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

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

This is my first post here, so please forgive me if I'm making any obvious mistakes.

I'm in my forties, and prior to 2012 I had only had one moving violation in my life (speeding ticket over ten years ago). Never had an accident. Late last year I got a speeding ticket in Mono County, California. I paid it and completed traffic school a few days ago. On Friday night I was driving on the same road for the second time ever, paying attention to all posted signs because I didn't want to get another ticket. It was very dark (no moon), sub-zero temperatures, and quite a bit of snow on the ground. Clear skies, no wind. Quite a bit of traffic because it was the beginning of a long weekend. Many trucks on the road.

I was driving southbound on a stretch of US 395 where the default speed limit is 65. As I approached the town of Bridgeport, CA, I saw a sign for 55 and shortly after one for 45, so I slowed down accordingly. As I was leaving town I saw the lights of a police officer behind me, so I pulled over. The officer said that I was over the speed limit, which was a complete surprise to me. He also said that I appeared to have slammed on the brakes when I saw him, which was not true; I was completely unaware of him until he lit up behind me. He pulled me over between a 45 and a 55 sign leaving town.

It turns out there is a stretch of 1/2 mile where the speed limit is 30. I measured it with my odometer several times on my way back yesterday. There are two signs related to the speed limit coming into town, none in town:

http://i.imgur.com/DhKVVgL.png

http://i.imgur.com/iJ4upnN.png

On the half-mile stretch of 30 there are no stop signs or traffic lights, no speed bumps or rumble strips, no flashing lights, etc. The crosswalks are very faint, hard to see at night. The impression I get is that they don't want to slow people down, instead they want people to go over the speed limit so they can issue tickets. The second sign above is not even properly pointed towards the road in my opinion, and it would be really easy to miss (for example if you were driving three seconds behind a truck).

The officer said he clocked me at 44 coming into town (whatever that means for a 1/2 mile town) and when he pulled me over near the 55 sign he said I had sped up to 48. I don't even think I was going that fast, and there were other cars and trucks on the road. Is it possible he got the wrong car? I drive a relatively nice car, if that means anything. He wrote me up for 40 on a 30 zone.

During the same night and on my way back I saw an unusual number of patrol cars looking for people speeding. When I was driving 55 on a 55 zone earlier that night a car tailgated me for a while, then passed me brusquely over a double yellow line and tailed the car in front of me. I saw it was a police SUV. It seemed like it was trying to get the car ahead to speed. After a minute or so the car hadn't accelerated, and the police SUV made an unsignaled u-turn and went back on its way.

I really want to fight this ticket on a matter of principle. I try really hard to keep a clean record, and I'm afraid of getting a speeding ticket every time I drive on that road (I'm 2 for 2 in two months). The problem is I don't want to have to show up in court at Mono County during a weekday. What can I do? I'm willing to spend some money on this.

Thanks in advance.

You have not presented a valid defense. There are signs, which you missed. Unless you can prove that the speed limit signs were snowed over, then you really don't have any prayer of getting a dismissal. And if the signs were snowed over, then 40 MPH was likely an unsafe speed.... so you're probably up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

That wasn't my original title, it was edited. I presented a number of facts. For one, I'm not even sure that I was going 40. I felt I was going slower, and that the officer may have confused me with someone else. I know that I obeyed every sign I saw.

It seems to me that half a mile of a 30 zone set up like that in the middle of a freeway with a speed limit of 65 is designed to give people tickets. If it were for safety there would be many other road engineering features which are present in many other towns and cities in California: flashing lights, digital "Your Speed" signs that tell you to slow down, rumble strips, stop signs, speed bumps, etc. *NONE* of those can be found at Bridgeport.

Can I question the position accuracy of the police radar? How does he know that I was within that 1/2 mile stretch when he clocked me? If he was sitting in the middle of the town, he clocked me driving into town but cannot know my exact position. When he tailed me we were leaving town, and he pulled me over near the 55 mph sign.

By the way, it was a clear night and there was no snow on the road, only what you see in the picture.

Quote:

---

Quoting climber

---

That wasn't my original title, it was edited. I presented a number of facts. For one, I'm not even sure that I was going 40. I felt I was going slower, and that the officer may have confused me with someone else. I know that I obeyed every sign I saw.

---

How do you know you obeyed every sign when you admit you do not know how fast you were going? By your own statement here, you COULD have been going 40 or more.

Quote:

---

It seems to me that half a mile of a 30 zone set up like that in the middle of a freeway with a speed limit of 65 is designed to give people tickets.

---

It is no longer a "freeway" when you have cross streets and stop lights, and the maximum speed tends to drop to 55 MPH. Plus, I saw at least one sign indicating a 30 MPH zone was ahead.

Quote:

---

If it were for safety there would be many other road engineering features which are present in many other towns and cities in California: flashing lights, digital "Your Speed" signs that tell you to slow down, rumble strips, stop signs, speed bumps, etc. *NONE* of those can be found at Bridgeport.

---

Speed bumps wouldn't happen at all. Stop signs, flashing lights, and other assorted things can only be accomplished with the complicity of CalTrans on a state or US highway, and believe you me, that AIN'T an easy thing to do!

Besides, if the roadway is properly posted, why should they go through all the extra effort when there is no legal requirement to do so?

Quote:

---

Can I question the position accuracy of the police radar?

---

If you know how to do this, sure. Though you might have to pay for expert testimony (which will likely be more than the cost of the citation).

Quote:

---

How does he know that I was within that 1/2 mile stretch when he clocked me? If he was sitting in the middle of the town, he clocked me driving into town but cannot know my exact position.

---

That is a question you can ask him on cross examination. Questions regarding his line of sight and observation of your vehicle are certainly valid lines of questioning.

Quote:

---

When he tailed me we were leaving town, and he pulled me over near the 55 mph sign.

---

If he tailed you and you were going over the posted speed limit, then he could hit you for VC 22350. If cited for 22350 then you can make an argument that your speed was safe for the conditions. It might be tough to make at night and in sub zero (i.e. icy - by your description) conditions, but you can try.

And as for this being intentional to bring money to the county, understand that Mono County would receive about $5.25 from your citation. After taking into account gas and the officer's salary and benefits, that would e a money losing proposition.

Quote:

---

Quoting climber

---

. The problem is I don't want to have to show up in court at Mono County during a weekday.

Thanks in advance.

---

If you are unwilling to go to court at the location where the case would be heard then your options are pretty limited and straight forward, yes?

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

How do you know you obeyed every sign when you admit you do not know how fast you were going? By your own statement here, you COULD have been going 40 or more.

---

I said that I made a point to obey every sign I saw. I don't remember if I saw that particular sign or not, but I was very alert and trying very hard to not violate any speed limits. I'm not sure I was going 40 when the officer stopped me, which was between a 45 and a 55. I cannot know the exact speed I was going at every point in time during my journey because that would require looking at the speedometer and not the road.

Quote:

---

It is no longer a "freeway" when you have cross streets and stop lights, and the maximum speed tends to drop to 55 MPH. Plus, I saw at least one sign indicating a 30 MPH zone was ahead.

---

Of course. It *was* a freeway outside of town. I slowed down from less than 65 to below the speed limit for every sign I saw.

Quote:

---

Besides, if the roadway is properly posted, why should they go through all the extra effort when there is no legal requirement to do so?

---

To keep people safe. The reason for a speed limit is to keep people safe, not to comply with the law. If for example it turns out that too many people miss the only sign that's outside of town, and if it's not placed in a particularly good place, then the city could be at fault. If the city is issuing many more tickets than other comparable cities, then there is an urban planning problem. Bridgeport is the only town that I drove through that night that had no stop signs or traffic lights of any kind. Preventing speeding in the first place is safer than trying to prevent repeat speeding by issuing citations. This is especially true if the majority of the people ticketed don't pass through this town often, and if most people who speed are not ticketed.

Quote:

---

Though you might have to pay for expert testimony (which will likely be more than the cost of the citation).

---

This is not about saving money.

Quote:

---

If he tailed you and you were going over the posted speed limit, then he could hit you for VC 22350. If cited for 22350 then you can make an argument that your speed was safe for the conditions. It might be tough to make at night and in sub zero (i.e. icy - by your description) conditions, but you can try.

---

It wasn't icy. There was very low humidity and there hadn't been any precipitation in at least a week. It's the high desert, so it gets cold quickly after dark. There was good visibility, but the city itself was very dark. You can see in the picture that there is no ice or snow on the roads. Yesterday I drove through Bridgeport and shot a video with mounted camera. I'd be happy to posted here and see what people think.

By the way, the handwritten citation does say "22350 VC - speed excess posted 30 mph." Shouldn't that be 22349?

22349 would be for exceeding 65 MPH. You were cited for exceeding the posted speed limit - the basic speed law. Hence, the citation for 22350. This allows you to try and argue that your speed was NOT unsafe for the conditions. You can also seek any road surveys that might justify that speed limit through discovery.

Since money seems to be no object for you, then I would suggest you hire an attorney to make your case for you.

Oh, and as I mentioned, Cal Trans is very reluctant to start adding things to their highways. If they have snow and ice, they are not going to want to put dots in the road that will get scraped off by plows, or bumps in the road that are almost always claimed to be the source of vehicle damage. Flashing lights can be as much of a distraction as they are an aid and unless there have been a high number of collisions in the area it is unlikely that the state will go through the expense of erecting and maintaining warning devices. Stop signs or stop lights may not be feasible nor deemed necessary. Usually such things are erected based upon reports involving collision statistics. if the stats aren't there, the state is unlikely to see the erection of such things as warranted. But, that is an issue you can talk to the state of California about.

Quote:

---

Quoting climber

---

I really want to fight this ticket on a matter of principle. I try really hard to keep a clean record, and I'm afraid of getting a speeding ticket every time I drive on that road (I'm 2 for 2 in two months). The problem is I don't want to have to show up in court at Mono County during a weekday. What can I do? I'm willing to spend some money on this.

---

How did the officer measure your speed? California has a specific set of laws that say when a speed limit is a prima facie limit, and the officer measures your speed using radar or laser, then the limit must be justified by an engineering survey, plus some other additional requirements. If you can't spend time in Mono County on a weekday and you're willing to spend money on this, then I'd talk to a lawyer who handles these cases in Mono County. If you want to handle this yourself, you'll have to do more research and potentially be willing to show up in court on a weekday.

Thanks. I was hoping that someone on this forum could recommend a lawyer, or at least point me to the right place to find one. Google doesn't help very much. I've contacted a couple that I found via their websites but received no response so far.

If you want to find a lawyer start by asking your more lead-footed friends they might know a good one in the area, that is how I found a lawyer to handle my s/speeding in a school zone/parking on pavement ticket.

You will probably still pay a fine but the objective is to avoid points/insurance

Quote:

---

Quoting climber

---

I've contacted a couple that I found via their websites but received no response so far.

---

Simply because a competent qualified attorney who can charge a few hundred dollars an hour is not likely to want to fiddle with a traffic speeding case where the fine is less that his/her hourly rate.

Now, unless you're at risk of losing your license as a result of too many violation points, and rather than spend $1000 to $1500+ on attorney fees for a ticket which you may/may not win, simply pay the fine and take traffic school which based on a 10mph over the limit the officer cited you for, should run you less than $300.

If you were caught with radar or lidar, get the Engineering and Traffic Survey for that section of road and post it here.
California changed the law in 2009 regarding how traffic engineers can choose speed limits. If the survey is newer than July 2009 and they used the old rules for rounding, it might be an illegal speed trap. If the survey shows the 85%ile speed was 37 mph, and they legally set the speed limit at 30 mph due to a high accident rate, then you can sleep better knowing that 85% of the traffic travels 8 mph lower than the speed you were clocked at.

I imagine you'd ask CalTrans District 9 for the survey.

Good luck,
Derek

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Now, unless you're at risk of losing your license as a result of too many violation points, and rather than spend $1000 to $1500+ on attorney fees for a ticket which you may/may not win, simply pay the fine and take traffic school which based on a 10mph over the limit the officer cited you for, should run you less than $300.

---

This is unsolicited and unwelcome advice. After 12 years of no tickets I got two in the same location in two months. I cannot go to traffic school for the second. Money is not an issue as I said before. It's about principle, because it was an unfair ticket. If you cannot answer my question, please save your advice for someone who asks for it.

Quote:

---

Quoting climber

---

This is unsolicited and unwelcome advice. After 12 years of no tickets I got two in the same location in two months. I cannot go to traffic school for the second. Money is not an issue as I said before. It's about principle, because it was an unfair ticket. If you cannot answer my question, please save your advice for someone who asks for it.

---

The financial aspect of the equation is always something to consider, so TG's advice is not ill-considered. If you want to stand your ground because you believe you were cited unfairly, that's fine. But, as he points out, the cost to simply roll the dice (not counting travel and time off of work or other activities to make two or more hearings) could exceed three to five times the cost of the citation. It is your right to fight the citation. But, you should be informed and take into consideration your chances of prevailing and the costs of standing your ground. If it is worth it to you, bravo! Go for it! But, do not criticize someone for pointing out the facts to you. If all you want are high fives and hand slaps, then this is not the place.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

But, do not criticize someone for pointing out the facts to you. If all you want are high fives and hand slaps, then this is not the place.

---

My criticism is for the boilerplate advice without having read the particulars of this thread. I'm well aware of the facts, and I asked a simple question. Ditto for the high fives and hand slaps. I'd add that this is not the place to preach either.

I think there are still a couple CA gurus you haven't insulted. Keep it up and you'll find yourself not getting any help. How do you know he didn't read the particulars and that was the only advise he had? Perhaps he believes you have no case or that arguing your case would be more expensive (regardless of outcome) than just taking traffic school. Trust me, TG is very knowledgeable and if you ask real nice...I'm sure he'd be happy to de-construct any defense you think you have.

Quote:

---

Quoting derekt2

---

If you were caught with radar or lidar, get the Engineering and Traffic Survey for that section of road and post it here.
I imagine you'd ask CalTrans District 9 for the survey.

Good luck,
Derek

---

Thanks. I have the survey, it's from May 2012. It contains data such as:

Observed speed (Critical): two blue lines associated to ranges of values for different sections.
Observed speed (Pace): two red lines associated to pair of ranges of values. Not sure why there are pairs of ranges (e.g. 23-32 * 25-34).
Accident rates (MVM and average). I assume average is how many accidents per year happen in that stretch of road? It's less than 1 (lowest .79, highest .93, seems low to me).

No information about percentiles. What useful information can I glean from this? Thanks.

Quote:

---

Quoting climber

---

Thanks. I have the survey, it's from May 2012. It contains data such as:

Observed speed (Critical): two blue lines associated to ranges of values for different sections.
Observed speed (Pace): two red lines associated to pair of ranges of values. Not sure why there are pairs of ranges (e.g. 23-32 * 25-34).
Accident rates (MVM and average). I assume average is how many accidents per year happen in that stretch of road? It's less than 1 (lowest .79, highest .93, seems low to me).

No information about percentiles. What useful information can I glean from this? Thanks.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Quoting free9man

---

I think there are still a couple CA gurus you haven't insulted. Keep it up and you'll find yourself not getting any help. How do you know he didn't read the particulars and that was the only advise he had? Perhaps he believes you have no case or that arguing your case would be more expensive (regardless of outcome) than just taking traffic school. Trust me, TG is very knowledgeable and if you ask real nice...I'm sure he'd be happy to de-construct any defense you think you have.

---

I have not insulted anyone, nor intend to do so. Please read my original and subsequent posts if you believe I have. I had stated that this was the second ticket in two months, so traffic school was out of the question. I had finished traffic school the week before the ticket, and I was being beyond careful as I drove through that town for that reason. I had also answered the money question to a previous poster.

I was absolutely flabbergasted when the officer stopped me from speeding, as I had spent the whole drive paying extreme attention to speed limits. Maybe I had too much information in my original post and it was hard to read, if so I apologize as it was my first post on this site.

Quote:

---

Quoting climber

---

My criticism is for the boilerplate advice without having read the particulars of this thread.

---

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.

Quote:

---

I'm well aware of the facts, and I asked a simple question. Ditto for the high fives and hand slaps. I'd add that this is not the place to preach either.

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Quoting climber

---

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.

---

I hate to continue to pile on with the bad news, but if you're talking about Kirkwood St., this survey looks iron clad. Since it was done in 2012, the state can take an automatic 5mph speed reduction, as long as they don't decrease the speed any further. Since there don't appear to be any safety factors highlighted on the survey, I'm assuming that's what they've done here. This means that as soon as the critical speed reaches 37, then they can set the speed limit to 30mph. That's accomplished by rounding to the nearest 5mph increment, and then taking the automatic 5mph reduction. At least when I looked at the survey between PM 76.4 and PM 76.92, it looked like the critical speed reached exactly 37mph where Kirkwood/Twin Lakes intersect main street.

Quote:

---

Quoting free9man

---

Not looking good.

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.

---

I understand. If it is indeed very unlikely for me to successfully fight this ticket (even do I still believe that it was unfair), how likely would it be to reach an agreement where at least I don't get a point on my driving record for this infraction? I am frazzled after getting two speeding tickets in a row after 12 years of a perfect driving record.

Even though you say "remain alert and you'll be fine" I'm not convinced. I drove twice back and forth on US 395 in the past few months between Nevada and California. I didn't see a single patrol car on the Nevada side, and I saw several CHP cars looking to find people speeding by several means. For example, I saw police SUVs tailgating cars, and flipping quick U-turns when the car in front would not accelerate past the limit. A patrol car did this to me when I was going 60 in a 65 zone, passed me in a curve (double yellow line) and tailgated the car in front for 30 seconds before turning back. It seems like there is zero leniency in that area, and the slightest distraction (e.g. missing a speed limit transition for whatever reason) WILL get you a ticket. I would not drive that road again without a device that alerted me of every upcoming change in speed limits well enough in advance.


- - - Updated - - -

For those who assume that a radar reading is the ultimate truth, read this blog post. The author had been clocked at 40 mph by an officer, and he was shocked. His Motorola Droid phone showed that he was driving 26 mph.

http://skattertech.com/2011/02/how-m...traffic-court/

Quote:

---

Quoting climber

---

After 12 years of no tickets I got two in the same location in two months.

---

OK, so while the typical person might learn after making one mistake you made two and are still barely catching on, how is that any of my business? Why should it be any of my concern? A reasonably attentive driver would have not only noticed one but BOTH speed limit signs. You not only missed one, you missed both... And worse yet, you had to include “the same location” too. Point taken!

Quote:

---

Quoting climber

---

Money is not an issue as I said before.

---

So what are you doing here? Write a check, mail it and be done. Oh, your driving record... Right.

Why is that a concern if the only effect it can have is an increase in your auto insurance premium, write a check for that as well and be done with it.

As for principle and “unfair”, how about the “principle” of accepting responsibility for your own actions without pointing fingers at everyone and everything... Did you say “urban planning”?
What about the principle of stating you were driving at a higher speed than is posted, confirming that you found not only one but TWO sign -both in plain view- mandating a reduced speed limit but only AFTER you got caught and were cited, was that the unfair part?
Unfair as in the law requires ONE speed limit sign for that speed to be enforceable; you yourself provided evidence that there are TWO! Or unfair because the officer clocked you at 44 and only cited you for 40?

If money is not an issue, why did you not call the BEST criminal defense attorney where you live, take him a copy of the citation and have him handle it and bill you -tell him “money is not an issue” (attorneys spring into action when they hear that)- ! You wouldn't even have to appear... And I realize he would have to travel but so what, you said “money is not an issue”!

Yes, I am pushing all of this to an extreme to illustrate to you that there are three reasons why people fight traffic tickets; (1) to save from having to pay the fine amount and/or a higher insurance premium, (2) their ego got bruised, (3) they are facing a possible license restriction, which might impact them financially, bruise their ego even more, but mainly it is inconvenient.

Your claim is that (1) doesn't apply. Clearly, (3) is not an issue (although you might note I qualified my earlier “unsolicited post” accordingly), which leaves us with (2). And if that is the case, then brace yourself, because based on what's been posted, you will more than likely lose a TBD. And when that happens brace yourself again because you will more than likely lose at the court trial.

And by the way, go back to my previous post, take out the “traffic school” bit and you'll see that it would still apply:

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Simply because a competent qualified attorney who can charge a few hundred dollars an hour is not likely to want to fiddle with a traffic speeding case where the fine is less that his/her hourly rate.

Now, unless you're at risk of losing your license as a result of too many violation points, and rather than spend $1000 to $1500+ on attorney fees for a ticket which you may/may not win, simply pay the fine --- ---- ------- ------ which based on a 10mph over the limit the officer cited you for, should run you less than $250. ($300 – the $50 court admin fee for T/S)

---

It still makes 100% sense. I'll even take it a step further by adding insurance premium increases for the 3 years the violation point remains on your record. Estimating those at approximately $100 per year or $300 for 3 years, for a total potential cost of $550.

Any attorney worth the stitches on his suit is not likely to charge you less that $1500... Not to get it dismissed... No one can guarantee that; only to represent you in court!

And so if you're trying to tell me that you throwing a minimum of $950 is not an issue for you, then clearly, you've got more serious issues than a simple traffic citation.

Quote:

---

Quoting climber

---

If you cannot answer my question, please save your advice for someone who asks for it.

---

You came to a public forum, asking for help, I did not seek you out. If you want someone to pat you on the head and tell you “there, there...” call a friend. So save your whining for someone who cares!

---

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Yes, I am pushing all of this to an extreme to illustrate to you that there are three reasons why people fight traffic tickets; (1) to save from having to pay the fine amount and/or a higher insurance premium, (2) their ego got bruised, (3) they are facing a possible license restriction, which might impact them financially, bruise their ego even more, but mainly it is inconvenient.

---

Then there is that rare bird at #4, someone who is actually innocent by all means of the definition. I think even you, TG, would stipulate to the fact that it does happen occasionally. ;)

Quote:

---

Quoting derekt2

---

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.

---

^^^This^^^ is incorrect. A judge does not have the authority to change the law or force the DMV to conceal two convictions which occurred within an 18 month period.

1808.7.

(a) The record of the department relating to the first proceeding and conviction under Section 1803.5 in any 18-month period for completion of a traffic violator school program is confidential, shall not be disclosed to any person, except a court and as provided for in subdivision (b), and shall be used only for statistical purposes by the department. No violation point count shall be assessed pursuant to Section 12810 if the conviction is confidential.

(b) The record of a conviction described in subdivision (a) shall not be confidential if any of the following circumstances applies:

(1) The person convicted holds a commercial driver's license as defined by Section 15210.

(2) The person convicted holds a commercial driver's license in another state, in accordance with Part 383 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

(3) The violation occurred in a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 15210.

(4) The conviction would result in a violation point count of more than one point pursuant to Section 12810.

(c) This section shall become operative on July 1, 2011.

41501.

(a) After a deposit of bail and bail forfeiture, a plea of guilty or no contest, or a conviction, the court may order a continuance of a proceeding against a person, who receives a notice to appear in court for a violation of a statute relating to the safe operation of a vehicle, in consideration for successful completion of a course of instruction at a licensed school for traffic violators and pursuant to Section 1803.5 or 42005, the court may order that the conviction be held confidential by the department in accordance with Section 1808.7. The court shall notify a person that only one conviction within 18 months will be held confidential.

(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to a person who receives a notice to appear as to, or is otherwise charged with, a violation of an offense described in subdivisions (a) to (e), inclusive, of Section 12810.

(c) This section shall become operative on July 1, 2011.

And since as defendant cannot benefit from a second attendance during that period, the question would then become: "why is the court charging a defendant in upwards of $60 for something he could not benefit from?" And so if the court is aware of the first attendance, it simply isn't going to happen. Either way, the defendant is responsible for keeping track of whether he is/isn't eligible to attend.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

What about the principle of stating you were driving at a higher speed than is posted, confirming that you found not only one but TWO sign -both in plain view- mandating a reduced speed limit but only AFTER you got caught and were cited, was that the unfair part?
Unfair as in the law requires ONE speed limit sign for that speed to be enforceable; you yourself provided evidence that there are TWO! Or unfair because the officer clocked you at 44 and only cited you for 40?

---

---

This is incorrect. There is exactly one (ONE) sign that posts the speed limit. I believe I wasn't driving faster than the speed limit, like I said before. I cannot prove it because I don't know my exact speed and have no records like the person in the blog post I cited, but I know when I slow down because I go through a town. You were not there. You assume that I was clocked correctly, and that a mistake is impossible. You have no basis for that assumption.

The rest your comments about my problems or motivations are uncalled for. Please keep the discussion civil. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Quoting free9man

---

Then there is that rare bird at #4, someone who is actually innocent by all means of the definition. I think even you, TG, would stipulate to the fact that it does happen occasionally. ;)

---

Without any question or doubt, and as always, thanks for keeping me in check! :D

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting climber

---

This is incorrect. There is exactly one (ONE) sign that posts the speed limit.

---

You can live in denial all you want. From your post:

Quote:

---

Quoting climber

---

http://i.imgur.com/DhKVVgL.png

http://i.imgur.com/iJ4upnN.png

---

Those are, by my count, two sped limit signs that refer to a 30mph zone. You missed both of them or you decided to ignore both of them. Deal with it!

Quote:

---

Quoting climber

---

I believe I wasn't driving faster than the speed limit, like I said before.

---

Just curious: You believe you weren't going faster than 30MPH or the 45MPH you thought you were in? Why would you have been going less than 30 in a posted 45?

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Those are, by my count, two sped limit signs that refer to a 30mph zone. You missed both of them or you decided to ignore both of them. Deal with it!

---

If you see the "30 Zone ahead" but never see the "30 speed limit" you don't know when the 30 zone starts. Your logic is flawed.

There's also a third possibility: I was not speeding and was misclocked / mistaken for another car in the night. Remember I got my ticket at 7 pm on a moonless night. There were other cars on the road, as it was the beginning of a long weekend.

Also, why is the following scenario so hard to believe?

- Someone just finished traffic school for his first speeding ticket in 12 years. He's driving very carefully in a nice car. He wants to avoid another speeding ticket at all costs. He took very seriously what he learned in traffic school.

- An officer makes a mistake for some reason: either he clocks another car in front, the radar is miscalibrated, he clocks the driver outside the speed limit zone because of the range of the radar, etc. Given that the 30 mph zone spans 1/2 mile, it's very possible to clock someone outside of this zone.

Quote:

---

Quoting climber

---

You were not there. You assume that I was clocked correctly, and that a mistake is impossible. You have no basis for that assumption.

---

My basis for the assumption is a citation that you provided the details from. I would not imply that every citation is 100% accurate but generally, the majority of them are righteous and deserved. Now, when you acknowledge seeing a 45mph speed limit sign, are clocked at 44mph (though you were in a 30mph zone at the time, you've provided confirmation that although you made an attempt to comply with all speed limits, you failed to do so when it came to the 30mph limit zone. You are the only one to blame for that. Face it!

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting climber

---

If you see the "30 Zone ahead" but never see the "30 speed limit" you don't know when the 30 zone starts.

---

Again, your own fault. You've confirmed that the 30mph zone sign does exist. That is reality... You simply missed the sign.

Quote:

---

Quoting climber

---

Your logic is flawed.

---

You're not one to judge logic or common sense!

Quote:

---

Quoting climber

---

There's also a third possibility: I was not speeding and was misclocked / mistaken for another car in the night. Remember I got my ticket at 7 pm on a moonless night. There were other cars on the road, as it was the beginning of a long weekend.

---

What does a moonless night have to do with anything? If you're suggesting it was too dark for him to see your vehicle moving, then are you implying that you had your headlights off? Did you say MY logic is flawed? :rolleyes:

An officer who is properly trained in the use of Radar can and will also make a determination of which vehicle is travelling the fastest at the time his SMD obtained the reading. That is not as difficult a task as you'd like it to be.

As for the blog you posted, anyone can start a blog and post anything they may wish or please, so you're free to believe anything and everything you read on the internet. Other people may choose to be more selective than you!