How to Fight LIDAR Speeding Ticket, VC 22350

Got a speeding ticket at 6 PM on a street parallel to the 210 in Duarte, CA. Speed 35, LA County Sheriff on motorcycle says I was going 48. Conditions were clear, it was dark as sun has already set on January 17, 2012. He asked me if I wanted to see his Lidar and I said no. I obtained a speed survey. The survey was done on 2/14/08 so less than 5 years ago. Al what is shows is that it was done between 11:30 AM and 12:30 PM. Duuuh, there is no body on the street at that time! Anyways they show 107 vehicles, mostly going between 14 mph and 39 mph. About 16 or so cars are 40 and above mph. Highest being 45 mph. It is stamped by a PE but it is only made of 2 sheets. Once has the matrix with the x's for different speeds and the other has 3 lines indicating: how many accidents happended in the last 2 years, speeds are skewed due to on/off ramps of the 210, area immediately adjacent to the roadincludes residential property and a city park. If you want to go to google and look at satelite. The street is a 2 lkane street with one side the freeway wall and the other side street leading in to residential area. The street is evergreen and the cross-section is Shepherd. I appreciate any help. Thanks

the only thing i can tell u to help, and prob wont, is that lidar produces approximately a 3 square foot beam at around 800ft as opposed to something like Ka band which uses up to a 300ft area at 1000ft (much larger possibility for error). it uses a cross sectional area of its target to get a reading. using the reflective tape on ur license plate, which is usually what is done, it has an accurate range anywhere from 1000-2500ft depending on ur license plate size. in the case that ur license plate wasnt available u can use the headlights as its the next best reflective surface. headlights can be accurate out to around 800ft. some people may tell u a technique called "sweeping" can give false readings, but this is quite uncommon and when it does occur it does not simply read ur speed with just enough over the limit to get u in trouble. it can give speeds impossibly slow or impossibly fast. the likelyhood of it reading close enough to ur actual speed to be believable but fast enough to get u a ticket is slim to none. u might also hear of beam deflection and such giving false readings, but unfortunately this too wont get u out of a ticket since the amount of light that is refracted is considerably less than what people think and to top it off lidar has built in functions for sifting through the "noise" of unreliable readings. lidar is very well designed. to argue with it is to argue with physics and u would be hard pressed to prove a flaw in court. im not of the mindset that technology is infallible but there is an error margin and unfortunately with this its extremely small. then again i could be full of crap cuz its been a couple years since i looked into it. i was in the same situation looking to get out of a ticket and asked a manufacturer for information hoping to find a flaw but all i found was disappointment

Quote:

---

Quoting apexzer0

---

lidar is very well designed

---

I would disagree just due to panning errors which can be large ... but courts have given them judicial notice so an expert would be needed to argue & who is going to pay an expert $$$$ for a $$ ticket?

But this does not mean one cannot win a LIDAR case. OP should search this forum for possible ideas ...

Can you post the survey, or at least tell us what the 85th percentile speed was?

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

The survey was done on 2/14/08 so less than 5 years ago. Al what is shows is that it was done between 11:30 AM and 12:30 PM.

---

It is SUPPOSED to be done during off-peak hours. You think the speed-limit would be higher if they measured the cars crawling along at rush hour?

Please post the survey, otherwise it's hard to help.

I dont know how to post it, but it is made of 2 pages only. The info on it s a matrix showing the cars and their speeds and the following info: As you will note, no Accident Rate and no expected rate. No Average Daily Traffic!


DATE: 02/14/08 TIME START:11:15 A.M. TIME STOP: 12:30 P.M.
LOCATIClN:
MOUNTAIN AVENUE - BUENA VISTA STREET@SHEPHERDDRIVE
ROAD
DESCR.IF'TION: 2 LANES -PAINTED

RECEIVED FEB 19 2008 CITY OF DUARTE
A.celD!:NT
HlISTORY: See reverse
ACCIDI:NT RATE:
EXPECTED RATE:
R:OADWIIY CONDITIONS: GOOD
WEATHER: CLOUDY

PROPOSED SPEED LIMIT: 35

EXISTING SPEED LIMIT: 35
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC:
SEGMENT LENGTH: O. 50
85th Percentile : 39 M.P.H.
50th Percentile: 32 M.P.H.
15th Percentile: 25 M.P.H.
Average Speed: 32 M.P.H.
10 MPH Pace: 31 - 40 M.P.H.
% in Pace: 60%
% over Pace: 7%
% under pace: 34%

OBSERVED BY: JMF (SURVEY ALSO CONTAINS STAMP OF ENGINEER AND HIS NAME< IT JUST DIDNT COPY HERE)

The back side of the Survey contains a very vague reference to conditions and does not identify conditions not readily apparent to driver. Even accident info is vague and does not identify which ones are based on speeding. Here is what is on the backside:

Based upon the following data, the speed limit for this location shall be posted and enforced at 35 m.p.h ..
I. Speeds are skewed due to the freeway on and off ramps within this section.
2. Area immediately adjacent to roadway includes residential property and a city park.
3. Within the last two years, 9 accidents have occurred in this area. The following accidents were listed on the SWITRS reports:
a. Broadside 1
b. Hit Object 3
c. Rearend 4
d. Sideswipe 1


Dominic Milano City Engineer

FYI, the speed matrix shows 107 cars surveyed. as follows

45 mph = 1
44 mph = 2
42 = 2
41=2
40=9
39=3
38=2
37=6
36=8
35=7
34=6
33=9
32=6
31=8
30=3
29=3
28=5
27=7
26=6
25=4
24=1
22=1
21=2
18=1
17=1
15=2
Total 107

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

I dont know how to post it

---

You scan it as a jpg image,
upload it to www.photobucket.com
then click on the link it provides you which is labeled as "IMG code", copy it it and paste it here.

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

The back side of the Survey contains a very vague reference to conditions and does not identify conditions not readily apparent to driver. Even accident info is vague and does not identify which ones are based on speeding. Here is what is on the backside:

Based upon the following data, the speed limit for this location shall be posted and enforced at 35 m.p.h ..
I. Speeds are skewed due to the freeway on and off ramps within this section.
2. Area immediately adjacent to roadway includes residential property and a city park.
3. Within the last two years, 9 accidents have occurred in this area. The following accidents were listed on the SWITRS reports:
a. Broadside 1
b. Hit Object 3
c. Rearend 4
d. Sideswipe 1


[COLOR=black][FONT=Times New Roman]Dominic Milano City Engineer

---

Here is CVC 627

That is what you start with... if you don't think the survey meets the requirements of 627 in that it doesn't list the reasons why the limit was reduced, then make your argument accordingly. There have been numerous recent posts on the topic so you'll have several reference points to start your research! So start reading.... You can also go to Section 2B-13 of the 2006 California MUTCD for more references.

I think you have a weak case simply because the survey DOES list 3 reasons that would be sufficient -individually or collectively- to reduce it.

"Residential density" (referred to as "residential property" in the survey, and while it is NOT a "condition not apparent to the driver", you can clearly see an entire paragraph dedicated to it in VC 627...

Also, the 85th percentile is 39, so it should be set to the nearest 5mph increment which is 40, the reduction of 5mph would be allowed for at least one reason listed. And lastly, the last possible argument one has under similar conditions is that the posted speed would make more than 50% of drivers as violators, that does not apply here simply because the posted limit is 35 and the 50th percentile speed is 31mph!

(In fact, by my quick count, there are only 35 vehicles who's measured speed was in excess of the 35mph limit, and 35 divided by 107 = ONLY 32.7% of drivers are violators)! Certainly FAR from being a "majority"!

Good luck!

All the info on the survey was in my cut and paste. So no need to repost. BUT I am not sure I see your reasoning: the Accident records say absolutely nothing about whether they were caused by speeding. Plus they do not indicate where exactly the accidents occured. Further, they do not provide the Average Daily Traffic, or the accident rate, or the expected rate? How are we to calculate using the formula: (c*10^6)/(365*y*v*l),
where:
•c, y = total c accidents in y years
•v = volume per day (vpd) or average daily traffic (ADT)
•l = segment length in miles

They do not explain what residential property is or what is the density? CVC 627 talks about 13 properties fronting on one side or 16 on both. Here there are no properties fronting on this street.

Also you say 35% is far from being a majority, but when you compare that to only 7 cars if the speed limit is 40 mph, 35% to 5% to me is lop sided? WHat are your thoughts? By the way thanks for your input and the input of all others. I appreciate it.

One more thing: “To support such a reduced speed limit, the survey must contain sufficient information to document other conditions not readily apparent to a motorist.” - (“People v. Goulet (1992) 13 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1 [17 Cal. Rptr.2d 801]”). This is in support of my response above to That Guy. There is obviously NO documentation whatsoever and also missing info that would allow us to evaluate the accidents. Thanks again.

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

All the info on the survey was in my cut and paste. So no need to repost.

---

Well, you did a great job typing it all in, but the images may still be helpful (tiny things our trained eyes can latch on to :) ). If you have a digital camera, you can simply take a picture if you can't scan it.

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

BUT I am not sure I see your reasoning: the Accident records say absolutely nothing about whether they were caused by speeding. Plus they do not indicate where exactly the accidents occured. Further, they do not provide the Average Daily Traffic, or the accident rate, or the expected rate? How are we to calculate using the formula: (c*10^6)/(365*y*v*l),

---

Agreed. They can't just throw in the number "9" and use that as a valid reason. There must at least be a showing that the accident rate is greater than the expected rate.

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

They do not explain what residential property is or what is the density? CVC 627 talks about 13 properties fronting on one side or 16 on both. Here there are no properties fronting on this street.

---

If you can make a showing that this is not a residential zone, that would be nice. Otherwise, the lack of details can be a negative. e.g. in Goulet, it said "limited sight distance to commercial driveways", and the court said: "The survey does not state the sight distance or the location of the driveways, or explain how the condition affects the safe speed."

I also think that the "speeds are skewed from ramps" is a vague statement that does not explain what "skewed" means and how it affects the safe speed.

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

Also you say 35% is far from being a majority, but when you compare that to only 7 cars if the speed limit is 40 mph, 35% to 5% to me is lop sided?

---

Goulet does not say "majority", but "a disproportionate number of the reasonable majority of drivers". You can certainly make the argument that 35% is disproportionate, although more than 50% would give that argument an added boost.

---

Let's talk nuts and bolts. You should do a TBD and talk about the survey as well as any LIDAR/RADAR certificate.

Thanks Quirky. Should I do discovery and alert the officer. this is LA COunty Sherriff or just assert the typical defenses that I found in this one brief in previous threads? ALso, on my ticket, the officer just put an "x" in the Laser box. He said nothing about traffic conditions. He had no distance and no number for the device. Are those devices usually just mounted on the motorcycle or do they change them? I am asking because if they are mounted, he could just say this is the device because it is always mounted on my bike.

I can tell you that this is a very quite street and did not have a lot of cars. I certainly was not endangering anyone.

http://s1153.photobucket.com/albums/...=1327536505457

This is a link to picture of street from Google maps. the x on the pic is where the motorcycle cop was likely hiding. It is called Shepherd. The street I was on as you can see has no residences. On the side street Shpherd, that is a residential street but the homes are facing Shepherd, not Evergreen. The link also contains the speed survey and the ticket. So you can see no LIDAR equipment no and no distance recorded.

I dont know if you can see it, but from the time of the survey it was from 11:15 AM to 12:30 PM or 75 minutes. You can tell that 107 cars over 75 minutes supports my conclusion that this is a quite street. With that and and the photo and the fact there are no residences "fronting on the street", they are instead on the side street Shepherd, do you think that helps? If it means anything, this is Pasadena COurtThanks

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

the Accident records say absolutely nothing about whether they were caused by speeding.

---

You mean you found SOMETHING... (code section/case law citation... etc)... ANYTHING that says only "speed related accidents" should be considered? Because I'd love to see it!

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

Plus they do not indicate where exactly the accidents occured.

---

While I agree that the Collision data is lacking (it doesn't even compare it to a stated average), I still don't think you'll succeed in arguing that they should provide you with the exact location of each collision (But more importantly than that, see * below).

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

Further, they do not provide the Average Daily Traffic, or the accident rate, or the expected rate? How are we to calculate using the formula: (c*10^6)/(365*y*v*l),
where:
•c, y = total c accidents in y years
•v = volume per day (vpd) or average daily traffic (ADT)
•l = segment length in miles

---

For starters, VC 627 requires that "Accident Records" be considered as part of the the evaluation of every E&T Survey...

Additionally, it should be obvious by now that the method/form used in this survey is clearly the "short method/form" described in the 2006 CA_MUTCD... (See the bottom of page 2B-9).

Quote:

---

Quoting 2006 CA-MUTCD - Page 2B-9

---

2. City and County Through Highways, Arterials, Collector Roads and Local Streets.

a. The short method of speed zoning is based on the premise that a reasonable speed limit is one that conforms to the actual behavior of the majority of motorists, and that by measuring motorists' speeds, one will be able to select a speed limit that is both reasonable and effective. Other factors that need to be considered include but are not limited to: the most recent two-year collision record, roadway design speed, safe stopping sight distance, superelevation, shoulder conditions, profile conditions, intersection spacing and offsets, commercial driveway characteristics, and pedestrian traffic in the roadway without sidewalks.
b. Determination of Existing Speed Limits - Figures 2B-103(CA) & 2B-104(CA) show samples of data sheets which may be used to record speed observations. Specific types of vehicles may be tallied by use of letter symbols in appropriate squares.

In most situations, the short form for local streets and roads will be adequate; however, the procedure used on State highways may be used at the option of the local agency.

---

Note that it states that factors that need to be considered to include "the most recent two-year collision record"

Now, let me assume that:
1) We're not going to sit here and argue the difference between "collisions" and "accidents",
2) that we will agree that the term "records" does not include "average rates" (simply because "county average rates" for example, are not regularly updated; instead, the "rate" could be 10 years old and as such, would not fit under the description of "the most recent two-year collision record")...

We can then look at your survey and see that they did comply with "the most recent two-year requirement":

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

Within the last two years

---

They did in fact include collision/accident records:

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

9 accidents have occurred in this area....

a. Broadside 1
b. Hit Object 3
c. Rearend 4
d. Sideswipe 1

---

And... They even provided you with the source of the information:

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

The following accidents were listed on the SWITRS reports

---

Now, not only can you research the collision records to verify them, you can also determine the location of each collision (*from above).

So, if we go back to what thy provide, they did indeed provide you with the "c" in that formula which would be "9 collisions", they did provide you with the "Y" which, as shown above is "2 years", and while you yourself copied and pasted it, thy do indeed provide you with the segment length:

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

SEGMENT LENGTH: O. 50

---

You'res till missing "v" but again, the MUTCD guidance and the requirement under the vehicle code is that they evaluate "collision/accident records".... And that, they did!

So again, is there sufficient data to justify a 5mph reduction in the speed limit, from 40mph to 35mph!

You're free to continue to argue that it dos not... But don't forget that you make a statement like you did here saying "this, that and the other are missing" and yet if in the slight chance, the judge happened to glance at the short survey only to notice one (not necessarily all three) "so called missing" figures, you can say good night and just walk out! Because your credibility just took a huge shot, and anything you say after that is meaningless!

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

They do not explain what residential property is or what is the density??

---

They don't explain what "85th percentile" is, or "vpd"... or "ADT" but you certainly are smart enough to have figured those out on your own! Correct? And yet you're trying to convince me that you couldn't make the connection between "residential property" and "residential density"??? Even though to make some of your arguments, you had to have come across VC 627???

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

Also you say 35% is far from being a majority, but when you compare that to only 7 cars if the speed limit is 40 mph, 35% to 5% to me is lop sided?

---

Well, take it a step further... If we consider a speed limit of 45mph, we'd have zero violators... But reducing the number of violators is not the primary goal of conducting an E&T Survey. Otherwise the legislature would have included some criteria to qualify it as such!

So while I appreciate you making note of my commentary, please note that I made it AFTER making the determination that it is possible that i can justify the limit, but would such a decision have a negative impact on the rate of violators? If so, then I might reconsider!

But to assume that by itself would work as a way to rule the survey is invalid? I wished...

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

WHat are your thoughts?

---

My one thought is that we can all set our own requirements but if you're assuming that the judge has to buy into all of yours, you're gonna be disappointed.

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

One more thing: “To support such a reduced speed limit, the survey must contain sufficient information to document other conditions not readily apparent to a motorist.” - (“People v. Goulet (1992) 13 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1 [17 Cal. Rptr.2d 801]”).

---

Are you telling m that you were aware of what the collision records were on that roadway when the officer clocked your speed? I assume the answer is "NO"! Then that was the condition that was NOT apparent to you when you decided that 48mph was safe!

• Accidents/collisions do NOT happen because we're ready for them;
• They do NOT happen because the contributing factors and the conditions leading to them are apparent but but we don't give a damn;
• And they do not happen because we are aware that they are going to happen and yet we choose to be careless regardless, they happen because we haven't the slightest clue until it is too late!

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

There is obviously NO documentation whatsoever and also missing info that would allow us to evaluate the accidents. Thanks again.

---

So what do you want?
Collision reports?
How about individual police reports that were issued at the time?
Should you get the opportunity to question the office who recorded the info and issued the report?
How about the officer or possibly the civilian who entered the data into SWITRS? After all "garbage in, garbage out" and if the data in the survey is garbage, the survey itself is garbage?

Where does it end?


And last but not last.... Let us assume, simply for the sake of being prepared, that the judge overruled your objections about the survey, it was entered into evidence, the officer completed his testimony and the prosecution is thereby finished with its case in chief...

YOUR TURN!

Are going to try the 30 question defense?
Are you simply going to stand before the judge and say: "your honor, I felt that my speed was safe for the conditions there were not other cars around, no pedestrians on the roadway... etc, etc, etc"?
Are you going to use a combination of both?
Or do you have an alternate plan?

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

(code section/case law citation... etc)... ANYTHING that says only "speed related accidents" should be considered? Because I'd love to see it!

---

Quote:

---

Quoting Goulet

---

The 1987 average daily traffic is stated as 12,300. The number of speed-related accidents (1985, 1986, 1987) is zero.
...

That leaves only the reference to "limited sight distance to commercial driveways" to justify the speed limit. It is questionable whether, with that volume of daily traffic, a condition not apparent to drivers can justify a 10 mph speed reduction unless the accident rate is greater than would be statistically expected from the traffic volume and road type. Here, there were no speed-related accidents within three years.

---

So not only does Goulet imply that only speed-related accidents should count (and ADT should be provided), but also that a raw accident number/rate is useless unless its is compared to a statistical expected one!

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

...that they should provide you with the exact location of each collision

---

Why shouldn't a SWITRS-style report not be included in the raw data supporting a survey? Analogizing such a report to the speed observation sheet, you can see how easy it is to adopt the Ellis argument that it is required:

Quote:

---

Quoting Ellis

---

However, it is at least possible that a review of the complete survey could have established the existence of a speed trap. For instance, the summary might have erroneously reported the 85th percentile speed or the date, or the survey data might have shown that too few cars were included or that the survey was taken during rush hour.

---

Perhaps the "summary" incorrectly includes accidents (such as a DUI, or red-light-running) that have nothing to do with speed, etc....

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

2) that we will agree that the term "records" does not include "average rates" (simply because "county average rates" for example, are not regularly updated; instead, the "rate" could be 10 years old and as such, would not fit under the description of "the most recent two-year collision record")...

---

Are you suggesting that just citing the number raw records is sufficient, without comparison to any kind of baseline? It might be a different story if they are drawing some kind of inference as to conditions not readily apparent from the records, as the MUTCD suggests:

Quote:

---

Quoting CA MUTCD 2006, 2B.13

---

Generally, the most decisive evidence of conditions not readily apparent to the driver surface in collision histories.
...
When roadside development results in traffic conflicts and unusual conditions which are not readily apparent to drivers, as indicated in collision records, speed limits somewhat below the 85th percentile may be justified.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Now, not only can you research the collision records to verify them, you can also determine the location of each collision (*from above).

---

The provided info is insufficient because it does not specify the two-year period. Supposing it is 2/1/2006-1/31/2008, let's just say that the "type of collision" indicated by SWITRS differs widely from the numbers specified in the survey. In fact, there are only three "unsafe speed" incidents in there, with the majority being 21453(a) at Mountain/Evergreen.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

the MUTCD guidance and the requirement under the vehicle code is that they evaluate "collision/accident records".... And that, they did!

So again, is there sufficient data to justify a 5mph reduction in the speed limit, from 40mph to 35mph!

---

The reason case law exists is to interpret statutes/regulations, and in this case, we have the pre-eminent speed trap case explaining how accident records should be evaluated!

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

And yet you're trying to convince me that you couldn't make the connection between "residential property" and "residential density"???

---

Giving OP the benefit of the doubt, I think he's arguing that just saying "residential density" isn't enough, there has to be some justification:

Quote:

---

Quoting CA MUTCD 2006, 2B.13

---

Guidance:
The E&TS should contain sufficient information to document that the required three items of CVC Section 627 are provided and that other conditions not readily apparent to a driver are properly identified.

---

If residential density is a condition not readily apparent, there should be "sufficient information to document" it as well. And, do we have "sufficient information to document that collision records are provided?" No!

OP's contention that the CVC definition of residential zone is not met by that segment appears to be supported by a cursory look at satellite view. The other supporting fact (which MAY be useful at TBD/trial) is that apparently OP's cited location (Evergreen/Shepherd) is partially zoned as "open space". The housing there is is also classified as "very low density". Note to OP: city zoning and CVC zoning DO NOT have

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

But to assume that [percentage of violators] by itself would work as a way to rule the survey is invalid? I wished...

---

Agreed, 35% is weak.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Are going to try the 30 question defense?
Are you simply going to stand before the judge and say: "your honor, I felt that my speed was safe for the conditions there were not other cars around, no pedestrians on the roadway... etc, etc, etc"?
Are you going to use a combination of both?
Or do you have an alternate plan?

---

Can't that thought experiment be left until after OP loses his TBD?

---

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

Should I do discovery and alert the officer. this is LA COunty Sherriff or just assert the typical defenses that I found in this one brief in previous threads? ALso, on my ticket, the officer just put an "x" in the Laser box. He said nothing about traffic conditions. He had no distance and no number for the device. Are those devices usually just mounted on the motorcycle or do they change them? I am asking because if they are mounted, he could just say this is the device because it is always mounted on my bike.

---

Well, the "risk" of discovery is that an officer who, for some reason, would not respond (or respond late) to your TBD will now most definitely respond. Considering that LASD LIDAR calibration certificates are almost certainly from a private entity, I think the possible benefit of doing discovery and including that argument in your TBD outweighs the "risk".

LIDAR is 100% handheld and portable. Your discovery request should ask for calibration/maintenance/training records, a log showing which unit was assigned to the officer that day, and the log showing that the unit was tested by the officer some time before and after your citation typically beginning/end of shift).

If "this one brief" refers to the San Bernardino brief I prepared, note that it is survey-focused and does NOT include arguments for LIDAR calibration/training.

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

I can tell you that this is a very quite street and did not have a lot of cars. I certainly was not endangering anyone.

---

You can consider making that argument in your TBD (phrased as "if the officer does not prove...."). The chances of success are...on the low side (it's a complicated issue).

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

The street I was on as you can see has no residences. On the side street Shpherd, that is a residential street but the homes are facing Shepherd, not Evergreen.

---

You can use the observed time as anecdotal evidence of low traffic (but it depends how close your citation time is to the survey time!)

You should definitely get the appropriate captures from Google Maps (satellite view) and argue that since there are no residences facing Evergreen, residential density is immaterial.

Mr. ThatGuy. First thank you for taking the time to comment. Your tone indicates that you were irritated. Why? I have no idea. In any event, my point is simple, I read Goulet when it says: To support such a reduced speed limit, the survey must contain sufficient information to document other conditions not readily apparent to a motorist.” - (“People v. Goulet (1992) 13 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1 [17 Cal. Rptr.2d 801]”)."to mean exactly that. the accidents are not readily apparent information to the driver. We agree on that. Now, if the engineer took that into consideration to reduce 5 mph from the limit, then the Survey "MUST" as Goulet indicates "contain sufficient information to document those other conditions"

Simply saying there were 9 accidents in the last 2 years is not sufficient information. What if it is 9 accidents in 10 million cars? Then a reduction maybe is not warranted as that would be negligible. What if it is 9 accidents in 2000 cars, then a reduction is definitely warranted. Just having accident numbers in there without providing the ADT, there is no sufficient information. Maybe you disagree with that, and maybe you are right, but that is what I was saying. Residences and a park are readily apparent to a driver so those go out of the analyis. The Engineer clearly indicates that he used the accident info to reduce the speed which is fine, but under Goulet he has to provide sufficient info to document that.

Also I never said I was going 48 mph. That is the number the officer says he recorded. I was not speeding. He did not include any traffic conditions, weather conditions, road conditions or anything like that either. I saw you quoted a case before that indicated without that info in the record, the court could not determine if there was any endangering of life or property. I think it was People v. Behjat.
Lastly, I am only talking about a TBD now. No one said anything about actual trial in front of the Judge yet.

quirky, thank you so much. very valuable points.

Quirky, I am not understanding what you mean here, would you please clarify:

OP's contention that the CVC definition of residential zone is not met by that segment appears to be supported by a cursory look at satellite view. The other supporting fact (which MAY be useful at TBD/trial) is that apparently OP's cited location (Evergreen/Shepherd) is partially zoned as "open space". The housing there is is also classified as "very low density". Note to OP: city zoning and CVC zoning DO NOT have

It appears that you didnt finish your thought. I am also nterested where you found the "very low density"info. Thanks

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

So not only does Goulet imply that only speed-related accidents should count

---

Thanks for the citation. I remember digging through for one with that same analogy and yet the closest I could come to it was through People v. Smith! All along, it was under my nose in Goulet!

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

... (and ADT should be provided), but also that a raw accident number/rate is useless unless its is compared to a statistical expected one!

---

Are you disagreeing with my reading of the option in the MUTCD that a short form can be used in which case only most recent two year collision records need be cited? ... Or are you saying the MUTCD is wrong in suggesting the above is sufficient because Goulet says otherwise?

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

Why shouldn't a SWITRS-style report not be included in the raw data supporting a survey?

---

I never said it shouldn't. In fact, the first time we both just recently became familiar with what details a SWITRS report includes and how it can be utilized.

But you're now calling it a SWITRS-style report... So I am curious, that report would be prepared by who? The agency conducting the survey? And if that is the case, are you not going to question the data included in that SWITRS-style report suggesting that without the -primary- raw data to put together such a report, you could not analyze it and figure out how skewed those -secondary- results are? So then you'll want the original SWITRS report... And you want it included too...

But who's to say that you have to agree with the findings of the information in SWITRS? And why should you? After all, it was an officer who made those determinations, the report was printed and submitted, the info it made it into the SWITRS system, but wait, in some of those cases the officer's conclusion was that the PCF was "unsafe speed" but that is merely his conclusion, and the matter had not been adjudicated in court, it was not decided whether the speed was "unlawful" so why should "my survey" be based on an officer's opinion when the fact is, he is not a traffic engineer and is not qualified to make such determinations! Now you'll want copies of the police reports for each and every accident that appears on the SWITRS report... And so on and so forth!

And just a reminder.... ALL of those documents and attachments should be included in what is termed as "the SHORT form"? Did that even exist when Goulet was reviewed? And did the DOT take Goulet into consideration when they decided that (and I quote):

Quote:

---

Quoting CA_MUTCD - Page

---

In most situations, the short form for local streets and roads will be adequate;

---

And to make that last point (that you cannot blindly apply each and every sentence from Goulet to a case that is being adjudicated today) even clearer, here is another citation from Goulet:

Quote:

---

Quoting People v. Goulet, 13 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1 - Cal: Court of Appeal 1992

---

Speed limits should be established preferably at or near the 85 percentile speed, which is defined as that speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is moving....

---

And yet here is what the 2006-CA-MUTCD states in that regard:

Quote:

---

When a speed limit is to be posted, it should be established at the nearest 10 km/h or 5 mph increment of the 85th-percentile speed of free-flowing traffic.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

Analogizing such a report to the speed observation sheet, you can see how easy it is to adopt the Ellis argument that it is required:

Perhaps the "summary" incorrectly includes accidents (such as a DUI, or red-light-running) that have nothing to do with speed, etc....

---

By the way... This, again, is NOT a summary. IMO, this is the entire survey!

You can analogize it any which way you want, Quirky... Point one is: a short form is allowed as an option in the MUTCD (I cannot believe that I am arguing this with someone who spent an inordinate amount of time trying to convince ME that "the MUTCD is the LAW"), the specific details that need be included in the short form are several but to what we're discussing here, the one criteria is described as "collision records"... And those were included. So I think that you'll have better luck trying to establish that "collision/accident record" can only be interpreted to mean "SWITRS reports + accident reports + vpd counts" (which you won't be able to simply because it is not).

And not to belabor the point, the PCFs in SWITRS are based on officer's opinions. Are you suggesting that the officer is the final arbitrator of guilt/innocence in those matters?

I didn't think so!

Moving along to

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

Are you suggesting that just citing the number raw records is sufficient, without comparison to any kind of baseline? It might be a different story if they are drawing some kind of inference as to conditions not readily apparent from the records, as the MUTCD suggests:

Quote:

---

Generally, the most decisive evidence of conditions not readily apparent to the driver surface in collision histories.
...
When roadside development results in traffic conflicts and unusual conditions which are not readily apparent to drivers, as indicated in collision records, speed limits somewhat below the 85th percentile may be justified.

---

---

Are you arguing against me or are you helping me prove my point?

The MUTCD quotation you posted offers the following:

"Residential property" would qualify as "roadside developments", would it not? And if so, and with collision records being a condition that is not readily apparent to driver, the engineer can utilize his judgment to establish that the combination of the two is valid justification for a limit reduction.

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

The provided info is insufficient because it does not specify the two-year period. Supposing it is 2/1/2006-1/31/2008, let's just say that the "type of collision" indicated by SWITRS differs widely from the numbers specified in the survey. In fact, there are only three "unsafe speed" incidents in there, with the majority being 21453(a) at Mountain/Evergreen.

---

Again, thank you for further proving my point. Arguing "this isn't included, and that isn't included, and it should have that this report and that report" isn't worth a whole lot of beans. You want to make the point that such data is required, then make an educated argument showing WHY is it needed!

I'll still stand by my assumption that this survey fulfills the requirements of a "short form" as described in the MUTCD and that the data is sufficient for an engineer to rely on his/her judgment for a speed reduction. You want to argue otherwise, by all means, go for it!

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

The reason case law exists is to interpret statutes/regulations, and in this case, we have the pre-eminent speed trap case explaining how accident records should be evaluated!

---

I think you're being too gracious, Quirky... For one, I'd hate to see you going through such conflict regarding an MUTCD definition, but then again, you never claimed it was "perfect", you simply see it as the basis for everything-traffic!

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

Giving OP the benefit of the doubt, I think he's arguing that just saying "residential density" isn't enough, there has to be some justification:

---

Well, you presented an alternative approach to the connection between "residential density" as used in VC 627 and "residential property" as mentioned in the survey. You can look at it as a "roadside development" (and I do realize how that has a dash of VC 627 in it) and combined with collision history, the potential for unsafe conditions can be used as justification!

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

If residential density is a condition not readily apparent, there should be "sufficient information to document" it as well. And, do we have "sufficient information to document that collision records are provided?" No!

---

Again.. Collision records are provided. You want them on a SWITRS-style report, and yet providing that makes this the beginnings of a long form so why not skip that "short form option"!!!

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

OP's contention that the CVC definition of residential zone is not met by that segment appears to be supported by a cursory look at satellite view.

---

Giving the engineer the benefit of doubt, I don't think he's claiming a "residential zone" as defined in the vehicle code! Only that the properties adjacent to Evergreen are zoned as "R-1 Single Family Residential"!

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

The other supporting fact (which MAY be useful at TBD/trial) is that apparently OP's cited location (Evergreen/Shepherd) is partially zoned as "open space". The housing there is is also classified as "very low density".

---

With the exception of ONE single lot on the South-West corner of Buena Vista and Evergreen, I am not seeing any property that is zoned as "Open Space"!!!

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

Can't that thought experiment be left until after OP loses his TBD?

---

OBJECTION!!!! ;)

Well, I am merely suggesting that no one should rely on a preconceived idea that the survey is invalid, and in a case like this, the defendant has quite the burden as well. And by the way, my asking about those two options I offered is not a suggestion that either will work, quite the contrary!

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

Mr. ThatGuy. First thank you for taking the time to comment. Your tone indicates that you were irritated. Why? I have no idea.

---

Mr. Nomoretix, I don't expect you to approve of or agree with my posts or anything I had to say. But to say that you were able to hear my "tone" simply by reading my reply and to deduce that I am "irritated"... It makes it obvious that you haven't even begun to understand the purpose for my post!

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

Residences and a park are readily apparent to a driver so those go out of the analyis.

---

Where do you get the idea that ONLY "conditions that are readily apparent to the driver" should be considered as part of the analysis?

Did you not read the portion of the MUTCD that I posted above?

Quote:

---

The short method of speed zoning is based on the premise that a reasonable speed limit is one that conforms to the actual behavior of the majority of motorists, and that by measuring motorists' speeds, one will be able to select a speed limit that is both reasonable and effective. Other factors that need to be considered include but are not limited to: the most recent two-year collision record, roadway design speed, safe stopping sight distance, superelevation, shoulder conditions, profile conditions, intersection spacing and offsets, commercial driveway characteristics, and pedestrian traffic in the roadway without sidewalks.

---

I underlined the ones that I would think are (or should be) apparent to every driver...

How about this part which is EXACTLY on point when it comes to your survey and it clearly defines the conditions used by this engineer as

Quote:

---

Quoting 2006 CA-MUTCD - Page 2B-7

---

Other factors that may be considered when establishing speed limits are the following:

A. Road characteristics, shoulder condition, grade, alignment, and sight distance;
B. The pace speed;
C. Roadside development and environment;
D. Parking practices and pedestrian activity; and
E. Reported crash experience for at least a 12-month period.

---

In ^that^ quote, I bolded the 2 reasons this engineer utilized as his justification. You still want to agrue that he did provide you with enough data, so be it! You can come back and cite Goulet again, my point is the type of survey conducted for Goulet and the information provided on it differs from yours!

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

Also I never said I was going 48 mph.

---

Where did I say that you were going 48 mph?

Or is that part of what my "tone" indicated?

Not to worry about that part though, you don't necessarily have to admit that part. But understand that once the survey is established as valid and the speed limit ruled as justified, the officer can simply state that he measured your speed at 48, that he is trained and certified to us Radar/Lidar, and that the device he used meets the required standard. Denying it in court under oath is fine, but it will NOT get you a "not guilty' plea. You'll have to come up with much more than that!

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

He did not include any traffic conditions, weather conditions, road conditions or anything like that either.

---

If you're talking about the citation, then he does not have to indicate any of that!!!

But let me guess, it was clear, dry with light traffic!

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

I saw you quoted a case before that indicated without that info in the record, the court could not determine if there was any endangering of life or property. I think it was People v. Behjat.

---

There hasn't been any record in your case as of yet and your citation isn't the record; the officer will likely testify to those conditions in his TBD or at trial. And I never cited Behjat in that context!

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

Lastly, I am only talking about a TBD now. No one said anything about actual trial in front of the Judge yet.

---

Forgive me.. I forgot that they hire monkeys to decide TBDs so the judge isn't going to see what you submitted or look for your attempt to justify that your speed was safe and reasonable for conditions!


Carry on... And good luck!

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

You can analogize it any which way you want, Quirky... Point one is: a short form is allowed as an option in the MUTCD ... the specific details that need be included in the short form are several but to what we're discussing here, the one criteria is described as "collision records"... And those were included. So I think that you'll have better luck trying to establish that "collision/accident record" can only be interpreted to mean "SWITRS reports + accident reports + vpd counts" (which you won't be able to simply because it is not).

---

The "short form" survey may well be compliant with the MUTCD as well as VC 627 (that's all the MUTCD is concerned with). But whether it is sufficiently adequate to rebut the speed-trap presumption of VC 40802 (and whether it's a "summary" or not) is a question of fact that is entirely the province of the courts!

Quote:

---

Quoting Goulet

---

Respondent concludes: "The established speed limit of 35 miles per hour was based upon a proper compliance with procedure and the law. ... the law requires only that a proper procedure be followed to establish a given speed in a given location."
...
But if respondent is arguing that an engineer's stated opinion is merely a procedural prerequisite not subject to judicial review, we disagree.

---

Apart from the initial speed measurements and other data, isn't the entire evaluation of the survey pretty much "an engineer's stated opinion"?

The surveys in Goulet and Ellis were certainly prima facie compliant with VC 627/Traffic Manual/MUTCD; yet, they were ruled inadequate. Nowhere does the MUTCD or VC mention "raw data" as a requirement, or how the survey must quantify "conditions not apparent" and explain how the affect speeds.

Thus, the SWITRS argument, if you will, doesn't depend on how "collision/accident record" or "12-month record" or whatever is interpreted, or whether the survey complies with MUTCD/VC 627. If the raw data and other parameters used to conduct and evaluate the survey are not included, how can a defendant show the survey is inadequate per VC 40802 and case law? Although the Ellis court simply called this "unfair", I'm reasonably certain that case law can show that such a situation has unfavorable due process implications for the defendant.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

So then you'll want the original SWITRS report... And you want it included too...
...
Now you'll want copies of the police reports for each and every accident that appears on the SWITRS report...

---

All that's needed is something like this:
http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/7...valeswitrs.png

or this:
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/601...rlosswitrs.png

Both of which come from "short-form" surveys, FYI. Or even enough parameters so that a defendant can pull the data for SWITRS and verify for him/herself. As for your whole "chain-of-custody" argument: as long as the People meet the court's definition of prima facie adequate [i.e., sufficient to allow a defendant to attack it, per Ellis], they're done. The defendant is free to rebut the survey any which way, including getting all of the items you described, which should (theoretically) be available as public records and/or court records. He can obtain police reports, corresponding court dockets, and if he finds enough acquittals so that the calculated rate goes under the expected rate, and that was the only factor justifying reduction, he can certainly argue that the reduction is not justified.

Part of the reason a statistical comparison is necessary is so that any one-off errors somewhere in the chain don't have a large effect.

-------

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

You can come back and cite Goulet again, my point is the type of survey conducted for Goulet and the information provided on it differs from yours!

---

Can you lend me the crystal ball that enabled you divine the "type of survey" for Goulet? From what I've seen, EVERY city agency uses the short form with the notable exception of LADOT. And what makes you think those precedents are selectively applicable based on the "type of survey"?

The MUTCD does not (and never has) specified what a local agency survey should include. All it specifies is a "short method of speed zoning" and "samples of data sheets which may be used to record speed observations." And it suggests that "[i]n most situations, the short form for local streets and roads will be adequate." Adequate for what? As a complete survey sufficient to pass muster under VC 40802? No! Adequate only as "a short method of speed zoning".

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

And to make that last point (that you cannot blindly apply each and every sentence from Goulet to a case that is being adjudicated today) even clearer, here is another citation from Goulet:

Quote:

---

Quoting People v. Goulet, 13 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1 - Cal: Court of Appeal 1992

---

Speed limits should be established preferably at or near the 85 percentile speed, which is defined as that speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is moving....

---

And yet here is what the 2006-CA-MUTCD states in that regard:

Quote:

---

When a speed limit is to be posted, it should be established at the nearest 10 km/h or 5 mph increment of the 85th-percentile speed of free-flowing traffic.

---

---

As for ^that^ "gotcha" attempt, you missed that Goulet was only defining "85th percentile speed":

Quote:

---

Quoting *1996* Traffic Manual, p. 8-13

---

Speed limits should be established at or near the 85 percentile speed, which is defined as that speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is moving.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting CA MUTCD *2006*, p. 2B-10

---

Speed limits are established at or near the 85th percentile speed, which is defined as that speed at or below which 85th percent of the traffic is moving.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting CA MUTCD *2012*, p. 145

---

Speed limits are established at or near the 85th percentile speed, which is defined as that speed at or below which 85th percent of the traffic is moving.

---

You're fond of saying that "you can't blindly apply (old) precedent." That's true of course, and good general advice. But if the facts of the case and the (current) law are still similar, there's a very good chance you can. If you look it up, you will find that the "short method of speed zoning" has carried over almost unchanged from the old Traffic Manual (which Goulet cited) to the 2012 MUTCD!

---------

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

"Residential property" would qualify as "roadside developments", would it not? And if so, and with collision records being a condition that is not readily apparent to driver, the engineer can utilize his judgment to establish that the combination of the two is valid justification for a limit reduction.
...
I'll still stand by my assumption that this survey fulfills the requirements of a "short form" as described in the MUTCD and that the data is sufficient for an engineer to rely on his/her judgment for a speed reduction. You want to argue otherwise, by all means, go for it!
...
Again.. Collision records are provided. You want them on a SWITRS-style report, and yet providing that makes this the beginnings of a long form so why not skip that "short form option"!!!

---

You can assume all you want that this "survey" is good enough for a "short form", and that the engineer's judgment is justified. For all I know, both are probably true. But whether the "survey" (and the inherent engineer's opinion) is good enough to topple the 40802 presumption is up to the court.

In any case, all the "long form" requires is "Collision rates for the zones involved", which is a far cry from any kind of "accident report"! And hey, that one doesn't mention raw data either. But guess how surveys without raw data---long, short or medium form--have fared when appealed?

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Giving the engineer the benefit of doubt, I don't think he's claiming a "residential zone" as defined in the vehicle code! Only that the properties adjacent to Evergreen are zoned as "R-1 Single Family Residential"!

---

Then both of you are wrong by ANY definition. VC 627 explicitly limits WHEN residential density can be considered:

Quote:

---

Quoting VC 627(c)(1)

---

Residential density, if any of the following conditions exist on the particular portion of highway and the property contiguous thereto...

---

And the conditions that follow are EXACTLY the same as the residential zone definition. Which are repeated in the MUTCD. Any attempt to dodge this statutory requirement by calling it "roadside development" ruins the traffic engineer's credibility, and that is PRECISELY what OP should attempt to do via satellite photos.

Quirky, I posted a picture I obtained from google Map on the link below. Do you think it is sufficient? If not, what else do you mean by satelite view, do you mean just google maps, plan view?

http://s1153.photobucket.com/albums/...=1327536505457

That Guy, I consulted with a registered Traffic Engineer on this survey and after he reviewed it, he said the reduction is not justified. Simply looking at a number of accidents without more means nothing to him. He needs the ADT, expected rate of accidents, actual rates of accidents and while those are specific categories shown on the "short form", they were left blank. The quible is not with the use of the form, rather with the failure to fully complete it and include the necessary "information" to "document" the non-apparent condition which is accidents. Further he said, those accidents are most likely at intersections of either Mountain or Buena Vista, the starting and ending points of the Survey. This is typical as a lot of the accidents happen at intersections. Without detailed info he could not tell for sure though. The more reason this survey fails to comply with MUTCD and Goulet. Further, the Survey on its face attacks its own validity!!!!! teh statement "speeds are skewed to on and off ramps" of the 210 shows the survey is invalid. Are they skewed lower? higher? In any event the word "skewed" indicates the data is not valid.

Moreover, he indicated the survey is vague when it indicates "area immediately adjacent" ? I showed him the picture of the street and he said I do not see any residences fronting the the street you were on. Certainly the driveways open onto Shepherd, not Evergreen, the street I was on. Also he said this is a one way street and there are no cars coming opposite direction. In other words, the street is protected on one side by the freeway wall. He said he does not see sufficient documentation to JUSTIFY reducing the speed. Further, he mentioned something about a CalTrans memo in 2009 further indicating that the Engineer can not reduce speeds by 5 mph unless proper documentation is hown on the Survey.

Now, Quirky, do you think I get this Engineer's declaration solely attacking the ETS as I indicated avove or a Judge will likely see this as way overboard. I could always put the arguments above as my own and put in a sentence that I consulted with a Traffic Engineer and he confirmed this.

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

That Guy, I consulted with a registered Traffic Engineer on this survey

---

I hope, for your sake, that you didn't pay much for his consultation simply because it will do you no good!

And by the way, you keep citing Goulet but you clearly missed the fact that Goulet hired TWO, not one, but TWO Traffic engineers to testify on her behalf in her case.... She obviously was still convicted in court and their testimony made zero impact on the appeal!

Quote:

---

Quoting The PEOPLE v. Judith Ann GOULET 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 801 - 13 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1

---

In this case, two licensed traffic engineers testified there are no driveways that affect safety for traffic traveling in the direction of appellant.

The two traffic engineers gave compelling testimony explaining the insufficiencies of the engineering and traffic survey in this case. We have not dwelt on their testimony for several reasons. A trier of fact may, at least under certain circumstances, reject the testimony of expert witnesses. (People v. Green (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 239, 209 Cal.Rptr. 255.)

---

That Guy. Thank you because you are correct, I re-read Goulet and I will now not include discussion about Traffic Engineers.

You still however do not see my point. Listing the conditions not apparent to the driver on the ETS alone is meaningless. The ETS need to include sufficient info to JUSTIFY the reduction. This was simply and clearly not done on this survey. New Policy Memo from CalTrans in June 2009 clearly indicates that: Here is a quote for you: Note also the setting of the limit "at the 85th percentile, not or below"
I underlined and bolded key words.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA_ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
POLICY DIRECTIVE
TR-OOI I (REV 9f2006) Page S of?
SPEED LIMITS SET WITH 2004 CHANGES
After applying the "nearest 5mph increment of the 85th percentile speed" criteria, many speed limits were being raised after the 2004 change in the California MUTCD speed limit procedures. Some agencies would then simply apply the 5 mph reduction to keep the speed limit at the same level or lower. Also, appropriate justification was not written up in the E&TS for many of these speed zones and speeding tickets were not upheld in court ifthe presiding official saw a speed limit set below the 85'" percentile speed. PROCEDURE AFTER JULY I. 2009
This directive clarifies the procedure for setting speed limits to address the issues discussed above. The two new standards for Section 2B.13 of the California MUTCD will be implemented to clarify the process and to help set speed limits that are uniform, rational and enforceable with full support of the judicial system. Requirements of the new standards are shown below:
• The speed limit shall be established at the nearest 5mph increment of the 85th percentile.
• If the 5 mph reduction is applied, the E&TS shall document in writing the conditions and justification for the reduced speed limit and be approved by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer

ETS concedes on its face that the data therein is "skewed". Without more, that tells me that the data itself for the survey is invalid, by its own words. This is in addition to the ETS failing to DOCUMENT and JUSTIFY reduction.

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

That Guy. Thank you

---

You're welcome. But seriously, you don't have to thank me in every post....

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

You still however do not see my point.

---

But you see, that is the beauty of forums like this one. We can all post our opinions, and right or wrong, it doesn't matter. Even of we're going to sit here, stick to our guns and deny it, we (hopefully) learned something!

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

I underlined and bolded key words.

---

OK, let me quote what I believe to be the key words in that directive:

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

PROCEDURE AFTER JULY I. 2009

---

That simply means that surveys conducted prior to July 1, 2009 need not conform to this standard until they are re-evaluated (@ 7 years) or completely re-done (@ 5, 7 or 10 or otherwise if required by policy of the local agency or the DOT.

So for your survey, with a date of February 2008, I'm not so sure how that directive would apply to it. In fact unless a new policy declares it void or if for whatever reason the City of Duarte decides to redo that survey, it will remain valid until, at minimum, February 2013.

The rules have changed since the 2009 directive you cited and will likely continue to do so! In fact, as of January 1st, 2012 there is a new method that is not only unprecedented and unique, it is part of the vehicle code (see VC 21400) and it would be difficult for an engineer to circumvent it. So even though it is written in the law, it does not invalidate all surveys out there. It only applies to new ones!

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

ETS concedes on its face that the data therein is "skewed". Without more, that tells me that the data itself for the survey is invalid, by its own words. This is in addition to the ETS failing to DOCUMENT and JUSTIFY reduction.

---

Is it possible that "skewed" was used to mean "slanted or leaning towards"... .Meaning, [I]prevailing vehicle speeds are leaning higher than they would be due to the fact that some of them coming off of a 65mph zone on the 210 Fwy!

Either way, it is an observation, and a valid one at that. You cannot dispute the fact that it does affect prevailing speeds. As such, and even though I would consider "a driver knowing s/he is no longer on the freeway and that he is out of the 65mph limit and into a lower limit zone" as a "conditions apparent to the driver", so he mentioned it!

Chances are, had he not mentioned it, you'd be arguing that he should have!

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

Quirky, I posted a picture I obtained from google Map on the link below. Do you think it is sufficient?
http://s1153.photobucket.com/albums/...=1327536505457

---

The link doesn't work, NMT.

You would need to include multiple satellite view (i.e. overhead photographic) screenshots of at least the 0.25 mile of Evergreen St. centered around Shepherd Dr., and show that although multiple houses are present, per VC 240, they do not "front" the street and cannot be considered as part of a residence district.

If I were you I'd do that for the entire survey, i.e. Evergreen from Mountain to Buena Vista.

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

That Guy, I consulted with a registered Traffic Engineer on this survey...
Further he said, those accidents are most likely at intersections of either Mountain or Buena Vista, the starting and ending points of the Survey. This is typical as a lot of the accidents happen at intersections.

---

Wow, either you happen to know a T.E. or you're the next Goulet! :D

I forgot about the "mid-block" part (i.e. typically, accidents occurring AT intersections, such as running red lights, shouldn't be counted). Filtering the SWITRS data for that, as well as where the PRIMARY street was Evergeeen (i.e. vehicle was on Evergreen, not on an intersecting street near Evergreen), I get only FIVE accidents in the preceding two years, of which 3 were 22107 (improper turning) and 2 were 22350 (unsafe speed).

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

Now, Quirky, do you think I get this Engineer's declaration solely attacking the ETS as I indicated avove or a Judge will likely see this as way overboard. I could always put the arguments above as my own and put in a sentence that I consulted with a Traffic Engineer and he confirmed this.

---

Assuming that cost is not a factor, I think the declaration *could be* VERY HELPFUL for the TBD. It might be better than ANY arguments you could make, simply because he's an "expert witness". If you lose and go to TDN, you can always take a shot at referring to the declaration because it will probably be in the judge's file as part of the TBD (but be prepared for the judge to reject it as hearsay).

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

The ETS need to include sufficient info to JUSTIFY the reduction. This was simply and clearly not done on this survey. New Policy Memo from CalTrans in June 2009 clearly indicates that:

---

You can certainly include that policy in your TBD to support your argument that such a requirement was "understood" before June 2009, and was only expressly made so then. BUT as TG said, it has no legal effect on previous surveys and the judge is free to ignore it.

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

ETS concedes on its face that the data therein is "skewed". Without more, that tells me that the data itself for the survey is invalid, by its own words.

---

How does the data become invalid, even if it is skewed? The data is....the data, unless some error was made when measuring the speeds. That it's "skewed" is the engineer's opinion, as TG said, just like the other justifications.

---

I really think you are losing sight of the forest for the trees here, NMT. If you can get a declaration from the T.E. in your TBD, that's great, you can cite to it in your argument. You can also dispute the "residence district" justification. Also argue that accident data is insufficient NOT FROM a VC 627/MUTCD perspective, but because, without it, your 40802 "right" to attack the survey is half-empty. (cite Ellis). And then there will be the "business record" argument against admitting the LASD's LIDAR calibration cert. I think out of all of those, at least one should stick <fingers crossed>.

LIDAR @ how far? If distance was left off, you can argue that was intentional. It always is. LIDAR is a relatively new technology in terms of mainstream traffic use. Besides New Jersey, most states have no laws on the books for use of the device. Law enforcement knows this and takes advantage of the system on occasion.

Don't worry about "that guy", it's his usual spiel. Lots of hypothetical situations wrapped up in semantics - all to make you look wrong.

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

LIDAR @ how far? If distance was left off, you can argue that was intentional. It always is. LIDAR is a relatively new technology in terms of mainstream traffic use. Besides New Jersey, most states have no laws on the books for use of the device. Law enforcement knows this and takes advantage of the system on occasion.

Don't worry about "that guy", it's his usual spiel. Lots of hypothetical situations wrapped up in semantics - all to make you look wrong.

---

Ahhh Nomoretix, you're in luck... You get to meet our resident troll/jester (he splits his time between two positions). lostintime lost a Lidar speeding citation case in his state of Iowa over 6 months ago... Poor guy nearly losthismind as a result. So now he wanders aimlessly around the traffic forum repeating the same statements again and again, "LIDAR @ how far?", "LIDAR @ how far?".... even though he's been told several times that disclosing the distance, or even the type of device on the citation is not a requirement!

(If you just ignore him, he'll go away on his own).

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

"LIDAR @ how far?", "LIDAR @ how far?".... even though he's been told several times that disclosing the distance, or even the type of device on the citation is not a requirement!

---

:D I'm thinking of getting those "that was easy" type buttons, squawking "Lidar @ how far? Lidar at how far?" for TG and myself. Could be a great stress release when a typical LIT post pops up...

TG is right, of course. No such requirement --- an argument as LIT suggests would be futile. In California, you can use the (criminal) discovery rules to get a copy of the officers notes, which should contain the distance. (LITs home state IA has neutered discovery for "minor misdemeanors" like traffic violations!)

Of course, even assuming the distance turns out to be excessive, for a 22350 with all the loopholes of the CA speed trap laws, you would most probably wasting your time on a technical LIDAR argument.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Ahhh Nomoretix, you're in luck... You get to meet our resident troll/jester (he splits his time between two positions). lostintime lost a Lidar speeding citation case in his state of Iowa over 6 months ago... Poor guy nearly losthismind as a result. So now he wanders aimlessly around the traffic forum repeating the same statements again and again, "LIDAR @ how far?", "LIDAR @ how far?".... even though he's been told several times that disclosing the distance, or even the type of device on the citation is not a requirement!

(If you just ignore him, he'll go away on his own).

---

The vast majority of LIDAR citations have the distance listed. I can even prove this on an abacus. You've read the forum long enough to know the distance is almost always there. Must be coincidental, the officers only included the distance by mistake. They didn't mean to.

There has to be a distance threshold that even you agree is too far. Maybe an astronomical unit.

The State of Iowa is arguably the hardest place in the modern world to win a contested speeding ticket. You have a strong good ol' boy system, overzealous prosecutors who treat speeding tickets like million-dollar drug busts, and absolutely no discovery is allowed for simple misdemeanors.

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

:D I'm thinking of getting those "that was easy" type buttons, squawking "Lidar @ how far? Lidar at how far?" for TG and myself. Could be a great stress release when a typical LIT post pops up...

TG is right, of course. No such requirement --- an argument as LIT suggests would be futile. In California, you can use the (criminal) discovery rules to get a copy of the officers notes, which should contain the distance. (LITs home state IA has neutered discovery for "minor misdemeanors" like traffic violations!)

Of course, even assuming the distance turns out to be excessive, for a 22350 with all the loopholes of the CA speed trap laws, you would most probably wasting your time on a technical LIDAR argument.

---

Speedy trial laws also don't apply in Iowa for speeding. Any "85th percentile" argument won't work. Most tickets don't even specify radar/LIDAR. The fact mine said LIDAR, was actually a lot compared to what most get. If you have citations that don't list the SMD, and you aren't allowed to know the SMD until court, there is obviously something unethical going on. Basically, what would be standard most anywhere else, isn't allowed in Iowa.

Quirky, what do you think about the argument that the original survey notes are not included. The survey was observed by the initials JMF and teh engineer is Dominic Milano! The cars are marked with "x's" but it is done by computer as seen from the survey. Whoever transfered the handwritten notes from the survey into this form could have made a mistake. Isnt this a foundational problem?

Here is the link to the picture of Evergreen again. the x marks Shepherd

http://s1153.photobucket.com/albums/...=1327536505457

Do not try and comprehend it all at once!

Sort of a long one... But pace yourselves...

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

The "short form" survey may well be compliant with the MUTCD as well as VC 627 (that's all the MUTCD is concerned with). But whether it is sufficiently adequate to rebut the speed-trap presumption of VC 40802 (and whether it's a "summary" or not) is a question of fact that is entirely the province of the courts!

---

A rhetorical question: So are you suggesting that the DOT, and in approving that provision in the MUTCD opted to circumvent 40802, ignore it (in spite of the implications that this would lead to) or simply forgot that it even exists?

Here is the 1st paragraph from section where the MUTCD begins focusing primarily on speed limits, how they are established and posted... etc.

Quote:

---

Quoting 2006 CA-MUTCD - Page 2B-7

---

Section 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign (R2-1)

Standard:
After an engineering study has been made in accordance with established traffic engineering practices, the Speed Limit (R2-1) sign (see Figure 2B-1) shall display the limit established by law, ordinance, regulation, or as adopted by the authorized agency. The speed limits shown shall be in multiples of 10 km/h or 5 mph.

---

Would you like me to demonstrate how that one single paragraph -the only paragraph labeled as "Standard"- makes equal mention of all THREE, VC 627, VC 40802 and the MUTCD?

First sentence, is actually a reference to BOTH, VC 627 and the MUTCD: "After an engineering study has been made in accordance with established traffic engineering practices"... Make note of the fact that your previous arguments in support of the MUTCD, implied that it is the basis for "established [traffic] engineering practices" (but I do also understand how you may try and back away from that for a minute to try and prove another point).

Second sentence, is a description of VC sections 22348 through 22366 as well as, your friend, VC 40802: the Speed Limit (R2-1) sign (see Figure 2B-1) shall display the limit established by law, ordinance, regulation, or as adopted by the authorized agency.... Because without 40802, there is no legal authority to argue "sped traps" and therefore any governmental agency can post whatever sped they want, run Radar all day long and neither you, nor the appellate can stop them)!

Third and last bit of that quote above: The speed limits shown shall be in multiples of 10 km/h or 5 mph. is a reference to those procedures it mentioned in the first, describing one of the "standards".

Still not convinced? Let me try this:

Let me make it simple... The one and only purpose that an agency will conduct a speed survey is not because their purchasing department went overboard on their speed sign order and “hey, lets run those damn surveys and get these effing sign out on the road...”... It is simply for one of two reasons: (A) To justify and already posted sped limit, or (B) to establish a lawfully enacted speed limit which can be posted and lawfully enforced. Regardless of whether it is (A) or (B), it is strictly to allow law enforcement to conduct speed enforcement! And without 40802 in that mix, we would all lose interest and focus, along with losing most speeding cases (or should I say 'appeals') .

You simply cannot dismiss 40802 from any discussion where a survey is mentioned and vice versa. And to suggest that the DOT will suggest AND “publish” a method whereby a speed survey could be conducted knowing it will not fit the legal requirements it is intended for; you can say it if you want, I ain't buying!

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

Apart from the initial speed measurements and other data, isn't the entire evaluation of the survey pretty much "an engineer's stated opinion"?

---

Not entirely... If the engineer's opinion was to reduce the posted limit by 10mph, would that be acceptable by you? NO! Nor should it be... Simply because the vehicle code is pretty clear on what these standards are and what is required. Quirky, while you do in fact try and undermine each and every engineering opinion that comes through here, whether it is a left turn sign, a pavement marking or whatever, a speed survey or a justification for one... It is NOT all an opinion! Simply read the "Standard" I posted above and you will see why. And before you go looking for the paragraph that defines "engineering judgment" as having no substitute, let me say that "engineering judgment" is based upon experience, knowledge, procedures.. etc... SO, now that I think about it, I guess I'll agree with your use of opinion so long as it is preceded by "educated, and based upon specific legal requirements from the vehicle code along with specific procedures and accepted DOT and local jurisdiction practices"!

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

The surveys in Goulet and Ellis were certainly prima facie compliant with VC 627/Traffic Manual/MUTCD; yet, they were ruled inadequate. Nowhere does the MUTCD or VC mention "raw data" as a requirement, or how the survey must quantify "conditions not apparent" and explain how the affect speeds.

---

Actually, the VC DOES indeed mention

While I will wholeheartedly agree that the neither VC nor the MUTCD describe it as "raw data", however, the VC and MUTCD need not use that exact description, to qualify what is required. Fact is, BOTH the VC AND the MUTCD mention BOTH, the raw data (notice that I did not put it in quotes simply because it is not described as "raw data"), as well as how the survey must quantify "conditions not apparent" and explain how they affect speeds:

The first paragraph listed in the MUTCD as standard, as you may well already know, is the exact duplicate language from VC 627:

Quote:

---

Quoting 2006 CA-MUTCD page 2B-8

---

An engineering and traffic survey (E&TS) shall include, among other requirements deemed necessary by the department, consideration of all of the following:

(1) Prevailing speeds as determined by traffic engineering measurements.
(2) Collision records.
(3) Highway, traffic, and roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver.

Guidance:

The E&TS should contain sufficient information to document that the required three items of CVC Section 627 are provided and that other conditions not readily apparent to a driver are properly identified.

---

So that is showing how both raw data and conditions not apparent DO INDEED appear in both, the VC and the MUTCD's description of the State Form

Quote:

---

Quoting 2006 CA-MUTCD Page 2B-9

---

1. State Highways - The E&TS for State highways is made under the direction of the Department of Transportation’s District Traffic Engineer. The data includes:

a. One copy of the Standard Speed Zone Survey Sheet (See Figure 2B-101(CA)) showing:

• A north arrow
• Engineer's station or post mileage
• Limits of the proposed zones
• Appropriate notations showing type of roadside development, such as “scattered business,” “solid residential,” etc. Schools adjacent to the highway are shown, but other buildings need not be plotted unless they are a factor in the speed recommendation or the point of termination of a speed zone.
• Collision rates for the zones involved
• Average daily traffic volume
• Location of traffic signals, signs and markings
• If the highway is divided, the limits of zones for each direction of travel
• Plotted 85th percentile and pace speeds at location taken showing speed profile

---

You can see:

• Collision rates for the zones involved
• Average daily traffic volume
• Plotted 85th percentile and pace speeds at location taken showing speed profile

Anything else you need as far as "data"?.... Oh right, you wanted a SWITRS report... Here you go: Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System - SWITRS... Sign up, sign in, and knock yourself out!

And now you got your Raw Data... But please keep in mind that all the above is for the LONG form. For the short form, you get:

2. City and County Through Highways, Arterials, Collector Roads and Local Streets.

a. The short method of speed zoning is based on the premise that a reasonable speed limit is one that conforms to the actual behavior of the majority of motorists, and that by measuring motorists' speeds, one will be able to select a speed limit that is both reasonable and effective. Other factors that need to be considered include but are not limited to: the most recent two-year collision record, roadway design speed, safe stopping sight distance, superelevation, shoulder conditions, profile conditions, intersection spacing and offsets, commercial driveway characteristics, and pedestrian traffic in the roadway without sidewalks.
b. Determination of Existing Speed Limits - Figures 2B-103(CA) & 2B-104(CA) show samples of data sheets which may be used to record speed observations. Specific types of vehicles may be tallied by use of letter symbols in appropriate squares.

I think you can deduce the speed data (from speed charts or data sheets), the most recent two year collision records (not ratres, but records) (both of which are in BOLD, and as for “conditions not readily apparent” as a few of the description that are underlined whether it be on their own (example: commercial driveways) or in combination with other condition(s) (example “sigh distance” if it is limited by a slope or a curve).

Of course, you can certainly argue your case that you "SHOULD" be given more, and/or that the engineer didn't consider this, that or the other. Ultimately, the trier of fact is free to accept the survey as valid or decide that it does not justify the posted limit. HIS decision. If you disagree, you certainly have as much right to appeal as anyone else... By all means, utilize that right!

Now, to qualify my answer better for this particular survey, there is no need for the engineer to provide a two hour presentation about the effects of speeds on safety and how different conditions can and should impact the setting of the speed limit... This is, after all, the short form. So he briefly mentions that drivers coming off the freeway are likely to unintentionally drive a little faster; since it is clear that this segment on Evergreen would not qualify as a ”residential district” per the CVC definition, and yet upon a closer inspection it appears to be exclusively occupied by residences... And that, if need be can be simply justified as:

Quote:

---

Quoting CA-MUTCD Page 2B-10

---

Option:
When roadside development results in traffic conflicts and unusual conditions which are not readily apparent to
drivers, as indicated in collision records, speed limits somewhat below the 85th percentile may be justified.

---

Now, keep in mind that the law is not there to fully satisfy and convince the defendant... It is only intended to convince the judge... And if that convinces him, then it looks like you might have to appeal... If not, then you'll agree that simply including ^that does not void the survey...

Let us continue with the Goulet test.... The Goulet survey had examined accident records for 3 years, and the result was ZERO accidents. In this case, the engineer listed 9 accidents in 2/3rds of the time period (9 accidents in 2 years), which comparatively can be assumed to be 13+ accidents in 3 years... Or, 4 ½ accidents per year. To you, they might not be enough accidents to justify a limit reduction... To someone else, it may be 4 ½ accidents too many But lets stick to the 9 mentioned in the survey...

And here comes my point: DON'T ASSUME THAT JUST BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN GET THIS DISMISSED IS IF THE SURVEY DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE LIMIT, THAT THE COURT HAS TO MEET YOUR NEEDS AND DESIRES. Or that just because you walk into court saying this survey is invalid or incomplete that the judge has to follow suit!

You can, again, and with or without vpd's, establish how many speed related accidents were included in those 9, or over that same period... IIRC, you did state there were 2 collisions where 22350 was reported as the PCF. In all honesty, I would noy cite Goulet in this case with 2 speed related accidents, and since we've agreed that it is up to the trier of fact to decide the “opinions” are sufficient evidence for the judge to make a conclusiomn either way.

Now, you can go to page 2B-95 and look at Figure 2B-101(CA) where an Example of a Speed Survey Sheet that is used by a State Agency (i.e. the long form) is shown... And yupp, that shows all the data you're wishing for but not all of it is required. And not all of it will end up getting used. Yet you cannot add in a few missing entries as part of your “now” requirements

Pages 2B-97 and 2B-98 show two examples of the short forms in figure 2B-103 & figure 2B-104 as used by local agencies (city or county) and although both show “accident records” as a blank entry, neither one mentioned vpd's or ADTs. So if your stilll claiming that vpd's are a requirement, then why is it that the DOT decided to forgo including a space on its forms where one would enter such information?

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

Thus, the SWITRS argument, if you will, doesn't depend on how "collision/accident record" or "12-month record" or whatever is interpreted, or whether the survey complies with MUTCD/VC 627. If the raw data and other parameters used to conduct and evaluate the survey are not included, how can a defendant show the survey is inadequate per VC 40802 and case law?

---

That is NOT what you are arguing, Quirky... You are not asking for the "Data that was used". Instead you are asking for data that wasn't used nor was it required for the short form! You make it sound like the engineer used information that he did not disclose or include in the survey. And that does not seem to be the case. If you can show that he did, I can see how you would have a point!

Oh, and after a second reading of your quote, I noticed this: “how can a defendant show the survey is inadequate per VC 40802 and case law?”

Is that a slip or are you suggesting the defendant is entitled to be able to show the survey is inadequate?

If it is a slip, and it should say “how can a defendant ATTEMPT TO show...”, my answer would be “the same way the engineer was able to show it was adequate and using the same data he used”...

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

Both of which come from "short-form" surveys, FYI. Or even enough parameters so that a defendant can pull the data for SWITRS and verify for him/herself.

---

And just because 2 surveys included a SWITRS report does not make that the standard or the MUTCD recommendation. The standard, and any related Guidance or Options, as I am sure you'd agree with me if the context was different, are those that are printed in the MUTCD.

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

Although the Ellis court simply called this "unfair", I'm reasonably certain that case law can show that such a situation has unfavorable due process implications for the defendant.

---

That always seemed like a last resort argument, IMO, and if you're ready to pull that card already, maybe this is not the “per-iminent case” you thought it to be!

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

Or even enough parameters so that a defendant can pull the data for SWITRS and verify for him/herself. As for your whole "chain-of-custody" argument: as long as the People meet the court's definition of prima facie adequate [i.e., sufficient to allow a defendant to attack it, per Ellis], they're done. The defendant is free to rebut the survey any which way, including getting all of the items you described, which should (theoretically) be available as public records and/or court records. He can obtain police reports, corresponding court dockets, and if he finds enough acquittals so that the calculated rate goes under the expected rate, and that was the only factor justifying reduction, he can certainly argue that the reduction is not justified.

---

Semantics, I know but let me amend one short line: “The defendant is free to rebut the survey any which way”... I say should be “The defendant is free to attempt to rebut the survey any which way”... Aside from that, I agree with the above... Please see Post #10 above wherein I stated:

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

While I agree that the Collision data is lacking (it doesn't even compare it to a stated average), I still don't think you'll succeed in arguing that they should provide you with the exact location of each collision (But more importantly than that, see * below).

.....

...

.....


Now, not only can you research the collision records to verify them, you can also determine the location of each collision (*from above).

---

You've made it obvious that you keep jumping back and forth between:
→ wanting more “raw data” that is provided on the survey, therefore the survey is inadequate ←
and
→ obtaining raw data through other means and attempting to show that the reasons in the survey aren't sufficient to justify a reduction ←

I agree with the latter and, but advise the best of us who might want to argue former to (a) limit their arguments to a few items rather as many as they can come up with and hope the judge will pick/agree with one or two (simply because an exaggerated claim, and (b) if one can obtain the figures and show why their use is essential, you're much better off.

In other words,, I will buy into the claim that you can:
Research accident records in an attempt to show that speed related accidents are low... nd with the absence of other valid justifications to reduce the limit, you can cite Goulet, and you'd be making a valid argument...

Alternatively, you can do nothing, walk into court arguing that the engineer screwed up, he didn't include all the data he used / or didn't consider all the data required, i.e. that more raw data should be included, cite Ellis, and you will likely lose.

And by the way as I glance back at this thread, I now this that I might have missed:

Quote:

---

Quoting Quirky Quark

---

So not only does*Goulet*imply that only speed-related accidents should count (and ADT should be provided), but also that a raw accident number/rate is useless unless its is compared to a statistical expected one!

---

1) I've already agreed that speed related collision should count. In fact, before realizing Goulet had a reference to that, I cited People v. Smith as using the same standard.
2) ADT, yes for long forms, no for short... And I've used your method, questionable as it maybe, of utilizing “Examples” as standards in the MUTCD (even though I will admit they are NOT proof of much)... So let me offer another example: the term “ADT' is used to signify “Average Daily Traffic”, and mentioned in the CA-MUTCD a total of 15 times. If it was that critical to include it for both long and short forms, the 3 additional letters are going to affect a document that size.
3) If by a “statistical comparison” you are alluding to an “Annual Collision Rate”, I can't seem to find one being cited as having it included as part of the Goulet survey... Can you? Well, it is easy to figure out through (hold on to that thought for a second) In other words, the claim here has been: “the engineer here provided the # of collisions over the last 2 years, but he did not provide vpd counts and therefore the defendant is unable to calculate the actual collision rate (in Collisions/MVM)... And yet in Goulet, the engineer provided collision records (zero speed related accidents) AND daily traffic volumes”... So the actual accident rate for the Goulet survey according to the formula: (c*10^6)/(365*y*v*l) where c = speed related collisions = ZERO, therefore the collision rate for Goulet is and will always be ZERO. In your case, however, you have 2 speed related collisions and therefore c = 2, and therefore the collision rate for your survey and though it cannot be calculated, WILL ALWAYS BE HIGHER THAN ZERO i.e. WILL ALWAYS BE HIGHER THAN GOULET... which is zero/12300 Which EQUALS ZERO...

Here's another similar quote:

Quote:

---

Quoting Quirky Quark

---

Are you suggesting that just citing the number raw records is sufficient, without comparison to any kind of baseline?

---

Goulet's collision rate is ZERO... There is your baseline... Compare that to your collision rate which is and will always be “higher than zero”.

But really, Quirky... The Goulet survey shows that roadway as a "major arterial"... And I know this is NOT! So to make a fair statistical comparison you're attempting, I am sure the Goulet roadway had a different "baseline' as you called it for a collision rate, and with this being a different class, it too would have i different baseline!

I don't see any reference to a “rate”... So even if ADTs were provided in this survey, the end result is you'll have to compare the “X NUMBER OF SPEED RELATED COLLISIONS (NOT COLLISION RATE)” TO THE “ZERONUMBER OF SPEED RELATED ACCIDENTS (NOT COLLISION RATES)” From Goulet... ADT has no effect whatsoever on the validity of that argument!

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

Can you lend me the crystal ball that enabled you divine the "type of survey" for Goulet?

---

Sorry, I don't lend my crystal ball out... But you can actually use your own crystal ball... The same one you used to conclude the Goulet had a LONG FORM... (Note: just because Goulet had vpd does not necessarily make it a long form – The engineer in that case could have simply thrown that in.... But as I stated just above this, it had no purpose at all)!

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

From what I've seen, EVERY city agency uses the short form with the notable exception of LADOT. And what makes you think those precedents are selectively applicable based on the "type of survey"?

---

That does not make it the standard! Per the MUTCD, each agency has the option to use EITHER OR for a local city/county road... Each agency can also opt to use the short forms and add in ALL the data required for the Long Form... The MUTCD standard, remains the MUTCD Standard!

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

The MUTCD does not (and never has) specified what a local agency survey should include. All it specifies is a "short method of speed zoning" and "samples of data sheets which may be used to record speed observations."

---

Nice play on words... You can read through both “long method” and “short method” and you'll see that each utilize the term to mean the same thing: “establishing a speed limit for a particular zone!”

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

And it suggests that "[i]n most situations, the short form for local streets and roads will be adequate." Adequate for what?

---

For the traffic engineers who use them to establish speed limits!

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

As a complete survey sufficient to pass muster under VC 40802?

---

Tell me.. which survey that is posted or even mentioned on this forum passes muster under 40802 in your opinion? Not saying it to be a smart alec... But some of your theories remain untested...
And not saying that as criticism, best of luck with all that remains untested...
Hey, I might volunteer to test out one or two for you... May be, pretty soon!

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

As for ^that^ "gotcha" attempt, you missed that Goulet was only defining "85th percentile speed"

---

Point is, you couldn't use the Goulet definition of 85th percentile speed... Well, you could, but you wouldn't want to in this case!!!

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

You're fond of saying that "you can't blindly apply (old) precedent." That's true of course, and good general advice. But if the facts of the case and the (current) law are still similar, there's a very good chance you can. If you look it up, you will find that the "short method of speed zoning" has carried over almost unchanged from the old Traffic Manual (which Goulet cited) to the 2012 MUTCD!

---

Well, there is one difference between 1996 and 2006... The older uses a “should be”, meaning -meh, maybe not all the time! where as the newer uses “are posted” thereby leaving no doubt.

Although relative to the short form/long form comparison, that is what brought me back to this thread, the fact that I was looking through the old traffic manual and both short and long method of speed surveys were -almost verbatim- in there. But you already looked it up... You already know that!

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

You can assume all you want that this "survey" is good enough for a "short form", and that the engineer's judgment is justified. For all I know, both are probably true. But whether the "survey" (and the inherent engineer's opinion) is good enough to topple the 40802 presumption is up to the court.

---

Which is what I stated back in post #10... And if the court decides otherwise, I'm sure it 'll be up to the appellate at that point. More power to you both at that time as well... And I never suggested the survey is good! Only that it is not missing all the figures which Nomoretix is claiming are missing... And that you are more likely to succeed in proving a claim, if you actually take the time to demonstrate how the information can be valuable. Not sure why you're taking this one so personally!

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

And the conditions that follow are EXACTLY the same as the residential zone definition. Which are repeated in the MUTCD. Any attempt to dodge this statutory requirement by calling it "roadside development" ruins the traffic engineer's credibility, and that is PRECISELY what OP should attempt to do via satellite photos.

---

For one, nobody is dodging any statutory requirement! Fact is, for someone who swears by the provisions of the MUTCD should know that “roadside developments should be considered and properly notated on the survey and any additional reports that go along with it; example from the MUTCD (from the “Option” paragraph at the bottom of page 2B-10:

Quote:

---

Quoting CA MUTCD 2B-10

---

When roadside development results in traffic conflicts and unusual conditions which are not readily apparent to drivers, as indicated in collision records, speed limits somewhat below the 85th percentile may be justified.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

In any case, all the "long form" requires is "Collision rates for the zones involved", which is a far cry from any kind of "accident report"!

---

And yet, on the long form, and in addition to the collision RATES if given, you would have the “segment length”, “the daily traffic volumes” and the “period of time the collision data was collected over... You can use the formula to calculate the collision numbers (if you want to actually compare the SWITRS results for the same period).

And no, I still can see you requesting police reports... But hey, If I thought I might find something in those, then why not!

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

And hey, that one doesn't mention raw data either. But guess how surveys without raw data---long, short or medium form--have fared when appealed?

---

What is “without raw data”? The long form?

If so, I think you'd be mistaken... Or actually, you'd be Mistertaken!

You can scroll back up to the top of my reply, read the criteria for the State form and you'll see all the data you want is liosted.

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

Then both of you are wrong by ANY definition. VC 627 explicitly limits WHEN residential density can be considered:

---

Actually, you'd be wrong to exclude “roadside developments” from consideration simply because you consider them as part of “residential density” or to assume that “roadside developments” and when combined with other factors can bu valid justification for the speed limit... This is a short psaragraph so I'll post it again:

Quote:

---

Quoting CA-MUTCD Page 2B-10

---

Option:
When roadside development results in traffic conflicts and unusual conditions which are not readily apparent to
drivers, as indicated in collision records, speed limits somewhat below the 85th percentile may be justified.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

(In fact, by my quick count, there are only 35 vehicles who's measured speed was in excess of the 35mph limit, and 35 divided by 107 = ONLY 32.7% of drivers are violators)! Certainly FAR from being a "majority"!

---

Also you say 35% is far from being a majority, but when you compare that to only 7 cars if the speed limit is 40 mph, 35% to 5% to me is lop sided? WHat are your thoughts? By the way thanks for your input and the input of all others. I appreciate it.

---

Goulet does not say "majority", but "a disproportionate number of the reasonable majority of drivers". You can certainly make the argument that 35% is disproportionate, although more than 50% would give that argument an added boost.

---

Nomoretix, you obviously missed my point regarding the 35% (actually, Id like to use the 32.7%... makes a better point) and maybe I should have been clearer... But in your case, the reduction in the speed limit making 32.7% of drivers into violators means it is leaving 67.3% of drivers as non-violators... And in other words, there are twice as many non-violators as there are violators... Not that bad of a ratio...

Now, you've utilized a number of different citation from Goulet, and I've expressed my opinion that it may not be the most appropriate case for you to cite... Unfortunately, you wouldn't score big points if you were to use Goulet to try and demonstrate that when a survey makes a disproportionate number of drivers into violators, you should keep in mind that the speed reduction which was deemed unlawful in Goulet, had made -not only the majority of drivers into violators, it actually made a VAST numbers of the into violators... at the outrageous rate of 95% of drivers are considered as violators!

Still think 32.7% is too high?

I signed up for SWITRS but I could not enter the dates for period starting to "period ending", The screen would not accept any typing in those slots. Any ideas?

Quote:

---

Quoting Nomoretix

---

I signed up for SWITRS but I could not enter the dates for period starting to "period ending", The screen would not accept any typing in those slots. Any ideas?

---

Uhm... No idea at all!
I know for some reports, it only allows for no more that 1 year between dates but that isn't going to prevent you from typing in the numbers... I will say that I requested a couple of different reports last night and I am yet top receive anything!

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

I will say that I requested a couple of different reports last night and I am yet top receive anything!

---

Mine have always had a turnaround of less than 1 hour.... (btw TG, I do have raw data for yours on file, should you need it...)

Their date boxes do use a script that automatically goes to the day box once you type the month, year once you type the day, etc. I recommend using a different browser or temporarily turning off javascript if you're having problems.

To the OP:

http://blog.motorists.org/what-every...ut-laser-guns/

Explains it better, and why distance is relevant.

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

To the OP:

http://blog.motorists.org/what-every...ut-laser-guns/

Explains it better, and why distance is relevant.

---

Sigh......

Quote:

---

Round, like a circle in a spiral
Like a wheel within a wheel.
Never ending or beginning,
On an ever spinning wheel
Like a snowball down a mountain
Or a carnival balloon
Like a carousel that's turning
Running rings around the moon

Like a clock whose hands are sweeping
Past the minutes on it's face
And the world is like an apple
Whirling silently in space
Like the circles that you find
In the windmills of your mind

---

Quirky, you're pandering to "That Guy".

You've said yourself those things can matter. If it was omitted, he could make an argument in his favor. Let's say the distance was over 3k feet. Rare, but possible. It hasn't even been ascertained yet. This forum as of late simply turns into you and "That guy" discussing hypotheticals ad nauseum like you're arguing before the California Supreme Court.

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

Quirky, you're pandering to "That Guy".

---

You must have not read any of Quirky's posts... or any of the discussions we've had.

Actually, on second thought, even if you have read them, does not mean you understood anything that was said!!!!

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

Sigh......

Quote:

---

Round, like a circle in a spiral
Like a wheel within a wheel.
Never ending or beginning,
On an ever spinning wheel
Like a snowball down a mountain
Or a carnival balloon
Like a carousel that's turning
Running rings around the moon

Like a clock whose hands are sweeping
Past the minutes on it's face
And the world is like an apple
Whirling silently in space
Like the circles that you find
In the windmills of your mind

---

---

Hahaa... Now that is some funny educational S4!+ right there...

And Quirky, give LostCause a break... He did say "explains it better'''" but did not qualify it as "better then whom!'"... or maybe "what"... I mean maybe he meant "it explains it better than a monkey can..."

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

You must have not read any of Quirky's posts... or any of the discussions we've had.

Actually, on second thought, even if you have read them, does not mean you understood anything that was said!!!!

---

Always full of sass.

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

You've said yourself those things can matter. If it was omitted, he could make an argument in his favor.

---

Haven't we discussed California's speed trap laws before? And how, when they are involved, they give you absolute defenses far, far stronger than casting doubt upon operator error?? So much so that a defendant would be doing him/herself a disservice by bringing up the LIDAR distance???

Not to mention the fact that there is NO requirement in CA to put the LIDAR distance down on the ticket.

Your posts in threads regarding VC 22350 violations in CA are spam for the above reasons. Sure, distance can matter (NOT its omission on the ticket though), and if you want to bring that up in threads not involving the speed-trap laws (VC 22349, 22356), I don't have any objection.

But not in 22350 threads, please. And never about the "omission" somehow being in a defendant's favor. It's not. And it's bad advice. Thanks.

Almost every CA lidar ticket mentioned on this forum has distance. There is relevance. It may not be required, but still recommended and if this can be elicited it should help the defendant. Will that matter? Up to the individual judge and his mood that particular day.