Sacramento Criminal Defense

Higher Speed Limits Prove Motorists React Responsibly

admin — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 21:21:06 +0000

Speed Kills – Higher Speed Limits Prove Motorists React Responsibly

It has been a year since Utah increased the speed limit along some sections of I-15 to 80 mph, joining some rural highway stretches of Texas as having the highest posted limits in the U.S. Although proponents of 55 mph speed limits were apoplectic and dire in their predictions of highway fatalities stacking up along the I-15 roadside, Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) data show that there has been no increase in accidents in the areas that have higher designated speed limits.
Before we tell the Speed Kills cadre that “we told you so”, there is more. UDOT measured the 85th percentile speed along those stretches of I-15, both before and after the limit was increased to 80 mph. The agency’s findings blew another myth out of the water, namely the one that claims drivers will automatically increase their speed by at least the same increment as the raised limit.

At the previously posted 75 mph limit, UDOT’s traffic study showed that a majority of drivers traveled at 81 to 85 mph. When the speed limit was increased by 5 mph to 80, the traffic stream was mostly at 83 to 85 mph. So, in other words, the degree of “speeding” actually decreased when Utah established a standard using 85th percentile data. Drivers along I-15 demonstrated their comfort zone to be in the 80 to 85 mph range, regardless of the posted speed limit. This once again proved the effectiveness of using the 85th percentile speed to promote a safe, efficient traffic flow. And it no doubt increased the driving pleasure for the motorists traveling along the I-15 corridor in Utah.

OK, now we can exclaim to the double nickel supporters: We told you so!

The Facts & The Law

admin — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:35:47 +0000

Defendants representing themselves (Pro-se) in a traffic law matter are sometimes confused by the distinction between the “facts” and the “law” related to their case.

In a standard trial, either before a jury or a “bench” trial before a single judge, the dispute usually centers on the facts of the case. For example, the arresting officer claims the defendant was traveling at 70 miles per hour and the defendant argues that he was going 50 miles per hour. The fact in dispute is how fast was the defendant traveling. However, if the defendant does not dispute the officer’s estimate of his speed, but rather argues that the posted speed limit of 60 miles per hour was not legally established he is not arguing the facts of the case, but rather the law.

Once a judge or jury have ruled on a case it is considered that any debate on the facts of case is over and the results stand. If the defendant is found guilty and he wishes to challenge that decision he can appeal to a higher court. However, that appeal must be based on matters of law, not the facts that were in dispute at the original trial. The theory here is that the judge or jury who participated in the trial are in a better position to weigh the facts of the case than would be a second hand opinion made by an appellate court.

In the earlier example, where the defendant did not dispute the facts and agreed that the officer correctly estimated his speed, the judge may not have agreed with the defendant’s claim that the speed limit was illegally posted. (Note: juries are usually instructed to only consider the facts of the case and not the underlying law. A vexing issue for the courts is when a jury or juror take issue with a law and refuse to find a defendant guilty, even though the facts indicate guilt. This is called jury nullification.) The defendant could then base his appeal on challenging the original judge’s interpretation of the speed limit law.

An exception to the situation just described is when the original trial is an informal hearing and not a “trial of record,” meaning there would be no record of the trial and thereby nothing for a higher court to review and rule upon. In this case an appeal would be made to a court of record where the whole case would be re-tried from scratch and the first trial would have no bearing on the final decision.

Another deviation from this normal pattern of trial and appeal is when new and compelling information is discovered that significantly changes one or more of the previously accepted facts (for example DNA tests prove the convicted defendant could not have done what he was arrested and convicted of). In this situation there would not be an appeal, but either a dismissal of charges or, at minimum, an order for a new trial where again the facts could be debated.

On a unrelated, but interesting note:
Check out the new design of our Speed Trap Exchange website which lists over 55,000 speed traps across the USA and Canada. Please help out the NMA and your fellow drivers by posting the speed traps in your area. Forward the site to your friends and get their input too!

Sacramento Criminal Defense Law Firm

admin — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:16:02 +0000

At the law offices of CHOYCE & CROWELL, LLP, we understand the urgency of your legal matter and can provide the legal help you need. Contact us right away to arrange a free consultation and we promise to explain your legal rights and give you the answers you need to know about your case.

Sacramento Office
980 9th Street, 16th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Tel: 916-449-9636
Fax: 916-449-9637
Solano Office
711 Jefferson, Suite 204
Fairfield, CA 94533
Tel: 707-422-1202
Fax: 707-422-1292
Oakland Office
1300 Clay Street , Suite 600
Oakland, CA 94612
Tel: 510-734-3145
Fax: 510-223-1887
San Francisco Office
201 Spear Street, Suite 1100
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: (415) 230-5302