How to Fight LIDAR Speeding Ticket, VC 22350

[Nomoretix]

Got a speeding ticket at 6 PM on a street parallel to the 210 in Duarte, CA. Speed 35, LA County Sheriff on motorcycle says I was going 48. Conditions were clear, it was dark as sun has already set on January 17, 2012. He asked me if I wanted to see his Lidar and I said no. I obtained a speed survey. The survey was done on 2/14/08 so less than 5 years ago. Al what is shows is that it was done between 11:30 AM and 12:30 PM. Duuuh, there is no body on the street at that time! Anyways they show 107 vehicles, mostly going between 14 mph and 39 mph. About 16 or so cars are 40 and above mph. Highest being 45 mph. It is stamped by a PE but it is only made of 2 sheets. Once has the matrix with the x's for different speeds and the other has 3 lines indicating: how many accidents happended in the last 2 years, speeds are skewed due to on/off ramps of the 210, area immediately adjacent to the roadincludes residential property and a city park. If you want to go to google and look at satelite. The street is a 2 lkane street with one side the freeway wall and the other side street leading in to residential area. The street is evergreen and the cross-section is Shepherd. I appreciate any help. Thanks

[apexzer0]

the only thing i can tell u to help, and prob wont, is that lidar produces approximately a 3 square foot beam at around 800ft as opposed to something like Ka band which uses up to a 300ft area at 1000ft (much larger possibility for error). it uses a cross sectional area of its target to get a reading. using the reflective tape on ur license plate, which is usually what is done, it has an accurate range anywhere from 1000-2500ft depending on ur license plate size. in the case that ur license plate wasnt available u can use the headlights as its the next best reflective surface. headlights can be accurate out to around 800ft. some people may tell u a technique called "sweeping" can give false readings, but this is quite uncommon and when it does occur it does not simply read ur speed with just enough over the limit to get u in trouble. it can give speeds impossibly slow or impossibly fast. the likelyhood of it reading close enough to ur actual speed to be believable but fast enough to get u a ticket is slim to none. u might also hear of beam deflection and such giving false readings, but unfortunately this too wont get u out of a ticket since the amount of light that is refracted is considerably less than what people think and to top it off lidar has built in functions for sifting through the "noise" of unreliable readings. lidar is very well designed. to argue with it is to argue with physics and u would be hard pressed to prove a flaw in court. im not of the mindset that technology is infallible but there is an error margin and unfortunately with this its extremely small. then again i could be full of crap cuz its been a couple years since i looked into it. i was in the same situation looking to get out of a ticket and asked a manufacturer for information hoping to find a flaw but all i found was disappointment

[themadnorwegian]

Can you post the survey, or at least tell us what the 85th percentile speed was?

[quirkyquark]

The survey was done on 2/14/08 so less than 5 years ago. Al what is shows is that it was done between 11:30 AM and 12:30 PM.

It is SUPPOSED to be done during off-peak hours. You think the speed-limit would be higher if they measured the cars crawling along at rush hour?

Please post the survey, otherwise it's hard to help.

[Nomoretix]

I dont know how to post it, but it is made of 2 pages only. The info on it s a matrix showing the cars and their speeds and the following info: As you will note, no Accident Rate and no expected rate. No Average Daily Traffic!


DATE: 02/14/08 TIME START:11:15 A.M. TIME STOP: 12:30 P.M.
LOCATIClN:
MOUNTAIN AVENUE - BUENA VISTA STREET@SHEPHERDDRIVE
ROAD
DESCR.IF'TION: 2 LANES -PAINTED

RECEIVED FEB 19 2008 CITY OF DUARTE
A.celD!:NT
HlISTORY: See reverse
ACCIDI:NT RATE:
EXPECTED RATE:
R:OADWIIY CONDITIONS: GOOD
WEATHER: CLOUDY

PROPOSED SPEED LIMIT: 35

EXISTING SPEED LIMIT: 35
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC:
SEGMENT LENGTH: O. 50
85th Percentile : 39 M.P.H.
50th Percentile: 32 M.P.H.
15th Percentile: 25 M.P.H.
Average Speed: 32 M.P.H.
10 MPH Pace: 31 - 40 M.P.H.
% in Pace: 60%
% over Pace: 7%
% under pace: 34%

OBSERVED BY: JMF (SURVEY ALSO CONTAINS STAMP OF ENGINEER AND HIS NAME< IT JUST DIDNT COPY HERE)

The back side of the Survey contains a very vague reference to conditions and does not identify conditions not readily apparent to driver. Even accident info is vague and does not identify which ones are based on speeding. Here is what is on the backside:

Based upon the following data, the speed limit for this location shall be posted and enforced at 35 m.p.h ..
I. Speeds are skewed due to the freeway on and off ramps within this section.
2. Area immediately adjacent to roadway includes residential property and a city park.
3. Within the last two years, 9 accidents have occurred in this area. The following accidents were listed on the SWITRS reports:
a. Broadside 1
b. Hit Object 3
c. Rearend 4
d. Sideswipe 1


Dominic Milano City Engineer

FYI, the speed matrix shows 107 cars surveyed. as follows

45 mph = 1
44 mph = 2
42 = 2
41=2
40=9
39=3
38=2
37=6
36=8
35=7
34=6
33=9
32=6
31=8
30=3
29=3
28=5
27=7
26=6
25=4
24=1
22=1
21=2
18=1
17=1
15=2
Total 107

[That Guy]

I dont know how to post it

You scan it as a jpg image,
upload it to www.photobucket.com
then click on the link it provides you which is labeled as "IMG code", copy it it and paste it here.

The back side of the Survey contains a very vague reference to conditions and does not identify conditions not readily apparent to driver. Even accident info is vague and does not identify which ones are based on speeding. Here is what is on the backside:

Based upon the following data, the speed limit for this location shall be posted and enforced at 35 m.p.h ..
I. Speeds are skewed due to the freeway on and off ramps within this section.
2. Area immediately adjacent to roadway includes residential property and a city park.
3. Within the last two years, 9 accidents have occurred in this area. The following accidents were listed on the SWITRS reports:
a. Broadside 1
b. Hit Object 3
c. Rearend 4
d. Sideswipe 1


[COLOR=black][FONT=Times New Roman]Dominic Milano City Engineer

Here is CVC 627

That is what you start with... if you don't think the survey meets the requirements of 627 in that it doesn't list the reasons why the limit was reduced, then make your argument accordingly. There have been numerous recent posts on the topic so you'll have several reference points to start your research! So start reading.... You can also go to Section 2B-13 of the 2006 California MUTCD for more references.

I think you have a weak case simply because the survey DOES list 3 reasons that would be sufficient -individually or collectively- to reduce it.

"Residential density" (referred to as "residential property" in the survey, and while it is NOT a "condition not apparent to the driver", you can clearly see an entire paragraph dedicated to it in VC 627...

Also, the 85th percentile is 39, so it should be set to the nearest 5mph increment which is 40, the reduction of 5mph would be allowed for at least one reason listed. And lastly, the last possible argument one has under similar conditions is that the posted speed would make more than 50% of drivers as violators, that does not apply here simply because the posted limit is 35 and the 50th percentile speed is 31mph!

(In fact, by my quick count, there are only 35 vehicles who's measured speed was in excess of the 35mph limit, and 35 divided by 107 = ONLY 32.7% of drivers are violators)! Certainly FAR from being a "majority"!

Good luck!

[Nomoretix]

All the info on the survey was in my cut and paste. So no need to repost. BUT I am not sure I see your reasoning: the Accident records say absolutely nothing about whether they were caused by speeding. Plus they do not indicate where exactly the accidents occured. Further, they do not provide the Average Daily Traffic, or the accident rate, or the expected rate? How are we to calculate using the formula: (c*10^6)/(365*y*v*l),
where:
•c, y = total c accidents in y years
•v = volume per day (vpd) or average daily traffic (ADT)
•l = segment length in miles

They do not explain what residential property is or what is the density? CVC 627 talks about 13 properties fronting on one side or 16 on both. Here there are no properties fronting on this street.

Also you say 35% is far from being a majority, but when you compare that to only 7 cars if the speed limit is 40 mph, 35% to 5% to me is lop sided? WHat are your thoughts? By the way thanks for your input and the input of all others. I appreciate it.

One more thing: “To support such a reduced speed limit, the survey must contain sufficient information to document other conditions not readily apparent to a motorist.” - (“People v. Goulet (1992) 13 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1 [17 Cal. Rptr.2d 801]”). This is in support of my response above to That Guy. There is obviously NO documentation whatsoever and also missing info that would allow us to evaluate the accidents. Thanks again.

[quirkyquark]

All the info on the survey was in my cut and paste. So no need to repost.

Well, you did a great job typing it all in, but the images may still be helpful (tiny things our trained eyes can latch on to ). If you have a digital camera, you can simply take a picture if you can't scan it.

BUT I am not sure I see your reasoning: the Accident records say absolutely nothing about whether they were caused by speeding. Plus they do not indicate where exactly the accidents occured. Further, they do not provide the Average Daily Traffic, or the accident rate, or the expected rate? How are we to calculate using the formula: (c*10^6)/(365*y*v*l),

Agreed. They can't just throw in the number "9" and use that as a valid reason. There must at least be a showing that the accident rate is greater than the expected rate.

They do not explain what residential property is or what is the density? CVC 627 talks about 13 properties fronting on one side or 16 on both. Here there are no properties fronting on this street.

If you can make a showing that this is not a residential zone, that would be nice. Otherwise, the lack of details can be a negative. e.g. in Goulet, it said "limited sight distance to commercial driveways", and the court said: "The survey does not state the sight distance or the location of the driveways, or explain how the condition affects the safe speed."

I also think that the "speeds are skewed from ramps" is a vague statement that does not explain what "skewed" means and how it affects the safe speed.

Also you say 35% is far from being a majority, but when you compare that to only 7 cars if the speed limit is 40 mph, 35% to 5% to me is lop sided?

Goulet does not say "majority", but "a disproportionate number of the reasonable majority of drivers". You can certainly make the argument that 35% is disproportionate, although more than 50% would give that argument an added boost.

---

Let's talk nuts and bolts. You should do a TBD and talk about the survey as well as any LIDAR/RADAR certificate.

[Nomoretix]

Thanks Quirky. Should I do discovery and alert the officer. this is LA COunty Sherriff or just assert the typical defenses that I found in this one brief in previous threads? ALso, on my ticket, the officer just put an "x" in the Laser box. He said nothing about traffic conditions. He had no distance and no number for the device. Are those devices usually just mounted on the motorcycle or do they change them? I am asking because if they are mounted, he could just say this is the device because it is always mounted on my bike.

I can tell you that this is a very quite street and did not have a lot of cars. I certainly was not endangering anyone.

http://s1153.photobucket.com/albums/...=1327536505457

This is a link to picture of street from Google maps. the x on the pic is where the motorcycle cop was likely hiding. It is called Shepherd. The street I was on as you can see has no residences. On the side street Shpherd, that is a residential street but the homes are facing Shepherd, not Evergreen. The link also contains the speed survey and the ticket. So you can see no LIDAR equipment no and no distance recorded.

I dont know if you can see it, but from the time of the survey it was from 11:15 AM to 12:30 PM or 75 minutes. You can tell that 107 cars over 75 minutes supports my conclusion that this is a quite street. With that and and the photo and the fact there are no residences "fronting on the street", they are instead on the side street Shepherd, do you think that helps? If it means anything, this is Pasadena COurtThanks

[That Guy]

the Accident records say absolutely nothing about whether they were caused by speeding.

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!

Plus they do not indicate where exactly the accidents occured.

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).

Further, they do not provide the Average Daily Traffic, or the accident rate, or the expected rate? How are we to calculate using the formula: (c*10^6)/(365*y*v*l),
where:
•c, y = total c accidents in y years
•v = volume per day (vpd) or average daily traffic (ADT)
•l = segment length in miles

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).

2. City and County Through Highways, Arterials, Collector Roads and Local Streets.

a. The short method of speed zoning is based on the premise that a reasonable speed limit is one that conforms to the actual behavior of the majority of motorists, and that by measuring motorists' speeds, one will be able to select a speed limit that is both reasonable and effective. Other factors that need to be considered include but are not limited to: the most recent two-year collision record, roadway design speed, safe stopping sight distance, superelevation, shoulder conditions, profile conditions, intersection spacing and offsets, commercial driveway characteristics, and pedestrian traffic in the roadway without sidewalks.
b. Determination of Existing Speed Limits - Figures 2B-103(CA) & 2B-104(CA) show samples of data sheets which may be used to record speed observations. Specific types of vehicles may be tallied by use of letter symbols in appropriate squares.

In most situations, the short form for local streets and roads will be adequate; however, the procedure used on State highways may be used at the option of the local agency.

Note that it states that factors that need to be considered to include "the most recent two-year collision record"

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":

Within the last two years

They did in fact include collision/accident records:

9 accidents have occurred in this area....

a. Broadside 1
b. Hit Object 3
c. Rearend 4
d. Sideswipe 1

And... They even provided you with the source of the information:

The following accidents were listed on the SWITRS reports

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:

SEGMENT LENGTH: O. 50

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 do not explain what residential property is or what is the density??

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???

Also you say 35% is far from being a majority, but when you compare that to only 7 cars if the speed limit is 40 mph, 35% to 5% to me is lop sided?

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...

WHat are your thoughts?

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.

One more thing: “To support such a reduced speed limit, the survey must contain sufficient information to document other conditions not readily apparent to a motorist.” - (“People v. Goulet (1992) 13 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1 [17 Cal. Rptr.2d 801]”).

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!

There is obviously NO documentation whatsoever and also missing info that would allow us to evaluate the accidents. Thanks again.

So what do you want?
Collision reports?
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...

YOUR TURN!

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?