How to Create and Present Your Own Speed Survey

[themadnorwegian]

This tells me that the validity of the speed limit in my case is gauged by the same T&ES standards as in speed trap cases. Of course, in my case I have to proactively challenge it which is alot harder.

Sorry, but that's baloney. 40802 is very specific about what is required for speed traps. Have you read it? Can you quote me a case where the court has decided that any of the provisions in 40802 apply when the police haven't used Radar or Laser?

[lbk]

You are right; I way oversimplified.

40802 applies only to speed trap cases.

furthermore, the requirements to have a licensed traffic engineer certify the survey only apply to speed trap cases. The 2003 MUTCD CA Supplement only has 1 reference to a registered traffic engineer and that pertains to extending the survey to 10 years.

Interesting that the 2012 MUTCD requires a registered civil or traffic engineer approve any 5MPH speed zone downgrade, but the 2003 MUTCD CA Supplement has no such requirement. Bummer.

But, on the positive side I think the case law such as Goulet that fleshes out common law on speed zone downgrading should apply to speed surveys whether or not speed trap laws are involved.

[That Guy]

Sorry, but that's baloney. 40802 is very specific about what is required for speed traps. Have you read it? Can you quote me a case where the court has decided that any of the provisions in 40802 apply when the police haven't used Radar or Laser?

TMN, with all due respect, not to second guess your judgment or question your decision to continue to reply (your choice), I really firmly believe that you will work yourself into frustration here. OP is not asking questions, he's here looking for cheerleaders, people to agree with him, and second his twisted opinions. Hey, we are all stubborn to a degree, I guess, but in this case... A little common courtesy would go a long way; not once has he taken a few seconds to acknowledge the several times we requested information from him. Not because we're nosey (if we were, we would never use the word "redact'), but simply because it makes it EASIER for us to get most points across! His continuing to ignore our questions is simply his way of saying "you, your efforts, expending double the amount of energy here top cover several possible scenarios here because I am stubborn... None of it matters! But here are more questions for you... "

Like I said, you're free to continue busting your chops as you reply!

If his case had potential, I'd be in here trying to make a difference as well. This is a 22449 case in a 22350 disguise; and it'll be over in 3 minutes tops, but only because it'll take 1 minute 45 seconds to shut him up!

There are plenty of lessons to learn here. None are for us... OP could use them all and then some.
Starting with the lesson that when you ask for help, learn how to listen!

[themadnorwegian]

TMN, with all due respect, not to second guess your judgment or question your decision to continue to reply (your choice), I really firmly believe that you will work yourself into frustration here. OP is not asking questions, he's here looking for cheerleaders, people to agree with him...

Heh, you may not be second guessing my judgement, but I am. This is a very timely post, since you seem to have sensed my imminent exasperation. I can't tell if this is simply a case of the OP strongly wishing I was wrong, trolling, or a psychology experiment, but I'm really out of ways to help.

There are plenty of lessons to learn here. None are for us...

I think there may be a lesson for me too: I should know a lost cause when I see one.

Interesting that the 2012 MUTCD requires a registered civil or traffic engineer approve any 5MPH speed zone downgrade, but the 2003 MUTCD CA Supplement has no such requirement. Bummer.

True. This is because 40802 was amended in 2009 or 2010 to include the rule about a registered engineer signing off on older surveys. However, what the law giveth, the law also taketh away. In 2012, VC 21400 was amended to require the MUTCD to be re-written to allow cities to apply a 5mph reduction in the 85th percentile speed limit, without requiring an engineering justification.

But, on the positive side I think the case law such as Goulet that fleshes out common law on speed zone downgrading should apply to speed surveys whether or not speed trap laws are involved.

I hope TG will forgive me for stealing his line: good luck!

[lbk]

Thanks TMN:

And thanks TG for that matter, especially for the civility in the last post.

I appreciate the input. The troll remark is baseless. I was asked for the surveys so I posted them as requested. If the surveys truly don't matter then I figure there is no point in posting the un-redacted copy. As for the NTA, today was the first I'd heard about that and I don't have scan and redact capabilities at hand. Plus, TMN was quite helpful and new info tends to divert the thread.

We haven't baselined the case recently, but based on your excellent input, it sounds like my case
currently boils down to: the conditions were great.

TG says:

This is a 22449 case in a 22350 disguise;

I assume he means 22349, but I don't catch the drift of his remarks as the survey I posted clearly shows otherwise.

Thanks again for all the help. TMN: sorry for any exasperation.

[That Guy]

a psychology experiment

Man... Now those... I cannot stand!

Wait... I meant I heard they aren't that much fun!

I hope TG will forgive me for stealing his line: good luck!

TG can forgive, but he would be willing to share

[lbk]

I got discovery from both city (survey) and chp. the chp's notice-to-appear-copy scans completely illegibly; I'm working on a way to get a more legible version posted. In fact, I can't read what's written myself in addition to the fact that I don't know their codes.

The city, in responding, sent me:
- my original discovery request page - date-stamped
- my original cover letter - date-stamped
- photocopies of the survey: completely unstamped. I've already posted a redacted copy of this survey: http://i.imgur.com/SFPEA.png

The city did not send any cover letter or anything signed of any kind. (The CHP, by contrast was very professional, but directed me to the city for the survey).

You will recall that this is a pacing case, so the prosecution has no duty to submit an engineering survey. The question is, if I want to submit their survey into evidence, does it need to be certified?
If so, is it my responsibility to do something beyond the discovery request I made?

And, yes, I've read this outstanding thread that relates:
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/show...=130838&page=4

[lbk]

Success!!

I got the TBD back: Not Guilty!. I'll post more info soon.

I'm very surprised. I figured I'd have to go to trial and appeal.

Thanks all.

- - - Updated - - -

http://imgur.com/FAMPa

That's my TBD defense. (Yes, I took the suggestion to protect my anonymity by modifying the city name and more on the traffic survey I posted)

Thoughts:

- I kept the TBD to two pages which was hard, but important IMO

- I came away with a positive view of CHP after a rough start. I suppose there's a bad officer here and there, but my CHP officer was professional AFTER the citation and I'm confident he would have been honest on the stand.

- Kind of disappointing that the acquittal letter didn't contain any real information; just a form saying not guilty and I'll get my check in 90 days.

- TG had a lot of good input, even though he was obnoxiously wrong about so many points such as my ultimate acquittal and the "troll" accusation and the fact that someone can be not guilty and still get a ticket and so on.

- One thing that I suspect TG was right about is the futility of doing your own speed survey. If such a
survey would prove something useful, there are probably ways that are more successful in
actual court.

- Note, however, that the traffic engineer (and TG when he tried to play traffic engineer) are dead
wrong on the technicals. Traffic engineering is a complex task. But the collection of raw speed data
for the speed survey is a very narrow task. In my case, the selection of which cars to survey matters
FAR MORE than the accuracy of measuring the speed of those cars. Consequently, a reasonably
smart person could do a far more accurate survey than the one produced by the city in my case.

I call out TraffEng for offering criticism but no constructive input. He erroneously assumed I
was criticizing the profession, ignored my questions and converted his umbrage into bad analysis.

Lastly, I'm left with the impression that most people can get out of tickets if they were driving normally, but perhaps it's just my good luck here.

Adios

[quirkyquark]

True. This is because 40802 was amended in 2009 or 2010 to include the rule about a registered engineer signing off on older surveys.

One little correction: the "...registered engineer evaluates..." language has been there since 1998, when 40802 was amended to allow survey extensions to 7/10 years. (Stats.1998, c. 1037, § 1.) The 2012 MUTCD requirement for justification by a registered engineer for any downgrade appears to be entirely the DoT's effort, probably because of the codification of the rounding/reduction in VC 21400.

However, what the law giveth, the law also taketh away. In 2012, VC 21400 was amended to require the MUTCD to be re-written to allow cities to apply a 5mph reduction in the 85th percentile speed limit, without requiring an engineering justification.

To clarify for future readers, VC 21400 allows *rounding down* the critical speed to the nearest 5-mph increment, instead of *rounding up*, without justification. For example, if the critical speed is 34.7 mph, the limit can be set at 30 mph. However, no further reduction can be applied when such "rounding down" has been done.

[That Guy]

To clarify for future readers...

And to do the same for future readers... Well, here you go lbk, certainly more trouble than you could ever be worth, but that's usually how it turns out to be with people with your level of total ignorance; here is the reply you weren't expecting:

Success!!

I got the TBD back: Not Guilty!. I'll post more info soon.

I'm very surprised. I figured I'd have to go to trial and appeal.

Thanks all.

You really must take us for fools. Right, “success”, and a “not guilty” finding... With ^that^ declaration?

A "Not Guilty" finding <---> Defendant won on merit, by presenting legal arguments which impacted the prosecution's ability to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt or diminished the validity of the evidence they presented.

You did nothing of the sort.

I suspect that the notice came back with either (1) a "dismissed", possibly meaning the officer did not submit a declaration or, (2) and the higher likelihood is that it came back "Guilty" and in your frustration, you're back here to talk smack, complain about all the help you got from me and trefang.

See the way it turned out, the answers we gave you early on, were all that was needed. But in your stubborn ignorance, and your lack of the mental capacity to comprehend what you were being told, you kept on with the same ideas you came here with, hoping someone will come along to cheer you on. Instead, each and every person who posted in this thread told you how wrong you are, how you are wasting your time... And yet only I and trefang get mentioned by name? Do you think I am offended by your criticism and your name calling or do you think I feel sad for you because in spite of the efforts put forth by several people, you still weren't able to capitalize on anyone's opinion or help???

But wait, that is about me and trefang, and since you aren't whining about others who posted here, that might imply you're content with their offerings... But where is their “thank you”? They don't get individually named and thanked? All they get is a measly “Thanks all”?

Fact is, you were clearly determined to prove how a twisted your thinking is, how lacking your abilities are, how irritating and aggravating your attitude and behavior had to be to make your presence known. Otherwise, yiou clearly had nothing to contribute... And you're calling me obnoxious? Yes, I called you a troll, and in fact, you're still trolling... Yes I told you you will lose, and I'll demonstrate why in a bit... I challenge you to point to a single sentence that I posted here that was not accurate. On second thought, you're clearly still bitter because I disagreed with your asinine logic and your idiotic drivel, and therefore you're incapable of facing reality and realizing it is your ignorance that caused the issues, not I. And so to come back only to get a second opportunity to smack your lips... You posted 2 words to show appreciation; and then paragraph upon paragraph of negativity, criticism of those who attempted to properly guide you to that which is in your best interest.

All that and you're pretending you won your case? Really/ Answer this for me... How hateful would you be if you would have lost?

http://imgur.com/FAMPa

That's my TBD defense. (Yes, I took the suggestion to protect my anonymity by modifying the city name and more on the traffic survey I posted)

Yeah, I'll leave that part to the end and I will show you that there is no potential chance in hell that you could have won this case with your asinine arguments.

- I kept the TBD to two pages which was hard, but important IMO

Actually, you'll see how you had so much fluff there, you included some info twice to get it to go two pages; One page may have been sufficient. (Are you really still trying to fool someone here? You tried that previously, and it only proved how lacking your abilities are. Give it up).

- Kind of disappointing that the acquittal letter didn't contain any real information; just a form saying not guilty and I'll get my check in 90 days.

Actually, a TR-215 says 60 days... You can't even be accurate with the pre-printed language...

- TG had a lot of good input, even though he was obnoxiously wrong about so many points such as my ultimate acquittal and the "troll" accusation and the fact that someone can be not guilty and still get a ticket and so on.

Keep your compliment... As for the criticism, seriously, you are not one to talk about obnoxious... Although that term does fail to describe how horridly irritating you were at times. As for the "ultimate fake acquittal", that is another component of the trolling you're still doing.

- One thing that I suspect TG was right about is the futility of doing your own speed survey. If such a survey would prove something useful, there are probably ways that are more successful in actual court.

You wouldn't know the difference if it smacked you upside the head. So spare me! And I honestly don't need your confirmations to validate my opinions.

- Note, however, that the traffic engineer (and TG when he tried to play traffic engineer) are dead wrong on the technicals. Traffic engineering is a complex task. But the collection of raw speed data for the speed survey is a very narrow task. In my case, the selection of which cars to survey matters FAR MORE than the accuracy of measuring the speed of those cars.

I actually started criticizing the entire paragraph until I got to the last (underlined) sentence... Which clearly shows the depth of your ineptitude and your inability to understand what was repeated to you several times in this thread. I feel sorry for you but more importantly, I sincerely feel like these thought that you come up with can be so freaky they would be a danger to those around you.

Oh, and you can be sure that I am not here to brag, but simply because I am not at the risk of jeopardizing my job, there are times when my analysis of the technicals, is more accurate and correct compared to that of a traffic engineer. You wouldn't know the difference though!

Consequently, a reasonably smart person could do a far more accurate survey than the one produced by the city in my case.

And even if that is true, you unfortunately failed at both tasks, being reasonably (or even remotely) smart or producing an accurate survey; and you still do not understand how worthless your "accurate survey" would be!

I call out TraffEng for offering criticism but no constructive input. He erroneously assumed I was criticizing the profession, ignored my questions and converted his umbrage into bad analysis.

I call you out for being too stubborn to even begin to comprehend the purpose, methodology, reasoning, behind the how/why and where a survey is conducted and the results are implemented, but I also call you out on having no common sense, for making arguments that are useless meaningless and moot, and for being a bad driver who's ability to differentiate between safe and unsafe is clearly lacking, as well as for having to be so far out in wrong field that we had to endure how infinitely irritating you are while we attempted to set the record straight. This last reason here is one big justification as to why any judicial officer would not even consider finding you "not guilty"! But you're free to lie yourself into submission...

Let me get to your -not so brilliant- declaration:

Here is the copy as you posted it (Page 1). However, let me explain the markings I made:

Page 1




The language marked in blue is the same information. No need to repeat it/one of those paragraphs can go...

The language marked in red as follows": First, the part about the officer not identifying any special dangers... where do you get these ideas from? All the cop has to do is ask you for license registration and insurance, write up a citation, ask you to sign it and send you on your way.

The language in yellow on page one: wherein you state: "I was not only driving safely I was a model DMV driver who exemplified my own ....." I would suggest that anyone who was driving on a city street on a Saturday morning, where they claimed that traffic was clear, visibility was "outstanding".... That you would have noticed the officer behind you pacing you at 15 mph over the limit! You, on the other hand, were oblivious, inattentive, probably careless and as such, none of your observations count and your attempt to exaggerate your own ability is clear. So that has to go or it carries more weight to harm you than benefit you!

Next, the part at the bottom of page one, marked in red and titled "Illegal Prima Facie Speed limit" and the paragraph itself which starts with: "Attached is the relevant E&T survey..." Actually, as you were told many more times than I would care to count, the E&T survey is NOT RELEVANT. So this part must go...

Moving on to page 2:

Page 2



The top paragraph marked in red, titled "Traffic Survey" is for the last time, "not relevant", the speed limit is not in question nor is it a matter of contention and so your attempt to use that in an effort to invalidate the survey and subsequently the speed limit is as much a failure as any of your other ideas. So this part is not needed and has little impact on the case; it must go!

Last but not least. the two paragraphs/lines in light green are in reference to a photograph you claim is representative of the segment of the roadway where you got busted... Well, it basically and simply is inadmissible in a TBD simply because you made zero attempt to try and authenticate it. And even if it can be admitted, it represents zero value to your case because it was not taken at the same time of when the offense occurred, therefore it is not representative of anything related.

Oh, one more thing... Since a survey is not required, and the speed limit is not in question, there is no need to submit a survey. So delete the line referring to a survey under “attachments”, and since you no longer have any “attachments”, you can delete that word as well.

OK, so I took the liberty of removing the paragraphs I mentioned above, and condensed the text of the declaration you submitted to the court which leaves you with this:



Not even a full page!

Lastly, I'm left with the impression that most people can get out of tickets if they were driving normally, but perhaps it's just my good luck here.

Neither... Your ignorance is not a means to beating a traffic citation...

Adios

Promises, promises!