How to Fight LIDAR Speeding Ticket, VC 22350

[quirkyquark]

Quirky, I posted a picture I obtained from google Map on the link below. Do you think it is sufficient?
http://s1153.photobucket.com/albums/...=1327536505457

The link doesn't work, NMT.

You would need to include multiple satellite view (i.e. overhead photographic) screenshots of at least the 0.25 mile of Evergreen St. centered around Shepherd Dr., and show that although multiple houses are present, per VC 240, they do not "front" the street and cannot be considered as part of a residence district.

If I were you I'd do that for the entire survey, i.e. Evergreen from Mountain to Buena Vista.

That Guy, I consulted with a registered Traffic Engineer on this survey...
Further he said, those accidents are most likely at intersections of either Mountain or Buena Vista, the starting and ending points of the Survey. This is typical as a lot of the accidents happen at intersections.

Wow, either you happen to know a T.E. or you're the next Goulet!

I forgot about the "mid-block" part (i.e. typically, accidents occurring AT intersections, such as running red lights, shouldn't be counted). Filtering the SWITRS data for that, as well as where the PRIMARY street was Evergeeen (i.e. vehicle was on Evergreen, not on an intersecting street near Evergreen), I get only FIVE accidents in the preceding two years, of which 3 were 22107 (improper turning) and 2 were 22350 (unsafe speed).

Now, Quirky, do you think I get this Engineer's declaration solely attacking the ETS as I indicated avove or a Judge will likely see this as way overboard. I could always put the arguments above as my own and put in a sentence that I consulted with a Traffic Engineer and he confirmed this.

Assuming that cost is not a factor, I think the declaration *could be* VERY HELPFUL for the TBD. It might be better than ANY arguments you could make, simply because he's an "expert witness". If you lose and go to TDN, you can always take a shot at referring to the declaration because it will probably be in the judge's file as part of the TBD (but be prepared for the judge to reject it as hearsay).

The ETS need to include sufficient info to JUSTIFY the reduction. This was simply and clearly not done on this survey. New Policy Memo from CalTrans in June 2009 clearly indicates that:

You can certainly include that policy in your TBD to support your argument that such a requirement was "understood" before June 2009, and was only expressly made so then. BUT as TG said, it has no legal effect on previous surveys and the judge is free to ignore it.

ETS concedes on its face that the data therein is "skewed". Without more, that tells me that the data itself for the survey is invalid, by its own words.

How does the data become invalid, even if it is skewed? The data is....the data, unless some error was made when measuring the speeds. That it's "skewed" is the engineer's opinion, as TG said, just like the other justifications.

---

I really think you are losing sight of the forest for the trees here, NMT. If you can get a declaration from the T.E. in your TBD, that's great, you can cite to it in your argument. You can also dispute the "residence district" justification. Also argue that accident data is insufficient NOT FROM a VC 627/MUTCD perspective, but because, without it, your 40802 "right" to attack the survey is half-empty. (cite Ellis). And then there will be the "business record" argument against admitting the LASD's LIDAR calibration cert. I think out of all of those, at least one should stick <fingers crossed>.

[lostintime]

LIDAR @ how far? If distance was left off, you can argue that was intentional. It always is. LIDAR is a relatively new technology in terms of mainstream traffic use. Besides New Jersey, most states have no laws on the books for use of the device. Law enforcement knows this and takes advantage of the system on occasion.

Don't worry about "that guy", it's his usual spiel. Lots of hypothetical situations wrapped up in semantics - all to make you look wrong.

[That Guy]

LIDAR @ how far? If distance was left off, you can argue that was intentional. It always is. LIDAR is a relatively new technology in terms of mainstream traffic use. Besides New Jersey, most states have no laws on the books for use of the device. Law enforcement knows this and takes advantage of the system on occasion.

Don't worry about "that guy", it's his usual spiel. Lots of hypothetical situations wrapped up in semantics - all to make you look wrong.

Ahhh Nomoretix, you're in luck... You get to meet our resident troll/jester (he splits his time between two positions). lostintime lost a Lidar speeding citation case in his state of Iowa over 6 months ago... Poor guy nearly losthismind as a result. So now he wanders aimlessly around the traffic forum repeating the same statements again and again, "LIDAR @ how far?", "LIDAR @ how far?".... even though he's been told several times that disclosing the distance, or even the type of device on the citation is not a requirement!

(If you just ignore him, he'll go away on his own).

[quirkyquark]

"LIDAR @ how far?", "LIDAR @ how far?".... even though he's been told several times that disclosing the distance, or even the type of device on the citation is not a requirement!

I'm thinking of getting those "that was easy" type buttons, squawking "Lidar @ how far? Lidar at how far?" for TG and myself. Could be a great stress release when a typical LIT post pops up...

TG is right, of course. No such requirement --- an argument as LIT suggests would be futile. In California, you can use the (criminal) discovery rules to get a copy of the officers notes, which should contain the distance. (LITs home state IA has neutered discovery for "minor misdemeanors" like traffic violations!)

Of course, even assuming the distance turns out to be excessive, for a 22350 with all the loopholes of the CA speed trap laws, you would most probably wasting your time on a technical LIDAR argument.

[lostintime]

Ahhh Nomoretix, you're in luck... You get to meet our resident troll/jester (he splits his time between two positions). lostintime lost a Lidar speeding citation case in his state of Iowa over 6 months ago... Poor guy nearly losthismind as a result. So now he wanders aimlessly around the traffic forum repeating the same statements again and again, "LIDAR @ how far?", "LIDAR @ how far?".... even though he's been told several times that disclosing the distance, or even the type of device on the citation is not a requirement!

(If you just ignore him, he'll go away on his own).

The vast majority of LIDAR citations have the distance listed. I can even prove this on an abacus. You've read the forum long enough to know the distance is almost always there. Must be coincidental, the officers only included the distance by mistake. They didn't mean to.

There has to be a distance threshold that even you agree is too far. Maybe an astronomical unit.

The State of Iowa is arguably the hardest place in the modern world to win a contested speeding ticket. You have a strong good ol' boy system, overzealous prosecutors who treat speeding tickets like million-dollar drug busts, and absolutely no discovery is allowed for simple misdemeanors.

I'm thinking of getting those "that was easy" type buttons, squawking "Lidar @ how far? Lidar at how far?" for TG and myself. Could be a great stress release when a typical LIT post pops up...

TG is right, of course. No such requirement --- an argument as LIT suggests would be futile. In California, you can use the (criminal) discovery rules to get a copy of the officers notes, which should contain the distance. (LITs home state IA has neutered discovery for "minor misdemeanors" like traffic violations!)

Of course, even assuming the distance turns out to be excessive, for a 22350 with all the loopholes of the CA speed trap laws, you would most probably wasting your time on a technical LIDAR argument.

Speedy trial laws also don't apply in Iowa for speeding. Any "85th percentile" argument won't work. Most tickets don't even specify radar/LIDAR. The fact mine said LIDAR, was actually a lot compared to what most get. If you have citations that don't list the SMD, and you aren't allowed to know the SMD until court, there is obviously something unethical going on. Basically, what would be standard most anywhere else, isn't allowed in Iowa.

[Nomoretix]

Quirky, what do you think about the argument that the original survey notes are not included. The survey was observed by the initials JMF and teh engineer is Dominic Milano! The cars are marked with "x's" but it is done by computer as seen from the survey. Whoever transfered the handwritten notes from the survey into this form could have made a mistake. Isnt this a foundational problem?

Here is the link to the picture of Evergreen again. the x marks Shepherd

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

[That Guy]

Do not try and comprehend it all at once!

Sort of a long one... But pace yourselves...

The "short form" survey may well be compliant with the MUTCD as well as VC 627 (that's all the MUTCD is concerned with). But whether it is sufficiently adequate to rebut the speed-trap presumption of VC 40802 (and whether it's a "summary" or not) is a question of fact that is entirely the province of the courts!

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.

Section 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign (R2-1)

Standard:
After an engineering study has been made in accordance with established traffic engineering practices, 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. The speed limits shown shall be in multiples of 10 km/h or 5 mph.

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?

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!

Apart from the initial speed measurements and other data, isn't the entire evaluation of the survey pretty much "an engineer's stated opinion"?

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"!

The surveys in Goulet and Ellis were certainly prima facie compliant with VC 627/Traffic Manual/MUTCD; yet, they were ruled inadequate. Nowhere does the MUTCD or VC mention "raw data" as a requirement, or how the survey must quantify "conditions not apparent" and explain how the affect speeds.

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:

An engineering and traffic survey (E&TS) shall include, among other requirements deemed necessary by the department, consideration of all of the following:

(1) Prevailing speeds as determined by traffic engineering measurements.
(2) Collision records.
(3) Highway, traffic, and roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver.

Guidance:

The E&TS should contain sufficient information to document that the required three items of CVC Section 627 are provided and that other conditions not readily apparent to a driver are properly identified.

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

1. State Highways - The E&TS for State highways is made under the direction of the Department of Transportation’s District Traffic Engineer. The data includes:

a. One copy of the Standard Speed Zone Survey Sheet (See Figure 2B-101(CA)) showing:

• A north arrow
• Engineer's station or post mileage
• Limits of the proposed zones
• Appropriate notations showing type of roadside development, such as “scattered business,” “solid residential,” etc. Schools adjacent to the highway are shown, but other buildings need not be plotted unless they are a factor in the speed recommendation or the point of termination of a speed zone.
• Collision rates for the zones involved
• Average daily traffic volume
• Location of traffic signals, signs and markings
• If the highway is divided, the limits of zones for each direction of travel
• Plotted 85th percentile and pace speeds at location taken showing speed profile

You can see:

• 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!

[That Guy]

Now, to qualify my answer better for this particular survey, there is no need for the engineer to provide a two hour presentation about the effects of speeds on safety and how different conditions can and should impact the setting of the speed limit... This is, after all, the short form. So he briefly mentions that drivers coming off the freeway are likely to unintentionally drive a little faster; since it is clear that this segment on Evergreen would not qualify as a ”residential district” per the CVC definition, and yet upon a closer inspection it appears to be exclusively occupied by residences... And that, if need be can be simply justified as:

Option:
When roadside development results in traffic conflicts and unusual conditions which are not readily apparent to
drivers, as indicated in collision records, speed limits somewhat below the 85th percentile may be justified.

Now, keep in mind that the law is not there to fully satisfy and convince the defendant... It is only intended to convince the judge... And if that convinces him, then it looks like you might have to appeal... If not, then you'll agree that simply including ^that does not void the survey...

Let us continue with the Goulet test.... The Goulet survey had examined accident records for 3 years, and the result was ZERO accidents. In this case, the engineer listed 9 accidents in 2/3rds of the time period (9 accidents in 2 years), which comparatively can be assumed to be 13+ accidents in 3 years... Or, 4 ½ accidents per year. To you, they might not be enough accidents to justify a limit reduction... To someone else, it may be 4 ½ accidents too many But lets stick to the 9 mentioned in the survey...

And here comes my point: DON'T ASSUME THAT JUST BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN GET THIS DISMISSED IS IF THE SURVEY DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE LIMIT, THAT THE COURT HAS TO MEET YOUR NEEDS AND DESIRES. Or that just because you walk into court saying this survey is invalid or incomplete that the judge has to follow suit!

You can, again, and with or without vpd's, establish how many speed related accidents were included in those 9, or over that same period... IIRC, you did state there were 2 collisions where 22350 was reported as the PCF. In all honesty, I would noy cite Goulet in this case with 2 speed related accidents, and since we've agreed that it is up to the trier of fact to decide the “opinions” are sufficient evidence for the judge to make a conclusiomn either way.

Now, you can go to page 2B-95 and look at Figure 2B-101(CA) where an Example of a Speed Survey Sheet that is used by a State Agency (i.e. the long form) is shown... And yupp, that shows all the data you're wishing for but not all of it is required. And not all of it will end up getting used. Yet you cannot add in a few missing entries as part of your “now” requirements

Pages 2B-97 and 2B-98 show two examples of the short forms in figure 2B-103 & figure 2B-104 as used by local agencies (city or county) and although both show “accident records” as a blank entry, neither one mentioned vpd's or ADTs. So if your stilll claiming that vpd's are a requirement, then why is it that the DOT decided to forgo including a space on its forms where one would enter such information?

Thus, the SWITRS argument, if you will, doesn't depend on how "collision/accident record" or "12-month record" or whatever is interpreted, or whether the survey complies with MUTCD/VC 627. If the raw data and other parameters used to conduct and evaluate the survey are not included, how can a defendant show the survey is inadequate per VC 40802 and case law?

That is NOT what you are arguing, Quirky... You are not asking for the "Data that was used". Instead you are asking for data that wasn't used nor was it required for the short form! You make it sound like the engineer used information that he did not disclose or include in the survey. And that does not seem to be the case. If you can show that he did, I can see how you would have a point!

Oh, and after a second reading of your quote, I noticed this: “how can a defendant show the survey is inadequate per VC 40802 and case law?”

Is that a slip or are you suggesting the defendant is entitled to be able to show the survey is inadequate?

If it is a slip, and it should say “how can a defendant ATTEMPT TO show...”, my answer would be “the same way the engineer was able to show it was adequate and using the same data he used”...

Both of which come from "short-form" surveys, FYI. Or even enough parameters so that a defendant can pull the data for SWITRS and verify for him/herself.

And just because 2 surveys included a SWITRS report does not make that the standard or the MUTCD recommendation. The standard, and any related Guidance or Options, as I am sure you'd agree with me if the context was different, are those that are printed in the MUTCD.

Although the Ellis court simply called this "unfair", I'm reasonably certain that case law can show that such a situation has unfavorable due process implications for the defendant.

That always seemed like a last resort argument, IMO, and if you're ready to pull that card already, maybe this is not the “per-iminent case” you thought it to be!

Or even enough parameters so that a defendant can pull the data for SWITRS and verify for him/herself. As for your whole "chain-of-custody" argument: as long as the People meet the court's definition of prima facie adequate [i.e., sufficient to allow a defendant to attack it, per Ellis], they're done. The defendant is free to rebut the survey any which way, including getting all of the items you described, which should (theoretically) be available as public records and/or court records. He can obtain police reports, corresponding court dockets, and if he finds enough acquittals so that the calculated rate goes under the expected rate, and that was the only factor justifying reduction, he can certainly argue that the reduction is not justified.

Semantics, I know but let me amend one short line: “The defendant is free to rebut the survey any which way”... I say should be “The defendant is free to attempt to rebut the survey any which way”... Aside from that, I agree with the above... Please see Post #10 above wherein I stated:

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).

.....

...

.....


Now, not only can you research the collision records to verify them, you can also determine the location of each collision (*from above).

You've made it obvious that you keep jumping back and forth between:
→ wanting more “raw data” that is provided on the survey, therefore the survey is inadequate ←
and
→ obtaining raw data through other means and attempting to show that the reasons in the survey aren't sufficient to justify a reduction ←

I agree with the latter and, but advise the best of us who might want to argue former to (a) limit their arguments to a few items rather as many as they can come up with and hope the judge will pick/agree with one or two (simply because an exaggerated claim, and (b) if one can obtain the figures and show why their use is essential, you're much better off.

In other words,, I will buy into the claim that you can:
Research accident records in an attempt to show that speed related accidents are low... nd with the absence of other valid justifications to reduce the limit, you can cite Goulet, and you'd be making a valid argument...

Alternatively, you can do nothing, walk into court arguing that the engineer screwed up, he didn't include all the data he used / or didn't consider all the data required, i.e. that more raw data should be included, cite Ellis, and you will likely lose.

And by the way as I glance back at this thread, I now this that I might have missed:

So not only does*Goulet*imply that only speed-related accidents should count (and ADT should be provided), but also that a raw accident number/rate is useless unless its is compared to a statistical expected one!

1) I've already agreed that speed related collision should count. In fact, before realizing Goulet had a reference to that, I cited People v. Smith as using the same standard.
2) ADT, yes for long forms, no for short... And I've used your method, questionable as it maybe, of utilizing “Examples” as standards in the MUTCD (even though I will admit they are NOT proof of much)... So let me offer another example: the term “ADT' is used to signify “Average Daily Traffic”, and mentioned in the CA-MUTCD a total of 15 times. If it was that critical to include it for both long and short forms, the 3 additional letters are going to affect a document that size.
3) If by a “statistical comparison” you are alluding to an “Annual Collision Rate”, I can't seem to find one being cited as having it included as part of the Goulet survey... Can you? Well, it is easy to figure out through (hold on to that thought for a second) In other words, the claim here has been: “the engineer here provided the # of collisions over the last 2 years, but he did not provide vpd counts and therefore the defendant is unable to calculate the actual collision rate (in Collisions/MVM)... And yet in Goulet, the engineer provided collision records (zero speed related accidents) AND daily traffic volumes”... So the actual accident rate for the Goulet survey according to the formula: (c*10^6)/(365*y*v*l) where c = speed related collisions = ZERO, therefore the collision rate for Goulet is and will always be ZERO. In your case, however, you have 2 speed related collisions and therefore c = 2, and therefore the collision rate for your survey and though it cannot be calculated, WILL ALWAYS BE HIGHER THAN ZERO i.e. WILL ALWAYS BE HIGHER THAN GOULET... which is zero/12300 Which EQUALS ZERO...

[That Guy]

Here's another similar quote:

Are you suggesting that just citing the number raw records is sufficient, without comparison to any kind of baseline?

Goulet's collision rate is ZERO... There is your baseline... Compare that to your collision rate which is and will always be “higher than zero”.

But really, Quirky... The Goulet survey shows that roadway as a "major arterial"... And I know this is NOT! So to make a fair statistical comparison you're attempting, I am sure the Goulet roadway had a different "baseline' as you called it for a collision rate, and with this being a different class, it too would have i different baseline!

I don't see any reference to a “rate”... So even if ADTs were provided in this survey, the end result is you'll have to compare the “X NUMBER OF SPEED RELATED COLLISIONS (NOT COLLISION RATE)” TO THE “ZERONUMBER OF SPEED RELATED ACCIDENTS (NOT COLLISION RATES)” From Goulet... ADT has no effect whatsoever on the validity of that argument!

Can you lend me the crystal ball that enabled you divine the "type of survey" for Goulet?

Sorry, I don't lend my crystal ball out... But you can actually use your own crystal ball... The same one you used to conclude the Goulet had a LONG FORM... (Note: just because Goulet had vpd does not necessarily make it a long form – The engineer in that case could have simply thrown that in.... But as I stated just above this, it had no purpose at all)!

From what I've seen, EVERY city agency uses the short form with the notable exception of LADOT. And what makes you think those precedents are selectively applicable based on the "type of survey"?

That does not make it the standard! Per the MUTCD, each agency has the option to use EITHER OR for a local city/county road... Each agency can also opt to use the short forms and add in ALL the data required for the Long Form... The MUTCD standard, remains the MUTCD Standard!

The MUTCD does not (and never has) specified what a local agency survey should include. All it specifies is a "short method of speed zoning" and "samples of data sheets which may be used to record speed observations."

Nice play on words... You can read through both “long method” and “short method” and you'll see that each utilize the term to mean the same thing: “establishing a speed limit for a particular zone!”

And it suggests that "[i]n most situations, the short form for local streets and roads will be adequate." Adequate for what?

For the traffic engineers who use them to establish speed limits!

As a complete survey sufficient to pass muster under VC 40802?

Tell me.. which survey that is posted or even mentioned on this forum passes muster under 40802 in your opinion? Not saying it to be a smart alec... But some of your theories remain untested...
And not saying that as criticism, best of luck with all that remains untested...
Hey, I might volunteer to test out one or two for you... May be, pretty soon!

As for ^that^ "gotcha" attempt, you missed that Goulet was only defining "85th percentile speed"

Point is, you couldn't use the Goulet definition of 85th percentile speed... Well, you could, but you wouldn't want to in this case!!!

You're fond of saying that "you can't blindly apply (old) precedent." That's true of course, and good general advice. But if the facts of the case and the (current) law are still similar, there's a very good chance you can. If you look it up, you will find that the "short method of speed zoning" has carried over almost unchanged from the old Traffic Manual (which Goulet cited) to the 2012 MUTCD!

Well, there is one difference between 1996 and 2006... The older uses a “should be”, meaning -meh, maybe not all the time! where as the newer uses “are posted” thereby leaving no doubt.

Although relative to the short form/long form comparison, that is what brought me back to this thread, the fact that I was looking through the old traffic manual and both short and long method of speed surveys were -almost verbatim- in there. But you already looked it up... You already know that!

You can assume all you want that this "survey" is good enough for a "short form", and that the engineer's judgment is justified. For all I know, both are probably true. But whether the "survey" (and the inherent engineer's opinion) is good enough to topple the 40802 presumption is up to the court.

Which is what I stated back in post #10... And if the court decides otherwise, I'm sure it 'll be up to the appellate at that point. More power to you both at that time as well... And I never suggested the survey is good! Only that it is not missing all the figures which Nomoretix is claiming are missing... And that you are more likely to succeed in proving a claim, if you actually take the time to demonstrate how the information can be valuable. Not sure why you're taking this one so personally!

And the conditions that follow are EXACTLY the same as the residential zone definition. Which are repeated in the MUTCD. Any attempt to dodge this statutory requirement by calling it "roadside development" ruins the traffic engineer's credibility, and that is PRECISELY what OP should attempt to do via satellite photos.

For one, nobody is dodging any statutory requirement! Fact is, for someone who swears by the provisions of the MUTCD should know that “roadside developments should be considered and properly notated on the survey and any additional reports that go along with it; example from the MUTCD (from the “Option” paragraph at the bottom of page 2B-10:

When roadside development results in traffic conflicts and unusual conditions which are not readily apparent to drivers, as indicated in collision records, speed limits somewhat below the 85th percentile may be justified.

In any case, all the "long form" requires is "Collision rates for the zones involved", which is a far cry from any kind of "accident report"!

And yet, on the long form, and in addition to the collision RATES if given, you would have the “segment length”, “the daily traffic volumes” and the “period of time the collision data was collected over... You can use the formula to calculate the collision numbers (if you want to actually compare the SWITRS results for the same period).

And no, I still can see you requesting police reports... But hey, If I thought I might find something in those, then why not!

And hey, that one doesn't mention raw data either. But guess how surveys without raw data---long, short or medium form--have fared when appealed?

What is “without raw data”? The long form?

If so, I think you'd be mistaken... Or actually, you'd be Mistertaken!

You can scroll back up to the top of my reply, read the criteria for the State form and you'll see all the data you want is liosted.

Then both of you are wrong by ANY definition. VC 627 explicitly limits WHEN residential density can be considered:

Actually, you'd be wrong to exclude “roadside developments” from consideration simply because you consider them as part of “residential density” or to assume that “roadside developments” and when combined with other factors can bu valid justification for the speed limit... This is a short psaragraph so I'll post it again:

Option:
When roadside development results in traffic conflicts and unusual conditions which are not readily apparent to
drivers, as indicated in collision records, speed limits somewhat below the 85th percentile may be justified.

(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"!

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.

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.

Nomoretix, you obviously missed my point regarding the 35% (actually, Id like to use the 32.7%... makes a better point) and maybe I should have been clearer... But in your case, the reduction in the speed limit making 32.7% of drivers into violators means it is leaving 67.3% of drivers as non-violators... And in other words, there are twice as many non-violators as there are violators... Not that bad of a ratio...

Now, you've utilized a number of different citation from Goulet, and I've expressed my opinion that it may not be the most appropriate case for you to cite... Unfortunately, you wouldn't score big points if you were to use Goulet to try and demonstrate that when a survey makes a disproportionate number of drivers into violators, you should keep in mind that the speed reduction which was deemed unlawful in Goulet, had made -not only the majority of drivers into violators, it actually made a VAST numbers of the into violators... at the outrageous rate of 95% of drivers are considered as violators!

Still think 32.7% is too high?

[Nomoretix]

I signed up for SWITRS but I could not enter the dates for period starting to "period ending", The screen would not accept any typing in those slots. Any ideas?