40802 - Speed Trap Law in CA

Cop used RADAR on my car and I was doing 70 on 55. It's the road
people use to bypass the I-15 to Barstow and it goes all the way to
Palm Springs. I was at that part right south of the I-40, continuing
to I-10 on the road.

The speed limit is 55, but I called the Riverside County CalTrans and
they said Kelbaker Road has never been surveyed. Automatic grounds for
dismissal? I sent a letter to the judge in Needles explaining 40802.
Stay tuned.

In article .com>,
Wiggums > wrote:
>Cop used RADAR on my car and I was doing 70 on 55. It's the road
>people use to bypass the I-15 to Barstow and it goes all the way to
>Palm Springs. I was at that part right south of the I-40, continuing
>to I-10 on the road.
>
>The speed limit is 55, but I called the Riverside County CalTrans and
>they said Kelbaker Road has never been surveyed. Automatic grounds for
>dismissal?

Not if it's a two lane road. The speed trap law does not apply
to use of radar on roads with absolute speed limits, two lane
roads posted 55 or higher and other roads posted 65 or higher.

--
John Carr )

I understand the "two lane roads" have to be access roads or
residential streets. The two lane road I was on was completely rural,
but it was posted at 55 though. From what I understood, the cop can
still pace my car in order to cite me, but not use RADAR.

I didn't know two lane roads were excempt from =A740802(b) and was
unable to find anything in regards ot that. Here is what I read:

Section =A740802(b) provides that prima facie speeds may not be enforced
by radar unless the speed limit has been justified by an engineering
and traffic survey within the last five years.

It was a barren road and 70 mph is pretty much the norm on that road.
I do understand "access roads" and "residential streets" are exempt
from traffic surveys though.

Another thing... I'd also like to mention this one.

http://www.motorists.org/issues/tick...s/general.html

Section 40802 of the California Vehicle Code requires that when RADAR
is used to enforce speed limits, a traffic engineering survey must have
been conducted in the last 5 to 7 years, except on "local streets or
roads," where no such survey is required.

However, the definition of a local street, and thus the definition of
where a traffic engineering survey is required, rests on the
designation of that road as such on the federal aid road use maps
submitted to the Federal Highway Administration.

ONLY if those maps have NOT been submitted to the FHA, then a local
road can be defined as "primarily used for access to abutting
residential property, and not more than A) 40' in width, B) 1/2 mile of
uninterrupted length, and C) one lane in each direction. [CVC
40802(b)(1)].

Sooo... seeing that "1/2 mile of uninterrupted length" That road had
about 20 miles of uninterrupted length.

In article . com>,
Wiggums > wrote:
>I didn't know two lane roads were excempt from =A740802(b) and was
>unable to find anything in regards ot that. Here is what I read:
>
>Section =A740802(b) provides that prima facie speeds may not be enforced
>by radar unless the speed limit has been justified by an engineering
>and traffic survey within the last five years.

A speed limit below 55 on a two lane road or below 65 on any
other road is a "prima facie" speed limit. Higher speed limits
are absolute speed limits. Exceeding a prima facie speed limit
is evidence of a speeding violation but not proof. Exceeding an
absolute speed limit is illegal even if it is not unsafe. The
speed trap law does not prohibit radar enforcement of an absolute
speed limit.

Other Western states (except Oregon) set the statutory speed limit
for two lane state highways at 60-75 MPH so a 55 MPH speed limit
would have to be justified by an engineering study. California
takes the opposite route: such roads can be posted 60 or 65 but
if the state takes no action the legal speed limit is 55 even if
the road is safe at higher speeds.

--
John Carr )

Thanks so much for your help. I looked high and low... yep, 55 is
absolute, anything else is prima-facie. Ugh... no need to submit
surveys if it's posted at 55. I got really excited when I was told
that this road has never had a survey... only because it never needed
one!

Wiggums wrote:
> Cop used RADAR on my car and I was doing 70 on 55. It's the road
> people use to bypass the I-15 to Barstow and it goes all the way to
> Palm Springs. I was at that part right south of the I-40, continuing
> to I-10 on the road.
>
> The speed limit is 55, but I called the Riverside County CalTrans and
> they said Kelbaker Road has never been surveyed. Automatic grounds for
> dismissal? I sent a letter to the judge in Needles explaining 40802.
> Stay tuned.

Radar seems to imply that the "speed trap" chapter (40800 and following)
doesn't apply. A "speed trap" is a pre-measured section of road.

On the other hand, the fact that the road has never been surveyed means
that under the federal MUTCD, _any_ speed limit is null and void. The
MUTCD doesn't strictly require state and local authorities to post the
85th percentile (it only says they "should"), but it does say they MUST
conduct a speed survey before posting a limit.

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2003r1/Ch2B.pdf#page=9

If CVC 40802(b) says this requirement is limited to "prima facie"
(non-absolute) limits, then 40802(b) is simply invalid, because federal
regulation (which the MUTCD is) trumps state law.

In article >,
John David Galt > wrote:
>
>On the other hand, the fact that the road has never been surveyed means
>that under the federal MUTCD, _any_ speed limit is null and void. The
>MUTCD doesn't strictly require state and local authorities to post the
>85th percentile (it only says they "should"), but it does say they MUST
>conduct a speed survey before posting a limit.
>
>http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2003r1/Ch2B.pdf#page=9
>
>If CVC 40802(b) says this requirement is limited to "prima facie"
>(non-absolute) limits, then 40802(b) is simply invalid, because federal
>regulation (which the MUTCD is) trumps state law.

There are two separate issues: (1) is the speed limit legal?
(2) is the road a speed trap?

The speed trap law is a rule of evidence. It does not by
itself make any speed limit legal or illegal. Under certain
circumstances it shifts the burden of proof to the police
to show that the speed limit is proper. Whatever the MUTCD
says about the substantive requirements for setting speed
limits it does not control the procedural requirements of
traffic court. It is possible to have a road with an
illegal speed limit which is not a "speed trap" under
state law. In that case it is up to the defendant to
produce some evidence that the speed limit is not valid.

--
John Carr )

Although MUTCD requires traffic surveys, I still have the burden of
proving that it was indeed a speed trap. No judge in Needles will
listen to my argument - that's according to a traffic attorney I
contacted. MUTCD doesn't have anything about the California-only RADAR
law though.

I just wish I didn't fire off that letter to the judge arguing over the
RADAR part because I know that argument's no good. Under the MUTCD, I
can argue that there are roads posted at 65 mph with more traffic
compared to that barren 55-mph road. However, I was clocked at 70 and
California law does not allow leeway.

Oh, well, thanks for the input! I'll just do my time.