Please help me get out of this---pacing!

[questions4u]

Hi. It was a nice, quiet, clear day in the carpool lane. No one really around except for a car approaching quickly behind me. In my rear view mirror I saw a cop car slightly behind and one lane to the right of the carpool lane. I got scared when I thought he was pulling me over, but relieved to see he wasn't...at least that's what I thought. I looked in my rear view mirror and the cop was in his same lane to the right of the carpool but a little bit behind me. Within a minute max he was pulling me over too!

There was only one officer in the car and no other cars within visibility. On the side of the freeway he had to deal with my car and the other car he pulled over...which ended up behind his. When the officer finally came back with the ticket, my friend asked to see the radar speed. He quickly smiled, then said he used a thing called pacing...then asked if we thought that was"hokey". My friend then asked if he pulled over the car behind us too -- he said proudly with a smile, "I sure did!". We just looked at him and he sent us off with a ticket. What can I do? Thanks.

Oh, we have a picture on my cell of the officer calling in the info and the other car he pulled over behind him on the side of the freeway. I think the citation code and sections says 22349(a) U Speed? Speed approximately 80+ - Max Spd 65. This is on the 118 fwy in CA.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by questions4u

What can I do? Thanks.

If you have a defense, you can fight the citation in court. If you do not want to conduct all the research and gather the information yourself, you can hire an attorney to do it. Also, if you are eligible for traffic school, you can take that option and keep the offense from effecting your insurance rates.

- Carl

[cepe10]

For pacing the officer would have to present evidence in the form of a certified orginal calibration report for the speedometer of the car he was using.

The highway safety deskbook spells this out...
[url]http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/DESKBK.html[/url]

Even then the "estimate" is not going to be very accurate.

There is a traffic school option in CA.

You have a trial by declaration option as well.

See this link for some of the case law on speeding citations. CA frowns on speed traps
[url]http://www.helpigotaticket.com/cases/[/url]


I'm not sure the 65 mph limit is accurate unless it is based on a speed study... which of course for the 118 freeway will not be 65 MPH...looking at the data the 85% speed is around 76 mph.

Based upon engineering and traffic surveys, the State Department of Transportation may increase the maximum speed limit to 70 MPH. Veh. Code §22356(a)

[fairisfair]

Originally Posted by cepe10

For pacing the officer would have to present evidence in the form of a certified orginal calibration report for the speedometer of the car he was using.

The highway safety deskbook spells this out...
[url]http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/DESKBK.html[/url]

Even then the "estimate" is not going to be very accurate.

There is a traffic school option in CA.

You have a trial by declaration option as well.

See this link for some of the case law on speeding citations. CA frowns on speed traps
[url]http://www.helpigotaticket.com/cases/[/url]

I'm not sure the 65 mph limit is accurate unless it is based on a speed study... which of course for the 118 freeway will not be 65 MPH...looking at the data the 85% speed is around 76 mph.

Based upon engineering and traffic surveys, the State Department of Transportation may increase the maximum speed limit to 70 MPH. Veh. Code §22356(a)

oh, here we go again with the traffic engineering. Well I have a little engineering tip for you. UNTIL the old signs come down and the new ones go up. The speed limit is as posted.

[Zigner]

And, another little Tidbit for Cepe...maximum speed on freeways is 65 (or 70 in certain areas - which the 118 does NOT run through).

22349. (a) Except as provided in Section 22356, no person may drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 65 miles per hour.

(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. For purposes of this subdivision, the following apply:

(1) A two-lane, undivided highway is a highway with not more than one through lane of travel in each direction.

(2) Passing lanes may not be considered when determining the number of through lanes.

(c) It is the intent of the Legislature that there be reasonable signing on affected two-lane, undivided highways described in subdivision (b) in continuing the 55 miles-per-hour speed limit, including placing signs at county boundaries to the extent possible, and at other appropriate locations.

AND:

22356. (a) Whenever the Department of Transportation, after
consultation with the Department of the California Highway Patrol,
determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey on
existing highway segments, or upon the basis of appropriate design
standards and projected traffic volumes in the case of newly
constructed highway segments, that a speed greater than 65 miles per
hour would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and
would be reasonable and safe upon any state highway, or portion
thereof, that is otherwise subject to a maximum speed limit of 65
miles per hour, the Department of Transportation, with the approval
of the Department of the California Highway Patrol, may declare a
higher maximum speed of 70 miles per hour for vehicles not subject to
Section 22406, and shall cause appropriate signs to be erected
giving notice thereof. The Department of Transportation shall only
make a determination under this section that is fully consistent
with, and in full compliance with, federal law.
(b) No person shall drive a vehicle upon that highway at a speed
greater than 70 miles per hour, as posted.
(c) This section shall become operative on the date specified in
subdivision (c) of Section 22366.


EDIT:
To OP - you really need to slow down - maybe leave 2 mins early to make up for the time lost by driving the speed limit.

Originally Posted by fairisfair

oh, here we go again with the traffic engineering. Well I have a little engineering tip for you. UNTIL the old signs come down and the new ones go up. The speed limit is as posted.

The simple fact is that you are too obtuse and too ignorant to understand criminal procedure, motor vehicle code, or case law. Have you even read People vs. Goulet or Chapter 8 of the CalTrans Traffic Manual? 85% speed studies certainly do apply in CA! The highway safety deskbook also applies! The IACP and NHTSA regulations regarding speed measurements apply! Where traffic and engineering survey are not proved at trial, California's speed trap laws apply to compel exclusion of all evidence of speed. Quit cluttering the board with your nonsense and igonorance, your "advice" is of no help to anyone.

[BelizeBreeze]

Originally Posted by WindyAruba

The simple fact is that you are too obtuse and too ignorant to understand criminal procedure, motor vehicle code, or case law. Have you even read People vs. Goulet or Chapter 8 of the CalTrans Traffic Manual? 85% speed studies certainly do apply in CA! The highway safety deskbook also applies! The IACP and NHTSA regulations regarding speed measurements apply! Where traffic and engineering survey are not proved at trial, California's speed trap laws apply to compel exclusion of all evidence of speed. Quit cluttering the board with your nonsense and igonorance, your "advice" is of no help to anyone.

The simple fact is YOU need to be gone or learn to control yourself.

[BelizeBreeze]

And by the way Q4U, if you use the People vs. Goulet citation wendy pulled , you'll look like a fool in court. The cited case is in reference to speed traps as defined in

I. Speed Trap VC 40802 A "speed trap" is either of the following:
(a) A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel a known distance.
(b) A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit provided by this code or by local ordinance pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, which speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation, where the enforcement involves the use of radar or other electronic devices which measure the speed of moving objects. This subdivision does not apply to local streets and roads.

You have not nor can submit the existence of such as no radar was involved. And your situation does not fall within the definition of a speed trap in any event.

[trieroffact]

Originally Posted by BelizeBreeze

The simple fact is YOU need to be gone or learn to control yourself.

I believe fairisfair again is the aggressor (like usual) and her statement was completely false. You and your group of uniformed groupies need to quit posting unless you really have some useful advice gained from a similar experience - Your mocking and "give up" defense strategy along with you contempt of US criminal law and due process is a joke. As well as saying things like there is no speed trap legislation in CA and the speed studies do not apply. The only time you can talk about a code or case law is when it is spoon fed to you....and then only to try your smoke screen spin babble because you were ignorant...

[Zigner]

Speed Studies DON'T MATTER in this case. AND, this was not a speed trap. This was an idiot who felt that speed laws don't apply to him - he was paced and cited properly.

[BelizeBreeze]

Originally Posted by trieroffact

I believe fairisfair again is the aggressor (like usual) and her statement was completely false. You and your group of uniformed groupies need to quit posting unless you really have some useful advice gained from a similar experience - Your mocking and "give up" defense strategy along with you contempt of US criminal law and due process is a joke. As well as saying things like there is no speed trap legislation in CA and the speed studies do not apply. The only time you can talk about a code or case law is when it is spoon fed to you....and then only to try your smoke screen spin babble because you were ignorant...

you are showing your ignorance or lack of reading skills again. What I said was that the case cited has no relation to the situation offered by the poster because it DEFINED circumstances regarding a SPEED TRAP and the statutory definition of what a speed trap is.

THIS situation does not fall within the cited case precident nor under the statutory definition of a SPEED TRAP.

[trieroffact]

Originally Posted by BelizeBreeze

you are showing your ignorance or lack of reading skills again. What I said was that the case cited has no relation to the situation offered by the poster because it DEFINED circumstances regarding a SPEED TRAP and the statutory definition of what a speed trap is.

THIS situation does not fall within the cited case precident nor under the statutory definition of a SPEED TRAP.

.

Fairisfair made a very general statement (which was completely false). You and zigner can weasel, and name call all you want but it changes nothing. Beyond that other items presented by knowledgeable posters here are pertinent to the case. You, Zigner, and Fairisfair have all demonstrated you have nothing meaningful to present here.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by trieroffact

Fairisfair made a very general statement (which was completely false). You and zigner can weasel, and name call all you want but it changes nothing. Beyond that other items presented by knowledgeable posters here are pertinent to the case. You, Zigner, and Fairisfair have all demonstrated you have nothing meaningful to present here.

Interesting, I posted the exact code section that OP was charged with. The maximum speed of 65 (or 70 under specific circumstances) is codified and the Feds don't have anything to do with it (or did you guys forget that States were given the right to set their own speed limits in 1995?)

[BelizeBreeze]

Originally Posted by trieroffact

Fairisfair made a very general statement (which was completely false). You and zigner can weasel, and name call all you want but it changes nothing. Beyond that other items presented by knowledgeable posters here are pertinent to the case. You, Zigner, and Fairisfair have all demonstrated you have nothing meaningful to present here.

Fair enough. now present this poster with your LEGAL qualifications to present this defense at trial.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by cepe10

I'm not sure the 65 mph limit is accurate unless it is based on a speed study... which of course for the 118 freeway will not be 65 MPH...looking at the data the 85% speed is around 76 mph.

Based upon engineering and traffic surveys, the State Department of Transportation may increase the maximum speed limit to 70 MPH. Veh. Code §22356(a)

Cepe is reading things wrong. The maximum speed *is* 65 UNLESS a traffic study is done showing that a speed of 70 MPH is appropriate. Even at that, it is not required that the speed limit be increased to 70 MPH. There is no requirement of a traffic study to enforce the 65 MPH max limit that is set by the vehicle code.

To Trier: You really should be careful about the accusations you throw about regarding "meaningful" information. As it turns out, Fair, BB and I are the ones presenting the legally accurate information.