Freeway Speeding in a Construction Zone

[bigbossman322]

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: California
I was driving on a weekday afternoon southbound on the 710. I noticed police lights behind me and pulled over. CHP said I was doing 85 mph in a 55 mph construction zone. When I saw his lights I looked and saw I was doing 75 mph. Anyway I explained the 75 mph and he gave me that on the ticket.
My question is about the construction zone post of 55 mph. Which doubles your fine if found guilty. There is only one 55 mph on the south bound lanes on the 710 between the 91 interchange and the Del Almo blvd exit. And it is 10 feet behind the separation curb of the emergency lane and short enough to be blocked by a pick up truck. I am guilty of the 75 mph. But not the construction fine? Any help you can give would be great. thanks

[That Guy]

There is only one 55 mph on the south bound lanes on the 710 between the 91 interchange and the Del Almo blvd exit. And it is 10 feet behind the separation curb of the emergency lane and short enough to be blocked by a pick up truck.

Sorry, things are running a bit slow here this morning and I don't think I am catching on... You're saying that potentially, because the sign can be blocked by a pick up truck, you're not guilty of the infraction you were cited for? That sign is probably properly posted at or close to the standard height...

In fact, there is a legal presumption that it is and the burden to prove it was not in compliance is upon you!

The other facts is that almost all sings are posted at such a height where they all can potentially be blocked by a pick up truck, or a semi, or an SUV if your vehicle is low enough... I am not clear on the rest of your description... But my guess is that you passed at least one sign announcing the construction zone speed limit.

You were probably cited for 22350, however, as far as the legal requirement for posting of the construction zone speed limit, this is the controlling code section:

22362.

It is prima facie a violation of the basic speed law for any person to operate a vehicle in excess of the posted speed limit upon any portion of a highway where officers or employees of the agency having jurisdiction of the same, or any contractor of the agency or his employees, are at work on the roadway or within the right-of-way so close thereto as to be endangered by passing traffic. This section applies only when appropriate signs, indicating the limits of the restricted zone, and the speed limit applicable therein, are placed by such agency within 400 feet of each end of such zone. The signs shall display the figures indicating the applicable limit, which shall not be less than 25 miles per hour, and shall indicate the purpose of the speed restriction. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to relieve any operator of a vehicle from complying with the basic speed law.

While it is mandated that the sign announcing the beginning of the construction zone be posted 400 feet from where the work is actually being performed I don't see anything that would come close to what you described. Meaning just like any other P.F. speed limit, it has to be posted to be in effect. So the question is then, how many signs must you pass before the particular prima facie speed limit goes into effect?

One sign!

Also, the following code section plays an important part in that it places the burden upon you to have to prove that signing was inadequate.

41101.

(a) Whenever a traffic sign or traffic control device is placed in a position approximately conforming to the requirements of this code, it shall be presumed to have been placed by the official act or direction of lawful authority, unless the contrary is established by competent evidence.

(b) Any sign or traffic control device placed pursuant to this code and purporting to conform to the lawful requirements pertaining to it shall be presumed to comply with the requirements of this code unless the contrary is established by competent evidence.

You can also review the requirements under the 2012 CA-MUTCD and hope you'll find a discrepancy but at the end of the day, your excuse is a mere hypothetical that it could be blocked, you do however describe it location with great detail, so I'm not sure what the problem is!

I will add this as well, you did get a HUGE break with the officer citing you for a lower speed. At 20 mph over and assuming your fine does carry the construction zone enhancement, you're looking at approximately $514. had he cited his measurement of 30 over, you would have been looking at $634...

[bigbossman322]

Sorry about my inability to be more clear. I am guilty of speeding. I was doing 75 mph. And the question is in regard to the construction zone violation. I did not know of any construction zone nor the posted 55 mph sign for the construction zone. Reason being, the lack of posted signs stating Construction zone. And after driving up and down the that stretch of freeway, I discovered only one 55 mph posted. And that seemed to me to be back by 10 to 15 feet behind the break point of asphalt and into the dirt area.

So, I go to court for trial on 6/22/2112, Friday. I want the double part of the fine dismissed due to the sign issue. And the 75 in a 55 dropped to a 75 in a 65 as well. What do you think? And thank you for this forum..

[That Guy]

Sorry about my inability to be more clear. I am guilty of speeding. I was doing 75 mph. And the question is in regard to the construction zone violation. I did not know of any construction zone nor the posted 55 mph sign for the construction zone. Reason being, the lack of posted signs stating Construction zone. And after driving up and down the that stretch of freeway, I discovered only one 55 mph posted. And that seemed to me to be back by 10 to 15 feet behind the break point of asphalt and into the dirt area.

So, I go to court for trial on 6/22/2112, Friday. I want the double part of the fine dismissed due to the sign issue. And the 75 in a 55 dropped to a 75 in a 65 as well. What do you think? And thank you for this forum..

For the "lack of posted sings" at the start and end of the construction zone, I have already posted the relevant code section indicating that YOU carry the burden of PROVING that the signage is insufficient. And the one single way that would make your claim one that is legit and sufficient for the court to consider, is if you were to obtain some sort of letter from Caltrans admitting that they are running a construction project without proper signage to protect their workers.

As for the sign being posted as you describe, I would normally say "tough... it sounds to me like you saw the sign and as such you were on notice of what the limit is". But in this case, 0 to 15 feet in your estimate, or approximately 12 feet is the minimum away from the edge of the roadway and 30 feet is the maximum. This you will find on page 120 of the 2012 CA-MUTCD under Section 2A.11 Titled Lateral Offset

Guidance:

On freeways, expressways, and in interchange areas, and on rural highways where practicable, warning and regulatory signs should be placed a minimum of 12 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the edge of traveled way.

Standard:

When clear roadside recovery areas are provided, guide signs on overhead sign supports shall be placed as far from the edge of traveled way as is practical, up to a maximum of 30 feet.

So, I go to court for trial on 6/22/2112, Friday. I want the double part of the fine dismissed due to the sign issue. And the 75 in a 55 dropped to a 75 in a 65 as well. What do you think? And thank you for this forum..

How about you request that the judge and the officer pay the fine on your behalf, some other defendant to take and pass traffic school for you. But wait, since everybody is pitching in to make you happy, how about a limo to take you to the airport and back when you're done?

You're not likely to get any of the above. You already had the officer cut you a 10mph break. That by itself is above and beyong what you'd normally get. Be thankful... You know what happens to greedy people, right?

[bigbossman322]

Thank you, I appreciate all your input.