Posted speed limit in CA is often not really the legal speed limit... 22351(b)

[Serge Issakov]

[I'm cross-posting to SDCBC open forum and CABO forum - so adjust the addressees according if you reply-all but do not belong to both lists, or you'll get a bounce].

I just found out about  CVC 22351(b), which I don't recall ever noticing before, especially the highlighted part:

(b) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and under the conditions then existing.

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22350.htm

The "basic speed law" is 22350:

Basic Speed Law

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.

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22351.htm

My interpretation of this is that it's perfectly legal to drive faster than the posted speed limit as long the speed is not "greater than is reasonable or prudent", though the burden of proof is on the speeder to show that that was the case ("establishes by competent evidence") if he or she is cited.

So just because someone is driving faster than the posted speed limit does not mean they are "speeding" or doing anything in violation of the law.  Wow.  I always knew that speed limits were treated as more of a suggestion than a hard rule, but I never realized there is legal basis for this treatment.  Thought others might be interested...

Serge

[Mark Sapiro]

Serge Issakov wrote:
>
>My interpretation of this is that it's perfectly legal to drive faster than
>the posted speed limit as long the speed is not "greater than is reasonable
>or prudent", though the burden of proof is on the speeder to show that that
>was the case ("establishes by competent evidence") if he or she is cited.

This is correct if the limit is a prima facia limit. But, there are
also maximum speed limits established by sections 22349, 22356 and
22357. These are indicaed by speed limit signs which say "maximum
speed xx miles" and are not prima facia limits.

These include all 65 and 70 mph speed limits on freeways.

Exceeding a maximum speed limit is always unlawful.

--
Mark Sapiro <ma...@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan

[Serge Issakov]

Okay, I've been corrected.  My reasoning/interpretation was correct, except it applies only where there are no posted speed limit signs, and so the "prima facie" (unposted) speed limits apply, as specified in 22352.  

Where a maximum  speed limit is posted ("established as authorized in this code")  that IS the speed limit.

Whew.  That makes much more sense.  Sorry about the confusion.

Serge

[Mark Sapiro]

Serge Issakov wrote:
>
>Okay, I've been corrected. My reasoning/interpretation was correct, except
>it applies only where there are no posted speed limit signs, and so the
>"prima facie" (unposted) speed limits apply, as specified in 22352.

Not quite. There are posted prima facia limits. They just don't say
"maximum" on the sign. E.g. a posted limit of 25, 35, or 40 for
example in a residential or commercial area would be a prima facia
limit.

Conversely, there are unposted maximum speed limits per VC 22349
<http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22349.htm> which establishes
maximum speeds of 55 mph on 2-lane, undivided highways and 65 mph
elsewhere in the absence of signage to the contrary.

[Alan Wachtel]

Serge Issakov wrote:

I just found out about CVC 22351(b), which I don't recall ever noticing before, especially the highlighted part:

(b) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and under the conditions then existing.

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22350.htm

The "basic speed law" is 22350:

Basic Speed Law

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.

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22351.htm


My interpretation of this is that it's perfectly legal to drive faster than the posted speed limit as long the speed is not "greater than is reasonable or prudent", though the burden of proof is on the speeder to show that that was the case ("establishes by competent evidence") if he or she is cited.

So just because someone is driving faster than the posted speed limit does not mean they are "speeding" or doing anything in violation of the law. Wow. I always knew that speed limits were treated as more of a suggestion than a hard rule, but I never realized there is legal basis for this treatment. Thought others might be interested...

This is the converse of the basic speed law. You can be cited for driving too fast for conditions, even if you haven't exceeded the speed limit. But you can also exceed the speed limit if your speed is safe for conditions (though this defense shifts the burden of proof onto you). The usual "competent evidence" would be an engineering and traffic survey for the street showing that your speed fell within the 85th percentile range.

This is one way of preventing cities from creating speed traps by setting unrealistically low limits. If the speed limit is set correctly, there shouldn't be too much wiggle room. But you're not likely to be cited for going 30 on a residential street.

This get-out-of-jail free card is good only up to 55 mph on two-lane roads and 65 elsewhere: 

22348. (a) Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 22351, a person shall not drive a vehicle upon a highway with a speed limit established pursuant to Section 22349 or 22356 at a speed greater than that speed limit.

22349. (a) Except as provided in Section 22356, no person may drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 65 miles per hour.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person may drive a vehicle upon a two-lane, undivided highway at a speed greater than 55 miles per hour unless that highway, or portion thereof, has been posted for a higher speed by the Department of Transportation or appropriate local agency upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey.

22356. (a) Whenever the Department of Transportation, after consultation with the Department of the California Highway Patrol, determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey on existing highway segments, or upon the basis of appropriate design standards and projected traffic volumes in the case of newly constructed highway segments, that a speed greater than 65 miles per hour would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe upon any state highway, or portion thereof, that is otherwise subject to a maximum speed limit of 65 miles per hour, the Department of Transportation, with the approval of the Department of the California Highway Patrol, may declare a higher maximum speed of 70 miles per hour for vehicles not subject to Section 22406, and shall cause appropriate signs to be erected giving notice thereof.

The Uniform Vehicle Code contains no comparable provision, and I don't know whether other states have similar laws. In California, however, it's been the law since 1935.

--
Alan Wachtel
Palo Alto
Wac...@aol.com

[David Whiteman]

I hope I am not stirring up a hornet's nest by posting this:  Sometime ago I remember a policeman lecturing to a community group that the "Basic Speed Law" applies to bicyclists as well as motorists.  He went on to say that sometimes there are circumstances in which the fastest safe speed for a bicyclist on a narrow street is "zero mph", and the safe and legal thing to do is get off the bike and walk.  I also remember when a bicycle lawyer was lecturing about bike laws to a bicycle group.  The lawyer said that he once was representing a bicyclist who was "doored" -- some open a car door in front of him, and he struck it.  The opposing lawyer argued that since the bicyclist hit the door, the bicyclist was violating the "Basic Speed Law" and going to fast for the situation.  He should have been going slow enough to avoid any door that is opened in front of him.

I am only quoting what these people have said.  I don't agree with them.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/caboforum?hl=en.

[Serge Issakov]

That first argument - that the basic speed law can dictate that under some conditions the fastest safe speed for bicyclists (but not other drivers) is zero - they should get off the bike and walk on the sidewalk - is absolutely ridiculous.  Talk about cyclist inferiority syndrome!  Wow!

I think the second argument - that anyone traveling in the door zone who hits a door that suddenly opens is in violation of the basic speed law (going too fast for conditions) - has some merit.   That anyone can be any driver, however, not just a cyclist.   I think that suggests a door zone speed limit of around 2 mph, LOL.

Serge

[D. Whiteman]

I agree.  The same policeman also was saying that the Basic Speed Law could be use to cite motorist who was using cell phones: A driver using a cell phone safe speed is zero mph, since it is not safe to use a cell phone while driving at any speed.  [He gave this talk, before the current cell phone law was written].   It seem like he write a ticket for anything:  If you are smoking a cigarette while driving a car you are being distracted, therefore you are driving to fast and are violating the Basic Speed Law.  I wonder if his tickets ever got challenged in court, and what his success rate was.

[John Eldon]

I think the cop is spot-on regarding some issues. I advocate zero tolerance of ANY type of cell phone or PDA use while driving, and I fully support Ray LaHood's FocusDriven.org efforts. Smoking while driving raises of carbon monoxide poisoning and slowed reactions atop distraction. John E. --- On Tue, 3/8/11, D. Whiteman <magicd...@gmail.com> wrote:

[John Eldon]

The second argumentneeds to be turned around to reinforce a cyclist's right to avoid door zones, including door zone bike lanes. Whenever I see a cross-sectional grapic of a streetscape, I ask the planners to sketch open doors on all of the parked cars.  John E. --- On Tue, 3/8/11, Serge Issakov <serge....@gmail.com> wrote:

[Sauerwald Mark]

Dave I have a brother-in-law who is a former officer with anaheim P.D.   When he was a rookie, he had the graveyard shift, and very early one morning he saw a motorist drive up to a red light, stop, then proceed through the intersection.   He wrote his first ticket, and it ended up going to court and being challenged.   The motorist asked my B.I.L. one question when he was on the stand: "Did my driving through the intersection in the manner in which I did endanger either myself or any other person".   The judge dismissed the ticket. Mark

--- On Wed, 3/9/11, D. Whiteman <magicd...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: D. Whiteman <magicd...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [CABOforum] Posted speed limit in CA is often not really the legal speed limit... 22351(b) To: "Serge Issakov" <serge....@gmail.com> Cc: "CABOforum" <CABO...@googlegroups.com>

[Serge Issakov]

I wonder if the judge would have dismissed the ticket had your BIL responded as follows:

"Perhaps not, but that just means you and a potential victim got lucky this time.  Next time an early morning jogger or bicyclist in dark clothing that you happened to not notice, but legally crossing on a green, might happen to suddenly appear in front of your vehicle just as you moved ahead on the red".

[Alan Forkosh]

When I lived in San Francisco and commuted by bike from the Richmond to the Financial District, this 'no traffic' red light running was a real problem for me on the final, downhill stretch. The signals in my direction were nicely synchronized for the my speed, but I had to slow up at each intersection as I was the only thing on my street actually moving. I would witness crossing vehicles (usually taxis) treat red lights as yield signs and couldn't trust them to be able to pick up a bicycle moving at 20-25 mph in time.

I eventually realized that it was safer to commute in a bit later when there was actual traffic in my direction, forcing everyone to actually obey the lights.

Alan Forkosh Oakland, CA
afor...@mac.com