Andrea Kelly Arizona Daily Star | Posted: Monday, February 22, 2010 12:00 am | 
The long-awaited result of Dianne Patterson's red-light-running case is here.
You may remember Patterson. In December, I wrote about her effort to fight a photo-enforcement citation for running the red light at North Oracle Road and West River Road.
She worked through many channels to find a way to fight her citation and eventually got the attention of the Federal Highway Administration. The administration decided the "violation lines" painted at the Tucson intersection, which included the word "wait," were not authorized in the federal standards for road markings.
Those lines are supposed to mark the point at which it is illegal to cross once the signal turns red. However, many drivers don't know the state law, which puts that line so far away from the stop line or the crosswalk at large intersections.
Patterson took her information to court to fight her ticket. Among other things, she argued that drivers don't know what the markings mean.
The judge wasn't swayed. Well, maybe he was, but he said she wasn't charged with ignoring that "violation line" she had contested. Whether the line should be there or not, she was charged with running a red light, said Tucson City Court Judge Mitchell Kagen.
"The evidence clearly shows Patterson entered the intersection after the traffic signal had cycled to solid red alone (no amber or green arrows)," Kagen wrote in his ruling.
When drivers don't know where they need to be to stay legal when the light turns red, the issue seems to expand beyond the light color and into the pavement markings. Of course, I'm no judge.
Patterson said she plans to appeal the decision, so this may not be the last word.