Check out some similar questions!

richl · Apr 10, 2009, 04:38 PM

In California, why can't vc 22350 (basic speed law) be used to contest a vc 22349(b)(maximum speed lmit) citation?

Thanks for any help!!

Richl

Stratmando · Apr 10, 2009, 04:43 PM

I know a Lawyer can make a Guilty person Innocent, or Vise versa, Money.

this8384 · Apr 11, 2009, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by richl

In California, why can't vc 22350 (basic speed law) be used to contest a vc 22349(b)(maximum speed lmit) citation?

Thanks for any help!!!

Richl

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you were caught speeding. This is the scenario as I envision it: you were driving on a road that has no posted speed limit - basic speed limit is 55mph, which is the speed you were driving your vehicle at. You come to a dangerous crossroads - because of the higher accident rate, the governing powers decided to lower the speed limit through that intersection to 45mph. You did not slow down to the posted speed limit, therefore receiving a citation for violating the maximum speed limit. Basic speed law doesn't trump a posted limit.

But, that's all a guess. I don't know what happened unless you tell me.

JudyKayTee · Apr 11, 2009, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by Stratmando

I know a Lawyer can make a Guilty person Innocent, or Vise versa, Money.

What? I don't see that this answers the question about which Law applies.

this8384 · Apr 11, 2009, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

What? I don't see that this answers the question about which Law applies.

I didn't want to say anything, but... :)
And I don't see where the OP mentioned a lawyer, or how a lawyer can make a speeder innocent/guilty.

Stratmando · Apr 11, 2009, 09:02 AM

I'm likely older than above posters.
I have seen Money/Lawyers make tickets/points disappear.
I appologize if I am reading something wrong here.
A Lawyer/money may prove their Radar was not operating at the time of the incident?

this8384 · Apr 11, 2009, 09:10 AM

That's not what the OP is asking. They're asking why basic speed law can't be used a defense for their speeding. Getting the ticket pled down is an entirely different issue.

And again, not sure what your age has to do with anything or why you keep bringing up random things such as that.

And no lawyer or amount of money can prove what condition the radar gun was in when the OP received their ticket. If that was a concern, the OP should have asked at that time. They can request the calibration records but that's about it. And doing that can actually make their case worse, because it can show the radar gun as being dead-on at the time he was clocked speeding.

JudyKayTee · Apr 11, 2009, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by Stratmando

I'm likely older than above posters.
I have seen Money/Lawyers make tickets/points dissapear.
I appologize if I am reading something wrong here.
A Lawyer/money may prove their Radar was not operating at the time of the incident?

That's not what OP asked. He asked which Law prevails and why. I see no talk about lawyers/money/fees other than what you have posted.

Age has nothing to do with it - it's legal knowledge, experience, research skills. This is not about life lessons.

Stratmando · Apr 11, 2009, 04:30 PM

I understand you both, and will not reply on this post. I Understand.

richl · Apr 11, 2009, 04:38 PM

All,

I must be the "OP". I was travelling at a speed greater than 55 mph on a single lane undivided highway. My research revealed that this type of road has a "maximum speed limit" of 55. Had it been posted at 45, 50 or even 60 it would have been a "Prima Facia Speed Limit" where one could attempt to use the "Basic Speed Law" to defend himself. My question is why is a maximum speed uncontestable and a prima fascia speed negotiable?

Richl

KISS · Apr 11, 2009, 04:57 PM

BTW:

OP is defined as Original Poster

Fr_Chuck · Apr 11, 2009, 06:17 PM

Speed limit laws are statuetory in nature, the max limit is set by political, lobby or other methods, Even because or pressure from Federal funding laws.

So merely going over that limit, is the violation, with no defense in the guilt or innocent,

The defense is in the sentence

Now a good attorney or engineer can prove most radar faulty but then many courts will not allow that defense either, since radar and laser is accepted as proven science for courts.

this8384 · Apr 13, 2009, 07:20 AM

Originally Posted by richl

All,

I must be the "OP". I was travelling at a speed greater than 55 mph on a single lane undivided highway. My research revealed that this type of road has a "maximum speed limit" of 55. Had it been posted at 45, 50 or even 60 it would have been a "Prima Facia Speed Limit" where one could attempt to use the "Basic Speed Law" to defend himself. My question is why is a maximum speed uncontestable and a prima facia speed negotiable?

Richl

I don't think you understand the law that you're trying to argue. 22350 reads as follows:
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.

That doesn't allow you to travel at any speed you like. It's in place in the incident of snow, rain, ice, fog, other vehicles, etc. The speed is there only in regards to someone traveling slower, not faster.