Speed survey with electronic speed sign?

[shimzah]

California

HI
I received a speeding ticket, 65 in a 45.

While researching the speed survey the engineer writes that the speed was taken while there was an electronic speed sign (that displays your speed) there while the testing was taking place.

Is that legal, or is it considered rigging the data?

Thanks

 

[GotSmart]

So you blew past a giant speed sign with a cop there? And you wnat to know if it is legal.

I vote this post for one of the gutsyists yet. How big were the numbers?

 

[FlyingRon]

No I believe he is arguing that the speed survey (this is a California thing where they determine the validity of a speed limit, in part, by measuring the speeds of a sampling of cars). He's arguing that cars that would have sped through the area actually did the limit instead due to the electronic sign. I think you'll have a harder time. That "80%" rule really kind of is targetted at things like long hills with low speed limits at the bottom, etc... but sure try it.

 

[JIMinCA]

Directly from the California supplement of the MUTCD:

The intent of the speed measurements is to determine the actual speed of unimpeded traffic. The
speed of traffic should not be altered by concentrated law enforcement, or other means, just prior to,
or while taking the speed measurements.

The surveyor and equipment should not affect the traffic speeds. For this reason, an unmarked car is
recommended, and the radar speed meter located as inconspicuously as possible.

I had a similar case recently. My wife got a ticket where there was really bad justification of the speed limit. So, I complained to the CALTRANS traffic engineer. To make a long story short, I ended up complaining to the CALTRANS Traffic engineer, the district 9 director, the CALTRANS director for transportation and operations and the Deputy Director for all of CALTRANS. As a result, my wife's ticket was dismissed the day before her trial... along with all the outstanding speeding tickets written on that highway. Additionally, CALTRANS has since done a public hearing to set a new speed limit.

So, it just depends on what your goal is... get out of your ticket, or fix a public wrong.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

While researching the speed survey the engineer writes that the speed was taken while there was an electronic speed sign (that displays your speed) there while the testing was taking place.

Are those signs temporary (i.e. on a small trailer on the side of the road) or are they permanently installed there?

And yes, I have seen several locations where such signs are permanently installed. (Example: Soledad Canyon Road, Canyon Country, Ca).

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Additionally, CALTRANS has since done a public hearing to set a new speed limit.

Since when are speed limits set by "public hearings"

 

[teflon_jones]

Since when are speed limits set by "public hearings"

Any type of change that affects the public is usually subject to a hearing. In the case of speed limits, local residents, business owners, or others may want to express their support or opposition to the speed limit change.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Any type of change that affects the public is usually subject to a hearing. In the case of speed limits, local residents, business owners, or others may want to express their support or opposition to the speed limit change.

And yet the California Vehicle Code and the California MUTCD (issued by the CA DOT based upon federal guidelines) have certain requirements that specifically dictate the "what, how, when, where and why" speed limits are set/can be changed. None of those requirements are predicated upon public opinion of local residents, business owners or others...

 

[JIMinCA]

And yet the California Vehicle Code and the California MUTCD (issued by the CA DOT based upon federal guidelines) have certain requirements that specifically dictate the "what, how, when, where and why" speed limits are set/can be changed. None of those requirements are predicated upon public opinion of local residents, business owners or others...

So, what is your point? If CALTRANS had been doing their job in the first place, there wouldn't be a need for a public hearing in the first place. In fact, CALTRANS actually suggested keeping the speed limit 5mph below the 85th percentile. The justification for that was not appropriate, legal or in compliance with the MUTCD in my opinion. So, the public hearing gave me the advance notice needed to start up my barrage of complaints to CALTRANS. I never understood why they don't want to just follow the law.

 

[shimzah]

yes it is one of those trailer type signs ... just affixed in the ground.
My question was if its a legal way to take measure speed by doing the road survey?
for which i got the answer, no it wasnt.

Thanks to those who answered my question

btw, it was 2am on a quiet residential street with no-one on the road (except the cop hiding on a side street

 

[GotSmart]

65 in a 45 residential zone. The giant flashing sign you went passed was seen by a on duty officer.

I reviewed all answers, and nobody has said that this was a non enforceable ticket. 20mph over the speed limit in a residential.

JimInCa mentioned a ticket where the situation was different Not 20 over in a residential neighborhood. I do not know of any place that allows you to do 65 in a residential zone. No matter what the time is.

Those units operate by radar. The ticket was not determined by a road survey.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

So, what is your point? If CALTRANS had been doing their job in the first place, there wouldn't be a need for a public hearing in the first place. In fact, CALTRANS actually suggested keeping the speed limit 5mph below the 85th percentile. The justification for that was not appropriate, legal or in compliance with the MUTCD in my opinion. So, the public hearing gave me the advance notice needed to start up my barrage of complaints to CALTRANS. I never understood why they don't want to just follow the law.

None of that answers my question... I am just curious about which policy directive/statute/addendum/amendment gives CALTRANS the ability to establish/justify a particular speed limit based on the outcome of a "public hearing" rather than by them following the procedure which we both know are clearly outlined in the references I cited above (CVC & MUTCD)???

 

[Maestro64]

First, I highly doubt it was residential since speed limits by law and definition for residential is defined to be 25. A speed survey is generally not required for residential zones.

As Jim point out the use of a "your speed is" sign is not allow during the speed survey, thus makes the speed survey invalid thus making enforcing any speeding ticket invalid for the road which the survey was used to justify its speed.

Also, if you research the MUTCD and the Traffic engineers handbook, you are all smart so you can go find this yourself, it clearly states when Speed surveys are done all speed limits signs should be removed along with other things during the survey period so the natural speed can be determined. many times they leave the existing signed up for various reasons but it does not make it right. Believe it or not 85% of the people tend to drive at a safe and reasonable speed without any knowledge of what the speed limit is set to this is why this is done. Thus the reason for CA speed trap law.

I just wish other states follow the same process, since you see the police hanging out at various locations since they know the speed limit is set low and people get caught all the time. Just saw one last week the entire road was set at 45 which was reasonable but this one section was set to 30 which was odd in the first place and the police were just hanging out at this location. You can could people we fighting to keep their speed to 30, always hitting the brakes and slowing to below 30 just to make sure they did not get a ticket.

 

[JIMinCA]

None of that answers my question... I am just curious about which policy directive/statute/addendum/amendment gives CALTRANS the ability to establish/justify a particular speed limit based on the outcome of a "public hearing" rather than by them following the procedure which we both know are clearly outlined in the references I cited above (CVC & MUTCD)???

Its just part of the process. The truth is, I believe it is just a "feel good exercise" as the traffic engineer basically told us that setting the speed limit is at her sole discretion and it is not appealable.

 

[DRTDEVL]

You can could people we fighting to keep

Huh?