22350 VC in Roseville, California - 52 in a 40

My question involves a speeding ticket from the State of: CA

I received a ticket this past Saturday evening at 7pm. Posted speed limit was 40, was ticketed for doing 52 on Lidar. Officer was posted on the side of the road with his Lidar out his window. Conditions were light rain and clear. Street was a business busy street.

I got the speed survey from the city and the 85th percentile shows the speed to be 46.3mph.

Do i have a case here ? Thanks for any input.

I have to figure out a way of posting the survey as well.

Quote:

---

Quoting jpmotdyn

---

My question involves a speeding ticket from the State of: CA

I received a ticket this past Saturday evening at 7pm. Posted speed limit was 40, was ticketed for doing 52 on Lidar. Officer was posted on the side of the road with his Lidar out his window. Conditions were light rain and clear. Street was a business busy street.

I got the speed survey from the city and the 85th percentile shows the speed to be 46.3mph.

Do i have a case here ? Thanks for any input.

I have to figure out a way of posting the survey as well.

---

Is the speed survey signed/stamped by a traffic engineer recommending a speed of 40mph? Also, how dark was it, and heavy was the traffic?

Quote:

---

Quoting HonkingAntelope

---

Is the speed survey signed/stamped by a traffic engineer recommending a speed of 40mph? Also, how dark was it, and heavy was the traffic?

---

Yes it is signed by a traffic engineer. If i can figure out how to upload the survey i will. It was 720pm so it was dark. Not heavy traffic at all there were maybe 8 other cars around.

What date was the survey conducted? Is there any information justifying the reduction in the speed limit? If so, list everything. If not, the speed limit should have been 45.

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

What date was the survey conducted? Is there any information justifying the reduction in the speed limit? If so, list everything. If not, the speed limit should have been 45.

---

Survey was done 8/08 and signed 1/09. Here is a link to it.

http://home.comcast.net/~jpmotdyn/Eureka.pdf

California Vehicle Code Section 627.

(a) "Engineering and traffic survey," as used in this code, means a survey of highway and traffic conditions in accordance with methods determined by the Department of Transportation for use by state and local authorities.
(b) An engineering and traffic survey shall include, among other requirements deemed necessary by the department, consideration of all of the following:

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

(c) When conducting an engineering and traffic survey, local authorities, in addition to the factors set forth in paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, of subdivision (b) may consider all of the following:

(1) Residential density, if any of the following conditions exist on the particular portion of highway and the property contiguous thereto, other than a business district:

(A) Upon one side of the highway, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 13 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures.
(B) Upon both sides of the highway, collectively, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 16 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures.
(C) The portion of highway is longer than one-quarter of a mile but has the ratio of separate dwelling houses or business structures to the length of the highway described in either subparagraph (A) or (B).

(2) Pedestrian and bicyclist safety.

Survey says (under "Roadside Conditions"):

• BUSINESS (can be a factor based as it may relate to CVC 627(c)(1) ~ business structures)
• OPEN SPACE (:confused:)
• BIKEWAY (see CVC 627(c)(2)

Also, and under "Comments" on page 3 of the survey:
Limited sight distance due to vertical and horizontal curves (:confused:)
Class II bike lanes (see CVC 627(c)(2) - bicyclist safety)
Moderate accident rate (see CVC 627(b)(2) - you'll note that the speed limit has already been set to 40mph...

At any rate, the reduction from 46.3mph (85the percentile speed) to 45mph (nearest 5mph increment to the 85th percentile) per the MUTCD guidance IS justified. And the further 5mph reduction (to 40mph) can also (obviously) be justified (if only by virtue of "bicyclist safety" ~ CVC 627(c)(2))...

That's how I see it.... I am sure others will disagree... ;)

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Also, and under "Comments" on page 3 of the survey:
Limited sight distance due to vertical and horizontal curves (:confused:)

---

That doesn't do it:

Quote:

---

22358.5. It is the intent of the Legislature that physical
conditions such as width, curvature, grade and surface conditions, or
any other condition readily apparent to a driver, in the absence of
other factors, would not require special downward speed zoning, as
the basic rule of section 22350 is sufficient regulation as to such
conditions.

---

Quote:

---

Class II bike lanes (see CVC 627(c)(2) - bicyclist safety)

---

The survey does not indicate a need for lowering the speed limit due to bicycle safety, it merely recognizes that a bike lane exists. In fact, the presence of a bike lane is indication that bicycle safety has already been provided for.

Quote:

---

Moderate accident rate (see CVC 627(b)(2) - you'll note that the speed limit has already been set to 40mph...

---

The accident rate is only a bit more than half of the average rate. This clearly is no reason to downgrade the limit.

Quote:

---

At any rate, the reduction from 46.3mph (85the percentile speed) to 45mph (nearest 5mph increment to the 85th percentile) per the MUTCD guidance IS justified. And the further 5mph reduction (to 40mph) can also (obviously) be justified (if only by virtue of "bicyclist safety" ~ CVC 627(c)(2))...

That's how I see it.... I am sure others will disagree... ;)

---

Why are you so sure others will disagree? Could it be that your arguments are without merit? I think so.


OP, you have a good speed trap case. Don't be naive enough to think that you will win a speed trap defense in court, you will likely have to appeal. But, you have to make the argument well so you preserve your case for appeal.

EWYLTJ, thanks for the clarification. How do you suggest i prepare my argument and case for appeal? Thanks.

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

The survey does not indicate a need for lowering the speed limit due to bicycle safety, it merely recognizes that a bike lane exists.

---

The survey DOES mention “bikeway” under ROADSIDE CONDITIONS (See bottom right corner of Page 1 as well as Section D on page 2).

Therefore it is obvious that pursuant to CVC 627(c)(2) an additional 5mph reduction in the speed limit is INDEED JUSTIFIED. But you just refuse to see it simply because it doesn't fit within your theory of a “grand conspiracy”...

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

In fact, the presence of a bike lane is indication that bicycle safety has already been provided for.

---

Can you cite the statute, or a quotation from the MUTCD that says that the mere presence of a Bike lane suggests that bicyclist safety has been provided for and that a speed limit reduction is therefore UNjustified!

That is simply YOUR own interpretation. And that is simply a stretch!

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

The accident rate is only a bit more than half of the average rate. This clearly is no reason to downgrade the limit.

---

You should also note that the speed limit was NOT downgraded per se... It WAS at 40mph and the current survey recommended that it remain at 40mph... You should also note the the accident rate of was collected from 6/2/2005 thru 6/1/2008... So is it possible that the posting of a 40mph speed limit contributed to reducing the accident rate to one which is well below the expected rate?

YES... Regardless of what you say, and until you can somehow ascertain the accident rate in the previous survey, then you cannot argue against that point.

Set all that aside though, it is trivial by virtue of the presence of a bicycle lane, which, in and of itself, DOES provide for a valid reason to reduce the speed limit (AGAIN) pursuant to CVC 627(c)(2). Just because you disagree and simply because it is not what the OP wants to hear, does NOT make it wrong.

The OP is free to try it out in court and hopefully he will report the outcome.

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

Why are you so sure others will disagree?

---

Because you make it so easy to predict your opinion. According to you, EVERY speed limit is UNjustified, EVERY survey is INvalid, and therefore, every speeding ticket IS a SPEED TRAP. Sort of the same way you think that every traffic conviction is part of a big conspiracy. A conspiracy that is only obvious to you... Here is what I mean:

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

OP, you have a good speed trap case. Don't be naive enough to think that you will win a speed trap defense in court, you will likely have to appeal. But, you have to make the argument well so you preserve your case for appeal.

---

:rolleyes:

As it is, the survey *appears* to justify the posted speed limit. There are some issues with the survey, but none of them invalidate the survey outright to have the judge throw the case out.

Whether the mere presence of bike lanes justifies an automatic 5mph reduction is up to the individual judges and appelate courts. The OP would have a rather plausible argument that properly marked a bike lane satisfies the definition of "any other condition readily apparent to a driver" per VC 22358.5 and would require additional data to justify a reduction (e.g. 10 bikers being killed every month by speeding cars). The lower-than-average accident rate would also help a lot, too.

IMO, there's enough info to challenge the survey's validity in court. Whether it'll succeed is anyone's guess.

The best first step for the OP is to file a simple 'i am not guilty' trial by declaration and go from there.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

The survey DOES mention “bikeway” under ROADSIDE CONDITIONS (See bottom right corner of Page 1 as well as Section D on page 2).

---

It doesn't say that the reduced speedlimit is necessary for bike safety, it only recognizes the existence of a bike lane. In the same area, the survey also says "open space" and "business". Are you suggesting that those are reasons to justify lowering the limit?

Quote:

---

Therefore it is obvious that pursuant to CVC 627(c)(2) an additional 5mph reduction in the speed limit is INDEED JUSTIFIED. But you just refuse to see it simply because it doesn't fit within your theory of a “grand conspiracy”...

---

If I am a conspiracy theorist as you claim, then you must be a Kool-aid drinker because you generally twist as hard as you can to see a situation in favor of the state. And you are usually wrong when you do so.

Quote:

---

Can you cite the statute, or a quotation from the MUTCD that says that the mere presence of a Bike lane suggests that bicyclist safety has been provided for and that a speed limit reduction is therefore UNjustified!

---

From People v. Goulet:

Quote:

---

A speed limit is not justified by a survey unless the survey proves or shows the speed limit to be just and based upon a sufficient lawful reason.

---

And VC 40803(b):

Quote:

---

In any prosecution under this code of a charge involving the
speed of a vehicle, where enforcement involves the use of radar or
other electronic devices which measure the speed of moving objects,
the prosecution shall establish, as part of its prima facie case,
that the evidence or testimony presented is not based upon a
speedtrap

---

It is the prosecution's burden to establish that a speed trap did not exist and therefore that the speed limit was justified. So, it is the prosecution's burden to prove that the survey documents bicycle safety as "sufficient lawful reason" for downgrading the speed limit.

Furthermore, the posted speed limit of 40mph makes violators of 64% of the drivers on that highway. That in itself shows that the limit should not be justified.

Quote:

---

That is simply YOUR own interpretation. And that is simply a stretch!

---

I think my interpretation that the mere mention of the existence of a bike lane when there are 3 lanes in each direction does not constitute sufficient lawful reason is pretty reasonable. But then again, the kool-aid is sweet!

Quote:

---

You should also note that the speed limit was NOT downgraded per se... It WAS at 40mph and the current survey recommended that it remain at 40mph... You should also note the the accident rate of was collected from 6/2/2005 thru 6/1/2008... So is it possible that the posting of a 40mph speed limit contributed to reducing the accident rate to one which is well below the expected rate?

---

That is just so obnoxious I am not even going to respond to that. I can't imagine anyone thinking that was reasonable except you.

Quote:

---

YES... Regardless of what you say, and until you can somehow ascertain the accident rate in the previous survey, then you cannot argue against that point.

---

You are on the wrong side of the fence. It is NOT the defendant's responsibility to prove that the accident rate did not justify the speed limit... it is the prosecution's burden to prove that it did!!!

Quote:

---

Set all that aside though, it is trivial by virtue of the presence of a bicycle lane, which, in and of itself, DOES provide for a valid reason to reduce the speed limit (AGAIN) pursuant to CVC 627(c)(2). Just because you disagree and simply because it is not what the OP wants to hear, does NOT make it wrong.

---

No... the fact that it doesn't come close to rising to the level of "sufficient lawful reason" makes it wrong.

Quote:

---

The OP is free to try it out in court and hopefully he will report the outcome.

---

Wow... how sarcastic. I guess your recommendation would be to just pay the fine. You gotta remember: you miss 100% of the shots you don't take!!

So do you guy think i have a case here ? Thanks

Do you have a case? Yes; Is it a slam-dunk guaranteed to result in an instant dismissal in court rather than a protracted legal wrangle you may or may not win? Nope.

If you are not eligible for traffic school, you have nothing to lose but time and a day or two off from work for a chance at getting your money back. A small chance is better than nothing at all.

On the other hand, if you have the option to take traffic school, you can make the whole matter go away for ~$270 and a few hours of your time doing online traffic school and, depending on the county, and taking a proctored final exam at a local UPS office or something like that.

My biased vote is that you challenge it in court. I say the state is not abiding by its own laws, but they are trying to convict you of not abiding by them. The state has the first obligation to abide by the law!! You, as well as every other citizen of a free society, have the duty to hold your government accountable. After all, a government free of public scrutiny is destined for tyranny. So, how much are your liberties worth?