manhands

iTrader: (3)

Could you cite this please? Because the wording of the law is; "slow to a reasonable and prudent speed that is safe for existing weather, road, and vehicular or pedestrian traffic conditions." which is very different from arbitrarily saying that you should slam on your brakes and be going under the residential speed limit on the freeway when there are no residences or pedestrians.

slow04wrx

iTrader: (3)

Bull****

**** PIGS. Seriously, what an arrogant *****.


I can't count the number of times a cop has done an incredibly dangerous move in traffic or on the shoulders. Way unsafe compared to driving in the lane.


maybe they should find a safe place to pull over?

KrAzYkld

iTrader: (30)

Yeah, seems like I got confused with the actual law and what people are posting on the forums. I've read a few posts of people saying you have to slow down to 20MPH. Sorry for the confusion. Brain is fried from studying from midterms.

stupidchicken03

iTrader: (38)

no, hes not saying that the law wants you to drive 20mph... i think hes saying that the law says to drive 20mph LESS... so 45mph while passing

thats how i took it anyways

code3suby

iTrader: (23)

I wish I could enforce that law (no offense OP) but I almost get killed on a daily basis by idiots who see the lights on, and me walking along the side of the ambulance and still come INCHES from hitting me. I think there needs to be more public awareness of the law though. I've even had people honk at me!!!!!!

manhands

iTrader: (3)

Please cite this too, because based on certain conditions going slower than the speed limit would cause the situation to become highly unsafe. I don't see anything anywhere that specifically states you should be going any speed other than "What is appropriate for the conditions". The speed limit is put in place to be the safest possible speed based on the projected road and traffic conditions.

Edit: Only a small percentage of tickets issued are actually fought, usually close to 50% if not 60% of cases have the tickets dismissed. ALWAYS fight the ticket, never admit guilt. There are no specific studies limited to California, but in areas like D.C. there is data to back this up.

Amandyke

Did the officer have his emergency lights on? If he did not you are not bound by that law. I agree with manhands, fight the ticket. If nothing else you can always request that the fine be lowered. But that is one serious bull**** law, what a great way to FORCE traffic to back up and slow down at all times. Who writes this crap?

KrAzYkld

iTrader: (30)

No, manhands was right. I meant slowing down to 20MPH.
I don't see any actual speed limit to slow down to as well. The safest possible speed will most likely be decided by either the officer or judge.

TurnWRX

iTrader: (3)

It's funny because cops don't care about "appropriate conditions". Had an incident a couple months back where police were targeting vehicles for not yielding to pedestrians. Basically was a setup operation, pedestrian was an undercover cop with 4-5 squad cars hiding in a parking lot. Busy intersection. I was given a ticket because I didn't yield. Was driving a big white fedex truck. Under those conditions, had I yield, the undercover cop probably would've gotten ran over by the next car to the left of me who wouldn't be able to see him crossing the street.

It's so funny how they always setup undercover operations on busy intersections acting under the false pretense that yielding is safe driving. Or that red light cameras prevent accidents. Etc etc All they care about is revenue from tickets.

But back to the original topic, it doesn't list that CVC under the points violation on the dmv website. But I don't know how often they update that page. Here's the page

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/dl/vioptct.htm

Amandyke

"slow to a reasonable and prudent speed that is safe for existing weather, road, and vehicular traffic conditions"

65mph seems perfectly reasonable for a dry road. Especially if you're unable to perform a lane change, applying your brakes could cause an accident behind you if the person following you is not paying attention. Interrupting the flow of traffic always carries the risk of causing an accident.

Fight the ticket, it's ~$146 depending on what county you were cited in and is 1 point on your license.

http://www.monterey.courts.ca.gov/Do..._Schedules.pdf

medicSTi

iTrader: (22)

+1, been there done that. But I think the OP should have got a warning unless grossly negligent for his first encounter with this new law.

Rolled up on one MVA in the dip before the hill going to VJO WB80. On scene before fire/chp sitting in the back seat holding c-spine in the #1 lane with cars still winging by as my partner tried to control traffic... crazy crappy situation. She had just plowed into the center divide and totaled her car...

bluwrxwgn

iTrader: (3)

What area of 680 was this? The CHP are complaining about the lack of area to enforce Carpool/Express Lane violaters. If it was around that area, I can see more of these tickets popping up cause of the issue they are saying about not enough enforcement area.

VRT MBasile

iTrader: (17)

New law went on the books this year or last year. If you can safely do so, you must give emergency vehicles on the shoulder a one safety zone.

EDIT: Looks like I was beaten to the point about 20 times.

sticruisin06

iTrader: (12)

I was aware of the law but i wasnt aware about how slow should I go to safely pass them, since most of the cars was doing 75+. I was doing 70 and slowed down to 65 to pass. I just hope the ticket wont be crazy expensive.

manhands

iTrader: (3)

Why aren't you fighting it?

See my previous posts for the huge pile of reasons why you have a better than 50/50 chance to win fighting it. It's pretty damn obvious to me he singled you out as a "Ricer", if you had been driving a muscle car he wouldn't have said **** to you. I also believe you were doing your best to follow the spirit of the law which will get you off as well.