Speeding on a Curvy Road, CVC 22350

[Innocent Guy]

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: CA

I was driving on a curvy 2 way road with the speed limit of 30 but did not know at that time so I just followed the speed of the traffic. I was between 2 cars, an SUV in front and a sedan behind. A quarter mile later I see a motorcycle cop on the opposite side in the corner of the road which curves to the right. He then makes a U-Turn in the middle of traffic to pull me over out of all the cars in the line. He told me I was going 50 without showing the radar to me. I denied that I was driving that speed and asked if he can show it to me on the lidar gun. He then takes 5 mins to show it to me and I asked him for his training on this device. He said have anything to show me and that I was wasting his time.

I have sent in an Informal Discovery and these are the documents I got back.

TES

http://i1262.photobucket.com/albums/...BAMDOT/TES.jpg

TICKET

http://i1262.photobucket.com/albums/...DOT/ticket.jpg

Letter from the department

http://i1262.photobucket.com/albums/...liceLetter.jpg

I have also sent an Informal Request to the DA and the Superior Court. The DA mailed me back a letter saying they don't help with traffic cases. The Superior Court mailed me back nothing at all.

The TBWD is due tomorrow so much help is needed please. Thank you!

I also believe my speed was safe and was not endangering persons or property...the cop said he got me pretty far away. I did not see him in that hidden little corner.

[That Guy]

I see a motorcycle cop ... in the corner of the road
.....
I did not see him in that hidden little corner.

Make up your mind... Did you see him or did you not see him? Not that it matters, really, you had to have done something to catch his attention, maybe following too close... Idon't know. But something made him pull you over and not the other cars!

He told me I was going 50 without showing the radar to me. I denied that I was driving that speed and asked if he can show it to me on the lidar gun. He then takes 5 mins to show it to me and I asked him for his training on this device. He said have anything to show me and that I was wasting his time.

For future reference, he has no obligated to show you the Radar/Lidar nor is he required to prove his training right there on the side of the road... Are you kidding me?

I have sent in an Informal Discovery and these are the documents I got back.

TES

http://i1262.photobucket.com/albums/...BAMDOT/TES.jpg

TICKET

http://i1262.photobucket.com/albums/...DOT/ticket.jpg

Letter from the department

http://i1262.photobucket.com/albums/...liceLetter.jpg

OK, so you got the items you requested...

I have also sent an Informal Request to the DA and the Superior Court. The DA mailed me back a letter saying they don't help with traffic cases. The Superior Court mailed me back nothing at all.

The court is not ever going to fulfill your discovery request. As for the DA not sending you anything, you got a reply from the PD with the items you requested, what else did you want?

The TBWD is due tomorrow so much help is needed please. Thank you!

The speed limit is not justidfied by a valid E&T survey. The reason cited "Roadway was designed for 30MPH speed limit" is not valid justification to reduce the limit from the 85th percentile speeds of 40.45mph for Northbound lanes and 41.73mph for Southbound lanes. Speed limit in both direction should be posted at 40mph instead.

Of course you'll have to do some more research incorporate that into a decent argument and include it as your declaration. A good start would be to search the forum for 22350, read a few of the threads that come up in the search results and write something up!

I also believe my speed was safe and was not endangering persons or property...

Not very convincing considering the fact that we can establish that this was a narrow road, and even if the speed limit was properly justified and posted, you would still be at 9-10mph higher than what 85% of drivers decided is safe for that road!

...the cop said he got me pretty far away.

Not true, the cop got you at 50mph at a distance of 825 feet. That is not far at all!

[themadnorwegian]

All I can say is, "missed it by that much!"



The OP almost had a chance for a speed trap argument, since the engineering survey doesn't justify the speed limit. However, in this case, it doesn't have to. The ticket was issued at Calle Girasol and Riverton, which is here on Google Maps.

If you look at Map 15W34 for Riverside and Murrieta Hot Springs, you'll notice that Nicolas Rd is classified as a major collector, but all of the roads that run into it are grey, and classified as local. If you'd prefer to claim that the road doesn't appear on the map, even though it is present without a name, it's very close to meeting the statutory definition of a local road too. The only possible catch is that the engineering survey lists the segment as .54 miles, but the statute reads, "not more than one half of a mile." However, since the road appears on the map it seems like an uphill argument.

I'd read the part of 40802 where it talks about local roads and functional classifications carefully, and then consider taking traffic school.

[That Guy]

All I can say is, "missed it by that much!"



The OP almost had a chance for a speed trap argument, since the engineering survey doesn't justify the speed limit. However, in this case, it doesn't have to. The ticket was issued at Calle Girasol and Riverton, which is here on Google Maps.

If you look at Map 15W34 for Riverside and Murrieta Hot Springs, you'll notice that Nicolas Rd is classified as a major collector, but all of the roads that run into it are grey, and classified as local. If you'd prefer to claim that the road doesn't appear on the map, even though it is present without a name, it's very close to meeting the statutory definition of a local road too. The only possible catch is that the engineering survey lists the segment as .54 miles, but the statute reads, "not more than one half of a mile." However, since the road appears on the map it seems like an uphill argument.

I'd read the part of 40802 where it talks about local roads and functional classifications carefully, and then consider taking traffic school.

GREAT catch TMN.. And an even better T.V. reference. One step ahead of me on this one as I never check local maps.

This is what I have left after a long winded reply that simply got wiped at the push of a button ... Dang!

Here's my version of the important excerpt of the map, with the Google Map inset for clarity:




However, and though the length of the segment might seem like a minor issue though if combined with the following, it might become something... If you read the definition of a local road in VC 40802 and particularly the underlined portion:

(b) (1) For purposes of this section, a local street or road is one that is functionally classified as "local" on the "California Road System Maps," that are approved by the Federal Highway Administration and maintained by the Department of Transportation.
When a street or road does not appear on the "California Road System Maps," it may be defined as a "local street or road" if it primarily provides access to abutting residential property and meets the following three conditions:

(A) Roadway width of not more than 40 feet.
(B) Not more than one-half of a mile of uninterrupted length.
Interruptions shall include official traffic control signals as defined in Section 445.
(C) Not more than one traffic lane in each direction.

Clearly, it does appear on the "California Road System Maps," though it is not labeledor colored so I agree that it can be defined as a "local road", until you get to the part where it states: "it may be defined as a "local street or road" if it primarily provides access to abutting residential property". Well, clearly, that is no its only function. I t can be argued that it serves as a collector (minor or major is not relevant) simply because if you close to through traffic then you've got major problems on each end. Now, if it were "Tommy Lane" or "Aussie Rd" we're talking about, then I'd agree.

But... Are you likely to convince a judge that the "California Road System Maps" is wrong... Good luck if you can. I would have given up yesterday!

By the way, if you do get to argue your case and are using the invalid survey as the basis for your argumrnt, the default speed limit in this case -on a 2 lane undivided hwy- is 55mph, that certainly would get you out of the speeding citation but you'll have to jump through several hoops to come close to getting a judge to even listen. And in all honesty, I don't think the 55 mph speed is reasonable to even make such an argument. Clearly, (now that I think about it) I addressed what I would choose as a reasonable speed limit, which is the 40mph that 85% of surveyed drivers choose... (not that 85 of every 100 drove at that speed, but 85 out of 100 did not exceed that speed)...

Anyhow, let us know what you did with the TBD and we can go from there.

[themadnorwegian]

GREAT catch TMN.. And an even better T.V. reference. One step ahead of me on this one as I never check local maps.

Thanks! I'm a big fan of the cone of silence. I wish I had one of those at the office. I don't usually check the maps either, but something about that survey seemed too good to be true.

Here's my version of the important excerpt of the map, with the Google Map inset for clarity:

I like what you did with the map. That makes it a lot easier to understand what's going one.

Clearly, it does appear on the "California Road System Maps," though it is not labeled or colored so I agree that it can be defined as a "local road", until you get to the part where it states: "it may be defined as a "local street or road" if it primarily provides access to abutting residential property". Well, clearly, that is no its only function. I t can be argued that it serves as a collector (minor or major is not relevant) simply because if you close to through traffic then you've got major problems on each end. Now, if it were "Tommy Lane" or "Aussie Rd" we're talking about, then I'd agree.

This is where I'm a bit unsure. I couldn't tell if the unlabeled streets were the same color as the "local" classification, or if they were something different. I went back and checked the map of my neighborhood, and it does have many, but not all of the streets listed. If the OP is successful in arguing that the street doesn't appear on the map, because it's not named, then he may have a shot at a second career in the law. I'm not sure that I could pull it off, but I do take your point about adjacent residential property. Interestingly, the survey claims that the adjacent land use is residential, but it specifically lists that there are no driveways, sidewalks, pedestrians or on street parking.

[That Guy]

Thanks! I'm a big fan of the cone of silence. I wish I had one of those at the office.

Tried and tested... And failed!! Hahaaa

This is where I'm a bit unsure. I couldn't tell if the unlabeled streets were the same color as the "local" classification, or if they were something different. I went back and checked the map of my neighborhood, and it does have many, but not all of the streets listed. If the OP is successful in arguing that the street doesn't appear on the map, because it's not named, then he may have a shot at a second career in the law.

I agree, and whether he does get to argue that point or not, the classification is clearly in error. Maybe contacting someone at Caltrans and getting some sort of response or clarification from them might provide something to work with or off-shoot a factual argument from, who knows!

I'm not sure that I could pull it off, but I do take your point about adjacent residential property. Interestingly, the survey claims that the adjacent land use is residential, but it specifically lists that there are no driveways, sidewalks, pedestrians or on street parking.

Well a residential density per definitions in the vehicle code is clearly a different element than what would go to define a residential zone as defined by municipal or county ordinances.

The former is defined under Vehicle Code section 627(c)(1) as:

(1) Residential density, if any of the following conditions exist on the particular portion of highway and the property contiguous thereto, other than a business district:

(A) Upon one side of the highway, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 13 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures.
(B) Upon both sides of the highway, collectively, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 16 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures.
(C) The portion of highway is longer than one-quarter of a mile but has the ratio of separate dwelling houses or business structures to the length of the highway described in either subparagraph (A) or (B).

So while this roadway does in fact cut through or in between lots zoned as residential, as it sits for the time being (or more importantly at the time the survey was conducted) residential density is ZERO, and yes, there are no driveways to claim would alter the traffic pattern or affect oncoming traffic or its speed in any way.

Even the term "residence district" within the vehicle code varies from the municipal definition of "residential districts":

VC 515. A "residence district" is that portion of a highway and the property contiguous thereto, other than a business district, (a) upon one side of which highway, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 13 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures, or (b) upon both sides of which highway, collectively, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 16 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures. A residence district may be longer than one-quarter of a mile if the above ratio of separate dwelling houses or business structures to the length of the highway exists.

It is obvious via the frequent use of the term "fronting" (which I underlined) that a property would only count if vehicular or pedestrian access to it *IS* provided through that particular highway in question, otherwise, it would not count. That differs drastically from what happens to be several definitions for different type of residential districts per Temecula's Muni code:

17.06.020 Description of residential districts.

17.06.030 Use regulations.