CA speed trap. what to bring to court

[CaliforniaBear]

We understand the speed trap law. IT was a waste of our time and bandwidth for you to quote it back to us.
The fact that there are other streets with similar circumstances that have the a higher speed limit is entirely IMMATERIAL.

How about you post the actual address this occurred rather than just ranting random details at us. We certainly can't help since all we have to go on is your already decided upon conclusions.

Sorry, Zigner didn't seem familiar with the code. As I posted in the other forum:

The road is Temple City blvd, in Temple City, from Las Tunas past Lower Azusa up to the railway. The stop occurred north of the Temple City / Lower Azusa intersection (see link below).

I'm not looking for people to just agree with me, but criticism of my argument so that I can either just pay the fine and save time, or improve my argument. I read the CA traffic manual states that the main reason "not readily apparent" to the driver is accident rate, which does not seem to be a factor here. I personally think the survey is not very convincing but I'm not a traffic engineer and I may well be wrong.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Te...4d-118.0578456

 

[Zigner]

Sorry, Zigner didn't seem familiar with the code.

I am familiar with the code, just not your conclusions.

 

[Zigner]

I am familiar with the code, just not your conclusions.

ETA: The survey doesn't have to be "convincing".

 

[CaliforniaBear]

I am familiar with the code, just not your conclusions.

Sorry I misunderstood, because you said the problem was that I was cited for 22350, but the code clearly says that if the court finds the survey invalid, the ticket is dismissed regardless of what speed code was cited, so that comment was not relevant.

So the main point is whether the court would find the survey valid or invalid. In People vs Goulet, the prosecution argued that all that was required was that the survey existed, but the court ruled that it was not enough, as in that particular case the court found the survey invalid.

Of course, I fully know that, in my case, the court could find the survey perfectly valid, thank you for taking the time to write that you find the survey valid.

 

[Zigner]

Am I correct that there are two streets that intersect the street section in question?

 

[CaliforniaBear]

Am I correct that there are two streets that intersect the street section in question?

there are multiple streets intersecting Temple City blvd. Temple City blvd goes from north to south. The relevant section of the survey is for Temple City blvd starting from Las Tunas Dr. (the north intersection) all through multiple intersections with and without streelights, all the way south to Lower Azusa (the south intersection), past Lower Azusa up to the railway.

 

[Zigner]

I'm just going to assume I'm correct, because that's what shows on the map link you posted.

You are wrong about the crosswalks. There are four unmarked crosswalks on that stretch of road.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=275.

“Crosswalk” is either:

(a) That portion of a roadway included within the prolongation or connection of the boundary lines of sidewalks at intersections where the intersecting roadways meet at approximately right angles, except the prolongation of such lines from an alley across a street.

(b) Any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface.

Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, there shall not be a crosswalk where local authorities have placed signs indicating no crossing.

 

[CaliforniaBear]

I'm just going to assume I'm correct, because that's what shows on the map link you posted.

You are wrong about the crosswalks. There are four unmarked crosswalks on that stretch of road.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=275.

“Crosswalk” is either:

(a) That portion of a roadway included within the prolongation or connection of the boundary lines of sidewalks at intersections where the intersecting roadways meet at approximately right angles, except the prolongation of such lines from an alley across a street.

(b) Any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface.

Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, there shall not be a crosswalk where local authorities have placed signs indicating no crossing.

Thanks for taking the time to look! I'm confused to what (a) actually means. Are these crosswalks "midblock"? i.e. not at an intersection?

EDIT: (a) applies to "at intersections" though. the survey talks about "midblock"

 

[Zigner]

Thanks for taking the time to look! I'm confused to what (a) actually means. Are these crosswalks "midblock"? i.e. not at an intersection?

EDIT: (a) applies to "at intersections" though. the survey talks about "midblock"

You're here for cheerleaders. Good luck.

 

[FlyingRon]

I'm just going to assume I'm correct, because that's what shows on the map link you posted.

You are wrong about the crosswalks. There are four unmarked crosswalks on that stretch of road.

Sorry Zig. You can't have an unmarked midblock crosswalk. An unmarked crosswalk only exists at an intersection and an intersection can't be 'mid block:"

 

[Zigner]

Sorry Zig. You can't have an unmarked midblock crosswalk. An unmarked crosswalk only exists at an intersection and an intersection can't be 'mid block:"

An engineering survey does not cover just one block, it covers a particular "stretch" of the road. There ARE, in fact, crosswalks on that stretch of the road. Yes, it's unfortunate that the report-writer chose to word things that way, but it doesn't change the fact that there are crosswalks on that section of the road.

 

[CaliforniaBear]

An engineering survey does not cover just one block, it covers a particular "stretch" of the road. There ARE, in fact, crosswalks on that stretch of the road. Yes, it's unfortunate that the report-writer chose to word things that way, but it doesn't change the fact that there are crosswalks on that section of the road.

There are crosswalks everywhere. Even if you take the position that the engineer referred to non-midblock xwalks, the engineer should have articulated why these particular xwalks warranted a reduction in speed. The engineer did not, and therefore a prima facie case is not established, with regard to xwalks.

I appreciate you're trying to help, but you're arguing in favor of the weakest point of the survey really. My argument is rather weaker when it comes to bus route and on-street parking compared to xwalks.

 

[Zigner]

Ya know - as I said before, I don't agree with your conclusions in this matter...but I WILL say that you have done some thorough research on this. It's very impressive, actually. Judges (or commissioners) are people and they do appreciate a well thought-out and articulated argument. I suspect that you stand a better chance than many at having this dismissed, as you are raising reasonable arguments.

If the ruling is not in your favor, then you can ask for traffic school. Please keep in mind that some judges take the stance that traffic school is off the table if you take the matter to a hearing.

 

[not2cleverRed]

49 mph, though it's a bit weird because the officer had just pulled a different car (the other car was still there), apparently took a new reading for this citation, waited for my car to pass him, then started his motorcycle behind him and asked me to stop. I thought the normal way would be to wave my car to stop as I was approaching. but none of this makes a difference in the end

49 mph in a 35 mph zone that you think should be 40 mph.

You do realize that 49 > 40, right? So even if this were a speed trap, you are still going above the recommended speed.

 

[FlyingRon]

An engineering survey does not cover just one block, it covers a particular "stretch" of the road. There ARE, in fact, crosswalks on that stretch of the road. Yes, it's unfortunate that the report-writer chose to word things that way, but it doesn't change the fact that there are crosswalks on that section of the road.

But a crosswalk at an intersection is an expected thing and usually would not contribute to a reduction in speed (especially if they were controlled). The report specifically calls out MIDBLOCK as a justification for the 5 MPH reduction. Now the reasons required for the reduction are pretty subjective, so perhaps the other three would be sufficient, but it would appear the survey is defective and the court is not an expert in interpretting whether that defect would not invalidate the rest.