Basic Speed law

[serg]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA, I was just in a car accident, I rear-ended another vehicle and recieved a basic speed law ticket, I was under the posted speed limit. So my question is, is there anyway to get out of the ticket?

 

[CourtClerk]

Sure, prove that the speed you were driving was safe for conditions.

 

[InsaneJane]

Or prove that whithstanding any first hand testomony that it's possible that the other driver backed into you.

 

[CdwJava]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA, I was just in a car accident, I rear-ended another vehicle and recieved a basic speed law ticket, I was under the posted speed limit. So my question is, is there anyway to get out of the ticket?

You received a citation for CVC 22350 as a result of the collision investigation?

There are ways to get out of it, but none easy. Are you considering traffic school?

Understand that it can be difficult to argue that you were traveling at a safe speed when you run into the rear of the vehicle stopped in front of you.

 

[davidmcbeth3]

any witnesses?

No witnesses=no conviction

And the cop who did not see it cannot testify to your speed unless you told him your speed.

You did not actually talk to the cop did you? You dont have to PROVE anything ... they have to prove you were speeding. The fact that you rear ended someone does not mean you were speeding.


Why do they even bother with these tickets?

 

[Zigner]

No witnesses=no conviction

And the cop who did not see it cannot testify to your speed unless you told him your speed.

You did not actually talk to the cop did you? You dont have to PROVE anything ... they have to prove you were speeding. The fact that you rear ended someone does not mean you were speeding.


Why do they even bother with these tickets?

Ignore this...davidmcbeth3 has no clue.

 

[CdwJava]

No witnesses=no conviction

Not true. The officer is a witness and can testify as to his conclusion based upon his investigation.

However, if the officer relies upon any statements made by the other driver to show proof of guilt, then he had better subpoena the other driver or he could lose.

And the cop who did not see it cannot testify to your speed unless you told him your speed.

He does not need to testify to exact speed (though a minimum speed CAN be determined through evaluation of the scene) as the code section for the basic speed law (CVC 22350) concerns UNSAFE speed. It would be quite difficult to argue that one was traveling at a safe speed when they rammed into the rear of the car in front of them.

You did not actually talk to the cop did you? You dont have to PROVE anything ... they have to prove you were speeding. The fact that you rear ended someone does not mean you were speeding.

At a traffic collision, generally both parties talk to the police. They are at least REQUIRED to provide a license, registration, and insurance information. In 19 years I have never had a driver refuse to talk to me, though I have had more than a few outright lie to me.

Why do they even bother with these tickets?

because they are expected to write citations for primary collision factors in collisions. It does not always happen, but it is a fundamental axiom of traffic enforcement that you address the PCF of collisions within the jurisdiction. And what better way to address the PCF than to actually CITE for it?

 

[I_Got_Banned]

No witnesses=no conviction

Too general a statement for it to even come close to being accurate or true...

And the cop who did not see it cannot testify to your speed unless you told him your speed.

You did not actually talk to the cop did you? You dont have to PROVE anything ... they have to prove you were speeding. The fact that you rear ended someone does not mean you were speeding.

Define "speeding".

Speeding under section 22350 is driving "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"; speeding also occurs "at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property." While these definitions are not terribly technical, they do supply the jury with legal standards to apply to specific considerations. Was the speed reasonable in light of the enumerated considerations, such as the traffic on the road? Was defendant's speed dangerous to other persons or property? Absent being instructed in these standards for deliberation, jurors may view speeding as occurring any time one vehicle collides with the rear end of another, regardless of examining questions of circumstance, reasonableness and danger; or they may believe that speeding occurs only when the posted speed limit is exceeded. Thus we cannot say with full confidence that the term "speeding," in the context of a violation of law, in common parlance is regularly associated with driving at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent, or at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property. It should also be remembered that to serve on a jury one need not be a licensed driver, and therefore all jurors are not necessarily aware of the "rules of the road." Because the term speeding, in the context of the basic speed law, is not clear and definite, the trial court had a sua sponte duty to give an amplifying or clarifying instruction defining the term.

Considering that the OPs case here is a simple infraction, the question as to whether his speed did not violate 22350, specifically, whether it did not endanger person or property (which will be close to impossible to prove in light of the accident) will be answered by a judge not a jury... However, the same definition would apply.

 

[patstew]

Ignore this...davidmcbeth3 has no clue.

On a regular basis.

If he weren't so unintentionally entertaining, I'd put him in my kill file.

 

[HighwayMan]

He's starting to become as tiring and annoying as Dillon.