Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5
Results 41 to 44 of 44
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    LA LA Land
    Posts
    9,170

    Default Re: Planned Motion to Dismiss

    Quote Quoting California student
    View Post
    Heck, I'll even admit that 22351 should be written in a manner that specifically excludes 22349 and 22356. The problem with 22351 is that it uses the term "this code" instead of limiting it to just non-maximum speed limits.
    You've already "admitted" you discontent with the way 22351 is written. The last time though, you showed an apparent misunderstanding of how the code section is applied. Now you're saying it is not clearly written, and again, there are no problems with the way 22351 is written; only problems in you wanting to force its application on other sections that it clearly does not cover!

    If you're referring to the term "this code" in subsection (a), that entire subsection is in reference to "the speed of a vehicle upon a highway NOT in excess of any of the limits...", then no, that does not include you driving 15 to 20mph in excess of the maximum limit. Therefore it does no apply to neither 22349 nor 22356.

    But judging by your last comment, you were referring to subsection (b) and in that case, and relative to the term "this code" in subsection (b), the two qualifiers in that subsection are "in excess of" and "prima facie speed limits", so that excludes you diving "in excess of" - "any maximum/statutory limit".

    It isn't that difficult to deduce that neither subsection in 22351 would apply to "driving in excess of maximum/statutory limits", and therefore 22349 and 22356 are excluded!

    22351.
    (a) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway not in excess of the limits specified in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is lawful unless clearly proved to be in violation of the basic speed law.
    (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.

    Quote Quoting California student
    View Post
    I think the buffer is irrelevant.
    When you get cited for 66mph (or even 70mph) in a 65mph zone, or 71mph (or even 75mph) in a 70mph zone, you can come back and remind me that you think the buffer is irrelevant!

    Quote Quoting California student
    View Post
    If all of a sudden the average citizen was allowed the buffer of, say, petty theft below $5, the average citizen wouldn't go out and steal $5 worth of junk.
    Ae you suggesting that a $5 petty theft case gets treated the same way a $405 theft case? Really?

    Quote Quoting California student
    View Post
    If all of a sudden the average citizen was allowed one murder...
    That isn't going to happen anytime soon so lets keep this topic on point!

    Quote Quoting California student
    View Post
    However the fact that the average speed, at least in So Cal outside of rush hour, is 15-20 over the limit is a good indication that the issue isn't enforcement, but that the law doesn't reflect the values of society.
    You're not making any sense...

    1. So Cal is a part of a bigger entity called California... And unless you can establish a different set of laws for So Cal, you'e required to comply with the California Vehicle code!

    2. We've already established that your 15-20mph in excess is NOT the norm anywhere in So Cal, in fact your specific example was "15 through Mojave and 5 through Pendleton" both of which are more rural, and in your other example you qualified it further by stating: "I'm not talking about the 405 through LA or anything here".

    3. Some laws, and in particular "vehicle code sections" have been on the books longer than you and I can remember, and just because you'd like to think that society's perceptions with regards to safety have changed recently just because you are now a licensed driver and you like to speed, then maybe the laws are way behind or, the more likely answer is, you cannot force your opinion on the entire society.

    4. If you think that speed and speeding are new concepts and that the laws have not adjusted accordingly, then think "hot rods" and the 1960's/early 1970's era where muscle, horse-power and smoking tires were the "in" thing.

    Quote Quoting California student
    View Post
    If a law doesn't reflect the values of society, then there will always be compliance and enforcement issues.
    So you're suggesting that simply because teen drinking and drug use is becoming more and more prevalent, that the laws should be amended accordingly? Or are you suggesting that the enforcement and compliance issues in those regards are simply predicated on the laws being so far behind, and all this while most states raised the legal drinking age from 18 to 21?

    I disagree, I think parents should grow the balls to have the ability to dictate and control what their children can and cannot do, instead of subscribing to the idea that "its OK for my kids to do it because everybody else's kid is doing it"! But that's just me!

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    625

    Default Re: Planned Motion to Dismiss

    TG, you may not like it, but the laws can and do change in line with major social changes. For example, check out this gem from Louisiana's Supreme Court circa 1899:
    The husband of a woman cannot himself be guilty of an actual rape upon his wife, on account of the matrimonial consent which she has given, and which she cannot retract.
    Obviously, this is no longer the case. There used to be a law that said women couldn't vote, either. How did that get changed then? Ditto the above for Jim Crow laws, which are no longer on the books.

    My point still stands. If the maximum speed laws are so widely disregarded, and if strict compliance combined with unerring enforcement results in the sort of consequences Carl and others mentioned, the law is bad and needs to be changed. 15-20mph over 65 may not be commonplace, but even 1mph over is just illegal. The fact that it's not actively enforced unless you're 10+ over doesn't make it ok. Here in Bay Area, it's pretty common to see freeway speeds north of 80mph during non-commute hours. On 680, 90+ is not unusual.

    As for "hotrods" in the 60s and 70s, that's when the 65mph limit actually made sense. The horsepower was there, but safety, suspension, and tire technologies on production cars were nowhere near the same level. The odds of tire or suspension failures and poor handling at higher speeds made higher speeds patently unsafe. Even if the engine was easily capable of accelerating the car to 150mph, most mass production cars in those days came with park bench seats, no seatbelts, leafspring suspensions, and donut tires. I'm not even mentioning stuff like airbags or traction control.

    Nowadays, however, automotive technology has improved a notch or two, and the vast majority of vehicles and drivers can safely run at speeds well in excess of the absurdly low 65mph limit.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    LA LA Land
    Posts
    9,170

    Default Re: Traffic Court Motion to Dismiss

    Quote Quoting HonkingAntelope
    View Post
    TG, you may not like it, but the laws can and do change in line with major social changes. For example, check out this gem from Louisiana's Supreme Court circa 1899:

    Obviously, this is no longer the case.
    You're comparing ^that^ to you wanting to abolish speed limits?

    Quote Quoting HonkingAntelope
    View Post
    There used to be a law that said women couldn't vote, either. How did that get changed then?
    Double Ditto for the above and for you comparing "a woman's constitutional right to vote", with you wanting to abolish the speed limits?

    And triple ditto for your Jim Crow laws example... Hell, you mentioned Louisiana... HA, when was the last time you were in Louisiana (and I'm not talking Mardi Gras and New Orleans)? How about Mississippi? And I mean no pun or insult towards anyone from either of those two states. I am simply using them as examples indicative of the simple lives that people live there and how their priorities are undoubtedly quite different as compared to one who lives in the Bay Area...

    There is also quite the difference between the social influences that led to upholding numerous women's rights, and repealing laws that promoted segregation and discrimination, i.e. constitutional matters of equality and justice for all and the social divergence those issues might result in... All of that versus your being able to drive at any speed you wish simply because you disagree with the law, and only based on your own standard that you would qualify. I am yet to find ANY constitutional reference that would afford you such entitlement!!!

    Lets assume that you can draw a comparison, tell me this, how big is this wave of social change that you're seeing, HA? And who'd behind it? And how soon are you realistically expecting this change to happen?

    If it was limited to me liking it or not, then you can rest assured that I could care less about my ability to drive 85, 100 or 115 for that matter, and (no, I'm not bragging) I can show you citations from a couple of years back that will make you shriek. But that won't make a difference here because I now realize how stupid I had to have been for making the decisions I made back then!

    Again, my concern is more about the select few who can not and should not even be allowed to pedal a bicycle, having the ability to get on a highway at the speed that you are yet to specify! Even you... you qualify yourself as being capable and yet you are unable to grasp the simple concept that excessive speed is on an inverse correlation to safety, and yet you set aside the whole matter of safety simply because its “fun” for you to drive like a bat out of hell! Heck, go out and spend a few hours on the track in your area... And look around because you'll always find a few out there who think they are professionals and yet as soon as they kick it in drive, and step off the clutch, you get this sinking feeling in your stomach. At which point, for me, it is “OMG, I'm out of here”!!!

    And FWIW, I don't think Carl's point (regarding liability of a LEO/LEA versus that of an individual) was specific to maximum speed laws, so for you to build upon that in an attempt to justify your position, I'm not seeing it.

    Additionally, and while you and Student continue to claim that 15 to 20 mph over the limit is normal, I still disagree. I drive a minimum of 45k miles a year (70% of it freeway driving) and I wished I could come close to agreeing with you. I will buy into an average of 10 over, and yes, I might periodically go 15 over but you can rest assured that when I do, I am the "leader of the pack", and that is a position that I now know better than to push my luck to be in. So I'll often back off and let some other fool be my decoy.

    Let us for the sake of argument pretend that your ideas have some basis and a dialogue for change is ongoing. Do you think the federal government would be willing to increase (or is it abolish?) the national maximum limits simply based on the opinion of the few? Highly doubtful. You cited a case from Louisiana.... Do you think the people of the State of Louisiana would support the change you're making into a big huge issue? Dream on!

    OK, skip a "change on the national level", lets talk "state level". Do you honestly think that California, in the current dire financial state it is in would be willing to forgo the federal highway funding it receives now simply because it is in compliance with the national 65 mph limit?

    Lets look past that.... If anyone on this forum is supportive of the claim that speed enforcement is simply based upon the state's desire to stick its hands into everyone's pocket, that would have to be "you" (no pun intended). And yet you're suggesting it is a possibility that the state will abolish those maximum limits, and simply give up on the "revenue" (your description, not mine) that it collects when in fact the majority of citations issued in violation of those maximum limits are a guaranteed win for the state but only to please those select few (who, by the way, happen to be "the select few who are often caught exceeding the current limits")?

    OK, leave that one aside... Do you think you, Student and the few others who would like to turn California's highways into the German Autobahn can butt heads with the insurance lobby that not only controls Sacramento, but has quite the grip over Washington DC as well? And a perfect example of the stone block wall that the insurance industry represents, is “national health care”... How many presidential terms has it taken for that idea to even come close to being a reality? And you better believe that the majority of American society would support some sort of “free coverage”. Not so much support for abolishing the speed limit though, or at least that's my assessment!

    Speaking of insurance and here's your change to ignore my question a second time... Where do you think your premium rates will be if & when this social change will eventually cause those speed limit signs to come down?

    You can argue social change as you please, you can offer case law citations from 120 years ago, you can continue to wish and hope for, but in reality, your dreams aren't realistic.

    With all due respect, most people in this state have an agenda that is lacking of any mention of this issue, so while you can continue to push for change, and as you can continue your claim that social change will result in abolishing the maximum limits, keep in mind that others nowadays might have other priorities (like “finding a job” or “putting food” on their table) with speed limits being the farthest from their minds. Hack, some people cannot afford a full tank of gas!

    Quote Quoting HonkingAntelope
    View Post
    As for "hotrods" in the 60s and 70s, that's when the 65mph limit actually made sense. The horsepower was there, but safety, suspension, and tire technologies on production cars were nowhere near the same level. The odds of tire or suspension failures and poor handling at higher speeds made higher speeds patently unsafe. Even if the engine was easily capable of accelerating the car to 150mph, most mass production cars in those days came with park bench seats, no seatbelts, leafspring suspensions, and donut tires. I'm not even mentioning stuff like airbags or traction control.
    Glad you brought that up... You're right that technology, manufacturer's specs, minimum safety standards... etc all have changed... But along with that, the laws have also changed. And they have become more restrictive, and the more time that goes by the more restrictive they will become... From tires and minimum regulatory manufacturing standards, to seat belts which have long been the minimum safety requirement and on to air bags which are now a must, to the more recent red light camera.... Laws are undeniably become more restrictive!!! And yet here you are dreaming about social drive that will result in “change” that runs against that tide, the type that would lead to abolishing speed limits thereby making existing violations unenforceable.

    Quote Quoting HonkingAntelope
    View Post
    Nowadays, however, automotive technology has improved a notch or two, and the vast majority of vehicles and drivers can safely run at speeds well in excess of the absurdly low 65mph limit.
    And yet the federal accepted standard by which bumpers are tested, mandates that as long as it can withstand a 5mph impact, then its good to be on the streets. And here you are suggesting that you can crash at 65mph and end up walking away. Try it in your car, HA. I'll leave mine in the garage and watch you on YouTube!!!

    Seriously, HA... Wake up, stop dreaming... 'cause it ain't gonna happen any time soon! At least, not in your lifetime!

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    625

    Default Re: Traffic Court Motion to Dismiss

    Whoa TG, lighten up a bit. The reason I cited those old cases is to illustrate a point that the law can and does change once there's enough dissatisfaction with the status quo.

    I never said I wanted to abolish speed limits. Properly set speed limits are a valuable aid for motorists unfamiliar with a given area and they do promote overall safety by limiting speed variance and limiting traffic speeds to the level the vast majority of motorists find safe, reasonable, and comfortable.

    My beef is strictly with the maximum speed limits that are set by an arbitrary governmental proclamation rather than on the basis of a properly conducted traffic survey. Even then, this would not be an issue if the statutory maximums were set at a reasonably high level which, if exceeded, would be so dangerous to an ordinary alert driver with a car in good repair and under ideal conditions, that no additional proof would be required to prove the offender's speed was actually unsafe. Just imagine if VC23152b was enforced the same way as CV22349, with cops giving a pass to anyone who blows or bleeds less than 0.12% BAC/BrAC despite .08% being the legal max?

    As for highway funds, you do have a point there. CA doesn't have much of an option there at the moment. Insurance lobby is a major obstace, too. They do have a vested financial interested in having as many citations handed out as possible. I'm willing to concede that much.

    To hear you talk, you make increased fines and more restrictive laws sound like a bad thing. IMO, both of those are a great development because they spur more members of the public to do something other than giving up without a fight. There has already been a significant shift in the type of crowd I see in traffic courts (and this forum, too). Before the penalty assessments went up to nearly $300 for a lousy 1-15mph over ticket, most of the people I saw in court were folks who got popped for missing license/reg/insurance or otherwise earned themselves a mandatory appearance. These days, there are far more people going to court to contest the charge or just hoping the judge would cut them a break on the fine. If it takes quarupled fines and enforcement to change a bad law, I'm all for that.


    P.S. It takes quite a bit to make me shriek

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5

Similar Threads

  1. Motions: How to File a Motion to Dismiss in Federal Court
    By Jakie in forum Civil Procedure
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-07-2011, 06:31 PM
  2. Motions: When Can You File a Motion to Dismiss in Traffic Court
    By Standtall in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-14-2011, 06:11 PM
  3. Motions: Motion to Dismiss Filing Procedure in Civil Court
    By David M in forum Civil Procedure
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-19-2011, 03:19 PM
  4. Motions: Motion to Dismiss a Traffic Infraction
    By dbenjami in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-10-2010, 01:02 PM
  5. Motions: Motion to Dismiss a Traffic Ticket in Texas
    By jat5560 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-06-2009, 08:10 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources