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
1) Speed Trap Prohibition
40801. No peace officer or other person shall use a speed trap in arresting, or participating or assisting in the arrest of, any person for any alleged violation of this code nor shall any speed trap be used in securing evidence as to the speed of any vehicle for the purpose of an arrest or prosecution under this code
40802. (a) A "speed trap" is either of the following:
(1) A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance.
(2) A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects. This paragraph does not apply to a local street, road, or school zone.
(b) (1) For purposes of this section, a local street or road is ( ) one that is functionally classified as “local” on the “California Road System Maps,” that are approved by the Federal Highway Administration and maintained by the Department of Transportation. When a street or road does not appear on the “California Road System Maps,” it may be defined as a “local street or road” if it primarily provides access to abutting residential property and meets the following three conditions:
(A) Roadway width of not more than 40 feet.
(B) Not more than one-half of a mile of uninterrupted length. Interruptions shall include official traffic control signals as defined in Section 445.
(C) Not more than one traffic lane in each direction.
(2) For purposes of this section "school zone" means that area approaching or passing a school building or the grounds thereof that is contiguous to a highway and on which is posted a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign, while children are going to or leaving the school either during school hours or during the noon recess period. "School zone" also includes the area approaching or passing any school grounds that are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children if that highway is posted with a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign.
(c) (1) When all of the following criteria are met, paragraph (2) of this subdivision shall be applicable and subdivision (a) shall not be applicable:
(A) When radar is used, the arresting officer has successfully completed a radar operator course of not less than 24 hours on the use of police traffic radar, and the course was approved and certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.
(B) When laser or any other electronic device is used to measure the speed of moving objects, the arresting officer has successfully completed the training required in subparagraph (A) and an additional training course of not less than two hours approved and certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.
(C) (i) The prosecution proved that the arresting officer complied with subparagraphs (A) and (B) and that an engineering and traffic survey has been conducted in accordance with subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2). The prosecution proved that, prior to the officer issuing the notice to appear, the arresting officer established that the radar, laser, or other electronic device conformed to the requirements of subparagraph (D).
(ii) The prosecution proved the speed of the accused was unsafe for the conditions present at the time of alleged violation unless the citation was for a violation of Section 22349, 22356, or 22406.
(D) The radar, laser, or other electronic device used to measure the speed of the accused meets or exceeds the minimal operational standards of the National Traffic Highway Safety Administration, and has been calibrated within the three years prior to the date of the alleged violation by an independent certified laser or radar repair and testing or calibration facility.
(2) A "speed trap" is either of the following:
(A) A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance.
(B) (i) A particular section of a highway or state highway with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within one of the following time periods, prior to the date of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects:
(I) Except as specified in subclause (II), seven years.
(II) If an engineering and traffic survey was conducted more than seven years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and a registered engineer evaluates the section of the highway and determines that no significant changes in roadway or traffic conditions have occurred, including, but not limited to, changes in adjoining property or land use, roadway width, or traffic volume, 10 years.
(ii) This subparagraph does not apply to a local street, road, or school zone.
___________________
Found this for my very own Lake Murry Blvd. (Also known as 70th Street South of the 8 Interstate (same road). Link below:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/hseb/crs_maps/maplinks/15y/15y25.pdf
The ticket in question occurred IMMEDIATELY north of the 8 on Lake Murray Blvd., and it is designated as 4 levels above "local road." It is an "other principal arterial" roadway with an underposted speed limit. From the officer I already know they don't have a traffic engineering survey properly and legitimately justifying the speed limit posted, and I already know he used radar.
So this is a slam dunk, it is a speed trap per 40802, and per 40801 a speed trap is illegal and invalid evidence, including the radar evidence (inadmissable), and therefore this case is CLOSED, CASE DISMISSED.
***GAVEL sound here!****
Some thanks are in order for the National Motorist Association, particularly their newsletter "Driving Freedoms" Vol. 22 Issue 4 Fall 2011.
Great timing; made this research effort go 200% faster.
You're lucky you didn't get pinched for Negligent (driving in a manner that is likely to endanger) or Reckless (willful & wanton disregard) Driving. I think the office was generous kust writing you for speed.
Just to make you spend more time on this, I'd just go ahead and find you guilty, and then let you appeal. Wouldn't hurt my feelings at all to get overturned on appeal (or not), but gee, if you had just slowed down a bit instead of speeding in the first place, look at all the time you wouldn't have wasted!
(Although it would appear you have WAY too much free time already...)
I would question that. Lake Murray road north of I-8 is two lanes each way with a raised treet lines medium, a bike lane along the edge of the road and the sidewalk right next to the road. It has no shoulder with obsticles (a hill buildings with at least one being residential) boardering the road. Which curves to the right, around the hill. Google Eath can be great. 35 MPH does seem respectible, maybe 40 but thats it. 52 MPH is way to fast.
Buy what you said your whole defense is based on the traffic engineering survey showing a that the posted speed was set to low. If this is the case you better have the most current survey at hand showing that and showing that you were going at a safe speed. And you better hope that there isn't a history of major incidents at speeds between the posted speed and your speed. Otherwise you could very well lose.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Would it be easier to just go the limit, or the 5-10 mph factor over the limit that most police will "give" and not pull you over?
It does seem like the time he is using to fighting this far exceeds any time he saves
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
ROFL. Endanger what or whom I might ask? There were no pedestrians, there were no bike riders, there wasn't even any other traffic alongside or in front of me (only behind me, and minimal at that).
Even the officer admitted he doesn't bother with anyone driving 49 and under, even if its a Semi-Truck weighing multiples times more than my just over 3,000 lb. car.
I believe most all judges hate having their verdicts overturned on appeal, and that is the incentive for them to justly review and apply all of the laws of our great nation.
But GEE, if the officer had just used some common sense and logic, and not written the false allegation citation (and broke the speed trap law so he is a bigger criminal than anyone else here), then I wouldn't have had to waste any time on this idiotic case for Lake Murray Blvd. 2.0 rematch.
The officer said something to the effect that La Mesa gave him permission due to some circumstance to break the rules and use radar on a known underposted speed limited road. Whatever La Mesa thinks is an exception (apartment/residences nearby) is complete nonsense, unjustified by the law or vehicle code, and I've seen plenty of streets with up to 50 MPH speed limits that have apartment residences alongside them to boot.
Again, I thought I was going a reasonably slow speed, within 5 - 10 MPH of a reasonably posted speed limit, and furthermore, I was only going about 48 to 50 MPH for a second or two, as the upward incline quickly shaved my speed when I let go of the accelerator.
It would have been easier for the La Mesa PD officer to realize conditions were optimal and arbitrarily picking a number was a bad idea as an enforcement method for this particular day. Much easier for him to not waste my time with these false tickets.
Why? The officer admitted it to me and whatever you say can be used against you in a court of law.
The Dept. of Transportation unbiasedly lists it as a major other arterial roadway of travel, not to be encumbered with 35 MPH super ridiculously underposted speed limits.
Google Eath can be great. I played around with it. Seems google earth is not very accurate or clear. HOwever, the google SATELLITE maps view was very good! I see the bike lane your talking about. I turned right from Parkway Ave. onto Lake Murray Blvd, so the first few hundred feet has no bike lane as I quickly accelerated.
There are two things at locations where I could have reached 50 MPH from basically 0 at the intersection at the bottom of the hill (also, maps/satellite shots, earth photos do a terrible job of representing the uphill incline nature of this roadway). There is a church, then about 1,000' of unencumbered straight-away, then an appartment with a single road access to their parking lot. I believe the officer was hiding in the church parking lot shooting his radar up a ways as I reached my maximum speed up the hill. Possible he was at the apartment shooting downward, but my radar detector detected his presence prior to or at the latest alongside the apartment (well before the mild rightward bend in the road).
As I've stated previously, that righward turn in the road was my chance for escape if I'd of reacted smartly and quickly to my radar detector. I should have swung a right hand turn on Kiowa at the full 52 MPH
I live right by this area, and nearly drive this everyday, the average pace of traffic is 40-50. The only people going 35-40 are either over 65 years old, driving a car under 100 HP, or towing something. I think I drove about 35 when I was borrowing the 2500 HD diesel pickup from my mechanic, and was OK with that speed for that vehicle. Downright silly in any competent lightweight car.
If this is the case you better have the most current survey at hand showing that and showing that you were going at a safe speed. And you better hope that there isn't a history of major incidents at speeds between the posted speed and your speed. Otherwise you could very well lose.
I believe I'm going the trial by declaration/mail route for this case first. If that doesn't go well then I will request a real trial with the officer present (Trial de Novo). For the trial by declaration, I will use the officer's testimony when he pulled me over against him regarding the survey and his statement it doesn't justify the 35 MPH speed limit.
If I get the incorrect verdict, my discovery request and trial de novo request will go out simultaneously. That gives them 20 days to respond with the latest and greatest certified traffic survey. If they do not on day 21 I send in a request for a motion hearing and submit motions to compel discovery or in the alternative dismiss. If the judge grants my motion and they do not respond to his time frame (probably at least 1 day before trial), then at trial they won't show, or will be found in contempt of the court's order.
As far as incidents, I assume you mean this roadways "accident history and record." I've never seen an accident on this road, I anticipate the "accident rate" for this stretch of roadway will be to my benefit just as it was in the Santee case (6 times safer than average roadway, 1/6th as many accidents).
In your depositions and trial, be sure to be truthful, and consistent. Not like you are doing here, where you state that you were going 52, then say you were going 48-50 at most and only for a second, then a few minutes later swing back to saying you were going 52. Any indication of inconsistency in your story will make the judge suspicious and could lead to a raft of questions, in an attempt to discover the truth.
That's why I put the little emoticon symbol by it.
Of course, I could have chosen to accelerate from 48-50 MPH, but the reality is that I let go of the accelerator as soon as the car upshited at around that speed.
And I would never mention in court that I could have avoided this ticket as it is irrelevant, I got the ticket, woulda, coulda , shoulda!!! The only thing that matters now is proving I was driving safe and reasonably, whether I was going 35, 45, or 55, is irrelevant to me, I"ll show all 3 speeds would have been safe given the conditions present.
But first and foremost, the speed trap defense should get this one dismissed.
Also you need to get your car's transmission checked, it appears there's something afoul with it.
This is all pretty useful though. I can't wait to try it someday, e.g. when going down a straight highway with no traffic, posted at 65-70, I think I'll see what my car's top speed is. Depending on which car I'm driving I might get to 120 or more. And I can say it's perfectly safe and legal, using the same reasoning you are using. In fact, I could use that reasoning for any speed I wish to drive at--because in my own mind, it's a safe and legal speed. And the police are unable to prevent my going this speed, because their attempts to track my speed are illegal! What a country!
And I feel served and protected when they set up shop at the bottom of hills etc, and no doubt put up resistance every time anyone wants to raise a limit - less cash and ego for them.
That's untrue, wrong, incorrect, and false. I've never said I was going 52. I've always maintained I never went over 50.
Now, taking something out of context, I may have mentioned EVEN IF I WAS going 52 (which I've made clear I wasn't), it was okay and legal to do so, but I've never agreed I was going 52. That is what the officer stated his radar reading was, is all. A couple miles an hour doesn't make a difference in this case anyway, even 64 MPH would have been legal in my opinion.
A few problems with your argument there:
1) The maximum speed limit is known as 65 MPH in CA unless posted otherwise to allow a greater speed.
2) You are never allowed to exceed 65 MPH unless posted otherwise, regardless of whether it is safe or not to do so. Safety is not an element of the crime.
3) The police are allowed to use radar where the speed limit is set for the purposes of maximum safety and traffic flow as designed by scientists, engineers, and traffic studies to conform to the 85th percentile rule. So if the city wishes to ignore the safest possible speed limit and set them lower to generate potential additional revenue, they must reep the consequences, which makes radar illegal because that would be a speed trap. The police know that safety is an element of the crime when applying the basic speed law, so they should only issue tickets to unsafe drivers, not just those that exceed a known underposted speed limit. They are free to use other forms of enforcement, just not electronic ones like radar or lidar/laser. When they issue dumb tickets based on unsound speed limits, they should expect a legal battle will ensue.
Or... maybe driving 50% or more faster than the posted speed limit is an unsafe act?
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.ef08fa1/18018!keywords=allin%3Amsg- text%20limit%3A.ef08fa1%2052%20m#MSG18018
If you could do it once, and feel justified in doing so, no big deal to do it more than once, right?
The charge of speeding doesn't apply to have you ever in your life sped on that roadway.
The charge is for speeding at a particular minute or seconds in time during a particular day. I could be guilty of speeding on that same roadway yesterday, tomorrow, and today, and still be NOT GUILTY of the charges on my ticket!
Good GRIEF!
Does it matter that he's already dead? Does it matter that a Navy Seal killed him first, and at a later date I "killed him?" LOL
The argument is that the speed limit should conform to the 85th percentile, which the law requires and dictates.
The maximum speed law is different than the basic speed law. Any speed limit under 65 MPH is a speed "guideline." Any speed limit 65 and over is a MAXIMUM true speed limit, and has to be followed if you want to follow the law. Prima FAcie speed limits are open to interpretation for safety in regards to conditions up to 64.99 MPH.
If I got caught going 66 in a 35 zone I'd probably just pay the ticket, or in the alternative, make the officer show up in court, but waste no time of my own preparing a defense as it will be futile for the most part.
As I've said, the more time I spend preparing a massive defense, the less likely they are to show up. When I don't spend any time, they show up.
Called the court today, they have no record of receiving my ticket. I never got a "courtesy" notice, but I know those "courtesy" notices are sometimes conveniently and purposefully forgotten for rebels like me that actually fight the system.
So I called the court clerk, he confirmed what the automated phone system said, that it was "not in system, no record of ticket."
Apparently, the officer wrote a bad date as the date to appear on my ticket. He wrote 1/7/12 by 8:00 am. Unfortunately for him and La Mesa's Bank account, the courts are closed on that date as it is a Saturday. It is a bad date, he'll have to re-write and re-issue the ticket, which he has a full year to do (RIDICULOUS, and if he does try it, I'll file a motion for lack of speedy trial/prosecution). That one year timeline is Unconstitutional and ludicrously long.
However, he made a mistake on my citation, which is a legal document. By using a bad date, it shows incompetence, and lack of judgement, and certainly can be used in court as a technical ground for dismissal, and certainly also to show lack of capability in the officer to properly judge safe, reasonable, and prudent speeds on the roadway that day if he can't even get the date right on an important document.
On 1/9/11 and/or later I can go to the court and have them stamp "NO RECORD" on my citation to document this joke of a false allegation.
One simple mistake writing a date has absolutely nothing to do with judging speed, or any of your other ludicrous inferences.
Slow down, grow up, and get over yourself.
And I am supposed to "respect the badge". Bah.
Does it or doesn't it? Is it a simple mistake? Does he make the mistake often? If not, perhaps he was drunk or otherwise incapacitated the date of my alleged violation leading to the error.
If he does make the mistake often, then he's careless and reckless with his enforcement tactics.
Wasn't going 52 "allegedly" a simple mistake as well, since I was only going that speed "allegedly" for a second or two?
Not having your ticket in the system may.
Yourself, someone you may have not noticed, someone entering the road or getting close to it. It is a bit tight along that road and getting from a building to next to the street would take no time at all.
Even the officer admitted he doesn't bother with anyone driving 49 and under
Which means you were doing at least 50 MPH (or at least 15 MPH over the posted limit).
The officer said something to the effect ...
Oh for your sake I hope the ADA thats representing the state isn't to sharp or you will never finish that sentence. Saying "something to the effect of" would not be admissible in a court of law as it is speculation and opinion.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I think a disclaimer her is in order, it should read what you consider a reasonable posted SL. Others with more training in the area might disagree with you.
and furthermore, I was only going about 48 to 50 MPH for a second or two
A second or two is still breaking the law and going uphill too boot. Even though you do admit to speeding even if it was a reasonably posted (in your opinion) SL.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I've driven for 17 years with no at-fault accidents involving another vehicle, and only 1 that damaged my own vehicle against a curb, and that was 15 years ago. I was uninjured. I believe my safety is fine with my driving, the record proves it.
I notice everyone and everything, so not noticing someone sounds implausible. I pay attention when I drive; constantly scanning the are around me in every direction.
I don't understand what is tight about the road. They are 2 very wide lanes with a narrow bike lane that didnt' have any bikers on it (never does). The sidewalk and center median further provide additional buffer zones.
Which means you were doing at least 50 MPH (or at least 15 MPH over the posted limit).
No, it means the officer either incorrectly THINKS I was going at least 50, or he was gonna nail me for over 50 regardless (set me up despite the facts). He showed me his radar gun reading, and although you can lock in the reading from a guy going 52 from 1998, I have a feeling his radar incorrectly read 52 and he believed it.
Do you know any uncorrupted traffic engineers that disagree with the 85th percentile rule for speed limits?
and going uphill too boot. Even though you do admit to speeding even if it was a reasonably posted (in your opinion) SL.
I think going uphill allows you to drive faster safer because gravity is on your side and you can stop and manuever more quickly in the event of an emergency. If anything, going downhill you should go slower.
If speeding is denotes driving unsafely or defines unreasonable speed and driving in any way, then I was not speeding. I was going faster than the posted speed limit, but I was within the limits of safe, reasonable, and prudent driving, and therefore was not speeding per the laws of California's basic speed law. If by speeding you mean I was going a few MPH over the 85th percentile speed, then yes. Remember, the 85th percentile speed is an average likely taken during average normal conditions. The conditions on my particular day were perfect and optimal.
Ya think? Talk about "good grief". Do you think we are absolute idiots here?
The fact is, you did go 52 mph in a 35 zone on that roadway. You admitted it. You just didn't get caught that time--you got lucky. You don't think there's anything wrong about doing that. In fact, you stated a few posts ago that you don't think going 64 mph in that 35 zone is wrong, or illegal.
Based on that attitude towards speed limits, I have to assume then that you frequently go far beyond posted speed limits, relying on your radar dectector to save you from getting a ticket. But it doesn't always do that. Then you try to weasel out of the ticket in court, taking a lot of your time and the court's time in the process.
As if driving is one Big Game created for your amusement. Which would be fun, if you weren't playing with the lives and tax dollars of other people.
Yes, depending on CONDITIONS, both of the roadway, traffic, weather, and your own vehicle and its own condition (tires, brakes, suspension).
If, and I do mean IF there was a convoy of bicycles and baby strollers on the sidewalk/bikelane, I'd advise AGAINST blowing by at 50+ MPH.
I have to assume then that you frequently go far beyond posted speed limits, relying on your radar dectector to save you from getting a ticket.
Not really. Most speed limits are closer to the "within limits of reason" ballpark, but the 35 on Lake Murray Blvd. is so far under reasonable, it's ridiculous. I find the majority of speed limits are only slightly underposted, unlike Lake Murray Blvd, which is severely underposted. So for the most part, I stay within 10 to 15 MPH of the speed limit, even in optimal conditions.
The radar detector is used as a safety device, it simply gives the driver more situational awareness of things around you, including police cars, motorcycles, radio waves, and such. More information to the driver makes for a better driver. Ignorance is not bliss when driving.
with the lives and tax dollars of other people.
I suggest you write letters to law enforcement and gov't officials to instruct traffic cops to only go after UNSAFE drivers, and not just try to generate revenue on underposted roadways. It is the La Mesa PD that is wasting tax dollars and human efficiency and manhours.
Judge: "Mr Andres, did you exceed the posted limit of 35 MPH?
Andres: "Your honor, I only exceeded it for a second or two."
Judge: "How fast did you drive?"
Andres: "48-50 MPH, but your honor.....
Judge: "Guilty. Pay the fine and court costs."
Judge: "Please call the next case."
Because from what I could see in my research the road does not seem to be good for a speed over 40 MPH. Most roads I have seen like that have been set at a 40 MPH limit or less.
Seems google earth is not very accurate or clear.
Actually Google Earth can be very clear, especally in the area in question. And even clearer when yo go into street view (which are pictures taken from a vehicle driving down the street) so it would be very easy for someone who has never been there to get a very good ideal of the layout. Its even very good at showing elevation changes (go to the Grand Canyon and see).
If I get the incorrect verdict
You mean if the verdict goes against you, many here think the correct verdict would be against you.
I've never seen an accident on this road, I anticipate the "accident rate" for this stretch of roadway will be to my benefit
In short you don't know it, I would suggest doing a little research on why it is set to a 35 MPH limit.">
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Two things.
First it's not avoiding the ticket, it's evading the ticket. Avoiding the ticket would be driving the speed limit and not getting pulled over. Evading the ticket means to try to outrun and evade the police like you mentioned.
Second it is very relevant as you cannot "evade" the ticket if you were not doing anything wrong. If you mentioned it it would be a strike against you.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I was talking to a traffic engineer a few months back who told me that the 85% rule is not an absolute. It is more like a rule of thumb and that there is a sizable number of roads where it really doesn't work. He told me that it must be used in conguction with other factors such as the terrain, visability, line of sight, road use, amount of cross traffic and traffic coming onto and getting off of the road and a few other things.
He used to work for a sizable town near me and he gave a road that I have mentioned here as an example. He told me they did a study that showed that the 85 percentile set the speed limit at a little over 50 MPH (I usually drive it at 40 and most times have people racing up behind me). My reply was that I didn't think that 50 MPH was safe for that road and he replied that it wasn't. He said that there were 3 points on the road (a two and a half mile road) where you couldn't see far enough down the road to safely travel at 50 MPH.
He went on to say that with that, the fact that it went through a heavily wooded area with vegitation right at the roads edge, no shoulder and a few blind driveways and side streets that they deemed 40 MHP to be safe. The SL was set to 35 knowing that people would do between 5 and 10 over.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
So for example, the 55 speed limit for fully loaded tractor trailers is generally ignored in favor of 60-70-75 mph or if the UP grade is too steep for the turbo diesels' power curve. But then again most tractor trailer drivers are almost totally familar with the routes they have been assigned. When they are not it is a good idea for them to use extra caution,...whatever that means now a days.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Yep thats what you say, if that and other things you say here are true you have been lucky.
I notice everyone and everything,
Nobody notices everyone and everything. The most attentive people do miss things at times. The truely safe drivers know this.
I don't understand what is tight about the road.
Other than the lane you are in and the lane next to you there is no way out. The medium is raised so you cannot use it ( and if you did go onto it you will likely hit a tree) and there is no shoulder to the right so any emergency move to the right takes you right onto the sidewalk. The sidewalk is ajacent to the street so there is no buffer zone save the bike lane. Some buildings, including a residential building are within 45 feet of the road. And it appears to be in a very slight valley.
In other words if something happens that you have to make a emergency move all you have is the next lane. It makes the road not as safe.
He showed me his radar gun reading, and although you can lock in the reading from a guy going 52 from 1998, I have a feeling his radar incorrectly read 52 and he believed it.
No he cannot lock in a reading from a guy going 52 MPH from 1998, Those guns have to be calibrated regually which would require and readings to be overwritten. A radar gun would have had to be recalibrated a few hundred times since then.
Any recent recalibration would indicate that any reading is very accurate.
You stated that your radar detector picked up his gun. IIRC those guns clear out the last reading in order to give a reading on the current target.
There is only three ways you can get the judge not to accept the radar reading. First is that there was no FCC license to operate it or that the license had expired. It would be extremely rare for this to happen since radar guns are covered under the FCC license that allows the government entity to use two way communication devices.
Another way would be if the officers certification to operate the radar gun has expired at the time of the ticket. The third way is to show that there is no record of a calibration of the radar gun in question in the recomended time fram prior to the ticket. To get these records you would have to supeona them.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I have already discussed this in another post.
I think going uphill allows you to drive faster safer because gravity is on your side and you can stop and manuever more quickly in the event of an emergency.
That is irrelevant to the conversation, what is relevent that to speed going uphill requires a greater willingess to speed.
I was within the limits of safe, reasonable, and prudent driving,
Or so you say, remember that is your untrained opinion.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Wouldn't been funny if then the same officer pulled him over?
I have a funny story about that, but thats for another time.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Case in point: I was driving on a two-lane road in Central TX today. It's posted at 60 and that seems to be a realistic maximum even in good conditions, as they were today (sunny, dry, mid-day on a Saturday) due to the many hills and curves and the deer in the area (have seen 3 cross the road in the past couple of days). Two motorcycles were ahead of me, going the limit or just a bit over. They were single file such that in order to pass them safely, you'd have to pass both of them at the same time. Given the dearth of passing zones on this road, that would be tough to do... legally and safely. Besides, they were going at least the limit so no real need to pass them.
Then a white Chevy pickup zoomed up behind me, rode my bumper for awhile (stupid in itself, since there was nothing I could do with two bikes ahead of me and a marginal shoulder). Then he pulled out to pass me, and the bikes--in a no-passing zone. Luckily he made it and continued on at what looked like around 75+ mph.
Then to prove that idiots on the road are not rare in Central TX, another white pickup (Ford) zoomed up behind me a couple of minutes later. Rode my bumper, then pulled out to pass--again in a no-passing zone. But this guy really took the cake. Not only was it a no-passing zone, but as he passed the lead bike he was coming up on the crest of a hill. If anyone came over that hill, it would have been a very messy scene. Luckily no one did. Then to top it off, the pickup blasted through a highway intersection as he crested the hill. I estimate he was going at least 80 at that point. If anyone would have been turning onto this road from the other highway at that point, it would have been bad news. But luck held, and the truck sped on without incident.
Luck ran out later in the day. My BIL came home to report that a man and woman had been killed in a head-on collision on the same road. They were riding motorcycles, and some pickup had hit them, most likely as it was passing in a no-passing zone.
Those two people can't be helped now. But maybe it can cause us all to pause and think about how we drive, and the consequences of our actions on others. Sure, maybe we've never had a serious accident and we think we know what we're doing as we violate traffic laws that obviously were not meant for us. Luck has been with us... for now. But events of today are a sad reminder that luck is not infinite, humans make mistakes, and the consequences of those mistakes can be tragic.
Something to consider as some of us venture out onto the roadways on New Year's Eve. Let's all return home safely to post another day.
Continue your current driving beahviors. Sooner or later, you ARE going to get pinched, and it WILL stick, and your arrogance will work against you. Oh, and be glad I won't be the judge.
Though, passing on an uphill is beyond the pale.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D