The nearest 5mph increment to the 56mph speed is 55mph. The speed limit could be posted at 55mph however, the engineer must still evaluate other factors which may provide further reason or justification for an additional reduction of the speed limit that is to be posted.
That 5 mph reduction (to 50mph) from the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th-percentile speed (which is the 55mph speed), where engineering study indicates the need for a reduction in speed to match existing conditions with the traffic safety needs of the community.
In this case, the engineer cited 2 valid reasons for a reduction:
1) The accident rate for that particular segment of highway (shown to be @ 2.41 Accidents/Million Vehicle Miles) is HIGHER than the state average (of 1.68 Accidents/Million vehicle Miles) by over 43%. This large of a margin is sufficient to justify an additional 5mph speed limit reduction.
2) Although VC 22358.5 states that "physical conditions such as width, curvature, grade and surface conditions, or any other condition readily apparent to a driver, in the absence of other factors, would not require special downward speed zoning", the engineer in this case did find that those conditions -winding alignment and restricted horizontal and vertical curves- creates what is known as "limited sight distance ahead of a driver" which is not a condition that is readily apparent; thereby resulting in sudden slow downs and/or sudden lane changes. Acoordingly, and for this condition alone, a 5mph downward speed limit reduction is justified.
So an additional 5mph reduction from the 55mph preliminary speed limit is well justified.
You can of course make the argument that CS alluded to, but that too comes with a caveat (see below)!
The date on the top of page(s) 3 & 4 is 03/07/2006 and the signature at the bottom of page 4 is 03/09/2006. You were cited (according to your first post) on 02/03/2012... That is just under 5 years & 11 months which also means survey is still in its 5th year, which in turn means that they can simply present a valid survey which justifies the speed limit, prove that the speed measurement is accurate, and that it is in excess of the posted P.F. limit, at which point the burden then shifts to you to establish by competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and under the conditions then existing (CVC 22351(b)). Accordingly, the analogy I offered above (post #2 -starting with "If the officer disagreed that your speed was safe..." and ending with "... And 98% of judges would have found you 'guilty'!") still applies...
Additionally, one should note that People v. Ellis (1995) is an Orange County case and typically, decisions in one appellate district are not binding on courts in other districts...
Oh and CS, just a suggestion... But I think you should probably include links to case law citations you're offering? I only say this because a quick search for People v Ellis results in 30 Ellis cases (although some are clearly duplicates)... Even if you add 22350 as a search term, you still have 3 cases to read through... Thanks!
Example: (1) You've always insisted that the prosecution is responsible for disclosing evidence... And along with that, (2) you've always added that law enforcement is not the responsible party for the same.... [That would be your offering a plain interpretation of a law]
No one can dispute (1)... [well, except for 99% of deputy district attorneys and city attorneys out there]...
No one can argue against (2)... [except, some LEAs actually do respond to a discovery request, some do in fact provide documents requested from them]! And yet the latter is not good enough for you. So you argue against requesting it from the LEA even though in some instances, if you're going to get anything, that would be the only way!
So what is the practical, reasonable & achievable resolution in your opinion?
I hope your answer isn't "appeal"... Simply because for most, an appeal is not practical, nor is it reasonable and it sure as hell does not seem achievable from where they stand at the time!
So are you now admitting that it is odd, when in your first sentence you suggested it is "plain" as in ordinary?
And are you sure that my "odd comment" was intended to disparage? I only ask because I added that “I may be wrong”... and how “it is not my place to provide explanations on [your] behalf”... So there, explain away... Tell the OP why your interpretation of the plain language of the discovery statutes implies that he should not direct his request to the LEA, but instead should insist on obtaining the material from the DA and how that would have beneftted him more than going to the LEA under the assumption that the DA will not reply!
This, BTW is VERY RARE... We don't often get the opportunity to follow up and elaborate on the worthiness of the advice and opinion we previously provided!