going under posted speed limit

[The Occultist]

Traffic tickets make BILLIONS for the State. It is a hell of an industry for the State.

Please provide a relevant [accurate] cite to back this supposition; I would be greatly interested in reading it.

Unless, of course, you mean that GROSS is is billions, which means net isn't worth a dime. If you're saying that they're making a profit margin in the billions, then please provide the data. Thanks.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Forgot a third reason I think Police give citations. The "injured" are less likely to file a frivolous civil injury claim against you and your insurance company. So in away the Police are doing you a favor in giving you a ticket.

So what you’re saying is that the fact that the OP was issued a citation (while the other driver was not) thereby establishing that the OP was primarily at fault… And that is gonna somehow limit/reduce/prevent the other driver from filing a civil claim against the OP???

I think you have it backwards; Don’t you?

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Same in all states that receive federal highway funding. The average person and even some lawyers don't include those speed surveys for a defense.

Well, for one, the burden of proof that a speed limit was properly set and posted (which in California is done by conducting a Traffic and Engineering survey) falls upon the prosecution, it is not up to the average person or his attorney to decide it will be introduced into evidence. Moreover, the first logical step in putting together a possible defense strategy against most if not all speeding ticket defenses is to file & serve an Informal Discovery Request for a copy of evidence items that the prosecution plans on using against the driver and the first or second most important item on that list is in fact the Traffic & Engineering survey!!!!

You can justify going over that limit and when accused of going under but too fast for conditions. Those speed survey become important.

Do I understand you correctly? Are you trying to say that speed surveys come in handy when you are going under the speed limit but too fast for current conditions?
I disagree,. Speed surveys are there to justify the posted speed limit. In cases when you are going under the speed limit but too fast for conditions (and in California you would typically be cited for 22350) then it becomes a judgment call – i.e. your word against that of the officer’s- as to whether your speed was “reasonable and prudent under current conditions and that it did not pose a threat to neither person nor property…

It also clears up confusion when a driver doesn't see why a Police Officer gave them the ticket when under the posted speed.

My guess is that impeding traffic citations (given for driving too slow) are VERY rarely issued. This might be the FIRST time that I have ever heard of anyone receiving one. So to go through the expense of issuing speed surveys based “clearing up a driver’s confusion”, even when “clearing confusion” is a secondary reason is a huge waste of resources.

Sure when you calculate just one ticket. Add together how many tickets a Police agency writes. Kind of like McDonald's and the $1.00 menu or state sales tax.

Well, initially, your argument was based on the fact that citations that are written in association with an accident report are, in your opinion, to be considered (and I quote you) “a fee for the Police writing their reports, etcetera,,.”. Now you’re including ALL citations that are written… which mathematically dilutes that so called “fee” even further. So Carl’s response of “The costs … greatly exceeded the $4.75 …”. Still applies.

Wait a sec. Stop rocking my boat...

Hahaha… he’s not rocking your boat… Trust me if you post inaccurate information on here, somebody is gonna call you on it. At least Carl does it in a subjective and eloquent manner.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

There could be other violations you may be guilty of (i.e. driving too closely), but a ticket of 22350 places the burden of proof on the prosecution to show that your speed did in fact cause a danger to persons or property.

His speed did in fact cause a danger to person... and it went beyond just a "danger" to property... It actually caused some damage!!!

As for "driving too fast" (speed) versus "driving too closely" (distance), and although those are two different violation, mathematically, one is ALWAYS a function of the other...

The prosecution would have to prove a cause-and-effect relationship between your speed and the accident. If you question him well, I don't think he can do that.

It "IS" in fact a DIRECT relationship... Wouldn't be that difficult to prove.Correct me if I'm wrong but the lower the speed, the easier & quicker the ability to stop thereby suggesting that the lower the speed, the higher the chance of avoiding the accident.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Jim-bo,

Let me preface my comments by saying that so far, this is “As far as I know”. Although I will do some searching and I will gladly post any information that supports or refutes it accordingly.

If you consider the California Highway Patrol; an agency who's primary duty is to enforce traffic laws and would be a more justifiable recipient of any percentage of revenue from traffic citations than local policereceives very little IF ANYTHING from traffic citation revenue that is collected at County Courthouses across the State of California.

Instead, the CHP operates on a budget that is mainly funded by revenue from the registration fees that the DMV collects annually from car owners... Now THAT, is a HUGE business in California.

 

[poncho]

Do I understand you correctly? Are you trying to say that speed surveys come in handy when you are going under the speed limit but too fast for current conditions?
I disagree,. Speed surveys are there to justify the posted speed limit. In cases when you are going under the speed limit but too fast for conditions (and in California you would typically be cited for 22350) then it becomes a judgment call – i.e. your word against that of the officer’s- as to whether your speed was “reasonable and prudent under current conditions and that it did not pose a threat to neither person nor property…

No not the only part of a defense. The speed surveys also spell out the average speed a typical reasonable person would travel during varied conditions. In below speed limit, but still speeding for the conditions infractions. You could challenge that the police officer judgment in your case did not call for giving the ticket. The federal law does give the calculation the survey use to determine what is reasonable. In most state's you can do a similar argument defending why you went over the limit. As driving slow for the conditions is also a infraction. Passing a commercial truck or motor vehicle moving slow and creating unsafe conditions. Your exceeding the speed "limit" for your safety. The survey also calculates a safe over limit speed that is reasonable and prudent under the conditions. One of the reason's some Police like CHP have not official policy in good clear conditions near zero light traffic; they typically do not write infractions for a few miles over limits. That discretion decreases as the limit is raised at higher speed. The survey gives that information as well. Along with other vehicle code you can give your reasonable person typically drive near or at your speed for the conditions, legal "authority".

Legal authority in a lot of case's gives more weight to your "word" over a Police Officers most times.

My guess is that impeding traffic citations (given for driving too slow) are VERY rarely issued. This might be the FIRST time that I have ever heard of anyone receiving one. So to go through the expense of issuing speed surveys based “clearing up a driver’s confusion”, even when “clearing confusion” is a secondary reason is a huge waste of resources.

Rarely issued and rarely used to give some legal authority for going over the limit.

Well, initially, your argument was based on the fact that citations that are written in association with an accident report are, in your opinion, to be considered (and I quote you) “a fee for the Police writing their reports, etcetera,,.”. Now you’re including ALL citations that are written… which mathematically dilutes that so called “fee” even further. So Carl’s response of “The costs … greatly exceeded the $4.75 …”. Still applies.

And

Hahaha… he’s not rocking your boat… Trust me if you post inaccurate information on here, somebody is gonna call you on it. At least Carl does it in a subjective and eloquent manner.

I gave a good reason for a Police Officer writing a ticket. More reasonable then I wear a badge my discretion makes you guilty. Without knowing how many tickets per year a police department issue's and how many get paid. Its a math equation based on I wear a badge and I say not much money in tickets for infractions. Other than parking. My other degree is in economics and have my series seven license.

 

[FlyingRon]

The speed survey defense only works when an electronic means is used against a prima facie speed limit (either posted or implicit).

It doesn't have any bearing on the Basic Speed Law.

I don't know where the original poster got his idea that he was going too slow. Both his original citation and the online record show him in violation of the Basic Speed Law (going too fast). That speed CAN (and often is) be below the posted limit.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

I am turning this into a lesson for my oldest daughter too. She is 15 and about to enter into her permit. I am trying to allow her to use My mistakes as a learning tool for her.

Great idea... And here's some more material to hopefully help get the point across...

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/rd/r_d_report/Section 6/207-Teen Driver Risk Report.pdf

 

[I_Got_Banned]

No not the only part of a defense. The speed surveys also spell out the average speed a typical reasonable person would travel during varied conditions. In below speed limit, but still speeding for the conditions infractions. You could challenge that the police officer judgment in your case did not call for giving the ticket. The federal law does give the calculation the survey use to determine what is reasonable. In most state's you can do a similar argument defending why you went over the limit. As driving slow for the conditions is also a infraction. Passing a commercial truck or motor vehicle moving slow and creating unsafe conditions. Your exceeding the speed "limit" for your safety. The survey also calculates a safe over limit speed that is reasonable and prudent under the conditions. One of the reason's some Police like CHP have not official policy in good clear conditions near zero light traffic; they typically do not write infractions for a few miles over limits. That discretion decreases as the limit is raised at higher speed. The survey gives that information as well. Along with other vehicle code you can give your reasonable person typically drive near or at your speed for the conditions, legal "authority".

Legal authority in a lot of case's gives more weight to your "word" over a Police Officers most times.



Rarely issued and rarely used to give some legal authority for going over the limit.



And



I gave a good reason for a Police Officer writing a ticket. More reasonable then I wear a badge my discretion makes you guilty. Without knowing how many tickets per year a police department issue's and how many get paid. Its a math equation based on I wear a badge and I say not much money in tickets for infractions. Other than parking.

I still can't understand 1/2 of what you're trying to say!!!

EDIT: make that 3/4...

Without knowing how many tickets per year a police department issue's and how many get paid. Its a math equation based on I wear a badge and I say not much money in tickets for infractions. Other than parking.

That's what you learned by earning your degree in economics?

My other degree is in economics and have my series seven license.

I can see how that could affect the price of tea in China...

 

[poncho]

I still can't understand 1/2 of what you're trying to say!!!

EDIT: make that 3/4...

That's what you learned by earning your degree in economics?


I can see how that could affect the price of tea in China...

22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway 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, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of
persons or property.

The surveys determine what is reasonable based on math calculation. Since the surveys are conducted under federal law and certified. They could be admissible. You challenge what the Police officer used to calculate you endangered the safety of persons or property.

Math can have more logic over a Police Officers discretion based on reasonable opinion you committed the infraction may or not hold more weight with the Judge. Your argument is you drove within the range set by the 85% of safe and reasonable people bracket. How did the Police Officer calculate your in the 15% deserving of a ticket? Your argument also fall within the law--you have some authority to challenge on these grounds.

Little more than a Police Officer going accident I must write a ticket. Motorist B hit motorist A. So for the conditions and the fact B was at fault. The only speed a motorist can go is zero. Thats arbitrary based on Police opinion. Even OP could present that based on the survey and conditions zero may not have been the only speed. Zero may have caused motorist C to hit motorist B. Did the officer think of reasonable persons thinking as determined by the road survey?

Widget A has a profit margin of $4.75 per widget A sold. How many widget A's need to be sold to make money. Answer cannot be added until we know how many Widget A's are sold. If 35,000 Widget A's are sold will the seller make a profit? Answer we cant calculate without first considering the other streams of revenue.

Any argument you read on the net must be checked and verified by a real world licensed attorney.

Mine is if the Police Officer did not calculate based on the state's own survey. How do we know that the defendant is in fact guilty. The state has determined within the surveys how the statute is to be applied. No disrespect a Police Officer is a employee of the state, not the sole determinant in what speeds are safe for the conditions Your Honor.

The Police Officer Your Honor is exceeding their law full authority granted by the state.

 

[CdwJava]

The surveys determine what is reasonable based on math calculation. Since the surveys are conducted under federal law and certified. They could be admissible. You challenge what the Police officer used to calculate you endangered the safety of persons or property.

The speed survey would be irrelevant to this matter because he was not cited for exceeding the posted speed limit thus giving rise to a "speed trap" defense and requiring the state to justify the posted limit. This is a 'prima facie' instance of unsafe speed. Tell me, then, WHAT is a "safe speed" when you are about to rear end someone? Please ... what speed? Note that ANY speed will still involve a collision ... hence, a speed of ZERO is safe.

Had the traffic in front of the driver been moving, then the PCF would have likely been for following too closely. But, as it was stopped, it is unsafe speed. So says the state of CA, the courts in this state, and all the training received by collision investigators in the state. The speed limit is entirely irrelevant in this situation.

Your argument is you drove within the range set by the 85% of safe and reasonable people bracket. How did the Police Officer calculate your in the 15% deserving of a ticket? Your argument also fall within the law--you have some authority to challenge on these grounds.

What???

I think you are twisting the concept of the 85th percentile in a speed survey that is used to set the base speed limit of a roadway.

Mine is if the Police Officer did not calculate based on the state's own survey.

The posted limit is irrelevant. The limit could have been 25, or it could have been 55, no matter the speed limit, he drove at an unsafe speed for conditions. Your diffused argument is whacked.

How do we know that the defendant is in fact guilty.

He's not "guilty" until he either pleads guilty or is found guilty at trial. And, absent the officer's not showing up, it seems he will be found guilty. More importantly, the OP is standing up to his responsibility and understands what he did. It was an error, but it was one that caused him to receive a citation. Your arguing for no real reason here ... and you are using as your basis for an argument the issue of speed surveys which would play absolutely ZERO part in the discussion at trial.

- Carl

 

[Jim_bo]

Alright, this statement alone shows that you have no respect for a knowledgeable senior member of this forum. I humbly ask that you either change the attitude with with you make contributions, or you altogether stop posting on this site.

Sorry dude... request denied.

 

[Jim_bo]

His speed did in fact cause a danger to person... and it went beyond just a "danger" to property... It actually caused some damage!!!

As for "driving too fast" (speed) versus "driving too closely" (distance), and although those are two different violation, mathematically, one is ALWAYS a function of the other...


It "IS" in fact a DIRECT relationship... Wouldn't be that difficult to prove.Correct me if I'm wrong but the lower the speed, the easier & quicker the ability to stop thereby suggesting that the lower the speed, the higher the chance of avoiding the accident.

I think it is a gross over-simplification to say that speed caused this accident. With that kind of logic, 22350 should be written in EVERY accident. If someone runs a red light.... 22350. After all, the safe speed at a red light is ZERO!! How about a person runs a stop sign and plows into the side of your car.... if you were going slower, the guy running the stop sign would have passed in front of you... 22350!! How about a deer runs out in the road and you hit it... if you were going slower, you would have missed it....22350! Maybe a terrorist places an IED under the highway and blows your car up.... 22350!! I'm sorry... that's just nonsense.

The issue was that the driver failed to yeild, he was following too closely, he was driving while distracted, etc... I'm not saying that the OP is innocent... he obviously was responsible for the accident. I'm simply saying that writing a ticket for 22350 is both innappropriate and intellectually lazy.

But then again, with the majority of people on this board simply hanging around just to tell a person how guilty they are... I wouldn't expect any different responses.

 

[Jim_bo]

Instead, the CHP operates on a budget that is mainly funded by revenue from the registration fees that the DMV collects annually from car owners... Now THAT, is a HUGE business in California.

Now that is something we can agree on. To be clear... I acknowlege California's ability to get into its citizen's pockets in a multitude of ways.... traffic infractions are just a small part of it.

 

[CdwJava]

I think it is a gross over-simplification to say that speed caused this accident. With that kind of logic, 22350 should be written in EVERY accident. If someone runs a red light.... 22350. After all, the safe speed at a red light is ZERO!!

That is not how the PCF is defined. In short, it is defines as the one element if removed from the situation would have prevented the violation. In the case of running a red light, it is generally going to be CVC 21453(a) - the running of the light. But, yes, unsafe speed IS one of the most common determinations made in SWITRS.

I'm simply saying that writing a ticket for 22350 is both innappropriate and intellectually lazy.

More importantly, that's what policy and practice pursuant to state traffic reporting requirements (per SWITRS) says we write. It is both appropriate, lawful, and the standard in this state.

This statute is violated if a driver (1) is driving at an unreasonable speed in light of the listed considerations, or (2) is driving at a speed that is dangerous to other persons or property. (Ellis (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1339; Behjat (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 3-4.) It is prima facie evidence of unsafe speed to strike an object in the roadway under most circumstances. And since the car in front of the OP did not materialize there, he had an obligation to observe traffic ahead of him. This is pretty much the poster circumstances for CVC 22350 as a PCF as instructed in state collision investigations training.

- Carl