Yellow Speed Limit Signs (US)

[Rick]

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
It is not enforceable. If the speed limit is 65 and there is a yellow sign saying “45 m.p.h.”, you cannot get a ticket for speeding if you are going 65 m.p.h.

However, if you are going 65 in a blizzard and slipping and sliding, an officer can give you a ticket for another offense, such as unsafe driving or unsafe speed for conditions.
[/QUOTE]

This is incorrect at least in California.

@California vehicle code

22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at
       a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due
       regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface
       and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which
       endangers the safety of persons or property.

If you get cited for violation of basic speed law, you can fight it, and both you and the officer can tell your stories to the judge.
Oh, and on Prima Facie limts? PF limits are speed limits that do not need a sign to be enforced. For example in California 25 MPH in a residental area is a PF limit. They do not need to post a sign saying 25 since the vehicle code says

(2) Twenty-five miles per hour:
(A) On any highway other than a state highway, in any
business or residence district unless a different speed is
determined by local authority under procedures set forth in
this code.

[x-ray_vision]

[QUOTE=Rick]
This is incorrect at least in California.
[/QUOTE]

What part of what I wrote is incorrect? Everything in your quote seems to agree with what I said.

[Rick]

@x-ray vision

It is not enforceable. If the speed limit is 65 and there is a yellow sign saying “45 m.p.h.”, you cannot get a ticket for speeding if you are going 65 m.p.h.

If 65 is too fast for conditions, you can get a ticket under 22350

[Absolute]

Yes, but that’s not a ticket for ‘speeding’, as in violating the speed limit, it’s a ticket for reckless driving.

Personally, I take those yellow warning signs as a challenge to do double the advisory speed.

[x-ray_vision]

[QUOTE=Rick]
If 65 is too fast for conditions, you can get a ticket under 22350
[/QUOTE]

I understand that, which is why I specified that you cannot get a ticket for speeding and added: However, if you are going 65 in a blizzard and slipping and sliding, an officer can give you a ticket for another offense, such as unsafe driving or unsafe speed for conditions.

[don_t_ask]

[QUOTE=Absolute]
Yes, but that’s not a ticket for ‘speeding’, as in violating the speed limit, it’s a ticket for reckless driving.

Personally, I take those yellow warning signs as a challenge to do double the advisory speed.
[/QUOTE]

Which is often quite safe. I discovered when doing Road and Engineering Surveying that, in Australia at least, advisory signs on bends are posted with speeds that avoid discomfort for passengers “in an average car driven by an average driver.” Unfortunately to update the signs to allow for improvements in cars would require changing every sign overnight so that they remain consistent.

Since this is impossible the signs remain outdated and every driver learns to adjust according to their car. If I approach a corner marked 60 kph I am pretty sure I can get round it easily at any speed up to 80 and probably more.

I can’t imagine any cop in Australia booking you for exceeding an advisory limit recommended for cars 20 years ago even if such a thing is legal.

[Rick]

[QUOTE=Absolute]
Yes, but that’s not a ticket for ‘speeding’, as in violating the speed limit, it’s a ticket for reckless driving.

Personally, I take those yellow warning signs as a challenge to do double the advisory speed.
[/QUOTE]

No it is a tickedt for violation of the basic speed law, which is the tittle of section 22350.
Reckless Driving is section 23103, and 23104*

Reckless Driving
23103. (a) Any person who drives any vehicle upon a
highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of
persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.

Notice it says nothing about too fast for conditions. It is possible that you could get cited for both 222350 AND 23103/23104, but they are seperate offences.
*23103 is if there is no bodily injury, 23104 is if there is bodily injury.

Here is a PDF of the California vehicle code

[Rick]

[QUOTE=Absolute]
Personally, I take those yellow warning signs as a challenge to do double the advisory speed.
[/QUOTE]

Forgot to add, so do I.

[x-ray_vision]

Rick, no one is arguing that one can’t be ticketed for driving below the speed limit. I already noted that you can be if you are driving too fast for conditions, as does the code you posted.

Are you making the arguement that it is technically a speeding ticket since it is under “basic speed law” in CA? I doubt that the ticket would be technically considered a speeding ticket, since there is no specific speed the officer can say you’re going over.

The point is, that for purposes of answering the OP, yellow signs are merely advisory and going above the speeds posted on yellow signs and are not ticketable offenses, while driving at a speed unsafe for conditions is a ticketable offense whether or not yellow signs are posted.

It is taking longer and longer to get to the bottom of simple questions around here. I understand that nitpicking is often productive to get to the bottom of something, but I’m noticing alot more unnecessary nitpicking lately.

[Rick]

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Rick, no one is arguing that one can’t be ticketed for driving below the speed limit. I already noted that you can be if you are driving too fast for conditions, as does the code you posted.
[/quote]
Yes I agree, but this contradicts your statement that

you cannot get a ticket for speeding if you are going 65 m.p.h.

Are you making the arguement that it is technically a speeding ticket since it is under “basic speed law” in CA? I doubt that the ticket would be technically considered a speeding ticket, since there is no specific speed the officer can say you’re going over.

I have no clue what you are trying to say here. California vehicle code sections 22348-22366 are ALL speeding statutes. No technically about it. If you are cited under 22350 you got a speeding ticket PERIOD. Not a reckless, not something else, you got a speeding ticket.

The point is, that for purposes of answering the OP, yellow signs are merely advisory and going above the speeds posted on yellow signs and are not ticketable offenses, while driving at a speed unsafe for conditions is a ticketable offense whether or not yellow signs are posted.

As long as conditions permit, yes you are correct. You cannot make a blanket statement that under all conditions that this is true.

It is taking longer and longer to get to the bottom of simple questions around here. I understand that nitpicking is often productive to get to the bottom of something, but I’m noticing alot more unnecessary nitpicking lately.

I agree, that is one reason I am having a problem with your denial of 22350 being a speeding ticket.

[GorillaMan]

[QUOTE=Rick]
I agree, that is one reason I am having a problem with your denial of 22350 being a speeding ticket.
[/QUOTE]

Isn’t the problem (and therefore the pointlessness of the nitpick) that there is no such single thing as a ‘speeding ticket’, just various laws which can be broken, and all that you’re arguing about is which ones are ‘speeding tickets’ in your own opinions?

[groman]

[QUOTE=Rick]
I have no clue what you are trying to say here. California vehicle code sections 22348-22366 are ALL speeding statutes. No technically about it. If you are cited under 22350 you got a speeding ticket PERIOD. Not a reckless, not something else, you got a speeding ticket.
[/QUOTE]

Based on X-Ray Vision’s terms a speeding ticket is section 22348/22349/22352 only. I concur, and I live in California. I’ve always viewed speeding as the violation of an arbitrary administrative speed limit that is posted - i.e. you are not being cited for being unsafe, in fact it’s not even implied anywhere in the sections 22348/22349/22352 that it has anything to do with safety.

22350 is a different beast:

No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.

This is not exceeding a certain speed limit, this is just driving too fast - a subjective evaluation. If I understand it correctly the officer does not need to know your actual speed to cite you for 22350 unlike the other ones.

So in California, at least, you cannot get cited for exceeding the suggested speed limit on a yellow sign. You cannot get cited for exceeding any other speed limit if you did not exceed the posted speed limit for the road you are driving on (implying that a yellow SCHOOL sign is an automatic 25). You can get cited for not exercising due care while driving - if it’s driving faster than the officer feels it is safe then you are in violation of 22350, if it’s driving slower than the officer feels it is safe or prudent then youare in violation of 22400. Notice that none of those have any numbers or any other objective evaluations explicitly stated or implied, and for good reason. So while you might call it a speeding ticket, you did not get it for violating a speed limit, you got it for driving unsafely.

In fact, nowhere in the law does it state that if you are going 95 miles per hour you are doing something inherently unsafe. Based upon the determination of the citing officer you might be, in fact, driving very safely, but you are still breaking the law and you are still going to get a ticket, just not under 22350.

[Rick]

Well I tell you what, let’s do an experiment.
You go get a citation for 22350.
Tell me when your court date is, and I will attend.
When the case is called, and you are in front of the judge you tell him
“But your honor we all know this isn’t really a speeding ticket”
If the judge agrees with you, I will pay whatever fine is attached to the citation.
If on the other hand the judge rips you a new asshole, you are on your own.*

So do you feel lucky?

*If he throws you in jail to teach you a lesson, anal cavity searches and but rape are all yours. :eek:

[groman]

[QUOTE=Rick]
“But your honor we all know this isn’t really a speeding ticket”
If the judge agrees with you, I will pay whatever fine is attached to the citation.
If on the other hand the judge rips you a new asshole, you are on your own.*

[/QUOTE]

Well, now I’m lost and I don’t understand your point. In that sense it is not a speeding ticket, none of them are - they are citations for infractions of california vehicle code, but that’s irrelevant. The distinction being argued here is not really a question of legal terminology. It’s a question of logic. Colloquially these are all known as ‘speeding tickets’. Look at it this way, say you’re drunk and you’re going 80 mph in a school zone. You get pulled over, the officer COULD write you up for all your speed-related offenses but typically you will just get hauled away for DUI. Your DUI charge is not a speeding ticket even if the only thing that led to you being pulled over is excessive speed.

[TheLoadedDog]

[QUOTE=don’t ask]
Which is often quite safe. I discovered when doing Road and Engineering Surveying that, in Australia at least, advisory signs on bends are posted with speeds that avoid discomfort for passengers “in an average car driven by an average driver.” Unfortunately to update the signs to allow for improvements in cars would require changing every sign overnight so that they remain consistent.

Since this is impossible the signs remain outdated and every driver learns to adjust according to their car. If I approach a corner marked 60 kph I am pretty sure I can get round it easily at any speed up to 80 and probably more.

I can’t imagine any cop in Australia booking you for exceeding an advisory limit recommended for cars 20 years ago even if such a thing is legal.
[/QUOTE]

I’ve always thought of them as being targetted at a VW Kombi van in the rain. In a modern sedan in dry conditions, I’ll do 20 k’s over the advisory if I’m alone, or ten over if I’m with passengers.

Of course, there are several roads I know of where different road crews have placed different signs at different times, and the right hand not knowing what the left is doing, the advisory is higher than the statute speed limit.

[Rick]

[QUOTE=groman]
Well, now I’m lost and I don’t understand your point. In that sense it is not a speeding ticket, none of them are - they are citations for infractions of california vehicle code, but that’s irrelevant. The distinction being argued here is not really a question of legal terminology. It’s a question of logic. Colloquially these are all known as ‘speeding tickets’. Look at it this way, say you’re drunk and you’re going 80 mph in a school zone. You get pulled over, the officer COULD write you up for all your speed-related offenses but typically you will just get hauled away for DUI. Your DUI charge is not a speeding ticket even if the only thing that led to you being pulled over is excessive speed.
[/QUOTE]

My point is trying to call a citation under a vehicle code section entitled Basic speed law anying other than a speeding ticket requires some type of mental gymnastics and logic with which I am unfamilar.

[GorillaMan]

[QUOTE=Rick]
My point is trying to call a citation under a vehicle code section entitled Basic speed law anying other than a speeding ticket requires some type of mental gymnastics and logic with which I am unfamilar.
[/QUOTE]

Everybody else’s point is that you’re free to pick your own definition of ‘speeding ticket’ (because the phrase has no legal meaning in itself), but that if you pick a different one to the common consensus, it’s going to cause confusion.

[Telemark]

[QUOTE=GorillaMan]
Everybody else’s point is that you’re free to pick your own definition of ‘speeding ticket’ (because the phrase has no legal meaning in itself), but that if you pick a different one to the common consensus, it’s going to cause confusion.
[/QUOTE]

I gotta say, Rick’s logic seems pretty compelling. Violations of the “basic speed law” that involve going too fast for conditions would seem to be a speeding ticket to any reading. To most people, I think that would be the simplest and most litteral reading of the situation.

[GorillaMan]

[QUOTE=Telemark]
I gotta say, Rick’s logic seems pretty compelling. Violations of the “basic speed law” that involve going too fast for conditions would seem to be a speeding ticket to any reading. To most people, I think that would be the simplest and most litteral reading of the situation.
[/QUOTE]

Not when you remember that his example is only necessarily correct in California, whereas the idea that ‘speeding ticket’ = ‘penalty for exceeding posted speed limit’ is pretty much universally-applicable.

[groman]

[QUOTE=Telemark]
I gotta say, Rick’s logic seems pretty compelling. Violations of the “basic speed law” that involve going too fast for conditions would seem to be a speeding ticket to any reading. To most people, I think that would be the simplest and most litteral reading of the situation.
[/QUOTE]

Well among friends a speeding ticket is a speeding ticket, however the ‘speeding tickets’ fall neatly into four categories, and I don’t even remember nor do I want to look up what the section #'s for the other two speeding tickets are: a) Driving faster than the speed limit b) Driving like a jackass c) Racing d) Accelerating/cornering too fast. People lose their licenses for c and d routinely, and I’ve never met anybody who actually got a ticket for b) (The section xxx50). California is weird since d) is defined, if I remember correctly, as audible loss of traction (i.e. burnout, screeching around a turn, etc.) and it can turn into a misdemeanor exhibition of speed/reckless driving charge really quickly if you have a bad attitude. Most other states I’ve dealt with only have a) and c), so when speaking on an international message board I would assume when somebody said ‘speeding ticket’ is that they exceeded the speed limit. Any local esoteric quirks in the law would have to clarified if relevant, including things like “Basic speed law”.

I don’t know, I just can’t group semantically a Basic speed law violation with breaking the speed limit. I’d put breaking the speed limit along with carpool violations, parking meter expirations, expired registration, broken taillights, driving without insurance, DUIs, etc.

And breaking the basic speed law with running red lights and stop signs, illegal lane changes, exhibition of speed, tailgating, parking without curbing your wheels properly, passing in a no passing zone, driving too slowly, etc.

I’ve asked around and most of the people I know concur that it’s hard to make case for a group that includes basic speed law violations AND speed limit violations but does not include driving too slowly unless you call it “Offenses related to driving faster than expected objectively or subjectively without a greater overriding offense such as DUI”.

I also believe there is a finer difference between breaking the speed limit and breaking the basic speed law but I can’t find a cite. If I remember correctly basic speed law is a strict liability offense while breaking the speed limit is not. Specifically, if your speedometer is malfunctioning and you do not know that, and you prove that it was malfunctioning you have a good chance of pleading to a lesser charge or getting it dropped (unless the traffic school cop was pulling my leg). You would need documentation. However, if you break the basic speed law you can’t use “but my speedometer showed 15 mph” as an excuse because you were still driving unsafely and you were in control of the car.