Do not try and comprehend it all at once!
Sort of a long one... But pace yourselves...
A rhetorical question: So are you suggesting that the DOT, and in approving that provision in the MUTCD opted to circumvent 40802, ignore it (in spite of the implications that this would lead to) or simply forgot that it even exists?
Here is the 1st paragraph from section where the MUTCD begins focusing primarily on speed limits, how they are established and posted... etc.
Would you like me to demonstrate how that one single paragraph -the only paragraph labeled as "Standard"- makes equal mention of all THREE, VC 627, VC 40802 and the MUTCD?
Quoting 2006 CA-MUTCD - Page 2B-7
First sentence, is actually a reference to BOTH, VC 627 and the MUTCD: "After an engineering study has been made in accordance with established traffic engineering practices"... Make note of the fact that your previous arguments in support of the MUTCD, implied that it is the basis for "established [traffic] engineering practices" (but I do also understand how you may try and back away from that for a minute to try and prove another point).
Second sentence, is a description of VC sections 22348 through 22366 as well as, your friend, VC 40802: the Speed Limit (R2-1) sign (see Figure 2B-1) shall display the limit established by law, ordinance, regulation, or as adopted by the authorized agency.... Because without 40802, there is no legal authority to argue "sped traps" and therefore any governmental agency can post whatever sped they want, run Radar all day long and neither you, nor the appellate can stop them)!
Third and last bit of that quote above: The speed limits shown shall be in multiples of 10 km/h or 5 mph. is a reference to those procedures it mentioned in the first, describing one of the "standards".
Still not convinced? Let me try this:
Let me make it simple... The one and only purpose that an agency will conduct a speed survey is not because their purchasing department went overboard on their speed sign order and “hey, lets run those damn surveys and get these effing sign out on the road...”... It is simply for one of two reasons: (A) To justify and already posted sped limit, or (B) to establish a lawfully enacted speed limit which can be posted and lawfully enforced. Regardless of whether it is (A) or (B), it is strictly to allow law enforcement to conduct speed enforcement! And without 40802 in that mix, we would all lose interest and focus, along with losing most speeding cases (or should I say 'appeals') .
You simply cannot dismiss 40802 from any discussion where a survey is mentioned and vice versa. And to suggest that the DOT will suggest AND “publish” a method whereby a speed survey could be conducted knowing it will not fit the legal requirements it is intended for; you can say it if you want, I ain't buying!
Not entirely... If the engineer's opinion was to reduce the posted limit by 10mph, would that be acceptable by you? NO! Nor should it be... Simply because the vehicle code is pretty clear on what these standards are and what is required. Quirky, while you do in fact try and undermine each and every engineering opinion that comes through here, whether it is a left turn sign, a pavement marking or whatever, a speed survey or a justification for one... It is NOT all an opinion! Simply read the "Standard" I posted above and you will see why. And before you go looking for the paragraph that defines "engineering judgment" as having no substitute, let me say that "engineering judgment" is based upon experience, knowledge, procedures.. etc... SO, now that I think about it, I guess I'll agree with your use of opinion so long as it is preceded by "educated, and based upon specific legal requirements from the vehicle code along with specific procedures and accepted DOT and local jurisdiction practices"!
Actually, the VC DOES indeed mention
While I will wholeheartedly agree that the neither VC nor the MUTCD describe it as "raw data", however, the VC and MUTCD need not use that exact description, to qualify what is required. Fact is, BOTH the VC AND the MUTCD mention BOTH, the raw data (notice that I did not put it in quotes simply because it is not described as "raw data"), as well as how the survey must quantify "conditions not apparent" and explain how they affect speeds:
The first paragraph listed in the MUTCD as standard, as you may well already know, is the exact duplicate language from VC 627:
So that is showing how both raw data and conditions not apparent DO INDEED appear in both, the VC and the MUTCD's description of the State Form
Quoting 2006 CA-MUTCD page 2B-8
You can see:
Quoting 2006 CA-MUTCD Page 2B-9
- Collision rates for the zones involved
- Average daily traffic volume
- Plotted 85th percentile and pace speeds at location taken showing speed profile
Anything else you need as far as "data"?.... Oh right, you wanted a SWITRS report... Here you go: Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System - SWITRS... Sign up, sign in, and knock yourself out!
And now you got your Raw Data... But please keep in mind that all the above is for the LONG form. For the short form, you get:
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.
I think you can deduce the speed data (from speed charts or data sheets), the most recent two year collision records (not ratres, but records) (both of which are in BOLD, and as for “conditions not readily apparent” as a few of the description that are underlined whether it be on their own (example: commercial driveways) or in combination with other condition(s) (example “sigh distance” if it is limited by a slope or a curve).
Of course, you can certainly argue your case that you "SHOULD" be given more, and/or that the engineer didn't consider this, that or the other. Ultimately, the trier of fact is free to accept the survey as valid or decide that it does not justify the posted limit. HIS decision. If you disagree, you certainly have as much right to appeal as anyone else... By all means, utilize that right!