Case Law or Supporting Evidence for Speed Survey Defense

[FlyingRon]

You continually fail to understand. There's a difference between a standard and a legal obligation to do something.
There are standards for just about anything you can imagine. Unless there is some law (and you've not quoted one yet), that says you HAVE to follow the standard, it's just a recommendation.

Furher, even if there were such an obligation, the fact the government didn't follow it doesn't imply you get off your speeding violation. Very simple principal your mother should have taught you early on: two wrongs do not make a right.

 

[ESchultz9]

Each state is free to establish their own rules/laws/etc. for the roads in their state.

Does anything in NY contradict the requirement by the MUTCD to have a valid survey?
Also I repeat from the NY State Supplement to the MUTCD:
Traffic control devices installed on such facilities within the State of New York are required to
conform to the MUTCD, published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

 

[FlyingRon]

Does anything in NY contradict the requirement by the MUTCD to have a valid survey?
Also I repeat from the NY State Supplement to the MUTCD:
Traffic control devices installed on such facilities within the State of New York are required to
conform to the MUTCD, published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

But that is meaningless. I could publish a novel and says ESChults9 must obey everything I put in this book, and it would be unenforceable.
You seem to have no idea what LAWS are. The LAW is enacted by the legislature. It has specific applicability. If the legislature wishes to delegate some regulatory authority (like the CFRs) they need to enact a LAW specifying such. Even then there is specific applicability limitations.

You can cut and paste all you want, but it will get you nowhere in front of a judge (or as pointed out likely in your case, the hearing officer) because they are familiar with what is law and what is not and they've heard all these fallacious arguments before.

 

[Zigner]

Does anything in NY contradict the requirement by the MUTCD to have a valid survey?
Also I repeat from the NY State Supplement to the MUTCD:
Traffic control devices installed on such facilities within the State of New York are required to
conform to the MUTCD, published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

Do you know that the speed limit isn't set by statute and/or whether or not there was a traffic survey done?

Because if the limit is set by statute, or if it's according to a traffic survey, then your line of investigation is moot.

 

[ESchultz9]

But that is meaningless. I could publish a novel and says ESChults9 must obey everything I put in this book, and it would be unenforceable.
You seem to have no idea what LAWS are. The LAW is enacted by the legislature. It has specific applicability. If the legislature wishes to delegate some regulatory authority (like the CFRs) they need to enact a LAW specifying such. Even then there is specific applicability limitations.

You can cut and paste all you want, but it will get you nowhere in front of a judge (or as pointed out likely in your case, the hearing officer) because they are familiar with what is law and what is not and they've heard all these fallacious arguments before.

title 23, United States Code, Section 109(d) and Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 655.603

 

[ESchultz9]

Do you know that the speed limit isn't set by statute and/or whether or not there was a traffic survey done?

Because if the limit is set by statute, or if it's according to a traffic survey, then your line of investigation is moot.

Working on getting this information.

 

[TigerD]

Okay, let's try it this way:
Which "how to beat your speeding ticket" website are you copying and pasting from?

TD

 

[Zigner]

title 23, United States Code, Section 109(d) and Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 655.603

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-23cfr655.htm

The MUTCD is adopted by reference in accordance with title 23, United States Code, Section 109(d) and Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 655.603, and is approved as the national standard for designing, applying, and planning traffic control devices.

Standard, not law.

 

[ESchultz9]

Okay, let's try it this way:
Which "how to beat your speeding ticket" website are you copying and pasting from?

TD

This is not a legal argument. I'm looking for case law that establishes anything contrary (or in support of) my line of defense.

 

[FlyingRon]

Your full of crap. 23 USC 109 doesn't say that, it just says the state and feds will agree on signage.

23 CFR 655.603 as I said establishes the standard. Read (d) where it talks about compliance. This only applies to conditions on federal aid and then it's not absolute.

I'm looking for case law that establishes anything contrary (or in support of) my line of defense.

That presumes such exist. If it did, I'd have posted it already. Most of the MUTCD citations in NY and Federal Courts (for ninth circuit that applies to NY) are over civil liability (mostly people complaining the state was negligent in the highway signage). There's one case, Kerr, over whether or not driving on the fog line constitutes a violation that can be the basis for a traffic stop (which led to other crimes being charged). MUTCD was used there just to show that the fog line isn't a regulatory line.

Again, MUTCD compliance is not mandated by state or federal law and even if it were, the failure to comply doesn't exculpate you for speeding.

The statutory basis for speeding I posted above. California only has an exculpatory engineering study law because such is specifically written into the speed trap statute by the legislature (no "case law" required there).

 

[ESchultz9]

Your full of crap. 23 USC 109 doesn't say that, it just says the state and feds will agree on signage.

23 CFR 655.603 as I said establishes the standard. Read (d) where it talks about compliance. This only applies to federal aid and then it's not absolute.

Yes. Everything must conform to the MUTCD. This supports my line of defense.

 

[Zigner]

This is not a legal argument. I'm looking for case law that establishes anything contrary (or in support of) my line of defense.

You're being told here that it doesn't exist because it isn't a valid defense. If you don't like what you are being told her, then I'm sure you can get the phone number for a traffic law attorney off any number of billboards (if your city is anything like mine).

 

[Zigner]

Yes. Everything must conform to the MUTCD. This supports my line of defense.

Until you realize that your assertion is wrong, you won't get anywhere.

ETA: Grand Central Parkway is a state roadway, not federal.

 

[TigerD]

This is not a legal argument. I'm looking for case law that establishes anything contrary (or in support of) my line of defense.

1. We don't know if you have any defenses. You haven't given any facts, other than you were in fact speeding.
2. I'm not making legal arguments to or for you. This site is for information
3. I'm going back to work. I have people paying me to ignore me.

Good luck to you.

TD

 

[ESchultz9]

Until you realize that your assertion is wrong, you won't get anywhere.

ETA: Grand Central Parkway is a state roadway, not federal.

How is this relevant?