Do "Speed Traps" Exist in New Jersey

My question involves a speeding ticket from the State of: New Jersey

Anyone know if New Jersey has any specific laws against speed traps?

I recently got a traffic survey with the following results:

** Posted Speed Limit = 30 mph, my alleged speed = 50 mph (Aug 2010)
** Survey completed Sept 2004 (Yes, thats more than 5 years ago)
** 85th percentile = 46 mph (Yes, 46-30 = 16mph below 85th percentile with no justifications) (extra info 2 out 100 cars did under 30 mph)
** no history of accidents, no pedestrians noted during survey

A letter from county engineer asking to have speed limit reduced to 40 mph in Mar 2005 was submitted to state.

The state replied in Aug 2005 that it saw no justification to have speed reduced to 40 mph. This statement is made on the most recent survey in Sep2004. Now the posted Speed Limit is 30 mph????? Wonder how that happened ???????

As any one can see, this is probably the most blatant speed trap this corrupt state and town could ever produce. It seems that this state welcomes speed traps, by not having any laws on this matter. I'm from California and know that the vehicle code there is very much against speed traps and makes it easy to defend against one.

Any input?

How is it a speed trap? Were the speed limit signs not plainly visible?

California law doesn't apply in New Jersey, nor does its statutory definition of "speed trap".

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

How is it a speed trap? Were the speed limit signs not plainly visible?

California law doesn't apply in New Jersey, nor does its statutory definition of "speed trap".

---

Pretty sure the OP was asking if New Jersey had laws similar to California's "speed trap" laws.

I guess your answer is "no"?

The best way to find out if an unfamiliar state has laws against speed traps is to go onto their legislature's website and search in their state code for "speed trap."

If you don't get any hits, it is safe to say they don't have any laws regarding them.

Thanks Adam for the assist in clarifying my question.

I have looked through multiple NJ legal websites form Court Rules to Permanent Statutes and could not find anything that would remotely say that speed traps are not allowed. It doesn't surprise me, but I figured may be an extra pair of eyes might see something I'm missing.

As for a definiton of a speed trap, if a city changes a safe and reasonable speed limit to a lower speed with no regard for the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and then tries to profit off this by writing tickets on people who are driving a reasonable speed...then that is a speed trap regardless of what state a person lives in.

You are missing the point.

Unless the definition of speed trap has been validated by statute, it is legal. The state a person lives in has a tremendous amount to do with this circumstance.

Quote:

---

Quoting plex

---

Thanks Adam for the assist in clarifying my question.

I have looked through multiple NJ legal websites form Court Rules to Permanent Statutes and could not find anything that would remotely say that speed traps are not allowed. It doesn't surprise me, but I figured may be an extra pair of eyes might see something I'm missing.

As for a definiton of a speed trap, if a city changes a safe and reasonable speed limit to a lower speed with no regard for the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and then tries to profit off this by writing tickets on people who are driving a reasonable speed...then that is a speed trap regardless of what state a person lives in.

---

For starters, the 85th percentile speed is NOT always the safe and reasonable speed. There are many mitigating conditions and circumstances that allow a reduction from the 85th percentile speed to a safe and reasonable speed. So your definition of a "speed trap", even by California standards, is incorrect!

Second, there are instances where posted speed limits follow a statutory requirements/guidelines and are not bound by 85th percentile/prevailing speeds, safe and reasonable speeds (examples: school zones/business districts/residential areas/limited access highways (freeways)... etc)... In those instances, an E&T speed survey means squat!

Third, you're using a backwards approach in your attempt to fighting your citation... Instead of posting the statute which you were cited for, trying to establish the elements of the offense with which you were charged and then trying to find a plausible defense, you are looking at the end result (a dismissal) and attempting to blindly find your way back... As you can tell, you haven't accomplished much so far, have you?

Lastly, which MUTCD are you referring to? According to the FHWA website, I can't find one for NJ!

Quote:

---

New Jersey
MUTCD State Information
Status of the National MUTCD (2003 Edition)
State MUTCD
Not Applicable
State Supplement
Not Applicable

---

I do understand the point of having a legal definiton provided by the state for a speed trap. The definition I listed is from my own personal view point, I wasn't trying to use California as a reference point. If an entity takes something from another without permission or just compensation, thats stealing. I don't need a law in some book to tell me thats stealing. I'm sure there may be a location on this planet that sees it differently, but I still believe its stealing. I do understand the laws in this case and the difference if it were to occur in other states. My point, a speed trap is a speed trap, even if the state refuses to acknowledge it. But thats just a red herring.

That Guy, I'm very familiar with the MUCTD and all the reasons why a reduction can be enforced. But even these reductions have limits. And the MUCTD makes it very clear that when a reduction is done outside of their laws(which includes an engineer stating possible dangers and accident history), this unneeded reduction results in higher accidents. They have the stats to prove it, so just because a city lowers a speed limit doesn't make it more safe (unless its done according to the MUCTD). Also, I'm not worried about school/business/residential zones since my ticket does not fall in those catagories.

As for my backwards approach, it may be backwards in process but not in understanding. There are many things I am pursuing in building a multi-layered defense. This means that I am not using one method to defeat the ticket. I have other post dealing with different aspects of what I am doing. I have fought 6 out of 7 tickets successfully in California in the last 20 years. New Jersey vehicle law is very unfriendly towards its citizens. So I am not trying to spend all my energy trying to fight the wording in the statue. The way the law is written for speeding, the best hope is to look to the federal government and the MUCTD. A dismissal before the trial date is the best chance to win a case, going to court reduces ones chances, even more so against a New Jersey judge.

As for my accomplishments, I have achieved quite a bit. I obtained the traffic survey from the NJDOT and found that the survey is 6 years old, the posted speed limit (30 mph) does not match the posted speed limit in the survey(45), the road in the survey has 1 lane each way, the road now has 3 lanes each way. I have a letter from the Commisioner of Transportation stating that they reviewed the survey and they see no need to have the speed reduced from 45 mph and that the legal speed limit is 45 mph. I also have a hearing for my motion to exclude the traffic survey since the DA, the municipal court and the police dept ignored my request under court rules 7:7-7. I also got the tech manual for the Dual Stalker model and found that the tuning forks used for calibration are not within the operating range of the unit. I could go on and on, there are many other arrows in my quiver. I think thats pretty good progress.

Thanks for the input, I'll try to include more info and be more clear so that there is less confusion and ramblings.

Quote:

---

Quoting plex

---

I do understand the point of having a legal definiton provided by the state for a speed trap.

---

Well, if NJ does not have a legal definition of a speed trap, that type of defense is not going to work for you.

Quote:

---

Quoting plex

---

The definition I listed is from my own personal view point

---

And unfortunately, the only definition that counts is the legal one. So good luck convincing the judge that YOUR definition should apply!

Quote:

---

Quoting plex

---

My point, a speed trap is a speed trap, even if the state refuses to acknowledge it.

---

Well, some people consider "a cop hiding behind the bushes" a speed trap... Unfortunately for them, it isn't going to work in court.

Quote:

---

Quoting plex

---

That Guy, I'm very familiar with the MUCTD and all the reasons why a reduction can be enforced. But even these reductions have limits. And the MUCTD makes it very clear that when a reduction is done outside of their laws(which includes an engineer stating possible dangers and accident history), this unneeded reduction results in higher accidents. They have the stats to prove it, so just because a city lowers a speed limit doesn't make it more safe (unless its done according to the MUCTD).

---

Once again, if NJ does not have an MUTCD, what MUTCD are you referring to? What MUTCD are you basing your points/arguments upon?

Quote:

---

Quoting plex

---

I obtained the traffic survey from the NJDOT and found that the survey is 6 years old, the posted speed limit (30 mph) does not match the posted speed limit in the survey(45), the road in the survey has 1 lane each way, the road now has 3 lanes each way. I have a letter from the Commisioner of Transportation stating that they reviewed the survey and they see no need to have the speed reduced from 45 mph and that the legal speed limit is 45 mph. I also have a hearing for my motion to exclude the traffic survey since the DA, the municipal court and the police dept ignored my request under court rules 7:7-7.

---

So, you're arguing that the speed limit should be posted at 45mph because that is what the survey says it should be and yet you're making a motion to exclude that survey????

Quote:

---

Quoting plex

---

I'll try to include more info and be more clear so that there is less confusion and ramblings.

---

And yet you still have not provided any reference to the statute you were charged with, which is probably causing you more "confusion"... So let me come flat out and ask for it in a straight question: "What statute/code section were you cited for?"

Whether you will post it or not, I'm still glad that you were able to get all those "ramblings" off your chest.

Good luck!

I hate to waste a lot of space, but for those who need to see the statue here it is: (for all others just skip down a little bit)...

New Jersey Permanent Statute Title 39 Motor Vehicles and Traffic Regulation
39:4-98 Rates of speed.

39:4-98. Rates of speed. Subject to the provisions of R.S.39:4-96 and R.S.39:4-97 and except in those instances where a lower speed is specified in this chapter, it shall be prima facie lawful for the driver of a vehicle to drive it at a speed not exceeding the following:

a.Twenty-five miles per hour, when passing through a school zone during recess, when the presence of children is clearly visible from the roadway, or while children are going to or leaving school, during opening or closing hours;

b. (1) Twenty-five miles per hour in any business or residential district;

(2)Thirty-five miles per hour in any suburban business or residential district;

c.Fifty miles per hour in all other locations, except as otherwise provided in the "Sixty-Five MPH Speed Limit Implementation Act," pursuant to section 2 of P.L.1997, c.415 (C.39:4-98.3 et al.).

Whenever it shall be determined upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that any speed hereinbefore set forth is greater or less than is reasonable or safe under the conditions found to exist at any intersection or other place or upon any part of a highway, the Commissioner of Transportation, with reference to State highways, may by regulation and municipal or county authorities, with reference to highways under their jurisdiction, may by ordinance, in the case of municipal authorities, or by ordinance or resolution, in the case of county authorities, subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Transportation, except as otherwise provided in R.S.39:4-8, designate a reasonable and safe speed limit thereat which, subject to the provisions of R.S.39:4-96 and R.S.39:4-97, shall be prima facie lawful at all times or at such times as may be determined, when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected at such intersection, or other place or part of the highway. Appropriate signs giving notice of the speed limits authorized under the provisions of paragraph (1) of subsection b. and subsection c. of this section may be erected if the commissioner or the municipal or county authorities, as the case may be, so determine they are necessary. Appropriate signs giving notice of the speed limits authorized under the provisions of subsection a. and paragraph (2) of subsection b. of this section shall be erected by the commissioner or the municipal or county authorities, as appropriate.

When designating reasonable and safe speed limits for a street under its jurisdiction pursuant to this subsection, as part of an engineering and traffic investigation, a municipality or county shall consider, but not be limited to, the following criteria: residential density; the presence, or lack, of sidewalks; the prevalence of entry and exit ways for business and commercial establishments; whether school children walk adjacent to the street on their way to and from school; and the proximity of recreational or park areas, schools, community residences, family day care homes, child care centers, assisted living facilities or senior communities. Nothing in this paragraph shall substitute for traffic count, accident, and speed sampling data as appropriate.

The driver of every vehicle shall, consistent with the requirements of this section, drive at an appropriate reduced speed when approaching and crossing an intersection or railway grade crossing, when approaching and going around a curve, when approaching a hill crest, when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway, and when special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions.

The Commissioner of Transportation shall cause the erection and maintenance of signs at such points of entrance to the State as are deemed advisable, setting forth the lawful rates of speed, the wording of which shall be within his discretion.


As I stated before, my definition of a speed trap is just my opinion. Anyone with enough attention to my comments and a little common sense can figure out I'm not trying to plead my case based on my opinions. Most of the intelligent people on this forum I'm sure already know how ludicrous that would be, so I hope I don't have to dwelve into this 'personal definiton' debate any longer. Since I am new to this state, I'm trying to see if someone with more experience with NJ or traffic law, can find some legal admonishment of speed traps and their definitions (please read that as the NJ government's definition, NOT mine. Anyone not clear on that?)

Now for the MUTCD confusion. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is a FEDERAL document, it is written by the FEDERAL Highway Administration under the direction of FEDERAL law 23 Code of FEDERAL Regulations (CFR), Part 655, Subpart F. Any misconceptions on this being a FEDERAL document? This means that the MUTCD has authority over the roads of the land. For those of us that took civics/government class in high school, its common knowledge that the FEDERAL government trumps State laws, city laws, indian reservation laws, etc. So if the FEDERAL MUTCD says Stop signs shall be white letter, red background, octogon shaped of a certain size than no State has the authority to enforce a pink diamond shaped Stop sign.

Now there are States that have a MUTCD and these State MUTCDs are just personalized versions of the FEDERAL MUTCD. The States are allowed to add on, as long as it does not conflict with the intent of the FEDERAL MUTCD. So no matter how you slice it, if the FEDERAL MUTCD says something, then the State version (or lack of) is the basically the same. (I know all about the special rules for states but I'm not going to list them all for the sake of keeping the conversation on track). So lets refresh, FEDERAL Government tells the State what to do, States can echo the FEDERAL rules and add on to it if they follow the FEDERAL MUTCD guidelines. So why is this important?

This means that the NJ Permanent Statute Title 39 Motor Vehicles and Traffic Regulation has to follow what the FEDERAL MUTCD says about Speed Limits. Listed in the FEDERAL MUTCD CHAPTER 2B. REGULATORY SIGNS, BARRICADES, AND GATES Section 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign (R2-1), one can find how Speed limits are to be set and enforced. So New Jersey has to follow what the FEDERAL government says when establishing Speed limits. In the end, this isn't really a big issue since New Jersey just accepts the FEDERAL MUTCD without any additions. Theres a lot of meat here in this manual, but this thread isn't about all the wordings of the MUTCD and how to use it to beat a ticket, so I'll move on.

Quote:

---

So, you're arguing that the speed limit should be posted at 45mph because that is what the survey says it should be and yet you're making a motion to exclude that survey????

---

I know most people have figured this out, but I'll explain it in better detail to help those that haven't been paying attention. First let me explain my strategy...Highest priority is to get the case dismissed before trial. The highest portion of successful tickets beaten are those who get a dismissal before trial. I like these odds. If one goes to court, now one has to hope the officer doesn't show up,so lets say 50-50 odds. Not too bad, but I like pre-trial dismissal better. If the officer shows up, now one's odds drop like a rock. I don't want to guess how many people go to trial and lose. I'll be generous and say less than 50% win. By winning, I mean not guilty, no points, no reductions, no fines, no nothing! The last stage is to appeal. This is the last chance to get the case overturned. Once again, unlikely odds are in one's favor.

So now that my priorities are established, next is called BUILDING A CASE. As I mentioned before, I am building a multi-layered defense. This means I am building a case for each scenario, as well as finding multiple flaws in the States case. So I am building a case for the dismissal, building a case for the trial and I am building the case for the appeal (which technically isn't valid until after the court brings a verdict, but I can prepare for mistakes the court is likely to make).

In my scenario, I want to get the Traffic survey excluded because without it, a legal speed limit can not be established. Therefore, I want to exclude it before the trial starts so my case can be dismissed. In the unlikely event it is allowed as evidence, despite my objection, I can refute that it does not comply with the FEDERAL MUTCD. If the court agrees, then I win. If the court disagrees, I'm pretty sure it will get turned over in appeal. So I'm sure most people can see the advantage of using a multi-layered approach for each piece of evidence. Just by using the MUTCD at each stage, I have 3 statistically good chances to win the case. There are other pieces of evidence that I am using at different stages of the case, so I am not relying just on the MUTCD. As I said, the intent of this thread isn't about how to build a case, but about speed traps being in NJ's vocabulary. On a side note, thats how one builds a defense to each element of the offense, in case anyone hasn't figured that out yet.

Now if I were thinking backwards, I would wait until my court date to bring up the issue and then risk hearing what the judge has to say, with no time to come up with a defense to his statement. Since I didn't bring up this issue before the trail, the court can make a judgement that I waived my rights and accepted 30 mph as the official speed limit. I'm just making that scenario up, but the intent is - no one really knows what a judge is going to say in court. I assume the worst. So if the judge shoots down my Traffic survey defense, where do I stand? That means I need to go to Appeals. I hate going through appeals, they are a lot of work for the small chance of a return. One might be positive and say 'you said the odds were good you would win the appeal right?' Thats true, but a successful appeal means that my dismissal would have been granted, if I HAD DONE THAT IN THE BEGINING. That means I did alot of work just because I was thinking backwards. Remember, odds of appeal success->very low!, so if appeals=success than likelyhood of dismissal success would have been assured.

rambling: to talk or write in a discursive, aimless way

Lastly, the rambling remark was meant for you, That Guy. Your answers were more like condescending comments that had almost nothing to do with my replies. I would recommend following the example of Adam and Brendan when it comes to supplying cohert useful information.


Fun Time! Name that movie -->

Quote:

---

Principal: Mr. Madison, what you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

---