Traffic Court Motion to Dismiss

[HonkingAntelope]

TG, you may not like it, but the laws can and do change in line with major social changes. For example, check out this gem from Louisiana's Supreme Court circa 1899:

The husband of a woman cannot himself be guilty of an actual rape upon his wife, on account of the matrimonial consent which she has given, and which she cannot retract.

Obviously, this is no longer the case. There used to be a law that said women couldn't vote, either. How did that get changed then? Ditto the above for Jim Crow laws, which are no longer on the books.

My point still stands. If the maximum speed laws are so widely disregarded, and if strict compliance combined with unerring enforcement results in the sort of consequences Carl and others mentioned, the law is bad and needs to be changed. 15-20mph over 65 may not be commonplace, but even 1mph over is just illegal. The fact that it's not actively enforced unless you're 10+ over doesn't make it ok. Here in Bay Area, it's pretty common to see freeway speeds north of 80mph during non-commute hours. On 680, 90+ is not unusual.

As for "hotrods" in the 60s and 70s, that's when the 65mph limit actually made sense. The horsepower was there, but safety, suspension, and tire technologies on production cars were nowhere near the same level. The odds of tire or suspension failures and poor handling at higher speeds made higher speeds patently unsafe. Even if the engine was easily capable of accelerating the car to 150mph, most mass production cars in those days came with park bench seats, no seatbelts, leafspring suspensions, and donut tires. I'm not even mentioning stuff like airbags or traction control.

Nowadays, however, automotive technology has improved a notch or two, and the vast majority of vehicles and drivers can safely run at speeds well in excess of the absurdly low 65mph limit.

[That Guy]

TG, you may not like it, but the laws can and do change in line with major social changes. For example, check out this gem from Louisiana's Supreme Court circa 1899:

Obviously, this is no longer the case.

You're comparing ^that^ to you wanting to abolish speed limits?

There used to be a law that said women couldn't vote, either. How did that get changed then?

Double Ditto for the above and for you comparing "a woman's constitutional right to vote", with you wanting to abolish the speed limits?

And triple ditto for your Jim Crow laws example... Hell, you mentioned Louisiana... HA, when was the last time you were in Louisiana (and I'm not talking Mardi Gras and New Orleans)? How about Mississippi? And I mean no pun or insult towards anyone from either of those two states. I am simply using them as examples indicative of the simple lives that people live there and how their priorities are undoubtedly quite different as compared to one who lives in the Bay Area...

There is also quite the difference between the social influences that led to upholding numerous women's rights, and repealing laws that promoted segregation and discrimination, i.e. constitutional matters of equality and justice for all and the social divergence those issues might result in... All of that versus your being able to drive at any speed you wish simply because you disagree with the law, and only based on your own standard that you would qualify. I am yet to find ANY constitutional reference that would afford you such entitlement!!!

Lets assume that you can draw a comparison, tell me this, how big is this wave of social change that you're seeing, HA? And who'd behind it? And how soon are you realistically expecting this change to happen?

If it was limited to me liking it or not, then you can rest assured that I could care less about my ability to drive 85, 100 or 115 for that matter, and (no, I'm not bragging) I can show you citations from a couple of years back that will make you shriek. But that won't make a difference here because I now realize how stupid I had to have been for making the decisions I made back then!

Again, my concern is more about the select few who can not and should not even be allowed to pedal a bicycle, having the ability to get on a highway at the speed that you are yet to specify! Even you... you qualify yourself as being capable and yet you are unable to grasp the simple concept that excessive speed is on an inverse correlation to safety, and yet you set aside the whole matter of safety simply because its “fun” for you to drive like a bat out of hell! Heck, go out and spend a few hours on the track in your area... And look around because you'll always find a few out there who think they are professionals and yet as soon as they kick it in drive, and step off the clutch, you get this sinking feeling in your stomach. At which point, for me, it is “OMG, I'm out of here”!!!

And FWIW, I don't think Carl's point (regarding liability of a LEO/LEA versus that of an individual) was specific to maximum speed laws, so for you to build upon that in an attempt to justify your position, I'm not seeing it.

Additionally, and while you and Student continue to claim that 15 to 20 mph over the limit is normal, I still disagree. I drive a minimum of 45k miles a year (70% of it freeway driving) and I wished I could come close to agreeing with you. I will buy into an average of 10 over, and yes, I might periodically go 15 over but you can rest assured that when I do, I am the "leader of the pack", and that is a position that I now know better than to push my luck to be in. So I'll often back off and let some other fool be my decoy.

Let us for the sake of argument pretend that your ideas have some basis and a dialogue for change is ongoing. Do you think the federal government would be willing to increase (or is it abolish?) the national maximum limits simply based on the opinion of the few? Highly doubtful. You cited a case from Louisiana.... Do you think the people of the State of Louisiana would support the change you're making into a big huge issue? Dream on!

OK, skip a "change on the national level", lets talk "state level". Do you honestly think that California, in the current dire financial state it is in would be willing to forgo the federal highway funding it receives now simply because it is in compliance with the national 65 mph limit?

Lets look past that.... If anyone on this forum is supportive of the claim that speed enforcement is simply based upon the state's desire to stick its hands into everyone's pocket, that would have to be "you" (no pun intended). And yet you're suggesting it is a possibility that the state will abolish those maximum limits, and simply give up on the "revenue" (your description, not mine) that it collects when in fact the majority of citations issued in violation of those maximum limits are a guaranteed win for the state but only to please those select few (who, by the way, happen to be "the select few who are often caught exceeding the current limits")?

OK, leave that one aside... Do you think you, Student and the few others who would like to turn California's highways into the German Autobahn can butt heads with the insurance lobby that not only controls Sacramento, but has quite the grip over Washington DC as well? And a perfect example of the stone block wall that the insurance industry represents, is “national health care”... How many presidential terms has it taken for that idea to even come close to being a reality? And you better believe that the majority of American society would support some sort of “free coverage”. Not so much support for abolishing the speed limit though, or at least that's my assessment!

Speaking of insurance and here's your change to ignore my question a second time... Where do you think your premium rates will be if & when this social change will eventually cause those speed limit signs to come down?

You can argue social change as you please, you can offer case law citations from 120 years ago, you can continue to wish and hope for, but in reality, your dreams aren't realistic.

With all due respect, most people in this state have an agenda that is lacking of any mention of this issue, so while you can continue to push for change, and as you can continue your claim that social change will result in abolishing the maximum limits, keep in mind that others nowadays might have other priorities (like “finding a job” or “putting food” on their table) with speed limits being the farthest from their minds. Hack, some people cannot afford a full tank of gas!

As for "hotrods" in the 60s and 70s, that's when the 65mph limit actually made sense. The horsepower was there, but safety, suspension, and tire technologies on production cars were nowhere near the same level. The odds of tire or suspension failures and poor handling at higher speeds made higher speeds patently unsafe. Even if the engine was easily capable of accelerating the car to 150mph, most mass production cars in those days came with park bench seats, no seatbelts, leafspring suspensions, and donut tires. I'm not even mentioning stuff like airbags or traction control.

Glad you brought that up... You're right that technology, manufacturer's specs, minimum safety standards... etc all have changed... But along with that, the laws have also changed. And they have become more restrictive, and the more time that goes by the more restrictive they will become... From tires and minimum regulatory manufacturing standards, to seat belts which have long been the minimum safety requirement and on to air bags which are now a must, to the more recent red light camera.... Laws are undeniably become more restrictive!!! And yet here you are dreaming about social drive that will result in “change” that runs against that tide, the type that would lead to abolishing speed limits thereby making existing violations unenforceable.

Nowadays, however, automotive technology has improved a notch or two, and the vast majority of vehicles and drivers can safely run at speeds well in excess of the absurdly low 65mph limit.

And yet the federal accepted standard by which bumpers are tested, mandates that as long as it can withstand a 5mph impact, then its good to be on the streets. And here you are suggesting that you can crash at 65mph and end up walking away. Try it in your car, HA. I'll leave mine in the garage and watch you on YouTube!!!

Seriously, HA... Wake up, stop dreaming... 'cause it ain't gonna happen any time soon! At least, not in your lifetime!

[HonkingAntelope]

Whoa TG, lighten up a bit. The reason I cited those old cases is to illustrate a point that the law can and does change once there's enough dissatisfaction with the status quo.

I never said I wanted to abolish speed limits. Properly set speed limits are a valuable aid for motorists unfamiliar with a given area and they do promote overall safety by limiting speed variance and limiting traffic speeds to the level the vast majority of motorists find safe, reasonable, and comfortable.

My beef is strictly with the maximum speed limits that are set by an arbitrary governmental proclamation rather than on the basis of a properly conducted traffic survey. Even then, this would not be an issue if the statutory maximums were set at a reasonably high level which, if exceeded, would be so dangerous to an ordinary alert driver with a car in good repair and under ideal conditions, that no additional proof would be required to prove the offender's speed was actually unsafe. Just imagine if VC23152b was enforced the same way as CV22349, with cops giving a pass to anyone who blows or bleeds less than 0.12% BAC/BrAC despite .08% being the legal max?

As for highway funds, you do have a point there. CA doesn't have much of an option there at the moment. Insurance lobby is a major obstace, too. They do have a vested financial interested in having as many citations handed out as possible. I'm willing to concede that much.

To hear you talk, you make increased fines and more restrictive laws sound like a bad thing. IMO, both of those are a great development because they spur more members of the public to do something other than giving up without a fight. There has already been a significant shift in the type of crowd I see in traffic courts (and this forum, too). Before the penalty assessments went up to nearly $300 for a lousy 1-15mph over ticket, most of the people I saw in court were folks who got popped for missing license/reg/insurance or otherwise earned themselves a mandatory appearance. These days, there are far more people going to court to contest the charge or just hoping the judge would cut them a break on the fine. If it takes quarupled fines and enforcement to change a bad law, I'm all for that.


P.S. It takes quite a bit to make me shriek