Pulled Over for Speeding, but No Speed Limit Signs Posted

[LWABDR]

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: Washington

I was just pulled over for doing 50 in a 40 with some unusual circumstance (I think). I made a turn onto a State Highway from a side road and proceed to drive. Not seeing any speed limit signs I moved ahead at 50 miles per hour, mind you not exceeding 60 as typical on state highways and the max speed if no signs are posted. After about 3/10 of a mile I see a white car parked off to the side of the road so I slow down a bit for saftey and when I get closer I realized it is State Patrol. By that time he had is head lights on and pulled out right behind me as I passed and I figured something was up. He pulled me over and said I was doing 50 in a 40, which I thought was unusal seeing as it is a state highway. I told him I was unfamiliar with this portion of the highway as I had never traveled it before. That didn't seem to make any difference.

Anyway, after getting on google and looking at the street view of where this went down I noticed a 40 mile speed limit sign just prior to where he pulled me over. I most likely missed it as I was looking at my gps to make sure i didn't need to make any turns ahead since I wasn't sure where I was going. Regardless, he was parked almost exactly 300 ft beyond this sign. Not nearly enough time for me to even start slowing down after passing the speed limit sign and before he clocked me. My assumption is that he clocked me before the speed change sign, which wouldn't hold up since you are not supposed to change speeds until after you pass the speed limit sign. I thought something was fishy about all this so I tracked back down the road to see where the previous speed limit sign was and what it read. Well, turns out I turned into a 40 mile per hour zone of State Highway and did not know it. I know the "ingnorance is no excuse" but this is absolutely rediculous as I obeyed every single traffic law based on the travel path I was on.

My plan is to contest it and have this dropped considering, based on my travel path, I did not break any traffic laws. Any professional opinions on how that will go? Or should I Defer the ticket as that is an option?

[That Guy]

After about 3/10 of a mile I see a white ca....

Too late; he's already got you!

I most likely missed it as I was looking at my gps

So it is posted!

he was parked almost exactly 300 ft beyond this sign. Not nearly enough time for me to even start slowing down after passing the speed limit sign and before he clocked me.

Uhm... You're expected to be in compliance with a speed limit WHEN passing the sign. You can in fact start slowing down before you get there.

Any professional opinions on how that will go?

"professional" opinions come from "professional" attorneys who are getting paid to work for their client. You won't find that many lawyers here and you aren't paying much. So no dice on that part!

Otherwise, you can make any assumptions you want to make yourself look innocent. Truth is, the officer's declaration will be the determining factor.

[LWABDR]

[QUOTE=That Guy;635374]Uhm... You're expected to be in compliance with a speed limit WHEN passing the sign. You can in fact start slowing down before you get there.[QUOTE=That Guy;635374]

Uhm.....that is incorrect! Please reference the a piece writting in the Seattle PI where a WA State Patrol Officer states when you should change speed.....and it is after the sign.....not before. I don't need to make an assumption of innocence, I can prove. it. This was clearly a poor spot for an officer to pick up speeders when they come in from the same side road I did. That is completely obvious.


http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911...n-take-effect/

[PTPD22]

Uhm.....that is incorrect! Please reference the a piece writting in the Seattle PI where a WA State Patrol Officer states when you should change speed.....and it is after the sign.....not before.

ummm...No, it IS correct! YOU should please reference the article you mentioned and read it a bit closer. What the article says is correct...the speed limit goes into effect AT the sign, not before or after! What that means is that, for example, the speed limit decreases from 50 to 40, the 40 MPH limit is in effect AT that sign. There is no "grace period" that allows you to slow down after the sign. You are required to be at or below the new speed limit at or before you pass the sign!

I don't need to make an assumption of innocence, I can prove. it.

Prove it how, exactly? You turned onto a road with a 40 MPH speed limit and accelerated to 50 MPH. You have stated that there were 40 MPH signs posted both before where you entered onto the roadway and after. Where is your proof of anything other than unquestionable guilt?

This was clearly a poor spot for an officer to pick up speeders when they come in from the same side road I did. That is completely obvious.

It was a poor spot for you. THAT much is "completely obvious," as you got caught. But, if by "poor spot" you mean illegal, unethical, ineffective, unjust, etc., then nothing in your posts back up that statement and it is FAR from "completely obvious!"

[LWABDR]

From the article, please read. Apparently the law of physics has changed and you can immediately decreae your speed instantneously. Either this State Trooper is incorrect or you are......and I take the State Troopers assesment on this one.

"Trooper Dan McDonald mentioned signs that changed the speed limit – 25 mph to 35 mph, or 60 mph to 70 mph on the freeway, for example. You should stay at the initial speed until you hit the sign with the new speed, he said."

and further: "Drivers going 70 mph are required to reduce speed to 60 mph at the signpost, the troopers said."


re·duce
   [ri-doos, -dyoos] Show IPA verb, re·duced, re·duc·ing.

verb (used with object)
1.
to bring down to a smaller extent, size, amount, number, etc.: to reduce one's weight by 10 pounds.

2.
to lower in degree, intensity, etc.: to reduce the speed of a car.

3.
to bring down to a lower rank, dignity, etc.: a sergeant reduced to a corporal

4.
to treat analytically, as a complex idea.

5.
to lower in price.

Again, I don't see the word "instantaneously", it says reduce implying based on definition that time has to be taken. That means start slowing down after you have reached the sign, since you can't instantaneously go from 70-60.....c'mon man, that is easy to see and one does not need any lawyer to figure ths out. And yes, there would have to be a a short distance allowed for that (i.e. grace period) as the law of physics still applies and trumps any law a state can make since you do have to apply your brakes to slow them down and that does not happen instantaneously. Any judge could see that unless they are prejudical.

Also, while that was a 40 mph road back down the road, i was not coming from that direction and would never have know that unless i used google maps map view to look at it as I was not physically on that road. So, per the Washington State Drivers Manual, pulling onto a state highway where no signs are posted I should maintain 60 mph , until I see one. Where one was posted, inadvertantly I slowed down just after I passed the sign as I saw the patrol car parked 300 ft beyond......like the article said.....and please don't try and twist it.

[jojo]

I don't post very often, but I've got to comment on this. OP, you are READING the article incorrectly. Speed limits take effect "at the sign". Therefore, if the speed limit is increasing -- say, from 60 to 70, as soon as you PASS the sign, you may increase your speed -- but, you must maintain the 60 MPH until you pass the sign -- as the article points out. If, however, the speed limit is decreasing, you must slow BEFORE you reach the sign, as you are required to be going the lower limit as soon as you pass the sign. That is, unless you truly CAN instantaneously decrease your speed as you're passing the sign. To put it another way, you are in violation if you are exceeding the speed limit of whatever sign you are passing.

[LWABDR]

Again, please read the article!

It says "required to reduce...at the signpost" not "required to be reduced....at the signpost". When does the speed reduction start......at the sign post, not prior to as is plainly stated. It's the tense (reduce = future tense which starts "at" the sign) that's why I read it carefully. What you are saying is that the situation changes depending on whether their is a increase or decrease in speed, which is the opposite of what the article is saying. Apperently, I would be out of luck if I couldn't make out the sign a ways down the road and not have enough time to reduce my speed.

The article even states....

"Trooper Dan McDonald mentioned signs that changed the speed limit – 25 mph to 35 mph, or 60 mph to 70 mph on the freeway, for example. You should stay at the initial speed until you hit the sign with the new speed, he said."

"Same would apply when a speed limit decreases, as on parts of southbound Interstate 5 going from Bellingham to Seattle, for example. Drivers going 70 mph are required to reduce speed to 60 mph at the signpost, the troopers said."

Also, the article goes onto say just the opposite of what you just stated (see below), which relyes on you having to see the sign a ways down the road to make an adjustment if the speed limit is decreasing. Apparently, you have to have good eyesight if the speed is decreasing and not so good of eyesight if the speed is increasing. I think you can see the crux of this situation to where both speeding up and slowing down have to have the same principle applied to both.

"In my driver’s education class years ago, the instructor told us the signs took affect when a driver could see them clearly. I mentioned that to Trooper Brandy Kessler.

“I don’t know why she would say that,” said Kessler, who had the same answer as McDonald. Makes sense, as eye sight varies by person."

The above implies nothing is to be done until you reach the sign as that is the "imaginary line" to make changes in speed wethere speeding up or slowing down. Therefore if you are doing 50 miles per hour and you see a 40 mph sign, you do not start to reduce your speed until you have reached the speed limit sign....remember "eyesight issues" as the article states. I had approximately 300 feet to slow down from 50 to 40 once I passed the sign to where the officer was sitting, which I did even though I never saw the speed limit sign (chance would have it that's where the sign was and the officer was sitting was 300 ft beyond and I slowed down because I saw him, not the sign). Again, that was also the first posted sign located on the State Highway after I got on it and was not exceeding the maximum speed limit for a State Route.

You are also absolutely right, that everyone would be getting speeding tickets if you couldn't instantaneously change speeds......sounds kind of messed up doesn't it.....which is the reason this would never fly in a court of law as it goes agains the laws of physics which cannot be changed.

[PTPD22]

which is the reason this would never fly in a court of law as it goes agains the laws of physics which cannot be changed.

Well, then...go contest you charge in court using your argument! Then, please, come back and let all of us know how that worked out for you.

[free9man]

Seriously, what is with all the belligerent posters with no concept of what they're arguing?

[That Guy]

Seriously, what is with all the belligerent posters with no concept of what they're arguing?

Any time you are up against a question such as this , with not even a hint of a clear (or even ambiguous) answer... blame it on the economy!

Now... If you rethink your question, and consider "the economy" as an answer, can you not see that it is in fact a possibility?

In other words, people are so desperate to save a buck, that they would not mind looking like a fool doing it...


Although there have been quite a few instances recently that would leave me wondering if it really is an act or if this is the level of intelligence that these people really truly have.... That, for me is where it gets serious!!! Simply because if they cannot comprehend simple tasks, commands and prohibitions that are written in simple English, even worse in this case, when several members make several sincere attempt at simplifying the matter, and yet this dufus is still clueless, is it me or should they really be disqualified from having the mental capacity to be able to operate an object with potential to kill on contact?