[jd10013]

Originally Posted by Knockoutpie

Well, if you think about it. The HOV lane, and the Left lane are the "fast lanes" so even though by state it says slower vehicles move right, that means the left lane is the speeding lane right? And speedings illegal...

no. if you exceed the speed limit to pass somebody then you are breaking the law. the reason it's called the fast lane is because the right lane is where the exits are, and when you have cars getting on and off the highway traffic will slow. the left lane allows people to avoid the slow down of merging traffic. it's actually more of a thru traffic lane. HOV lanes offer lower volume of cars in exchange for ride sharing and car pooling. in both cases its not traffic being allowed to exceed the speed limit, it's traffic being able to travel at the speed limit instead of being slowed down by cars entering or exiting the highway, or heavily congested lanes.

[Squillo]

Originally Posted by Knockoutpie

Well, if you think about it. The HOV lane, and the Left lane are the "fast lanes" so even though by state it says slower vehicles move right, that means the left lane is the speeding lane right? And speedings illegal...

The left lane is not the fast lane, it's the passing lane.

[Caspers2SSRS]

Originally Posted by jd10013

no. if you exceed the speed limit to pass somebody then you are breaking the law. the reason it's called the fast lane is because the right lane is where the exits are, and when you have cars getting on and off the highway traffic will slow. the left lane allows people to avoid the slow down of merging traffic. it's actually more of a thru traffic lane. HOV lanes offer lower volume of cars in exchange for ride sharing and car pooling. in both cases its not traffic being allowed to exceed the speed limit, it's traffic being able to travel at the speed limit instead of being slowed down by cars entering or exiting the highway, or heavily congested lanes.

......and generally the fines for speeding in the HOV lanes are punitively higher.

[31B]

Originally Posted by wayne watson

I thought they had to show your speed or at least a reader calibration cert.that's what I've heard
Almost have to go to court and tell your side and see or insurance may jump if you can't get it reduced at least.
Good luck

That is incorrect. An officer does not need to show you your speed off the speed detecting device.

[KJS]

Slightly different story.
Two years ago I went to traffic court to fight a ticket - Suffolk County, NY. Every driver who got a "radar" ticket the judge stated "Guilty". Didn't matter what the reason was. Didn't matter if the driver was represented by a lawyer. Didn't matter if the driver was willing to plead to a lesser offense. Didn't matter AT ALL!
In each case the "charging officer" recited his training, the recalibration done on the equipment before each shift, and his years of service, weather, line of signt and lighting.
This is how such cases are handled by this court, in Suffolk County.
(My case was dismissed due to extenuating circumstances regarding a postponement and the very tragic death of a state trooper involved in a horrific crash the morning of my case. None of the hiway patrol officers reported to the courts that day.)

[Tbosco]

Officers do no need to use equipment to get your speed. They make an independent speed estimation and then back that up with equipment. Get a lawyer and ask for a plea to a lesser charge. At a minimum plea to the officers lowest estimation. Post pone the court date as much as possible and take a drivers safety course to remove some of the points that you may get. Good luck

[F-16 Camaro]

You're in Phoenix? You can get out of that np. When's your court date? PM me.

[F-16 Camaro]

I'm willing to bet if you check the ticket he cited A.R.S. 28-701 as the violation.

28-701. Reasonable and prudent speed; prima facie evidence; exceptions
A. A person shall not drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances, conditions and actual and potential hazards then existing. A person shall control the speed of a vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with any object, person, vehicle or other conveyance on, entering or adjacent to the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to exercise reasonable care for the protection of others.
B. Except as provided in subsections C and D of this section or except if a special hazard requires a lesser speed, any speed in excess of the following speeds is prima facie evidence that the speed is too great and therefore unreasonable:
1. Fifteen miles per hour approaching a school crossing.
2. Twenty-five miles per hour in a business or residential district.
3. Sixty-five miles per hour in other locations.
C. The speed limits prescribed in this section may be altered as authorized in sections 28-702 and 28-703.
D. The maximum speed provided in this section is reduced to the speed that is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and with regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing, including the following conditions:
1. Approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad crossing.
2. Approaching and going around a curve.
3. Approaching a hillcrest.
4. Traveling on a narrow or winding roadway.
5. A special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions.
E. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at a speed that is less than the speed that is reasonable and prudent under existing conditions unless the speed that is reasonable and prudent exceeds the maximum safe operating speed of the lawfully operated implement of husbandry.

He can't cite the posted speed limit because he doesn't want to do the leg work to get the proof of the validity of the posted speed limit. Because in AZ the engineering certification expires, and most of the signs are no longer valid.

So instead they use the "Prudent" law, but if you read the stipulations and exceptions, doing 29 in a 25 is still considered prudent.

Now if there were pedestrians, an intersection, a hill, or a winding road you might have issues.

But feel free to face the officer in court and ask him about his pacing technique, because it sounds like it's off.

I'd fight it all damn day.

[Blue Magic]

A officer doesn't have to show the speed on the radar. Officers are required to have radar training as mandated by P.O.S.T. A officer can follow a car to determine how fast a vehicle is traveling. It's called pacing.

[ragincajun24]

id fight it

[Knockoutpie]

Originally Posted by Blue Magic

A officer doesn't have to show the speed on the radar. Officers are required to have radar training as mandated by P.O.S.T. A officer can follow a car to determine how fast a vehicle is traveling. It's called pacing.

Right but he was never even behind me, he was flooring it to catch me because of how far back he was even though I was going no where the speed he was.

[Blue Magic]

Each state is different. I would fight it. I've never heard of criminally or civilian speeding. i would have him prove why you were pulled over and cited. And I'm speakingfrom an officers point of view. He can't reasonably determined your speed from the distance you stated he was behind you. Good luck.

[PalmerGA]

Originally Posted by Knockoutpie

Originally I was obeying the speed limit, until I wanted to pass a driver so I sped up just a tad to get in front of them, then he started to follow me.

Originally Posted by Knockoutpie

Well, if you think about it. The HOV lane, and the Left lane are the "fast lanes" so even though by state it says slower vehicles move right, that means the left lane is the speeding lane right? And speedings illegal...

With this kind of thinking... you are busted. And, when you turned into the side neighborhood your fate was sealed (obvious to the cop you were trying to evade his pursuit - bad move).

[ChrisBlair]

It's "criminal" vs "civil", not "civilian", lol