CA: Interpreting traffic survey (California)

[stellar2]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

This is regarding a 47mph ticket I got in a 25mph zone. Only radar was used by the officer.

I asked the city PWD to fax me the traffic survey. I only got 1 page, without the notes, not signed.

----------------------- Survey Begin ----------------------
-Time of Survey: 11/30/2005
-Posted speed limit = 25mph
-Critical speed = 32.38mph
-Pace = 22 to 32 mph
-Percent in pace = 85%
-Average speed = 28.3mph

Roadway Description: 4-lane divided arterial street through a commercial area with parking allowed from L Street to O Street. A shopping center is at the intersection of P Street. The length of this segment is 0.46 miles.

Collision History: The collision rate for this segment is 7.72 collisions per million vehicle miles within the past three and a half years, which is much higher than the statewide average rate of 1.98 for this type of roadway.

Other Considerations: Due to the high collision rate and a high rate of turning maneuvers in and out of many commercial driveways, a speed limit below the critical speed is justified.

Recommendation: Retain the existing 25 mph speed limit.
----------------------- Survey End ----------------------

Questions:
I know that by law they can reduce the 85%ile speed to the nearest 5mph, so that would take 32.38 down to 30mph. In addition, due to the cited much higher collision rate, they are allowed to take it down by another 5 mph – to 25mph.

1) Is this survey acceptable?
2) Is there a way to argue about the "Other Considerations" and "Collision History" justifications for the 25mph speed limit?
3) Is there a way to beat this ticket using speed trap laws?

THANK YOU IN ADVANCE!!What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[I_Got_Banned]

I know that by law they can reduce the 85%ile speed to the nearest 5mph, so that would take 32.38 down to 30mph. In addition, due to the cited much higher collision rate, they are allowed to take it down by another 5 mph – to 25mph.
1) Is this survey acceptable?
2) Is there a way to argue about the "Other Considerations" and "Collision History" justifications for the 25mph speed limit?
3) Is there a way to beat this ticket using speed trap laws?

1) You're interpretation (underlined) is pretty accurate! The limit is justified.
2) You can try but having an accident rate that is near 3.9 times the statewide average is pretty tough to overcome. that is excluding the other conditions mentioned in the survey.
3) very unlikely!

 

[stellar2]

1) You're interpretation (underlined) is pretty accurate! The limit is justified.
2) You can try but having an accident rate that is near 3.9 times the statewide average is pretty tough to overcome. that is excluding the other conditions mentioned in the survey.
3) very unlikely!

I_Got_Banned - come on, give me a lifeline! Can I successfully argue that, since the 50% percentile is 28.3mph, the posted speed limit makes offenders out of 77% of drivers and cite People vs. Goulet (footnote 20, quoted "the speed limit makes violators of a large percentage of drivers")? If yes, then what takes precedence - good interpretation in that speed survey or my 50% Goulet argument?

---------------- begin --- People vs. Goulet , Footnote 20
"FN 20. Review at trial or on appeal will tend to fall into patterns. Many speed limits will apparently be justified because, in accordance with the general rule, they are set at the 85th percentile speed or within 5 mph under that speed. Some speed limits may be justified because they are set five mph below the general rule, based on higher than expected accident rates or listed hidden hazards. Some speed limits may appear to be unjustified or questionable because:

1. The speed limit is set 10 or more mph under the 85th percentile speed;
2. The speed limit makes violators of a large percentage of drivers;
3. "Conditions" listed are not hidden hazards, that is, they are readily apparent to a driver;
4. There is no explanation how the conditions listed require the speed limit set; or
5. The accident rate is not higher than would be expected statistically."

---------------- end --- People vs. Goulet , Footnote 20

 

[FlyingRon]

Which of those five conditions in the footnote do you believe applies here?

 

[I_Got_Banned]

... and in addition to what FlyingRon has stated, the citation you posted also states: "Some speed limits may be justified because they are set five mph below the general rule, based on higher than expected accident rates or listed hidden hazards."

And unfortunately, in this case, you have BOTH, the higher than expected accident rate, as well as, hidden condition/conditions not readily apparent to the driver.

So although Goulet happened to have contributed to that particular decision being overturned, in your case, it will have the opposite effect.

Sorry!

 

[stellar2]

Which of those five conditions in the footnote do you believe applies here?

FlyingRon - I believe condition #2 applies. Do all five conditions have to be applicable or is one enough?

I_Got_Banned - Thanks for your help! True, I can't argue with your logic about both hazards. What you say makes very good sense. However, let me conjecture a bit... Since the case also states "Some speed limits may appear to be unjustified or questionable because: ... condition #2", don't these statements contradict each other (this quotation and your quotation)? Can I use the condition #2 selectively as a counterargument to prove the speed trap existed?

 

[I_Got_Banned]

FlyingRon - I believe condition #2 applies. Do all five conditions have to be applicable or is one enough?

I_Got_Banned - Thanks for your help! True, I can't argue with your logic about both hazards. What you say makes very good sense. However, let me conjecture a bit... Since the case also states "Some speed limits may appear to be unjustified or questionable because: ... condition #2", don't these statements contradict each other (this quotation and your quotation)? Can I use the condition #2 selectively as a counterargument to prove the speed trap existed?

You can use any argument you feel might help your case. However, you have to remember that the judge will typically NOT second guess the engineer's analysis nor is he obligated to entertain YOUR conclusion as as a viable alternative to that of the engineer.

The way I read read Goulet, and specifically, the detailed analysis with which the appellate offered in regards to speed survey, I see it as more of an effort to demonstrate what an engineer can and cannot consider when evaluating a survey, rather than one which allows a judge to make that evaluation.

Furthermore, and even if the judge is going to allow you to even begin question the validity of this survey, out of the 5 conditional statements listed in that cite, you have four (#s 1, 3, 4, & 5) which are irrefutable and conclusive... and one which is, at best, questionable (# 2). I say "questionable" due to the fact that #2 does in fact set the criteria at "... makes violators of a LARGE percentage of drivers."... Notice it does not say "... makes violators of 50 percent of drivers".

Still, it is your case and you're free to make whatever argument you may feel is viable. But unless you are, in fact, a certified traffic engineer, you'd be hard pressed to even begin to suggest that your opinion should carry more weight than that of a professional expert in the eyes of the court.