CVC22350 Unsafe Speed for conditions

[AgentSmithers]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

Hi Team,
A simple question comes to mind when reviewing CVC22350, CVC40802,3,4. Does a Traffic and Engineering survey need to be produced when the prosecution testifies that the speed was unsafe due to weather conditions but not the prima facia speed limit? On reflex I want to say yes, but in a Senario if it's hailing on a highway and the officer cites for traveling 25MPH on lets say a 45MPH highway, Time comes for trial and he say's yeah the Highway is normally safe for 45 but it was hailing and that speed limit has nothing to do with why I cited CVC22350. It leaves me with a very interesting predicament. I assume that CVC40803 provides no exceptions as part of a Prima facie case he still needs the survey to show its 45 eventhough he cited for 25, but would the above senario even though its cited as a CVC22350 automaticlly concluded to be a Primafacie case?
-Agent

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

Hi Team,
A simple question comes to mind when reviewing CVC22350, CVC40802,3,4. Does a Traffic and Engineering survey need to be produced when the prosecution testifies that the speed was unsafe due to weather conditions but not the prima facia speed limit? On reflex I want to say yes, but in a Senario if it's hailing on a highway and the officer cites for traveling 25MPH on lets say a 45MPH highway, Time comes for trial and he say's yeah the Highway is normally safe for 45 but it was hailing and that speed limit has nothing to do with why I cited CVC22350. It leaves me with a very interesting predicament. I assume that CVC40803 provides no exceptions as part of a Prima facie case he still needs the survey to show its 45 eventhough he cited for 25, but would the above senario even though its cited as a CVC22350 automaticlly concluded to be a Primafacie case?
-Agent

22350 doesn't require an engineering study at all. I really can't understand why you would think it does.
22350 has nothing to do with a prima facia speed limit. I really can't understand why you would think it does.

 

[AgentSmithers]

22350 doesn't require an engineering study at all. I really can't understand why you would think it does.
22350 has nothing to do with a prima facia speed limit. I really can't understand why you would think it does.

22350 does not directly but indirectly though perhaps?
I'm not 100% sure. it seems like the way I'm reading it is if the officer testifies that the posted sign is what the officer is going off of as evidence of unsafe speed then he needs the survey but if not then it's not required.. it seems like a really strange argument compared to the years and years of talk on this topic I've heard in the past. So I'm looking for some guidance on this, Thanks Zinger.

40803 (a) No evidence as to the speed of a vehicle upon a highway shall be admitted in any court upon the trial of any person in any prosecution under this code upon a charge involving the speed of a vehicle when the evidence is based upon or obtained from or by the maintenance or use of a speedtrap.

 

[Zigner]

22350 does not directly but indirectly though perhaps?
I'm not 100% sure. it seems like the way I'm reading it is if the officer testifies that the posted sign is what the officer is going off of as evidence of unsafe speed then he needs the survey but if not then it's not required.. it seems like a really strange argument compared to the years and years of talk on this topic I've heard in the past. So I'm looking for some guidance on this, Thanks Zinger.

40803 (a) No evidence as to the speed of a vehicle upon a highway shall be admitted in any court upon the trial of any person in any prosecution under this code upon a charge involving the speed of a vehicle when the evidence is based upon or obtained from or by the maintenance or use of a speedtrap.

No, you don't get it. If it's hailing and you're blasting along at a speed greater than you should be based upon road (weather, etc.) conditions, then your actual speed doesn't matter, just the fact that it's too fast for conditions.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

The wording of the law is pretty clear.

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.

And it is my experience that a ticket written under this law or a similar one in any state is written because something happened to PROVE that you one was driving at a speed greater than was reasonable or prudent in the conditions.

 

[AgentSmithers]

No, you don't get it. If it's hailing and you're blasting along at a speed greater than you should be based upon road (weather, etc.) conditions, then your actual speed doesn't matter, just the fact that it's too fast for conditions.

Respectfully No, I don't get it, Zinger. That's why I'm here on this forum posting a question.
So if the officer does not testify to the Prima Facie speed limit at all then a survey isn't required. It seems that 40802 the way it reads that the officer can't testify to the speed while it was hailing in the first place? I'm not trying to cherry pick nor do I care if I'm right or wrong. I'm just trying to understand where the line is drawn.

Is the line drawn at

"I saw him going 55, the speed limit of the highway is 45 and the weather was clear, the sole issue was he was exceeding the posted sign"

Or is it

"I saw him going 55, the speed limit of the highway is 45 which is unsafe but the main reason was due to it hailing"

Or is it

"I saw him going 55, the speed limit sign has nothing to do with why it was unsafe but it was hailing"

The first example he introduces the prima facie as the sole reason, the 2nd he does but in conjunction with weather and the 3rd it's just weather conditions.

Thanks for the feed back.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

No the officer would generally say, "I saw him spin out in the curve because of the [insert stuff falling from the sky here] and slide into the guardrail."

 

[AgentSmithers]

The wording of the law is pretty clear.



And it is my experience that a ticket written under this law or a similar one in any state is written because something happened to PROVE that you one was driving at a speed greater than was reasonable or prudent in the conditions.

I think I understand what you mean when I read your post. The conflict I am having is how 40802 does not apply to this scenario.
Thanks,
-Agent

 

[AgentSmithers]

No the officer would generally say, "I saw him spin out in the curve because of the [insert stuff falling from the sky here] and slide into the guardrail."

Wouldn't that conclude the vehicles speed? Are you saying because a specific speed MPH value isn't testified to than just that one was going too fast? Sorry if I am casuing confusion. Wouldn't the peace officer be required to state a speed to prove one was traveling unsafely ? CVC22350 "highway at a speed greater"

 

[Zigner]

Respectfully No, I don't get it, Zinger. That's why I'm here on this forum posting a question.
So if the officer does not testify to the Prima Facie speed limit at all then a survey isn't required. It seems that 40802 the way it reads that the officer can't testify to the speed while it was hailing in the first place? I'm not trying to cherry pick nor do I care if I'm right or wrong. I'm just trying to understand where the line is drawn.

Is the line drawn at

"I saw him going 55, the speed limit of the highway is 45 and the weather was clear, the sole issue was he was exceeding the posted sign"

Or is it

"I saw him going 55, the speed limit of the highway is 45 which is unsafe but the main reason was due to it hailing"

Or is it

"I saw him going 55, the speed limit sign has nothing to do with why it was unsafe but it was hailing"

The first example he introduces the prima facie as the sole reason, the 2nd he does but in conjunction with weather and the 3rd it's just weather conditions.

Thanks for the feed back.

No, it's "I observed him traveling at a high rate of speed that was unsafe for the conditions."

And I agree that this is usually the type of thing you get cited for when you lose control of your vehicle and end up in a ditch on the side of the road.

 

[Zigner]

Wouldn't that conclude the vehicles speed? Are you saying because a specific speed MPH value isn't testified to than just that one was going too fast? Sorry if I am casuing confusion. Wouldn't the peace officer be required to state a speed to prove one was traveling unsafely ? CVC22350 "highway at a speed greater"

The actual "number" is irrelevant to the charge.

 

[AgentSmithers]

The actual "number" is irrelevant to the charge.
No, it's "I observed him traveling at a high rate of speed that was unsafe for the conditions."

And I agree that this is usually the type of thing you get cited for when you lose control of your vehicle and end up in a ditch on the side of the road.

Okay, Zinger, you're blowing my mind here, I think there's a glitch in the matrix. I'm not trying to be a smart ass or anything I am truly trying to understand the difference here. Isn't testifying to one going at a High rate of speed (expert testimony) also testifying to the speed of a vehicle as cited in 40803? "No evidence as to the speed of a vehicle"

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Wouldn't that conclude the vehicles speed? Are you saying because a specific speed MPH value isn't testified to than just that one was going too fast? Sorry if I am casuing confusion. Wouldn't the peace officer be required to state a speed to prove one was traveling unsafely ? CVC22350 "highway at a speed greater"

No they wouldn't. The actual speed doesn't matter. You could be driving 20 mph on a 70 mph interstate. If you lost control of the car because of the conditions you could be charged and likely found guilty of CVC22350. The proof is simply you lost control of the car and in the officer's' judgment it was because of the speed you were going. That judgement could be based on the fact that the cars around you traveling slower than you were didn't lose control.

 

[AgentSmithers]

No they wouldn't. The actual speed doesn't matter. You could be driving 20 mph on a 70 mph interstate. If you lost control of the car because of the conditions you could be charged and likely found guilty of CVC22350. The proof is simply you lost control of the car and in the officer's' judgment it was because of the speed you were going. That judgement could be based on the fact that the cars around you traveling slower than you were didn't lose control.

I see what your saying, So your conclusion is that a car accident can be the evidence for citing "No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent", correct?

So the charge of driving a vehicle at a speed that is unreasonable can be rendered without testifying to one's speed but actually the accident itself?

And your position is that it bypasses 40802 because it's not evidence as to the vehicles exact speed?

and 40802 only applies to exact speed?

Sorry guy's, This would be very clear if the CVC22350 said, No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway unsafely, that's where the confusion is.

Edit: I am thinking of a Senario, If one crashes and the peace officer is not present, and shows up on site and looks at the crash, the skid marks or the bumper that flew off 50 feet away, for a moment I thought well that's not really testimony of speed but I am still thinking it is. The longer the skid mark the officer can conclude the speed or generalize from it as an expert then citing 22350, wouldn't that also fall as evidence of speed?

Even in a senario if one was going to fast, crashes, the officer says what happened and the person says, "I was going to fast" isn't that still evidence as to the person's speed and still fall under 40803?
-Agent

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

40802 has nothing to do with it. That is simply an anti-speed trap law.

I'm pretty sure there is a law that pretty much says, "No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway unsafely" or words to that effect I'm just not going to go through the CVC looking for it. This is just a particular law about a specific act and one that is written in about as clearly as a law can be.