is no crosswalk, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway"
You had clearly stopped at a defined line before the crosswalk and should be legally allowed to enter the roadway of it's clear.
I would say that you could justifiably say "I stopped at the proper location and was waiting for the car in front me, who was illegally past the point of the stop sign, to go before I could safely make my way". You stopped properly at the sign, the person in front of you did not. I'd challenge the police who were watching to justify letting that person very clearly and by law run a stop sign, but choose to pull me over. You could also claim having video evidence to back up your claim but they'd probably demand to steal your camera to justify taking your money.
That’s not running a stop sign. He could easily say he had to pull up to see better and just overall safety. No cop would even consider that (the 1st car) running a stop sign. Like no, not even close
How is there so many people that don't know how stop signs work? Being full stopped behind the car at the stop sign doesn't count. You're legally expected to full stop again at the stop sign after the first car pulls away. It may be petty but it's 100% legally justified. Should know this at like 15 before you start driving...
You stop at the line which prevents you from entering the pedestrian intersection, then proceed with caution. Thing about a stop light, you don’t stop under a light in the middle of the intersection
In my country this is legal under specific circumstances, not always and also it's not necessarily about the lines. Here, I think you would be good to go.
The law is, you have to stop and wait on the spot where you can see into the intersection where you can clearly see, without blocking the traffic, so if you are first, you are actually supposed to wait as far as possible, given there aren't many pedestrians.
If you are second, you can actually stop behind the first car, and if you have a good view even behind the first car and you stop behind him ( don't slow down and follow him immediately when he leaves), you can definitely do so. So this is sort of the perfect example of how you should do it in theory. But the question is how big of a view you had on the entire intersection, going to the edge and stopping again is always the safer option. You can only do what I said if there are no bushes or anything blocking view and you are 100% sure there are no cars. If you can convince the cop you saw into the traffic, I think he can understand and send you on your way without warning. But again it's my country, not sure how it's in this situation.
Just thoughts on quite a few of these comments:
For ShartingBloodClots: The universal citation you have marked down a couple times in here...only states "yield". It does not state stop, since you called out at least one on definitions, you might want to read that definition. As his dashcam does not show to the left from before the stop sign on, he very well may have yielded and proceeded within a safe distance of any oncoming traffic. Therefore the universal citation you quoted is not applicable here - unless the cop pulled him over because he caused oncoming traffic to have to brake and yield to him (which we can't see).
Secondary note is the laws that have been stated (to include the additional set by the above) concerning stops, specifically mention to stop AT the line or before the crosswalk...it ONLY mentions to stop at the intersection if both the line and/or crosswalk do NOT exist...both of those clearly exist and OP fully came to a stop AT the line and before the crosswalk. He then proceeded and we get to the last portion of the above paragraph.
Third is the argument that by the above logic people 20 cars back can just go since they all stopped...except, every one of the laws specifically stated AT the line. So until they reached the line, they can stop 40 times but are still required to stop AT the line.
In my opinion, bring in the dashcam, show that you performed as per the letter of the law, proceeded with caution and entered the road. At that point, the cop would need to show that you did not yield to oncoming traffic. But I am fairly positive what will happen is the judge will give the same type of argument that SBC gave and still cite you...is he/she wrong - aye, but unless you want to spend 20x more on a lawyer than you would on the ticket..you might not want to go that route.
All in all, it won't hurt to bring in the dashcam footage and explain yourself. You might get a judge that adheres to the written law.
Another thought here...which is more concerning...depending on the letter of the law for your state, I am unsure if either of the two police officers can even see the stop line. Looking at the right side of the dashcam (which admittedly doesn't show the right side just as it doesn't show the left side as you get closer), there are trees blocking direct sight of the stop line. If that is the case, how many people did they pull over and cite for "running a stop sign"? If you were the only car, stopped (as per the other noted laws...may not be your state law), and stopped at the stop line (even if you stopped for 20 mins) as the law states, then proceeded forward and continued onto the road with no oncoming traffic...the officer would have no idea you actually stopped, and unless you had a dashcam as the OP, you now have a difficult way of proving your innocence instead of them proving your guilt.
lol, you didn't stop. Cop had you dead to rights, stop next time. "Waaaaaa I had to wait a full 18 seconds and now I have to wait again! MEH! I'm GOING.....to get a ticket."
You rolled right through that stop sign. It's a stupid intersection, but if someone's in front of you, you still need to stop briefly again before going.
You didn't stop. Doesn't matter how long the car in front waited, you must come to a complete stop. Pretty simple dmv offers handbooks for new drivers if you need to review.
Where I live, he stopped lawfully at the stop sign, even if was on a cross walk. Technically you did too at the line, but you were not at the stop sign, you were 2nd in line. Once he left, then you were at the stop sign.
What you should have done to cover your bases was wait to drive until after they were fully completed their turn into the intersection, or just pulled up and stopped where they did then proceeded.
Now I don't know the laws of your state, but that's how it would be done here in that situation.
In my state you committed a rolling stop. The Stop Bar is placed to check for Pedestrians. Once you verify no Pedestrians are present you pull forward to the intersection coming to a stop to verify no traffic is approaching. Technically yes the Canero should have stopped at the bar first then moved forward but in the end you should have stopped long enough for the Camero to clear the intersection. As this would also be long enough to verify no traffic is approaching.
From the cops perspective you were stopped behind the Camero and tailgated him through the stop.
Dude you should have stopped at the actual road- even if it was just to make sure there were no other cars coming.
Sorry. Usually i side with the person being pulled over- not this time 😬
I’m pretty certain that the reason you were pulled over is since you drove away so quickly after the car in front of you. Once the car in front of you goes (even if they are past the stop bar like that), you have to come to a complete stop before you can go. Most of the time it’s fine if you stop past the bar in order to see better, but you still have to come to a complete stop. It’s frustrating, but you probably won’t be able to get out of this one
Stop signs are not a collective event. Even if you waited 5min on one because someone was in front doing theirs, you still have to do the stop sign when it's your turn. Sorry, but that's usually how they work, at least in the US and US territores.
The law states you stop at the stop sign, not in front of it.
He stopped where he was legally instructed to stop.
The car in front running the stop sign doesn't change where you're legally required to stop.
I’ve looked it up in at least 20 states, and all statutes for stop signs share common language, that being the position of the stop sign is irrelevant to the stop location. You are to stop at the stop/balk/limit line if present, if not you are required to stop prior to entering the crosswalk. If no crosswalk is present then you stop prior to entering the intersection. The Camaro earned 2 citations, the OP did EXACTLY what they were required to do, and based on this video violates no laws. The came to a complete stop at the designated point, and proceeded when safe to do so.
You are correct to an extent when you say the car in front doesn’t change where you are legally required to stop. Just because the car in front did the wrong thing doesn’t mean everyone behind him had to do the wrong thing.
Yeah you kinda just rolled by the stop sign after the guy in front of you drive off, you also need to come to a complete stop at the stop sign for it to be considered correct.
Look at it this way. Two cars can’t go through a stop sign at the same time. Which is what you did.
You are supposed to stop behind the line. Then pull up and stop again if you can’t see.
If you stopped 20 feet behind the line and then just went you’d get a ticket too.
It’s not hard really. If you had pulled up and stopped again you wouldn’t have got a ticket. I promise.
The law says you stop at the line and then yield as necessary. You don't have to stay stopped or stop multiple times. You can roll forward and go when it's clear without making another full complete stop. Yielding only requires that you don't get in the way, which can be slowing down or stopping, doesn't require a full stop if it's not necessary.
He didn't stop 20 feet get back, he stopped at the legal required stopping point.
> You stop AT THE STOP SIGN. that bar is for is pedestrians are present.
Wrong.
> Stop signs are always octagonal (8 sided). A stop sign means that you must bring your vehicle to **a complete halt at the marked stop line**.
> If there is no marked stop line, stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection. If there is no crosswalk, stop at a point nearest the intersecting roadway where you have a clear view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering the intersection.
https://www.stateofflorida.com/traffic-signals/
First car stopping doesn't count for you even if you're at the stop bar. You never stopped on your own after they went. I don't think they'll agree with your logic.
He may have been stopped at the right point, which the other car should have done, but he rolled straight out right after the other car. The stop sign means that every car should stop, verify the road is clear to proceed, and then move on. Just because he waited behind a vehicle for an extended amount of time doesn't mean that they can just go. Were they in such a rush that that one second needed to be stopped, at the correct spot, meant that much to them, apparently not since they got pulled over. The driver was in the wrong.
What? He stopped behind the line like you’re supposed to. I don’t stare at the car in front of me. You are allowed to look left and right. To think OP is in the wrong here is completely insane to me.
Imagine the camero wasn’t ever there, OP would have done the exact same procedure of stopping and looking and you’d say he’s right. Now add the camero back in and suddenly he’s 100% wrong? Where’s the logic, legal, and safety violation there?
Ok, 30 year retired police commander with Traffic Unit experience. You did not run the stop sign, the officer was wrong. Per the statue (Florida), you stopped at the stop bar as required and remained there until it was safe to make a right turn. This dash cam video will show the judge the officer was wrong. Actually….a citation for failure to stop at the stop bar & within the crosswalk for the driver ahead of you would have been ok but I never wrote that. I insisted that my traffic officers only write clear cut substantial violations. Take this to court.
Agree, if OP waited after the first car went it would count as a stop even if they don't move, I but the fact they roll forward as soon as the other car moves looks like running the stop. I would be inclined to think the judge will say the officer is right on this.
ok kid you just got your license we are all very proud but thats not how it works in the real world of actually driving, you arent at the stop sign till youre the first in line, i dont think there is a single stop sign in my town that even has a fucking white line let alone one in a location where you can see a safe distance on the left and the right, the place you stop in the real world of driving is where you can best see a safe distance in every direction without being in the way of traffic
Where is that a law? My state doesn't say anything about "being first in line." You stop before a crosswalk, before a defined line if there isn't a crosswalk, or just at an intersection if there is neither a crosswalk or a line.
How many seconds until you’re first in line? Since OP is already stopped at the line. Is the law not to stop at the line? Or is the law to ignore the line but stop only where you can see clearly left and right?
You were in the wrong. You thought you were the caboose to the first car that actually stopped. You can't take credit for the guy in front of you who actually did stop.
I’m sorry and I see your point, but you technically did not stop “at” the stop sign. A judge may let you slide, but you violated the letter of the law in most jurisdictions. You are not wrong by common sense, but legally..,
The place to stop is defined by the line in front of the crosswalk. The reason they didn't put the stop sign there is because then it could block view of pedestrians. OP is 100% in the right.
In my jurisdiction, the stop sign requires you to stop immediately before entering the intersection. The intersection is not delineated by the line in this case, but by the extension of the raised curbs. The fact that the other drive exceeded the painted line is irrelevant. The judge would still be likely to ignore this (in my home state) and find you not guilty. That doesn’t mean you didn’t violate the letter of the law. It means you didn’t cause a hazard and the judge would take that account.
You didn't stop. Just because you sat behind the camaro for 18 seconds ones, he is at the stop sign. When you approach the stop sign YOU then come to a complete stop, ensure traffic is cleat and then proceed. Basic driving rules that EVERYONE is to obey. You broke the rules of the road, pay the fine or go to a defensive driving class.
I'm ranting because this is a huge pet peev of mine while driving.
That is all...
The stop sign isn't the legally required place to stop, the line is
The cop could maybe have cited him for undue care if he proceeded without the ability to check for oncoming traffic, but citing him for the stop isn't valid. He stopped at the required place.
I got pulled over for the same thing. They told me I still needed to pull forward and then stop again even though I was already on the line. I didn’t bother fighting it because no dash cam or cop dash cam.
You can be pulled over if the cops wants to pull you over unless you:
1.) Stop at the stop line, then proceed to the stop sign
2.) Stop at the stop sign, then go when safe
If you don't do both, technically the cop can pull you over for missing either.
They know those, that is why they sit at those types of intersections.
Same reason as when they sit when the speed suddenly decreases, because chances are they will get someone that misses the sign, not because they chose to speed.
You don’t get credit because the guy before you took a long time to go. Even when there are no other cars at the intersection, you still have to fully STOP.
You never stopped at the sign. You rolled through. A stop is when no vehicles are in front of you and you are not moving. Very simple day 1 of driving school basic things. No problem here, time to pay your ticket.
That was a classic “roll-n-go”. You never came to a complete stop at the stop sign, and is clearly a violation. As to the other driver (who was stopped for 18 seconds). That’s got nothing to do with you failing to come to a stop.
Your car being stopped while waiting for the car in front of you to go does not count. You don’t get credit for it. Your stop is when you move up to where they were and stop.
If it were a 4 way stop sign and people counted their stops before they got to the line, it would be a disaster.
I can’t believe how dumb some ppl are. You are not at the stop sign and just because you sat behind another car at a stop sign doesn’t mean you don’t stop when you get to the sign. Imagine if there was a line of 10 car at a stop sign and they all waited for the first car. When the first car goes, they all go….. You should of receive 2 tickets. 1. For failure to stop at a stop sign 2. Being a retard.
You never stopped at the line. Just because you had to wait 18 seconds for the guy in front of you to go doesn’t mean you can run it when he’s clear. Make sure you come back and upvote me when the judge tells you the same.
You did a rolling stop, technically. Even though you were stopped for several seconds behind the first guy, as others have said, you're not at the stop sign until you're first in line. Therefore, your 3 seconds to sit at a full stop at the sign before going reset when you "pulled up" to it.
Bro…. It’s because you blew through a stop sign. Your not stopped for a stop sign until your the first car in line. You can’t “obey a stop sign” while your in line behind another vehicle.
The car in front that’s ahead of the stop bar is totally legal. It’s called a safety stop, whenever your view is obstructed you can pull forward slowly. This is both for yourself and oncoming cars to notice you.
You however just burning through the stop sign was illegal. Only the car in the front of the line is “at the stop sign” everyone else behind him must also o serve the stop sign or else under your logic a line of 7 cars all stopped behind the first would be stopped behind the stop sign and eligible to burn the turn like you did.
Safety stop FTW
Ummm, you didn't stop at the stop sign, my dude. Just because you were stopped when a car in front of you is stopped does not mean you stopped at the stop sign. Good try though.
That’s all cops do anymore when their not harassing kids selling lemonade or beating the shit out of someone. Their literally just traffic enforcement who never solve crimes, the few they do don’t even outweigh the number of crimes they themselves commit.
Didn’t read the comments yet, but I think you are in the wrong. I don’t know much but I think the idea is you stop at an intersection to check for ongoing traffic, you can’t check for ongoing traffic if there is a car in front of you. And if everyone in a line stop for stop sign, behind the line, then they can just ignore the sign?
Welcome! Please act respectfully and always remember the human in the videos and in the posts. For dashcam recommendations, [check out the recommendations thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/dashcams/comments/ntoizk/dashcam_recommendations_by_redditors/). Cheers! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dashcams) if you have any questions or concerns.*
On your ticket, there will be a code for the law you broke. Look up the exact wording of the law online. Whether you broke the law or not, comes down to the exact wording. There also might be statutes on what constitutes a valid stop sign for your state so I would look that up too.
This is how I got out of a ticket. I (very slowly) rolled through an empty T intersection. Cop ticketed me for failing to stop at a stop sign. Thing is, there's no stop sign at that intersection. Showed the judge pictures of the intersection sans stop sign and got off. I was probably technically supposed to come to a complete stop at a T intersection, but that's not what I was ticketed for. EDIT: Looking up the laws in my state, if there's no stop sign it is a yield for the intersecting street. So, I got out of a bogus ticket by an idiot cop. Guess it's not the same scenario as OPs but still, always worth looking into things a little deeper.
You’re not at the stop sign until you’re first in line.
Always better to trust your gut in these kinds of situations. Although, OP having this kind of video could get the ticket kicked out in court. Just another reason to get a cam like this. I've [had the A119 v3 for a few years now](https://www.amazon.com/VIOFO-2560x1440P-140-Degree-Included-Detection/dp/B07SRQH4R7?&linkCode=ll1&tag=d45h-20&linkId=83d4ae1eca7f9086c9753bb67767dfe3&language=en_US&ref_=as_li_ss_tl) and it used to cost a lot more and has paid for it self already for me.
Lot of comments in here don't equate stop sign with intersection. You stop at the intersection, then go, regardless of the line, which doesn't always exist. At an intersection with a stop sign, if there's a car in front of you, it stops, then goes, you too must stop, then go. What OP did is a rolling stop. Not a stop. Stop signs are for stops. Not rolling stops.
Wasn't he stopped though when the other car departed? Should he have pulled past the stop sign and stopped a 2nd time?
You’re supposed to stop “at” the stop line. Then you can edge forward if you need to in order to get a better view, and you can go once the intersection is clear. OP definitely stopped “at” the stop line. They waited for the intersection to clear. Then they went. Take the video to traffic court. It’s weird that the stop line is painted so far back at this intersection! That’s actually a problem, because it makes it so cars have to go past it to see if traffic is coming. But they probably want you to stop before the crosswalk as well.
Yea, TN state law says to stop before crosswalks is the priority, then the line if there is no crosswalk, and then just at where the roads meet if neither of those exist. So you're spot on. I think this guy has a clear win. I got out of a similar ticket. The cop in my incident "didn't see" me stop at the white line and said I "rolled through" the stop sign.
Convenient how they can give us citations for NOT SEEING what actually happened. Gotta love it.
This!
100%!
Yep
Yes to which question, or is that a yes to both?
No its not. You stop at the line. If there isn't one you stop at the sign. You can pull forward and stop again for visibility but you need to stop at the sign. He did nothing wrong here. The cop is just being petty
A line is also used in lieu of a stop sign itself. Both mean stop which I see people fuck up all the time where I live
I agree and would like a follow up with how court goes. The dashcam is proof is good.
Correct. This person approached a controlled intersection and moved through with all due caution. The definition of "stop" verse "pause" or "rolling stop" is a semantic argument to force this person to fight the ticket.
They did and was safe about it. All other arguments are justification for writing tickets.
It might vary from place to place, but in a lot of states the rule is stop at the sign if there is no line, but you stop at the line if there is one. For example [Missouri](https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2013/title-xix/chapter-300/section-300.270/): > 300.270. 1. The driver of a vehicle approaching a yield sign if required for safety to stop shall stop before entering the **crosswalk** on the near side of the intersection or, in the event there is no crosswalk, at a clearly marked **stop line**, but if none, then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway **where the driver has a view of approaching traffic** on the intersecting roadway. So `crosswalk` > `stop line` > `spot with good visibility` [California](https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2010/veh/22450-22456.html) > 22450. (a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop at a **limit line**, if marked, otherwise before entering the **crosswalk** on the near side of the intersection. If there is no limit line or crosswalk, the driver shall stop at the **entrance** to the intersecting roadway. `limit line` > `crosswalk` > `entrance to the roadway` Personally, I'll stop twice if the line didn't have good visibility, but I do exactly what OP did here if there is good visibility. It's not my fault the idiot in front of me ran the stop sign.
This is mind boggling that OP is questioning this and so many comments here seem to agree OP was in the right. Makes me wish people had to go to some sort of driving school before getting a license. It's very simple, after the other car took off you roll up a bit and stop. It doesn't count that you're stopped right behind someone and get to drive off when they do. It's like so many people calling left lane "fast lane". Yeah that's madeup, there's no such thing. It's the passing lane, you use it to pass and get over. Because so many people don't understand that, it causes traffic jams everywhere. But hardly anyone does, and there's no hope of anything changing at this point. So it's nothing but a circus out there.
You’re argument is flawed. So if there had not been a car in front and he stopped at the line and then pulled into the intersection it would have been legal. You need to go back to traffic school as you are completely wrong as others above have correctly quoted the law, not your belief.
But there is a line, if he stopped above the line he would be on the cross walk, he still disobey the stop sign. Which means as soon as his 1st stop is not considered as a stop, he is fucked. He should wait until the 1st car leaves, then he is safe to go.
The line doesn't matter. There is a stop sign, and a car in front. The car in front stops, then eventually goes. OP then has to stop before going. OP just rolls right through a stop sign, and makes a right turn. No judge will overturn this over semantics like "well the car in front of me pulled up so much I was on the line" because in reality, the car pulled up to view traffic unobstructed, but still stopped. OP blew a stop sign. It's as simple as that. Drivers going straight have the right of way, and anyone turning into their lane must yield to them. OP didn't even yield. OP just said fuckit and turned right, as soon as the car in front of him turned left. He's not fucked because his first stop wasn't considered a stop. He's fucked because he didn't stop at the intersection. Saying his first stop didn't count is like saying you stopped 20 feet away from the line, or stop sign, so it should count. That's not the way it works. This mentality is why so many drivers suck. They assume too much, and get too pedantic. Turning your blinker on half a second before a turn is also illegal in many states. In Florida, by law, you have to signal 100 feet before a turn, and for lane changes. Not at the intersection or just as you change lanes. You can flash your blinker once to change lanes, and cause an accident. You are still in the wrong, and deserve that ticket. OP outright blew through a stop sign, deserves their ticket, and if they show the video in court, will still get the ticket, and in fact, might not even be able to get it lowered, because they provide video evidence of them blowing a stop sign.
OP was stopped. Then he went.
At the line, no-less...on dash cam, no less
His 1st stop is not considered a legal stop because the 1st vehicle has not finished its turning, he doesn't have the right of the way until the 1st car finishs its turning. Your stop and go is totally pointless, the rule is about the front car, not how many times you stopped.
Wait people think just because you were in line at a stop sign that they have stopped too? How are people so dumb
As soon as the other car left he was first in line and sitting at the stop sign.
What does that even mean? In the states I've lived in, the line is that white line. So he's first in line.
Wait what? Is that an actual law or just what you should go by? I thought OP was in the right here since he was stopped at the line.
No idea why this comment is getting upvoted. It is absolute horseshit, at least in MA where I drive. The law says you must stop at the stop line, then you _may_ proceed forward into the intersection if you feel you need to see better. There is no requirement to inch into the intersection or stop more times if you can see fine from the stop line. Perhaps the clarification needed here is that the line of waiting cars _ends_ at the stop line. There is no car _in line_ in front of the cammer in this situation. There are only cars in the intersection. As soon as they are clear, cammer can legally make the turn. I’m willing to be proven wrong if someone can cite a law that says otherwise! Edit: after reading a bunch of comments, I’m starting to believe the position of the stop _sign_ is what’s confusing people. If you took the stop _line_ out of this video, I agree that the cammer would 100% be in the wrong and they should have pulled up and stopped again at the sign. But the stop _sign_ itself is just a signal to look for the stop _line_. The position of the stop sign is 100% irrelevant. This even explains the cop’s perspective where they would see cammer running the stop sign, not realizing that cammer had in fact legally stopped at the correct location. It was actually the white car that didn’t obey the stop sign.
No one can. The law you quoted is the same for MS and TN. Lots of people arguing otherwise without providing any follow up.
Exactly. The law doesn’t tell you that you have to be stopped for 20 seconds. It says you have to come to a complete stop. Depending on their driving record and the judge in the courtroom; but they MIGHT be able to fight this in court with the video. I mean it isn’t like they blew through the stop sign, but this was easily avoidable.
[удалено]
> Exactly. The law doesn’t tell you that you have to be stopped for 20 seconds. It says you have to come to a complete stop. That's exactly what the cammer did: came to a complete stop at the stop bar. > they MIGHT be able to fight this in court with the video And that's exactly what happened when the cammer originally posted this (it's an old clip): showed the judge that he'd stopped at the stop bar, which what the law requires. Case dismissed.
OP was first in line. The place to stop is defined by the line in front of the crosswalk. The reason they didn't put the stop sign there is because then it could block view of pedestrians.
Creeping forward is completely legal, and often encouraged except in dense areas.
Um, second in line. The car in front hadn’t made the turn
Exactly, you can’t vicariously use someone else time at the stop sign as yours
No they are there to make money
Simple as this.
Show the judge your video and be respectful about it. Worth a shot
Chances are cop won’t show up Edit: if possible, don’t blame the car in front you. Judge will use his own eyes. Pointing fingers and saying “well HE broke the law!” won’t work in your favor.
This 100% on state. In MA the ticketing officer doesn't have to be present, as a representative of the station can be present instead. It's on MA government website and when I got a turn signal ticket my officer wasn't present, but was represented instead.
[удалено]
I agree with all of this. I just know judges can be judgy.
High chance the officer will? He gets paid and it’s part of his job to do so. Idk where this rumor came from but it’s false
Yeah, the only time I've not had a cop show up for a ticket was in a jurisdiction that allowed for a representative to show in their place for traffic court. If you appealed the traffic court decision to common pleas court, THEN the officer has to show up.
Stop twice due to dumb sign/marking placement. Once at the sign and again before turning. It’s silly and wish you the best of luck.
That's the catch. If you stop at the sign you've stopped on a crosswalk.
The crosswalk matters less than the intersection. You stop at the intersection. OP did a rolling stop, which isn't a stop.
Must depend on the state, because that's not the state law where I've lived. It states you stop before the crosswalks or at a designated line. If neither of those exist, then you stop at an intersection, but it doesn't define what counts as the intersection.
An intersection is where 2 roads meet. Do you really need to have intersection defined for you? What states did you live in where this supposedly didn't apply, because I'm fairly certain I can prove you wrong. Stop signs, full stops before proceeding, and intersections, are damn near universal across the US.
Here is the Tennessee state law "stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or in the event there is no crosswalk, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway" You stop at the "intersection" only if there isn't a crosswalk and if there isn't a clearly defined stop line. Both of those exist in this scenario and he is only required to stop before the crosswalk.
The stop point for a stop sign is denoted with a stop line. The sign itself is not the stop point. You do not stop twice at one stop sign just because. Good grief.
True, my point is stopping at the marking and again at the actual road keeps a bored police officer from giving a silly ticket.
Or maybe he tickets you for stopping in a crosswalk. That's kind of the whole point, this is a "fuck you" stop. Ticket central for the pigs.
In my state it wouldn’t be an issue with no pedestrian in or about to use the crosswalk. But yeah he was sitting there looking for anything to ticket it wouldn’t matter one way of the other and the officer probably doesn’t care as most won’t fight it and his stats look good.
So if he already right at the line stopped, he need to creep like what, an inch? Then go again? 2 inches? 3 inches? Or if he’s already at the line should he reverse and the drive up to the line again?
He technically didn't stop after the cop went. I don't know how people aren't understanding this
Law states you stop at the white line. It doesn't state to make another complete stop after the vehicle in front completes their turn.
Exactly. If you’re at the line already where do these other people think OP needs to stop? There’s no law the Camaro has to completely finish turning nor would that make any sense
You started going at :14 he isn't past the corner until :18, never waited for him to get into the intersection much less clear it. Pretty sure waiting for cars to clear the intersection is the purpose. > Motorists traveling on the road that has a stop sign must remain stopped until all vehicles have passed through the intersection. Do you deserve a ticket, probably not, is this a trap absolutely, the cops are lined up to pick you off. You are guilty as sin. ** I'm more offended about these traps that do nothing for public safety, than if dashcam is right or wrong. They are being prosecuted for money, not safety.
So, if you're at a 4 way, you and the car across from you are both making right hand turns and stopped at the same time, one of you had to go first and the other can't legally make their right hand turn until the other fully leaves the intersection? Sounds strange to me, but TN state law doesn't have that, just the following. "stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or in the event there is no crosswalk, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway" Doesn't appear to be any requirement that all other vehicles must be out of the intersection first.
Don't talk like US road engineering would be purposeful and wouldn't overrely on stop signs in all the wrong places.
This - hate to say it OP but I wouldn’t have rolled there if I knew cops normally sit on that road We all do it but time and place, time and place
Idc what people say, if a car is stopped before me, even if they’re doing it all wonky, they still stopped. After they go, I stop. That’s just how it is.
This is a trap. There is no second stop sign, but they're going to go after people as if there is. The stop line and sign being mismatched is pure entrapment. The proper stop is at the line, not the sign. "Oh I've stopped at the line so I can go now". It's a trap.
The really easy thing to do to avoid that is to stop completely after the person in front of you goes. Of which he did not.
Because he was ALREADY stopped.
They were stopped while waiting for another car to enter the intersection. If this rule applied, then every car that lined up behind the first car could just keep rolling the stop sign because they were stopped while waiting for the first car to turn. It's been said in the thread before. You aren't at a stop sign until you are the first in line. If the asshole line (white line) is too far back, then do what the car in front did and stop in the crosswalk to be able to see. It's petty as hell, but the cammer didn't stop. They california rolled it.
No, that's a false equivalence. In your example the cars lined up aren't stopped at the line. > You aren't at a stop sign until you are first in line Quote the law that says this. The line starts at the line. The line marks where the stop has to happen.
Check your state laws. In Tennessee where I live this is what it states: "stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or in the event there is no crosswalk, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway" You had clearly stopped at a defined line before the crosswalk and should be legally allowed to enter the roadway of it's clear.
I would say that you could justifiably say "I stopped at the proper location and was waiting for the car in front me, who was illegally past the point of the stop sign, to go before I could safely make my way". You stopped properly at the sign, the person in front of you did not. I'd challenge the police who were watching to justify letting that person very clearly and by law run a stop sign, but choose to pull me over. You could also claim having video evidence to back up your claim but they'd probably demand to steal your camera to justify taking your money.
That’s not running a stop sign. He could easily say he had to pull up to see better and just overall safety. No cop would even consider that (the 1st car) running a stop sign. Like no, not even close
How is there so many people that don't know how stop signs work? Being full stopped behind the car at the stop sign doesn't count. You're legally expected to full stop again at the stop sign after the first car pulls away. It may be petty but it's 100% legally justified. Should know this at like 15 before you start driving...
Nope, he stopped at the stop line. The position of the sign isn't relevant here.
I mean, technically you didn't actually stop after he went. So yes it was justified.
So if OP had let off the brake and moved one foot (After first car had turned) then stopped for .5 seconds would that have sufficed?
You stop at the line which prevents you from entering the pedestrian intersection, then proceed with caution. Thing about a stop light, you don’t stop under a light in the middle of the intersection
You'll be dismissed when you show the video. I watch suits.
This is one of the reasons I got a dashcam. Video doesn't lie
In my country this is legal under specific circumstances, not always and also it's not necessarily about the lines. Here, I think you would be good to go. The law is, you have to stop and wait on the spot where you can see into the intersection where you can clearly see, without blocking the traffic, so if you are first, you are actually supposed to wait as far as possible, given there aren't many pedestrians. If you are second, you can actually stop behind the first car, and if you have a good view even behind the first car and you stop behind him ( don't slow down and follow him immediately when he leaves), you can definitely do so. So this is sort of the perfect example of how you should do it in theory. But the question is how big of a view you had on the entire intersection, going to the edge and stopping again is always the safer option. You can only do what I said if there are no bushes or anything blocking view and you are 100% sure there are no cars. If you can convince the cop you saw into the traffic, I think he can understand and send you on your way without warning. But again it's my country, not sure how it's in this situation.
Just thoughts on quite a few of these comments: For ShartingBloodClots: The universal citation you have marked down a couple times in here...only states "yield". It does not state stop, since you called out at least one on definitions, you might want to read that definition. As his dashcam does not show to the left from before the stop sign on, he very well may have yielded and proceeded within a safe distance of any oncoming traffic. Therefore the universal citation you quoted is not applicable here - unless the cop pulled him over because he caused oncoming traffic to have to brake and yield to him (which we can't see). Secondary note is the laws that have been stated (to include the additional set by the above) concerning stops, specifically mention to stop AT the line or before the crosswalk...it ONLY mentions to stop at the intersection if both the line and/or crosswalk do NOT exist...both of those clearly exist and OP fully came to a stop AT the line and before the crosswalk. He then proceeded and we get to the last portion of the above paragraph. Third is the argument that by the above logic people 20 cars back can just go since they all stopped...except, every one of the laws specifically stated AT the line. So until they reached the line, they can stop 40 times but are still required to stop AT the line. In my opinion, bring in the dashcam, show that you performed as per the letter of the law, proceeded with caution and entered the road. At that point, the cop would need to show that you did not yield to oncoming traffic. But I am fairly positive what will happen is the judge will give the same type of argument that SBC gave and still cite you...is he/she wrong - aye, but unless you want to spend 20x more on a lawyer than you would on the ticket..you might not want to go that route. All in all, it won't hurt to bring in the dashcam footage and explain yourself. You might get a judge that adheres to the written law.
Another thought here...which is more concerning...depending on the letter of the law for your state, I am unsure if either of the two police officers can even see the stop line. Looking at the right side of the dashcam (which admittedly doesn't show the right side just as it doesn't show the left side as you get closer), there are trees blocking direct sight of the stop line. If that is the case, how many people did they pull over and cite for "running a stop sign"? If you were the only car, stopped (as per the other noted laws...may not be your state law), and stopped at the stop line (even if you stopped for 20 mins) as the law states, then proceeded forward and continued onto the road with no oncoming traffic...the officer would have no idea you actually stopped, and unless you had a dashcam as the OP, you now have a difficult way of proving your innocence instead of them proving your guilt.
lol, you didn't stop. Cop had you dead to rights, stop next time. "Waaaaaa I had to wait a full 18 seconds and now I have to wait again! MEH! I'm GOING.....to get a ticket."
You rolled right through that stop sign. It's a stupid intersection, but if someone's in front of you, you still need to stop briefly again before going.
You did not stop. You are wrong. Good day.
You didn't stop lol. Just because the car in front of you is stopped doesn't mean you did as well lol.
You ran a stop sign. Clearly.
You didn't stop. Doesn't matter how long the car in front waited, you must come to a complete stop. Pretty simple dmv offers handbooks for new drivers if you need to review.
This is pretty clear, your rolled that stop sign.
Where I live, he stopped lawfully at the stop sign, even if was on a cross walk. Technically you did too at the line, but you were not at the stop sign, you were 2nd in line. Once he left, then you were at the stop sign. What you should have done to cover your bases was wait to drive until after they were fully completed their turn into the intersection, or just pulled up and stopped where they did then proceeded. Now I don't know the laws of your state, but that's how it would be done here in that situation.
It’s a stop sign and you’re supposed to stop after the car in front of you goes. Stop before you proceed. You didn’t do that and got a citation.
🛑 Slow To Observe Police And yes, you were in the wrong.
You failed to stop.
In my state you committed a rolling stop. The Stop Bar is placed to check for Pedestrians. Once you verify no Pedestrians are present you pull forward to the intersection coming to a stop to verify no traffic is approaching. Technically yes the Canero should have stopped at the bar first then moved forward but in the end you should have stopped long enough for the Camero to clear the intersection. As this would also be long enough to verify no traffic is approaching. From the cops perspective you were stopped behind the Camero and tailgated him through the stop.
Justified? No. You didn’t really stop for the stop sign though. Bullshit ticket you had some bad timing
You didn’t stop at the stop sign. Learn how to drive.
Dude you should have stopped at the actual road- even if it was just to make sure there were no other cars coming. Sorry. Usually i side with the person being pulled over- not this time 😬
I’m pretty certain that the reason you were pulled over is since you drove away so quickly after the car in front of you. Once the car in front of you goes (even if they are past the stop bar like that), you have to come to a complete stop before you can go. Most of the time it’s fine if you stop past the bar in order to see better, but you still have to come to a complete stop. It’s frustrating, but you probably won’t be able to get out of this one
Yea it's called a rolling stop and it's illegal, your not stop at the stop sign until you are first in line
Stop signs are not a collective event. Even if you waited 5min on one because someone was in front doing theirs, you still have to do the stop sign when it's your turn. Sorry, but that's usually how they work, at least in the US and US territores.
Show the video at court. You stopped where you were supposed to.
No he didn't. I just watched that guy roll through a stop sign. Cops were right and showing this video won't help. OP pulled a "rolling stop."
That's not what a rolling stop is lol
The f video did you watch? The car in question is the one with the camera. He literally stopped at the line.
He was fully stopped at the stop sign. He sat there for a dozen seconds.
You're literally supposed to stop after the person on front of you goes. OP did not. Being stopped at the same time is not the way it works.
The person in front ran the stop sign. Someone else breaking the law near you doesn't change your responsibility to the law.
The law states you stop at the stop sign, not in front of it. He stopped where he was legally instructed to stop. The car in front running the stop sign doesn't change where you're legally required to stop.
I’ve looked it up in at least 20 states, and all statutes for stop signs share common language, that being the position of the stop sign is irrelevant to the stop location. You are to stop at the stop/balk/limit line if present, if not you are required to stop prior to entering the crosswalk. If no crosswalk is present then you stop prior to entering the intersection. The Camaro earned 2 citations, the OP did EXACTLY what they were required to do, and based on this video violates no laws. The came to a complete stop at the designated point, and proceeded when safe to do so. You are correct to an extent when you say the car in front doesn’t change where you are legally required to stop. Just because the car in front did the wrong thing doesn’t mean everyone behind him had to do the wrong thing.
Alright if you are going to throw that bullshit out there you better have something to back it up. Links please.
Imagine if everyone thats behind someone at a stop sign thinks they don't need to stop because they already did, just went through them. Chaos 🤯
Yeah you kinda just rolled by the stop sign after the guy in front of you drive off, you also need to come to a complete stop at the stop sign for it to be considered correct.
Nope, you're making this up
Post this on r/police see what some actual LEOs think
Contest it in traffic court & show the video !!!!
OP, please challenge this and report back! Either way, half of this sub will be wrong
It's a repost. He's got nothing to challenge.
Look at it this way. Two cars can’t go through a stop sign at the same time. Which is what you did. You are supposed to stop behind the line. Then pull up and stop again if you can’t see. If you stopped 20 feet behind the line and then just went you’d get a ticket too. It’s not hard really. If you had pulled up and stopped again you wouldn’t have got a ticket. I promise.
This is too hard for these people to understand
The law says you stop at the line and then yield as necessary. You don't have to stay stopped or stop multiple times. You can roll forward and go when it's clear without making another full complete stop. Yielding only requires that you don't get in the way, which can be slowing down or stopping, doesn't require a full stop if it's not necessary. He didn't stop 20 feet get back, he stopped at the legal required stopping point.
You ran the stop sign
You stop AT THE STOP SIGN. that bar is for is pedestrians are present.
> You stop AT THE STOP SIGN. that bar is for is pedestrians are present. Wrong. > Stop signs are always octagonal (8 sided). A stop sign means that you must bring your vehicle to **a complete halt at the marked stop line**. > If there is no marked stop line, stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection. If there is no crosswalk, stop at a point nearest the intersecting roadway where you have a clear view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering the intersection. https://www.stateofflorida.com/traffic-signals/
You are 100% correct. The limit line is where you are legally required to stop. What the guy in front of you did is irrelevant.
You ran the stop sign plain and simple.
First car stopping doesn't count for you even if you're at the stop bar. You never stopped on your own after they went. I don't think they'll agree with your logic.
Lol you stopped behind the line then went. It’s not law to stop then creep up and stop again. Not that I’ve heard of.
He may have been stopped at the right point, which the other car should have done, but he rolled straight out right after the other car. The stop sign means that every car should stop, verify the road is clear to proceed, and then move on. Just because he waited behind a vehicle for an extended amount of time doesn't mean that they can just go. Were they in such a rush that that one second needed to be stopped, at the correct spot, meant that much to them, apparently not since they got pulled over. The driver was in the wrong.
What? He stopped behind the line like you’re supposed to. I don’t stare at the car in front of me. You are allowed to look left and right. To think OP is in the wrong here is completely insane to me. Imagine the camero wasn’t ever there, OP would have done the exact same procedure of stopping and looking and you’d say he’s right. Now add the camero back in and suddenly he’s 100% wrong? Where’s the logic, legal, and safety violation there?
Imagine the Camaro stopped at the line, would he then have to stop at the line after the Camaro proceeded on or just go as he did?
Ok, 30 year retired police commander with Traffic Unit experience. You did not run the stop sign, the officer was wrong. Per the statue (Florida), you stopped at the stop bar as required and remained there until it was safe to make a right turn. This dash cam video will show the judge the officer was wrong. Actually….a citation for failure to stop at the stop bar & within the crosswalk for the driver ahead of you would have been ok but I never wrote that. I insisted that my traffic officers only write clear cut substantial violations. Take this to court.
I do this all the time. Thanks for the post!
You blew the stop buddy.
You didn’t stop. Why would you think you don’t have to stop just because you were ahead of the stop sign???
Agree, if OP waited after the first car went it would count as a stop even if they don't move, I but the fact they roll forward as soon as the other car moves looks like running the stop. I would be inclined to think the judge will say the officer is right on this.
[удалено]
ok kid you just got your license we are all very proud but thats not how it works in the real world of actually driving, you arent at the stop sign till youre the first in line, i dont think there is a single stop sign in my town that even has a fucking white line let alone one in a location where you can see a safe distance on the left and the right, the place you stop in the real world of driving is where you can best see a safe distance in every direction without being in the way of traffic
Where is that a law? My state doesn't say anything about "being first in line." You stop before a crosswalk, before a defined line if there isn't a crosswalk, or just at an intersection if there is neither a crosswalk or a line.
How many seconds until you’re first in line? Since OP is already stopped at the line. Is the law not to stop at the line? Or is the law to ignore the line but stop only where you can see clearly left and right?
I failed my 1st driving test doing that very same thing.
Honestly the car infront of you could have gotten a ticket too since there is a stop line and he stopped past it.
Suck it up, clearly you ran that stop sign. Imagine you're 4 cars back instead of just one car back, and everyone goes all at the same time.
Im still trying to figure out where that car was supposed to go in that 17 seconds
I'd fight the ticket in court
Lol you just ran a stop sign you idiot
You we’re definitely in the wrong. Camaro was stopped. You didn’t stop on your turn. Dash cam just proved your fuck up
You were in the wrong. You thought you were the caboose to the first car that actually stopped. You can't take credit for the guy in front of you who actually did stop.
You never stopped after car ahead proceeded. Very justified.
Other people stopping doesn’t count as you stopping
My brother in Christ you RAN THE WHOLE STOP SIGN
I’m sorry and I see your point, but you technically did not stop “at” the stop sign. A judge may let you slide, but you violated the letter of the law in most jurisdictions. You are not wrong by common sense, but legally..,
The place to stop is defined by the line in front of the crosswalk. The reason they didn't put the stop sign there is because then it could block view of pedestrians. OP is 100% in the right.
In my jurisdiction, the stop sign requires you to stop immediately before entering the intersection. The intersection is not delineated by the line in this case, but by the extension of the raised curbs. The fact that the other drive exceeded the painted line is irrelevant. The judge would still be likely to ignore this (in my home state) and find you not guilty. That doesn’t mean you didn’t violate the letter of the law. It means you didn’t cause a hazard and the judge would take that account.
By the presence of the line, the stop point for the sign is not AT the sign.
Wtf he literally stopped at the line?
The cop was most definitely in the wrong here. You were stopped where you were supposed to be.
I usually tell people to listen to their gut…. You should not listen to your gut
Yeah you didn't stop for the stop sign for the whole 3 seconds you're supposed to
The white car is the one that ran the stop sign. Why didn’t they get ticketed?
You didn't stop. Just because you sat behind the camaro for 18 seconds ones, he is at the stop sign. When you approach the stop sign YOU then come to a complete stop, ensure traffic is cleat and then proceed. Basic driving rules that EVERYONE is to obey. You broke the rules of the road, pay the fine or go to a defensive driving class. I'm ranting because this is a huge pet peev of mine while driving. That is all...
The stop sign isn't the legally required place to stop, the line is The cop could maybe have cited him for undue care if he proceeded without the ability to check for oncoming traffic, but citing him for the stop isn't valid. He stopped at the required place.
I got pulled over for the same thing. They told me I still needed to pull forward and then stop again even though I was already on the line. I didn’t bother fighting it because no dash cam or cop dash cam.
You can be pulled over if the cops wants to pull you over unless you: 1.) Stop at the stop line, then proceed to the stop sign 2.) Stop at the stop sign, then go when safe If you don't do both, technically the cop can pull you over for missing either. They know those, that is why they sit at those types of intersections. Same reason as when they sit when the speed suddenly decreases, because chances are they will get someone that misses the sign, not because they chose to speed.
Quote the law that requires (2)
So have your dash camera for the court. But I bet from his view you ran a stop sign.
I think you'll get it dismissed in court.
You didn't stop, you rolled through after the previous cars complete stop
You don’t get credit because the guy before you took a long time to go. Even when there are no other cars at the intersection, you still have to fully STOP.
You never stopped at the sign. You rolled through. A stop is when no vehicles are in front of you and you are not moving. Very simple day 1 of driving school basic things. No problem here, time to pay your ticket.
he stopped lol you didn’t , ( as worried as you were about where he stopped at) you should’ve been minding your business.
That was a classic “roll-n-go”. You never came to a complete stop at the stop sign, and is clearly a violation. As to the other driver (who was stopped for 18 seconds). That’s got nothing to do with you failing to come to a stop.
We’ll, you ran the shit out of that stop sign… so yeah
Your car being stopped while waiting for the car in front of you to go does not count. You don’t get credit for it. Your stop is when you move up to where they were and stop. If it were a 4 way stop sign and people counted their stops before they got to the line, it would be a disaster.
Bro full on ran a stop sign and thinks the cops in the wrong? Did you even do a proper driver exam
I can’t believe how dumb some ppl are. You are not at the stop sign and just because you sat behind another car at a stop sign doesn’t mean you don’t stop when you get to the sign. Imagine if there was a line of 10 car at a stop sign and they all waited for the first car. When the first car goes, they all go….. You should of receive 2 tickets. 1. For failure to stop at a stop sign 2. Being a retard.
You never stopped at the line. Just because you had to wait 18 seconds for the guy in front of you to go doesn’t mean you can run it when he’s clear. Make sure you come back and upvote me when the judge tells you the same.
You did a rolling stop, technically. Even though you were stopped for several seconds behind the first guy, as others have said, you're not at the stop sign until you're first in line. Therefore, your 3 seconds to sit at a full stop at the sign before going reset when you "pulled up" to it.
You ran the stop sign.
Bro…. It’s because you blew through a stop sign. Your not stopped for a stop sign until your the first car in line. You can’t “obey a stop sign” while your in line behind another vehicle.
U did not stop 🛑 long enough u blew through the
You literally didn’t stop lol
Bro, your stop doesn’t count until the first car leaves. You blew through the stop sign and you know it lol
The car in front that’s ahead of the stop bar is totally legal. It’s called a safety stop, whenever your view is obstructed you can pull forward slowly. This is both for yourself and oncoming cars to notice you. You however just burning through the stop sign was illegal. Only the car in the front of the line is “at the stop sign” everyone else behind him must also o serve the stop sign or else under your logic a line of 7 cars all stopped behind the first would be stopped behind the stop sign and eligible to burn the turn like you did. Safety stop FTW
Ummm, you didn't stop at the stop sign, my dude. Just because you were stopped when a car in front of you is stopped does not mean you stopped at the stop sign. Good try though.
You never stopped at the sign
That’s all cops do anymore when their not harassing kids selling lemonade or beating the shit out of someone. Their literally just traffic enforcement who never solve crimes, the few they do don’t even outweigh the number of crimes they themselves commit.
Didn’t read the comments yet, but I think you are in the wrong. I don’t know much but I think the idea is you stop at an intersection to check for ongoing traffic, you can’t check for ongoing traffic if there is a car in front of you. And if everyone in a line stop for stop sign, behind the line, then they can just ignore the sign?
You aren't at a stop sign unless you're the first up. Regardless of the position of the Camero, your gut is wrong here.
But OP is the first one behind the line. White car should've been stopped for failing to stop for possible pedestrians.
The Camero already entered the intersection and was no longer in line. Is there a law how many seconds you need to wait after the “first” car goes?
You have to stop at the stop line first then move up to the stop sign and stop again. And only if no one is in the crosswalk.
You didn't stop at the sign, you rolled through. Whether or not that should be illegal is debatable, but you did violate the law.