Impeding Traffic Ticket, California VC 22400

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

As soon I have entered the high way, I drove at the minimum speed limit which is at 50-55. A few cars passed by me as I entered traffic but then moments later, the police offer had signaled me to pull over. I had only been in the highway for less than a minute long ! The cop pulled me over while he was driving, but he was not parked out somewhere where he can catch my slow driving speeds. No siren was used but his lights was turned on indicating me to pull over though. He told me that I was way under the speed limit and has given me a citation for impeding traffic and other things I have forgotten. He did forget to write down the what my speed limit was and the approx. speed limit on the ticket. How will the judge even know what speed limit posted was if the police offer didn't write it down? Can I fight this ticket and have a chance to win because theirs no proof on the ticket for the judge to know the speed limit. Also, I was on the right lane.

Quote:

---

Quoting boo

---

As soon I have entered the high way, I drove at the minimum speed limit which is at 50-55. A few cars passed by me as I entered traffic but then moments later, the police offer had signaled me to pull over. I had only been in the highway for less than a minute long !

---

Here is 22400:

Minimum Speed Law

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

No person shall bring a vehicle to a complete stop upon a highway so as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic unless the stop is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.

You'll note that there is no minimum/maximum time limit that you have to impede traffic for before you're actually considered in violation.

Quote:

---

Quoting boo

---

The cop pulled me over while he was driving

---

That is how it usually happens...

Quote:

---

Quoting boo

---

...but he was not parked out somewhere where he can catch my slow driving speeds.

---

Well, you don't get penalized by how many mph's you were under the limit, only that you were impeding the normal flow of traffic... And I think that could be easily established with or without an actual speed.

Quote:

---

Quoting boo

---

No siren was used but his lights was turned on indicating me to pull over though.

---

They usually don't resort to using the siren unless absolutely necessary... And by the time that happens, they aren't too happy that you ignored their lights, so it worked out in your favor.

Quote:

---

Quoting boo

---

He told me that I was way under the speed limit and has given me a citation for impeding traffic and other things I have forgotten.

---

You mean other things that you are not disputing? You're only disputing the impeding traffic citation, even though you admit to driving slower than traffic and also admit that cars were passing you?

Quote:

---

Quoting boo

---

He did forget to write down the what my speed limit was and the approx. speed limit on the ticket. How will the judge even know what speed limit posted was if the police offer didn't write it down? Can I fight this ticket and have a chance to win because theirs no proof on the ticket for the judge to know the speed limit. Also, I was on the right lane.

---

Well, if you contest the citation, the officer will be there to testify so he'll get to tell his side of the story!

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Here is 22400:

Minimum Speed Law

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

No person shall bring a vehicle to a complete stop upon a highway so as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic unless the stop is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.

You'll note that there is no minimum/maximum time limit that you have to impede traffic for before you're actually considered in violation.



That is how it usually happens...



Well, you don't get penalized by how many mph's you were under the limit, only that you were impeding the normal flow of traffic... And I think that could be easily established with or without an actual speed.



They usually don't resort to using the siren unless absolutely necessary... And by the time that happens, they aren't too happy that you ignored their lights, so it worked out in your favor.



You mean other things that you are not disputing? You're only disputing the impeding traffic citation, even though you admit to driving slower than traffic and also admit that cars were passing you?



Well, if you contest the citation, the officer will be there to testify so he'll get to tell his side of the story!

---

how will the judge even know how fast i was driving because the officer had forgotten to input the approx. speed and speed limit down? without the details , i'm assuming that the ticket should be dismissed?

Quote:

---

Quoting boo

---

how will the judge even know how fast i was driving because the officer had forgotten to input the approx. speed and speed limit down? without the details , i'm assuming that the ticket should be dismissed?

---

Because when your case goes to trial (assuming you plead not guilty), the officer will testify to the speed you were going.


Edit:
Actually, since this is a violation regarding the regulation of speed of the vehicle (in this case too slow instead of too fast), shouldn't 40503 apply?

40503. Every notice to appear or notice of violation and every complaint or information charging a violation of any provision of this code regulating the speed of vehicles upon a highway shall specify the approximate speed at which the defendant is alleged to have driven and exactly the prima facie or maximum speed limit applicable to the highway at the time and place of the alleged offense and shall state any other speed limit alleged to have been exceeded if applicable to the particular type of vehicle or combination of vehicles operated by the defendant.

Quote:

---

Quoting California student

---

Because when your case goes to trial (assuming you plead not guilty), the officer will testify to the speed you were going.




Edit:
Actually, since this is a violation regarding the regulation of speed of the vehicle (in this case too slow instead of too fast), shouldn't 40503 apply?

40503. Every notice to appear or notice of violation and every complaint or information charging a violation of any provision of this code regulating the speed of vehicles upon a highway shall specify the approximate speed at which the defendant is alleged to have driven and exactly the prima facie or maximum speed limit applicable to the highway at the time and place of the alleged offense and shall state any other speed limit alleged to have been exceeded if applicable to the particular type of vehicle or combination of vehicles operated by the defendant.

---

Well I don't know. I got written up for 22400 VC CA. Even said on my ticket.

Yes I know he will testify to the speed that I was going but then then I can tell that the police was incorrect when he had told me what my speed limit was. Basically, its a 50/50 chance on who's the judge going to believe. Me or the Officer at which there is no proof because the officer forgot to write down the speed limit and approx. speed I was traveling when I had signed the ticket , and got the defendant copy. Or... the judge can just dismiss the ticket since. The judge don't know what speed I was traveling because it doesn't say on the ticket!

Quote:

---

Quoting boo

---

Well I don't know. I got written up for 22400 VC CA. Even said on my ticket.

---

40503 isn't a chargeable section. It contains the requirements for a notice to appear.

Quote:

---

Yes I know he will testify to the speed that I was going but then then I can tell that the police was incorrect when he had told me what my speed limit was. Basically, its a 50/50 chance on who's the judge going to believe. Me or the Officer at which there is no proof because the officer forgot to write down the speed limit and approx. speed I was traveling when I had signed the ticket , and got the defendant copy. Or... the judge can just dismiss the ticket since. The judge don't know what speed I was traveling because it doesn't say on the ticket!

---

1. It's not a 50/50 chance that the judge will take one story over another. It's more like 99/01 chance that the judge will take the officer's story over yours.

2. Outside of procedural arguments (i.e. the citation doesn't follow the law, therefore the citation is invalid. These arguments must be made at arraignment however), the citation doesn't mean much when it comes to speeds. In California, you aren't going to be convicted based on what is written on the citation. You can (will) be convicted based on what the officer testifies. If you go to trial, be it trial by declaration (mail) or trial in a court room, the officer will testify for you to be convicted.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Here is 22400:

Minimum Speed Law

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

No person shall bring a vehicle to a complete stop upon a highway so as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic unless the stop is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.

You'll note that there is no minimum/maximum time limit that you have to impede traffic for before you're actually considered in violation.

---

Ya gotta love it. Using the argument "I was just keeping up with traffic" doesn't get you out of a ticket but if the speed limit is 55 and everybody is driving 75 except for you, you can get a ticket for not keeping up with traffic.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Ya gotta love it. Using the argument "I was just keeping up with traffic" doesn't get you out of a ticket but if the speed limit is 55 and everybody is driving 75 except for you, you can get a ticket for not keeping up with traffic.

---

Did you miss the "unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation, because of a grade, or in compliance with law"?

Quote:

---

Quoting California student

---

Did you miss the "unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation, because of a grade, or in compliance with law"?

---

Ok, so you are saying the OP here is not guilty if he was driving within a reasonable percentage of the posted limit? Unless the OP was on a 70 mph + posted road, 50-55 should be adequate to not be going too slowly.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Ok, so you are saying the OP here is not guilty if he was driving within a reasonable percentage of the posted limit? Unless the OP was on a 70 mph + posted road, 50-55 should be adequate to not be going too slowly.

---

The highway I entered had no posted speed limit.

I find that many cars are passing by me (50-55mph) on the right lane is because they want to drive faster than the speed limit which is breaking the law.

I know I deserve this ticket/citation or whatever you call it if I in the left or middle lane but the entire time, I was caught on the right lane after I had merged onto the freeway. The cop doesn't know but I can tell the judge that I had entered the right lane of traffic when merging and the officer had pulled me over. What can you expect on a old vehicle.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Ok, so you are saying the OP here is not guilty if he was driving within a reasonable percentage of the posted limit?

---

Well, his guilt is up to the judge, not me. :D

Assuming that we're talking about a freeway with a 65 mph speed limit and the OP was in the right most lane, my inexperienced opinion is that I think he can have a valid argument. I would cite that 55 mph is certainly a speed that should be expected in the far right lane since that's the statutory maximum speed limit for some vehicles (i.e. vehicles towing something else, vehicles with 3 or more axles, etc. CVC 22406). How could it be impeding traffic for him and not for him if he was towing a trailer? The answer here is the obvious "Well, your speed limit is 65, not 55," but if he wants to fight it that might be his best choice. However anything below 55 is going to be suspect, and definitely anything under 50 would be hard to argue against being a violation.

This is also assuming he can't articulate anything relating to "safe operation."

- - - Updated - - -

Dear OP,

Where were you when you were cited? Was this on a freeway? Furthermore, if you weren't in the rightmost lane, then you are going to have an impossible time arguing the citation.

Quote:

---

Quoting California student

---

Well, his guilt is up to the judge, not me. :D

Assuming that we're talking about a freeway with a 65 mph speed limit and the OP was in the right most lane, my inexperienced opinion is that I think he can have a valid argument. I would cite that 55 mph is certainly a speed that should be expected in the far right lane since that's the statutory maximum speed limit for some vehicles (i.e. vehicles towing something else, vehicles with 3 or more axles, etc. CVC 22406). How could it be impeding traffic for him and not for him if he was towing a trailer? The answer here is the obvious "Well, your speed limit is 65, not 55," but if he wants to fight it that might be his best choice. However anything below 55 is going to be suspect, and definitely anything under 50 would be hard to argue against being a violation.

This is also assuming he can't articulate anything relating to "safe operation."

- - - Updated - - -

Dear OP,

Where were you when you were cited? Was this on a freeway? Furthermore, if you weren't in the rightmost lane, then you are going to have an impossible time arguing the citation.

---

CA Route 237

Also, there are no speed limit signs posted.

I entered traffic when the solid lines turned into broken lines and then I went in the right lane, Although, there is a right lane but for exit only.

Quote:

---

Quoting boo

---

CA Route 237

Also, there are no speed limit signs posted. 55mph on the right lane.

---

The speed limit on an unmarked road with more than 1 lane in each direction is the statutory maximum of 65. So all those cars going faster than you aren't necessarily breaking the law.

Quote:

---

Quoting California student

---

The speed limit on an unmarked road with more than 1 lane in each direction is the statutory maximum of 65. So all those cars going faster than you aren't necessarily breaking the law.

---

I'm pretty sure that cars trying to pass by me that was behind me are trying to go faster than the maximum speed limit if I told that to the judge.

but i'm assuming you think i will plead guilty?

Quote:

---

Quoting boo

---

I'm pretty sure that cars trying to pass by me that was behind me are trying to go faster than the maximum speed limit if I told that to the judge.

but i'm assuming you think i will plead guilty?

---

I wouldn't presume to either think what you will plead or what you should plead. I don't think that "Because I wanted to drive slow" or "my car couldn't handle going faster" is going to win your court case.

Quote:

---

Quoting California student

---

The speed limit on an unmarked road with more than 1 lane in each direction is the statutory maximum of 65. So all those cars going faster than you aren't necessarily breaking the law.

---

Agreed. In fact CA-237 is posted at 65mph as the speed limit. I can't tell you how many people drive slowly in the left lane on the freeways around here. God bless the officer for giving a ticket to somebody driving 50-55mph in the left lane. That's righteous, IMO.

Quote:

---

Quoting California student

---

I wouldn't presume to either think what you will plead or what you should plead. I don't think that "Because I wanted to drive slow" or "my car couldn't handle going faster" is going to win your court case.

---

Well thanks,

I'll just take this to court and see what the judge will say.

I'll probably submit a Informal Discovery Request

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Ya gotta love it. Using the argument "I was just keeping up with traffic" doesn't get you out of a ticket but if the speed limit is 55 and everybody is driving 75 except for you, you can get a ticket for not keeping up with traffic.

---

I honestly knew someone would bring this up... And my prepared answer to it is actually in line with what you posted in your next post: anything within reason is acceptable...

Note the OP stated that he entered the highway. I'm guessing its a freeway, meaning multi lane limited access highway (with on-ramps/off ramps). i.e. a freeway the speed limit is 65mph.

His next sentence is "I drove at the minimum speed limit which is at 50-55"... Before we leave this bit, is it conceivable that this could possibly be 45 to 50 instead of 50 to 55? Maybe even 40 to 45? It sure is...
Also... where did he get that the minimum speed limit *IS* at 50-55?
Note that he now is saying "the speed limit is not posted"...
Well, we know the statutory limits need not be posted, or in other words, "the speed limit is not posted" is not an excuse or a mitigating factor for a speeding citation. And similarly, it is not a defense to an impeding citation.

Now, if my guess is right, and this is indeed a freeway, and the traffic is moving at 65 (or more likely 70, if not higher, quite possibly even 75) is it reasonable to drive 50-55?

Not a chance in hell!

Alternatively, and although we do see a 10mph in excess of the limit citation on this forum every once in a while, more often it is 15 in excess or higher. At which point it ceases to become reasonably close to the speed of traffic...

This is what I was told when speeding became an issue for me (as far as points on my license):

No matter what the speed of traffic is, try not to be the lead car. try not to be the fastest car. Try no to be the car that everyone is looking at or trying to get away from.

Now, if driving slow was my issue, then I would have likely heard don't be the slowest car and don't be the car that everybody is honking at!

Our OP, here consciously entered the highway and drove at a speed that is considerably less than the speed of free flowing traffic, he knew full well that vehicles were passing him (and probably honking at him) and yet he did nothing about it... Continued as if he owns the road and everyone else is obligated to conform to his declared minimum speed of 50 to 55!

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting California student

---

How could it be impeding traffic for him and not for him if he was towing a trailer?

---

Well, for starters, it is not likely he was at 55, he said 50 - 55 and you know, I know, and the cop knows that it was slower than that. Either way, Even at 55, it is impeding traffic simply because as i approach from behind, I don't see a vehicle that is required to drive at 55 and I don't see a trailer... And not until I am feet from his bumper, do I realize that this guy owns this lane... This is why it becomes dangerous!

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting boo

---

how will the judge even know how fast i was driving because the officer had forgotten to input the approx. speed and speed limit down? without the details , i'm assuming that the ticket should be dismissed?

---

You obviously did not read a single word I posted in post # 2, did you?

Quote:

---

Now, if my guess is right, and this is indeed a freeway, and the traffic is moving at 65 (or more likely 70, if not higher, quite possibly even 75) is it reasonable to drive 50-55?

Not a chance in hell!

---

I disagree. The people going over the limit, illegally mind you, are who make it unsafe, not the guy going under the limit.

Quote:

---

Either way, Even at 55, it is impeding traffic simply because as i approach from behind, I don't see a vehicle that is required to drive at 55 and I don't see a trailer... And not until I am feet from his bumper, do I realize that this guy owns this lane... This is why it becomes dangerous!

---

Sorry but that is your negligence, not the other driver. If you can't see a driver in front of you, even given a 20 mph difference, before you hit him, you are just not looking.

and aren't all vehicles with trailers required to remain 55 or below? What about a car towing a small trailer; what are you going to see different that if it were just a car that gives you all this warning?

and that is 55 MAX, not minimum.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

I disagree. The people going over the limit, illegally mind you, are who make it unsafe, not the guy going under the limit.

---

I'm going to disagree here. Speed differences, be it from people speeding or people going super slow, is what is unsafe.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

I honestly knew someone would bring this up... And my prepared answer to it is actually in line with what you posted in your next post: anything within reason is acceptable...

Note the OP stated that he entered the highway. I'm guessing its a freeway, meaning multi lane limited access highway (with on-ramps/off ramps). i.e. a freeway the speed limit is 65mph.

His next sentence is "I drove at the minimum speed limit which is at 50-55"... Before we leave this bit, is it conceivable that this could possibly be 45 to 50 instead of 50 to 55? Maybe even 40 to 45? It sure is...
Also... where did he get that the minimum speed limit *IS* at 50-55?
Note that he now is saying "the speed limit is not posted"...
Well, we know the statutory limits need not be posted, or in other words, "the speed limit is not posted" is not an excuse or a mitigating factor for a speeding citation. And similarly, it is not a defense to an impeding citation.

Now, if my guess is right, and this is indeed a freeway, and the traffic is moving at 65 (or more likely 70, if not higher, quite possibly even 75) is it reasonable to drive 50-55?

Not a chance in hell!

Alternatively, and although we do see a 10mph in excess of the limit citation on this forum every once in a while, more often it is 15 in excess or higher. At which point it ceases to become reasonably close to the speed of traffic...

This is what I was told when speeding became an issue for me (as far as points on my license):

No matter what the speed of traffic is, try not to be the lead car. try not to be the fastest car. Try no to be the car that everyone is looking at or trying to get away from.

Now, if driving slow was my issue, then I would have likely heard don't be the slowest car and don't be the car that everybody is honking at!

Our OP, here consciously entered the highway and drove at a speed that is considerably less than the speed of free flowing traffic, he knew full well that vehicles were passing him (and probably honking at him) and yet he did nothing about it... Continued as if he owns the road and everyone else is obligated to conform to his declared minimum speed of 50 to 55!

- - - Updated - - -



Well, for starters, it is not likely he was at 55, he said 50 - 55 and you know, I know, and the cop knows that it was slower than that. Either way, Even at 55, it is impeding traffic simply because as i approach from behind, I don't see a vehicle that is required to drive at 55 and I don't see a trailer... And not until I am feet from his bumper, do I realize that this guy owns this lane... This is why it becomes dangerous!

- - - Updated - - -



You obviously did not read a single word I posted in post # 2, did you?

---

I obviously was not traveling at 40-55 because I constant look at the speed meter while driving and my mirrors of course.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

I disagree. The people going over the limit, illegally mind you, are who make it unsafe, not the guy going under the limit.

---

Could not be farther from the truth... There is solid proof that accident rates are higher at lower speeds! Or lower at higher speeds, depending on your perspective!

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Sorry but that is your negligence, not the other driver. If you can't see a driver in front of you, even given a 20 mph difference, before you hit him, you are just not looking.

---

OK, so I exaggerated "to a couple of feet". Point is "impeding traffic" statutes exist for a reason. And I don't have to be behind him, in the same lane, with nothing between us. I maybe entering the freeway behind him, merging over to exit and I fall behind him, simply changing lanes for the heck of it...

But even with my so called "negligence", who's action contributed more? Clearly his... Simply because even with my negligence, and if I am driving at the same speed as the vehicles in front of me, then my distance from them remains relatively constant. Yet with the same amount of negligence that I exhibited before, I come across Mr. Slow-Poke... And now what!

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

and aren't all vehicles with trailers required to remain 55 or below? What about a car towing a small trailer; what are you going to see different that if it were just a car that gives you all this warning?

---

Yes, kind a sorta... But not really.. a vehicle (motortruck) towing a trailer but there are other types:

22406. No person may drive any of the following vehicles on a highway at a speed in excess of 55 miles per hour:

(a) A motortruck or truck tractor having three or more axles or any motortruck or truck tractor drawing any other vehicle.
(b) A passenger vehicle or bus drawing any other vehicle.
(c) A schoolbus transporting any school pupil.
(d) A farm labor vehicle when transporting passengers.
(e) A vehicle transporting explosives.
(f) A trailer bus, as defined in Section 636.

Note it specifies: "motortruck" which is defined as:

410.

A "motor truck" or "motortruck" is a motor vehicle designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property.

Additionally;

465.

A "passenger vehicle" is any motor vehicle, other than a motortruck, truck tractor, or a bus, as defined in Section 233, and used or maintained for the transportation of persons. The term "passenger vehicle" shall include a housecar.

So really, your example isn't pertinent here but if it were, here is my reasoning, what I will see differently, presumably, if it is dark, (is it not?), I'll see an additional set of tail lights as well as reflectors as required by law.

If it isn't dark the visibility isn't an issue and I can probably avoid him. But really, should we have to swerve left and right to avoid ramming into him, when everybody else seems to be in compliance??

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

and that is 55 MAX, not minimum.

---

Right... But if you plan on driving at much lower than 55, then get off the freeway... Take the side streets or in the alternate, stay on the freeway, just don't complain about people passing you at a high rate of speed, (and don't flash me with your high beams after I pass you)... and if cited, take your lumps, pay your fine as part of the expense of wanting to be stubbornly happy. Call it a down payment on that segment of roadway until you can afford to buy it all! Seriously, if you feel justified by such actions, that is perfectly fine with me... Until one of two things happen:

1) If you're cited don't complain... Or worse,
2) You are a contributing factor to someone's injury or death!

Then it is time to accept full responsibility for your actions. Just don't expect that your simply declaring that "the minimum speed is 50 to 55" should make it the "lawful minimum" or if not that, then an acceptable alternative to simply flowing along with the general consensus of prevailing speed at the time!

---

Quote:

---

Quoting boo

---

I obviously was not traveling at 40-55

---

Well, I don't make things up... I am going by what you said in your first post:

Quote:

---

Quoting boo

---

I drove at the minimum speed limit which is at 50-55.

---

And 50 to 55 is certainly between 40 to 55.

So you're changing your mind now? You want to give us a different speed that you were driving?

Quote:

---

Quoting boo

---

... because I constant look at the speed meter while driving and my mirrors of course.

---

Is that your way of saying you pay less attention to your surroundings and to the vehicles in front of you, and are more concerned about your speed AND the cars coming up on you from behind? It almost makes your heart sink when you see one coming up on you at double your speed, only to disappear out of your mirror's view a second or two before your car is just about to disintegrate!

Is that why you do it, drive so agonizingly slow... That's your rush?

Quote:

---

Yes, kind a sorta... But not really.. a vehicle (motortruck) towing a trailer but there are other types:

22406. No person may drive any of the following vehicles on a highway at a speed in excess of 55 miles per hour:
(a) A motortruck or truck tractor having three or more axles or any motortruck or truck tractor drawing any other vehicle.
(b) A passenger vehicle or bus drawing any other vehicle.
(c) A schoolbus transporting any school pupil.
(d) A farm labor vehicle when transporting passengers.
(e) A vehicle transporting explosives.
(f) A trailer bus, as defined in Section 636.

---

I think you missed one.

Quote:

---

Right... But if you plan on driving at much lower than 55, then get off the freeway... Take the side streets or in the alternate, stay on the freeway, just don't complain about people passing you at a high rate of speed, (and don't flash me with your high beams after I pass you)...

---

Oh, so you're one of those: if you aren't moving as fast as I want to go get the Hell out of the way, regardless what the legal speed limit is.

and I flash my lights to make the car that just passed me know it is clear to pull back over. It's called highway courtesy. Truckers sure seem to appreciate it.

Quote:

---

1) If you're cited don't complain... Or worse,
2) You are a contributing factor to someone's injury or death!

Then it is time to accept full responsibility for your actions. Just don't expect that your simply declaring that "the minimum speed is 50 to 55" should make it the "lawful minimum" or if not that, then an acceptable alternative to simply flowing along with the general consensus of prevailing speed at the time!

---

this is why I like the highways in my state. Speed max 70 trucks 55 minimum 45 I guess we should have tons more accidents and deaths than your state. I don't think that is true.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Could not be farther from the truth... There is solid proof that accident rates are higher at lower speeds! Or lower at higher speeds, depending on your perspective!



OK, so I exaggerated "to a couple of feet". Point is "impeding traffic" statutes exist for a reason. And I don't have to be behind him, in the same lane, with nothing between us. I maybe entering the freeway behind him, merging over to exit and I fall behind him, simply changing lanes for the heck of it...

But even with my so called "negligence", who's action contributed more? Clearly his... Simply because even with my negligence, and if I am driving at the same speed as the vehicles in front of me, then my distance from them remains relatively constant. Yet with the same amount of negligence that I exhibited before, I come across Mr. Slow-Poke... And now what!



Yes, kind a sorta... But not really.. a vehicle (motortruck) towing a trailer but there are other types:

22406. No person may drive any of the following vehicles on a highway at a speed in excess of 55 miles per hour:

(a) A motortruck or truck tractor having three or more axles or any motortruck or truck tractor drawing any other vehicle.
(b) A passenger vehicle or bus drawing any other vehicle.
(c) A schoolbus transporting any school pupil.
(d) A farm labor vehicle when transporting passengers.
(e) A vehicle transporting explosives.
(f) A trailer bus, as defined in Section 636.

Note it specifies: "motortruck" which is defined as:

410.

A "motor truck" or "motortruck" is a motor vehicle designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property.

Additionally;

465.

A "passenger vehicle" is any motor vehicle, other than a motortruck, truck tractor, or a bus, as defined in Section 233, and used or maintained for the transportation of persons. The term "passenger vehicle" shall include a housecar.

So really, your example isn't pertinent here but if it were, here is my reasoning, what I will see differently, presumably, if it is dark, (is it not?), I'll see an additional set of tail lights as well as reflectors as required by law.

If it isn't dark the visibility isn't an issue and I can probably avoid him. But really, should we have to swerve left and right to avoid ramming into him, when everybody else seems to be in compliance??



Right... But if you plan on driving at much lower than 55, then get off the freeway... Take the side streets or in the alternate, stay on the freeway, just don't complain about people passing you at a high rate of speed, (and don't flash me with your high beams after I pass you)... and if cited, take your lumps, pay your fine as part of the expense of wanting to be stubbornly happy. Call it a down payment on that segment of roadway until you can afford to buy it all! Seriously, if you feel justified by such actions, that is perfectly fine with me... Until one of two things happen:

1) If you're cited don't complain... Or worse,
2) You are a contributing factor to someone's injury or death!

Then it is time to accept full responsibility for your actions. Just don't expect that your simply declaring that "the minimum speed is 50 to 55" should make it the "lawful minimum" or if not that, then an acceptable alternative to simply flowing along with the general consensus of prevailing speed at the time!

---

Well, I don't make things up... I am going by what you said in your first post:



And 50 to 55 is certainly between 40 to 55.

So you're changing your mind now? You want to give us a different speed that you were driving?




Is that your way of saying you pay less attention to your surroundings and to the vehicles in front of you, and are more concerned about your speed AND the cars coming up on you from behind? It almost makes your heart sink when you see one coming up on you at double your speed, only to disappear out of your mirror's view a second or two before your car is just about to disintegrate!

Is that why you do it, drive so agonizingly slow... That's your rush?

---

I don't understand how "And 50 to 55 is certainly between 40 to 55."

I know how fast and how slow I would be going. The ones trying to pass me are obviously breaking the law by going over the posted speed limit. However, expecting from a old car which is perfectly legal to drive, you will be expecting a vehicle to be traveling at slower speeds comparing to a brand new car that can go from 1-60 in 5 seconds. If I was found to be a very OLD age which is still capable of driving , example at the age of 80 and perfectly healthy driving up in the highway who is a normal daytime driver that goes at the legal limit of 60-65 and stays on the right lane, do you expect the old person to instantly drive at the speed at 60-65 on a old car? What I am trying to point out that the officer must have thought I had been on the freeway traveling for more than 2 miles.

Compare two cars for example. A brand new 2012 any model car to a 1985 any model car and both legal and passed smog test. Which car do you think would travel from 0-65 instantly?


I'm thinking i'll lose the case so i think i'll just pay the ticket which shouldn't be over $200 hopefully.

Quote:

---

Quoting boo

---

I don't understand how "And 50 to 55 is certainly between 40 to 55."

---

The problem is that people tend to over/under estimate their speed to make them look better, and geneally assume the speed that they are accused of going was the speed they were going when they were pulled over, not when the officer first saw them.

Quote:

---

I know how fast and how slow I would be going. The ones trying to pass me are obviously breaking the law by going over the posted speed limit.

---

If you're going 55 in a 65 then there's a 10 mph range where I can pass you and still be going a legal speed. A 10 mph difference isn't small.

Quote:

---

However, expecting from a old car which is perfectly legal to drive, you will be expecting a vehicle to be traveling at slower speeds comparing to a brand new car that can go from 1-60 in 5 seconds. If I was found to be a very OLD age which is still capable of driving , example at the age of 80 and perfectly healthy driving up in the highway who is a normal daytime driver that goes at the legal limit of 60-65 and stays on the right lane, do you expect the old person to instantly drive at the speed at 60-65 on a old car? What I am trying to point out that the officer must have thought I had been on the freeway traveling for more than 2 miles.

Compare two cars for example. A brand new 2012 any model car to a 1985 any model car and both legal and passed smog test. Which car do you think would travel from 0-65 instantly?

---

I don't get what the age of the driver has to do with anything. However, how do you prove in court that you were speeding up as fast as you can? Furthermore, if you can't speed up in an appropriate amount of time, then your car is not appropriate for freeway speeds just as my car isn't appropriate for truck roads.

Quote:

---

I'm thinking i'll lose the case so i think i'll just pay the ticket which shouldn't be over $200 hopefully.

---

$35 base fine, which after penalty assessments and fees, comes out to about $230 give or take, and about $300 if you want to do traffic school.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

I think you missed one.

---

Ok, so we're going to get anal and argue semantics... Then, no, I did not miss one!

I was simply responding to your comment... THIS comment:

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

and aren't all vehicles with trailers required to remain 55 or below? What about a car towing a small trailer; what are you going to see different that if it were just a car that gives you all this warning?

---

A two part question asking if “all vehicles with trailers” are under the 55mph max speed provision, and a more specific question regarding a “car” towing a “small trailer”!

Therefore, my answer:

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Yes, kind a sorta... But not really.. a vehicle (motortruck) towing a trailer but there are other types:

22406. No person may drive any of the following vehicles on a highway at a speed in excess of 55 miles per hour:

(a) A motortruck or truck tractor having three or more axles or any motortruck or truck tractor drawing any other vehicle.
(b) A passenger vehicle or bus drawing any other vehicle.
(c) A schoolbus transporting any school pupil.
(d) A farm labor vehicle when transporting passengers.
(e) A vehicle transporting explosives.
(f) A trailer bus, as defined in Section 636.

---

… clearly answers the first part, i.e. not only vehicles with trailers, there are other types... And as for the part you bolded, a “passenger car” towing a 'passenger car” is NOT the same as a “passenger car” towing a “small trailer”, which is what you asked about in your hypothetical!

Let me save you the time of posing this other one. I would agree that you can use a “passenger car” along with a “small trailer” to tow another “passenger car”. However, that would then qualify as a “passenger car” towing a “passenger car” not a “passenger car” towing a “small trailer”!

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Quote:

---

Right... But if you plan on driving at much lower than 55, then get off the freeway... Take the side streets or in the alternate, stay on the freeway, just don't complain about people passing you at a high rate of speed, (and don't flash me with your high beams after I pass you)...

---

Oh, so you're one of those: if you aren't moving as fast as I want to go get the Hell out of the way, regardless what the legal speed limit is.

---

I think I was specific enough to indicate a minimum but not "my minimum"... I even suggested that driving 55 on a "freeway" -most of which are at 65- would be acceptable. So I'm not sure where you can draw that I expect every one to drive at my speed.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Quote:

---

Right... But if you plan on driving at much lower than 55, then get off the freeway... Take the side streets or in the alternate, stay on the freeway, just don't complain about people passing you at a high rate of speed, (and don't flash me with your high beams after I pass you)...

---

and I flash my lights to make the car that just passed me know it is clear to pull back over. It's called highway courtesy. Truckers sure seem to appreciate it.

---

We're talking "freeways", jk... Multi-lane limited access divided highways where when you're in lane #1 or lane #2, you pass someone in lane #2 or lane #3 respectively, you can in fact choose to merge in front of them but that was not what I was referring to. And if every time a vehicle passes you on the left or even on the right, you're going to flash your high-beams telling them its OK to merge in front of you, you can be sure that, in spite of your good intentions, you will get a few birds flying in your direction pulled over and cited for excessive use of highbeams. (n case you're wondering, its VC 24409(b)).

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Quote:

---

1) If you're cited don't complain... Or worse,
2) You are a contributing factor to someone's injury or death!

Then it is time to accept full responsibility for your actions. Just don't expect that your simply declaring that "the minimum speed is 50 to 55" should make it the "lawful minimum" or if not that, then an acceptable alternative to simply flowing along with the general consensus of prevailing speed at the time!

---

this is why I like the highways in my state. Speed max 70 trucks 55 minimum 45 I guess we should have tons more accidents and deaths than your state. I don't think that is true.

---

Are you even posting in reference to whats quoted?

If so, and assuming your state has those limits declared by statute or by posting, then yes, you likely do have higher accident rates than in my state simply because you're allowing such a wide range of speeds on the same highway. This isn't really that difficult to establish jk but for some reason or another you're choosing to nit pick here. Great... Explain to me then how do I differentiate which lane am I allowed to drive at 45mph while I am on a highway where the statutory maximum is 70mph?
Is it the sort of set up where “slower traffic must keep right”? And does your state prohibit driving in the left most lane? i.e. is that only for passing?
Is it possible that you could be driving at 45mph in the right lane where as I am in the lane next to you driving at 65-70 mph?
If the answer there is "yes", then can you not picture a situation where either you are forced into my lane or I am forced into your lane?
If yes, then as a result, can you see the potential outcome of mixing that range of speeds on one highway?
And how it might turn out REALLY bad for one of us, possibly for both of us?
And, lastly, if "yes" again, can you understand why it is safer (meaning will likely result in less accidents) if vehicles that may opt to drive the SLOWER speeds were to stay off of highways where prevailing speeds are HIGHER...
If yes, then why are you arguing that you don't think its true?

California does not have a statutory minimum (allowable) speed.
That does not mean you can drive at whatever speed you like.
Minimum speed limits are lawful when posted. Therefore, you get on a highway where the statutory limit is 65 or 70, you CANNOT (I'll repeat the same wording from ^that^ quote) simply declare that "the minimum speed is 50 to 55" and that then becomes the lawful minimum just because you want it to be!

Fact is, CaliforniaStudent cited the 55mph speed as an example and a possible "out' for the OP in this situation...
But in reality, and you yourself, jk, recognized this, the 55mph speed pursuant to VC 22406 is NOT a minimum speed. Its the opposite. It is the MAXIMUM speed allowed for the vehicles described in 22406. That does not mean that CS can get in his Daddy's Oldsmobile and drive 50 to 55mph and declare that as the "minimum speed" for that highway! He needs to pick it up, drive at the limit or along with what the prevailing speed is at the time, otherwise risk getting pulled over and getting cited.

And yes, while it would be easy to suggest that it is possible that some vehicle could be driving at 55mph, and therefore some sympathy and understanding might be due the OP for getting cited, the fact still remains that the OP was not driving a vehicle described in 22406 and hence he is not subject to the speeds mandated under 22406.
Instead, he is subject to two statutes, the basic speed law and the statute setting the maximum speed for his type of vehicle.
That means, he has to drive at prevailing speeds or at the statutory limit or close thereto it, depending on what conditions are allowing at the time.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting boo

---

What I am trying to point out that the officer must have thought I had been on the freeway traveling for more than 2 miles.

---

And you would be free to question him about what he thought versus what he saw at the trial, if you choose to contest it. Point is, it should not matter how long you were on or whether it was for a half a mile or 200 miles. The code section you were charged with simply prohibits ANY driver (noyt just young or just old) from driving ANY vehile (not necessarily a 1985 but not a 2013 either) at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic. You yourself stated that although you were only on for a short time, there were vehicles passing you at higher speeds. And that establishes that (1) you were driving slow and by doing so you were (2) impeding the reasonable movement of traffic! And as is always the case, there are exceptions to this rule, none of which apply to you unfortunately!, unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation, because of a grade, or in compliance with law.

Quote:

---

Quoting boo

---

Compare two cars for example. A brand new 2012 any model car to a 1985 any model car and both legal and passed smog test. Which car do you think would travel from 0-65 instantly?

---

Is this a trick question?

Just kidding, I think California Student answered this perfectly...

Quote:

---

Quoting boo

---

I'm thinking i'll lose the case so i think i'll just pay the ticket which shouldn't be over $200 hopefully.

---

While I wholeheartedly agree that you will likely lose this case if it were to go the full route, and at the risk of sounding like hypocrite, I still think you should contest it!

Still, in this day and age, people will bleed the system dry before submitting to this fine. Why should you!

I'm almost tempted to not post until the forum software get's fixed.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Ok, so we're going to get anal and argue semantics... Then, no, I did not miss one!

I was simply responding to your comment... THIS comment:



A two part question asking if “all vehicles with trailers” are under the 55mph max speed provision, and a more specific question regarding a “car” towing a “small trailer”!

Therefore, my answer:



… clearly answers the first part, i.e. not only vehicles with trailers, there are other types... And as for the part you bolded, a “passenger car” towing a 'passenger car” is NOT the same as a “passenger car” towing a “small trailer”, which is what you asked about in your hypothetical!

Let me save you the time of posing this other one. I would agree that you can use a “passenger car” along with a “small trailer” to tow another “passenger car”. However, that would then qualify as a “passenger car” towing a “passenger car” not a “passenger car” towing a “small trailer”!

---

A trailer is, by definition, a vehicle.

670. A "vehicle" is a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.

and

630. A "trailer" is a vehicle designed for carrying persons or property on its own structure and for being drawn by a motor vehicle and so constructed that no part of its weight rests upon any other vehicle. As used in Division 15 (commencing with Section 35000), "trailer" includes a semitrailer when used in conjunction with an auxiliary dolly, if the auxiliary dolly is of a type constructed to replace the function of the drawbar and the front axle or axles of a trailer.

So a passenger car towing a small trailer would fall under 22406(b)

Quote:

---

Fact is, CaliforniaStudent cited the 55mph speed as an example and a possible "out' for the OP in this situation...
But in reality, and you yourself, jk, recognized this, the 55mph speed pursuant to VC 22406 is NOT a minimum speed. Its the opposite. It is the MAXIMUM speed allowed for the vehicles described in 22406. That does not mean that CS can get in his Daddy's Oldsmobile and drive 50 to 55mph and declare that as the "minimum speed" for that highway! He needs to pick it up, drive at the limit or along with what the prevailing speed is at the time, otherwise risk getting pulled over and getting cited.

And yes, while it would be easy to suggest that it is possible that some vehicle could be driving at 55mph, and therefore some sympathy and understanding might be due the OP for getting cited, the fact still remains that the OP was not driving a vehicle described in 22406 and hence he is not subject to the speeds mandated under 22406.

---

...and that was what I posted about when I brought up 22406. He wasn't drawing another vehicle (which includes trailers), therefore it doesn't apply to him directly. If I absolutely had to go to court to fight this, though, that's the only thing directly related to the offense that I can think of that could be brought up. However if I ever get a ticket for 22400, it's because I'm going the speed limit in the number 2 lane, which gives me the defense of "as required by law." Furthermore, there's the procedural issue of the ticket not complying with 40503 since speed (or lack there of) is an issue in this case.

Quote:

---

Ok, so we're going to get anal and argue semantics... Then, no, I did not miss one!

:

---

semantics? Not hardly. I asked if not all vehicles towing a trailer were required to drive <55 in response to you not being able to see a car yet you could see a big ol' truck. You then cited the law but pointed to only the section speaking to trucks. I merely pointed out the part specific to any vehicle towing a vehicle (which I believe a trailer, any trailer falls under) also requires said vehicles to drive <55. The point being it defeats your argument that you would see the big ol' truck and but not the possible vehicles restricted to driving <55 is simply a car with a trailer (and for impressing the point, imagine a trailer used to haul something like a lawn tractor but without the tractor on it. It will be about 2 feet high). There is nothing really more noticeable of such a vehicle over just a car. In fact, due to the low height, the trailer will often not be seen. Then where are you.


Semantics? no. Specific facts.

To add to my post above regarding definitions, a "utility trailer" is a better term than "trailer," however both are "vehicles" under the vehicle code.

667. (a) A "utility trailer" is a trailer or semitrailer used
solely for the transportation of the user's personal property, not in
commerce, which does not exceed a gross weight of 10,000 pounds or a
manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a "utility trailer" includes
a trailer or semitrailer designed and used for the transportation of
livestock, not in commerce, which does not exceed a gross weight of
10,000 pounds or a manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating of
10,000 pounds.

thanks california kid.


I guess, according to that guy, there should be innumerable accidents on road such as, oh, maybe the autobahn simply due to the speed disparity, right? I think you will find that due to the more well trained driver, you do not have near as many accidents caused by speed disparity as you do in the US. That goes back to my point: if you aren't paying attention to where you are going, the speed disparity is a problem.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

And yes, while it would be easy to suggest that it is possible that some vehicle could be driving at 55mph, and therefore some sympathy and understanding might be due the OP for getting cited, the fact still remains that the OP was not driving a vehicle described in 22406 and hence he is not subject to the speeds mandated under 22406.
Instead, he is subject to two statutes, the basic speed law and the statute setting the maximum speed for his type of vehicle.
That means, he has to drive at prevailing speeds or at the statutory limit or close thereto it, depending on what conditions are allowing at the time

---

I was most certainly driving a "Passenger Vehicle" which states under the law that it any speed over 55+ mph for passenger vehicle.

Code:

---

Maximum Speed for Designated Vehicles

22406.  No person may drive any of the following vehicles on a highway
at a speed in excess of 55 miles per hour:

(b) A passenger vehicle or bus drawing any other vehicle.

---

Here, I found another law which is for right lane only.

Driving at the minimum at 55mph.

Code:

---

A person driving at less than the normal speed of traffic
shall drive in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as
practicable to the right-hand edge or curb.
Veh. Code §21654(a)

---

Quote:

---

Quoting boo

---

I was most certainly driving a "Passenger Vehicle" which states under the law that it any speed over 55+ mph for passenger vehicle.

Code:

---

Maximum Speed for Designated Vehicles

22406.  No person may drive any of the following vehicles on a highway
at a speed in excess of 55 miles per hour:

(b) A passenger vehicle or bus drawing any other vehicle.

---

---

So were you "drawing any other vehicle." If you weren't towing anything, then that statute doesn't apply.

Quote:

---

Here, I found another law which is for right lane only.

Driving at the minimum at 55mph.

---

You've never established a statutory minimum of 55.

Quote:

---

Code:

---

A person driving at less than the normal speed of traffic
shall drive in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as
practicable to the right-hand edge or curb.
Veh. Code §21654(a)

---

---

...but you weren't charged with that section of the vehicle code.

Quote:

---

Quoting California student

---

So were you "drawing any other vehicle." If you weren't towing anything, then that statute doesn't apply.

---

It doesn't say that you have to be towing anything does it? Show me since I don't understand you.

Quote:

---

Quoting California student

---

You've never established a statutory minimum of 55.

---

Um, its not hard to keep your speed at 55 the entire time of your trip.

Quote:

---

Quoting California student

---

...but you weren't charged with that section of the vehicle code.

---

[/QUOTE]
yeah I know. but my ticket is still bogus. i believe i wasn't impeding traffic at all.

Quote:

---

Quoting boo

---

It doesn't say that you have to be towing anything does it? Show me since I don't understand you.

---

Define the word "drawing" as used in the following sentence.

"(b) A passenger vehicle or bus drawing any other vehicle."

Quote:

---

Um, its not hard to keep your speed at 55 the entire time of your trip.

---

Umm, show me in the law where 55 is set as the minimum speed. Show me someplace in the law where it's legal to impede traffic because you're going 55. If you were impeding traffic while going the speed limit, then there's a built in defense of "in compliance with law." Similarly, there's no law that says, "You can't be impeding traffic if you're going faster than ______."

Quote:

---

yeah I know. but my ticket is still bogus. i believe i wasn't impeding traffic at all.

---

It doesn't matter what you believe. It matters what the judge believes.

Quote:

---

Quoting California student

---

Define the word "drawing" as used in the following sentence.

"(b) A passenger vehicle or bus drawing any other vehicle."



Umm, show me in the law where 55 is set as the minimum speed. Show me someplace in the law where it's legal to impede traffic because you're going 55. If you were impeding traffic while going the speed limit, then there's a built in defense of "in compliance with law." Similarly, there's no law that says, "You can't be impeding traffic if you're going faster than ______."


It doesn't matter what you believe. It matters what the judge believes.

---

well i probably wont go to court with this ticket. i dont have good communication skills to tell the judge what happen or thinking im lying. its probably going to cost another $200 to go to court so i'll skip that and Just going to pay the fine and go traffic school.

cop told me I was going 40mph with his radar gun or something he used or he used his speed meter while following me on his vehicle. such total bs

Quote:

---

Quoting California student

---

A trailer is, by definition, a vehicle.

670. A "vehicle" is a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.

and

630. A "trailer" is a vehicle designed for carrying persons or property on its own structure and for being drawn by a motor vehicle and so constructed that no part of its weight rests upon any other vehicle. As used in Division 15 (commencing with Section 35000), "trailer" includes a semitrailer when used in conjunction with an auxiliary dolly, if the auxiliary dolly is of a type constructed to replace the function of the drawbar and the front axle or axles of a trailer.

So a passenger car towing a small trailer would fall under 22406(b)




...and that was what I posted about when I brought up 22406. He wasn't drawing another vehicle (which includes trailers), therefore it doesn't apply to him directly. If I absolutely had to go to court to fight this, though, that's the only thing directly related to the offense that I can think of that could be brought up. However if I ever get a ticket for 22400, it's because I'm going the speed limit in the number 2 lane, which gives me the defense of "as required by law." Furthermore, there's the procedural issue of the ticket not complying with 40503 since speed (or lack there of) is an issue in this case.

---

CS, seriously... I don't disagree that some comments I made were confusing maybe even confused. And don't get me wrong, you have some valuable contributions in this thread, and its not my place to complain. But lets go back to the top, and aside from confusing boo and throwing this thread into a whirlwind, how has this talk of trailers, towing and posting 22406 helped anyone?

Do you STILL seriously think it is acceptable for the OP (or you, if you happened to get cited for impeding) to go to court and utilize the defense of "your honor, if I was towing a trailer, I would be required to drive at 55, and while its true I was driving slower than that, and although I was not towing anything, I still feel this case should be dismissed"!

Seriously...

But let me elaborate. Fact is jk hasn't offered much or contributed anything beneficial in this thread either. Instead, he has opted to critique, misquote, misinterpret, point fingers and act self righteous even though his observation skills are lacking even more.

The point I was trying to make in the paragraphs you quoted is as follows:
The presumption here is that it is dark, because during daylight hours and much to jk's disappointment, I could hopefully see a trailer if there was one!

But even under dark conditions, the vehicle code requires that the trailer have a set of taillights, and that those function as or in addition to a set of brake lights, turn signals and reflectors required to make the trailer "plainly visible" from 1000 feet, so while it maybe difficult to see the extra set of lights at a distance, they are visible as you approach. And if you're driving at 65-70, (equals ~ 100 fps) approaching someone who is well below the 65-70 speed everyone is moving, well, you're coming up fast, and might only have a few seconds to react or change lanes... And again, THAT is what makes his action of driving well below the floe of traffic, dangerous , NOT my "negligence".

---

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

semantics?

---

I couldn't think of a word for silly semantics...

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Not hardly.

---

You mean “hardly”... if you're disagreeing that it is semantics, then it would be “hardly”, not “not hardly”!

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

I asked if not all vehicles towing a trailer were required to drive <55

---

Hmmm. interesting how in a discussion where you're trying to assert that you're more observant, you mention ^that^ part, but not the part that is more closely related to “passenger vehicles i.e. a car” (the answer you're critiquing). Here is the question that followed:

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

What about a car towing a small trailer; what are you going to see different that if it were just a car that gives you all this warning?

---

So aside from your claim that I missed one, and no I didn't specifically highlight, underline, bold it out, what is your point? Do you even have a point? In reality, no, I didn't specifically hit on any subsection, none of the appear to be highlighted, bolded, underlined or in anyway shape or form, marked differently. And even if I did, how much difference would it have made? It did not change a single thing. You didn't even tread and even read the following paragraph though my specifically pointing to that one would not (or should I say did not*) change a single thing, is there a point to all of this?

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

in response to you not being able to see a car yet you could see a big ol' truck.

---

Yet another mistaken observation (please mark as #2)... I never mentioned "big ol' trucks”, or regular trucks for that matter! Here is what I posted:

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Either way, Even at 55, it is impeding traffic simply because as i approach from behind, I don't see a vehicle that is required to drive at 55 and I don't see a trailer... And not until I am feet from his bumper, do I realize that this guy owns this lane... This is why it becomes dangerous!

---

Side Note: So he's breaking the law... And the only thing you can come up with is it is MY negligence that caused this? Really? Not sure what's worse, your observational skills or your conclusions!

Anyways, since I never mentioned trucks, and for you still counting sat home, ^this one^ should be marked as #3!

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

You then cited the law but pointed to only the section speaking to trucks. I merely pointed out the part specific to any vehicle towing a vehicle

---

Dude, you really need to get your eyes checked. Post #22; Look at VC section 22406, scroll through all of its subsections, you'll then see that I posted the definition of "motor truck" VC 410, followed by posting VC 465, the definition of "passenger vehicle"... (Do you miss that part Mr. Observant)? So yes, I did cite the law BUT I cited BOTH sections relating to trucks and passenger cars! That is the way comparisons work; you post one, then the other and then you offer a conclusion!

And the conclusion here is that you posted just for the sake of being a prick, and as it turns out, you're making a fool of yourself.

But wait, I'm not done yet. There is still more smack. All of ^^THAT^^ was only 1 ½ lines... Lets see what other ways you made yourself look ridiculous... That makes for #4, by the way!

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

I merely pointed out the part specific to any vehicle towing a vehicle

---

O'... I think I see number 5... Yuppp... There it is indeed; please mark this one as #5!

And NUMBER FFIVE turns out to be a BIG one...

The subsection you pointed out is NOT refer to "any vehicle towing a vehicle"...
The subsection you pointed out is specific to "a passenger vehicle or bus towing another vehicle".

So how could I have “missed one”, (the one you so kindly highlighted for everyone) when in fact, the only reason why I posted 22406 was so that I can post the definition in passenger vehicles” and tie that one into your question about “cars”??? And see, I did mention it, * but did it change a thing? Nope. It certainly has not proven that your observation skills are any better than mine.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

which I believe a trailer, any trailer falls under) also requires said vehicles to drive <55. The point being it defeats your argument that you would see the big ol' truck and but not the possible vehicles restricted to driving <55 is simply a car with a trailer (and for impressing the point, imagine a trailer used to haul something like a lawn tractor but without the tractor on it. It will be about 2 feet high). There is nothing really more noticeable of such a vehicle over just a car. In fact, due to the low height, the trailer will often not be seen. Then where are you.

---

I already answered this clearly and specifically. And I would answer it again but I am torn between keeping it simple and short for those of us suffering from A.D.D. Or if I should offer a detailed explanation. Well, if you know mr you know I'm all about thee details

In fact, let me impress the point even more. You suggested a trailer that is used to haul a lawn tractor... Well that could possibly be a two wheeler but it is certainly several feet long...

(And don't let the size of the photos fool you. The first one is probably 5 feet long with the ramp/gate up like that, the second one is probably 3 feet or so from the front of the wheels back).

Sort of like this one:

http://media.tractorsupply.com/is/im...y/1090202?$bv$

I'll even oblige your point and offer that we can use a smaller trailer as an example... Lets assume a short two wheeler used to tow a car... More commonly referred to as a "car dolly", sort of like this one:

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...46oDo5c9QxwXJB

A trailer (or a two dolly) as in the second picture, with or without a load, however which way you care to describe it, would not only require a set of tail lights, but that those work as or in conjunction with a set of turn signals, a set of brake lights and a set of reflectors. And hence, to me at least, and even if it is towed by a passenger car, it would be sufficiently MORE noticeable than just a passenger car, with nothing in tow. Depending on its size, weight, type of construction... etc, a trailer may even have its own license plate.

All of a sudden, that "negligence" comment is seemingly becoming more and more out of place, don't you think!

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Semantics? no. Specific facts.

---

If your definition of "specific facts" are made up of misquotes, statements taken out of context, you changing your mind on what you were asking then you are right on. If its even remotely related to you being too busy pointing fingers you forgot to check yourself, if it was part of you getting on here with your self righteous hateful act, then you may be correct. But how would you be consistent if you made all those mistakes and were right at the end! So no... Its not “specific facts, jk, instead, it is sillyu stupid commentary that really offers no one a shred of benefit. I'd be lying to say I didn't enjoy it though. A break from the monotony of traffic law and yet, we all learned something! Hopefully...

Sometimes, the gifts keep on giving... So lets see jk's next post!

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

I guess, according to that guy, there should be innumerable accidents on road such as, oh, maybe the autobahn simply due to the speed disparity, right? I think you will find that due to the more well trained driver, you do not have near as many accidents caused by speed disparity as you do in the US. That goes back to my point: if you aren't paying attention to where you are going, the speed disparity is a problem.

---

Clearly, you misunderstood my comment about accidents and speed limits. And no, its not according to me, if you must know it was several studies conducted by governmental agencies in several states including several state's D.O.T., the NHTSA, the IIHS... etc. I would post some links but it is quite apparent by now that too much information gets you all lost and confused.

Your first comment in this thread, which is what started this entire discussion was this:

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Ya gotta love it. Using the argument "I was just keeping up with traffic" doesn't get you out of a ticket but if the speed limit is 55 and everybody is driving 75 except for you, you can get a ticket for not keeping up with traffic.

---

For starters, the answer to "I was just keeping up with traffic" is that it isn't likely to work simply because it is either not true or that driver ended up being the unlucky one because the officer opted to only stop him -or as we say, he couldn't stop everybody. But secondly, where do you get the idea that -in this thread- the speed limit was 55 and everybody was driving 75?

You're also misinterpreting what I said suggesting it there would be a high number of accidents... Fact is, there aren't that many accidents simply because no one would dare drive at slightly above ½ the speed limit.

You mentioned the autobahn... Is that the only example you could think of? Are you suggesting that you would be able to drive at 2/3rd the prevailing speed if you were on the autobahn?

And lastly, regarding your paying attention comment, I think I justified my position and backed it up with good arguments. All while you sat there and tried to change what was said and how it was posted. Fact is in this state, the legislature seems to disagree with you considering the fact that we do not have a “careless driving” statute. Apparently paying attention when one is driving is a presumption that is in place. And although the penal code and vehicle code make it quite clear that “intent” is not requirement to proving guilt, instead, they opted to penalize those acts that are clearly intentional such as driving at much lower speed than the statutory limit and even much lower than prevailing speeds. How do I know? I've never heard of anyone who was cited for not paying attention! Maybe that happens in your state... People just go about their daily lives living in a daze!

So guess what, in that scenario I posed where I am only feet away from a slow poke before I realize I have to merge out of that lane, and if I happen to collide with him instead. He'll likely get nothing for my so called “negligence”. While I clean him out for driving at an unsafe speed and/or impeding traffic!

---

Quote:

---

Quoting boo

---

cop told me I was going 40mph with his radar gun or something he used or he used his speed meter while following me on his vehicle. such total bs

---

So I really wasn't that far off when I suggested:

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

is it conceivable that this could possibly be 45 to 50 instead of 50 to 55? Maybe even 40 to 45? It sure is...

---

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Do you STILL seriously think it is acceptable for the OP (or you, if you happened to get cited for impeding) to go to court and utilize the defense of "your honor, if I was towing a trailer, I would be required to drive at 55, and while its true I was driving slower than that, and although I was not towing anything, I still feel this case should be dismissed"!

Seriously...

---

As I said when I brought that up, the obvious answer is that 'he isn't drawing another vehicle,' thus the argument doesn't apply. However it's definitely a better argument than, "I thought the minimum speed limit was 55, therefore I was going 55," or the even worse argument of, "Wait, the speed limit is 55 for everyone, right?" I have no doubt that that argument would fall on it's face, but if I had absolutely nothing else to go on and insisted on going to court, that's exactly what I would argue. However for something like this at most I would show up at arraignment and ask for a reduction and traffic school, unless I wanted to spin the Wheel of CHP Fortune.

Of course part of the problem is the selective reading of people asking for help. They read the first half of a post and think, "Jackpot!" but miss the second part which reads, "Obvious response (you're not towing anything) is obvious (ergo it doesn't apply)."

But let me elaborate. Fact is jk hasn't offered much or contributed anything beneficial in this thread either. Instead, he has opted to critique, misquote, misinterpret, point fingers and act self righteous even though his observation skills are lacking even more.

Quote:

---

The point I was trying to make in the paragraphs you quoted is as follows:
The presumption here is that it is dark, because during daylight hours and much to jk's disappointment, I could hopefully see a trailer if there was one!

But even under dark conditions, the vehicle code requires that the trailer have a set of taillights, and that those function as or in addition to a set of brake lights, turn signals and reflectors required to make the trailer "plainly visible" from 1000 feet, so while it maybe difficult to see the extra set of lights at a distance, they are visible as you approach. And if you're driving at 65-70, (equals ~ 100 fps) approaching someone who is well below the 65-70 speed everyone is moving, well, you're coming up fast, and might only have a few seconds to react or change lanes... And again, THAT is what makes his action of driving well below the floe of traffic, dangerous , NOT my "negligence".

---

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, but now we're getting into an argument of driving style vs legal requirements which I'd be happy to discuss via PM to keep the thread from being bloated further than it already is.

I just received my courtesy notice and my only two options for request court appearance :

Arraignment : Appearance to hear your charges, advisement of rights and entry of plea

Court Trial : Contest the citation

I am not eligible for Trial by Declaration but should I fill one out anyways with bail money?

Quote:

---

Quoting boo

---

I just received my courtesy notice and my only two options for request court appearance :

Arraignment : Appearance to hear your charges, advisement of rights and entry of plea

Court Trial : Contest the citation

I am not eligible for Trial by Declaration but should I fill one out anyways with bail money?

---

Read this thread: Ineligible for Trial by Written Declaration, especially the part the starts with "Hold The Presses" in post 5 and post back if its the same thing!


If its not the same thing, redact personal information and post a scan/picture of the courtesy notice.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Read this thread: Ineligible for Trial by Written Declaration, especially the part the starts with "Hold The Presses" in post 5 and post back if its the same thing!


If its not the same thing, redact personal information and post a scan/picture of the courtesy notice.

---

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/5904/editedht.jpg

Here's my courtesy notice. I found your post which was on the 6th or 7th post.

You want me to do these step by step to filing a TBD.

Complete the basic info on a TR-205.
Print 2 copies of the form.
Go to court.
Take both copies with you to court along with a check for the bail amount. (write "not guilty TRWD request + bail for [citation Number]" on the Memo part of the check).
Turn one in with the clerk and have him/her stamp your copy with a date stamp (It'll show the court's name, the date, the word "FILED" and the clerk's name for your county).
Now you get to wait for your TBD form in the mail (or they might complete it -write in the due date and the bail amount they received- and give it right back to you).

As for filing a discovery request, when should this be filed by? As soon as possible? I have already my discovery request form ready and don't know when exactly to turn it in or do with it.