Name a common defense against traffic violations.

Demonstrating that the sign was obscured or that the driver was not at fault serves as a strong defense against traffic violation charges. This defense relies on objective evidence that can be presented in court, such as photographs or testimonies showing that a relevant traffic control device, like a stop sign or traffic signal, was obstructed by foliage, construction materials, or other obstructions.

Furthermore, the argument that a driver was not at fault implies that there were extenuating circumstances that led to the alleged violation, such as mechanical failure of the vehicle or unexpected actions of other road users, which would illustrate that the driver acted in accordance with reasonable judgment given the situation. This focus on factual circumstances surrounding the event can effectively challenge the prosecution's case and potentially lead to a dismissal or reduction of the charges.

While claiming a medical emergency may sometimes provide context for a driver's actions, it's typically less concrete than clearly demonstrating that a sign was obscured or a lack of fault in the situation. Stating that an officer was not in uniform lacks relevance to the legality of the traffic action being disputed, and arguing that traffic laws are unfair doesn't usually carry weight in a legal defense context, as it addresses the validity of the law rather than the specifics of the violation