Clear Case of Abuse of Power

[jk]

The officer's allegation that there was a super shuttle behind me and at the same moment no car infront of me is completely irrelevant to someone who is trying to pick up somebody. And again, I did drive about 20 seconds and I was already pulled over.

no, it isn't. were you in one of these "slower" lanes? Were you in a position blocking the shuttle who wanted to pull over?

and if you were already pulled over, again, your argument in court was: I pulled out into the driving lane. I started to accelerate and then saw the other party I was needing to pick up. I then pulled over in the loading zone to pick them up when this cop pulls up behind me and writes this ticket.

I have a funny suspicion that isn't what happened though. I would guess something like:
I had picked up one party but was trying to find a second party I was to pick up. I pulled away from the curb and dawdled about at 10 mph while looking for my second party. I realized the shuttle was behind me but figured he could either go around me or just stay behind me if he was pulling over shortly. I really didn't care.

To claim that a car in the passenger loading is impeding (cars that are there for the same reason), because it is trying to pick up somebody sounds simply arrogant.

arrogant? if one was in a loading zone, if they were picking up a person they were compliant with the law. If they were slowly cruising through the loading zone, they were breaking the law. If they were not impeding traffic, it is really a moot point but if there was a shuttle following them trying to get to their stopping area, the slow driver is impeding traffic. In that case, you either stop or speed up.


You do realize that you have now totally blown the "I was driving slow because I feared a pedestrian might magically appear before my eyes (and car) and I might not be able to stop my car quickly enough (from 20-25 mph) to avoid hitting them.

Now you have clearly stated your reason for driving slowly was that you were looking for your second passenger.

YOU LOSE, again.

[Aba1970]

Now you have clearly stated your reason for driving slowly was that you were looking for your second passenger.

I guess it depends on your definition.

22400. (a) No person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation, because of a grade, or in compliance with law.

No person shall bring a vehicle to a complete stop upon a highway so as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic unless the stop is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.

I was charged with violation of 22400. And the normal and reasonable movement of traffic in the area is 10-15 mph and not 25mph some others here mentioned. Indeed (and sorry but again), like I said before, the police will pull you over in this area if your are driving faster than 15 mph. So if the police would pull you over for going over 15mph, then how can anybody then argue, that such speed as 10 mph, would be not normal for the area.

- - - Updated - - -

like I said before, the police will pull you over in this area if your are driving faster than 15 mph. So if the police would pull you over for going over 15mph, then how can anybody then argue, that such speed as 10 mph, would be not normal for the area.

What is happening here:
If you drive over 15mph, you will be pulled over for driving with an unsafe speed for the area.
If you drive under 15mph, you will be pulled over for impeding.

- - - Updated - - -

Make no mistake about it, those here who claim they can/do drive 25mph at this location, will eventually be pulled over and issued a ticket. It is only a matter of time. They then can use their virtue and argue their case in front of the same judge as I did. Good luck with that.

[jk]

Aba1970;622877]I guess it depends on your definition.

really? that is exactly what you have now explained as your reason for driving slowly.

I was charged with violation of 22400. And the normal and reasonable movement of traffic in the area is 10-15 mph and not 25mph some others here mentioned. Indeed (and sorry but again), like I said before, the police will pull you over in this area if your are driving faster than 15 mph. So if the police would pull you over for going over 15mph, then how can anybody then argue, that such speed as 10 mph, would be not normal for the area

.and your defense apparently did not adequately show that the normal (and current at the time) traffic speed was 10-15 mph. If you had, again, the argument: I couldn't go any faster or I would have hit the car immediately in front of me would have won the case. Oh, that's right. there wasn't any vehicle immediately in front of you. It was up to YOU to set your own speed as well as the speed of the traffic behind you. If there was anybody immediately behind you, it would seem the only reason they were driving only 10 mph is becuase you were in front of them slowing them down hence the ticket.

If you drive over 15mph, you will be pulled over for driving with an unsafe speed for the area.

and your proof of that is what? If you drive that fast and get a ticket, be sure to bring this current ticket and court transcript with you to defend yourself.


- - - Updated - - -

Make no mistake about it, those here who claim they can/do drive 25mph at this location, will eventually be pulled over and issued a ticket. It is only a matter of time. They then can use their virtue and argue their case in front of the same judge as I did. Good luck with that.[

so let us know your case number so we can use that as a defense that going slower is not legally allowed.

[California student]

What is that supposed to mean? Isn't the site is called ExpertLaw Forum - Help With Your Legal Questions

Upon some further recent research, it also became clear to me that the judge CLEARLY acted as a prosecutor.
I will follow up on that as well and explore legal options for complaint.

Unfortunately after a senior member's comment like:



I just can't trust any legal advice on this site any more.

Huh? We're having a discussion that, in part, revolves around whether a speed slower than the speed limit is legal, and if so, how slow can you go before it's too slow. I think that's rather germane to the discussion. Furthermore, since my original reply was before I read that you were going 10 mph in a 25 without any specific citable reason, it looks like I'm jumping from side to side. That is especially true since I'm not looking at the "who's responsible for safety" from a legal strict liability standpoint like most of the other posters are looking at, but from a defensive driving standpoint.

Disagreement isn't bad or unexpected, but I don't think that anyone besides you thinks that judicial misconduct occurred given what has been posted so far.

[Aba1970]

and your proof of that is what?

What proof do you expect me to provide here on the thread?
What I can say:
I did ask multiple Police Patrol Officers at LAX, who all confirmed the 15mph passenger loading area rule.
If you want better proof, you can do the same or you can choose to believe me for the purposes of this discussion.

[jk]

What proof do you expect me to provide here on the thread?
What I can say:
I did ask multiple Police Patrol Officers at LAX, who all confirmed the 15mph passenger loading area rule.
If you want better proof, you can do the same or you can choose to believe me for the purposes of this discussion.

I don't need no stinkin' proof. I got opinion.

The problem: the opinion you have is not supportable by facts. Can you show that they have enforced that "rule"? How many tickets have been written of some given period of time to drivers exceeding 15 but less than 25 mph?

[cbg]

No, what we have here is someone who will not be satisfied until someone says, Yes, you were absolutely right to be driving that slow; the cop was in the wrong to ticket you and the judge was absolutely wrong to rule against you.

Tell me, Aba, if I make that statement, regardless of whether I believe it or not, will you finally end this? 5 pages is really excessive for the issue.

[That Guy]

#1 Sorry, you seem to have not to payed attention and YOU BASE YOUR COMMENTS ON ASSUMPTIONS.

Let me start by saying that forum etiquette dictates that you NOT start a new thread for a matter related to a thread that you had already started. The reason for that being, it is easier for us and better for you if ALL of your information is in one thread instead of having the volunteers go hunting for what you claimed months ago!

So yes, I made an error quoting you about crosswalks... Do I need to apologize? Nope! Deal with it. In fact, if you take that line away, my last post is still factual, accurate, and descriptive of the main issue here, that being that “all of reasons you claimed would justify you slowing down, were already accounted for when the 25mph speed limit was set”. And I challenge anyone who knows anything about setting speed limits in California to come on and post otherwise. Deny it if you want, I don't care.

Second, I have wondered if English is your first language or if it is a second language that you learned later in life simply because your use of some terms is clearly way off... You claim I base my comments on “assumptions” and yet you only refer to an “error” I made about crosswalks. Not sure how that is an assumption.

But before that, you come here all butt hurt because the judge simply explained to you why your defense was not viable to overcome the presumption that you did violate 22400, and yet to dramatize the situation and victimize yourself, you start off with a title “Clear Case Of Abuse Of Power”... Which part of a judge explaining the law to you is “abuse of power”??? I don't know! And in the slight chance that your title was in reference to the officer citing you, well, the fact that you were convicted means he was correct in his allegation that you violated the law. Again, no “abuse of power”.

But wait... Speaking of “assumptions”.... You are NOT one to point that particular finger simply because you based your entire defense on what?
Substantiated facts?
An actual erratic pedestrian that jumped the curb in front of you so you freaked out and drove like you're the grand marshal in a parade?
You saw someone get creamed before you and decided “that ain't happening to me, I'm slowing down”?

Nope!
None of the above!
You ASSUMED people are stupid, and ASSUMED that they simply will jump the curb in front of you so you decided you would hold up traffic and cruise your way through art your leisure!

You went to court ,making assumptions, and to your disadvantage,m the wrong ones, unfortunately!

Indeed my postNr3 in the original thread clearly stated that there are crosswalks about every 100 feet NOT CONTROLLED BY TRAFFIC LIGHTS (which I explained to you in the OP)

So say you... But I'll address that in a bit! *

plus several other obstructions that I also described in my original post and that people would easily see if they only looked at the video.

I addressed the obstructions as being roadway features that are “readily apparent to the driver”, meaning they were accounted for when the speed limit was set, and your using them as an excuse is simply not a valid defense. The results clearly show that!

But lets go back and look at your description of “the obstructions”...

First, you claim there is a “90 degree turn”. Exaggerate much? That description, again, is way off... While your direction will eventually be 90 degrees off from where you started before the turn, the turn CURVES around and that should allow you to negotiate it at a higher speed.

Second, ”the taxi zone”: whether it is taxis or privately owned vehicles, it simply translates into roadside parking. If every time you come across a street where cars are parked in the parking lane and that will cause you to drive 10mph, then please, don't get behind the wheel.

Third, ”too many huge pillars”... Do you drive on freeways? And have you come across a freeway bridge, which obviously some of them will have pillars? Does that cause you to slow down to 10mph on a freeway? If so, please refrain from driving!

Forth, ”erratic passengers hiding behind those pillars”... I think this part was sufficiently addressed by the judge. But even then, I too also addressed it through the fact that clearly there will be pedestrians and when the speed limit was set, that was taken into effect.

And AGAIN, in a subsequent post, you stated *:

I also forgot to mention there are pedestrian crossings about every 100 feet around here.

VIDEO UPDATE:
I went back again and took some video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrwnWjmjaQw

Funny how you post that bit about every 100 feet along with a video! Interestingly enough, your video shows approximately 300 foot stretch of that loop... And yet NOT EVEN A SINGLE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING... OOOPS!!!!

I drove exactly like the van .

You know, as soon as I saw the hood of the van, I knew something was up with it...

For all we know:

(1) You were driving the van and someone else had the camera...Or,
(2) Maybe you handed the guy $5 and told him “drive at 10mph, just until you are out of sight!”

#2 You also might have overlooked that the alleged violation happened in the lower level ARRIVAL passenger loading area of the airport. The road is DIVIDED here into 4 driving lanes for 25mph fast moving traffic (referred to as outer curb lanes) and a segregated area with 2 driving lanes for slower moving traffic in the PASSENGER PICKUP area (referred as inner curb lanes), to PICK UP PASSENGERS (BTW: I like to congratulate anybody, who can make out his passengers @ 25mph, especially in the dark, and of course my alleged violation happened in the dark).

A repeat of the issues I addressed in my last post... And no, I did not overlook those! You can call it “slower moving traffic” but if it was indeed “slower enough where you can justify driving at 10mph, then you would not have been cited and you would not have been convicted!”

And again, if the speed limit was lower than 25mph, and since this roadway does not fit the criteria for a statutory 15mph speed limit, the speed limit (if it were different than 25mph) it MUST be posted to be in effect, otherwise it defaults to the 25mph limit!

Since you were unable to establish that any other speed limit was posted, we are looking at a 25mph speed limit zone, whether you like it or NOT!

This does not cover airport per se, but it is as close as you will get to a reduction past the 25mph limit. And the point is, the limit MUST be posted to be in effect!

[i]

22358.3. Whenever a local authority determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that the prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour in a business or residence district or in a public park on any street having a roadway not exceeding 25 feet in width, other than a state highway, is more than is reasonable or safe, the local authority may, by ordinance or resolution, determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 20 or 15 miles per hour, whichever is found most appropriate and is reasonable and safe. The declared prima facie limit shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected upon the street.

[i]

And the normal and reasonable movement of traffic in the area is 10-15 mph

ONLY according to you... And we already know where that claim left you... GUILLTY OF IMPEDING TRAFFIC!

...and not 25mph some others here mentioned.

Actually, that was YOU:

There is a 25mph speed limit at the entrance of the airport.

And you have not offered another alternative!

Indeed (and sorry but again), like I said before, the police will pull you over in this area if your are driving faster than 15 mph.

Keep singing that... You're the only one convinced of it!


And the only proof of anyone getting pulled over here is YOU.. Care to repeart what you were pulled over for?

So if the police would pull you over for going over 15mph, then how can anybody then argue, that such speed as 10 mph, would be not normal for the area.

The only citation we have here is one where YOU were cited for driving at 10mph... Now to say that the officer cited you for impeding at 10, and will cite me for speeding at 15, that is a very narrow margin, that not even you can buy into!

What is happening here:
If you drive over 15mph, you will be pulled over for driving with an unsafe speed for the area.
If you drive under 15mph, you will be pulled over for impeding.

Although it might seem like you stopped making sense st this point in time.. Fact is very little of what you've stated here is factual or sensible...

Make no mistake about it, those here who claim they can/do drive 25mph at this location, will eventually be pulled over and issued a ticket. It is only a matter of time. They then can use their virtue and argue their case in front of the same judge as I did. Good luck with that.

Let “them” worry about that... As for you, I suggest you start making plans for how you will handle getting through LAX without violating the law again...



Good luck dealing with this going forward. That you gotta do on your own though...

I'm done here!

[Aba1970]

I'm done here!

Me too thanks.
This discussion developed far too much into a "to the letter of the law" vs. "spirit of the law / commons sense" discussion, and is therefore entirely pointless.