pbs911;

I was not talking about getting a ticket.

I was talking about surviving the freeways of SoCal.

Real world? Someones passing you on the right? You are the rolling roadblock. Merge right. No more lanes to the right?

Park it. Hang your hat on the hatrack, take the bus.

I got lost here, thank you. I think mike was saying that the argument that "speeding laws are designed to generate revenue NOT protect the public at large." was stupid.

But had the counterpoint that we should not have such laws.

The speed limit of 65 or 70 was for public protection. The 55 limit was for fuel savings. Speed limits are not designed for revenue enhancement. Well, except for those in those little podunk towns.

Is this supposed to be a revelation?...Its a racket that does some good, little, in the process...Money trumps justice in the big-business of penalizing the public.

I agree, in the real world is different, but does not defeat the fact that anyone who travels more than 65 is breaking the law and is at fault. No one could expect to prevail in any legal argument of "officer there was a person doing 65 in the left lane and they would not move to the right so they are at fault." I thought I would address the improper legalities being tossed around in this thread, and the orignal topic of the thread.

AS for revenues, all traffic enforement serves the purpose of compliance of the law through the deterance of a fine. Generating revenue is merely a beneficial by-product. If revenue was the main goal, traffic officers would have quotas.

Not really. We do not have roads like the Autobahn, which are closely monitored and speed regulated despite the common misperception of full bore all the time.

If money was really the drving force we would have a plethora of CHP on the road pulling over everyone doing 2 mph over the limit.

It really is for public safety. The faster you drive the more damage you will do when you hit someone. The speeder is the danger to all of us.

See the first line in your initial post. So yes, it is relevant. You have to know where you've been to see were your going.

You are partially mistaken.

CVC 22350 (basic speed law): "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."

CVC 22351 (Speed Law Violations): "The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits...or established as authorized in this code (includes the 65mph max speed limit) 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."

CVC 21753 (Yielding for Passing): "the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on audible signal or the momentary flash of headlights by the overtaking vehicle...."

No, I'm not. You can not go over 65 mph. Period. You fail to include the 65mph maximum speed limit statute in your analysis. Each statute you cite expressly incorporates that statute.

I said REVELation, not RELEAvation...I know what the laws are, thankfully over 100 is at least a misdeameanor, so you have more rights under the law and the requirements for evidence are more stringent...besides, the CHP, heavily get the job for the rush of the adrenaline, the chase and the tackle are what makes their job enjoyable (not all, but a great majority)...Couple that with politicians who have money to spend and you have a warping of original intent into a revenue stream effected by testosterone driven power-trippers (not always, but somewhat frequently).

I don't want this to sound anti-cop, cause I am quite the opposite...In fact after my case was settled I told the officer that I appreciated him. He expressed that he understood why I would like to not suffer if I needn't.

Guilt should be proven, not assumed...The assumption of guilt without trial is anything but justice...If they have the power to hammer you, they should be required to make their case and make it beyond reasonable doubt...This is not the case with "infractions."

There is contradiction in the laws, these contradictions allow for speed above posted.

SNIP.... (almost as big as Jim Cesiro's snip last week.....)

Yes, all the reasons that even the posted speed limit may not be safe.

Yes, I agree.

Yes, the caveat that the posted limit may not ever be exceeded.

Yes, I agree.

Now, put yourself on a 400 pound motorcycle, at night, on the 405 (or any SoCal freeway) after rush hour, and I'd bet that even in the slow lane, you'd be run over ( a VERY real threat on a bike) at the posted limit. You wonder why it always seems bikes are speeding?

You have any idea what an SUV SOUNDS like when he (more likely she) is tailgaiting a bike at 65MPH? Forget that the driver is watching TV and chatting on the cell phone. Forget that they have taken the 16-inch wheels and tires off and replaced them with 21-inchers, and the resulting change in braking effectiveness.

Trust me, you'll speed up to maintain the 'flow'.

I drive differently depending on the time and the place. Depending on which vehicle I am on / in.

If the officer wrote you for a few miles over, he thought a few miles over was wrong.

For the record? I have 3 speeding tickets in 37 years. All of them on a limited access freeway. All of them dismissed by a judge. No accidents ever.

The tickets were written because the probable cause for the stop didn't pan out. Judge saw right thru each of the tickets. In three different states. I was lucky, yes. But I still believe in the system, and the big picture. I don't stand out by doing anything stupid.

Except in here. I apologze if I offended anyone.

I am gonna go to the lobby and walk across the street. They are having a "Hawaiian Tropic Bikini Model Tryout" in front of Duke's statue this morning in Waikiki.

I may even jaywalk if it means getting a good spot. I will not impede the speed of anyone else in doing so.

Great thread, BTW.

Better yet, give them the ol' warning tap on the brakes. I mix that and simply taking it out of gear and coasting. Then again, I don't live in an area where I might be shot for that.

Sing, Some people have all the luck.:)

BTW, I am aware of motor cyclists and give them room. More because I am afraid that something that they don't see will cause them to go down in front of me and I don't want to hit them.SmileWavy

In Hawaii... Really? Wished I was there...

Then I am sure you were found guilty of traveling above 65 mph but discharged of any wrong doing based upon the "contradiction."

Michael,

You are correct, many states allow you to go in and out of the HOV lane at will. Arizona is one of them.

POP, good job Sir! Hope you really took out the door with your foot. Been riding a bike for almost 40 years and everytime I was almost killed on the critter it was due to a car driver acting stupid or just plain being asleep at the wheel. I have done the "shoe in the door" gig as needed as well.

You guys can add my name to the list of motorcycle riders using the HOV lane or splitting lanes if needed. The jerks sitting in the HOV or left lane going 65 need to take the bus.

Joe A

You're BOTH wrong. You are suggesting that the rules that apply to both multi-lane and two-lane highways do not apply to HOV lanes. Absurd.

Even the California drivers handbook discusses this;

"If you choose to drive slower than other traffic, do not drive in the 'No. 1' (fast) lane. Always move to the right when another driver is close behind you and wishes to drive faster." - CA driver's handbook [parentheses in original]

What part of "always" is tough for you to understand? I have scoured the California Vehicle Code, particularly the HOV lane chapters, and no exceptions to the "slower traffic right" are stated or implied. The WHOLE POINT of the CVC is to avoid passing on the right. Every time you force a vehicle to pass on the right, you are in violation (and acting like a butt-head).


CVC 21650. Upon all highways, a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway, except as follows: (a) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction under the rules governing that movement. (b) When placing a vehicle in a lawful position for, and when the vehicle is lawfully making, a left turn. (c) When the right half of a roadway is closed to traffic under construction or repair. (d) Upon a roadway restricted to one-way traffic. (e) When the roadway is not of sufficient width. (f) When the vehicle is necessarily traveling so slowly as to impede the normal movement of traffic, that portion of the highway adjacent to the right edge of the roadway may be utilized temporarily when in a condition permitting safe operation.

Moses, call your local CHP, please.

21753. Except when passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall safely move to the right-hand side of the highway in favor of the overtaking vehicle after an audible signal or a momentary flash of headlights by the overtaking vehicle, and shall not increase the speed of his or her vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle. This section does not require the driver of an overtaken vehicle to drive on the shoulder of the highway in order to allow the overtaking vehicle to pass.

You can pass on the right on multi lane freeways.

Moses, you assume that a driver may operate a vehicle over 65 mph. That is simply not true. (Except for those open highways marked 70mph.) Remember, there are some vehicles that are requiredto travel at less than 65 mph, even when the highway is so marked. Trucks, and vehicles towing a trailer are examples. These vehicles may legally (and are required) to travel at a speed lower than the 65 mph. The duty to move over refers to such vehicles. Not a duty imposed on a driver that is going the maximum (65mph) speed limit. It may be smart to move over for a driver going 75mph, but it is not required by the Vehicle Code, California Drivers Handbook, etc.

I am glad you mentioned that. You are precisely wrong. The duty to yield the left lane to FASTER traffic is NOT negated simply because you are at the speed limit.

21654. (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any
vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal
speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be
driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable
to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing
another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing
for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or
driveway.
(b) If a vehicle is being driven at a speed less than the normal
speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time, and is
not being driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as
practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, it shall constitute prima
facie evidence that the driver is operating the vehicle in violation
of subdivision (a) of this section.

Honestly, how much clearer could this be? Notwithstanding the prima fascie speed limits... Geez...
:confused:

Stevepaa is arguing that the CVC allows an exception to CVC21654 for HOV lanes when none exists.