Speeding in a Senior Zone

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

Five days ago I made a turn onto a street and immediately noticed a traffic cop with his radar gun on the other side of the street. Traffic was light, weather ridiculously clear, visibility high. I drove at a rather moderate rate of speed while the few other cars around me were passing me up. I kept driving and kept driving quite a ways down the road at a safe rate of speed but eventually I was pulled over by the same cop and was told I had been speeding in a senior zone (42 in a 25). I asked him if he was taking into account that there were no senior citizens around and he said that didn't matter, but to me he was agreeing that there was nobody around to endanger. After the ticket was written I was mystified by the whole thing and went back to piece things together. Turns out that from where he was and due to the curvature of the road he would've never even seen me entering the senior zone. Plus I was pulled over after I was back in a 45 zone. His whole attitude reeked of "speed trap" and "fill a quota." What he would've been able to see was perhaps me entering a zone where the speed limit abruptly changes from 45 to 25 and that's probably where he saw me doing 42 for a brief moment before his visibility was cut off and well before the "Senior Zone" sign appeared. The 25mph sign and the Senior Zone sign are separate and never shown to have any connection to each other (in stark contrast to a sign just around the corner that distinctly says, "School Zone: 45mph/25mph When Children Are Present") and the Senior Zone sign never mentions anything about reducing speed. In fact I was going so slow while in the senior zone that a slow moving vehicle pulled out in front of me from a driveway on the right and slowly cut across the two normal lanes of traffic to head over to the left turn lane and because of this I had to slow down from my already moderate rate of speed to nearly a dead stop. Shortly after that obstacle removed himself I was back in a 45 zone again and it was shortly after that that the cop appeared and flashed his lights. The timing of the whole thing was so odd that I think the officer didn't know that I saw him earlier well out of visual range of the senior zone (perhaps he could've come racing after me with one hand on his bike's handlebar and the other hand on his radar gun . . . and then saw me in the senior zone and got a radar gun reading?). I've since researched almost everything I can about senior zones, speed traps, etc., and started to find the same vagaries, inconsistencies and loopholes mentioned late in the thread at http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112112 (closed about 4 months ago) but that thread never seemed to have been resolved. I do know for a fact that at no time was I breaking the state's basic speed law. I went back another time and purposely drove at no more than 25 miles per hour (which is basically letting your car idle and giving the gas pedal brief taps now and then) just to see what would happen and the other cars on the road were frustratedly passing me up.

The ticket states that the charge was speeding in a senior zone, which I am pretty sure is not what the radar picked up. I do agree I was probably going over 25 when I entered the 25 zone but I was going slower than the allowed speed in the just prior zone.

I can give more detail if any of your questions elicit it but I've stated the case fairly well so far and only want to unload so much information in the initial post and I do have more information but am not sure if any of it would substantially change the case. I've had one lawyer over the phone tell me, "The state of California is in a big financial hole right now so they are doing everything they can to zing people on stuff like this. You should just pay the fine and do traffic school and get the whole thing behind you." I can totally kind of see that viewpoint but knowing the facts of the case as I know them I would feel very weird going to the court and pleading, "Guilty!" I don't want to burden the system with unnecessary trials but I also don't want the one remaining alternative to be that I get shafted by overzealous cops, especially when they admit to me that there was nobody around to endanger. This same lawyer also said that the state is now mandating that all officers appear for all court dates that they are scheduled for and that if they don't show up for the first one the court will just reschedule the trial for a later date.

Need the exact intersection/city AND what code you were cited for plus any other notes on the ticket.

Harvard (Westbound)/California in Irvine, CA. 22350 Prima Facie Speed - Senior Zone

Other notes on ticket:

Road Conditions: Dry

Traffic: Medium (the officer should have actually circled "Light" here since the traffic was light when I turned onto the road and practically non-existent when he pulled me over)

Weather: Clear


There's a spot where you can select Radar or Lidar and Lidar is selected with something written in below it that looks like "NR"?

I don't know if there's any other relevant information on the ticket but you can ask for more if something else might be cogent.


I have considered the possibility that there was a second motorcycle cop, one on each side of the street, and not directly across from each other, with the citing officer possibly being in visual range of the beginning of the senior zone as indicated to traffic headed my direction. This, however, does not seem like a likely scenario based on observations during my initial and subsequent drives down the road but I am trying to think through every angle of this. The officer I did see stationed with his radar gun, and who was likely the only cop around, was situated so that he could see opposing traffic before the end of their 25mph zone and after those drivers would've seen the senior zone sign on their side, so he was in a better position to more correctly ticket them. I had the strong suspicion that he wasn't getting any clear offenders on that side so he zapped me before I entered the senior zone and began following me and caught up with me after I exited the senior zone in hopes that I would have an inaccurate perception of when he had got a reading. Either way there is still a weakness in the fact that the senior signs and speed zones are never conceptually correlated in any way. That weakness may still be irrelevant in light of the fact that I'm pretty sure the officer got his radar reading before I entered the senior zone. The charge is not "speeding in a 25 zone," it's "speeding in a senior zone."

OK, you may have a good chance because of inadequate signage. In case you're not familiar with it, most 22350 cites involve prima facie (posted) speed limits which require engineering surveys, etc. and are therefore relatively easy to beat with procedural defenses. The exceptions are school zones, senior zones and the maximum (55/65/70) speed limits (see VC 22352).

You should look at this post of mine which is a VERY similar case, only a school zone. It talks in detail about signage, MUTCD, etc. and all the steps to take; I won't repeat those in detail here.

Quote:

---

Quoting VC 22352 Prima Facie Speed Limits

---

22352. (a) The prima facie limits are as follows and shall be applicable unless changed as authorized in this code and, if so changed, only when signs have been erected giving notice thereof:
...
(2) Twenty-five miles per hour:

(C) When passing a senior center or other facility primarily used by senior citizens, contiguous to a street other than a state highway and posted with a standard "SENIOR" warning sign.

---

Note the bolded signage requirement. All signs must be as defined in the CA MUTCD. The current VC 22352 was enacted 1997 and operative March 1, 2001. That is probably why the 1996 Traffic Manual (the predecessor of the MUTCD) contains no mention of any senior zone signs.

The "standard" (and ONLY) senior zone sign in the first MUTCD (2003) through the current one (2010) looks like this:
http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/4560/mqschool012.jpg

The sign I saw on westbound Harvard on Google Streets, a while after the 25 mph sign, looks like this:
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/1778/sencitlac.jpg
Cute symbol, but NON-STANDARD (nowhere to be found in the MUTCD). "Senior Citizens Area" is AWOL from the MUTCD too.

THUS, your supposed senior zone is INVALID because it does not contain the "standard SENIOR signs", which are defined by the MUTCD, as required by VC 22352. It thus reverts to a standard prima facie speed limit to which the speed trap laws apply (VC 40802). Get the latest speed survey for the street and see if it justifies the limit.

---

All the MUTCDs also have the following text about the sign. This is from the 2003 MUTCD:

Quote:

---

Quoting CA MUTCD 2003, Section 2C.118 SENIOR CITIZEN FACILITY Sign (CA Code SW50)

---

Guidance:
The SENIOR CITIZEN FACILITY sign (CA Code SW50) should not be used alone.
Option:
The SW50 (CA Code) sign may be used in combination, above the Speed Limit (R2-1 (25,20 or 15))
sign on any street or road, other than a State highway, with a speed limit greater than 40 km/h (25 mph) that
is adjacent to a senior citizen facility. Refer to CVC 22352 and 22358.4.

---

"Guidance" in the MUTCD is (strongly) recommended and should not be deviated from unless sound "engineering judgment" or an "engineering study" dictates otherwise. The VC 22352/standard sign is your trump card; this is just additional ammo that the current signing is way crazy.

Thank you very much. I am considering everything you've written and will look at the other post too. I had wondered about this "standard" issue and have to go back and look at it again (in the very slim chance that the sign has changed since the Google map photo) but didn't know how to look up what constituted "standard." I'm not sure if there was even the pictorial sign above the rectangular worded one. You know what? Even though it's after midnight I might go check again right now since it's not that far away. Thanks for everything. Don't be surprised if I comment again. I still think the case largely hinges on the citing officer getting his lidar reading before I entered the senior zone but will take anything I can get because we don't know yet what the helpful point will be. In other words I am fine having multiple arrows in my quiver.

BTW, a couple hours ago I picked my roommate up from the airport and told him about the ticket. He just about did a spit-take: "You?! Speeding?! Those two concepts don't go together."

Quote:

---

Quoting Law Abiding Citizen

---

I still think the case largely hinges on the citing officer getting his lidar reading before I entered the senior zone

---

There IS NO SENIOR ZONE. Assuming we can show it was a speed trap, that is your best defense....because, as for where he got his reading, the court will believe whatever the officer says.

Since you're close, also find out WHEN the sign was posted. That will tell us exactly which version of the MUTCD applied (at that time).

Just got back. You are absolutely right: There IS NO SENIOR ZONE. It still had the same sign you just posted a picture of (which I fully suspected would be the case but was anxious to see it myself - again - and with this new information). I tried taking my own picture but it was too dark and any picture I could've posted here would've just been the same thing you posted. I also saw that maybe the officer could've seen my car at the point of the non-standard signage, but am going with you that that is not the defense here. As far as the Engineering and Traffic Survey goes I have e-mailed the person in charge of that for Irvine but got an "Out of Office" auto-reply so I might just go over to the city and ask. In other searches prior to starting this thread I had found out that the sign was posted maybe about five or six years ago, most likely sometime since 2003 . . . or possibly earlier. An article from The Orange County Register is the one thing I'm going off of here (http://articles.ocregister.com/2007-...drivers-signs; suggests that signs were installed so that seniors could jaywalk[??] and doesn't mention anything about any accidents ever having occurred there). I will see what happens when I get the Engineering and Traffic Survey but some online researching I did a few days ago seemed to indicate that they hadn't even bothered doing one there in possibly a decade or more because they seem to think that seniors living nearby negates the need for an Engineering and Traffic Survey. Could be wrong on this but that's kind of what it looked like.

I also again checked out the school zone just barely around the corner from my "incident" and saw anew how clear cut it is compared to the vagary of the faux "senior zone." It has a sign showing that a school zone is coming up and when the school zone starts it tells you it's starting and it tells you that's why the reduced speed is mentioned. How they bungled the senior thing just a couple yards away is beyond me but it does show that it makes things vague.

Found a link online to what a seniors sign is SUPPOSED to look like: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/si...specs/SW50.pdf (matches yours)

Thanks again. Willing to continue discussing this from any other angle. Or the same angles... And will update as I get more info about the surveys, signs, etc.

It may be easier to get records in person.

The Irvine Muni COde (google it) should have a section that lists all streets with p.f. limits (and what hose limits are). All those SHOULD have been surveyed at some point.

The lax signage may be because 22352 requires senior signs to be paid for privately.

I also notice 22352 says senior facility and not senior zone. There is no mention of the limits of anysuch zone, unlike 500 feet for schools. That seems to me like the goal is only to protect "jaywalking" as so colorfully quoted above.

Based on the link you posted and the date it was approved (in 1991) is strong evidence that even when there were no senior zone speed limits in existence, the caltrans warning signs looked much the same as today! (and nothing like what it is in your case)

Thanks again. Very true about the no mention of limits.

Is there a way to find out if others have tried using this same defense? Does seem odd that they could go all this time and not have somebody bring up the problem signage. Don't know if I want to bring it up and have the judge laugh at me and say, "LOL. Yeah, people try using that one all the time. Now I'm going to triple your fine for you trying to pull a fast one on me." But I think it may have only been recently when they started to try to enforce it because I have been down that same stretch numerous times in the last six years and never saw any cops waiting around with radar guns. Or maybe everyone else so cited just thought there was no defense. I have been getting that a lot, "You have no defense. Speed in a senior zone and you better expect to pay the fine."

Also, does the "speed trap" argument matter if the charge is "speeding in a senior zone" and there's not actually a senior zone? If it is admitted that the signage was insufficient do I then have to go on to defend myself against driving briefly at 42 in a 25, even though that wasn't the actual charge? Having said that I do still think I have grounds for claiming the "speed trap" defense and grounds for bringing up the Engineering and Traffic Survey, or potential lack thereof, if it came to that, but I am just wondering if it would ever even get to the point where I would need to bother.

This shows what I imagine would be a proper senior facility/speed limit sign coupling: http://content.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/kt1r29q712/

More when I wake up...

Quote:

---

Quoting Law Abiding Citizen

---

I asked him if he was taking into account that there were no senior citizens around and he said that didn't matter, but to me he was agreeing that there was nobody around to endanger.

---

The reason he said that didn't matter, and unless you are able to cite a legal authority behind your "requirement" is likely because, in reality, it does NOT matter.

Quote:

---

Quoting Law Abiding Citizen

---

Turns out that from where he was and due to the curvature of the road he would've never even seen me entering the senior zone.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting Law Abiding Citizen

---

Plus I was pulled over after I was back in a 45 zone.

---

Well, for him to claim that he measured your speed at 42, would imply that he WAS able to see you driving at 42 at some point in time within the 25mph zone. And you've confirmed that here:

Quote:

---

Quoting Law Abiding Citizen

---

What he would've been able to see was perhaps me entering a zone where the speed limit abruptly changes from 45 to 25 and that's probably where he saw me doing 42 for a brief moment before his visibility was cut off and well before the "Senior Zone" sign appeared.

---

First, and as far as your reference to “the speed limit abruptly changes from 45 to 25”, please undestand that it is highly uncommon and probably highly frowned upon for a traffic engineer (or a regulatory authority in general) to set a transition from a 45mph limit to a 25mph limit without some intermediate zone. So the judge will likely see right through that.

Second, and more specific to the FACTS of this case, I don't see any 45mph speed limit signs on Harvard, at least NOT in the westbound direction starting at Culver and headed westbound to the intersection of Harvard and California, which is where you stated you were cited. So what 45mph zone are you referring to? (and please don't tell me 45mph limit is on Culver... You made a turn onto another highway and there is no such "transition" as you are utilizing the term) so what "transition" are you talking about? Even if you entered Harvard from Columbia (and turned left towards Harvard and California), it appears that Columbia is by its seeming to be a residential district, it would be under another 25mph statutory speed limit... So again, no possible "transition" from a 45mph zone in that case either.

At any rate, and even if you had transitioned from a higher speed zone into the 25mph speed limit and the officer clocked you at a speed that is higher than that last (lower speed limit sign) that you just passed, that ALONE, is sufficient to not only justify the citation, but subsequent testimony from him in court will be sufficient for a conviction.

It matters not how long you were at 42mph, it mattes not how far into the next zone you were in before he pulled you over, and it matters not what the speed limit is before you entered the 25mph zone.

While we're on the topic of Culver and Harvard, you can see a "25 Zone Ahead" sign shortly after you turn onto Harvard from Culver. Driving a bit farther in a westerly direction, you WILL come up on a Regulatory 25mph speed limit sign. Shortly thereafter, you do come up on the "Senior Citizens Area" sign.

Now, let me take a different direction here... A 25mph speed limit in a Senior citizen zone and so long as it is posted, it becomes statutory and you are thereby forbidden from exceeding it. Quirky cited the correct authority by reference... However, when citing that, he intentionally or inadvertently redacted a good portion of the related code section, and one that is integral to a complete and thorough understanding of the legal requirement set by that law. This redacted statement, unfotunatrly for you, does further qualify the "warning sign" as an option rather than a requirement and even then and only if it comes by way of a private donation.

Here is the subsection in its entirety:

22352. (a) The prima facie limits are as follows and shall be applicable unless changed as authorized in this code and, if so changed, only when signs have been erected giving notice thereof:

(2) Twenty-five miles per hour:

(C) When passing a senior center or other facility primarily used by senior citizens, contiguous to a street other than a state highway and posted with a standard "SENIOR" warning sign. A local authority is not required to erect any sign pursuant to this paragraph until donations from private sources covering those costs are received and the local agency makes a determination that the proposed signing should be implemented. A local authority may, however, utilize any other funds available to it to pay for the erection of those signs.

That, in my view, makes that yellow/black warning sign an option that is further qualified by an act that is beyond the control or the regulatory authority (yes, they can ask for donations, but the cannot force people to donate)... Now, you can cry that it is a "trap" by them not posting a sign to satisfy a condition, and then saying notification of such condition is not required, understand that it is the same legislative body that enacted the STRICTEST "speed trap laws" in the entire nation, is the same legislative body that enacted this subsection as well.

Even with that being said, and in spite of Quirky's claim that:

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

There IS NO SENIOR ZONE.

---

... fact is, there is a Senior Citizen Center and by law, that qualifies that stretch of highway as a "Senior Zone"!

As it turns out, there exists a Regents Point Senior Center is located at 19191 Harvard Avenue, Irvine, CA 92612 which is actually located at a northbound extension of California Ave at the same intersection that you posted above (Harvard AT California). That, by my interpretation of the code section, makes the 25mph posted limit a statutory speed limit, and the officer is not required to present a traffic and engineering survey to justify this limit. You're free to attempt to obtain one, but even if you do, it will likely state some other prevailing speed, then cite VC 22352(a)(2)(C) as the statutory authority for the 25mph limit with which compliance is mandatory.

Why does that differ from the signage for a school zone sign? Mainly because the vehicle code section mandating that speed limit offers an option that makes it "different" but also because the MUTCD "Guidance" suggests that the "standard Senior sign" SHOULD not (note the use of the permissive "SHOULD not" as opposed to the restrictive "MUST not") be installed alone, but then it also further qualifies that by stating it in a different way as an OPTION that the "may be used in combination, above the Speed Limit".

Fact is, in this case and assuming that the Google-Maps images are indicative of the same conditions existing on that road when you were cited, you may have possibly passed a "25 zone ahead" sign (if you entered on Harvard from Culver, otherwise, No!), but then you passed a 25mph limit regulatory sign, that is statutory by its very nature. At that point in time, and as soon as you passed that sign, your speed should have been at 25mph or close thereto it.

As for the warning sign, and in spite of it not meeting Quirky's standards, fact still remains that, you saw it, understood it, interpreted it and brought it up into your statement describing every little detail of the incident and referred to it as a

Quote:

---

Quoting Law Abiding Citizen

---

"Senior Zone" sign

---

.
And yet now, you want to claim ignorance by suggesting that it isn't clear? So what... It is not even a requirement...

So far as legal, regulatory, design, engineering, application, installation standards, and while any and all of them are interconnected somehow, you may find that one may overlap another by a great amount, all while almost missing another one entirely. That is fairly vague so let me simplify... The legal requirement here is to post a 25mph speed limit sign. When it comes to a warning sign, it is installed if and only if a private donation is made or if the regulatory authority opts to pay for those costs. There is some indication by what you posted, that this may have occurred prior to any signage becoming standardized... The fact that a reasonable person can equally deduce the existance of a senior citizen center nearby regadless of whether the sign states "Senior Citizen Area" or "Senior Citizen Facility"... And when the "standard' became the "standard" it may or may not have been reviewed and decided that the message is clear and replacing it can wait!

With that being said, there is no argument that some sign and once those designs/shapes/colors/sizes/ and uses are approved, listed in and classified by the MUTCD as "regulatory" (not "warning", not "Advisory".. etc) and when used in compliance with or as mandated by law (mainly, the California Vehicle Code) that the must be used in the manner described in the related law.

However, when it comes to placement/installation, and considering that such criteria may be difficult to standardize, engineering judgment does allow for a sizeable amount of leeway as long as a reasonable ordinary person is likely to notice the sign and understand the actions it regulates.

AS for the replacement of old signs, that does often allow for continued use of an older sign version until that old sign is removed as a result of a reconstruction project, somebody plows through it... etc, or until a directive mandating removal and replacement is passed down.

In this case, the sign itself is not a requirement, instead, it is an option, so to suggest that a law that you were clearly in violation of (you do admit to doing 42 though I would not recommend being as forthright in court) is unenforceable and accordingly, your citation issued should get dismissed..... I am not buying it, but its your time, effort and ultimately, your money (whether you are found guilty and have to pay it, or are found not guilty and get to save it).

Good luck!