going under posted speed limit

[ewaldrop]

you guys have done a great job at clearing things up for me. I am turning this into a lesson for my oldest daughter too. She is 15 and about to enter into her permit. I am trying to allow her to use My mistakes as a learning tool for her.

The thing that didn't make sense at first was that I was going slower than the posted speed limit yet got a ticket.

Then after looking at it closer I saw 0 mph as the safe speed. I thought yea that makes sense if I was at a stop sign or stop light....Yet I was going the flow of traffic.

The other car was slightly damaged and repairs have been completed. I felt really bad for the girl that was driving and called it into my insurance on the scene as we waited for R PD.

I handed it over to her and told her to give the case number and contact info to her insurance.

There were no injuries and no medical claims. The case was closed by my insurance 3 weeks ago.

I wanted to thank everyone that has posted for their time and input. It has helped clear my mind of the confusion.

 

[poncho]

I don't know about other states, but here they have to be supported by a speed survey. And to enforce speed limits, the survey has to be updated every five years with some extensions to 7 years. I suspect that even under federal rules speed limits are not permitted to be random guesses.

Same in all states that receive federal highway funding. The average person and even some lawyers don't include those speed surveys for a defense. I'm pretty sure every state like federal funds. Point. You can justify going over that limit and when accused of going under but too fast for conditions. Those speed survey become important. It also clears up confusion when a driver doesn't see why a Police Officer gave them the ticket when under the posted speed.

Friend, the DMV IS notified ... they just do not apply a point if the traffic school is successfully completed.

Most insurance companies if no points don't calculate those showing infractions to jack up someones rates. If they do its easy to point out that it was not consider that serious by the state to warrant giving points. Some states, no points, some states drop reporting the infraction all together.

The report did that. The citation is not required, but often is issued anyway

Come on I gave good reason's for a Police Officer to use their discretion in giving the ticket.

The costs associated with time spent writing the report and then having another officer issues the citation greatly exceeded the $4.75 the agency would have received from the citation.

Sure when you calculate just one ticket. Add together how many tickets a Police agency writes. Kind of like McDonald's and the $1.00 menu or state sales tax.

And issuing a citation to protect someone from civil suit never enters into the equation.

It does if and when a civil trial lawyer gets involved. Especially when the insurance company does not want or see a need to pay a frivolous. Wait a sec. Stop rocking my boat gave another great reason why people should think twice before bad mouthing cops who give tickets that seem to be not reasonable.

 

[CdwJava]

Sure when you calculate just one ticket. Add together how many tickets a Police agency writes. Kind of like McDonald's and the $1.00 menu or state sales tax.

That's about $4.75 PER ticket when no one contests the citation. Increasing the number of tickets written is NOT a money making operation for local agencies and is rarely, if ever, discussed as such. When you talk about raising revenues through enforcement it usually entails stepped up parking citations. My city receives more than 4 times as much revenue from a $27 parking citation as it does from a speeding citation that costs the violator $146 or so. Plus, refunds from parking citations are not capped pursuant to state law like moving violation disbursement is, and the parking tickets are not subject to having the fees withheld by a state in a financial pinch (which seems to happen about every three years).

It does if and when a civil trial lawyer gets involved.

You wrote: "Forgot a third reason I think Police give citations. The "injured" are less likely to file a frivolous civil injury claim against you and your insurance company."

This implied that insurance issues were the number three reason why the police issue citations. This evaluation does not enter into the equation. If that was not what you intended to say, I'm sorry. It might be an added benefit, but I do no want anyone to think that the police issue citations in order to protect one party or another in a civil suit ... though it would seem to make the case against the party against whom the cite was issued more vulnerable. The determination of fault is often cited in civil cases.

- Carl

 

[Jim_bo]

Carl,

You give a lot of good, relevant and accurate information on this site. However, you just aren't going to convince many people that traffic tickets aren't a BILLION dollar industry for the State. Even if the local agency only gets $4.75 (I'm not sure where you got that from), most tickets cost $150 - $200. That money goes somewhere! And the State sends funding to the local agencies. That money comes from somewhere too!!

 

[poncho]

It might be an added benefit, but I do no want anyone to think that the police issue citations in order to protect one party or another in a civil suit ... though it would seem to make the case against the party against whom the cite was issued more vulnerable. The determination of fault is often cited in civil cases.
l

More opinion at this point. First the biggest mistake people make fighting tickets, is blaming the Police Officer. Next they blame the state. On the revenue issue, a lot of state's have discovered treating more like parking tickets, less personnel and confrontational, their revenue goes up.

Took awhile to find a case showing how a corporate lawyer sometimes loves having a ticket issued by Police.

Schofield v Hertz Corp, 201 Ga App 830, 831-832

In Schofield, the State Of Georgia Supreme Court held that Hertz Corporation was not neglegent when they rented a vehicle to a French foreign national (Duriatti) and holder of a driver's license issued by The United Kingdom (Great Britain). The Foreign driver injured Schofield in a traffic accident. Schofield alleged in his appeal the Georgia trial court erred in granting Hertz summary judgment on his negligence per se claim because he contends that the record shows that Duriatti violated OCGA 40-5-20 and 40-5-21 of Georgia state law, by operating a motor vehicle in Georgia without a valid license in his immediate possession. A police officer who investigated the accident testified that Duriatti's British driver's license was not found in his possession at the scene of the accident. In their ruling The Georgia appeals court stated: "Courts of this state must take judicial notice of all treaties or conventions and they predominate "over any statutory provision of the State of Georgia," Camp v. Sellers &c. Ltd., 158 Ga. App. 646, 648 (281 SE2d 621) (1981), or private guidelines. Regardless of what Duriatti presented to the Hertz employee before he rented an automobile, he had a valid license issued by Great Britain, which pursuant to the Convention on Road Traffic, allowed him to rent an automobile in this country and to drive it without further examination. The Convention on Road Traffic supersedes the statutory provisions of the State of Georgia to the extent state statutory provisions are in conflict with the provisions of that agreement. Our review of that convention reveals that a driver authorized to drive in participating countries pursuant to the agreement is required only to "hold a driving permit," which the Police record reveals Duriatti did."

 

[CdwJava]

You give a lot of good, relevant and accurate information on this site. However, you just aren't going to convince many people that traffic tickets aren't a BILLION dollar industry for the State.

Someone may make some money off the deal, but it ain't the local cops - the ones who write the citations. The local city and the agencies that employ the officers do NOT get rich off of traffic enforcement. On the whole, they lose us money. Thus, there is no real fiduciary incentive for traffic enforcement. The only exception to this might be the red light camera programs because those costs are low and do not need an officer on scene the spend the time to observe, stop, complete, and file the citation.

Even if the local agency only gets $4.75 (I'm not sure where you got that from), most tickets cost $150 - $200.

The typical fine for 22350 PLUS fees is approximately $146. The standard fine in that equation is $35. The city is rembursed approximately $26 from every $100 base fine. Since we are looking at approximately 1/3 of the base fine, we assume a reimbursement of about $9. When we factor in the average 10 minute time it takes the officer to write the ticket (and do not account for records or processing time), and we assume a wage of about $22 per hour, the labor cost is about $3.67, this leaves a little more than $5 per citation. For my agency it is less because our officers are paid under the state average, and that is where I got the $4.75 figure.

That money goes somewhere! And the State sends funding to the local agencies. That money comes from somewhere too!!

It goes to the courts and a myriad of state funds that do not always send money back to local government. When it does come back, it is capped per statute and most jurisdictions in CA hit their reimbursement cap about 8 months into the fiscal year.

So, the cities responsible for enforcement make little to nothing on the deal. If it was about money, I'd take guys off of patrol and put them in golf carts with chalk sticks ... now THAT's where the real money is! Because of this, when you talk budgeting and financial planning for law enforcement agencies in CA parking enforcement and municipal code violations are where you look for enhanced revenues, not moving violations.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

More opinion at this point. First the biggest mistake people make fighting tickets, is blaming the Police Officer. Next they blame the state. On the revenue issue, a lot of state's have discovered treating more like parking tickets, less personnel and confrontational, their revenue goes up.

Took awhile to find a case showing how a corporate lawyer sometimes loves having a ticket issued by Police.

Schofield v Hertz Corp, 201 Ga App 830, 831-832

I have no idea about traffic laws or financial incentives in GA or most other states. I can only speak for CA when it comes to the disbursement of funds and the motivations to enforce traffic laws.

- Carl

 

[Jim_bo]

Someone may make some money off the deal, but it ain't the local cops - the ones who write the citations. The local city and the agencies that employ the officers do NOT get rich off of traffic enforcement. On the whole, they lose us money.

I know you are just a simple cop in a simple department, but I see the larger picture. Traffic tickets make BILLIONS for the State. It is a hell of an industry for the State.

If it was about money, I'd take guys off of patrol and put them in golf carts with chalk sticks ... now THAT's where the real money is! Because of this, when you talk budgeting and financial planning for law enforcement agencies in CA parking enforcement and municipal code violations are where you look for enhanced revenues, not moving violations.
- Carl

Have you been to any State University?

 

[CdwJava]

I know you are just a simple cop in a simple department, but I see the larger picture. Traffic tickets make BILLIONS for the State. It is a hell of an industry for the State.

However, the implication that cops write tickets to make money is ludicrous for the reasons I have outlined previously. I have been involved in this biz for 18 years and have yet to ever hear anyone suggest that we need to write more tickets because it makes us money. It simply is not a factor in the decision making policy at the local level.

The state uses the funds to compensate for the time and expense to operate programs at the state and local court levels. If we did not allow violators to pay for the cost of those activities, the rest of us would feel a significantly higher punch in our pocketbooks. Realistically, while it seems like a lot of money goes IN to the state and court coffers, the costs of operations outweigh the money they manage to bring in. And many of the fees and assessments are dedicated to assorted programs that must have a revenue source from someplace - alcohol awareness and prevention, driver's training, etc. These programs need a revenue source and the legislature decided that it is the violators that should pay those fees more so than the general public. Sounds good to me.

But, if you would rather lower penalties and increase the tax burden on the rest of us, feel free to lobby your local legislator. As for me, I will lobby for it to remain the burden of the offender.

Have you been to any State University?

Of course. They have parking enforcement for a number of reasons. One of them is because there ARE so many violators on property with limited parking, and also because parking enforcement can be a "zero sum" operation. In other words, many parking bureaus can almost pay for themselves. I do not know of any that can manage to pay entirely for their operations, but they can manage to defray a great deal of the cost (I believe where I sued to work they received about 50% back from fines) to the city through aggressive parking enforcement.

As I said, if it were about money, we would not enforce moving violations - they are a money loser ... we'd go for parking and municipal code violations - those tend to be gravy. Well, that is IF the offender pays.

- Carl

 

[Jim_bo]

However, the implication that cops write tickets to make money is ludicrous for the reasons I have outlined previously. I have been involved in this biz for 18 years and have yet to ever hear anyone suggest that we need to write more tickets because it makes us money. It simply is not a factor in the decision making policy at the local level.

I never said that local cops were incintivized to write tickets. However, courts that routinely rubber stamp traffic cases guilty... silly laws (i.e. cell phone laws) that are written only with revenue generation (and politics) in mind.... these are the reason that tickets are an industry.

But, if you would rather lower penalties and increase the tax burden on the rest of us, feel free to lobby your local legislator. As for me, I will lobby for it to remain the burden of the offender.

Well... that's the point. Traffic fines are supposed to be used for SAFETY... not revenue generation. But, that just doesn't seem to be the way it works.

 

[poncho]

I have no idea about traffic laws or financial incentives in GA or most other states. I can only speak for CA when it comes to the disbursement of funds and the motivations to enforce traffic laws.
l

The Georgia case was if Hertz was liable for renting a foreign national car without a valid Georgia license. The police officer who wrote the report and ticket to the foreigner confirmed he had a valid license when the foreigner got into a car accident injuring a Georgian resident.

Insurance investigators often get people claiming some injury weeks, months, etcetera after the accident. Ticket and police report makes a lot of people think twice if they are committing fraud. Hey, knock it off I'm defending the Police. Point sometimes without knowing it the Cop may have given the ticket receiver an even bigger break.

This is the perfect thread for it. OP got a ticket that seemed unfair, what the heck charging me when I was under the limit. To seeing things with more reason and fairness. Thats how the state will actually make some money collecting from infractions.

 

[CdwJava]

This is the perfect thread for it. OP got a ticket that seemed unfair, what the heck charging me when I was under the limit. To seeing things with more reason and fairness. Thats how the state will actually make some money collecting from infractions.

No, he was cited for driving at a speed unsafe for conditions. The condition was: Stopped Traffic. A safe speed when confronted with stopped traffic would be: Zero.

The citation was NOT for driving under the speed limit.

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.​

- Carl

 

[poncho]

No, he was cited for driving at a speed unsafe for conditions. The condition was: Stopped Traffic. A safe speed when confronted with stopped traffic would be: Zero.

The citation was NOT for driving under the speed limit.

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.​

- Carl

The original title entered by OP was: "going under posted speed limit". It would not be fun just to point the proper speed as zero. Keeping it going because this is a good example of the sort of myth of driving under the limit will save you from a "speeding" ticket.

 

[CdwJava]

The original title entered by OP was: "going under posted speed limit". It would not be fun just to point the proper speed as zero. Keeping it going because this is a good example of the sort of myth of driving under the limit will save you from a "speeding" ticket.

But the title of the thread was misleading. If the OP was confused as to why he was traveling at an unsafe speed, then that information has been provided. It is a common misconception that 22350 is the maximum speed law, and it is not. The OP has since learned, based upon his recent reply, what the section means and why he was issued the citation.

The safe speed when confronting stopped traffic remains, 0 MPH.

- Carl

 

[The Occultist]

I know you are just a simple cop in a simple department

Alright, this statement alone shows that you have no respect for a knowledgeable senior member of this forum. I humbly ask that you either change the attitude with with you make contributions, or you altogether stop posting on this site.