CVC 22350 Speeding in Construction Zone

My question involves a speeding ticket from the State of: California.

I got cited for going 41 in normally a 45, but the 1 lane undivided road is currently undergoing construction to become a 2 lane each way divided road. Thus, the construction zone was posted 25mph, yet I didn't realize as I travelled with the flow of traffic.

My ticket says 22350 CVC and then (Unsafe speed in construction zone). However, I'm pretty sure 22350 in CA is not related to construction zones rather just the Basic Speed Law. I really can't think of any way to get out of it, unless anyone has ideas. Also, I was travelling on the opposite side of the construction, pretty far from where 2 workers were in tractors, and the police car was sitting inside the construction area on the opposite side as well... (I went and looked/took photos since it's right outside my house). As soon as I noticed the workers I did slow down but it was too late.

My question is any ideas about how I could fight this "Basic Speed Law" ticket (Even though it's a construction zone, I don't believe I posed any threat to any workers off the side of the road in dirt tractors),and if 22350 is an incorrect citation, or how much it's going to cost if anyone knows. Thanks.

I got a similar ticket. 51 in a posted 50. Charged with vc 22350 but he wrote construction zone on the ticket. Do some research on speed traps and request a traffic and engineering survey for your city. However, vc 22362 is traveling faster than the posted speed in a construction zone. The speed trap laws apply to 22350 but I am not sure if it applies to 22350 when they write in construction zone in parenthesis or if it applies to vc 22362. The only exceptions I've found is school zones and senior zones. No wording on construction zones within the speed trap laws. For my case I subpoenaed the records and the officer stated that no engineering and traffic survey was required with a vc22362 violation, so he maybe changing the code violation on me? I can't find if anything that allows him to change the code after signing the ticket under penalty of perjury that it is true and correct, or if vc22362 does not require a traffic survey. Maybe someone with more knowledge can weigh in on this. But look into the speed trap laws and do some searching on these forums.
R

This issue has come up on a couple of threads. When a typical 22350 is written for driving over the speed limit, it is clarified by 22351:

Quote:

---

22351 (b) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima
facie speed limits in Section 22352 or established as authorized in
this code is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by
competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not
constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and
under the conditions then existing.

---

So, even though you are written for 22350, 22351 is the code that says it is prima facie illegal to exceed the posted speed limit.

Similarly, 22362 says:

Quote:

---

22362. It is prima facie a violation of the basic speed law for any
person to operate a vehicle in excess of the posted speed limit upon
any portion of a highway where officers or employees of the agency
having jurisdiction of the same, or any contractor of the agency or
his employees, are at work on the roadway or within the right-of-way
so close thereto as to be endangered by passing traffic. This
section applies only when appropriate signs, indicating the limits of
the restricted zone, and the speed limit applicable therein, are
placed by such agency within 400 feet of each end of such zone. The
signs shall display the figures indicating the applicable limit,
which shall not be less than 25 miles per hour, and shall indicate
the purpose of the speed restriction. Nothing in this section shall
be deemed to relieve any operator of a vehicle from complying with
the basic speed law.

---

Even though you were written for 22350, it is prima facie illegal (i.e. illegal on its face, however rebuttable).

So, there are a couple of ways to approach this:

First, I don't see anything in the law that relieves a construction zone from requiring a speed survey. From what I can see, the cop's interpretation that a speed survey is not required may be wrong. Even if it is wrong and a speed survey is required, don't count on a judge ruling that way.

Second, there are requirements of the posted speed limit to provide signs within 400' of each end of the construction zone. It would be the burden of the prosecution to prove where the zone began and that the sign was within 400' of that point.

Third, exceeding the posted limit is not ILLEGAL... it is prima facie illegal. Which only means that it is just enough to prove a violation if there is no rebuttal. You can certainly rebut and show that even though your speed was in excess of the 25mph, there was no construction equipment nor construction workers even close to you... so you did not create a danger to persons or property based on your speed.

Quote:

---

Quoting cabosanlucas

---

Also, I was travelling on the opposite side of the construction, pretty far from where 2 workers were in tractors, and the police car was sitting inside the construction area on the opposite side as well... (I went and looked/took photos since it's right outside my house). As soon as I noticed the workers I did slow down but it was too late.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

You can certainly rebut and show that even though your speed was in excess of the 25mph, there was no construction equipment nor construction workers even close to you... so you did not create a danger to persons or property based on your speed.

---

A construction zone usually has lowered speed limit that is not solely based on construction equipment and/or construction workers or where in that zone they might be; There are other factors such as:

• Lane closures which does make the road narrower;
• The road surface might not be finished
• There might be steel plates covering trenches,
• Visibility of the road ahead might be limited due to the presence of heavy construction equipment which may partially block a driver's view.

So to argue that you were past the workers and therefore your speed was safe for those conditions will most likely not fly.

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

First, I don't see anything in the law that relieves a construction zone from requiring a speed survey. From what I can see, the cop's interpretation that a speed survey is not required may be wrong.

---

So you're suggesting that whenever Caltrans (for example) needs to do any work on a roadway or a Highway in the State of California, they should go out and set up a mock construction site...

Bring in the heavy equipment, close up some lanes, set up the meters, the counters, the timers, bring in a few manniquens (stand ins for the construction crew)... Survey the portion of the roadway, make notations as to pedestrian traffic, commercial traffic... Review accident reports... All so they can determine a proper speed limit to post when the project really starts for real!!!!

Give me a break... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

So you're suggesting that whenever Caltrans (for example) needs to do any work on a roadway or a Highway in the State of California, they should go out and set up a mock construction site...

Bring in the heavy equipment, close up some lanes, set up the meters, the counters, the timers, bring in a few manniquens (stand ins for the construction crew)... Survey the portion of the roadway, make notations as to pedestrian traffic, commercial traffic... Review accident reports... All so they can determine a proper speed limit to post when the project really starts for real!!!!

Give me a break... :rolleyes:

---

Dude.... give yourself a break. I'm not suggesting anything about what the law should be... I'm only recognizing what it is. I guess it is pretty easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize, but if you'd like to provide a reference to a section of the vehicle code or some case law that contradicts my observation, I'd love to see it. If my read is incorrect, please show me where the LAW says it is incorrect... not where you think it should be incorrect.

After all, the OP will be defending himself in a court of LAW... not a court of THAT GUY!!!

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

A construction zone usually has lowered speed limit that is not solely based on construction equipment and/or construction workers or where in that zone they might be; There are other factors such as:

• Lane closures which does make the road narrower;
• The road surface might not be finished
• There might be steel plates covering trenches,
• Visibility of the road ahead might be limited due to the presence of heavy construction equipment which may partially block a driver's view.

So to argue that you were past the workers and therefore your speed was safe for those conditions will most likely not fly.

---

What should be or might be is irrelevant. The point is that the prosecution has the burden to prove that under the conditions that DID exist at the time of the alleged violation, the OPs speed presented a danger to persons or property. It is NOT the OP's burden to prove that he did NOT present a danger. That's it, cut and dried. It is the prosecution's burden. If the scenario was actually as the OP described, it should be pretty difficult for the prosecution to meet that burden.

If you are going to argue in a court of law, you need to think like a lawyer... not like a pissed off guy that can only see the world from one perspective.

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

Dude.... give yourself a break. I'm not suggesting anything about what the law should be... I'm only recognizing what it is.

---

What “it is“???
Can you post a VC section that states that a Traffic and engineering survey IS required to justify the reduced speed for a construction zone? I haven’t seen you post anything in that regards except to say “From what I can see, the cop's interpretation that a speed survey is not required may be wrong.”
Well, I am suggesting that you might be wrong too… Therefore, and in in an effort to ensure that the OP has a sound legal advice that is lacking in huge holes based on simple assumptions, I suggest that you offer a CVC section that will fill the hole that the officer MIGHT BE RIGHT.

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

I guess it is pretty easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize

---

Its probably much easier to sit on a bigger sideline and pretend that you have a winning strategy and yet one that is based on your own assumption that the officer is wrong. An assumption that might b WRONG, in and of itself.

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

but if you'd like to provide a reference to a section of the vehicle code or some case law that contradicts my observation, I'd love to see it

---

How about you provide a reference to a section of the vehicle code or some case law that proves your assumption; I would love to see that. Especially since you posted your assumption first, i.e. before I posted my suggestion that your assumption might be erroneous. You are simply basing the defense strategy that you are offering this OP on this: “From what I can see, the cop's interpretation that a speed survey is not required may be wrong.”

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

If my read is incorrect, please show me where the LAW says it is incorrect... not where you think it should be incorrect.

---

Prior to my showing you anything, and if you read is correct, then you should be able to provide a reference to where the LAW says it is correct. Had you done that, the post you are referring to would not have surfaced.
By that same token, and instead of just saying “From what I can see, the cop's interpretation that a speed survey is not required may be wrong”, enlighten us all by showing us any reference where the law say the officer’s interpretation is incorrect.
Play by your own rules!!!!!

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

After all, the OP will be defending himself in a court of LAW... not a court of THAT GUY!!!

---

After all, the OP will be defending himself in a court of LAW… not in a court of EWYLTJ!!!

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

What should be or might be is irrelevant. The point is that the prosecution has the burden to prove that under the conditions that DID exist at the time of the alleged violation, the OPs speed presented a danger to persons or property. It is NOT the OP's burden to prove that he did NOT present a danger. That's it, cut and dried. It is the prosecution's burden. If the scenario was actually as the OP described, it should be pretty difficult for the prosecution to meet that burden.

---

This is a citation for a violation of CVC section 22350.

If I were to buy into your asumption that a speed survey is required, and in the slight chance that a valid survey might be presented by the officer, the BURDEN does then shift to the defendant to show that the speed which he was cited for was reasonable and prudent.

Its not so cut and dry anymore is it?

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

If you are going to argue in a court of law, you need to think like a lawyer... not like a pissed off guy that can only see the world from one perspective.

---

Aside from the word "pissed"... I would suggest that you took the words right out of my intended post!

I would have added that you need to be ready for WHATEVER might get thrown at you!!! (figuratively, that is)

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

What “it is“???
Can you post a VC section that states that a Traffic and engineering survey IS required to justify the reduced speed for a construction zone? I haven’t seen you post anything in that regards except to say “From what I can see, the cop's interpretation that a speed survey is not required may be wrong.”

---

Certainly, VC 40802 says a speed survey is required. It also makes special exceptions for school zones and local roads. It does NOT make exceptions for construction zones. So, I cannot provide a section that says specifically that a speed survey is required in construction zones as one does not exist. However, given the wording of 40802, there would have to be something the exempted it from the speed survey requirements. That does not exist either.

Quote:

---

Well, I am suggesting that you might be wrong too… Therefore, and in in an effort to ensure that the OP has a sound legal advice that is lacking in huge holes based on simple assumptions, I suggest that you offer a CVC section that will fill the hole that the officer MIGHT BE RIGHT.

---

I never said I was right! This isn't a contest to see who can guess the law correctly. I simply said that I don't see any law that exempts the construction zones. That's where your rant began.

Quote:

---

Its probably much easier to sit on a bigger sideline and pretend that you have a winning strategy and yet one that is based on your own assumption that the officer is wrong. An assumption that might b WRONG, in and of itself.

---

I have made no assumptions (other than you MAY know what you are talking about... but that was wrong).

Quote:

---

How about you provide a reference to a section of the vehicle code or some case law that proves your assumption; I would love to see that. Especially since you posted your assumption first, i.e. before I posted my suggestion that your assumption might be erroneous. You are simply basing the defense strategy that you are offering this OP on this: “From what I can see, the cop's interpretation that a speed survey is not required may be wrong.”

---

I think that 40802 pretty much sums it up. If you like, I could list several case laws that says a survey is required where a prima facie speed limit exists.

Quote:

---

Prior to my showing you anything, and if you read is correct, then you should be able to provide a reference to where the LAW says it is correct. Had you done that, the post you are referring to would not have surfaced.
By that same token, and instead of just saying “From what I can see, the cop's interpretation that a speed survey is not required may be wrong”, enlighten us all by showing us any reference where the law say the officer’s interpretation is incorrect.
Play by your own rules!!!!!

---

Asked and answered.

Quote:

---

After all, the OP will be defending himself in a court of LAW… not in a court of EWYLTJ!!!

---

Now that was original!!