Complaint Review: Ottawa County District Court - Grand Haven Michigan

I must say that I agree with Tim regarding the placement of the signs. I often travel to places I am unfamiliar with. If I approach an intersection on a red light, and I want to make a right turn on red, the FIRST thing I do is look for any signs that would indicate that right on red is not allowed. The area here is famous for them. I agree with their placement. Opposite side of the intersection, large enough to be visible by oncoming drivers. If it were placed on the near side of the intersection only, you could easily pass it up when making your turn without noticing it. As Tim pointed out, I too have been paying more attention the last few days. My observation has been that there were ALWAYS signs on the far side of the intersection, but only ocassionally on the near side. It all depended on the mechanics of the particular intersection. Tim says you could probably contest the ticket. I for one don't think it would do much good. But that's just my opinion.

I CERTAINLY agree with your assessment of the Tribune. That has got to be about the most worthless paper I have ever seen (outside of the Middleville "Sun and News"). I still, however, disagree with your assessment of the visibility of the signs. There is NO WAY that somebody reading those signs would think they were meant for people on the other side of the intersection: the people on the other side of the intersection are looking at the back of the sign! The signs are QUITE visible from the point of the turn. Having paid attention to this for a few days, I have noticed that EVERY "no turn on red" sign that I have seen is on the far side of the intersection! I have also noticed that, if the sign were on the near side, in most cases it would be harder to see. Furthermore, the phrase "at the point of the turn" (I know it was phrased differently) is quite open to interpretation. In fact, it has probably been interpreted as meaning "in a location clearly visible from the pertinent point." You put an awful lot of work into researching the law, which I certainly respect, but did you take the time to challenge the ticket in court? If not, do you still have the opportunity to do so? Aside from my criticism of your particular report, I do share your displeasure with the city government in GH. The GHDPS has some of the finest law enforcement officers in the state. Even in my negative run-ins with them I was always impressed with their professionalism (with the exception of one with the initials M.R., most people from GH probably know who I'm talking about). But I spent my adolescent and young adult years in GH. In that time I saw those fine officers used to enforce some of the most completely ridiculous ordinances known to man. Some cases in point: the "no loitering" signs hanging over the sidewalk by Harbourfront Place and the closure of the deck by Snug Harbor, both of which were entirely intended to keep young people from congregating; the amplified sound ordinance which is used almost entirely to keep out undesirable youths; the turn restriction on Jackson and Harbor which were put in place to keep people from crusing the strip; etc. Every one of these laws had three effects: 1) they caused decent cops to waste their time on petty garbage; 2) the good men and women of the GHDPS became the enemy in the eyes of local youth and younger tourists; and 3) they drove out the only tourists who actually spent any money! Great job city council, you drove out all the "hooligans," and now the town is full of cheap elderly tourists who leave lousy tips and don't buy anything! Wonderful idea for a town whose income is so dependent on tourism! Now you know why the downtown restaurants go out of business on a yearly basis: trendy restaurants can't survive in a market full of families and old people.

No matter how you shake it, right is right and wrong is wrong. If a person is held accountable by law then the law must be held accountable unto itself. This "sign issue" has been submitted many times in the past to "Letters to the Editor/Opinions" of the local reading rag, yet never printed. This "newspaper" ha, is known to be biased because it obtains many of its' juiciest stories (generally biased in themselves) from local government and the more affluent members of this community seeking to sway public opinion. But that is another story in itself. One rebuttal stated: "However, the intersection is small and the signs are large and quite noticable. If a driver doesn't see the signs in their current position, it is unlikely that he would see them if they were anywhere else, because he is probably not paying attention in the first place". Please note this rebuttal reporter intentionally went looking for these signs. Just happen to be driving through this intersection and the outcome may be different. In this instance the prohibitive signs are no larger or smaller than the average prohibitive traffic sign in this state. I agree this particular intersection is small, however it does see a tremendous amount of traffic at varying times of the day and it is at one of these busy times of the day that a turn on red is prohibited for 15 minutes. Although, if particulars are to be counted, the actual print restricting the turn at a particular time of day is quite a bit smaller than the rest of the print on the sign. So, if you happen to be at this intersection waiting for other traffic to clear so you can proceed and you "notice" the sign sitting further back at the far side of the intersection and decide that the sign relates to you (on the opposite side of the intersection) and read the small print and check your watch for the time... the light has since turned green and now you are impeading the flow of traffic. (my attempt at humor) One of the reasons state law regulates proper placement of traffic signs is to avoid confusing the driver of a motor vehicle. Confusion can lead to accidents. This is why the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code states the the 1st prohibitive sign be placed "at the point of turn" leaving no room for interpretation. As the signs are now (placed only at the far sides of the intersection), many drivers (concentrating on other traffic while avoiding everyday distractions) could assume the signs regulate something at the other side of the intersection and not pay particular attention to them. If the signs were "large and quite noticable", why would so many people (including myself)intentionally make a prohibited turn when most of the time there are police officers parked and obviously watching the intersection during this particular 15 minutes of the day? I hardly believe Grand Haven has an over abundance of "scofflaws" or "inattentive drivers". The signs are in the wrong place and have been for years, in violation of state law. Simple solution: Move them. Some people may think "all this over $65?". Well, while most may just blindly pay the citation, I believe those who have been placed in positions of trust and authority, who are paid (with our hard earned tax dollars) to do what is right should do just that, regardless of their own agenda. So yes, it is about the $65, but more so... a desire for an acknowledged, continuing small wrong to be made right by those entrusted to do so.

The reporter's characterization was, in fact, correct. The "no turn on red" signs are located on the far side of the intersection. However, the intersection is small and the signs are large and quite noticeable. If a driver doesn't see the signs in their current position, it is unlikely that he would see them if they were anywhere else, because he is probably not paying attention in the first place. But the reporter may have valid grounds to contest this ticket.

I lived in GH for twelve years and vist frequently. As far as I can recall, the "no turn on red" signs at Beechtree and Robbins are exactly where they should be. I'll be up there this weekend. If I'm wrong, I'll update my rebuttal.

Beechtree and Robbins Rd.