Too fast for conditions [Archive]

CHPUSMC

11-18-2006, 12:42 AM

I came up with this question to ask while driving to Sacramento today on SB 99. Who makes the determination on what speed is too fast for the conditions? Is it the officer in the patrol car that throws a random speed like 35 mph is the correct speed to be traveling at that given time or is it a higher power? If it is the officer that determines the "x" speed limit then how does that hold up in court? How common are citations issued for traveling too fast for the conditions or are they commonly issued to the "at fault" party in an accident? Is there a CVC definition for visibility matched to an appropriate speed?

Tonight there was moderate fog and most traffic was traveling at 60-65mph (Hwy 99 @ 70 split if known for its nasty fog). Some cars were going far slower around 30-55. Now there was plenty of visibility (for me) to tell if you were overtaking someone and needed to take action by either slowing down or changing lanes. Now since there were the other cars traveling at significantly slower speeds, could the faster cars get pulled over?

Just a thought and thanks in advance for your input.

PapaBear

11-18-2006, 04:03 AM

Tonight there was moderate fog and most traffic was traveling at 60-65mph (Hwy 99 @ 70 split if known for its nasty fog). Some cars were going far slower around 30-55.

You answered your own question!

Now since there were the other cars traveling at significantly slower speeds, could the faster cars get pulled over?

YES!

This is primarily a POLICY question which will probably not be answered in a public forum. However, I will tell you if you are driving faster than the NORMAL flow of traffic - taking into consideration the weather, roadway, traffic condition, pedestrian activity, lighting conditions, etc - YOU will get a ticket!

Read 22350 VC.

RodeoChippie

11-18-2006, 07:54 AM

Speed limits during reduced visibility are not randomly thrown out. They are based on mathmatical formulas and subject to change as conditions change. You can take your speed and multiply it by 1.5. That gives you how many feet per second you are traveling. Then figure 1.5 seconds for perception and reaction time. Now you have to figure braking distance. (a formula and a chart are on this website: http://www.csgnetwork.com/stopdistinfo.html ) Usually in most offices around this time of year, a similar chart to the one on that website will surface and Officers will use that information, rather than doing the math, in determining what the safe speed should be with reduced visibility. With that said, if you were traveling at 60-65 MPH, based on the chart it would take you between 304 and 345 feet to stop your vehicle. If visibility was less that 300 feet, you are in violation of 22350 VC.

So to give you more specific answers to your questions, yes it is the Officer in the patrol car who determines what the safe speed should be. That speed limit holds up in court based on the mathmatical formulas mentioned above. Citations for unsafe speed for weather conditions are very common and yes they are issued to the at fault party in a collision. There is no VC section that I am aware of that assigns a speed for specific visibility conditions. The only VC section I am aware of that mentions distances and weather conditions is 280 VC, which defines darkness. Hope this helps.

11-18-2006, 07:38 PM

CVC 22350 is the catch-all and states that current conditions must be taken into consideration when determining a safe speed.

You have to remember than even an officer with one day on the job has received more training related to vehicle performance, dynamics, human factors, and everything else that goes into what we call driving than most people will in their life. As such, he or she will qualify as an expert in most courts. Part of our job is being able to substantiate and articulate our findings in court. As already mentioned, there are some back-of-napkin calculations that can be used to substantiate our findings, but they are not always necessary. In my experience, simply testifying to the conditions and what I, through my training and experience, felt was a safe speed, was ample for a conviction.

CHPUSMC

11-18-2006, 10:13 PM

Thanks for the info everyone! Looks like there will be a lot to learn in that portion of the academy classes :smile:

Mac

11-18-2006, 10:26 PM

In my experience, simply testifying to the conditions and what I, through my training and experience, felt was a safe speed, was ample for a conviction.
Exactly. An officer's opinion as to the "safe speed" in a given condition is far from an arbitrary SWAG.....it's based upon experience and training (including knowledge of the formulae that Rodeo Chippie discussed above), and if he/she properly articulates the factors, most courts will accept it as an expert opinion.

The biggest problem is that most drivers have no idea of what the true "safe speed" for conditions (rain, fog, snow, etc.) is - just like most of them don't have any idea how close "following too closely" (21703 VC) constitutes. I can't count how many people have argued with me that they were NOT following too closely, saying something like "I was at least two car lengths behind him!". Similarly, I've stopped people for doing 50 mph on a freeway in heavy fog and had them complain "but the speed limit is 65!". I won't even go into how many crashes we've all gone to in the rain where the driver says "I don't know what happened - I was driving along and all of a sudden I was spinning out!". When you try to explain to them that they hydroplaned because they were driving too fast on a wet roadway, they get indignant and insist that they were NOT going too fast.....well, if that's the case, then why isn't every other car around them spinning out and hitting the guardrail too?!?

Your Mentor

11-19-2006, 06:22 PM

In snow, I go by what I feel safe driving. I have studded tires so if I don't feel comfortable doing 35 mph on snow and ice; or I feel oversteer and understeer at 40; I have no problem issuing citations with 35 as the safe speed. Ultimately, the question of safe speed v. posted speed as determined by a beat officer, comes down to how well the officer articulates his or her opinion in court. Judges are quite familiar with the driving concepts we discuss under oath. If I testify that I experienced understeer and oversteer with studded tires at 40 mph and the person I cited was doing 55 in a 65 with standard mud/snow tires, the judge is far more likely to consider the testimony of an EVOC-trained and experienced officer over the violator's. Not much is required to satisfy the elements of 22350VC. Articulating specifics, however, is the key to a successful prosecution. Also, consider that most officer's aren't exactly anxious to chase motorists under adverse conditions. I've worked in a lot of chain control areas and I've never gotten used to the horror of trying to overtake some less-than-prudent driver who seems to think THEY can decide what's a safe speed. Most people haven't got clue-one. Hence all the crash's we take. The average citizen actually considers him or herself to be an awesome driver. After only a few months on the job, most officers realize the average citizen is just one more accident waiting to happen. So ask yourself this; who would you want to decide what's a safe speed? A trained officer who spends 8 hours a day on the beat you're driving through, who drives that beat under every condition a year can dish out, who is trained to drive under circumstances most will never experience, who wants to keep people alive on that beat and avoid having to work crashes in weather which makes investigating accidents dangerous as hell; or some guy or gal who THINKS they are talented behind the wheel?

Mac

11-20-2006, 05:57 AM

...or some guy or gal who THINKS they are talented behind the wheel?
Most people GROSSLY overestimate their driving prowess. Ignorance is bliss.

CHPUSMC

12-11-2006, 07:04 PM

12-11-2006, 08:01 PM

Do the speed conditions vary on the type of pavement when it is raining? For example, typically is a concrete freeway more dangerous then an asphalt freeway? I would tend to think that you would need to drive slower on a concrete freeway when the conditions are wet. Any thoughts?

Without getting into static coefficients of friction, which I'm sure xMAIT can tell you more about, the biggest difference in friction is between wet & dry, not concrete versus asphalt. Conditions vary greatly from surface to surface, but all things being equal, I would argue that in most cases a surface simply being wet makes far more of a difference than its composition. In the real world we're dealing with oil and other impurities that also make a difference. Is the asphalt rubberized? Does the concrete surface have rain groves?

Short answer: No. In practice, most drivers are far exceeding safe conditions when wet for any roadway.

Mac

12-11-2006, 09:11 PM

...In the real world we're dealing with oil and other impurities that also make a difference. Is the asphalt rubberized? Does the concrete surface have rain grooves?...
...how worn is the asphalt? How deeply grooved and how far apart are the grooves on concrete? What's the superelevation/crossfall of the roadway? Is this the first rain, or has it been raining for long enough to wash off some of the oils/surface impurities? Is it in an urban/industrial environment (more pollutants/impurities), or a rural environment? Is it on a negative or positive grade? Are we talking about drag factor or rolling coefficient of friction? Are the car's tires worn, or brand new? Are they siped for maximum water drainage? What's the driver's experience level in adverse weather conditions, and do they understand the vehicle dynamics concepts of understeer, oversteer and countersteer? Do they have practice in controlling all of the above? Where is the vehicle's center of gravity? What's the vehicle's wheelbase and stance?

Regardless of the above, hydroplaning doesn't have much to do with the surface below the thin sheet of water on the roadway, the vehicle or the driver. Once you're at a certain speed with a certain depth of water and a certain tire pressure, you're not riding on the roadway itself anymore - your car is now a boat for all practical intents and purposes, riding atop that thin sheet of water. In reality, you have little to no control over steering input or stopping at that point. The VAST majority of crashes in the rain are a direct result of driving too fast and hydroplaning.

mb116

12-11-2006, 10:54 PM

You know I just saw a good video that relates to this thread quite a bit. Check it out.

The first wreck is a great example of how you lose steering in wet conditions.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xqxdj_wetrace

Slim

12-12-2006, 09:30 AM

About ten years ago I watched a vehicle "pin ball" down a snow/rain covered hill into about 5-10 other cars. Redding was experiencing a very freak heavy snow storm that laid down 4 inches or so in an hour. It was amazing to see people in their all-wheel drive vehicles spinning out all over the place. YM and others who have lived, worked or driven in the snow, can attest to most drivers inability to drive in it. #1 rule for drving in inclement weather, DRIVE SLOW!

That was a great video.

We have fog here, so this time of year the court usually sees a few cites from me for 22350, 90-100 mph in a 40 or 50 mph safe speed area. I wonder what the fines are for those stubs?

SweetTaterPie

12-12-2006, 11:57 AM

Ah! CVC 22350! The variables involved are staggering. We haven't even addressed driver fatigue, age, health, presence of intoxicating substances, vehicle age and condition (worn springs, shocks, and other suspension components; damaged, worn, or improperly maintained brake system; improper alignment; unmatched tires; cracked window glass; missing lighting; miscellaneous modifications, et cetera). There's a reason 22350 is worded as it is; "safe speed" places the onus on the driver to account for ALL the variables and act accordingly, with due regard for others sharing the road. Can you spell "job-security?"

Mac

12-12-2006, 12:42 PM

....and despite all the above factors, when an officer estimates a "safe" speed for conditions they're usually making a "best-case" estimate based upon a reasonably competent and coherent driver in a reasonably sound vehicle. What's safe in the fog for the average driver in a car with good lighting, brakes and window/windshield glass could be grossly unsafe for a fatigued/incompetent driver in a car with one headlight and a pitted/cracked windshield.

12-12-2006, 04:13 PM

David

12-12-2006, 07:03 PM

SweetTaterPie

12-12-2006, 07:38 PM

It was amazing to see people in their all-wheel drive vehicles spinning out all over the place. What most people can't seem to get their minds around is that all wheel drive doesn't make you stop any better.

A couple months ago I worked a crash that qualifies as an E-ticket ride; the driver was a young gal in a brand-spanking-new WRX. She was so embarrassed about how it had happened, that she concocted a bizarre cover-story. The story was easily debunked via extensive physical evidence: long traverse of grassy area east of east shoulder (distinct right-side tire tracks), then abrupt northwest turning movement across all lanes of 101 (great skids), and then a great launch of approximately 130 feet (untouched vegetation to impressive impact crater) down a mountainside. Once presented with the evidence, the young woman admitted she'd pushed the fatigue factor too far, woke up on the grass, and then countered left to regain the road. Unfortunately for her, and her beautiful black WRX, the car responded to her bidding in spades. All-wheel-drive won't necessarily save you on a surface with reduced coefficient, but it is most definitely responsive on dry, unpolished asphalt. :shock:

FCYTravis

12-12-2006, 07:48 PM

Get... on... the... other... side... of... the... GUARDRAIL!

For we corner-workers, sometimes it's our job to go over the guardrail. I'm a volunteer flag marshal who works road races in the Bay Area - think NASCAR, IndyCar, sports car, amateur, etc. at Thunderhill, Sears Point, Laguna Seca. Most of the time, it's a (relatively) safe job... we're generally behind guardrails and walls, waving flags and communicating track conditions on a land-line comm system to the control stewards.

But when all hell breaks loose on track, it can be a couple minutes before the cavalry arrives (we have at least two crash/fire/rescue trucks with trauma nurses, paramedics and the Jaws) so it's also our job to be first responders to on-course incidents. That means going "hot trackside" and putting ourselves in harm's way... I've extinguished flaming Formula Fords, pushed Camaros clear of the course and helped dazed drivers get over that guardrail. To that end, we get basic training in firefighting and rescue.

However, as I'm sure you know... just because you can, doesn't mean you should. We're trained here in the States not to go on a hot track without a damn good reason. I am in full agreement with you - I don't see anything in this video that demands corner-worker response. No fire, no immediate danger to the driver that we can ameliorate, there's no way he's going to be able to push the car out of the way... why go over? Add the downpour, and the knowledge that if one car can get there, others can follow... that was a major roll of the dice and it almost came up craps.

Oh, and why on Earth did that marshal walk around the driver's side of the car AND turn his back on traffic? :shock:

There are a number of marshals who have lost their lives while on duty, and that danger is definitely something I take into consideration when I go on station...

The thing to really keep in mind is that a racetrack is a *relatively* controlled environment. The speeds are much higher, but the drivers are held to much higher standards of training and they generally all obey our signalling commands. I can hardly begin to imagine what you go through trying to work wrecks out on the highway, what with drunks, morons and unlicensed drivers whizzing by, oblivious to the overturned big rig you're trying to deal with...

Be safe out there, or as we say after morning briefing at the track, "Play safe."

Slim

12-12-2006, 10:56 PM

It was amazing to see people in their all-wheel drive vehicles spinning out all over the place. What most people can't seem to get their minds around is that all wheel drive doesn't make you stop any better.

Amend to that! Here I am in my 2 wheel drive toyota, bust'n a gut at the people who think because they have 4 wheel drive they can drive normal. Used properly, all wheel and 4 wheel drive can help you go and turn a little better than the average Joe, but when you already have run out of talent, nothing's going to save you.

AyatollahGondola

12-13-2006, 07:56 AM

Who makes the determination on what speed is too fast for the conditions?
Ultimately it's physics though, right? I would ask if that judge metes out more punishment than California courts or not.

AyatollahGondola

12-13-2006, 08:17 AM

Slim

12-13-2006, 07:42 PM

[quote] A new one is smooth at higher speeds and quite a few of us don't check the speed until it's too late.

This is why speeding is a general intent law. You do not have to purposely break the speed limit. New cars are smoother, quieter and usually faster than older cars people get rid of. Each time I have been pulled over, 3 times and got cited twice, I knew exactly how fast I was going and readily admitted it when the officer asked. It's nobody's fault but the one sitting behind the wheel. Individual responsibility still apllies in some places.

SweetTaterPie

12-13-2006, 10:28 PM

A couple months ago I worked a crash that qualifies as an E-ticket ride; the driver was a young gal in a brand-spanking-new WRX
a brand new vehicle can mislead a person into a ticket or a crash. Older vehicles that you have owned for some time begin to vibrate at known speeds and become a poor substitute for speedometer checks. A new one is smooth at higher speeds and quite a few of us don't check the speed until it's too late. I don't know if lack of vibration lures one into fatigue oriented slumber or not.

A new vehicle or an old vehicle, both require input from a thinking and reasoning human being. I don't believe any vehicle has the potential to "mislead" a human being, unless said human being is functionally brain-dead. In the case of the collision cited, there was no evidence that the young woman was speeding, only that she was fatigued; she pushed herself too far and fell asleep at the wheel. It was her decision to continue driving, despite recognition of the signs of fatigue and drowsiness. People tend to jump into a new vehicle, or a vehicle new to them, and then make assumptions based on their past driving experiences with other vehicles. My point was that familiarizing oneself with the handling and performance characteristics of any "new" vehicle is an imperative.

Tom

12-14-2006, 05:54 AM

I don't think I've ever been mislead by a vehicle...but I'll have to check.

AyatollahGondola

12-14-2006, 06:12 AM

SweetTaterPie

12-14-2006, 01:06 PM

People tend to jump into a new vehicle, or a vehicle new to them, and then make assumptions based on their past driving experiences with other vehicles. My point was that familiarizing oneself with the handling and performance characteristics of any "new" vehicle is an imperative.
Absolutely. But count me among the ones who had to learn this the hard way three times in a row over several years to have it sink in. Each new truck brought forth a speeding violation within a few weeks. And I'm not one given to speeding for the sake of enjoyment or trying to make up for getting up late. It was that, and only that. I gotta wonder how common this is.

Again, I'm not trying to qualify the cause of any particular motorist's failure to abide by a posted speed limit; in my time I've heard numerous reasons for the speed traveled. Rather, I was specifically addressing a comment concerning the assumptions made by some drivers of All-Wheel-Drive motor vehicles; I was attempting to illustrate a humorous opposite: the Subaru WRX had too much tractive capability for the inexperienced and fatigued driver [insert guffaw].

On your hypothesis as to causal factors behind speeding motorists/motor vehicles:
Quite a few motorists do not comprehend the difference between maximum (Latin, from neuter of maximus, greatest) and prima facie (Middle English, manifestly, from Latin prima facie : prima, feminine ablative of primus, first + facie, ablative of facies, shape, face). Drivers have argued with me that they weren't driving their vehicle at, say, 80 MPH, only 70 or 75. Their admission of a speed greater than the 65 MPH maximum seems lost on them, because 66 MPH is a violation of statute and substantially lower than 70 or 75 MPH. Alternately (using the same hypothetical freeway), arguments ensue when a driver is unsafely driving at a speed below the maximum, but contrary to what is safe for the conditions. In either case the motorist is in violation, and, whether the violation occurred unintentionally or intentionally is moot. I've never, in any court room, heard a successful argument which postulated that the newness of, or unfamiliarity with, a particular vehicle was the cause of the violation. Nor, for that matter, does such an argument make any rational sense to me personally. It all comes down to the captain of the boat. To my knowledge, cars only rarely drive themselves. FINI

SB 405

12-14-2006, 01:30 PM

Operating a motor vehicle 101........"This long thin device on the right is the gas pedal...the harder you press down on it the faster the vehicle will travel" Always been that way for as long as I can remember no matter if the vehicle is new or old. If I did what you guys do for a living and stopped someone who didn't have at least a clue they were speeding the next words out of my mouth would be...."Sit tight,I'll be right back this will only take a few minutes"

AyatollahGondola

12-14-2006, 05:17 PM

I don't think it should be a defense. I was wondering about how common it was.

Yzeman

12-14-2006, 05:25 PM

On your hypothesis as to causal factors behind speeding motorists/motor vehicles:
Quite a few motorists do not comprehend the difference between maximum (Latin, from neuter of maximus, greatest) and prima facie (Middle English, manifestly, from Latin prima facie : prima, feminine ablative of primus, first + facie, ablative of facies, shape, face). Drivers have argued with me that they weren't driving their vehicle at, say, 80 MPH, only 70 or 75. Their admission of a speed greater than the 65 MPH maximum seems lost on them, because 66 MPH is a violation of statute and substantially lower than 70 or 75 MPH. Alternately (using the same hypothetical freeway), arguments ensue when a driver is unsafely driving at a speed below the maximum, but contrary to what is safe for the conditions. In either case the motorist is in violation, and, whether the violation occurred unintentionally or intentionally is moot. I've never, in any court room, heard a successful argument which postulated that the newness or unfamiliarity of a particular vehicle was the cause of the violation. Nor, for that matter, does such an argument make any rational sense to me personally. It all comes down to the captain of the boat. To my knowledge, cars only rarely drive themselves. FINI

I might not be a smart man.....but I KNOW what love is....Jenny:shock:ops: