And a question for you: do you observe posted speed limits that say "Maximum Speed Limit" with any more veracity than those that say "Speed Limit"?
Yes I do. For one; maximum speed tickets are extremely hard to fight and win in court. They are absolute. If you were going 65.1 or (in zones with 70) 70.1 you are 100% guilty, regardless of the reason or situation (even trying to espape the blast of a nuclear explosion or oncoming tsunami). It doesn't matter, you'll be found guilty. If the officer shows up, you'll lose this case 100% of the time, no chance. Also, Officer's love to show up on these types of tickets because they know they'll win for absolutely certain.
There are only two maximum speed limit signs in CA, 65, and 70.
There are some two lane highways where it is posted at 55, and I'm fairly certain that's a Prima Facie = Basic speed limit = basic speed law. I'm not 100% certain on that, I'll have to double check as it's been 10 years since I've taken highways like 41 or 46 from I5 to US101. If the sign doesn't say maximum then it is not an absolute maximum.
Basic Speed Law in CA
22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.
The maximum speed law is equally simple and instead of interpretable, absolute.
Another example, if you are cited for 66 in a 55 "basic speed law zone." The officer can cite you for breaking the maximum speed vehicle code, and you can never exceed 65 (even if reasonable and prudent) since it's the maximum speed limit by default (only where 70 is posted can you go up to 70). If the officer proves you were going 66 mph in court, and you succeed in proving it was reasonable and prudent, you'll still be found guilty if he cited you for the Maximum VC.
By default any speed limit sign that doesn't say Maximum in CA is a Prima Facie speed limit and therefore falls in the #3 category you list.
3) Something like a maximum, but not an absolute maximum.
1) Car A has a passenger who has suffered a massive heart attack and must receive medical attention ASAP... every moment counts. No way to contact an emergency responder in time. Highway has light traffic, straight, good weather, but is posted at 50 mph. Should the driver exceed the speed limit?
2) Car B has a driver who is trying to get to a business meeting on time. He is running late and determines that if he drives 80 mph in the 50 mph (posted) highway he has a good chance to get to the meeting on time. Traffic is fairly heavy but the driver thinks he is very skilled and can avoid other cars. Should the driver exceed the speed limit?
Let me know if you don't see any difference in these two situations. At that point, I will do a really big "ARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHH!!" and give up any hope on you.
Did you notice in the MN law, that any driving in excess of the posted speed within a municipality is speeding... period. Not just prima facie? Does CA's law work like that? I wonder how many other states have similar laws? If so, most driving in this country would be done under absolute maximum speed limits. About 95% of my driving is done within some municipality.
Re your facts... they are information reported by YOU. Thus they can (and will) be disputed. Since you have the burden of proof, you will need to prove each statement somehow to make your case.
A couple things re your indisputable facts...
* Going up a hill reduces stopping distance, but also reduces visibility forward. * If you saw everything around you so clearly... why didn't you notice the patrol car? * Since the conditions were so favorable for driving faster than the posted limit... why not go 60, 70, 80 mph? Why only a paltry 50?? :P
There are some two lane highways where it is posted at 55, and I'm fairly certain that's a Prima Facie = Basic speed limit = basic speed law.
Read again the page you linked to at the bottom of your post.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person may drive a vehicle upon a two-lane, undivided highway at a speed greater than 55 miles per hour unless that highway, or portion thereof, has been posted for a higher speed by the Department of Transportation or appropriate local agency upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey.
That does not look like a prima facie kind of law to me. Looks pretty cut-and-dried. Do those 55 mph signs say "Maximum Speed Limit" or just "Speed Limit"?
That does not look like a prima facie kind of law to me. Looks pretty cut-and-dried. Do those 55 mph signs say "Maximum Speed Limit" or just "Speed Limit"?
That's the key question, and likely the answer to which kind of limit the sign actually is. The 55 are the only signs can be both (only on 2 lane undivided highways).
I know that last ticket I actually got in a 55 zone was a "Speed Limit" sign (no maximum). 2 reasons for that; one, it wasn't a 2 lane highway and therefore doesn't qualify per subdivision b of the maximum speed law, and two, the speed limit WAS NOT JUSTIFIED by the traffic and engineering survey! :P The officer didn't show; case dismissed.
So I think the answer, is yes, Maximum 55, 65, and 70 signs are possible in CA. However, where it's posted 55 and doesn't say maximum (whereas the other two speeds always will), it is a basic speed guideline (and if it's a 2 lane highway, probably because the traffic engineering survey doesn't justify 55).
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
In your 2 cases above, of course case #1 is a better reason to exceed the limit then case #2. However, why should either have to justify their speed as long as it is safe and reasonable? Obviously, you didn't say they'd be driving in apples to apples situations (80 MPH in case #1 was conveniently omitted, and with light vs. heavy traffic in case #2). Why did you change those other unrelated to the issue variables?
I'm of the opinion if they drive in a manner that does not pose a hazard then they don't need to justify their speed for any reason, or no reason at all.
Someone like you, that seems to think driving over the speed limit is hazardous and dangerous, should not accept even case #1 as a reason to speed. Here's why:
1) Passenger having a massive heart attack will never get to the hospital if the driver puts them in danger. A Fatal car collision will pre-empt the cause of death from heart attack to massive trauma! :P
2) Driving "dangerously" could not only put the patient in danger, but also puts the driver and other healthy passengers and bystanders/pedestrians in danger, a hazardous situation, and puts EVERYONE at risk.
So is exceeding the speed limit hazardous and dangerous, or not? If you believe speeding kills, then I don't believe Case #1 is any more justified than Case #2.
Since I don't believe that speeding is an issue in and of itself, I'm okay with either scenario, though the way you painted case #2, it doesn't seem he'll be able to go 80 MPH the whole time reasonably and prudently.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
What's good about them? You don't have to stop. But you do have to look for and anticipate traffic. That may mean coming to a full stop. Traffic may be approaching but you may have time to enter the circle and merge. It does make you more aware.
That's my point for making more intersections unsigned. Has a similar effect as a roundabout but it's easier to retrofit one in an older neighborhood. Just take the stop signs down. Doesn't require an expensive ROW purchase or repaving the street. Just put some temporary "new traffic pattern" signs up for a month.
If you think about it, that's what most bicyclists do at signed intersections. They slow at stop signs and proceed if traffic is clear. In Idaho (and a few other progressive states) that's the law (and you could also come to a stop at a red light and then run it if there was no traffic).
* Going up a hill reduces stopping distance, but also reduces visibility forward. * If you saw everything around you so clearly... why didn't you notice the patrol car? * Since the conditions were so favorable for driving faster than the posted limit... why not go 60, 70, 80 mph? Why only a paltry 50??
1) Going uphill doesn't really reduce your viewing distance by much at all if the grade is constant and for a long stretch. Yes, it's reduced if your near a crest where the angle of the road changes downward, but a constant uphill grade is still a straight line when viewed horizontally. That was my situation.
2) I didn't notice the patrol car because it was a small motorcycle, expertly hidden behind a big sign in the church parking lot as I was passing on my way to accelerating up to 50 MPH. The sign is about 30' from the roadway on the right side, and completely blocks your view of small objects, but it is not on the roadway (nor the sidewalk alongside the roadway).
3) You could potentially justify 60 MPH, but not 70MPH, as that is above California's maximum speed limit, and at no time may you exceed that legally (whether it is posted or not, and whether it is reasonable or not).
Re your facts... they are information reported by YOU. Thus they can (and will) be disputed. Since you have the burden of proof, you will need to prove each statement somehow to make your case.
Well, I'll be sure to cross examine the officer on all these "facts" prior to my testimony being issued. Most likely, he won't contradict all of them, I anticipate he'll only contradict the traffic situation, and with the others most likely he'll leave it open (no testimony at all). That leaves my testimony as the only evidence.
However, I have photographs of the roadway. Sure, the judge has to believe me that weather, traffic, and road conditions were similar on the picture to that at the time of the incident (since I don't have a live dash cam installed yet).
But photographs will help prove my facts numbered 1,8,9, and 10. I suppose I could take a picture of my brakes and tires too (#2). The officer did check a box on the citation agreeing with "good/dry" weather conditions; so he'll have a hard time disputing those things.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
So is exceeding the speed limit hazardous and dangerous, or not? If you believe speeding kills, then I don't believe Case #1 is any more justified than Case #2.
In case 1, if the driver does not exceed the speed limit, significantly, it's likely the passenger will die. Read the scenario again: looks a lot like your ticket scenario. Very low risk of accident.
For case 2, I commend you for realizing the behavior is not reasonable or prudent.
There are times when speeding is justifiable. I think the difference here is, you think it's justifiable in a lot more situations than I do.
What's good about them? You don't have to stop. But you do have to look for and anticipate traffic. That may mean coming to a full stop. Traffic may be approaching but you may have time to enter the circle and merge. It does make you more aware.
You have to come to a complete stop to anticipate traffic in a roundabout? Why?
With good visibility through the traffic circle, you can see the traffic in the roundabout *AND* the traffic to your left as you slowly pull up. (Slowly meaning slow enough to stop without creating a situation that might involve you in a rear-end collision with the car behind you)
There are plenty of traffic roundabout in my area... and it honks me off to no end when I see poor drivers that stop before entering an empty one. (How do I know it's empty? Because the visibility is good enough that I can see all the lanes feeding the circle, plus the circle itself, from *BEHIND* the other car!)
By stopping, you've defeated the whole purpose of a roundabout in the first place!
I didn't say that; but sometimes the roundabout can be so full there's no room to merge. As in anticipating you'll get clipped by the F-350 that's already occupying the space you'd like to.
Well, you said it yourself - "slow enough to stop" which I take it means that sometimes you do have to stop instead of entering the traffic circle. Just like approaching an unsigned intersection. If there's traffic, you may have to stop before crossing it.
Forget about taking photos of your brakes and tires. How long has it been since the ticket? You could have put new brakes and tires in since then.
I think your case is vulnerable on the hill (depending how far it was to the crest) and your lack of observation of the police officer with the radar gun 30' from you. That could call into question your other observations. What if it were instead of a parked motorcycle, a motorcycle pulling out from behind that sign into the roadway? Going 50 instead of the speed limit would have increased your stopping distance.
There are times when speeding is justifiable. I think the difference here is, you think it's justifiable in a lot more situations than I do.
That's obviously true. I think this difference stems from your view that speeding is somehow a risk to having accidents that needs to greatly be outweighed in order to take on that risk.
I suppose I can't blame you for that. :P Afterall, the data coming out of the NHTSA and Census Bureau is so corrupted, that without a critical analysis, I'd think speed kills right off the bat too!
The NMA I believe dug deep into the NHTSA stats on a state by state basis, and published the following findings:
"2.7 million traffic accidents recorded in twenty-five States over the course of the year, only 1.6 percent were caused by drivers who exceeded the posted speed limit. The figures come from an analysis of annual reports typically compiled by each state for use in applying for grant money from the NHTSA."
Based on my 16 years of driving experience, I'd say the NMA data seems more logical than the stuff spouting from NHTSA or Census nationally.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I understand why you would believe an organization like the NMA that is biased towards your POV more than you'd trust an organization like the Census Bureau that does not have a mission to support your POV.
I do think excessive speeding increases accident risk. Plus there's other reasons I personally don't drive significantly faster than the speed limit, unless there's a good reason such as a medical emergency. I've already explained those in earlier posts, so let's move on.
Forget about taking photos of your brakes and tires. How long has it been since the ticket? You could have put new brakes and tires in since then.
It was La Mesa PD, not CHP, that being said, it was a fancy BMW motorcycle (glad to see those ticket dollars put to good use) of similar size to that linked photograph you provided.
I could have... but if I testify under oath why shouldn't the judge believe they are the same tires and brakes? Why take the oath at all then?
But your right, I wish I could honestly testify my pictures were taken the same day (only hours later) from the date of the citation writing. I was lazy and didn't take them until a couple weeks later, but did make sure weather and visibility and traffic were as close to ideal and similar as I remember it being.
What if it were instead of a parked motorcycle, a motorcycle pulling out from behind that sign into the roadway? Going 50 instead of the speed limit would have increased your stopping distance.
You have to Google Earth Lake Murray Blvd. in La Mesa, CA 91942 and look at the northward travel immediately north of Interstate 8 and turning right off of Parkway onto Lake Murray Blvd. going north. The church sign is BIG. It's about 30' + from the roadway I believe, horizontally in a straight line, but in order for the motorcycle to get from behind the sign to the parking lot entrance/off ramp/sidewalk, it is a lot further than 30'; maybe 100' to access the roadway. The sight lines are adequate that if someone shot out, I'd be able to stop in time from 50 MPH (obviously it would still be their fault if they failed to yield the right of way). I was completely in the left lane by the time I reached the church entrance, further giving me better sight lines to "things" on the right.
Thanks for pointing out possible arguments the judge might raise (since traffic court judges often inappropriately assume the role of prosecutor it seems). I will go out there and take some measurements of this now! Now my testimony won't be general estimates (or rely on officer estimates during cross examination), but accurate verifications I've made using a 30' tape measure.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Went out again on a short errand. Got behind a greybeard in a Grand Vitara or some other oddity. He is going slow - maybe 25-30 tops in a 35. Slows even more, then gets into the center turn lane (no signal), then slowly turns (still no signal). I honk, he gives me a dismissive wave, I shake my head and daydream about ramming him into a head on collision with a speeding semi. If I was a cop, this kind of thing would get multiple tickets.
I understand why you would believe an organization like the NMA that is biased towards your POV more than you'd trust an organization like the Census Bureau that does not have a mission to support your POV.
The NMA has no bias. They exist to "Research, Educate, & Litigate."
It's a non-profit dedicated to finding innovative ways to improve and protect the interests of North American Motorists.
The Census Bureau belongs to the same federal government as the NHTSA. They are one and the same. I worked for the Census Bureau in 2010 for the Deccennial Census, they are politically driven; make no mistake.
The federal government is owned and ran by insurance companies. Insurance companies benefit financially from traffic enforcement citations being a reason they are allowed to add "surcharges" for. If you doubt the Federal gov't is owned and run by insurance giants, look no further than AIG, the largest of all insurance companies, which got one of the biggest bailouts ever in the history of mankind a few years ago.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
That's a good one! Thanks for a good laugh to end the day!
The federal government is owned and ran by insurance companies.
I've worked for insurance companies. I can assure you that is not true. I am sure some wish it were true... but it's not. The Feds have a stake in AIG due to the bailout... not the other way around.
But we are getting far afield from inconsiderate driving, aren't we?
But no doubt government-owned law enforcement does have a link to insurance companies. Who so often donates radar guns? Win-win for two of the most corrupt groups in society.
Corporations control government, not the other way around.
Corporations have too much influence on government. But I am more concerned about the influence of Wall Street on government than I am about some auto insurance companies conspiring to hinder andre3's super-legal speed runs.
The insurance companies don't hinder my speeding much; they just make it cost more at times. :P
The funny thing about it is that if not for the surcharged premiums due to points unrelated to accidents, I probably wouldn't bother fighting my tickets. Both the gov't and I lose on my court cases. We both waste time, energy, stamps, and more fighting my cases; some I win, some I lose.
If it wasn't for the threat of increased premiums, I'd probably not fight the cases, the gov't wins, I win (from saving time and energy), and the insurance companies would lose in my utopia.
If your thinking about traffic school option, you can only do that once every 18 months typically in CA; so I want to save that for a ticket I actually deserve.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
If it wasn't for the threat of increased premiums, I'd probably not fight the cases...
On my 2nd ticket, a few years ago, I went in and talked with the city about it, and they told me I had the option of paying the fine and if I had no repeats within a year, it would never show up on my record. So that's what I did. (My first ticket, many years ago, was 1000 miles from home so no option there--and the LEO knew that as I think he picked me out of the crowd based on my out of state plates and my wheezy minivan which had no chance of evading pursuit.)
If you can restrain yourself just a bit, not try to flaunt the limits quite as much, I bet you could keep it down to a ticket every 12-18 months or so and avoid those insurance upcharges. Maybe worth a try, eh? Might cost you a lot less in time and effort than fighting tickets in court--which is not a guaranteed win for you.
We both waste time, energy, stamps, and more fighting my cases; some I win, some I lose.
What an incredible waste of time and life. Maybe just try to go the speed limit or what the cops "give" on over the limit. No hassle. No stress. No waste of life. Move on to something more meaningful in life.
I bet you could keep it down to a ticket every 12-18 months or so and avoid those insurance upcharges. Maybe worth a try, eh? Might cost you a lot less in time and effort than fighting tickets in court--which is not a guaranteed win for you.
I think I've already managed to do better then that rate. I think I've averaged a ticket every 24 to 36 months the last 10 years. There has been a recent uptick the last couple years, mainly due to increased enforcement levels; I'm sure that has nothing to do with the economy
Oh, you don't have to be from out of State to get the out of towner ticket.
Several of my recent tickets and court battles were done out of city. I've lived in the San Diego area since 2002. In that time, I've fought battles in Ventura, Orange County, and I let the Nevada (near Tahoe) one slide; should have fought that one but that's a VERY long drive (For 70 MPH on Interstate 50 where they drastically underpost at 50; ridiculous, that 50 is for winter, it was labor day weekend! I guess I'm prone to tickets on very long drives and vacations I suppose I lose my focus and attention levels on LEO's on super long drives, and I'm not familiar with the speed trap zones, heavy enforcement spots, and hiding places for patrol cars. In Nevada, turning off my radar detector so that I could charge the Garmin sure was stupid. I think I'd of been saved had I not unplugged it. Thankfully, NV has super cheap speeding tickets (somewhere around $125; sure took the fight out of me). Cost of multi plug "extension" for a car at Radio Shack? $7.50 :sick: .
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Maybe just try to go the speed limit or what the cops "give" on over the limit.
You are forgetting that a lot of my tickets haven't been for speeding. Of course, my win ratio is excellent on non-speeding tickets because they are usually complete BS, rather than the partial BS of a speeding ticket.
I was hoping the LEO community would learn a lesson from losing so many court cases and flag my license and license plates as "DO NOT TICKET; Does not accept BS, WILL FIGHT TICKET in COURT."
Unfortunately I think they've flagged my license plate as "DO NOT ISSUE WARNING; ISSUE TICKET; HE Fights them all the time! Let's make him waste his time!"
Also, I do stay withing the "give" of 14 MPH or less over the limit, however, when the speed limit is ridiculously low (and I can prove it), I sometimes find myself over 15 MPH over the limit, but certainly not 15 over the 85th percentile speed limit (the limit it was supposed to be set at!).
The officer told me himself in my case he doesn't even bother pulling people over unless they are going 50 in this 35 zone. I have no problem with that MO (helps mindless lazy drones do the job blindly to have a rule like that), but it only works reasonably well if the speed limit is correctly set at the 85th percentile. Case in point, if the speed limit was set correctly at 40 or 45 MPH, then he wouldn't have bothered stopping me for my perfectly safe 50 or 52 MPH using his rule of thumb.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I can't believe anyone would hang their hat on the wording of a speed limit sign. Where I'm at, in Washington, its 'speed limit xx', as it is in Idaho and Montana. In Oregon, it's 'speed xx'. California 'maximum xx' (IIRC).
My point is they all are saying the same thing. That's the limit. Theoretically, you're not supposed to exceed the number, regardless of the linguistic variances. A speed limit is the maximum you're supposed to go. Splitting hairs is wasting bandwidth here.
A speed limit is the maximum you're supposed to go. Splitting hairs is wasting bandwidth here.
If it was just Cal Trans forgetting to write the word maximum on a sign I'd agree with you.
But it is not splitting hairs because the Vehicle Codes applying to each sign are entirely different, with different wording, language, and rules.
Sounds like you would like a world where all signs are a "maximum" speed law. That means no temporary "allowance" for passing on a 2 lane highway, no temporary allowances for emergencies, accident avoidance, or any other reason one might need to temporarily exceed the limit.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
A speed limit is the maximum you're supposed to go. Splitting hairs is wasting bandwidth here.
If it was just Cal Trans forgetting to write the word maximum on a sign I'd agree with you.
But it is not splitting hairs because the Vehicle Codes applying to each sign are entirely different, with different wording, language, and rules.
Sounds like you would like a world where all signs are a "maximum" speed law. That means no temporary "allowance" for passing on a 2 lane highway, no temporary allowances for emergencies, accident avoidance, or any other reason one might need to temporarily exceed the limit.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Watching for the tax man/speedtrapping LEO is as much a key as anything. It seems in my area, they seldom really hide - they just pick off the distracted.
I wonder if there would be greater overall adherence to limits of those setting and enforcing the limits had more credibility. I've noticed less obvious enforcement, yet greater adherence, in Germany - where overall speeds are higher, and there are still plenty of unlimited sections.
Andres mentioned his plate might be flagged. That reminds me of an idea...seeing as speed enforcement is much more about taxes than safety anyway, maybe offer an increased registration fee for people who are then allowed a greater leeway in speed. As let's face it, in this society, money buys justice anyway, might as well just run with it.
I think he meant it in a good way, ie. pull this guy over, and the drama that ensues might not be worth one more notch on the way to the monthly ticket quota (oh those don't exist, it's all safety)
Well, for one, you can't get a jury of your "peers" as I n the USA. You get a tribunal of judges that rule on your case.
Also, from what I've seen, when one DOES get a penalty for traffic violations, it's usually much more severe than here.
Not to mention, getting a DL in Germany actually requires much more than answering a 20 question multiple-choice test, $20 and a quick spin around the block.
I used to drive 80 mph or more when the NMSL was a ridiculous 55 mph; now that most interstates are set at 70 mph or more I drive @80 mph or a bit less. On rural and urban roads I rarely exceed the posted limit by over 5 mph- although I usually double the posted "Advisory speed" for any corner or on/off ramp. When I worked in traffic court full time we almost always deferred(no new citations for the next 3-6 months then dismiss) citations for 10 mph over or less. After that it depended on the facts of the individual case- 10 over in a school zone or subdivision was considered to be much more serious than 25 over on a deserted interstate. The police officers never cared how we resolved a speeding case unless the driver had acted like an [non-permissible content removed] and disrespected the officer- in which case the officer noted it on the citation, meaning any plea had to be OK with that officer. I don't think we tried one out of two hundred speeding cases- if even that...
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
>The police officers never cared how we resolved a speeding case unless the driver had acted like an [non-permissible content removed] and disrespected the officer- in which case the officer noted it on the citation, meaning any plea had to be OK with that officer.
On the other hand, did you ask the customer how the policeman's behavior and attitude was toward them as they stopped them? It would sound like you should also have been checking on the policeman's behaviors. WE've all heard stories about policemen with a Barney attitude or the belligerance unbecoming of a servant of the people.
everyone should have an in car camera, or at least recording device, just in case! with the micro tech these days, it could easily be hidden from sight.
Regardless of the language of the signs, there are other ordinances that address exceeding limits to pass, etc.
Actually, the language on signs does matter; proper signage is governed by the MUTC. If a city doesn't post signage properly, they can't expect to enforce laws properly.
That being said... my argument doesn't make the sign relevant (or I'd take a picture of it). In my case, what is relevant is the crime I am accused of. The officer cited me for the Basic Speed Law, and that is what is written on the ticket, and that is what is relevant to my case.
I don't have to defend myself against the maximum speed ordinances because I'm not charged with those crimes.
This country would be horrible if you had to defend yourself against unrelated charges in court.
My argument in court won't be about whether the sign says maximum or not, it'll be about VC 22350.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I've only complained to the supervisor (Seargent) on two tickets, one with the CHP and one on a Santee Sheriff.
They were pretty defensive as all cops are (protect the brotherhood at all costs).
They pretty much said that was what the courts were there for to sort it all out.
With the CHP (the most egregious case) the case was found to be "Not Guilty" by mail!!! My most satisfying victory; didn't even have to go to court in person. That was like winning the lottery. Heard that judge was retiring the same year so I suppose retribution from the Police Officer's Union didn't bother him so he made an unbiased, fair, and just decision.
The Santee Sheriff wrote me up for 2 VC's (one of them after I signed it and pissed him off; didn't mean to; I was just asserting a right he was denying) which was part of my complaint; that he added a 2nd charge after I agreed to appear. I was found guilty on the original charge and not guilty on the "added-on" retaliatory charge.
I'll call it a draw. Wish I had a tape or camera recording it!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
everyone should have an in car camera, or at least recording device, just in case! with the micro tech these days, it could easily be hidden from sight.
I agree!!!! Now that would be an option I'd pay for in a new car! I'd much rather have a dashboard cam like that (and it would be much more useful; complete with microphone for audio recording), than a back-up camera!
I can park just fine without a backup camera.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
On the other hand, did you ask the customer how the policeman's behavior and attitude was toward them as they stopped them? It would sound like you should also have been checking on the policeman's behaviors. WE've all heard stories about policemen with a Barney attitude or the belligerance unbecoming of a servant of the people.
The jurisdiction we worked in was small enough that we all knew which LEOs were stand-up guys and which ones could be jerks- and that was always factored in. Example: One of the problem cops sat at a deserted four way stop at @3:00 AM and stopped everyone who didn't come to a complete stop. Think any of those made it past the initial appearance?
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
Due to rampant insurance fraud and corrupt LEOs, cams are commonplace in Russia and other less developed places. They can be purchased inexpensively now and be kept out of sight. Motorcyclists and bicyclists here can be seen with them on helmets often too. I am seriously thinking of mounting one in my cars, and would certainly use one on 2 wheels. Evidence both against crooked revenuers (who always seem to get upset when being filmed, I wonder why) and bad drives both.
I so wish I had a right to jury trials in traffic cases. Has to be at least as serious as a DUI charge to even hope of having one in CA with a jury.
I can see the prosecution dismissing all the potential jurors that had been ticketed in the last 10 years while the defense dismisses all the jurors that haven't encountered the indignity of a stoppage and traffic citation.
Funny how DUI's are treated as more serious than Hit & Runs it seems. I guess the "fine" for DUI"s is higher? Hit & Runs are actual terrible drivers that already caused an accident, whereas DUI's are only "potentially bad drivers."
I'm not defending either, but I think Hit & Runs should be treated more seriously.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
>deserted four way stop at 3:00 AM and stopped everyone who didn't come to a complete stop. Think any of those made it past the initial appearance?
Thank you.
Long ago I was at some social events including a judge or two. I couldn't believe it when one was talking about policemen lying about cases, including during testimony. I had the naive thinking that police were considered to be honest (yeah, that changed as I got older), and I was stunned that the judges had truth detectors filtering the policemen's stories.
How so? In a criminal case the prosecuting witness(civilian OR LEO) is almost always given the opportunity to provide input prior to the prosecutor entering into a plea agreement.
Kept the revenue flowing in too, no doubt.
Hardly; the officers very rarely exercised that option- and if the case was placed on deferral the defendant paid absolutely nothing.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
I was stunned that the judges had truth detectors filtering the policemen's stories.
Yep. For example, I knew of some officers who would cite a guy for resisting arrest if he gave the slightest bit of resistance. On the other hand, there were others who wouldn't charge someone with resisting unless they had to wrestle with the defendant for several minutes. In a major metropolitan area there are so many police officers and police departments that you never have the luxury of being able to sort out the straight arrows from the foul balls- but in my county it was easy.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
I don't know if I like a cop more or less saying "I think this guy is a jerk, don't give him any breaks". Seeing what that branch of the working world seems to get away with, I just can't trust it. Maybe it's just from my observations from the local speedtrappers and their unfireability combined with high wages and nice pensions.
So the speed enforcement was about safety then? Did they have quotas?
That dismissal of jurors idea might be one reason a jury trial wouldn't exist. That and using a jury to deal with a ticket that is usually at most a couple hundred bucks seems like a big waste of resources.
I got pulled over last year, to be told the officer wouldn't hold me to my supposed speed. I didn't find it indignant - he was nice enough - didn't lecture me or demand the badge to be kissed, but the speed limit I exceeded while missing the speed trap (my bad) was and is still ridiculous. But that's how it goes in small towns where the traffic enforcement system is a viable revenue stream, and the enforcement and judicial bodies are usually at least moderately corrupt.
Most flagrant driving crimes - DUI, hit and run, *genuine* reckless driving, etc should be treated more harshly than today. The financial penalties especially should be heavy for multiple offenders.
I don't know if I like a cop more or less saying "I think this guy is a jerk, don't give him any breaks". Seeing what that branch of the working world seems to get away with, I just can't trust it.
Well, it usually turned out that the defendants that were flagged(by the trusted cops) as jerks usually were jerks- and they would display that during the plea negotiations.
So the speed enforcement was about safety then? Did they have quotas?
The officers who were working Federal Overtime(FOT) were required to make four "contacts" -i.e. violations- per hour. Blame that on the NHTSA [non-permissible content removed].
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
Comments
Yes I do. For one; maximum speed tickets are extremely hard to fight and win in court. They are absolute. If you were going 65.1 or (in zones with 70) 70.1 you are 100% guilty, regardless of the reason or situation (even trying to espape the blast of a nuclear explosion or oncoming tsunami). It doesn't matter, you'll be found guilty. If the officer shows up, you'll lose this case 100% of the time, no chance. Also, Officer's love to show up on these types of tickets because they know they'll win for absolutely certain.
There are only two maximum speed limit signs in CA, 65, and 70.
There are some two lane highways where it is posted at 55, and I'm fairly certain that's a Prima Facie = Basic speed limit = basic speed law. I'm not 100% certain on that, I'll have to double check as it's been 10 years since I've taken highways like 41 or 46 from I5 to US101. If the sign doesn't say maximum then it is not an absolute maximum.
Basic Speed Law in CA
22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.
Very simple; not so convoluted like MN: http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22350.htm
The maximum speed law is equally simple and instead of interpretable, absolute.
Another example, if you are cited for 66 in a 55 "basic speed law zone." The officer can cite you for breaking the maximum speed vehicle code, and you can never exceed 65 (even if reasonable and prudent) since it's the maximum speed limit by default (only where 70 is posted can you go up to 70). If the officer proves you were going 66 mph in court, and you succeed in proving it was reasonable and prudent, you'll still be found guilty if he cited you for the Maximum VC.
By default any speed limit sign that doesn't say Maximum in CA is a Prima Facie speed limit and therefore falls in the #3 category you list.
3) Something like a maximum, but not an absolute maximum.
CA's Maximum VC 22349:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22349.htm
You have to even ask that question? OMG.
A simple example... two cases:
1) Car A has a passenger who has suffered a massive heart attack and must receive medical attention ASAP... every moment counts. No way to contact an emergency responder in time. Highway has light traffic, straight, good weather, but is posted at 50 mph. Should the driver exceed the speed limit?
2) Car B has a driver who is trying to get to a business meeting on time. He is running late and determines that if he drives 80 mph in the 50 mph (posted) highway he has a good chance to get to the meeting on time. Traffic is fairly heavy but the driver thinks he is very skilled and can avoid other cars. Should the driver exceed the speed limit?
Let me know if you don't see any difference in these two situations. At that point, I will do a really big "ARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHH!!" and give up any hope on you.
Did you notice in the MN law, that any driving in excess of the posted speed within a municipality is speeding... period. Not just prima facie? Does CA's law work like that? I wonder how many other states have similar laws? If so, most driving in this country would be done under absolute maximum speed limits. About 95% of my driving is done within some municipality.
Re your facts... they are information reported by YOU. Thus they can (and will) be disputed. Since you have the burden of proof, you will need to prove each statement somehow to make your case.
A couple things re your indisputable facts...
* Going up a hill reduces stopping distance, but also reduces visibility forward.
* If you saw everything around you so clearly... why didn't you notice the patrol car?
* Since the conditions were so favorable for driving faster than the posted limit... why not go 60, 70, 80 mph? Why only a paltry 50?? :P
Read again the page you linked to at the bottom of your post.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person may drive a vehicle upon a two-lane, undivided highway at a speed greater than 55 miles per hour unless that highway, or portion thereof, has been posted for a higher speed by the Department of Transportation or appropriate local agency upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey.
That does not look like a prima facie kind of law to me. Looks pretty cut-and-dried. Do those 55 mph signs say "Maximum Speed Limit" or just "Speed Limit"?
That's the key question, and likely the answer to which kind of limit the sign actually is. The 55 are the only signs can be both (only on 2 lane undivided highways).
I know that last ticket I actually got in a 55 zone was a "Speed Limit" sign (no maximum). 2 reasons for that; one, it wasn't a 2 lane highway and therefore doesn't qualify per subdivision b of the maximum speed law, and two, the speed limit WAS NOT JUSTIFIED by the traffic and engineering survey! :P The officer didn't show; case dismissed.
So I think the answer, is yes, Maximum 55, 65, and 70 signs are possible in CA. However, where it's posted 55 and doesn't say maximum (whereas the other two speeds always will), it is a basic speed guideline (and if it's a 2 lane highway, probably because the traffic engineering survey doesn't justify 55).
In your 2 cases above, of course case #1 is a better reason to exceed the limit then case #2. However, why should either have to justify their speed as long as it is safe and reasonable? Obviously, you didn't say they'd be driving in apples to apples situations (80 MPH in case #1 was conveniently omitted, and with light vs. heavy traffic in case #2). Why did you change those other unrelated to the issue variables?
I'm of the opinion if they drive in a manner that does not pose a hazard then they don't need to justify their speed for any reason, or no reason at all.
Someone like you, that seems to think driving over the speed limit is hazardous and dangerous, should not accept even case #1 as a reason to speed. Here's why:
1) Passenger having a massive heart attack will never get to the hospital if the driver puts them in danger. A Fatal car collision will pre-empt the cause of death from heart attack to massive trauma! :P
2) Driving "dangerously" could not only put the patient in danger, but also puts the driver and other healthy passengers and bystanders/pedestrians in danger, a hazardous situation, and puts EVERYONE at risk.
So is exceeding the speed limit hazardous and dangerous, or not? If you believe speeding kills, then I don't believe Case #1 is any more justified than Case #2.
Since I don't believe that speeding is an issue in and of itself, I'm okay with either scenario, though the way you painted case #2, it doesn't seem he'll be able to go 80 MPH the whole time reasonably and prudently.
That's my point for making more intersections unsigned. Has a similar effect as a roundabout but it's easier to retrofit one in an older neighborhood. Just take the stop signs down. Doesn't require an expensive ROW purchase or repaving the street. Just put some temporary "new traffic pattern" signs up for a month.
If you think about it, that's what most bicyclists do at signed intersections. They slow at stop signs and proceed if traffic is clear. In Idaho (and a few other progressive states) that's the law (and you could also come to a stop at a red light and then run it if there was no traffic).
* Going up a hill reduces stopping distance, but also reduces visibility forward.
* If you saw everything around you so clearly... why didn't you notice the patrol car?
* Since the conditions were so favorable for driving faster than the posted limit... why not go 60, 70, 80 mph? Why only a paltry 50??
1) Going uphill doesn't really reduce your viewing distance by much at all if the grade is constant and for a long stretch. Yes, it's reduced if your near a crest where the angle of the road changes downward, but a constant uphill grade is still a straight line when viewed horizontally. That was my situation.
2) I didn't notice the patrol car because it was a small motorcycle, expertly hidden behind a big sign in the church parking lot as I was passing on my way to accelerating up to 50 MPH. The sign is about 30' from the roadway on the right side, and completely blocks your view of small objects, but it is not on the roadway (nor the sidewalk alongside the roadway).
3) You could potentially justify 60 MPH, but not 70MPH, as that is above California's maximum speed limit, and at no time may you exceed that legally (whether it is posted or not, and whether it is reasonable or not).
Re your facts... they are information reported by YOU. Thus they can (and will) be disputed. Since you have the burden of proof, you will need to prove each statement somehow to make your case.
Well, I'll be sure to cross examine the officer on all these "facts" prior to my testimony being issued. Most likely, he won't contradict all of them, I anticipate he'll only contradict the traffic situation, and with the others most likely he'll leave it open (no testimony at all). That leaves my testimony as the only evidence.
However, I have photographs of the roadway. Sure, the judge has to believe me that weather, traffic, and road conditions were similar on the picture to that at the time of the incident (since I don't have a live dash cam installed yet).
But photographs will help prove my facts numbered 1,8,9, and 10. I suppose I could take a picture of my brakes and tires too (#2). The officer did check a box on the citation agreeing with "good/dry" weather conditions; so he'll have a hard time disputing those things.
So is exceeding the speed limit hazardous and dangerous, or not? If you believe speeding kills, then I don't believe Case #1 is any more justified than Case #2.
In case 1, if the driver does not exceed the speed limit, significantly, it's likely the passenger will die. Read the scenario again: looks a lot like your ticket scenario. Very low risk of accident.
For case 2, I commend you for realizing the behavior is not reasonable or prudent.
There are times when speeding is justifiable. I think the difference here is, you think it's justifiable in a lot more situations than I do.
You have to come to a complete stop to anticipate traffic in a roundabout? Why?
With good visibility through the traffic circle, you can see the traffic in the roundabout *AND* the traffic to your left as you slowly pull up. (Slowly meaning slow enough to stop without creating a situation that might involve you in a rear-end collision with the car behind you)
There are plenty of traffic roundabout in my area... and it honks me off to no end when I see poor drivers that stop before entering an empty one. (How do I know it's empty? Because the visibility is good enough that I can see all the lanes feeding the circle, plus the circle itself, from *BEHIND* the other car!)
By stopping, you've defeated the whole purpose of a roundabout in the first place!
Well, you said it yourself - "slow enough to stop" which I take it means that sometimes you do have to stop instead of entering the traffic circle. Just like approaching an unsigned intersection. If there's traffic, you may have to stop before crossing it.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3201/2359950268_e648ca5743.jpg
Forget about taking photos of your brakes and tires. How long has it been since the ticket? You could have put new brakes and tires in since then.
I think your case is vulnerable on the hill (depending how far it was to the crest) and your lack of observation of the police officer with the radar gun 30' from you. That could call into question your other observations. What if it were instead of a parked motorcycle, a motorcycle pulling out from behind that sign into the roadway? Going 50 instead of the speed limit would have increased your stopping distance.
That's obviously true. I think this difference stems from your view that speeding is somehow a risk to having accidents that needs to greatly be outweighed in order to take on that risk.
I suppose I can't blame you for that. :P
The NMA I believe dug deep into the NHTSA stats on a state by state basis, and published the following findings:
"2.7 million traffic accidents recorded in twenty-five States over the course of the year, only 1.6 percent were caused by drivers who exceeded the posted speed limit. The figures come from an analysis of annual reports typically compiled by each state for use in applying for grant money from the NHTSA."
Based on my 16 years of driving experience, I'd say the NMA data seems more logical than the stuff spouting from NHTSA or Census nationally.
I do think excessive speeding increases accident risk. Plus there's other reasons I personally don't drive significantly faster than the speed limit, unless there's a good reason such as a medical emergency. I've already explained those in earlier posts, so let's move on.
It was La Mesa PD, not CHP, that being said, it was a fancy BMW motorcycle (glad to see those ticket dollars put to good use) of similar size to that linked photograph you provided.
I could have... but if I testify under oath why shouldn't the judge believe they are the same tires and brakes? Why take the oath at all then?
But your right, I wish I could honestly testify my pictures were taken the same day (only hours later) from the date of the citation writing. I was lazy and didn't take them until a couple weeks later, but did make sure weather and visibility and traffic were as close to ideal and similar as I remember it being.
What if it were instead of a parked motorcycle, a motorcycle pulling out from behind that sign into the roadway? Going 50 instead of the speed limit would have increased your stopping distance.
You have to Google Earth Lake Murray Blvd. in La Mesa, CA 91942 and look at the northward travel immediately north of Interstate 8 and turning right off of Parkway onto Lake Murray Blvd. going north. The church sign is BIG. It's about 30' + from the roadway I believe, horizontally in a straight line, but in order for the motorcycle to get from behind the sign to the parking lot entrance/off ramp/sidewalk, it is a lot further than 30'; maybe 100' to access the roadway. The sight lines are adequate that if someone shot out, I'd be able to stop in time from 50 MPH (obviously it would still be their fault if they failed to yield the right of way). I was completely in the left lane by the time I reached the church entrance, further giving me better sight lines to "things" on the right.
Thanks for pointing out possible arguments the judge might raise (since traffic court judges often inappropriately assume the role of prosecutor it seems). I will go out there and take some measurements of this now! Now my testimony won't be general estimates (or rely on officer estimates during cross examination), but accurate verifications I've made using a 30' tape measure.
The NMA has no bias.
It's a non-profit dedicated to finding innovative ways to improve and protect the interests of North American Motorists.
The Census Bureau belongs to the same federal government as the NHTSA. They are one and the same. I worked for the Census Bureau in 2010 for the Deccennial Census, they are politically driven; make no mistake.
The federal government is owned and ran by insurance companies. Insurance companies benefit financially from traffic enforcement citations being a reason they are allowed to add "surcharges" for. If you doubt the Federal gov't is owned and run by insurance giants, look no further than AIG, the largest of all insurance companies, which got one of the biggest bailouts ever in the history of mankind a few years ago.
That's a good one! Thanks for a good laugh to end the day!
The federal government is owned and ran by insurance companies.
I've worked for insurance companies. I can assure you that is not true. I am sure some wish it were true... but it's not. The Feds have a stake in AIG due to the bailout... not the other way around.
But we are getting far afield from inconsiderate driving, aren't we?
Corporations control government, not the other way around.
The funny thing about it is that if not for the surcharged premiums due to points unrelated to accidents, I probably wouldn't bother fighting my tickets. Both the gov't and I lose on my court cases. We both waste time, energy, stamps, and more fighting my cases; some I win, some I lose.
If it wasn't for the threat of increased premiums, I'd probably not fight the cases, the gov't wins, I win (from saving time and energy), and the insurance companies would lose in my utopia.
If your thinking about traffic school option, you can only do that once every 18 months typically in CA; so I want to save that for a ticket I actually deserve.
On my 2nd ticket, a few years ago, I went in and talked with the city about it, and they told me I had the option of paying the fine and if I had no repeats within a year, it would never show up on my record. So that's what I did. (My first ticket, many years ago, was 1000 miles from home so no option there--and the LEO knew that as I think he picked me out of the crowd based on my out of state plates and my wheezy minivan which had no chance of evading pursuit.)
If you can restrain yourself just a bit, not try to flaunt the limits quite as much, I bet you could keep it down to a ticket every 12-18 months or so and avoid those insurance upcharges. Maybe worth a try, eh? Might cost you a lot less in time and effort than fighting tickets in court--which is not a guaranteed win for you.
What an incredible waste of time and life. Maybe just try to go the speed limit or what the cops "give" on over the limit. No hassle. No stress. No waste of life. Move on to something more meaningful in life.
I think I've already managed to do better then that rate. I think I've averaged a ticket every 24 to 36 months the last 10 years. There has been a recent uptick the last couple years, mainly due to increased enforcement levels; I'm sure that has nothing to do with the economy
Oh, you don't have to be from out of State to get the out of towner ticket.
Several of my recent tickets and court battles were done out of city. I've lived in the San Diego area since 2002. In that time, I've fought battles in Ventura, Orange County, and I let the Nevada (near Tahoe) one slide; should have fought that one but that's a VERY long drive (For 70 MPH on Interstate 50 where they drastically underpost at 50; ridiculous, that 50 is for winter, it was labor day weekend! I guess I'm prone to tickets on very long drives and vacations
You are forgetting that a lot of my tickets haven't been for speeding. Of course, my win ratio is excellent on non-speeding tickets because they are usually complete BS, rather than the partial BS of a speeding ticket.
I was hoping the LEO community would learn a lesson from losing so many court cases and flag my license and license plates as "DO NOT TICKET; Does not accept BS, WILL FIGHT TICKET in COURT."
Unfortunately I think they've flagged my license plate as "DO NOT ISSUE WARNING; ISSUE TICKET; HE Fights them all the time! Let's make him waste his time!"
Also, I do stay withing the "give" of 14 MPH or less over the limit, however, when the speed limit is ridiculously low (and I can prove it), I sometimes find myself over 15 MPH over the limit, but certainly not 15 over the 85th percentile speed limit (the limit it was supposed to be set at!).
The officer told me himself in my case he doesn't even bother pulling people over unless they are going 50 in this 35 zone. I have no problem with that MO (helps mindless lazy drones do the job blindly to have a rule like that), but it only works reasonably well if the speed limit is correctly set at the 85th percentile. Case in point, if the speed limit was set correctly at 40 or 45 MPH, then he wouldn't have bothered stopping me for my perfectly safe 50 or 52 MPH using his rule of thumb.
My point is they all are saying the same thing. That's the limit. Theoretically, you're not supposed to exceed the number, regardless of the linguistic variances. A speed limit is the maximum you're supposed to go. Splitting hairs is wasting bandwidth here.
Understatement! ROFLMAO
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
If it was just Cal Trans forgetting to write the word maximum on a sign I'd agree with you.
But it is not splitting hairs because the Vehicle Codes applying to each sign are entirely different, with different wording, language, and rules.
Sounds like you would like a world where all signs are a "maximum" speed law. That means no temporary "allowance" for passing on a 2 lane highway, no temporary allowances for emergencies, accident avoidance, or any other reason one might need to temporarily exceed the limit.
If it was just Cal Trans forgetting to write the word maximum on a sign I'd agree with you.
But it is not splitting hairs because the Vehicle Codes applying to each sign are entirely different, with different wording, language, and rules.
Sounds like you would like a world where all signs are a "maximum" speed law. That means no temporary "allowance" for passing on a 2 lane highway, no temporary allowances for emergencies, accident avoidance, or any other reason one might need to temporarily exceed the limit.
I enjoy a spirited drive just as much as the next guy. I just can't afford the time, money or other potential consequences like you can.
I wonder if there would be greater overall adherence to limits of those setting and enforcing the limits had more credibility. I've noticed less obvious enforcement, yet greater adherence, in Germany - where overall speeds are higher, and there are still plenty of unlimited sections.
Andres mentioned his plate might be flagged. That reminds me of an idea...seeing as speed enforcement is much more about taxes than safety anyway, maybe offer an increased registration fee for people who are then allowed a greater leeway in speed. As let's face it, in this society, money buys justice anyway, might as well just run with it.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Also, from what I've seen, when one DOES get a penalty for traffic violations, it's usually much more severe than here.
Not to mention, getting a DL in Germany actually requires much more than answering a 20 question multiple-choice test, $20 and a quick spin around the block.
And there, maybe speed limits are more suited to conditions than here, too, which was my theory.
Lack of severe penalties and no lack of asinine regulations really proves it is a cash grab, IMO.
When I worked in traffic court full time we almost always deferred(no new citations for the next 3-6 months then dismiss) citations for 10 mph over or less. After that it depended on the facts of the individual case- 10 over in a school zone or subdivision was considered to be much more serious than 25 over on a deserted interstate. The police officers never cared how we resolved a speeding case unless the driver had acted like an [non-permissible content removed] and disrespected the officer- in which case the officer noted it on the citation, meaning any plea had to be OK with that officer. I don't think we tried one out of two hundred speeding cases- if even that...
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
On the other hand, did you ask the customer how the policeman's behavior and attitude was toward them as they stopped them? It would sound like you should also have been checking on the policeman's behaviors. WE've all heard stories about policemen with a Barney attitude or the belligerance unbecoming of a servant of the people.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Actually, the language on signs does matter; proper signage is governed by the MUTC. If a city doesn't post signage properly, they can't expect to enforce laws properly.
That being said... my argument doesn't make the sign relevant (or I'd take a picture of it). In my case, what is relevant is the crime I am accused of. The officer cited me for the Basic Speed Law, and that is what is written on the ticket, and that is what is relevant to my case.
I don't have to defend myself against the maximum speed ordinances because I'm not charged with those crimes.
This country would be horrible if you had to defend yourself against unrelated charges in court.
My argument in court won't be about whether the sign says maximum or not, it'll be about VC 22350.
They were pretty defensive as all cops are (protect the brotherhood at all costs).
They pretty much said that was what the courts were there for to sort it all out.
With the CHP (the most egregious case) the case was found to be "Not Guilty" by mail!!! My most satisfying victory; didn't even have to go to court in person. That was like winning the lottery. Heard that judge was retiring the same year so I suppose retribution from the Police Officer's Union didn't bother him so he made an unbiased, fair, and just decision.
The Santee Sheriff wrote me up for 2 VC's (one of them after I signed it and pissed him off; didn't mean to; I was just asserting a right he was denying) which was part of my complaint; that he added a 2nd charge after I agreed to appear. I was found guilty on the original charge and not guilty on the "added-on" retaliatory charge.
I'll call it a draw. Wish I had a tape or camera recording it!
I agree!!!! Now that would be an option I'd pay for in a new car! I'd much rather have a dashboard cam like that (and it would be much more useful; complete with microphone for audio recording), than a back-up camera!
I can park just fine without a backup camera.
The jurisdiction we worked in was small enough that we all knew which LEOs were stand-up guys and which ones could be jerks- and that was always factored in. Example: One of the problem cops sat at a deserted four way stop at @3:00 AM and stopped everyone who didn't come to a complete stop. Think any of those made it past the initial appearance?
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
That's kind of disturbing.
Kept the revenue flowing in too, no doubt.
I can see the prosecution dismissing all the potential jurors that had been ticketed in the last 10 years while the defense dismisses all the jurors that haven't encountered the indignity of a stoppage and traffic citation.
Funny how DUI's are treated as more serious than Hit & Runs it seems. I guess the "fine" for DUI"s is higher? Hit & Runs are actual terrible drivers that already caused an accident, whereas DUI's are only "potentially bad drivers."
I'm not defending either, but I think Hit & Runs should be treated more seriously.
Thank you.
Long ago I was at some social events including a judge or two. I couldn't believe it when one was talking about policemen lying about cases, including during testimony. I had the naive thinking that police were considered to be honest (yeah, that changed as I got older), and I was stunned that the judges had truth detectors filtering the policemen's stories.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
How so? In a criminal case the prosecuting witness(civilian OR LEO) is almost always given the opportunity to provide input prior to the prosecutor entering into a plea agreement.
Kept the revenue flowing in too, no doubt.
Hardly; the officers very rarely exercised that option- and if the case was placed on deferral the defendant paid absolutely nothing.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
Yep. For example, I knew of some officers who would cite a guy for resisting arrest if he gave the slightest bit of resistance. On the other hand, there were others who wouldn't charge someone with resisting unless they had to wrestle with the defendant for several minutes.
In a major metropolitan area there are so many police officers and police departments that you never have the luxury of being able to sort out the straight arrows from the foul balls- but in my county it was easy.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
So the speed enforcement was about safety then? Did they have quotas?
I got pulled over last year, to be told the officer wouldn't hold me to my supposed speed. I didn't find it indignant - he was nice enough - didn't lecture me or demand the badge to be kissed, but the speed limit I exceeded while missing the speed trap (my bad) was and is still ridiculous. But that's how it goes in small towns where the traffic enforcement system is a viable revenue stream, and the enforcement and judicial bodies are usually at least moderately corrupt.
Most flagrant driving crimes - DUI, hit and run, *genuine* reckless driving, etc should be treated more harshly than today. The financial penalties especially should be heavy for multiple offenders.
Well, it usually turned out that the defendants that were flagged(by the trusted cops) as jerks usually were jerks- and they would display that during the plea negotiations.
So the speed enforcement was about safety then? Did they have quotas?
The officers who were working Federal Overtime(FOT) were required to make four "contacts" -i.e. violations- per hour. Blame that on the NHTSA [non-permissible content removed].
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive