If a signal person in California tells me to kill someone, do I have to do so?

Question

According to California sample written driving test (problem 6):

6. You see a signal person at a road construction site ahead. You should obey his or her instructions:

A. Only if you see orange cones on the road ahead.

B. Unless they conflict with existing signs, signals, or laws.

C. At all times.

C is the correct answer and B is marked as incorrect. So could a signal person tell me to kill someone? If they did and I did so, would I still get in trouble? I am following their instructions, and the test explicitly states that I should follow their instructions even if they conflict with existing laws.

Answer 1

You are not reading a law book here and you should not interpret a driving test so literally. It's quite clear that the question implies you should follow all of their instructions regarding how to proceed through traffic. Sometimes those instructions do involve "breaking laws" such as driving on the wrong side of the road or proceeding through a traffic signal that was not turned off. The B option clearly does not mean they have the power to disobey all laws in existence, only those concerning traffic as evidenced by the examples given.

You are not Sheldon Cooper and you should know how to interpret a vague question correctly. You are also not a gopher, and you can correctly deduce that crashing into another car or driving off the cliff into the water is not in your best interests, and that calling the police to report someone abusing their position is probably a good idea.

If you're concerned by the wording, try contacting the California DMV to have them clarify the wording.

Answer 2

Relevant law

California Vehicle Code 21100.3

It is unlawful for any person to disobey the traffic directions of a person appointed or authorized by a local authority to regulate traffic pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 21100¹ when such appointee is wearing an official insignia issued by the local authority and is acting in the course of his appointed duties.

Section 21954:

(a) Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway so near as to constitute an immediate hazard. (b) The provisions of this section shall not relieve the driver of a vehicle from the duty to exercise due care for the safety of any pedestrian upon a roadway.

Section 23103(a):

A person who drives a vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.

^{1. 21100 allows for the appointing of people to regulate "traffic at the site of road or street construction or maintenance by persons authorized for that duty by the local authority." I.e. Signal people}

Summary

So, you have to follow the direction of signal holders within the course of their appointed duties, but you cannot drive with willful or wanton disregard for the safety of other people. E.g. If they tell you to turn right, you follow the rules for turning right (checking for bikes, signalling, giving right of way to pedestrians, etc.).

You do not have to kill someone if a signal person tells you to. Telling you to kill someone is outside the authority of the signal person (not within the course of "appointed duties").

Answer 3

This question is meant to be within the scope of "using the road" - Option (B) is wrong where, for example, there is a traffic light stuck on red for all sides, and someone directing traffic.

If you were to kill someone because a person - even if a "signal person" (which is really just a person in some slightly special clothing) told you to, you would be criminally liable (probably for murder rather then manslaughter). They may also be criminally liable as well.

Answer 4

(Note: this is not a treatise on traffic law, but a general guideline, covered by the general spirit of traffic regulations like hinted at in Section 23103(a) quoted below. It should help the OP to sort his thoughts, not be used as base for a court case. It is meant to help the OP answer the question of whether a traffic rule can *make him kill a human*, not for minor cases like flinging pebbles...)

Background

Road traffic laws are a bit like air traffic laws in this respect: they hold true until lives or property are in severe danger. Then they turn from law into mere suggestion.

No single rule or combination of traffic rules can force you to do anything at all that damages other persons or property. If breaking a traffic rule is the only way to avoid damaging something or someone here and now, then you must break that rule. Taking lives or damaging property is against laws as well, and the other laws are more important since they have intrinsic value - there is no additional value to traffic laws except they help to regulate traffic (which means that they avoid danger and damage).

Section 23103(a) (as posted by @Dawn in her answer, thank you):

A person who drives a vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.

Answer

The guy in the yellow suit is just an extension of the traffic rules. He can tell you whatever he likes (just like an aircraft controller can tell the pilot whatever he likes), but you, the driver, have full responsibility over whatever happens. You must disobey the command of the yellow suit if it would lead to damage.

Answer 5

I have been in a situation where it was necessary to oppose a traffic directory (and he was a military traffic director at that). He was not only wrong but stupid wrong, and thankfully there were quite a few people willing to oppose him.

There is an implied duty of the traffic director to give reasonable directions. The duty was clearly violated so his authority went out the window.