Traffic Court Motion to Dismiss

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

That was hardly a judgement. One can gamble with speed limits and play "roulette" without being nefarious, and one can do it inadvertently. Sometimes it takes being stopped to be made aware of the practice and often drivers find that they do tend to moderate their speed after being stopped when, perhaps, they did not do so before.

---

You know, it's funny because I consider my driving now much more dangerous than before I got my ticket. Before I'd generally go the speed of traffic. Now, I have no problem hitting 65 or 70 as appropriate (actually 1 or 2 lower as the needle is just touching the appropriate notch) and camping out in the number 2 lane. I guess 15 mph speed difference, and the turbulent flow that results is somehow "safer."

Quote:

---

Quoting California student

---

You know, it's funny because I consider my driving now much more dangerous than before I got my ticket. Before I'd generally go the speed of traffic. Now, I have no problem hitting 65 or 70 as appropriate (actually 1 or 2 lower as the needle is just touching the appropriate notch) and camping out in the number 2 lane. I guess 15 mph speed difference, and the turbulent flow that results is somehow "safer."

---

Which highway in the entire state of California are you suggesting that the "flow of traffic" runs at 20mph in excess of the limit?

The simple fact that stopping distance from 85mph is ~ 530ft whereas the same from 65mph is ~ 345ft, (a difference of 185ft), would throw your entire presumption that 65mph is more dangerous than 85mph!

And you don't have to be riding the left lane the entire time, each and every time you're on a freeway, so lets not argue the possibility that you're impeding other traffic that might be going faster!!

Off the top of my head, 15 through Mojave and 5 through Pendleton will generally see some average speeds for the number 1 and number 2 lane well in excess of the speed limit, especially under light traffic conditions.

Are you suggesting that speed differentials are less dangerous than overall speed? If speed differentials are less important than overall speed, why does it matter if I'm impeding traffic with the provision that I'm going the fastest safe speed (the speed limit)? If the fastest safe speed is 65 or 70 depending on the road, how come I've seen the CHP routinely goes 15+ over? Shouldn't they be setting the example, especially since over short distances relatively minor increases like 15-20 isn't going to save much time (there's a difference between speeding for 5 minutes and 2 hours)?

Finally, which is more important safe driving practices like maintaining a proper following distance, not weaving through traffic, and using turn signals, or speed on it's own (which, for the record, props to the CHP officer who was speeding, weaving, and talking on the cell phone yesterday. Great example!)? What's really strange is how it took me over a decade to get my first traffic infraction. A decade where most of my time spent on 65 mph freeways was going 80-85 mph, and a decade (and counting) where I've never been involved in a collision, at fault or otherwise (because I do things like not tailgating).

So, yes, stopping distance increases the faster you go, however that's why you leave more of a buffer zone. Otherwise let's return to 55 mph speed limits in the name of "safety" (because the concept of putting speed limits at the 85 percentile is obviously bunk) and see how much compliance that gets.

Quote:

---

Quoting California student

---

Off the top of my head, 15 through Mojave and 5 through Pendleton will generally see some average speeds for the number 1 and number 2 lane well in excess of the speed limit, especially under light traffic conditions.

---

And if that is the case, "well in excess of the speed limit" does not mean 85 in 65, and even if it were, a citing officer is free to pick and choose who to pull over (though typically, they will pick the fastEST) and once a citation is issued, the defendant is free to play CHP roulette (betting whether the officer wil show up or not) as referenced by Carl above... So what's your point?

Additionally, and IIRC, the section of the 15 through Mojave is only 2 lanes... And the maximum speed through that section is 70mph... So with your reference to the "average speeds for the number 1 and number 2 lane" would imply that many vehicles -on BOTH lanes of the freeway- are travelling "well in excess of the 70mph limit". Now, you come across a driver who opted to drive the limit or close thereto it (i.e. 70 to 75mph)... Who has done more to create an unsafe situation? Him by driving close to the legal limit? Or you by exceeding it by a huge margin simply because you can?

Quote:

---

Quoting California student

---

Are you suggesting that speed differentials are less dangerous than overall speed? If speed differentials are less important than overall speed, why does it matter if I'm impeding traffic with the provision that I'm going the fastest safe speed (the speed limit)?

---

I'm only suggesting that "driving with the flow of traffic" is not a defense to a maximum speed citation (and you're up in a game of CHP roulette where you're betting whether the officer will show up or not)... Regardless of what the flow of traffic is, you joining in at that speed and so long as your speed can be measured in excess on the maximum limit, you've got yourself another chance of playing CHP roulette in that you don't know which vehicle the officer is going to pull over and cite.

Quote:

---

Quoting California student

---

If the fastest safe speed is 65 or 70 depending on the road, how come I've seen the CHP routinely goes 15+ over? Shouldn't they be setting the example, especially since over short distances relatively minor increases like 15-20 isn't going to save much time (there's a difference between speeding for 5 minutes and 2 hours)?

---

You can direct that question to the CHP. And if your next point is to argue that they are not above the law, then I'm sorry to disappoint, but without knowing where the officer was headed to, your point is moot.

Quote:

---

Quoting California student

---

Finally, which is more important safe driving practices like maintaining a proper following distance, not weaving through traffic, and using turn signals, or speed on it's own

---

How about a combination of all of the above? Any of those actions, collectively or individually can be deemed as dangerous but the can also result in one or a group of citations, leaving you to play a game of CHP roulette....

Quote:

---

Quoting California student

---

(which, for the record, props to the CHP officer who was speeding, weaving, and talking on the cell phone yesterday. Great example!)?

---

Again, without knowing where the officer was headed to, your point is moot.

Quote:

---

Quoting California student

---

What's really strange is how it took me over a decade to get my first traffic infraction. A decade where most of my time spent on 65 mph freeways was going 80-85 mph, and a decade (and counting) where I've never been involved in a collision, at fault or otherwise (because I do things like not tailgating).

---

That's an accomplishment you choose to brag about?

Quote:

---

Quoting California student

---

So, yes, stopping distance increases the faster you go, however that's why you leave more of a buffer zone. Otherwise let's return to 55 mph speed limits in the name of "safety" (because the concept of putting speed limits at the 85 percentile is obviously bunk) and see how much compliance that gets.

---

The reasoning behind the 55mph maximum speed limit was not "safety". Instead, it happened during the 1970's gas crunch and was done in the name of "fuel efficiency" (even with as wrong as those claims may have been). Additionally, the 85th percentile speed has no effect whatsoever on the setting of the state's maximum speed limits. Those limits are set by the type of highway irrespective of prevailing speeds. So the basis for you suggestion is incorrect thereby invalidating your entire argument.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

And if that is the case, "well in excess of the speed limit" does not mean 85 in 65, and even if it were, a citing officer is free to pick and choose who to pull over (though typically, they will pick the fastEST) and once a citation is issued, the defendant is free to play CHP roulette (betting whether the officer wil show up or not) as referenced by Carl above... So what's your point?

Additionally, and IIRC, the section of the 15 through Mojave is only 2 lanes... And the maximum speed through that section is 70mph... So with your reference to the "average speeds for the number 1 and number 2 lane" would imply that many vehicles -on BOTH lanes of the freeway- are travelling "well in excess of the 70mph limit". Now, you come across a driver who opted to drive the limit or close thereto it (i.e. 70 to 75mph)... Who has done more to create an unsafe situation? Him by driving close to the legal limit? Or you by exceeding it by a huge margin simply because you can?

---

If anything over 70 is dangerous, why give people who are in the 70-75 mph range a pass? Just because CHP can't pull everyone over is irrelevant as to whether 70 + margin of error for what ever method is used to measure speed should get a ticket.

Quote:

---

I'm only suggesting that "driving with the flow of traffic" is not a defense to a maximum speed citation (and you're up in a game of CHP roulette where you're betting whether the officer will show up or not)... Regardless of what the flow of traffic is, you joining in at that speed and so long as your speed can be measured in excess on the maximum limit, you've got yourself another chance of playing CHP roulette in that you don't know which vehicle the officer is going to pull over and cite.

---

I'm not suggesting that it is a good argument to use in a court of law. However, the issue of someone going 65 in a lane where the prevailing speed is 80+ does fly in the face of CDW's 'get drivers to moderate their speed' post. Similarly, if 'moderating' my speed involves driving the speed limit, then it shouldn't matter what lane I'm in or if I'm impeding traffic. They shouldn't be speeding in the first place and I'm allowed to drive as slow as needed to drive in accordance with the law (22400(a)).

22351(b) could be attempted as a hail mary though. The speed limit of 65 or 70 are established as authorized in the vehicle code. The problem is one says, "don't go past ___ speed" and the other says, "well, if you could establish..." Either there is no defense, and 22351 is poorly written ("established as authorized in this code"), or 22351(b) over rules 22349/22356.

Quote:

---

You can direct that question to the CHP. And if your next point is to argue that they are not above the law, then I'm sorry to disappoint, but without knowing where the officer was headed to, your point is moot.

...

Again, without knowing where the officer was headed to, your point is moot.

---

Are police officers exempt from traffic laws when they aren't displaying a forward facing burning red lamp? Additionally, unlike city streets where there is easily a justification that showing up unannounced to crimes in progress could be beneficial, that argument doesn't necessarily hold for responding to incidents on a freeway.

Quote:

---

That's an accomplishment you choose to brag about?

---

Having a clean driving record isn't something to be proud about? Having zero accidents, at fault or otherwise isn't something to be proud about? Also, to clarify, this is without playing TBWD, TDN, and motion roulette.

Quote:

---

The reasoning behind the 55mph maximum speed limit was not "safety". Instead, it happened during the 1970's gas crunch and was done in the name of "fuel efficiency" (even with as wrong as those claims may have been). Additionally, the 85th percentile speed has no effect whatsoever on the setting of the state's maximum speed limits. Those limits are set by the type of highway irrespective of prevailing speeds. So the basis for you suggestion is incorrect thereby invalidating your entire argument.

---

So then a 65 mph speed limit has nothing to do with safety, and the concept of safety shouldn't be brought into the discussion. After all, wasn't it Montana that used to have a "reasonable and prudent" speed limit, until someone successfully argued that his speed over 100 was reasonable and prudent for the conditions available? Physics doesn't change just because state borders are passed. Physics doesn't change because of the patch on the shoulder of the driver or the lights (or lack there of) on top of the vehicle, or whether those lights are activated. If speed limits are about good order more so than safety, then fine, however that needs to be the argument instead of safety. A similar argument can be made about whether the current bail structure in California is nothing more than a cash grab, considering that the first thing you do is take the base fine and quadruple it ($28 for every $10 base fine + 20% of base fine, of course then there's the addition of $70 or so in various fees).

So what's your point? You disagree with Carl's comment? Fine... Duly noted!!!

No one ever said a blanket statement describing anything over 70 is dangerous... Only that it would be above the legal limit on rural highways and in the slight chance that you might come across a driver who is driving at or near that limit, you being well in excess of it creates a dangerous situation.

As to why no one is cited for 5 over, the answer should be obvious but since it isn't, I'll let you in on a simple concept called "margin of error" along with an undeniable fact that minor fluctuations in speed are allowed accordingly... I hope you can take it from there on your own.

22351(b) is not poorly written. It is poorly interpreted. It only applies to prima facie limits and by definition, 22349 and 22356 are a different animal. But you're free to argue that they are one and the same!

Other than that, you can make all your legal arguments in court... *IF* you -get lucky- and get the chance!

Good day!

Quote:

---

Quoting California student

---

If anything over 70 is dangerous, why give people who are in the 70-75 mph range a pass? Just because CHP can't pull everyone over is irrelevant as to whether 70 + margin of error for what ever method is used to measure speed should get a ticket.

---

Realistically they can NOT pull over everyone. This is not a situation where everyone gets cited or no one should.

As for the tolerance levels, different officers have different tolerances they use for their discretion. The general rule of thumb that seems to be common is a 5 MPH wiggle. Part of this is because that is the wiggle room in visual estimation, and there tends to be a +/- 2 MPH with radar and even speedometers. It is rare that someone will get cited for less than 5 over the posted maximum speed limit, but it does occasionally happen.

Quote:

---

I'm not suggesting that it is a good argument to use in a court of law. However, the issue of someone going 65 in a lane where the prevailing speed is 80+ does fly in the face of CDW's 'get drivers to moderate their speed' post.

---

How so? All because everyone else might be driving in violation of the law does not mean you have to. Heck, big rigs and vehicles with trailers have to go 55. So, go to the right hand lane and when you come up on a slower moving vehicle, move left, pass, and then turn back into the right lane. In some states you are generally required to remain in the outside lanes unless passing.

Quote:

---

Similarly, if 'moderating' my speed involves driving the speed limit, then it shouldn't matter what lane I'm in or if I'm impeding traffic. They shouldn't be speeding in the first place and I'm allowed to drive as slow as needed to drive in accordance with the law (22400(a)).

---

Ya gotta read the WHOLE section:

22400. (a) No person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow
speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of
traffic unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation,
because of a grade, or in compliance with law.

Driving the speed limit would be in compliance with the law and would NOT constitute a violation of 22400(a).

Quote:

---

22351(b) could be attempted as a hail mary though. The speed limit of 65 or 70 are established as authorized in the vehicle code. The problem is one says, "don't go past ___ speed" and the other says, "well, if you could establish..." Either there is no defense, and 22351 is poorly written ("established as authorized in this code"), or 22351(b) over rules 22349/22356.

---

Good luck showing that a higher speed on a congested freeway is justified pursuant to 22351(b). Maybe if there was no traffic at all and it was daylight it might be possible. Maybe.

Quote:

---

Are police officers exempt from traffic laws when they aren't displaying a forward facing burning red lamp? Additionally, unlike city streets where there is easily a justification that showing up unannounced to crimes in progress could be beneficial, that argument doesn't necessarily hold for responding to incidents on a freeway.

---

Nope they are not exempt from the CVC. And they adopt any and all liability when operating outside the provisions of the CVC and agency policy. Even a red lamp forward does not exempt them, only lights AND sirens stands a chance of exempting them from elements of the CVC.

However, the CHP often has to respond to calls or cover from great distances. Often this entails traveling at higher speeds and at potential personal liability. It is a reality of law enforcement that sometimes we are called upon to behave in a dangerous fashion in order to engage in our job. If an officer zips around or drives recklessly, the officer is subject to agency discipline and, yes, even prosecution in the extreme (usually if the act results in a collision or other injury/damage).

Quote:

---

Having a clean driving record isn't something to be proud about? Having zero accidents, at fault or otherwise isn't something to be proud about?

---

That's grand. However, having no citations does not mean that you have always operated safely, only that you have yet to get caught.

Quote:

---

So then a 65 mph speed limit has nothing to do with safety, and the concept of safety shouldn't be brought into the discussion.

---

Why the maximum speed exists at 65 and 70 in CA has to do far more with federal funding than anything else (historically). Is it safer than a higher speed? Yes. The higher the speed, the greater the severity of injury in a collision. Simple physics. But, the discussion is not whether the maximum speed limit is safer than, say, 80, but whether it is the legal standard. Until 1995 the feds set a maximum speed limit of 55 than 65, now the states get to establish their maximum limits. Since the law in CA has 65 and 70 MPH maximums, that is the standard that is enforced.

Quote:

---

A similar argument can be made about whether the current bail structure in California is nothing more than a cash grab, considering that the first thing you do is take the base fine and quadruple it ($28 for every $10 base fine + 20% of base fine, of course then there's the addition of $70 or so in various fees).

---

What the fine structure might be is also not relevant to the legal argument.

Currently, the maximum speed in the state of CA can be 65 or 70 MPH. CVC 22349(a) or 22356 are the upper limits for now. Exceed those limits at your own risk, and if you feel that a higher limit would be best, speak to your local legislator. Of course, the feds occasionally propose reinstituting LOWER national speed limits as do legislators in Sacramento. So, the trend is to seek to lower the limit, not increase it. Though I doubt we will see any lowering of speed limit maximums, it is still trending that way.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Driving the speed limit would be in compliance with the law and would NOT constitute a violation of 22400(a).

---

That's what I'm saying. I could drive 65 in the number 1 lane, have a backup behind me for a quarter mile, and would be perfectly legal. It's a a-hole move, but not illegal.

Quote:

---

Good luck showing that a higher speed on a congested freeway is justified pursuant to 22351(b). Maybe if there was no traffic at all and it was daylight it might be possible. Maybe.

---

It was daylight, it was very light traffic. I'm not talking about the 405 through LA or anything here.

Quote:

---

Nope they are not exempt from the CVC. And they adopt any and all liability when operating outside the provisions of the CVC and agency policy. Even a red lamp forward does not exempt them, only lights AND sirens stands a chance of exempting them from elements of the CVC.

---

To get technical, the siren is only required as reasonably necessary. Whether an emergency vehicle can be operated in a manner that places the public at any risk (i.e. the difference between moving through red lights at 3pm and 3am) with the siren off could be considered both prudent, as well as operating with due regard, would not be something that I would want to put to a legal test.

Quote:

---

However, the CHP often has to respond to calls or cover from great distances. Often this entails traveling at higher speeds and at potential personal liability. It is a reality of law enforcement that sometimes we are called upon to behave in a dangerous fashion in order to engage in our job. If an officer zips around or drives recklessly, the officer is subject to agency discipline and, yes, even prosecution in the extreme (usually if the act results in a collision or other injury/damage).

---

However, is it too much to ask that if that is the case they have their red light activated (no real point for a siren given the speeds involved on a freeway) for the majority of that response? It is not a question of whether law enforcement has to behave in a dangerous fashion to properly do their job. Plenty of professions engage in dangerous work, both dangerous to themselves and dangerous to others. The important questions are whether the risk:benefit ratio works out (not always the case with emergency vehicle operation, look at the studies looking at ambulance transports and emergency driving. Not perfect for a variety of reasons, including differences vehicle design and needing to drive in a manner safe for the patient and attendant, but it's a start) and whether the actions are lawful. Sure, in practice an exemption could be granted in specific situations, but if the officer is responding from a distance, there's little reason for the majority of that response to not be lawful (including using appropriate emergency vehicle exemptions when applicable).

Quote:

---

That's grand. However, having no citations does not mean that you have always operated safely, only that you have yet to get caught.

---

Which could be said about anyone who has anything more than a minimum amount of time behind the wheel.

Quote:

---

Why the maximum speed exists at 65 and 70 in CA has to do far more with federal funding than anything else (historically). Is it safer than a higher speed? Yes. The higher the speed, the greater the severity of injury in a collision. Simple physics. But, the discussion is not whether the maximum speed limit is safer than, say, 80, but whether it is the legal standard. Until 1995 the feds set a maximum speed limit of 55 than 65, now the states get to establish their maximum limits. Since the law in CA has 65 and 70 MPH maximums, that is the standard that is enforced.


What the fine structure might be is also not relevant to the legal argument.


Currently, the maximum speed in the state of CA can be 65 or 70 MPH. CVC 22349(a) or 22356 are the upper limits for now. Exceed those limits at your own risk, and if you feel that a higher limit would be best, speak to your local legislator. Of course, the feds occasionally propose reinstituting LOWER national speed limits as do legislators in Sacramento. So, the trend is to seek to lower the limit, not increase it. Though I doubt we will see any lowering of speed limit maximums, it is still trending that way.

---

True, the fine structure nor the reasoning behind it makes no matter in a legal sense, however I never claimed it did. However is there any justification for a need to moderate speed beyond blind adherence to the law. Ideally there should be reasons laws are in place, and the standards set using something more specifically than in essence drawing a number out of a hat. Granted unless there is a significant issue with the law (e.g. constitutionality), the courthouse is not the proper place to make

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

However, the CHP often has to respond to calls or cover from great distances. Often this entails traveling at higher speeds and at potential personal liability.

---

So what? None of that justifies breaking the law. Unless you are rolling code 3 to an emergency or in immediate pursuit of a suspect, obeying the law must take priority over everything else. If you ask me, there "ought to be a law" that would require every police vehicle to be electronically governored down to 70mph unless the lights and siren are activated.

Quote:

---

Quoting California student

---

That's what I'm saying. I could drive 65 in the number 1 lane, have a backup behind me for a quarter mile, and would be perfectly legal. It's a a-hole move, but not illegal.

---

Actually, it could be. Slower traffic is supposed to yield right. I recall there being a section that covers this, but I do not recall it off the top of my head as it is one not often used by city and county cops.

Quote:

---

To get technical, the siren is only required as reasonably necessary. Whether an emergency vehicle can be operated in a manner that places the public at any risk (i.e. the difference between moving through red lights at 3pm and 3am) with the siren off could be considered both prudent, as well as operating with due regard, would not be something that I would want to put to a legal test.

---

And if the officer smacks into someone who says they did not hear a siren, guess where that's going? It will be seen that it was reasonably necessary the officer should have sounded his siren.

Agencies here also have policies for responding code 3 or exceeding speed limits and violating the CVC. Most tend to require or strongly encourage BOTH the use of a siren and lights. Yes, you are right that the CVC indicates that the siren be used as reasonably necessary, but woe be the officer who crashes and was NOT using his or her siren.

Quote:

---

The important questions are whether the risk:benefit ratio works out (not always the case with emergency vehicle operation, look at the studies looking at ambulance transports and emergency driving.

---

Here is an example where officers adopt the liability at their own risk ... an officer receives a call of a fight in progress - no weapons involved, but it is man beating a woman. The officer is a couple of miles away. It does not fit the requirements per agency policy for a code 3 response with lights and sirens. So, the officer can choose to respond at the speed limit and take, perhaps 6 to 8 minutes to get to the scene, Or, he can push the envelope, exceed the limit, and maybe even make a screwy turn or two and get there in half that time.

Considering a LONG fight lasts for four minutes, the odds are better that the officer can get there in time to save a person from greater harm if he or she pushes the envelope. If the officer gets into a collision, he or she will adopt liability for the accident.

Is it worth the risk? Well, if it was you or your loved one on the receiving end of such a beating, would you prefer the cops get there ASAP or would you be happy to know that they get there in time to help load you on the ambulance, confident and proud that they meticulously obeyed all the traffic laws?

In sheriff's jurisdictions - and on the highways and rural roads where the CHP prowl - adhering to all the speed limits could mean extremely lengthy responses. You want to wait an hour for an officer to respond from across the county? When my local Sheriff decided to hold his officers completely accountable for their speed (via GPS devices) response times tripled as officers became meticulous in their driving. It was a P.R. boondoggle for the Sheriff and he rescinded the edict in a couple of months.

The point is that the nature of law enforcement often requires screwy driving which, while not safe, is sometimes necessary. And, the officer assumes that risk and liability when he or she does this.

Quote:

---

True, the fine structure nor the reasoning behind it makes no matter in a legal sense, however I never claimed it did.

---

You did rail against it in such a way that it implied that was a reason that the statute was bad.

Quote:

---

However is there any justification for a need to moderate speed beyond blind adherence to the law.

---

Yes. Safety. Uniformity, reasonable speeds, and enforceable regulations contribute to overall traffic safety.

Quote:

---

Quoting HonkingAntelope

---

So what? None of that justifies breaking the law. Unless you are rolling code 3 to an emergency or in immediate pursuit of a suspect, obeying the law must take priority over everything else. If you ask me, there "ought to be a law" that would require every police vehicle to be electronically governored down to 70mph unless the lights and siren are activated.

---

Ah, the complaints THAT would generate ... from the public, as response times would skyrocket.