LIDAR Speeding Ticket, 50 in a 35 MPH Zone, CVC 22350

[That Guy]

When I drove by the same place (from La Cienega to Melrose, via Northbound San Vicente) about a week ago, I did not see a posted sign regarding the limit. I will check again, and if NOT posted in the same area I will take photos of the missing sign.

It'll be difficult to take pictures of something that is missing... Especially on a stretch of roadway that is that long. A video would be better however, it may be difficult to authenticate a video. But even then, a video is not likely to prove beyond any doubt that the sign was missing on the date you were cited.

Ideally, you would be better off by contacting the city of West Hollywood and report the missing sign. Once that is done, give it a week or so and then submit a CPRA request for any work orders issued by the city to replace any missing speed limit signs. At the same time, you request copies of any documents that indicate the location and date of installation of any peed limit signs on that stretch or roadway. Even then, replacing a sign say on July 21st is not sufficient proof that it was missing on the date you were cited so you also need to approach them with some tact to see if they would help you out, by including whether they knew or not whether it was missing on such and such a date. It might work!

Other than that, you can bet the officer will testify that it was posted.

As far as my noticing the officers location... I did notice him, and the driveway he was waiting in (the construction site at 500 N. San Vicente, possibly shared with a residence at 4??, just to the South of this construction zone). On the Northbound side of the road, there are no cross streets that go thru to the East from the 300 block to Melrose, which is why I did not know the cross street

Aaahhh, gotcha!

Here's the weblink to the traffic survey: http://www.weho.org/Modules/ShowDocu...ocumentid=8277

Well, I'll be danged!!!! Remind me not to ever speed through that city!

I have to give it to them; that has got to be the most conclusive survey I have seen in quite some time. But it still FAILS!

Anyway... A survey that is conducted on 03/31/2011 would have to follow the guidelines of the 2010 CA-MUTCD which you can download here, if not the entire document, then at least PART 2: SIGNS. We are interested in particular in Section 2B.13 which starts at the bottom of page 2B-6.

I was going to be brief in describing a survey that, on its face, appears to justify the posted limit of 35mph. But I'll cover as much as I can and you come back with questions if you have any

For starters, I do disagree with the specific reasoning that the engineer outlined in the 3 points she included in her analysis. Meaning, in point 1, she states:

The two year accident history within this section revealed that there were 5 speed related accidents. Three of the 5 accidents within this segment were rear-end collisions

OK, the primary collision factor for most rear end collisions is indeed "unsafe speed".

But that is not how those values are compared nor is it how we evaluate whether those collisions are sufficient reason to reduce the speed limit. Typically, the number of collisions is calculated into a comparable value which is later weighed against a standard for the city, county or state. In this case, it is compared to the value described as "Collisions Per Million Vehicle Miles (C/MVM) which equals 3.55 (page 1 under "Safety Values"...)

So how do we convert that 5 accident figure into C/MVM?

C/MVM =(cX10^6)/(365 X y X l X v)

Where c = # speed related collisions (in this case = 5), y = # of years data was collected (in this case = 2), l = length of segment in miles (in this case = 0.705 miles), v = vpd or traffic volume per day (in this case = 20301).

C/MVM = ( 5 X 10^6 ) / ( 365 X 2 X 0.705 X 20301) = 5,000,000 / 10,447,909.65 = 0.47856

Compare that to 3.55, it is much lower that the standard expected.

Therefore Accident data is no valid reason to reduce the limit.

In point # 2 she attempts to pad the numbers in point # 1. And while she admits that those categories should not count, yet she still wants to count them. Fact is regardless of how you look at it, only "Speed Related Collisions" should be included in such an analysis. So point # 2 does not add much to her reasoning.

In point # 3 she is simply getting desperate claiming that a 5mph reduction would increase reaction time of motorists; well, a 10 mph reduction would increase it even more but that is not a valid reason to reduce the speed limit... So now what?

Well, let us assume that a judge looking at the survey can see the second paragraph on that second page. (starts with: San Vicente Boulevard is designated as an arterial in the City of West Hollywood General Plan.... and it ends with "...with parking on both sides of the roadway".

If you were to look at page 2B-8 of the 2010 CA-MUTCD, you'll see (under "Options") that

Other factors that may be considered when establishing speed limits are the following:

A. Road characteristics, shoulder condition, grade, alignment, and sight distance;
B. The pace speed;
C. Roadside development and environment;
D. Parking practices and pedestrian activity; and
E. Reported crash experience for at least a 12-month period.

We've already discussed section E. Reported crash experience for at least a 12-month period.. As for Pace speed, better described as "the 10mph pace speed" or the 10mph segment which contains the maximum number of vehicles surveyed", if we are to assume a linear distribution of drivers over that 10 mph range, we can see that for the northbound segment/direction, with a 10mph pace range between 33mph and 42mph, the setting of the speed limit at 35mph would actually place a disproportionate number (equal to 80%) of those drivers at a speed where they are technically, in violation of the law (i.e. in excess of the safe speed of 35mph).

Additionally, if we were to look at the 50% percentile speed, with it being at 37mph, by setting the speed limit at 35, then we are making more that 50% of drivers into violators. In fact if we were to count # of drivers from the top down until we reach the 35mph speed, you can see that bottom up, you can see that 67% of drivers would be in violation of the 35mpg limit whereas only 33% of drivers are in compliance...

Well, fact is, there was one more error that was committed here in this survey. The calculation here is easy, however, to lay the proper foundation for it, let me turn your attention to Page 2B-98 of the 2010 CA-MUTCD. You can see Figure 2B-104... In the right most column in that figure, it shows the following:



Well, in our case, if we multiply total vehicles counted = 100 by 15% we get 15 vehicles... So lets count 15 vehicles from the top and see which speed bracket we end up in:

I see: 1 + 3 + 1 + 4 + 7 and I'm already at 16... So by my count, the 85th percentile speed being adjacent to the 15th vehicle counted from the top falls in the 43 mph bracket.

They had it at 42mph... Big deal you might say!

Of course its a big deal, and her is why:

The method for calculating the speed limit goes as follows (See paragraph 4 on page 2B-7 of the 2010 CA-MUTCD):

Standard:

When a speed limit is to be posted, it shall be established at the nearest 10 km/h (5 mph) increment of the 85th-percentile speed of free-flowing traffic, except as shown in the Option below.

Option:

The posted speed may be reduced by 10 km/h (5 mph) from the nearest 10 km/h (5 mph) increment of the 85th-percentile speed, in compliance with CVC Sections 627 and 22358.5.

So under the Standard:

Using their number of 42mph for the 85th percentile speed; the nearest 5mph increment = 40mph.

Using our number of 43mph for the 85th percentile speed; the nearest 5mph increment = 45mph

Under Option:

They utilized accident rates and other meaningless categories to further reduce the limit to 35mph. Deeming it the valid P.F. limit recommended to be posted.

I disagreed with their reasoning for the 5 mph reduction and calculated the actual C/MVM number to prove that collisions are insignificant, however if it were me I would still reduce the limit by 5mph due to the presence of 2 park, perdestrians, library, hospital, uncontrolled crosswalks... etc. Thereby resulting in a P.F. posted limit of 40mph

NOT 35mph

Therefore the 35mphj speed limit of 35mph on the northbound segment of San Vicente Blvd between BeverlY Blvd AND Santa Monica Blvd is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Over the past few weeks I have witnessed several motorcycle deputies using this same driveway to "trap" motorists, going North & South, in the morning & evening.

Does anyone know the law regarding officers using private property to monitor motorists? I know the sidewalk to the street is considered public property, but what about the driveway, whether gated or not? I would think this would be considered private property. In this case, the deputy was in the driveway about as far away from the street as he could possibly get without being in the neighbor at 4xx's garage or being in the dirt of the construction zone.

- - - Updated - - -

500 N. San Vicente

The Deputy was on his motorcycle in the driveway of 500 N. San Vicente and/or 4xx N. San Vicente (the black gate shown directly South of 500 N. San Vicente)

Over the past few weeks I have witnessed several motorcycle deputies using this same driveway to "trap" motorists, going North & South, in the morning & evening.

They're simply doing what they are being told to do!

You have to realize that the city of West Hollywood was in the habit of generating a minimum of $8 million in revenue from Red light camera tickets. Ever since last July, and when Los Angeles Superior Court announced it will no longer pursue red light camera tickets, and although West Hollywood still has not taken down its red light cameras, that revenue is pretty much GONE!

Something has to replace it or else!

Does anyone know the law regarding officers using private property to monitor motorists? I know the sidewalk to the street is considered public property, but what about the driveway, whether gated or not? I would think this would be considered private property. In this case, the deputy was in the driveway about as far away from the street as he could possibly get without being in the neighbor at 4xx's garage or being in the dirt of the construction zone.

There are no laws prohibiting them from doing that. And seriously, as far as that goes, you had no idea that the speed limit is not justified; actually you didn't care whether it was or wasn't until you got tagged. You wouldn't have cared the least bit that they were out there, only now you do because you got tagged!

Here is my philosophy: the more surveys I see, the more convinced I am that there are very few, if any, speed limit that are legally justified. Still, every time I pass one, I can do one of two things: I can maker a serious attempt to comply, and be on my merry way each and every time, or I can challenge the system risk getting cited, and if/when I do, bust my behind fighting citations in court only to possibly end up losing and having to waste more time appealing!

God forbid you should be involved in an accident due to some other driver speeding; worse yet, God forbid you should ever find yourself standing there at the side of the road watching somebody take their last breath simply because some idiot was flying carelessly. Take it from somebody who has, its a sight you'll never forget. Now imagine being the one who caused it!!! And no, I am not acting holier than thou, far from it and I've had my idiot moments as well, and my fight continues!

It sounds easy here, but you have not tried it in court. you have not tasted the disappointment and the frustration that comes with losing and either having to bite the bullet or prepare for the big battle - the appeal!

So I don't care where the park, where they cite or who they pull over, each and every time I see one, and if s/he has lights on and is citing someone, the first and only words out of my mouth to that driver are: "Better you than me, Jack... Thanks for taking some of the slack", and I'm on my way!

[lostintime]

Which the judge is under no obligation to listen to, much less consider in his/her decision because it is not a legal requirement. Could they? Sure. Are they likely to? I wouldn't put money on it.

Until the legislature makes it a requirement, it is for all purposes legally irrelevant. I believe if someone does a crime, they should do the time. At the same time, I fully support someone's right to make the state prove its case.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah. I don't know why I keep letting myself get dragged into the mud.

Thanks for the rhetoric, it was impressive.

NJ has a LIDAR distance requirement at 1,000ft. Would you honestly be upset if there was some protocol regarding its use in other states? There is a reason for that. Other states intentionally ignore it - why, you ask? They'd lose money. Couldn't just spray LIDAR across 6 lanes of traffic and pull over whoever. It's been proven over & over and that "sweep effect" adds on speed and cancels out any "cosine effect" which is in your favor. A 15-degree angle at 70MPH shows your speed as 2.4MPH lower (per the Ultralyte manual). Move the device even the slightest amount (should be used on tripod), there an extra 15MPH, and this goes up with distance.

You'll notice proponents of LIDAR absolutely love to argue the minimal cosine effect is in your favor, but pretend the sweep effect doesn't exist. LTI refuses to addresss sweep error as well. No surprises there.

Of course this forum prefers to discuss meaningless traffic surveys ad nauseum.

[free9man]

Never mind, need my sanity for more important things.

[California student]

Thanks for the rhetoric, it was impressive.

NJ has a LIDAR distance requirement at 1,000ft. Would you honestly be upset if there was some protocol regarding its use in other states? There is a reason for that. Other states intentionally ignore it - why, you ask? They'd lose money.
...
Of course this forum prefers to discuss meaningless traffic surveys ad nauseum.

Other states don't have anti-speed trap laws that require their speed limits to be justified by science. Why? They'd lose money. I don't know why you like to discuss meaningless LIDAR distances ad nauseum instead of the required science behind speed limits that, if not properly followed, basically guarantees dismissal of the citation.

[lostintime]

Other states don't have anti-speed trap laws that require their speed limits to be justified by science. Why? They'd lose money. I don't know why you like to discuss meaningless LIDAR distances ad nauseum instead of the required science behind speed limits that, if not properly followed, basically guarantees dismissal of the citation.

True, in most states "speed trap" might as well be a combination of two swear words. Would just infuriate the court if you brought it up.

[California student]

True, in most states "speed trap" might as well be a combination of two swear words. Would just infuriate the court if you brought it up.

The term "speed trap" as most people, including most Californians, use the phrase would bring similar contempt. However there's a very specific statutory definition (in brief, a non-maximum speed limit not supported by an ETS that uses electronic speed measuring equipment) and requirements to refute.

[handscreate]

Sorry for the delayed reply. Thank you very much for the information.

Do you think it's in my best interest to include this in my Trial by Declaration or to just plead "Not Guilty" in it, and instead use this information in court (Trial de Novo), along with whatever supporting declarations & documentation I can acquire regarding my tire size/speedo/clutch situation?

Additionally, I am trying to compile a laundry list of discovery requests to make once this is going to trial before a judge, with the hopes that the department cannot or will not provide a thorough reply. Is there any discovery I should request aside from:

1. Copy of Deputy Radar/Laser equipment & procedure training records
2. Copy of each and every certification issued to the Deputy involving the use of said Radar/Laser device
2. Copy of ALL calibration records for the device
3. Copy of ALL maintenance records for the device
4. Copy of Deputy vehicle maintenance records
5. Copy of front & back of the citation
6. Copy of ALL of Deputy notes
7. Copy of ALL audio and/or video recordings from this event
8. Copy of ALL of citations issued by Deputy within 24hrs on either side of the event
9. A List of ALL witnesses for the Prosecution, their phone numbers and addresses
10. Copies of all photos or videos taken of the defendant or of the vehicle he is alleged to have been driving, at or near the time of the alleged violation in this case. Please assure that all copies of photographic materials (still or video) are the same resolution as the originals, and that all copies of videos are the same length and "frame rate" (frames per second) as the originals. Please also assure that if the original photos were "digital," the copies provided are also in a digital form.
11. Information and materials favorable to the accused and material either to guilt or to punishment (Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194.), or mandated by the United States Constitution (Penal Code Sec. 1054(e).), as follows:
(a). Exculpatory evidence, i.e., any evidence, information, documents and other materials favorable to the defendant in the possession of the office of the city attorney, or of any police department involved in the investigation of the case against defendant, or of any agency or person and available to the prosecution through the exercise of due diligence. (Randle v. City and County of San Francisco (1986) 186 Cal. App.3d 449; Evans v. Janing (8th Cir., 1973) 489 F.2d 470; U.S. v. Eley (N.D. Ga, 1972) 335 F.Supp. 353.)
12. A copy of any diagrams or maps to be used by the prosecutor at trial
13. Any other written evidence to be used at trial
14. Any other visual evidence to be used at trial

Should these discovery request be made prior to my Trial by Written Declaration? Sorry for all the questions, but I've never fought a ticket before - I just got lucky once and the officer didn't show up to court

As far as the Deputies using a private driveway to try and stay hidden from motorists, yes, I do think it's wrong and it's something that has always bothered me, especially when I've caught them using my or my neighbors driveways. I've had neighbors complain about it in the past to the department, yet the officers continued to use their driveway & 1 even argued with a neighbor that he could park his motorcycle anywhere he wanted, regardless of the property owners multiple requests to stay off his driveway, because the motorcycles left oil & other debris on his property. I know they are told to do whatever it takes to write tickets, I just think it's wrong. I have a few friends that are CHP and they agree that officers shouldn't "hide" on private property to try to write moving citations.

I'm trying to do as much research as I can when I have the time to. Does anyone know the time frame for requesting discovery? (How many days before court date is the minimum?)

Any and all additional help would be greatly appreciated

[That Guy]

Let me start by saying that you are spinning your wheels with a lot of what you're planning on doing or looking into doing. Example:

... along with whatever supporting declarations & documentation I can acquire regarding my tire size/speedo/clutch situation?

I'm not sure what you are expecting to find there or if anything that you find suggests an error is the speed indicated to you in your car, that is not a viable defense to the charge of speeding. Your vehicle should be maintained to meet all the requirements to operate it legally. if your speedometer is running slow, oh well.. get it fixed but it won't get you out of a speeding citation.

Do you think it's in my best interest to include this in my Trial by Declaration or to just plead "Not Guilty" in it, and instead use this information in court (Trial de Novo)

I have issues with using the trial by declaration only to submit it with only an "I'm not guilty". In the least, it might impact any legit defense that you might want to present in your TDN. (Judge sees an "I am not guilty declaration" in your file and what's to stop him from thinking "where was this guy's defense when he wrote his TBD?.... Must be fake"...There are other reasons but you are already at a disadvantage every time you walk into court, why intentionally add to it? Ultimately, it is your choice.

Additionally, I am trying to compile a laundry list of discovery requests to make once this is going to trial before a judge, with the hopes that the department cannot or will not provide a thorough reply.

More wheel spinning....

If by the "department" you mean the police department, you should understand that the police department has ZERO obligation to respond to a discovery request or submit any items to you. If they do so, they are doing so as a favor and not because they are required. The District Attorney or the city attorney is the responsible party for discovery request but it is a known fact that more often than not, they will simply ignore your request.

So... Submitting a discovery request that makes it impossible for the agency to respond is not going to get you much of anything. If they do not reply or if they only provide a few of several items in your request, you'll be allowed a review of the items they plan on using (those items they never supplied) just before your trial. Similarly, requesting items that they normally will not provide (like "training and procedural manuals" or "all citations issued by the officer") isn't likely to get you anywhere simply because there is not legal requirement for them to provide those items. Similarly, submitting a request hoping that they will not respond at all isn't like to get you anywhere either. The simple solution for the court in such a case is to allow you a review of whatever evidence the officer plans on submitting at your trial. Lastly on this point, a dismissal is NOT proper remedy for any discovery violations by the prosecution.

Let me also point to what typically happens when you go overboard in cases like this... You've left out a "copy of the Engineering and Traffic survey" from your request. I am not sure if that is intentional or simply because you've added so much, it ceased to be simple and as a result, these minor (or MAJOR) glitches become difficult to detect.

With that said, here is a reasonable discovery request that you can reasonably expect compliance to:

1. A copy of the most recent E &T survey...
2. A copy of the officer's notes...
3. A copy of the Radar/Laser calibration records
4. A copy of the officer's training records.
5. Copies of any evidence the prosecution plans on using at trial.

Anything above and beyond that is pointless and in fact, instead of working to your advantage in court, it is likely to waste the judge's time and piss him off as a result.

Should these discovery request be made prior to my Trial by Written Declaration?

A discovery request can be made as soon as your citation is filed in court. There is no benefit to waiting so why not request it as soon as you can!

As far as the Deputies using a private driveway to try and stay hidden from motorists, yes, I do think it's wrong and it's something that has always bothered me, especially when I've caught them using my or my neighbors driveways. I've had neighbors complain about it in the past to the department, yet the officers continued to use their driveway & 1 even argued with a neighbor that he could park his motorcycle anywhere he wanted, regardless of the property owners multiple requests to stay off his driveway, because the motorcycles left oil & other debris on his property. I know they are told to do whatever it takes to write tickets, I just think it's wrong. I have a few friends that are CHP and they agree that officers shouldn't "hide" on private property to try to write moving citations.

Again, it is not illegal. In fact, often enough what you are referring to as "private property" (the sidewalk) is city/county property. But if you feel it is an issue that will give you a n advantage here, your choice to use it in any way you see fit. As for your CHP friends, and no, this is not my attempt to defend LASD, but please, ask them if they or any other CHP officer is likely to conduct speed enforcement in a known clear and definite speed trap? Not that, is clearly and regardless of how anyone might try to justify it, is ILLEGAL!

VC 40801.
No peace officer or other person shall use a speed trap in arresting, or participating or assisting in the arrest of, any person for any alleged violation of this code nor shall any speed trap be used in securing evidence as to the speed of any vehicle for the purpose of an arrest or prosecution under this code.

How about present evidence in an underhanded way in an attempt to mislead and misrepresent? This too is ILLEGAL and unethical for a peace officer to do. Would they or another CHP officer do that?

Let me know what they say... I have documented evidence to prove both issues I mentioned above!

Now, the officer who cited you, by our definition at least, is also conducting an illegal speed trap. And legally, that is supposed to result in a dismissal of your citation.

So you have 2 issues:

(a) What we have concluded is an illegal speed trap, which we can cite particular code sections and case law citations to justify a motion for dismissal;
(b) What you feel is an issue, something that is "wrong" and yet no statutory or case law support, only potential to waste our time, the court's time and eventually work to out disadvantage by pissing off the judge...

Should you pursue, (a), (b) or both?

Your choice!

[handscreate]

Thanks for the info. I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass, I just want to take any and all possible steps to try and get a dismissal from this citation - if possible. Being unemployed currently, I would ideally like to make the best effort to get out of paying the fine, etc. I'll submit the discovery request on Monday morning.

You clearly have significant knowledge of how to fight this ticket. Can you help direct me to some case law citations that could help me get the dismissal I'm seeking?

Next time I see my CHP buddies I'll ask them. In my situation, the Deputy was not on the sidewalk, but was actually up the driveway, backed up against the gate I mentioned in the Google Maps street view (which I have saved as a bookmark).

Thanks again for all your help so far! I really appreciate it!

[That Guy]

I never suggested you were being a pain in the ass... My advice is not to get too hung up on getting an easy dismissal. If it happens to work that way, that is awesome. If it happens to take a huge effort and months of work, then what you need to be prepared for that by utilizing your time and energy into what matters.

I am not sure if it has been mentioned or not but fighting the citation means that you MUST post bail in the full fine amount before a TBD can be requested or a trial scheduled. So prepare accordingly.

In my situation, the Deputy was not on the sidewalk, but was actually up the driveway, backed up against the gate I mentioned in the Google Maps street view (which I have saved as a bookmark).

Not to suggest that you're not being honest, but remember, the farther he is from his motorcycle and form the street, the longer it will take him to catch up to an alleged speeder. On an open freeway, they might opt for a spot where the APPEAR all of a sudden, but on city streets, there is enough cover with them just standing on the sidewalk or, more often than not, simply sitting on their motorcycle ready to pounce.

Also keep in mind that even if their being on a driveway is illegal, it would not excuse your speeding. In this case you lucked out with a bad survey... Next time, might be a different story!

And let me close with a hypothetical... Would you have an issue with the police running surveillance from a roof top on an apartment where a bunch of gang-bangers are staying?

And before you say anything, no, speeding is not as bad a crime as gang-banging... But an officer on a driveway in your case versus running full operation from a roof top.

Yes, keep me update d on what your CHiPper friends say!