Where to get Official Speed Limit Info

Max wrote:
>
> Now, were you travelling 55mi/h or more? Perhaps 45mi/h? It's
pointless
> unless you were travelling 40mi/h...

I'm reading a handbook called "Fight Your Ticket in California". Yes,
I'm in California. According to the book, the law here is different
from
that in many other states. In California, it's still okay if I can
prove
that neither "my speed was greater than was reasonable or prudent", nor
"endangered the safety of persons or property". To be honest, I
wouldn't
know precisely that I'm always on or below 40mi/h, unless I was staring
at my speedometer the whole time. But I'm pretty sure I wasn't driving
at 55mi/h or anything close to that!

> Any signals from your radar detector?

As I'm not a (chronic or otherwise) speeder, I've no radar detector
in my car...

Frankly I'd do the traffic "school" thing and be done with it rather than
trying to fight it, HOWEVER..

I do know in CA that there are two types of speed signs. One says "Maximum
Speed" and this is an absolute limit. One mph over it and you're guilty.
The other type of sign says "Speed Limit" and this is a soft limit. If you
can show that you could safely travel faster than it (albeit no more than a
few miles per hour) then you can get off.

HOWEVER again, if it was "close to midnight" I can guarantee that NO judge
will entertain the fact that it was safe for you to be going faster than the
speed limit, no matter what kind of sign it was.

--
Falky
San Diego, Calif.
----------------
Disclaimer: This has been the opinion of a law student, not a lawyer.
Author advises each reader to get the opinion of a legal professional.
This post is not intended to be legal advice.



> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Max wrote:
> >
> > Now, were you travelling 55mi/h or more? Perhaps 45mi/h? It's
> pointless
> > unless you were travelling 40mi/h...
>
> I'm reading a handbook called "Fight Your Ticket in California". Yes,
> I'm in California. According to the book, the law here is different
> from
> that in many other states. In California, it's still okay if I can
> prove
> that neither "my speed was greater than was reasonable or prudent", nor
> "endangered the safety of persons or property". To be honest, I
> wouldn't
> know precisely that I'm always on or below 40mi/h, unless I was staring
> at my speedometer the whole time. But I'm pretty sure I wasn't driving
> at 55mi/h or anything close to that!
>
> > Any signals from your radar detector?
>
> As I'm not a (chronic or otherwise) speeder, I've no radar detector
> in my car...
>

Frankly I'd do the traffic "school" thing and be done with it rather than
trying to fight it, HOWEVER..

I do know in CA that there are two types of speed signs. One says "Maximum
Speed" and this is an absolute limit. One mph over it and you're guilty.
The other type of sign says "Speed Limit" and this is a soft limit. If you
can show that you could safely travel faster than it (albeit no more than a
few miles per hour) then you can get off.

HOWEVER again, if it was "close to midnight" I can guarantee that NO judge
will entertain the fact that it was safe for you to be going faster than the
speed limit, no matter what kind of sign it was.

--
Falky
San Diego, Calif.
----------------
Disclaimer: This has been the opinion of a law student, not a lawyer.
Author advises each reader to get the opinion of a legal professional.
This post is not intended to be legal advice.



> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Max wrote:
> >
> > Now, were you travelling 55mi/h or more? Perhaps 45mi/h? It's
> pointless
> > unless you were travelling 40mi/h...
>
> I'm reading a handbook called "Fight Your Ticket in California". Yes,
> I'm in California. According to the book, the law here is different
> from
> that in many other states. In California, it's still okay if I can
> prove
> that neither "my speed was greater than was reasonable or prudent", nor
> "endangered the safety of persons or property". To be honest, I
> wouldn't
> know precisely that I'm always on or below 40mi/h, unless I was staring
> at my speedometer the whole time. But I'm pretty sure I wasn't driving
> at 55mi/h or anything close to that!
>
> > Any signals from your radar detector?
>
> As I'm not a (chronic or otherwise) speeder, I've no radar detector
> in my car...
>

You mention 1) you aren't sure how fast you were going....you say it's
doubtful you were going that fast, yet use midnight and lack of traffic
to defend even if so. Being unsure of your speed is going to make this
easily won by the police officer who even if unsure how fast you were
going is unlikely to mention that in court.

You also say it was on a 35mph street, and then say but there are 40mph
signs everywhere.

Just a lot of contradiction, perhaps warranted, but it's just sounding
like the whole thing is bogus.

Basically chances are you were speeding and failed to realize it. Now
if you said it was posted 40mph and you got a ticket for doing 40mph as
the officer insteaded it was a 35mph zone....or in this case even up to
45mph (since 'technically' most if not all places waive the first 5mph
over as non-fineable)...I would say you are right, that there is a
problem, but even if the limit was 40mph, doing 55mph is excessive.

I could see a fair judge giving you a 10mph basis for your penalty and
fine, that's about the best case I could see (I have tried to fight
quite a bit of tickets both just and unjust and found traffic school is
the easiest, cheapest and best choice).

You mention 1) you aren't sure how fast you were going....you say it's
doubtful you were going that fast, yet use midnight and lack of traffic
to defend even if so. Being unsure of your speed is going to make this
easily won by the police officer who even if unsure how fast you were
going is unlikely to mention that in court.

You also say it was on a 35mph street, and then say but there are 40mph
signs everywhere.

Just a lot of contradiction, perhaps warranted, but it's just sounding
like the whole thing is bogus.

Basically chances are you were speeding and failed to realize it. Now
if you said it was posted 40mph and you got a ticket for doing 40mph as
the officer insteaded it was a 35mph zone....or in this case even up to
45mph (since 'technically' most if not all places waive the first 5mph
over as non-fineable)...I would say you are right, that there is a
problem, but even if the limit was 40mph, doing 55mph is excessive.

I could see a fair judge giving you a 10mph basis for your penalty and
fine, that's about the best case I could see (I have tried to fight
quite a bit of tickets both just and unjust and found traffic school is
the easiest, cheapest and best choice).

wrote:
> You mention 1) you aren't sure how fast you were going....you say
it's
> doubtful you were going that fast, yet use midnight and lack of
traffic
> to defend even if so.

While it seems contradicting here, I didn't/hadn't admit that I was
speeding. This is an argument pattern proposed by the handbook,
written
by an attorney, as a possible defence in CA.

Being unsure of your speed is going to make this
> easily won by the police officer who even if unsure how fast you were
> going is unlikely to mention that in court.

I'm NOT gonna mention that to that effect in court. I'm bringing it up
here for a candid discussion. But my point was that
there's a great margin between 40mph, which is what I believe I was
on, and 55mph the officer accused me of. So even to give him a benefit
of a doubt, it won't be "that far off". Of course, in a real defence,
I'd insist that I'm on 40mph, and demand that the officer proved his
case. I'd give an argument that the distance for his pacing is too
short (1-2 blocks?), that he could have easily confused his own
acceleration with that of mine.

>
> You also say it was on a 35mph street, and then say but there are
40mph
> signs everywhere.

I never said that it was a 35mph street. I'd
been insisting it was 40mph, but the officer quoted 35mph on the
ticket.
Of course, I'd need to prove my claim; hence the title for this thread.

>
> Just a lot of contradiction, perhaps warranted, but it's just
sounding
> like the whole thing is bogus.

So, no I didn't make the whole thing up, if that's what you meant by
bogus.

>
> Basically chances are you were speeding and failed to realize it.
Now
> if you said it was posted 40mph and you got a ticket for doing 40mph
as
> the officer insteaded it was a 35mph zone....or in this case even up
to
> 45mph (since 'technically' most if not all places waive the first
5mph
> over as non-fineable)...I would say you are right, that there is a
> problem, but even if the limit was 40mph, doing 55mph is excessive.

Here comes the major argument! Police claimed I did 55mph. But I
didn't realize it?? Usually, whether I'm on freeway or in the city,
my speed is around the speed limit, and lots of cars pass mine left
and right.

>
> I could see a fair judge giving you a 10mph basis for your penalty
and
> fine, that's about the best case I could see (I have tried to fight
> quite a bit of tickets both just and unjust and found traffic school
is
> the easiest, cheapest and best choice).

I'd be very interested to know if you won any of those fights and under
what conditions/arguments? Incidentally, how do you prove to the judge
that the case is an "unjust" one, if he/she always sides with the
police?
In other words, what prevents a cop from citing you just for the fun of
it, or for revenue/quota purpose?

wrote:
> You mention 1) you aren't sure how fast you were going....you say
it's
> doubtful you were going that fast, yet use midnight and lack of
traffic
> to defend even if so.

While it seems contradicting here, I didn't/hadn't admit that I was
speeding. This is an argument pattern proposed by the handbook,
written
by an attorney, as a possible defence in CA.

Being unsure of your speed is going to make this
> easily won by the police officer who even if unsure how fast you were
> going is unlikely to mention that in court.

I'm NOT gonna mention that to that effect in court. I'm bringing it up
here for a candid discussion. But my point was that
there's a great margin between 40mph, which is what I believe I was
on, and 55mph the officer accused me of. So even to give him a benefit
of a doubt, it won't be "that far off". Of course, in a real defence,
I'd insist that I'm on 40mph, and demand that the officer proved his
case. I'd give an argument that the distance for his pacing is too
short (1-2 blocks?), that he could have easily confused his own
acceleration with that of mine.

>
> You also say it was on a 35mph street, and then say but there are
40mph
> signs everywhere.

I never said that it was a 35mph street. I'd
been insisting it was 40mph, but the officer quoted 35mph on the
ticket.
Of course, I'd need to prove my claim; hence the title for this thread.

>
> Just a lot of contradiction, perhaps warranted, but it's just
sounding
> like the whole thing is bogus.

So, no I didn't make the whole thing up, if that's what you meant by
bogus.

>
> Basically chances are you were speeding and failed to realize it.
Now
> if you said it was posted 40mph and you got a ticket for doing 40mph
as
> the officer insteaded it was a 35mph zone....or in this case even up
to
> 45mph (since 'technically' most if not all places waive the first
5mph
> over as non-fineable)...I would say you are right, that there is a
> problem, but even if the limit was 40mph, doing 55mph is excessive.

Here comes the major argument! Police claimed I did 55mph. But I
didn't realize it?? Usually, whether I'm on freeway or in the city,
my speed is around the speed limit, and lots of cars pass mine left
and right.

>
> I could see a fair judge giving you a 10mph basis for your penalty
and
> fine, that's about the best case I could see (I have tried to fight
> quite a bit of tickets both just and unjust and found traffic school
is
> the easiest, cheapest and best choice).

I'd be very interested to know if you won any of those fights and under
what conditions/arguments? Incidentally, how do you prove to the judge
that the case is an "unjust" one, if he/she always sides with the
police?
In other words, what prevents a cop from citing you just for the fun of
it, or for revenue/quota purpose?

>Harry, You missed my point completely! I didn't do it.

And you missed HIS point completely....DON'T SPEED....


As for the "I didn't do it" stuff.....yea, that's what they all
say..........

>Harry, You missed my point completely! I didn't do it.

And you missed HIS point completely....DON'T SPEED....


As for the "I didn't do it" stuff.....yea, that's what they all
say..........

>I would think that a radar gun in a moving car takes the "fastest speed"
>that it sees and reports it, so if he was going 55mi/h then it's
>possible that he got his speed not yours. In this case, the officer is
>either an idiot or a genuine disgrace to the badge IMO...

ROTFLMAO....another "radar expert"......I don't think anyone questions who
is the "idiot" here......