Impeding Traffic Ticket, California VC 22400

[boo]

And yes, while it would be easy to suggest that it is possible that some vehicle could be driving at 55mph, and therefore some sympathy and understanding might be due the OP for getting cited, the fact still remains that the OP was not driving a vehicle described in 22406 and hence he is not subject to the speeds mandated under 22406.
Instead, he is subject to two statutes, the basic speed law and the statute setting the maximum speed for his type of vehicle.
That means, he has to drive at prevailing speeds or at the statutory limit or close thereto it, depending on what conditions are allowing at the time

I was most certainly driving a "Passenger Vehicle" which states under the law that it any speed over 55+ mph for passenger vehicle.

 Maximum Speed for Designated Vehicles

22406.  No person may drive any of the following vehicles on a highway
at a speed in excess of 55 miles per hour: 

(b) A passenger vehicle or bus drawing any other vehicle.

Here, I found another law which is for right lane only.

Driving at the minimum at 55mph.

A person driving at less than the normal speed of traffic 
shall drive in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as 
practicable to the right-hand edge or curb. 
Veh. Code §21654(a)

[California student]

I was most certainly driving a "Passenger Vehicle" which states under the law that it any speed over 55+ mph for passenger vehicle.

 Maximum Speed for Designated Vehicles

22406.  No person may drive any of the following vehicles on a highway
at a speed in excess of 55 miles per hour: 

(b) A passenger vehicle or bus drawing any other vehicle.

So were you "drawing any other vehicle." If you weren't towing anything, then that statute doesn't apply.

Here, I found another law which is for right lane only.

Driving at the minimum at 55mph.

You've never established a statutory minimum of 55.

A person driving at less than the normal speed of traffic 
shall drive in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as 
practicable to the right-hand edge or curb. 
Veh. Code §21654(a)

...but you weren't charged with that section of the vehicle code.

[boo]

So were you "drawing any other vehicle." If you weren't towing anything, then that statute doesn't apply.

It doesn't say that you have to be towing anything does it? Show me since I don't understand you.

You've never established a statutory minimum of 55.

Um, its not hard to keep your speed at 55 the entire time of your trip.

...but you weren't charged with that section of the vehicle code.

[/QUOTE]
yeah I know. but my ticket is still bogus. i believe i wasn't impeding traffic at all.

[California student]

It doesn't say that you have to be towing anything does it? Show me since I don't understand you.

Define the word "drawing" as used in the following sentence.

"(b) A passenger vehicle or bus drawing any other vehicle."

Um, its not hard to keep your speed at 55 the entire time of your trip.

Umm, show me in the law where 55 is set as the minimum speed. Show me someplace in the law where it's legal to impede traffic because you're going 55. If you were impeding traffic while going the speed limit, then there's a built in defense of "in compliance with law." Similarly, there's no law that says, "You can't be impeding traffic if you're going faster than ______."

yeah I know. but my ticket is still bogus. i believe i wasn't impeding traffic at all.

It doesn't matter what you believe. It matters what the judge believes.

[boo]

Define the word "drawing" as used in the following sentence.

"(b) A passenger vehicle or bus drawing any other vehicle."



Umm, show me in the law where 55 is set as the minimum speed. Show me someplace in the law where it's legal to impede traffic because you're going 55. If you were impeding traffic while going the speed limit, then there's a built in defense of "in compliance with law." Similarly, there's no law that says, "You can't be impeding traffic if you're going faster than ______."


It doesn't matter what you believe. It matters what the judge believes.

well i probably wont go to court with this ticket. i dont have good communication skills to tell the judge what happen or thinking im lying. its probably going to cost another $200 to go to court so i'll skip that and Just going to pay the fine and go traffic school.

cop told me I was going 40mph with his radar gun or something he used or he used his speed meter while following me on his vehicle. such total bs

[That Guy]

A trailer is, by definition, a vehicle.

670. A "vehicle" is a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.

and

630. A "trailer" is a vehicle designed for carrying persons or property on its own structure and for being drawn by a motor vehicle and so constructed that no part of its weight rests upon any other vehicle. As used in Division 15 (commencing with Section 35000), "trailer" includes a semitrailer when used in conjunction with an auxiliary dolly, if the auxiliary dolly is of a type constructed to replace the function of the drawbar and the front axle or axles of a trailer.

So a passenger car towing a small trailer would fall under 22406(b)




...and that was what I posted about when I brought up 22406. He wasn't drawing another vehicle (which includes trailers), therefore it doesn't apply to him directly. If I absolutely had to go to court to fight this, though, that's the only thing directly related to the offense that I can think of that could be brought up. However if I ever get a ticket for 22400, it's because I'm going the speed limit in the number 2 lane, which gives me the defense of "as required by law." Furthermore, there's the procedural issue of the ticket not complying with 40503 since speed (or lack there of) is an issue in this case.

CS, seriously... I don't disagree that some comments I made were confusing maybe even confused. And don't get me wrong, you have some valuable contributions in this thread, and its not my place to complain. But lets go back to the top, and aside from confusing boo and throwing this thread into a whirlwind, how has this talk of trailers, towing and posting 22406 helped anyone?

Do you STILL seriously think it is acceptable for the OP (or you, if you happened to get cited for impeding) to go to court and utilize the defense of "your honor, if I was towing a trailer, I would be required to drive at 55, and while its true I was driving slower than that, and although I was not towing anything, I still feel this case should be dismissed"!

Seriously...

But let me elaborate. Fact is jk hasn't offered much or contributed anything beneficial in this thread either. Instead, he has opted to critique, misquote, misinterpret, point fingers and act self righteous even though his observation skills are lacking even more.

The point I was trying to make in the paragraphs you quoted is as follows:
The presumption here is that it is dark, because during daylight hours and much to jk's disappointment, I could hopefully see a trailer if there was one!

But even under dark conditions, the vehicle code requires that the trailer have a set of taillights, and that those function as or in addition to a set of brake lights, turn signals and reflectors required to make the trailer "plainly visible" from 1000 feet, so while it maybe difficult to see the extra set of lights at a distance, they are visible as you approach. And if you're driving at 65-70, (equals ~ 100 fps) approaching someone who is well below the 65-70 speed everyone is moving, well, you're coming up fast, and might only have a few seconds to react or change lanes... And again, THAT is what makes his action of driving well below the floe of traffic, dangerous , NOT my "negligence".

---

semantics?

I couldn't think of a word for silly semantics...

Not hardly.

You mean “hardly”... if you're disagreeing that it is semantics, then it would be “hardly”, not “not hardly”!

I asked if not all vehicles towing a trailer were required to drive <55

Hmmm. interesting how in a discussion where you're trying to assert that you're more observant, you mention ^that^ part, but not the part that is more closely related to “passenger vehicles i.e. a car” (the answer you're critiquing). Here is the question that followed:

What about a car towing a small trailer; what are you going to see different that if it were just a car that gives you all this warning?

So aside from your claim that I missed one, and no I didn't specifically highlight, underline, bold it out, what is your point? Do you even have a point? In reality, no, I didn't specifically hit on any subsection, none of the appear to be highlighted, bolded, underlined or in anyway shape or form, marked differently. And even if I did, how much difference would it have made? It did not change a single thing. You didn't even tread and even read the following paragraph though my specifically pointing to that one would not (or should I say did not*) change a single thing, is there a point to all of this?

in response to you not being able to see a car yet you could see a big ol' truck.

Yet another mistaken observation (please mark as #2)... I never mentioned "big ol' trucks”, or regular trucks for that matter! Here is what I posted:

Either way, Even at 55, it is impeding traffic simply because as i approach from behind, I don't see a vehicle that is required to drive at 55 and I don't see a trailer... And not until I am feet from his bumper, do I realize that this guy owns this lane... This is why it becomes dangerous!

Side Note: So he's breaking the law... And the only thing you can come up with is it is MY negligence that caused this? Really? Not sure what's worse, your observational skills or your conclusions!

Anyways, since I never mentioned trucks, and for you still counting sat home, ^this one^ should be marked as #3!

You then cited the law but pointed to only the section speaking to trucks. I merely pointed out the part specific to any vehicle towing a vehicle

Dude, you really need to get your eyes checked. Post #22; Look at VC section 22406, scroll through all of its subsections, you'll then see that I posted the definition of "motor truck" VC 410, followed by posting VC 465, the definition of "passenger vehicle"... (Do you miss that part Mr. Observant)? So yes, I did cite the law BUT I cited BOTH sections relating to trucks and passenger cars! That is the way comparisons work; you post one, then the other and then you offer a conclusion!

And the conclusion here is that you posted just for the sake of being a prick, and as it turns out, you're making a fool of yourself.

But wait, I'm not done yet. There is still more smack. All of ^^THAT^^ was only 1 ½ lines... Lets see what other ways you made yourself look ridiculous... That makes for #4, by the way!

I merely pointed out the part specific to any vehicle towing a vehicle

O'... I think I see number 5... Yuppp... There it is indeed; please mark this one as #5!

And NUMBER FFIVE turns out to be a BIG one...

The subsection you pointed out is NOT refer to "any vehicle towing a vehicle"...
The subsection you pointed out is specific to "a passenger vehicle or bus towing another vehicle".

So how could I have “missed one”, (the one you so kindly highlighted for everyone) when in fact, the only reason why I posted 22406 was so that I can post the definition in passenger vehicles” and tie that one into your question about “cars”??? And see, I did mention it, * but did it change a thing? Nope. It certainly has not proven that your observation skills are any better than mine.

which I believe a trailer, any trailer falls under) also requires said vehicles to drive <55. The point being it defeats your argument that you would see the big ol' truck and but not the possible vehicles restricted to driving <55 is simply a car with a trailer (and for impressing the point, imagine a trailer used to haul something like a lawn tractor but without the tractor on it. It will be about 2 feet high). There is nothing really more noticeable of such a vehicle over just a car. In fact, due to the low height, the trailer will often not be seen. Then where are you.

I already answered this clearly and specifically. And I would answer it again but I am torn between keeping it simple and short for those of us suffering from A.D.D. Or if I should offer a detailed explanation. Well, if you know mr you know I'm all about thee details

In fact, let me impress the point even more. You suggested a trailer that is used to haul a lawn tractor... Well that could possibly be a two wheeler but it is certainly several feet long...

(And don't let the size of the photos fool you. The first one is probably 5 feet long with the ramp/gate up like that, the second one is probably 3 feet or so from the front of the wheels back).

Sort of like this one:



I'll even oblige your point and offer that we can use a smaller trailer as an example... Lets assume a short two wheeler used to tow a car... More commonly referred to as a "car dolly", sort of like this one:



A trailer (or a two dolly) as in the second picture, with or without a load, however which way you care to describe it, would not only require a set of tail lights, but that those work as or in conjunction with a set of turn signals, a set of brake lights and a set of reflectors. And hence, to me at least, and even if it is towed by a passenger car, it would be sufficiently MORE noticeable than just a passenger car, with nothing in tow. Depending on its size, weight, type of construction... etc, a trailer may even have its own license plate.

All of a sudden, that "negligence" comment is seemingly becoming more and more out of place, don't you think!

Semantics? no. Specific facts.

If your definition of "specific facts" are made up of misquotes, statements taken out of context, you changing your mind on what you were asking then you are right on. If its even remotely related to you being too busy pointing fingers you forgot to check yourself, if it was part of you getting on here with your self righteous hateful act, then you may be correct. But how would you be consistent if you made all those mistakes and were right at the end! So no... Its not “specific facts, jk, instead, it is sillyu stupid commentary that really offers no one a shred of benefit. I'd be lying to say I didn't enjoy it though. A break from the monotony of traffic law and yet, we all learned something! Hopefully...

Sometimes, the gifts keep on giving... So lets see jk's next post!

I guess, according to that guy, there should be innumerable accidents on road such as, oh, maybe the autobahn simply due to the speed disparity, right? I think you will find that due to the more well trained driver, you do not have near as many accidents caused by speed disparity as you do in the US. That goes back to my point: if you aren't paying attention to where you are going, the speed disparity is a problem.

Clearly, you misunderstood my comment about accidents and speed limits. And no, its not according to me, if you must know it was several studies conducted by governmental agencies in several states including several state's D.O.T., the NHTSA, the IIHS... etc. I would post some links but it is quite apparent by now that too much information gets you all lost and confused.

Your first comment in this thread, which is what started this entire discussion was this:

Ya gotta love it. Using the argument "I was just keeping up with traffic" doesn't get you out of a ticket but if the speed limit is 55 and everybody is driving 75 except for you, you can get a ticket for not keeping up with traffic.

For starters, the answer to "I was just keeping up with traffic" is that it isn't likely to work simply because it is either not true or that driver ended up being the unlucky one because the officer opted to only stop him -or as we say, he couldn't stop everybody. But secondly, where do you get the idea that -in this thread- the speed limit was 55 and everybody was driving 75?

You're also misinterpreting what I said suggesting it there would be a high number of accidents... Fact is, there aren't that many accidents simply because no one would dare drive at slightly above ½ the speed limit.

You mentioned the autobahn... Is that the only example you could think of? Are you suggesting that you would be able to drive at 2/3rd the prevailing speed if you were on the autobahn?

And lastly, regarding your paying attention comment, I think I justified my position and backed it up with good arguments. All while you sat there and tried to change what was said and how it was posted. Fact is in this state, the legislature seems to disagree with you considering the fact that we do not have a “careless driving” statute. Apparently paying attention when one is driving is a presumption that is in place. And although the penal code and vehicle code make it quite clear that “intent” is not requirement to proving guilt, instead, they opted to penalize those acts that are clearly intentional such as driving at much lower speed than the statutory limit and even much lower than prevailing speeds. How do I know? I've never heard of anyone who was cited for not paying attention! Maybe that happens in your state... People just go about their daily lives living in a daze!

So guess what, in that scenario I posed where I am only feet away from a slow poke before I realize I have to merge out of that lane, and if I happen to collide with him instead. He'll likely get nothing for my so called “negligence”. While I clean him out for driving at an unsafe speed and/or impeding traffic!

---

cop told me I was going 40mph with his radar gun or something he used or he used his speed meter while following me on his vehicle. such total bs

So I really wasn't that far off when I suggested:

is it conceivable that this could possibly be 45 to 50 instead of 50 to 55? Maybe even 40 to 45? It sure is...

[California student]

Do you STILL seriously think it is acceptable for the OP (or you, if you happened to get cited for impeding) to go to court and utilize the defense of "your honor, if I was towing a trailer, I would be required to drive at 55, and while its true I was driving slower than that, and although I was not towing anything, I still feel this case should be dismissed"!

Seriously...

As I said when I brought that up, the obvious answer is that 'he isn't drawing another vehicle,' thus the argument doesn't apply. However it's definitely a better argument than, "I thought the minimum speed limit was 55, therefore I was going 55," or the even worse argument of, "Wait, the speed limit is 55 for everyone, right?" I have no doubt that that argument would fall on it's face, but if I had absolutely nothing else to go on and insisted on going to court, that's exactly what I would argue. However for something like this at most I would show up at arraignment and ask for a reduction and traffic school, unless I wanted to spin the Wheel of CHP Fortune.

Of course part of the problem is the selective reading of people asking for help. They read the first half of a post and think, "Jackpot!" but miss the second part which reads, "Obvious response (you're not towing anything) is obvious (ergo it doesn't apply)."

But let me elaborate. Fact is jk hasn't offered much or contributed anything beneficial in this thread either. Instead, he has opted to critique, misquote, misinterpret, point fingers and act self righteous even though his observation skills are lacking even more.

The point I was trying to make in the paragraphs you quoted is as follows:
The presumption here is that it is dark, because during daylight hours and much to jk's disappointment, I could hopefully see a trailer if there was one!

But even under dark conditions, the vehicle code requires that the trailer have a set of taillights, and that those function as or in addition to a set of brake lights, turn signals and reflectors required to make the trailer "plainly visible" from 1000 feet, so while it maybe difficult to see the extra set of lights at a distance, they are visible as you approach. And if you're driving at 65-70, (equals ~ 100 fps) approaching someone who is well below the 65-70 speed everyone is moving, well, you're coming up fast, and might only have a few seconds to react or change lanes... And again, THAT is what makes his action of driving well below the floe of traffic, dangerous , NOT my "negligence".

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, but now we're getting into an argument of driving style vs legal requirements which I'd be happy to discuss via PM to keep the thread from being bloated further than it already is.

[boo]

I just received my courtesy notice and my only two options for request court appearance :

Arraignment : Appearance to hear your charges, advisement of rights and entry of plea

Court Trial : Contest the citation

I am not eligible for Trial by Declaration but should I fill one out anyways with bail money?

[That Guy]

I just received my courtesy notice and my only two options for request court appearance :

Arraignment : Appearance to hear your charges, advisement of rights and entry of plea

Court Trial : Contest the citation

I am not eligible for Trial by Declaration but should I fill one out anyways with bail money?

Read this thread: Ineligible for Trial by Written Declaration, especially the part the starts with "Hold The Presses" in post 5 and post back if its the same thing!


If its not the same thing, redact personal information and post a scan/picture of the courtesy notice.

[boo]

Read this thread: Ineligible for Trial by Written Declaration, especially the part the starts with "Hold The Presses" in post 5 and post back if its the same thing!


If its not the same thing, redact personal information and post a scan/picture of the courtesy notice.

Here's my courtesy notice. I found your post which was on the 6th or 7th post.

You want me to do these step by step to filing a TBD.

Complete the basic info on a TR-205.
Print 2 copies of the form.
Go to court.
Take both copies with you to court along with a check for the bail amount. (write "not guilty TRWD request + bail for [citation Number]" on the Memo part of the check).
Turn one in with the clerk and have him/her stamp your copy with a date stamp (It'll show the court's name, the date, the word "FILED" and the clerk's name for your county).
Now you get to wait for your TBD form in the mail (or they might complete it -write in the due date and the bail amount they received- and give it right back to you).

As for filing a discovery request, when should this be filed by? As soon as possible? I have already my discovery request form ready and don't know when exactly to turn it in or do with it.