2336 VC speeding on the san francisco bay bridge

[unlucky190]

I was cited for speeding on the bay bridge, the officer pulled me over at the treasure island exit and approximated my speed at 70mph where the limit is 50 mph. The officer did not mention any radar, laser, or other electronic device that he based his approximation on, and the ticket only says the approx speed 70 and p.f/max speed 50.
Is the lack of a radar, laser, or other electronic device is bases for a dismissal?
Also I found this "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" in California Vehicle Code Section 40802 paragraph a subparagraph 2. How can i find out if there has been an engineering and traffic survey in the last five years that justifies the 50mph speed limit, and is that another good base for a dismissal?

Thank you

[IsabellaSoriano]

Originally Posted by unlucky190

I was cited for speeding on the bay bridge, the officer pulled me over at the treasure island exit and approximated my speed at 70mph where the limit is 50 mph. The officer did not mention any radar, laser, or other electronic device that he based his approximation on, and the ticket only says the approx speed 70 and p.f/max speed 50.
Is the lack of a radar, laser, or other electronic device is bases for a dismissal?
Also I found this "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" in California Vehicle Code Section 40802 paragraph a subparagraph 2. How can i find out if there has been an engineering and traffic survey in the last five years that justifies the 50mph speed limit, and is that another good base for a dismissal?

Thank you

so how fast WERE you going on that god awful bridge??

[unlucky190]

to be honest i don't know, he said i was doing around 80mph but he would cut me some slack and write 70mph

[IsabellaSoriano]

Originally Posted by unlucky190

to be honest i don't know, he said i was doing around 80mph but he would cut me some slack and write 70mph

tsk tsk tsk.


what's the answer you are going to give to a judge when he asks that?

want my advice?

too bad, i'm giving it anyway. i actually got myself a speeding ticket a few months back come back from SF. i was going 85 in a 65 zone. first speeding ticket ever by the way. officer cut me some slack. gave me 80 miles so he wouldn't have to charge me with reckless driving. because this was VERY generous on his behalf, i'm paying the ticket. why? because i WAS speeding. and with me turning around and trying to get away with something when i was doing wrong, would have probably caused the officer to never give out breaks to other hapless souls.

[I_Got_Banned]

Originally Posted by unlucky190

Is the lack of a radar, laser, or other electronic device is bases for a dismissal?

No its not... He could have "paced" you (and your ticket should say "Pace") or he could have visually estimated your speed and that has been known to be sufficient grounds for a conviction.

Originally Posted by unlucky190

Also I found this "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" in California Vehicle Code Section 40802 paragraph a subparagraph 2. How can i find out if there has been an engineering and traffic survey in the last five years that justifies the 50mph speed limit, and is that another good base for a dismissal?

If he didn't use Radar/LASER/Lidar then the "speed trap" defense (which is regulated by the statute that you cited) will not work.

By the way, "2336 VC" is not in the vehicle code. Are you sure you're reading that correctly? Speed violation code sections are numbered anywhere between 22348 and 22356. My guess is that you were cited for 22350 VC

[I_Got_Banned]

Originally Posted by IsabellaSoriano

i'm paying the ticket.

Shame on you Isabella... You have access to what might possibly be the best traffic advice forum anywhere... And its FREE... Even if you think our posts might be quite convoluted, at times, you should have let us have a crack at it!

[Jim_bo]

Originally Posted by IsabellaSoriano

tsk tsk tsk.


what's the answer you are going to give to a judge when he asks that?

want my advice?

too bad, i'm giving it anyway. i actually got myself a speeding ticket a few months back come back from SF. i was going 85 in a 65 zone. first speeding ticket ever by the way. officer cut me some slack. gave me 80 miles so he wouldn't have to charge me with reckless driving. because this was VERY generous on his behalf, i'm paying the ticket. why? because i WAS speeding. and with me turning around and trying to get away with something when i was doing wrong, would have probably caused the officer to never give out breaks to other hapless souls.

I doubt that the OP came here for lectures... and your decision to just pay your ticket does NOT provide our OP with the info he is looking for at all. If you can't help, don't post.


Unlucky,

First, you should verify the VC section. Next, you really should file a discovery request to determine the method he used to get your speed. You can look at this site for a good template on doing a discovery request:

[url=http://helpigotaticket.com/proc/discover.html]Help! I Got a Ticket![/url]

[IsabellaSoriano]

Originally Posted by I_Got_Banned

Shame on you Isabella... You have access to what might possibly be the best traffic advice forum anywhere... And its FREE... Even if you think our posts might be quite convoluted, at times, you should have let us have a crack at it!

that maybe the case, but i knew i was speeding. i saw i was going 85. it was MY fault. i can take my beatings.

[FlyingRon]

Obviously his excessive speed caused last nights bridge failure. Nobody's speeding today.

[CdwJava]

I suspect that he has been charged with 23336:

23336. It is unlawful to violate any rules or regulations adopted
under Section 23334, notice of which has been given either by a sign
on a vehicular crossing or by publication as provided in Section
23335.

Related sections include:

23334. The Department of Transportation may adopt rules and
regulations not inconsistent with this chapter for the control of
traffic on any vehicular crossing to aid and insure the safe and
orderly flow of traffic, and shall, so far as practicable, notify the
public of the rules and regulations by signs on the vehicular
crossing.

23335. The Department of Transportation shall cause to be published
and made available to the public at the tollgates of each vehicular
crossing copies of those traffic laws and rules and regulations
particularly applicable thereto.

- Carl