Photo Radar Chandler, Process server gave notice to my Son (Phoenix: 2015, schools)

[fcorrales80]

Originally Posted by las vegas drunk

You are right that he has been served, but he can still fight it. You make it sound like he has no chance. There are lots of variables such as proof that it was his car that was targeted, the condition and calibration of the equipment, etc. All he has to do is create doubt, and he will win.

Not necessarily, especially since the OP ADMITTED to doing 56 in a 45 zone and considered this speed "prudent and reasonable." Also, if the face and license plate and proof of vehicle make/model were not discernible in the photo, the ticket would have been originally tossed.

[POd_about_radar_ticket]

Originally Posted by fcorrales80

11 MPH <over> is NOT prudent speed ...

What makes you say that? Are you a traffic engineer? How does one define prudent? Are the Germans not prudent with the autobahn? Is it not prudent to drive 66 on a 55 mph freeway that was designed for much higher speeds? Is it prudent to drive much slower than the rest of traffic?

Since their inception, the number of traffic fatalities and accidents have decreased;

Do you have a reference for that data?

[Applequist]

Originally Posted by POd_about_radar_ticket

Going 56 in a 45 mph zone. I was traveling a reasonable and prudent speed. I was traveling with other cars. The pictures show cars around me.

Or the picture shows cars you were passing.

Seriously other cars in the picture means nothing.

[fcorrales80]

Originally Posted by POd_about_radar_ticket

What makes you say that? Are you a traffic engineer? How does one define prudent? Are the Germans not prudent with the autobahn? Is it not prudent to drive 66 on a 55 mph freeway that was designed for much higher speeds? Is it prudent to drive much slower than the rest of traffic?
Do you have a reference for that data?

Yes, the law states that reasonable and prudent are defined by conditions and local jurisdictions. The judge will explain this to you when you go to court; trust me. And the local jurisdictions, by default of the speed camera settings (over 10 MPH or 11 MPH), set their limits as so defined for "prudent and reasonable" by that standard.

Also, the autobahn is engineered differently and made for speed. There are differences in engineering and safety protocols in comparison to American roads; American highways are inferior to the autobahn to state a fact lightly. Also, even the autobahn has limits now imposed after some gnarly accidents in recent years; I remember when living there.

And even the autobahn and German roads have speed cameras EVERYWHERE!

[Ponderosa]

Regardless of whatever sympathy you get here, you are served, it'll hold up and you will lose if you go to court. There is nothing novel and nothing that will excuse you in your R&P defense. You can't show up and then argue improper/no service. That would be your defense if you fail to show and after they issue a warrant for you and revoke your plates. And you could very well lose that and be in a lot deeper kimchee than you are now. So your only decision is how much hassle you want to go through before you pay the piper.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by POd_about_radar_ticket

What makes you say that? Are you a traffic engineer? How does one define prudent? Are the Germans not prudent with the autobahn? Is it not prudent to drive 66 on a 55 mph freeway that was designed for much higher speeds? Is it prudent to drive much slower than the rest of traffic?
Do you have a reference for that data?

From the way it sounds, you were on a Chandler city street ... is that correct? At first, I was thinking it might have been a freeway camera. On what street in Chandler were you ticketed?

If you decide to go to court over this matter, you might be able to prove that you were driving at a reasonable rate of speed depending on traffic, weather, and street conditions. For instance, was it a clear day, or was it raining? Was the street a smooth divided boulevard, or a narrower road? How was the traffic ... heavy, medium, or light? If it was a clear day, on a wide street with light traffic, and the road conditions were favorable, then as far as I'm concerned, you were driving reasonably & prudently as long as you were attentive.

[fcorrales80]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

From the way it sounds, you were on a Chandler city street ... is that correct? At first, I was thinking it might have been a freeway camera. On what street in Chandler were you ticketed?

If you decide to go to court over this matter, you might be able to prove that you were driving at a reasonable rate of speed depending on traffic, weather, and street conditions. For instance, was it a clear day, or was it raining? Was the street a smooth divided boulevard, or a narrower road? How was the traffic ... heavy, medium, or light? If it was a clear day, on a wide street with light traffic, and the road conditions were favorable, then as far as I'm concerned, you were driving reasonably & prudently as long as you were attentive.

Unfortunately, "as far as you are concerned" won't help the OP in court. My brother received one of these tickets and he contested it in court with the R&P defense and was told, by the judge that 11MPG over the speed limit is not reasonable NOR prudent on any city, state, county street where photo radar or officers are patrolling. Because the camera was activated by speed, there is no defense for not obeying the limit.

[las vegas drunk]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

That would be your defense if you fail to show and after they issue a warrant for you and revoke your plates.

One correction here. This is a civil violation, so they can not issue a warrant for his arrest. If he does not go to court, he will get a default judgement, and his driver's license will be suspended. However, his license plates on the car will remain valid.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by fcorrales80

Unfortunately, "as far as you are concerned" won't help the OP in court. My brother received one of these tickets and he contested it in court with the R&P defense and was told, by the judge that 11MPG over the speed limit is not reasonable NOR prudent on any city, state, county street where photo radar or officers are patrolling. Because the camera was activated by speed, there is no defense for not obeying the limit.

A lot of that depends on the judge, however. In a court of law, the judges are SUPPOSED to be impartial, but you know as well as I do that many of them base their decisions on their own personal beliefs, and interpretations of different laws. See, that's one part of the argument: we can agree that laws are meant to be obeyed, but in the United States of America they can also be interpreted another way due to wording or technicalities ... and they can certainly be challenged by the citizens. Remember that the government works for we the people. We are not slaves to the government!

Take for example Arizona's prima facie speed laws. Basically, they read that drivers are not to exceed the posted speed limit ... but at the same time, they also state that the speed must be reasonable & prudent (a judgment call in many cases). That's why the average police officer with no grudge to hold will not pull a person over & issue a citation if the driver is exceeding the speed limit within a certain range. Again, that is at the officer's discretion, and it could depend on things like traffic, road, and weather conditions.

[fcorrales80]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

A lot of that depends on the judge, however. In a court of law, the judges are SUPPOSED to be impartial, but you know as well as I do that many of them base their decisions on their own personal beliefs, and interpretations of different laws. See, that's one part of the argument: we can agree that laws are meant to be obeyed, but in the United States of America they can also be interpreted another way due to wording or technicalities ... and they can certainly be challenged by the citizens. Remember that the government works for we the people. We are not slaves to the government!

Take for example Arizona's prima facie speed laws. Basically, they read that drivers are not to exceed the posted speed limit ... but at the same time, they also state that the speed must be reasonable & prudent (a judgment call in many cases). That's why the average police officer with no grudge to hold will not pull a person over & issue a citation if the driver is exceeding the speed limit within a certain range. Again, that is at the officer's discretion, and it could depend on things like traffic, road, and weather conditions.

True about the judges! Good point. However, the P&R statements are often misinterpreted. It generally means that a driver can be at fault for accidents in adverse weather conditions and NOT that the driver is allowed to speed in excess of the limits when it's nice outside. This would defeat the purpose of speed limit laws. The judge can explain that as well as it is not a judgment call but precedent.

Say the limit is 65 mph but a driver was going 65 mph in a monsoon storm and "caused" an accident. They can try the defense that they were "traveling at the posted speed as allowable by law," but the P&R statues would over-rule that because conditions warranted driving under the limit because it was reasonable and prudent.