Traffic Court Motion to Dismiss

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

I was stopped on a state route in July by a CHP officer for speeding. The officer claimed that I was going 85 mph on a 65-mph-posted-limit highway in violation of CV 22349(a).

Several weeks later, I received the Courtesy Notice from the court which has jurisdiction of my case. At the end of August, I walked in to the court for arraignment. At the hearing, the judge read all of the rights we as violators are entitled to and called each one of us to plea. When it was my turn, I plead 'not guilty' and then was instructed to sit on a bench on the side while my next trial date was being set. Soon after, the court's clerk called me and handed me a paper indicating my trial date. I left for home afterward.

One day while preparing my defense and staring at the paper containing my trial date, I got a big surprise -- the trial is set exactly 50 days since arraignment. This is definitely a violation of my right to speedy trial which calls for a public trial within 45 days of arraignment. I can't believe it! Can the court be so inept that it would schedule my trial beyond 45 days? I tried to remember all the things that happened and said inside the court at the time of my arraignment. I couldn't remember being asked or agreeing to waive time for trial. My concern though was that I didn't object against the date given to me, but of course, I still didn't realize it at that time.

Now, my questions are: Can I file a motion to dismiss on the ground that my right to speedy trial is violated and denied? If so, when is the best time to file the motion? Is it before the trial (in written form) but after the 45-days-cutoff, or at the trial (verbally, at the beginning)?

This is a current case, and I appreciate your immediate feedback.

M.Q.

Can it be so inept? Sure.
Can you move to dismiss? Yes.
Best bet is verbal motion at beginning of trial. BEFORE you are sworn in, raise your hand and say "Your Honor, I would like to make a motion". Some judges will want you to take the oath anyway. Then you can say "I move to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. " That should be all that is needed, the judge will verify the 50 days via clerk and you should be on your way.

Quote:

---

Quoting M.Q.

---

I couldn't remember being asked or agreeing to waive time for trial.

---

If you're not 100% sure you didn't agree to waive time, go to the clerk (if possible) on or after day 45 and double-check so that you're not left without a backup defense if the judge claims there was a waiver.

Thank you quirky for your response!

While it is comforting that I have this option (the move to dismiss), I am still anticipating other possibilities and preparing my defense. What if the judge deny my motion due to the fact that I did not object when the date was being set or right after I received the paper containing the date of the trial (is that called "special waiver" due to my non-objection?)? That is where my concern lies.

Anyway, I still sent informal requests of discovery to both the city attorney and the CHP, and furnished copy to the court, in case my motion to dismiss is not granted.

Here is a brief timeline and background history of my history:

7/19/11 - stopped by a CHP officer, cited for violating VC 22349(a), running 85mph on 65-mph-limit highway.
Answers given to officer appear incriminating if not outright admission of guilt. The officer didn't write on the ticket how he determined
my speed, but apparently he paced me. This is my first speeding ticket.

2nd week of 8/11 - Courtesy Notice arrived in the mail.

8/24/11 - Walked in to court and attended an arraignment hearing. A paper setting the date of trial was handed to me by the clerk. The trial date is
set on 10/13/11. Accepted the paper (without objection) and walked away.

last week of 8/11 - Realized the trial date was 50 days from arraignment in clear violation of my right to
speedy trial.

9/2/11 - sent discovery requests to city attorney and the CHP concerned with a copy to the court. Ask the following:
a.) a copy of the reverse side of the officer's Notice to Appear and other notes
b.) names & addresses of possible witnesses
c.) calibration records for the speed detection equipment used by the officer, including the repair
and maintenance records and manufacturer's manual and specifications, as well as the tuning
fork's certificate of accuracy.
d.) the speedometer calibration certificate, repair and maintenance records of the patrol car used.
e.) a copy of the arrest record of the CHP officer and his daily observation logs on the day of
my alleged offense and in the previous three months
f.) an engineering and traffic survey

I'll provide further details of my case as it progresses (or when my discovery requests are answered).

Thank you again quirky for your advice. It is indeed good idea to check with the clerk if there is a waiver.

I'm really glad to find this forum as this is my first time to contest my very first speeding ticket. I feel now I'm not alone in this fight. Hoping for a dismissal..

Quirky, with regards to your advice to check with the clerk, which clerk should I go to? Should I approach the clerk that actually handed me the paper inside the courtroom (this is the clerk that is usually partnered with a specific judge) or any other clerk like those manning the windows and receiving payments, documents, and whatnot?

What question(s) should I ask the clerk? Should I say: "My trial date was scheduled on 10/13, exactly 50 days since my arraignment. I didn't waive time for trial neither did I agree to such a waiver. Is the judge claiming a waiver for my trial?" With that questioning though, shouldn't I be giving up/revealing my strategy (i.e. to file a motion to dismiss) to the clerk, and therefore to the judge as well, and losing my opportunity to surprise them. They might then claim a waiver when in fact I didn't consent to it.

This is really complicated, but I appreciate your feedback.

Want to scan a copy of your paper with the court date on it and post it here if you still have it?

^^^ What HA said. Post a copy on imageshack if possible.

Quote:

---

Quoting M.Q.

---

While it is comforting that I have this option (the move to dismiss), I am still anticipating other possibilities and preparing my defense. What if the judge deny my motion due to the fact that I did not object when the date was being set or right after I received the paper containing the date of the trial (is that called "special waiver" due to my non-objection?)? That is where my concern lies.

---

The California Penal Code (PC) section discussing dismissal in case of lack of a speedy trial is PC 1382. It allows exceeding 45 days if the defendant enters a "general waiver", requests a later trial date or consents to a waiver, express or implicit. The important part for you however, is subsection (c):

Quote:

---

Quoting CA PC 1382(c)

---

(c) If the defendant is not represented by counsel, the defendant
shall not be deemed under this section to have consented to the date
for the defendant's trial unless the court has explained to the
defendant his or her rights under this section and the effect of his
or her consent.

---

Thus, unless the court explained to you your right to a speedy trial AND said something to the effect of: "If you don't object to the trial date we're giving you, you're implying consent to waive your right to a speedy trial", you have not waived your rights.

To be more specific and perhaps jog your memory about what happened at arraignment, we can look at the sample arraignment script from the CA Judicial council for pro-tem judges:

Quote:

---

Quoting Sample Arraignment Script for Pro-Tem Judges

---

To have your case tried within 45 days if you plead not guilty, unless you waive this right. If you do not waive this right and your case is not tried within 45 days, all charges against you must be dismissed.

---

or, alternatively, the Traffic Proceedings Bench Guide, a more solid reference:

Quote:

---

Quoting Traffic Proceedings Bench Guide, PDF page 7, Checklist for Arraignment Calendar

---

(1) Call the calendar.
(2) Advise the defendants of their constitutional rights, i.e., the right
to be represented by an attorney, to cross-examine the arresting officer
and any other prosecution witnesses, to subpoena witnesses to testify on
the defendant’s behalf, to refuse to testify, to have a trial within 45 days of
the arraignment, and to have a jury trial in a misdemeanor case.
(3) Call the first group of defendants forward, and ask the first
defendant to step up to the podium.
(4) Inform the defendant of the charge, and ask the defendant how
he or she wishes to plead.
(5) If the defendant pleads guilty or no contest, impose sentence,
assuming the defendant has waived time for sentencing.
(6) If the defendant pleads not guilty, ask the defendant if he or she
waives time for trial. If not, set the case for trial within 45 days.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting M.Q.

---

7/19/11 - stopped by a CHP officer, cited for violating VC 22349(a), running 85mph on 65-mph-limit highway.
Answers given to officer appear incriminating if not outright admission of guilt. The officer didn't write on the ticket how he determined my speed, but apparently he paced me. This is my first speeding ticket.
...
9/2/11 - sent discovery requests to city attorney and the CHP concerned with a copy to the court. Ask the following:
a.) a copy of the reverse side of the officer's Notice to Appear and other notes
b.) names & addresses of possible witnesses
c.) calibration records for the speed detection equipment used by the officer, including the repair
and maintenance records and manufacturer's manual and specifications, as well as the tuning
fork's certificate of accuracy.
d.) the speedometer calibration certificate, repair and maintenance records of the patrol car used.
e.) a copy of the arrest record of the CHP officer and his daily observation logs on the day of
my alleged offense and in the previous three months
f.) an engineering and traffic survey

---

Couple of FYI. If you're not sure you were paced, post a redacted copy of the ticket on imageshack, etc. and we can help you figure it out. Re your discovery request, the survey (f) is of no use for a max speed (22349a) citation, it only comes into play on 22350. (c) is also irrelevant if radar wasn't used. The CHP will hopefully send you some of what you asked for.

Since you said your answers are incriminating, you should have asked for a copy of any audio/video recordings in discovery. Anyway, hopefully this is all moot since your case should be dismissed.

Quote:

---

Quoting M.Q.

---

Quirky, with regards to your advice to check with the clerk, which clerk should I go to?

---

Here's the important part: do not go before the 43rd day or so. You will have to wait in limbo till then, sorry! At that point, you can go to the regular clerk and say you noticed that your trial was scheduled past 45 days, and you did not agree to a waiver...what happens now? The clerk (or someone in the office) will tell you if they have a waiver, or they will tell you how to get a dismissal.

Sorry for the delay in posting this reply. It was my first time to use ImageShack. I also didn't know how to insert or attach a scanned document.

After several attempts, I finally managed to attach them. Here they are:

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg21/...jpg&res=medium

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg15/...jpg&res=medium

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg546...jpg&res=medium

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg192...jpg&res=medium

I hope this helps..

Quote:

---

Quoting M.Q.

---

Sorry for the delay in posting this reply. It was my first time to use ImageShack. I also didn't know how to insert or attach a scanned document.

---

Actually, please also include the link(s) to your folder -- the attached images are much smaller and harder to read than the originals!

On the traffic docket, the TW box is NOT checked. I assume this means Time Waived, and that time was NOT waived in your case. My best guess is that the remaining boxes stand for AW: Arraignment Waiver (presumably when you have your lawyer present instead of you), JW: Jury trial waiver (for misdemeanors) and TWS: Time Waived for Sentencing.

So it appears that you have a document, whose original is on file with the court, which shows you DID NOT waive time and the trial was still scheduled past the 45-day limit. This is almost certainly a dismissal, unless you encounter a judge like this guy from 2008. However, his TW box WAS checked and his case was dismissed upon "review."

You may want to give the court a friendly call, without revealing your citation # or other identifying info, and ask exactly what the TW box means....

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

Thus, unless the court explained to you your right to a speedy trial AND said something to the effect of: "If you don't object to the trial date we're giving you, you're implying consent to waive your right to a speedy trial", you have not waived your rights.

---

I don't remember the judge making this statement at all..

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

or, alternatively, the Traffic Proceedings Bench Guide, a more solid reference:

---

Yes, I now remember clearly that the judge did go through all of these procedures, EXCEPT number 6.

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

Since you said your answers are incriminating, you should have asked for a copy of any audio/video recordings in discovery. Anyway, hopefully this is all moot since your case should be dismissed.

---

Yeah, I did miss including the recordings in my discovery. But I share your hope of this case being dismissed..

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

Actually, please also include the link(s) to your folder -- the attached images are much smaller and harder to read than the originals!

---

Sorry for that. Here's the direct url link to all the scanned images: http://profile.imageshack.us/user/m_q/

Wow, you've figured out all those acronyms that I hadn't given importance until now..

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

So it appears that you have a document, whose original is on file with the court, which shows you DID NOT waive time and the trial was still scheduled past the 45-day limit.

---

Yes, I'll definitely give the court a call and ask about the meaning of TW..

Thanks a lot, quirky! You've been such a big help...

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

You may want to give the court a friendly call, without revealing your citation # or other identifying info, and ask exactly what the TW box means....

---

Following quirky's advice above, I did call the court yesterday and was able to talk with a clerk. Here's how conversation went:

Me: Hello, good afternoon! My name is Tomas (I gave a fictitious name). I attended an arraignment hearing few
weeks ago. I like to ask a question about the traffic docket I received from the court. What does the "TW"
stand for?

Clerk: May I have your docket number?

Me: I'm sorry I could hardly read it. The ink was not so good.

Clerk: Can I have your license number instead?

Me: I'm sorry, but I only need to know what TW means?

Clerk: I can't give you what you're asking for unless you give me your license number!

Me: I'm sorry ma'm, but I can't give you that. Anyway, thank you for your time.

This conversation clearly indicates that I won't get the information I wanted so easily. But I was afraid to give her my details lest she might discover the mistake the court has made and reschedule my trial at a new, earlier date. That of course would cause me to lose my privilege to move for dismissal due to lack of a speedy trial.

I think I'll just go to the court after the 45-day cut-off and ask what to do, citing the lack of a speedy trial.

Regarding my request for discovery, I have yet to receive any reply from the city attorney and the CHP after a full week.

Good news for me! My case was dismissed!

Thank you for those who gave good pieces of advice in this forum especially quirkyquark.

Here's what happened. Shortly after the court proceeding started and the first litigant came forward to defend himself, the court's clerk quietly called some of the defendants including myself, led us out of the courtroom, and delivered the news that our cases were being dismissed. He then handed each one of us a paper entitled "Minute Order" that formalised the dismissals. I have such a big sigh of relief!

I don't understand though the ground(s) for the dismissal. Under the subheading "Results of the Proceedings", the following numbered items were written in the paper:

1. Defendant was present.
2. Citing Officer ___________ was present.
3. Count 1 CVC 22349(a) I dismissed on reason No Recall by Officer.

What does item 3 mean, specifically the phrase No Recall by Officer?

Cool! I love mass dismissals. Thanks for reporting back. It helps people to know what does or does not work.

Thanks for the response, Speedy Gonzalez!

While I am definitely overjoyed for the dismissal, I am still interested to know or understand why my case was dismissed. Can you please enlighten me about the meaning of "No Recall by Officer"?

Specifically that should mean that the officer had no independent recall of the violation. In reality that could mean a number of things. It could mean that the officer called off and said he would not be able to attend and the court just uses that as the generic dismissal reason. Or, the officer reported to the court that he had no independent recollection of the violations. Or, something similar.

If these were for different officers and all of you received the same generic "no recall ..." reason, I'd say that is the court's default dismissal when the officer is not present or calls off. Or, that is the generic reason that is given by the officer/agency to the court when an officer cannot attend. Either way, it means the same thing a dismissal.

Hopefully you have since learned to moderate your speed so you do not have to play CHP roulette again.

Thank you cdwjava for your explanation. I sincerely appreciate it.

What I do not appreciate though is your snide and preachy remark at the end of your note. Your conclusion that I was playing CHP roulette was clearly uncalled for, if not insulting. It is so insensitive especially coming from a Bible-quoting police officer. Your unwarranted, self-righteous judgment doesn't at all reflect the quote that follows your title. You don't know all the facts of my case and I hope you would be more discreet before passing judgment on others whom you barely know.

Quote:

---

Quoting M.Q.

---

What I do not appreciate though is your snide and preachy remark at the end of your note. Your conclusion that I was playing CHP roulette was clearly uncalled for, if not insulting. It is so insensitive especially coming from a Bible-quoting police officer. Your unwarranted, self-righteous judgment doesn't at all reflect the quote that follows your title. You don't know all the facts of my case and I hope you would be more discreet before passing judgment on others whom you barely know.

---

Oh get over yourself. You were "caught" doing 85 in 65... And other than a technicality of you not knowing whether you signed a waiver or not, you have offered no reason whatsoever that would suggest that such an egregious error was made by the officer who cited you!

Quote:

---

Quoting M.Q.

---

What I do not appreciate though is your snide and preachy remark at the end of your note. Your conclusion that I was playing CHP roulette was clearly uncalled for, if not insulting. It is so insensitive especially coming from a Bible-quoting police officer. Your unwarranted, self-righteous judgment doesn't at all reflect the quote that follows your title. You don't know all the facts of my case and I hope you would be more discreet before passing judgment on others whom you barely know.

---

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.

As for the quote I choose, I suppose we could get into a philosophical discussion of faith, Christ, and issues of chastisement or admonitions against "sin" (or unsafe behavior as it might apply in the case of speed), but that is not something for this board.

The majority of posters here know they committed an offense, and will even acknowledge that they did, but they come here seeking some miracle cure or technical out. Lucky for them the CVC is written in such a way that there are often multiple avenues for a talented individual to game their way out of the penalty for their action. And, for that, shame on the state for allowing so many loopholes ... or, kudos to them for giving so many opportunities to the devious ... depending on one's point of view. The point being that most posters know they committed the violation and are here seeking an easy "out."

You are correct - I do not know the facts of your case. Though, I am hard pressed to conceive of a lawful reason you might need to do 85 MPH. If you truly are a person who follows the rules of the road, obeys the speed limits to the best of his ability, and for whatever reason was busted on one of the very rare occasions he has ever exceeded the speed limit by 20+ MPH, then I do apologize. However, as you have offered up no explanation here as to what grievous error was committed by the police, or how you had no choice but to speed to save life and limb, we are left with the most common presumption that you sped, you got caught, and you came here looking for a way out. That's fine. But, no matter the reason, you should always be mindful of your speed and the rules of the road.

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.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

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.

---

Not a justification for breaking the law, either. While speedos do have a margin of error, there are at least three legal alternatives to breaking the law:
1. Drive 5-10mph below the maximum speed if you're unsure about your speedo's accuracy.
2. Install tires one offset smaller. That'll decrease the wheel diameter and cause the speedo to report indicated speed slightly higher than the actual speed.
3. Have a mechanic calibrate your speedo once every so many months just like CHP and other police agencies do.

Quote:

---

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!

---

Agree. If anything, it's VC22349 and 22356 that are very badly written.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

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.

---

If simple adherence to the law causes tripled response times and an occasional loss of life due to delays incurred by compliance, that's a problem. On the other hand, it was obviously OK with CA's legislature when they passed those laws. It's a pity that sheriff chose to ignore the law rather than enforce it.

If you're dissatisfied with such an absurd arrangement, why not have the police unions put the screws on the legislature to change the the law? For once, maybe the LE community could be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

Quote:

---

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

---

and the correct response would be "You may not like it, but that's the law. Take it up with the legislature.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

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.

---

21654. (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any
vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal
speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be
driven in the right-hand lane for traffic

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.

Emphasis added

Quote:

---

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.

---

Never argued otherwise when it came to a practical application. Similarly, the siren is necessary to place the legal requirement on other vehicles to pull to the right.

Quote:

---

Agencies here also have policies for responding code 3 or exceeding speed limits and violating the CVC.

---

Under what legal authority does a police department have to allow their officers to violate the CVC? What other laws are police officers allowed to violate under department policy?

Note: Emergency vehicles with appropriate warning devices activated engaging in exemptions allowed under the CVC are not violating the law, even if the action is otherwise illegal.

Quote:

---

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?

---

I would want them to get there ASAP, but not in a manner that puts the public at risk. If the officer gets into an accident, s/he is no longer of any use for the original incident, in addition to taking up additional resources to respond to his/her accident. Additionally, more than the original parties are injured as a result of the original incident. No amount of time saved will make up for the time lost if the officer doesn't actually reach the incident.

Quote:

---

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

---

The statute being bad, and being able to use that argument in a court of law are two different arguments. The cell phone ban is bad because it doesn't accomplish what it sets out to do (number of hands on the wheel isn't as important as the conversation with someone who has no idea when to let the driver drive), but I wouldn't use that argument in a court of law.

Quote:

---

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

---

Didn't we just establish that safety had little to do with it, given the 55 mph speed limit and the demise a number of years ago of "reasonable and prudent" in Montana? Additionally, if the issue is safety, why not simply stick with the basic speed law?

It is as it is. I can try to provide some justification, but the practical reality is that cops are sometimes expected and permitted to violate traffic infractions to enforce the law. PC 4 states that the laws are not expected to be enforced to their strict interpretation, but to the fair import of the law.

And, you are right, not getting to the scene does no one any good and this is emphasized in the academy and in field training. However, the difference between doing 35 and 25, or making a quick but generally safe lane change between cars is sometimes the risk that officers adopt.

The Sheriff caved to pressure because response times skyrocketed. People got hospitalized, thieves got away, and injured parties went without aid for lengthy periods of time due to the response times. Reality is what it is, and the Sheriff is an elected official. He could have held firm and continued to review the GPS readings for excessive speed, but he would likely lose the next election as a result.

Yes, speed limits are established for safety and uniformity. What that speed limit is or should be is a matter for the politicians to decide. If the state wants to go to a subjective max. speed like 22350, so be it. As it is, that does not exist here.

I'm late to this party, but two quick notes:

M.Q.: Carl said "do not have to play" which quite clearly implies that you were NOT actively seeking to play the game. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

As for the cops-going-fast discussion, I will back up Carl in that I have seen a LOT of CA civil cases where the agency has had to pay through the nose (and the officer often disciplined) when their driving has caused human/property damage. In some the officer was fully compliant with CVC (lights/siren) and was still found negligent. To paraphrase the courts, "nothing excludes officers from the duty of driving safely".

I, for one, am glad that the culture in most CA LE agencies is to take these risks if the officer deems it necessary.

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

As for the cops-going-fast discussion, I will back up Carl in that I have seen a LOT of CA civil cases where the agency has had to pay through the nose (and the officer often disciplined) when their driving has caused human/property damage. In some the officer was fully compliant with CVC (lights/siren) and was still found negligent. To paraphrase the courts, "nothing excludes officers from the duty of driving safely".

I, for one, am glad that the culture in most CA LE agencies is to take these risks if the officer deems it necessary.

---

Would it be too much to ask for for us peons to be extended the same benefit of a doubt? As in, the folks who T/C get billed for the police time + cleanup costs, while those of us who can handle driving above the statutory maximum speed without crashing into stuff be able to do so without the risk of a citation?

Quote:

---

Quoting HonkingAntelope

---

Would it be too much to ask for for us peons to be extended the same benefit of a doubt? As in, the folks who T/C get billed for the police time + cleanup costs, while those of us who can handle driving above the statutory maximum speed without crashing into stuff be able to do so without the risk of a citation?

---

No, but your scheme would have to be "official", involving the legislature, new laws, etc. The way it works for LE agencies in the scenario we described (or even otherwise) is that, as professional courtesy, they won't apprehend "violators" from other agencies. Think of the CHP who sees a city cop in a marked car doing 85 in a 65 with no lights...he's going to ignore it. Why would they extend the same benefit of the doubt to you or me?

The only way to achieve what you suggest is to eliminate speed limits in favor of an Old-school-Montana type "reasonable and prudent at all times" standard.

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

No, but your scheme would have to be "official", involving the legislature, new laws, etc. The way it works for LE agencies in the scenario we described (or even otherwise) is that, as professional courtesy, they won't apprehend "violators" from other agencies. Think of the CHP who sees a city cop in a marked car doing 85 in a 65 with no lights...he's going to ignore it. Why would they extend the same benefit of the doubt to you or me?

---

Uh, because the police are required to obey the law just like you or me? If a certain law creates violators our of 90%+ of the motoring public and would triple response times to non-code3 calls, the law should be changed instead of relying on the hopelessly broken selective enforcement system currently in place.

I generally don't care if police speed .. I just follow them (not tailgating but close behind) ~ never had one slow to pull me over. "Give yourself a ticket Barn"

But just because police speed does not excuse others ...

There are states that passing a cop is an automatic pullover, even if not speeding...seen it in Indiana, Penn, NY, GA, etc. I rarely pass a cop in the right lane....

Quote:

---

Quoting HonkingAntelope

---

Agree. If anything, it's VC22349 and 22356 that are very badly written.

---

How, in your opinion should both maximum speed laws be written? Keep in mind that abolishing the maximum speed laws is out of the question.

Quote:

---

Quoting HonkingAntelope

---

Would it be too much to ask for for us peons to be extended the same benefit of a doubt? As in, the folks who T/C get billed for the police time + cleanup costs, while those of us who can handle driving above the statutory maximum speed without crashing into stuff be able to do so without the risk of a citation?

---

How would you even begin to classify a peon who will be extended the same benefit of doubt (i.e. one who presumably can handle driving above the statutory maximum speed without crashing into stuff) from the peons who do not deserve it? I mean both groups have already passed the same standardised test to obtain their license. Would another test suffice? And what would you test them on?

In all honesty, I would rather pay a citation or two every once in a while, than agree to a new law giving everybody the benefit of doubt as I am usually less concerned about my driving skill; my main concern is everybody else's!

And the other issue is that the costs are not limited to police time and clean up cost... The other issue would be liability... Will you insurer offer the same liability coverage that city/county is willing to hand left and right. Or will such rates be so cost prohibitive -simply because the insured is no longer bound by "ANY legal limits"- that you may end up being unable to drive at all?

Quote:

---

Quoting HonkingAntelope

---

If a certain law creates violators our of 90%+ of the motoring public...

---

What law is that?

If you're referring to maximum speed laws, then the law does not make violators of 90% of the motoring public... I would say that the buffer that is often given when conducting speed enforcement of those limits is the reason why the majority of drivers exceed the 65mph or 70mph limits. My guess is if strict enforcement of those speed limits were to ever happen, given the normal 30 day "warning period" often given with new laws/restrictions, and you'll find that your 90% is on the flip and is indicative of the number of compliant drivers.

If on the other hand you're speaking of limits set by speed study, then those limits are set where only 15% of drivers are violators, and even when that prevailing limit (85th %ile) is reduced by 5mph (there's a "minus 5"), you still get an average of 10mph buffer (there's a "plus 10") and you're still nowhere near 90% violation rate ("minus 5 & plus 10 equals plus 5" and you'e still 5mph ahead of the game regardless).

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

How, in your opinion should both maximum speed laws be written? Keep in mind that abolishing the maximum speed laws is out of the question.

---

Heck, I'll even admit that 22351 should be written in a manner that specifically excludes 22349 and 22356. The problem with 22351 is that it uses the term "this code" instead of limiting it to just non-maximum speed limits.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

If you're referring to maximum speed laws, then the law does not make violators of 90% of the motoring public... I would say that the buffer that is often given when conducting speed enforcement of those limits is the reason why the majority of drivers exceed the 65mph or 70mph limits. My guess is if strict enforcement of those speed limits were to ever happen, given the normal 30 day "warning period" often given with new laws/restrictions, and you'll find that your 90% is on the flip and is indicative of the number of compliant drivers.

If on the other hand you're speaking of limits set by speed study, then those limits are set where only 15% of drivers are violators, and even when that prevailing limit (85th %ile) is reduced by 5mph (there's a "minus 5"), you still get an average of 10mph buffer (there's a "plus 10") and you're still nowhere near 90% violation rate ("minus 5 & plus 10 equals plus 5" and you'e still 5mph ahead of the game regardless).

---

I think the buffer is irrelevant. If all of a sudden the average citizen was allowed the buffer of, say, petty theft below $5, the average citizen wouldn't go out and steal $5 worth of junk. If all of a sudden the average citizen was allowed one murder, the average citizen wouldn't commit murder. However the fact that the average speed, at least in So Cal outside of rush hour, is 15-20 over the limit is a good indication that the issue isn't enforcement, but that the law doesn't reflect the values of society. If a law doesn't reflect the values of society, then there will always be compliance and enforcement issues.