How can you be guilty of driving at an unsafe speed for conditions after an officer testifies in his own words in response to certain questions that you were maintaining a safe distance from the vehicles in front of you and that no unusual conditions existed?

  • There are always conditions: road maintenance, vehicle maintenance, traffic levels, position of the sun, etc. What may be a safe speed for a driver in a well-maintained Bugatti Veryon could be unsafe for a Volkswagen Bus with four bald tires. – Mark Jun 11 '15 at 9:58
  • That's obviously not what "Unsafe Conditions" means in regards to that particular offense in CA. But it's certainly the legal way to avoid following your own rules and laws. – izraul Jun 11 '15 at 10:16
  • 1
    The law is not meant to be impressed by the legal magic of word wizardry because of intentional ambiguity. – izraul Jun 11 '15 at 10:28
  • 7
    This seems to be really just a complaint about a specific legal issue that happened to you, not an actual question. – HDE 226868 Jun 11 '15 at 12:27
  • 1
    This question is really about a specific set of facts, and so is difficult to address as a legal question. The answer to the question taken literally is probably 'no', but obviously the court didn't accept the premise that the question takes -- a judgment of fact that is both impossible and pointless to usefully discuss on the Internet. – Patrick Conheady Jul 11 '16 at 12:32

California Vehicle Code chapter 11, division 7, article 1, section 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.

Section 22358.5:

It is the intent of the Legislature that physical conditions such as width, curvature, grade and surface conditions, or any other condition readily apparent to a driver, in the absence of other factors, would not require special downward speed zoning, as the basic rule of section 22350 is sufficient regulation as to such conditions.

Without knowing exactly what questions the officer was asked, it's impossible to know why you were ticketed and why you were found guilty, but "reasonable or prudent" and "endangers the safety of [others]" covers a great deal of ground.


Any time you see magic words like "unsafe" or "reckless" or "control" or "reasonable" or "prudent" and it's a cop's word against yours you are going down. Why? Because cops are specially trained to identify when people are being unsafe or are out of control. The reason we have statutes about "safety" are so that cops can use their judgment. They are the experts and they are on the street watching with their expert judgment.

Let's say you come tearing ass out of a parking lot. It's a clear day, there are no cars in sight, and you're burning rubber. You get a ticket for something like unsafe driving, or failing to use caution when moving out of your lane... whatever.

You challenge the ticket and the cop testifies as to what he saw and what his report says - basically that you were driving in an unsafe manner. Now you cross examine the cop. You ask if anyone was hurt, you ask if there was anyone even close enough to be hurt, and on and on and so forth. You're thinking you're Clarence Darrow or the To Kill a Mocking Bird guy because how could you be unsafe if no one got hurt. I mean that's obvious right? Wrong. You were unsafe because the cop said you were unsafe.

The ONLY way you win on something like this is by showing a legal impossibility. For example the statute you were ticketed under was for "unsafe lane movement while changing lanes" and you can show that you did not change lanes.

In your example the cop did not say what you think he said. Or if he did, what he said did not mean what you think it means. Or if it did, it doesn't matter because often in this cruel unjust world judges believe cops. Especially with this subjective stuff. For real man, what would happen if judges started believing untrained citizens over the word of cops? Anarchy and mayhem, that's what. Is that what you want? That sounds like what you want. You better be careful or you're gonna end up on a watch list if you're not already on one. And you're going to take all of us down with you. You should've just paid the ticket. You are being watched.

  • 4
    oh, the last paragraph. – antony.trupe Jul 21 '15 at 18:39
  • 2
    lol what the? How is he on a watch list for simply defending himself. – user900 Sep 23 '15 at 23:57

California Vehicle Code 22350. I was actually in court on the day of this particular incident. The young man asked the officer legitimate questions. I remember he asked about the weather, traffic and visibility conditions. The Officer was annoyed and reluctantly stated it was clear, and no construction or pedestrians dangers were present. When he asked the about the vehicle distance and the officer replied he was maintaining a safe distance, my thoughts were the same as his, and everyone else that was there. Clearly he established through the officers own testimony that no imposing or obstructing conditions existed, and no persons or property were ever in danger. His flawed closing argument of "Well, I couldn't be going faster than cars in front of me" was his fatal mistake. But it still doesn't change facts. He obviously wasn't speeding or he would have been cited for that. 'Unsafe Conditions' is the controlling factor, and no violation for that offense could occur without it.

His real issue is obviously clarity. Not a punishable offense, but definitely a factor.

  • So can you explain if and why he was found guilty of 22350? – feetwet Jul 10 '15 at 15:18

The question I originally asked was somewhat vague, and was due to my being found guilty of this charge, not for the actual offense itself, but through the use of a traffic survey manual. I didn't appeal but knew it was wrong. I researched the facts and found that both the Court and Officer made several fatal mistakes, which rendered the Courts decision void by operation of law.

Despite the negativity of others, I sent the Court notice of my findings and vacated the order.

Without going to much into detail, one of the biggest mistakes the Court made was using the survey, or rather how it was acquired. The Officer failed to bring his and the Magistrate took it upon herself to have the clerk search the Court for one. She crossed a line by aiding the opposing party in obtaining evidence, which also showed bias. Besides other facts, like there being no real conditions, the Prosecutor failed to attend the Court, as required by law. No judge, Magistrate, Commissioner, or Referee may sit as Prosecution, nor shall the Officer/Witness.

The Officials, abusing authority and process, attempted to railroad me. I called them on it and protected myself from abuse. Furthermore, the fee schedule evidenced a gross conflict of interest.

I also discovered fraud in the traffic survey. The city artificially lowered the posted limits on several roads, one being right in front of the Court house on Clairemont Mesa Blvd. In their greedy quest to issue more tickets for money, they actually caused a hazard that resulted in more accidents.

Another issue of fact, the survey makes no reference to conditions, and that presence an issue for the charge of VC22350. The speed I was traveling was within the legal limits of law, which is why the Officer didn't ticket me for speeding. He used VC22350 as a way to issue a citation anyway.

Somewhat related, I had stumbled upon an internal memo from the SDPD Chief posted online, in regards to funding for more 4th waiver stops. Do quotas exist? Probably, most definitely.

Issuing bogus citations for illicit gain, abusing Court process & resources, misusing the 85% rule, failure to follow State laws, Extortion Under Color of Office, Authority and Law. Those are just a few of the things I uncovered, along with the fact I myself was actually innocent of the charge against me.

So was I in the wrong for refusing to be a victim or was I in the right for curing my own ignorance of the law?


The question regarding California State Vehicle Code 22350 was edited to alleviate any further unnecessary confusions.

Can one be found guilty of VC22350 ("Unsafe Speed For Conditions") without specific conditions? Through my own research and personal experience, no! The offense specifically refers to conditions, which means it requires the presence of an actual condition. One that would legitimately make the alleged speed unsafe.

It's important to note what makes this charge different from others in order to understand the reason why. Basically, it allows Cops to issue Drivers a speeding ticket, even if driving at legal speeds.

Without the existence of an actual condition, a cop could abuse the law and issue any driver, at any speed, a ticket. A citation issued for this violation is required to contain a specific description of the alleged condition(s) on it's face. Failure to do so is grounds for dismissal.

No, this is not a quote, it's based on facts, which I found through my own research & personal experience. I'm not an attorney, and refuse to pretend I'm one. So please forgive my non-use of legalese and lawyerly form. To any attorneys who might take issue, please know I mean no disrespect. I hold your profession in high regards. I've found a passion for law. I also believe in justice and helping others, which I hope this does.

I merely studied the law and pinpointed where it wasn't followed by the opposition. For my efforts, I was able to void a bad decision, years later. That's how law works. It's not made for some to follow and others to ignore. The law is for everyone to follow, and that's that. In my case, there were no conditions, as well as issues concerning the courts own procedural functions. Believe it or not, some cops and courts act outside of the law, and one can clearly see an incentive when looking at a courts fee schedule. I would think at least 1 attorney find achievements like mine commendable, if not for lack of experience, then out of respect for law. Both the officer & court failed to follow the law, and their own rules. I called them on it, and won.

If that deserves me being put on some watch list, it speaks volumes about our system. And just to be clear, I despise sovereign citizens nonsensical theories & beliefs.

  • This question should be shorter, stick to the question, cite specific authority for propositions of law and cite specific evidence for propositions of fact. There is a glimpse of useful information in the classification of speed limits (absolute, basic and presumed) but unfortunately no explanation of what those terms mean or reference to any authoritative discussion of them. – Patrick Conheady Jul 11 '16 at 12:37
  • Thank you for your input. I sincerely welcome and appreciate anyone willing to take the time to offer help. Especially with specific detail. – izraul Feb 25 '18 at 16:20
  • Is any of this answer a quote? If so can you format it accordingly? Also a link to the code referenced would improve the answer. – feetwet Feb 25 '18 at 16:48

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.