Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Wouldn't it just be easier, less time/money/hassle, to drive within the speed limits, or close enough to them such that you won't stick out enough to be ticketed? Why is it so hard to drive within posted speed limits? What's your hurry? Need to make a court appearance?
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
I tried not to stick out, just he caught me at my top speed going up the hill. If he'd of watched me for more than a couple seconds, rather than just staring into his radar gun, he'd of seen that I wasn't going "fast" but for like 1 second (fast by his definition).
The technical term is that most speed limits are PRIMA Facie speed limits (guidelines) basically. For instance, the speed limit might be too high if there was 12" of solid ice on the road along with downed power lines, and debris from WWIII and the next ice age.
However, where the law allows an officer to ticket you if you were going TOO FAST for conditions even if that be below the Prima Facie speed limit, so can it be argued that in some circumstances, the speed limit is too slow for conditions.
Also where I live, going 50+ in a 35 zone is "fast" in general... not just by the definition of the police officer present. The local police catch quite a few of these folks, going 50+ in a 35 zone, on a 4-lane road that I drive on a lot, as it's near my home. Like you, they must think that the posted speed limit is only for other people, not them. The police officers are there to remind them that is not the case.
I also see lots of folks zooming down the street I live on, which is posted at 30 because it's in a residential area with lots of kids, elderly people, handicapped folks... and an occasional deer or moose. They too must feel they are too important to drive at only 30 mph... after all, their cars are capable of much higher speeds. It's pretty funny in a way because there's several stop signs along this one mile stretch of road. So these idiots tear away from one stop sign only to slam on the brakes at the next one, then take off again. Must do wonders for fuel economy, brakes, and overall wear/tear on the car. Also must save them all of... oh, maybe 10 seconds going down that road, depending on how many cars they meet at the cross streets.
I would love to see that law as it would nullify speed limits. Why have a speed limit if it can be violated by anyone with no consequences.
However, where the law allows an officer to ticket you if you were going TOO FAST for conditions even if that be below the Prima Facie speed limit, so can it be argued that in some circumstances, the speed limit is too slow for conditions.
I would be surprised if you would win that argument as driving to fast for conditions is not the same as exceeding the speed limit.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
"The speed of any vehicle on a highway, in excess of the speed limits herein, is prima facie unlawful, unless the defendant establishes by competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not constitute a violation at the time, place, and under the road, weather, and traffic conditions then existing."
So, instead of wasting your money on a radar detector, get a video camera like one of those Google mapping contraptions and record everything. :shades:
"Your honor, here is video evidence that I was driving safely for conditions." (starts video)
"Were you driving when you shot this video?"
"Uhmm... yeah."
"The court finds the defendant guilty of reckless driving, the fine is $200. Next case!"
Reckless driving? Let's drama down a little, that's funny. Maybe we should get the same accusations made on revenue enforcement officers playing with their computers as they drive, or rushing off to have lunch with their coworkers.
The laptops and radio are way bigger distractions.
I think it's actually pretty silly that the personal opinion of some judge can be the end all, be all. So the absolute speed limits make more sense to me than the "let's let the judge decide" system. And that's the world I live in... unless I drive outside a "municipality"... which is practically never, where I drive in my state. At least I know where I stand with the law, and don't have to guess, "hmm, will some judge think I'm driving too fast?"
Your testimony under oath serves as competent testimony. If the officer chooses to make a mockery of the justice system and lie in court, they can, and will. Some officer's will do this, some won't.
I find that generally the officer's won't lie about "seemingly" unimportant information under cross examination. Remember, they don't know what your argument is yet until after you question/cross examine them.
So you get all the facts out during cross examination, then you make your closing arguments afterward (so they don't know where your going with the stuff). Hopefully, the cops' facts match your own version of the events. If they don't, it helps to have pictures, even if the pictures were taken after the fact, you can testify that conditions were similar and like the pictures you took (say, with no traffic).
I've found officer's prefer to forget there was other traffic around (because if there was when using radar, the other vehicles around you, certainly brings in doubt as to which car they actually radared!). I know I had an officer fail to notice/remember/lie about there being no SEMI truck behind me that might have overpowered the radar signal over my little itty bitty car.
I don't think you have to be part of the dream team of lawyers to be good enough to poke holes in the false testimony of officer's who tell a lot of fibs under cross examination. Often, when one lies, you are able to poke holes in the lies with further questioning, and if the officer is embarrassed like this, the judge will probably be forced to side with you.
Often, judges like for cops to get the last word, even though they are merely witnesses, and not a DA. As witnesses they should not be allowed the final closing argument like a prosecutor is entitled to.
I think judges hate officer's who get caught lying in their courtroom more than they love revenue.
I believe in my two count ticket where I was found guilty on count one, and not guilty on count two a few years back, I was in part found not guilty because the sheriff got caught in a fib. He said that even though he had added the second charge to my ticket after I had signed it (thankfully he admitted that and was truthful), that he had "always intended to give me that charge from the start, and simply forgot."
Obviously, that was ludicrous, as there's no way he could tell my tires were a low tread depth/bald from his position 100' away when I took a supposed illegal u-turn (count 1). He said later on when questioned by me "When did you know my tires had low tread depth?" A: When I measured them." Q: When did you measure them? Answer was something that made it clear it was after I had stopped after being pulled over; and obviously could not have been intended from the start! I believe the judge caught onto this inconsistency and found me not guilty even though the officer appeared for both charges.
Keep in mind, if I could choose any road in CA to fight the 35 MPH speed limit, most certainly I would choose this one in question now. It is without a doubt, the most under posted speed limited road I have come across on a regular basis (since I live right by it).
Trust me, there are roads that have 35 MPH speed limits that makes sense (and I'll go 35 in them), but this certainly isn't one of them.
If you face jail time, you can demand a jury trial. Frankly, when it comes to traffic court, I'd prefer to raise the stakes and gamble for a fairer game. It is like the Indian Casino's near San Diego used to be; in order to play good black jack, they used to make you bet $50 minimums, otherwise it was all rigged 6 or 8 deck shoes for you at the lower bet tables.
You are assuming the defendant is telling the truth. The officer is under oath also. Since you think some police officers will lie under oath in court, I know you'll agree that some defendants will lie under oath. Or simply remember details differently than the officer did. It could be something like "There were absolutely no pedestrians present!" "Officer?" "Your honor, I did notice a child on a driveway adjacent to the road." Both parties could be telling the truth as they see it, but disagree.
You must do this kind of thing a LOT to make observations about what happens "often" in court. Here's an idea: slow down a bit, and then you won't have to take up your valuable time nor the court's time nor police officers' time with all these court appearances. Think of the time and money you'll save, and the taxpayer money you'll save!
Well spoken, well said. I know that around here in court if you said you were doing 50 MPH in a posted 35 MPH zone that would be the end of it. It wouldn't matter what the 85 percentile does, it doesn't matter if the road was clear and there was no traffic and no one else around or that the road was wide and straight. All that matters was that you were exceeding the posted speed limit.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
I guess question here is why take chances of "overtly" speeding with possibility of getting caught? Seems like a gigantic waste of time - Being pulled over. Going to court.
Wouldn't it make more sense to just fudge a little like many drivers do, go over limit if you must, but within amount of MPH that most police officers will not bother you? Just what is so important, or is it thrilling, the need for speed, etc, to go at speed that will likely get you stopped?
At least he put a title on the post, worthless thought it was. Some folks don't bother. Makes it hard to keep threads straight.
Some folks don't bother.
Nobody knows the name of the game. (Have to toss Fezo a bone now and then.
Apparently spell check doesn't ckeck titles.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Watch out for the turkeys on the road. :P
If we were talking about the maximum speed law and I got cited for over 65 MPH (where it was not posted to allow 70), then I'd have to agree with you 100%. You'd be right. It really is that simple (I don't like the law, but as the law is written, that is the way it works with the maximum speed law.
But my case is the BASIC speed law, which is much different than the maximum speed law. Therefore, I am innocent as the officer won't be able to prove all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. One of the elements is that my driving has to be dangerous, unsafe, and hazardous in some way in order to be illegal. Since there were no other cars in front or beside me, no other pedestrians in front of or beside me, I don't see how he can reasonably say my driving was unsafe, at any speed.
In order to prove my guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the officer must prove 3 things in court.
1) That my vehicle exceeded the prima facie speed limit (B>A).
2) That I was the identified driver of the vehicle that was speeding. - This is something camera's can't do and therefore should have a 0% conviction rate.
3) That my driving was unsafe, hazardous, and posed some kind of danger given the conditions around me (rain? no, snow? no, heavy traffic ? no, baby stroller? no, dog? no, cat? no, fog? no, oil slicks or ice on the road? no!!!! NO NO NO!
#3 is where I win my case, hands down, he's got nothing. I doubt he'll show.
I try to for the most part, but every once in a while I spool up my turbo too much and end up getting a ticket when I least expect it. I think this is where being educated about traffic laws and vehicle codes hurts me. I know it's my right to drive safe and prudently, as long as reasonable for conditions, even if that be over the speed limit. However, sometimes I have to prove this right was reasonably used in court.
If I didn't know the law, and was ignorant, I might blindly follow posted speed limits too!
What bothers me is that a lot of the cops in CA are well educated about the law, but seem to make choices that SCREAM revenue generation anyway.
I suppose, thinking now, that the only road I get "basic speed law" violations is on Lake Murray Blvd. LOL.... having received two tickets on this road, I can't think of more than one other speeding violation I've ever received EXCEPT at this underposted road..... (not counting CHP freeway/interstate speeding tickets I've received) Yes, I'm thinking....thinking.... Yup, in 17 years + of driving, I've received three basic speed law violations, and 2 of them for this particular road, and I've lived in SD county since 2002. This is my 3rd basic speed law violations citation in 17+ years of driving.
Both of the previous citations were thrown out in court, unworthy, and dismissed. I'm hoping for 3-0 on the basic speed law!
And I quote (I've highlighted for emphasis):
"California has a 'Basic Speed Law.' This law means that you may never drive faster than is safe for current conditions. For example, if you are driving 45 mph in a 55 mph speed zone during a dense fog, you could be cited for driving "too fast for conditions." You may never legally drive faster than the posted speed limit, even if you think it is safe."
Take your lumps, slow down, and quit trying to justify your actions. You may have gotten lucky before, but sooner or later Karma taps you on the shoulder. Worse, you're going to be at fault in a crash and hurt someone else.
Justify that, would you?
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.
Here's the basic speed law defined.
The handbook doesn't seem to agree with the law. :confuse:
always at downhill, or at traffic cresting the hill.
so hammer it up those hills, people! TORQUE! then slow at the top as you crest the hill and chill on the way downhill too...
I went out twice, once about 7:30 am and again about noon. I found 7:30 to be a real good time... little traffic, lots of parking available, short or no lines in stores. Noon was another matter. Heavy traffic, folks forgetting about the rules of driving, long lines in stores. But really not too bad in terms of inconsiderate driving. Worst I saw was a guy in a black SUV (maybe a Kia, didn't get a good look at it) who was in the left lane of a four-lane road, near an intersection, and decided at the last moment he really wanted to turn right. Almost creamed a sedan that was in the right lane. The sedan gave an appropriate horn salute. Then the SUV continued to make a 90-degree turn across the right lane into the right-turn lane. (Would have been easy to cross the intersection, drive up about 100 feet to the next left turn lane, and do a U-eey.)
Other than that, cars were considerate of pedestrians taking their lives into their hands crossing the mall parking lots, and waiting their turns within the parking lots. Pretty impressive for a Black Friday.
On the other hand, I was on the local freeway, 4/4 lanes when a highway patrol from a dead stop on the right side emergency lane decides he wants to climb up my six to get to a "speeder" who had passed both him and me. Discretion normally being the better part of valor, I gave a signal, slipped into the right side emergency lane where he with codes a blazing, shot by me at unknown speeds in the 4/4 lane. A short distance/time later he got his customer.
Coming home I was on LSD (thats Lake Shore Drive) on a section where I was the only car on it. Its 4 lanes each direction and I was in the right of the two center lanes doing about 50 MPH (the speed limit). All of a sudden so idiot races up behind me in my lane and swerves into the right lane at the very last minute to pass me.
Later on I was on the Stevenson (I-55) traffic was heavy but moving and I am doing an average speed of around 65 MPH (the rest of traffic was going a few MPH faster or slower). At one point I was in the left lane passing someone when some idiot races up behind me and tailgates me. I finish the pass and move into the center lane (which was clear for at least a quarter mile ahead of me). the guy behind me in a Miata quickly passes me cuts into the center lane (left lane had a line of cars in it) and zooms up as far as he could before getting slowed by traffic. About 5 seconds later a Crown Vic does the same thing comes up behind the Miata and then lights up like a christmas tree.
Later on on the Stevenson deep into the burbs traffic became a lot lighter and I noticed an older sedan with temp tag on it weaving back and forth but managing to stay in his lane. S/he would move to the far left of their lane then correct it going to the far right of the lane, correct that and go to the far left only to begin all over again. I saw them do this like 5 or 6 times but they never left their lane.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I wonder if the danger of flooring it and flying into traffic to catch a speeder is greater than the danger of the speeder alone. It's not like cops never crash. But I guess when you can't really get fired...
And it happened again this year. The Police handed out over 65 citations for standing in the middle lane of 3 lanes & those standing were trying to edge into the outside lane for the exit 271 leading to the Outlet Malls. Imagine being stuck in the stopped middle lane and being rearended by a car doing 65 mph.
Christmas inconsiderates
Euphonium's local idiots remind me of something I saw in GA that I am not used to - in traffic jams there, people would drive on the shoulder or even back up an on-ramp to get out of the mess. I couldn't believe that.