Re: How to Fight LIDAR Speeding Ticket 22350
You mean you found SOMETHING... (code section/case law citation... etc)... ANYTHING that says only "speed related accidents" should be considered? Because I'd love to see it!
While I agree that the Collision data is lacking (it doesn't even compare it to a stated average), I still don't think you'll succeed in arguing that they should provide you with the exact location of each collision (But more importantly than that, see * below).
For starters, VC 627 requires that "Accident Records" be considered as part of the the evaluation of every E&T Survey...
Additionally, it should be obvious by now that the method/form used in this survey is clearly the "short method/form" described in the 2006 CA_MUTCD... (See the bottom of page 2B-9).
Note that it states that factors that need to be considered to include "the most recent two-year collision record"
Quoting 2006 CA-MUTCD - Page 2B-9
Now, let me assume that:
1) We're not going to sit here and argue the difference between "collisions" and "accidents",
2) that we will agree that the term "records" does not include "average rates" (simply because "county average rates" for example, are not regularly updated; instead, the "rate" could be 10 years old and as such, would not fit under the description of "the most recent two-year collision record")...
We can then look at your survey and see that they did comply with "the most recent two-year requirement":
They did in fact include collision/accident records:
And... They even provided you with the source of the information:
Now, not only can you research the collision records to verify them, you can also determine the location of each collision (*from above).
So, if we go back to what thy provide, they did indeed provide you with the "c" in that formula which would be "9 collisions", they did provide you with the "Y" which, as shown above is "2 years", and while you yourself copied and pasted it, thy do indeed provide you with the segment length:
You'res till missing "v" but again, the MUTCD guidance and the requirement under the vehicle code is that they evaluate "collision/accident records".... And that, they did!
So again, is there sufficient data to justify a 5mph reduction in the speed limit, from 40mph to 35mph!
You're free to continue to argue that it dos not... But don't forget that you make a statement like you did here saying "this, that and the other are missing" and yet if in the slight chance, the judge happened to glance at the short survey only to notice one (not necessarily all three) "so called missing" figures, you can say good night and just walk out! Because your credibility just took a huge shot, and anything you say after that is meaningless!
They don't explain what "85th percentile" is, or "vpd"... or "ADT" but you certainly are smart enough to have figured those out on your own! Correct? And yet you're trying to convince me that you couldn't make the connection between "residential property" and "residential density"??? Even though to make some of your arguments, you had to have come across VC 627???
Well, take it a step further... If we consider a speed limit of 45mph, we'd have zero violators... But reducing the number of violators is not the primary goal of conducting an E&T Survey. Otherwise the legislature would have included some criteria to qualify it as such!
So while I appreciate you making note of my commentary, please note that I made it AFTER making the determination that it is possible that i can justify the limit, but would such a decision have a negative impact on the rate of violators? If so, then I might reconsider!
But to assume that by itself would work as a way to rule the survey is invalid? I wished...
My one thought is that we can all set our own requirements but if you're assuming that the judge has to buy into all of yours, you're gonna be disappointed.
Are you telling m that you were aware of what the collision records were on that roadway when the officer clocked your speed? I assume the answer is "NO"! Then that was the condition that was NOT apparent to you when you decided that 48mph was safe!
- Accidents/collisions do NOT happen because we're ready for them;
- They do NOT happen because the contributing factors and the conditions leading to them are apparent but but we don't give a damn;
- And they do not happen because we are aware that they are going to happen and yet we choose to be careless regardless, they happen because we haven't the slightest clue until it is too late!
So what do you want?
How about individual police reports that were issued at the time?
Should you get the opportunity to question the office who recorded the info and issued the report?
How about the officer or possibly the civilian who entered the data into SWITRS? After all "garbage in, garbage out" and if the data in the survey is garbage, the survey itself is garbage?
Where does it end?
And last but not last.... Let us assume, simply for the sake of being prepared, that the judge overruled your objections about the survey, it was entered into evidence, the officer completed his testimony and the prosecution is thereby finished with its case in chief...
Are going to try the 30 question defense?
Are you simply going to stand before the judge and say: "your honor, I felt that my speed was safe for the conditions there were not other cars around, no pedestrians on the roadway... etc, etc, etc"?
Are you going to use a combination of both?
Or do you have an alternate plan?
I am right 97% of the time... Who cares about the other 4%!