Speeding Southern CA

[kozmosable]

Ticket issued was in violation of V C Section 22365 while south bound on the 15. I am unclear as to how 22365 applies directly to my speeding. Average surrounding traffic speed was 85-90 mph. I was cited at 96. Also can I argue that I would be a danger on the road if I had to obey the absolute speed limit.
I plan to fight it.
Could you suggest some course of action?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[Isis1]

Ticket issued was in violation of V C Section 22365 while south bound on the 15. I am unclear as to how 22365 applies directly to my speeding. Average surrounding traffic speed was 85-90 mph. I was cited at 96. Also can I argue that I would be a danger on the road if I had to obey the absolute speed limit.
I plan to fight it.
Could you suggest some course of action?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

you can argue anything you want. the question is, how do you prove driving faster than the legal speed limit would have been a danger?

 

[kozmosable]

The posted speed limit is 70 at the location of ticket. It is on a pretty long downhill section with 4 lanes. Even semis were going faster than that. Would proving that I would be a road hazard to other vehicles if I traveled at the posted speed limit help my case?

edit: location: Google Maps

 

[Zigner]

The posted speed limit is 70 at the location of ticket. It is on a pretty long downhill section with 4 lanes. Even semis were going faster than that. Would proving that I would be a road hazard to other vehicles if I traveled at the posted speed limit help my case?

So, you want to go in court and admit to speeding? Really?


(No, it won't help your case.)

 

[kozmosable]

Thanks for the advice so far. On another note, can you clarify what V C Section 22365 has to do with a violation of speed limit.

"22365. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any county or city, which is contained, in whole or in part, within the South Coast Air Quality Management District, may, if the county or city determines that it is necessary to achieve or maintain state or federal ambient air quality standards for particulate matter, determine and declare by ordinance a prima facie speed limit that is lower than that which the county or city is otherwise permitted by this code to establish, for any unpaved road under the jurisdiction of the county or city and within the district. That declared prima facie speed limit shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected along the road. "

 

[FlyingRon]

Thanks for the advice so far. On another note, can you clarify what V C Section 22365 has to do with a violation of speed limit.

You sure it's not 22356? That's the 70 mph speed limit law.

 

[kozmosable]

You sure it's not 22356? That's the 70 mph speed limit law.

Ah, you are indeed correct, sir. I was dyslexic in that regard. (b) states "No person shall drive a vehicle upon that highway at a speed greater than 70 miles per hour, as posted"

Any suggestion to argue that? Perhaps providing evidence that all vehicles are in violation of that law?

 

[FlyingRon]

Ah, you are indeed correct, sir. I was dyslexic in that regard. (b) states "No person shall drive a vehicle upon that highway at a speed greater than 70 miles per hour, as posted"

Any suggestion to argue that? Perhaps providing evidence that all vehicles are in violation of that law?

Nope, arguing that everybody else was doing it won't work any better with the judge than it did with your mommy.

 

[Zigner]

Any suggestion to argue that? Perhaps providing evidence that all vehicles are in violation of that law?

kozmosable: But Judge, ALL of the cars were traveling faster than 70mph.
Judge: Fine, when they are in front of me, I'll find them guilty too!

 

[kozmosable]

So you fine, respectable gentlemen have absolutely no insight to offer?
Thanks for your time.

 

[Zigner]

So you fine, respectable gentlemen have absolutely no insight to offer?
Thanks for your time.

Insight as to WHAT? Based on what you've posted, you have no defense.

 

[goldengate]

IMO, you must use the laws to your advantage with respect to subpoenas and any CA law you can think of to help you. I know I will get flamed for this but it's okay. If you pay it quickly you will be out the same amount as if you were to fight it. The want you to pay the fine and go away. I opt for the fight. I may not win but I can make it hurt while following the laws and rules of procedure just like they must follow. You must be able to research and follow CA laws though.

 

[FlyingRon]

IMO, you must use the laws to your advantage with respect to subpoenas and any CA law you can think of to help you. I know I will get flamed for this but it's okay. If you pay it quickly you will be out the same amount as if you were to fight it. The want you to pay the fine and go away. I opt for the fight. I may not win but I can make it hurt while following the laws and rules of procedure just like they must follow. You must be able to research and follow CA laws though.

You're not going to get flamed, but you are in fact, wrong. First off, there are mitigation options like traffic school which will be off the table if you fight it tooth and nail.

Second, you're not going to "hurt" anybody by going to court. It's part of the job (and in fact, for many of them, allows them to have a job).

 

[goldengate]

The OP said that they wanted to fight the ticket even though I do agree traffic school is the best option.

If the ticket is say 125 dollars and you file motions and subpoenas and do everything under the law you will make it hurt. I guarantee I could make them spend way more in and time and effort than the 125 dollars.

 

[HighwayMan]

If the ticket is say 125 dollars and you file motions and subpoenas and do everything under the law you will make it hurt.

Make it hurt? LOL.

I guarantee I could make them spend way more in and time and effort than the 125 dollars.

And do you think anyone really cares?