Watched while eating

[2Bolt]

The wife and I took a motorcycle ride and stopped to have a nasty burger and shake. We ate outdoors and about 40 or so feet from us was a motorcycle LEO who just pulled up to watching traffic approaching. This was right after a 45 PSL dropped to 35. He was sitting there just about right on the side of the road. Actually he was in plain view of the on coming traffic.
In less than a minute i seen the little car obviously going faster than the traffic around him. LEO put away his laser just before the car got up to him, and LEO ripped after the car and got him down the road.
After a little bit, LEO comes back to his spot. Wasn't a minute later and he snags another one.
We were there long enough to take our time eating and yak at a few folks by us. We watch this LEO snag 5 cars before we left, and I don't think he sat for 2 minutes before he would get the next one.
Everybody was kind of watching and discussing "don't those drivers see him sitting in the open right on the side of the road"?
Either he was not obvious being a smaller target, or folks are not watching or I don't know what - but it was kind of crazy watching. We didn't see one car brake as they were passing by, and some were actually speeding up when the PSL drops 10, right there!

At least I know or think I know a LEO spot I didn't know before - and we will be taking the bike there often this summer for such good shakes.

I don't get it

[Motor On]

Most people are mindless sheep behind the wheel, oblivious to the world around them.

[Obsidian]

Were any of the speeds actually unsafe for the conditions? That's what he was writing for most if not all of them. If not, they should all smoke his ass in court ... in California the LEO needs to show "substantial evidence from which a fact finder could conclude either that the defendant drove at a speed that endangered people or property, or at a speed that was unreasonable for the driving conditions." <-- So says the California court of appeals for 22350 cites.

99% of them will just pay their tickets though. Revenue baby.

[Lucky225]

Were any of the speeds actually unsafe for the conditions? That's what he was writing for most if not all of them. If not, they should all smoke his ass in court ... in California the LEO needs to show "substantial evidence from which a fact finder could conclude either that the defendant drove at a speed that endangered people or property, or at a speed that was unreasonable for the driving conditions." <-- So says the California court of appeals for 22350 cites.

99% of them will just pay their tickets though. Revenue baby.

x2, there's a reason he chose that spot where the limit drops 10mph

[2Bolt]

Were any of the speeds actually unsafe for the conditions? That's what he was writing for most if not all of them. If not, they should all smoke his ass in court ... in California the LEO needs to show "substantial evidence from which a fact finder could conclude either that the defendant drove at a speed that endangered people or property, or at a speed that was unreasonable for the driving conditions." <-- So says the California court of appeals for 22350 cites.

99% of them will just pay their tickets though. Revenue baby.

People do tend to get on it there because it also goes from 3 lanes to 2 - then shortly after is a light, and you know how some always want get into front position - so yeah I can see that it's a good spot. We would see some gas it to jockey a position.
So 45 to 35 PSL and from 3 lanes to 2 lanes, then a light.
I saw one of the cars actually hit the gas and swerve back and forth a couple times from one lane to the other and back to get around the car that was in front of him that looked like he needed to be in the front, with stereo blasting. I must have glance at LEO for a moment because the wife said the passenger tossed a cigarette just about in front of the LEO. He didn't get away from the LEO to far, as LEO had caught up to him 2 lights down the road.
In a way it was different watching all this.

[tjbender]

"substantial evidence from which a fact finder could conclude either that the defendant drove at a speed that endangered people or property, or at a speed that was unreasonable for the driving conditions." <-- So says the California court of appeals for 22350 cites.

Yeah, but lots of CA officers have wised up and are citing on other codes now. 22349 is a popular one for CHP, but locals are still largely stuck with 22350, as 22349 only applies on highways.

[swarga]

People do tend to get on it there because it also goes from 3 lanes to 2 - then shortly after is a light, and you know how some always want get into front position - so yeah I can see that it's a good spot. We would see some gas it to jockey a position.

Well, sure. Nobody wants to be stuck behind some slowpoke LLB, so when they have an opportunity to get in front of the rolling roadblock they take it. Maybe if that cop were to enforce the Keep Right Except To Pass/Slower Traffic Keep Right laws, people wouldn't feel the need to jockey for position like that.

The injustice here is that the guy who "weaves" and "speeds" to get out from behind a slowpoke LLB is the one who gets targeted by the LEO.

[Obsidian]

"substantial evidence from which a fact finder could conclude either that the defendant drove at a speed that endangered people or property, or at a speed that was unreasonable for the driving conditions." <-- So says the California court of appeals for 22350 cites.

Yeah, but lots of CA officers have wised up and are citing on other codes now. 22349 is a popular one for CHP, but locals are still largely stuck with 22350, as 22349 only applies on highways.

CHP can write 22349's if you are going over 55 somewhere the speed limit is < 55, but it's a sketchy practice. From what I know, they generally only do this when they know there is not a valid traffic and engineering survey done on a particular road ... some of the SR routes in particular. I've never had that happen, so I won't comment on its merits. Speeding tickets up to 55 are pretty much guaranteed to be 22350's unless there is some other cite I'm not aware of.

My last ticket was a pacing, 60 in a 50 ... easy, easy, easy 22350 win ... would have been harder if he had written 22349.

[Lucky225]

"substantial evidence from which a fact finder could conclude either that the defendant drove at a speed that endangered people or property, or at a speed that was unreasonable for the driving conditions." <-- So says the California court of appeals for 22350 cites.

Yeah, but lots of CA officers have wised up and are citing on other codes now. 22349 is a popular one for CHP, but locals are still largely stuck with 22350, as 22349 only applies on highways.

Actually all ROADS are highways..

22349. (a) Except as provided in Section 22356, no person may drive
a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 65 miles per hour.

360. "Highway" is a way or place of whatever nature, publicly
maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of
vehicular travel. Highway includes street.

[corkguykev]

Most people are mindless sheep behind the wheel, oblivious to the world around them.

That's true. I have seen several out in the open traps here over the years, the kind you would spot a mile off if you were watching and they had someone pulled over most of the time.

Its not even a challenge to spot the rear end of our reflective coloured Traffic Corps cars by day here but still they can have one of them on the hard shoulder of a main road and still nail loads of speeders with a tripod mounted Marksman or UL right behind it and they would be wearing hi-viz jackets also.

The cars are like this..




Granted, I have seen plenty of them using sneakier tactics also .