Can You Defend Against a Speeding Ticket by Arguing that the Signs are Unfair

Quote:

---

Quoting free9man

---

If you scan the survey and post it here, using a file-hosting service, folks can see if there are any avenues for you to pursue.

---

Here it is:

Page 1:

https://anonfiles.com/file/f1588c876...67e924037c9518

Page 2:

https://anonfiles.com/file/3edf160e1...cf4a3516d20e80

Thanks in advance.

Can you somehow post what you got or post a link to what you got?

I thought critical speed should be a number, not a range of numbers. It should simply be the 85th %ile speed. If the critical speed is 38 mph or higher in the 30 mph zone and you were measured with radar/lidar in that zone, I think you have a case.

Are the pace speeds for different directions? The pace range is always 10 mph. I'm not sure that the pace range has any legal significance for how the speed limit is set.

I don't understand accident rate data. Someone else would need to chime in there.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

I'm pretty sure he read the particulars. The problem is that many posters think their situation is unique and that the details they believe are important really are not. The issue will come down to whether the speed was posted, whether the posted speed was appropriate based upon the survey, or whether you can make an argument that your speed was NOT unsafe given the conditions at the time.


Who's preaching what? That people should be responsible for their actions? Sure. That form of advice is free just like the legal advice.

---

If he had read the particulars, he wouldn't have suggested to "simply pay the fine and take traffic school." That didn't apply to this case, unique or not.

Furthermore, your assertion that "people should be responsible for their actions" is a non sequitur. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. There's no reason to assume that I (or anyone else posting here) is trying to avoid or evade responsibility. If the ticket is fair beyond reasonable doubt, I'll pay the fine right away like I've done every time I've received a fine or parking ticket in my life. I do not believe it is, and it is my constitutional right to defend myself. I believe that is what this site is about.

No one said that you did not have a right to take the matter to court - not even TG. However, it serves no one's interest if they are not made aware of the predicament they are in. Many people that come here do not understand that an attorney might cost many times more than the cost of the citation. Many who come here also assume that they will have the same option of traffic school after they challenge a citation at trial when this is simply not true. And, even though you have the right to challenge a citation it does not mean that you are not guilty, and the volunteers that post here are certainly free to post their opinions as to whether or not you should "man up," as it were.

Yes, you can defend yourself as is your right. But, the system is somewhat stacked against you and weighing all the options and costs is something you seriously need to consider. If you have, and the lost time at work and the cost of an attorney is worth the principle to you, more power to you. For many people, the cost of an attorney alone would be sufficient to simply plead out.

Good luck.

Thanks for posting what you got.

It's not the standard survey form with a count of traffic, but I think the bottom line is that it shows a critical speed of 30-31 mph in the 30 mph zone.
That means that 85% of the traffic was going at or less than 31mph.
That justifies the 30 mph speed limit.

I'm somewhat confused by the way the line the blue line is over 40 mph in regions where the speed limit is 30 mph. I'm not sure it would matter, though, if the prosecution just points to the critical speed number of 31 mph, and your case is sunk.

To answer the subject of the thread, yes, you can defend against a speeding ticket by arguing that the signs are unfair (provided you were measured by radar or laser), but if the prosecution can demonstrate that you were going noticeably faster than 85% of the traffic, your argument will fail.

At least now you know you were going faster than 85% of the traffic was, so you no longer need to feel like you should defend yourself on principle.

good luck,
Derek

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, one last thought,
While the court is not required to allow you to take traffic school in lieu of a point, they do have the authority to allow you to take traffic school even if you've used that option in the last 18 months.
Some have found that simply by going to an arraignment you can get the traffic school option if you plead guilty. Of course, you need to physically appear and you can't then do a trial, but it might be worth a chance to save a point.

I'm not sure. The critical speed is between 40 and 45 where the 30 zone starts, and then decreases. The ticket says "intersection of School St" which is a few hundred feet after that, and the line has not bottomed out yet (it seems to be around 35). Would that have any impact? Wouldn't this come down to precisely where the measurement was taken? It's a very short stretch of road.

Also, the officer said that he clocked me entering into town, and I was speeding up again as I left town. The implicit assumption is that I was slowing down. He even said I "seemed to have hit the brakes when I saw him" which wasn't the case because I only saw him when he lit up his lights behind me (I had no idea it was a patrol car behind me before that). It is reasonable to assume that the reading he got was when I entered his visibility zone, right after the curve. The transition point between 45 and 30 is where the critical speed is obviously the highest.

I can't tell you. I have tried fighting exactly one speeding ticket, and the results won't be back for several weeks. I think I have a good case, but some on these forums told me I don't.

I don't think School St. helps your case much. I think the traffic engineer only needs to do one survey per section of road. I'm guessing that one survey found a critical speed of 30 mph going one way and 31 mph going the other way, and it looks like that speed is listed awfully close to School St. So, no, I don't think it does come down to precisely where the measurement was taken. It comes down to precisely what the critical speed was in the most recent speed survey for that section of road, and I doubt that their road sections are defined in 0.02 mile increments. (0.5 mile increments is good).

Anyway, if you listen to people on this forum, many will tell nearly everyone that they don't have a case.
If you listen to the internet, websites like helpigotaticket, and various services that claim they can help you get your ticket dismissed, it seems that a noticeable fraction of tickets are dismissed (10%? 20%? more?).

If you don't want to try the approach of arraignment to hope for traffic school, you haven't lost much by trying a trial be declaration.

For what it's worth (zero), I have zero knowledge of the system, but I'd bet that you'd lose.

It seems to me that there could be other avenues. For example, what exactly constitutes speeding? An instant measurement of speed is meaningless, I would assume that you need to be clocked over a certain distance. What distance was I measured over? What proof does the officer have that I was actually going the speed he says I was? If somebody has asked me as I drove, I would have said I was *sure* that I wasn't speeding. That's why this ticket feels wrong to me; I was trying *really* hard to follow all speed limit signs only days after attending traffic school. I was *very* alert, and now I'm afraid to drive through the same place again. It's possible he made a mistake or measured the wrong car, but I don't know if or how I could prove that.

You can seek radar or lidar info through discovery as well as request a copy of any notes or reports prepared related to the stop. His notes might give some insight as to how your speed was measured.

Quote:

---

Quoting climber

---

It seems to me that there could be other avenues.

---

Not looking good.

Quote:

---

Quoting climber

---

For example, what exactly constitutes speeding?

---

Operating the vehicle in excess of the posted limit for any amount of time, except where statutorily allowed like passing in some jurisdictions.

Quote:

---

Quoting climber

---

An instant measurement of speed is meaningless,

---

No, it's not. It shows that you are in fact speeding.

Quote:

---

Quoting climber

---

I would assume that you need to be clocked over a certain distance.

---

Nope. Technically the officer has already determined you are speeding through visual estimation and is verifying it with the SMD.

Quote:

---

Quoting climber

---

What distance was I measured over?

---

Matters not unless you were tagged outside the 30MPH.

Quote:

---

Quoting climber

---

What proof does the officer have that I was actually going the speed he says I was?

---

Their word, which is generally considered better than a defendant's because they has nothing at risk.

Quote:

---

Quoting climber

---

If somebody has asked me as I drove, I would have said I was *sure* that I wasn't speeding.

---

You have already stated that you didn't realize you were in a 30MPH zone so you were assuming you were in a 45 and would have been going near that speed. Any of which are in excess of 30MPH.

Quote:

---

Quoting climber

---

That's why this ticket feels wrong to me; I was trying *really* hard to follow all speed limit signs only days after attending traffic school.

---

You failed to pay adequate attention to the road and missed the 30MPH signs. That means you were speeding and breaking the law.

Quote:

---

Quoting climber

---

I was *very* alert, and now I'm afraid to drive through the same place again.

---

Why? You now know about the speed limits in the area. Remain alert and you will be fine.

Quote:

---

Quoting climber

---

It's possible he made a mistake or measured the wrong car, but I don't know if or how I could prove that.

---

Were there any other cars he might have measured? Again, by your own admission you DID NOT know you were in a 30 and thus the logical conclusion is you were going closer to 45 and thus were speeding. To cast doubt on the officer's testimony will require taking it all the way to trial, preferably with a lawyer's assistance.

There is also the option, as previously pointed out, of trying to establish that your speed was safe even though you were exceeding the limit.