CVC22350 Unsafe Speed for conditions

[AgentSmithers]

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

In the Scenario with the car accident i think that would be more of a Reckless Driving 23103 vs 22350. I think everything you guy say then lines up vs citing the person for driving at a greater speed then a safe one.
Thanks for the feed back Zinger and Payroll.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Nope,

23103.
(a) A person who drives a vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.
(b) A person who drives a vehicle in an offstreet parking facility, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 12500, in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.

There is a difference.

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.


Enjoy working out that difference.

 

[Zigner]

In the Scenario with the car accident i think that would be more of a Reckless Driving 23103 vs 22350. I think everything you guy say then lines up vs citing the person for driving at a greater speed then a safe one.
Thanks for the feed back Zinger and Payroll.

How so? Let's say that the road is wet and you go around a corner and spin out. That's an accident caused by your failure to drive at a safe speed. It doesn't show "wanton disregard".

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Oh Zinger, You should have let him work it out himself.

 

[AgentSmithers]

How so? Let's say that the road is wet and you go around a corner and spin out. That's an accident caused by your failure to drive at a safe speed. It doesn't show "wanton disregard".

I perfectly agree with you, So I as the officer will show the judge that I cited the person CVC 22350 and the evidence I use are the skid marks on the road showing that he was going too fast. I think there may be some contradictions as that 40802 relates to speed related offenses and 22350 is indeed one. IDK, I think at this point I'll throw in the towl and see if I can find a caselaw with an example you guys are talking about, Everything I see with 22350 and 40802 all talk about the survey being required.

Examples of cases I found that indirectly touches on the subject
DUI case law with 40800-40805 motion to suppress evidence with fruit from the poisonous tree. Suppression denied and affirmed but agreed evidence was inadmissible as to one's speed (I assume this would apply to the spin out marks on the street).
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1761148.html

CVC22350 Only visual estimation was used to testify while radar was used still found to be a speed trap.
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/33/supp6.html

Wait, Are the examples you guys giving for CVC40802 and the car accident based off of no use of Radar or electrical equipment?

 

[Zigner]

I perfectly agree with you, So I as the officer will show the judge that I cited the person CVC 22350 and the evidence I use are the skid marks on the road showing that he was going too fast.

No <smh> The evidence will be the fact that you spun out.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

No <smh> The evidence will be the fact that you spun out.

+1

AgentSmithers, Are you just trying to be annoying are are you REALLY this dense?

 

[AgentSmithers]

No <smh> The evidence will be the fact that you spun out.

Well no **** 40800-5 dosn't apply, It's for Radar enforcement.

I see what you guys are talking about now. When I say 40802 applying I mean that the criteria's were meant by Radar/Lidar. Yeah if a cop regardless of seeing you driving views the accident of you spinning out then yes 22350 can be rendered without 40802.
Now I think it would still be a question if the cop was dinging the person with radar during the spinout but I don't care about that.

Thanks, guy's I think that makes it a lot more clear now. my original question was geared towards Radar enforcement during hail (extreme example), hence the 40802.

My view is still the same in that light that even if its hailing and the peace officer is using radar during that time 40802 still applies.

So the cop should just stick to visual estimation if that's the case then 40802 wouldn't come into play.

 

[AgentSmithers]

+1

AgentSmithers, Are you just trying to be annoying are are you REALLY this dense?

No, I think you may be interpting my question about 40802 to be about a case without Radar/Lidar/Etc. The reason why I cite 40802 is the example I am using Radar is in use. I hope this makes thing's clearer.

 

[Zigner]

No, I think you may be interpting my question about 40802 to be about a case without Radar/Lidar/Etc. The reason why I cite 40802 is the example I am using Radar is in use. I hope this makes thing's clearer.

Now that you've mentioned radar usage (for the first time), it sure does.

 

[HighwayMan]

Oh Zinger...

Who might "Zinger" be?

 

[AgentSmithers]

Now that you've mentioned radar usage (for the first time), it sure does.

*facepalm* When I think of 40802 I think about Radar on a Highway. I'm surprised you guy's didn't say

"That only applies if electronics are used to measure the speed!" but that's neither here or there.

Thanks for the frustrating correspondence. It is appreciated ^^.

-Agent

 

[Zigner]

Who might "Zinger" be?

I don't know who, but I can tell you the WHAT. It's a yummy treat!

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Who might "Zinger" be?

Zigner when I type to fast.