justification for downgrading speed limit

[finchrat]

California

I was given a 22350 citation and as I look over the speed survey I just don't see the justification for the posted speed limit.

Here are the details:
Posted speed 35
85th % 42
50% 36
2 year accident data total collisions 2
Collision rate 0.718 Expected rate 1.42

Conditions not readily apparent: "85th percentile downgraded due to residential area"
-----------------
Residential area without accident data supporting it doesn't seem to me to be sufficient reason. Any comments?

Thanks!

 

[FlyingRon]

-----------------
Residential area without accident data supporting it doesn't seem to me to be sufficient reason. Any comments?

The traffic engineer has the authority to do that. Once he signs it off like that the lowered PF speed is legal.

 

[finchrat]

The traffic engineer has the authority to do that. Once he signs it off like that the lowered PF speed is legal.

The speed limit now is set at 35mph. The 50th percentile is 36. With the 85% at 42 the city is making a majority of motorists violators aren't they?
Isnt the engineer/city creating a speed trap?

 

[AdjunctFL]

The speed limit now is set at 35mph. The 50th percentile is 36. With the 85% at 42 the city is making a majority of motorists violators aren't they?
Isnt the engineer/city creating a speed trap?

There is no speed trap if the speed is appropriately posted and drivers have time to react to the new speed limit. Rigorous enforcement is not a speed trap. A speed trap is when the sign is obscured, or when you round a corner, see the sign, but don't have time to slow down.

The city isn't making a majority of the motorists violators. They're doing it themselves by not obeying the posted limit.

 

[FlyingRon]

There is no speed trap if the speed is appropriately posted and drivers have time to react to the new speed limit. Rigorous enforcement is not a speed trap. A speed trap is when the sign is obscured, or when you round a corner, see the sign, but don't have time to slow down.

The city isn't making a majority of the motorists violators. They're doing it themselves by not obeying the posted limit.

Incorrect in the poster's case. A speed trap has a legal definition in California law. It requires a stretch of highway having the traffic enforced either by time over a measured course or (as in this case) something other than a local street, road, or school zone with a lowered prima facie speed limit not supported by a traffic survey and electronic means are used.

http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/vehicle-code/veh-sect-40802.html

The road in question does not appear to be a speed trap. The speed survey (despite the protestations above) appears to be valid and timely. If this was a school zone or local street, it doesn't even need a survey.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Incorrect in the poster's case. A speed trap has a legal definition in California law. It requires a stretch of highway having the traffic enforced either by time over a measured course or (as in this case) something other than a local street, road, or school zone with a lowered prima facie speed limit not supported by a traffic survey and electronic means are used.

http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/vehicle-code/veh-sect-40802.html

The road in question does not appear to be a speed trap. The speed survey (despite the protestations above) appears to be valid and timely. If this was a school zone or local street, it doesn't even need a survey.

Exactly!

I suspect that OP was driving well over 42 mph and is grasping at straws. Otherwise he'd be griping that he was only going 37 in a 35 mph zone...

 

[finchrat]

Any of you guys heard of People v Goulet? Disproportionate number of drivers made violators?
Its a short read.

 

[CdwJava]

Any of you guys heard of People v Goulet? Disproportionate number of drivers made violators?
Its a short read.

That case involved a speed limit NOT supported by the engineering survey. If there is no engineer's statement justifying the drop to 35, maybe you can make the case that the 35 MPH limit is inappropriate. Of course, depending on the speed you were traveling, your speed may still be unsafe for conditions.

Keep in mind that losing at trial very often results in no opportunity for traffic school. So, if you need to minimize the impact on your insurance and license for the next three years, you may want to consider this prospect.

 

[finchrat]

That case involved a speed limit NOT supported by the engineering survey. If there is no engineer's statement justifying the drop to 35, maybe you can make the case that the 35 MPH limit is inappropriate. Of course, depending on the speed you were traveling, your speed may still be unsafe for conditions.

Keep in mind that losing at trial very often results in no opportunity for traffic school. So, if you need to minimize the impact on your insurance and license for the next three years, you may want to consider this prospect.

Yes I believe that is the case here the survey does not justify the speed and a majority of motorists will be made violators. But your point is well taken. Days in court, writing motions and maybe having to appeal. Its not cost effective when I do qualify for traffic school. The court involved is a real zoo too.


Thanks for the advice

 

[Pugilist2]

Finchrat is correct

Flyingron, CDW, and others: Finchrat is correct, because the law was changed five years ago. CVC 21400(b) now says:

"(b) The Department of Transportation shall revise the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, as it read on January 1, 2012, to require the Department of Transportation or a local authority to round speed limits to the nearest five miles per hour of the 85th percentile of the free-flowing traffic. However, in cases in which the speed limit needs to be rounded up to the nearest five miles per hour increment of the 85th-percentile speed, the Department of Transportation or a local authority may decide to instead round down the speed limit to the lower five miles per hour increment, but then the Department of Transportation or a local authority shall not reduce the speed limit any further for any reason."

So, the engineer can round down to 40 but he's not allowed to post a speed limit lower than that. Making the 35 limit a clear violation of the speed trap law.

Unfortunately, it looks it's too late for Finchrat. Even though he's clearly in the right, we have worn him down - and he will capitulate. We all should be ashamed that we didn't do a better job for him.

 

[FlyingRon]

Sorry Pug, but that is wrong. You misread the statute.

It says you round it to the nearest five-mile increment. In this case, that is 40.

The clause you're trying to invoke says that if the rounding indicates upward (for instance if the 85th percentile speed was 43), they can round it down instead, but once you do that you can't take another reduction. You missed the first half of that sentence that reads "However, in cases in which the speed limit needs to be rounded up to the nearest five miles per hour increment of the 85th-percentile speed,..."