Can you be found guilty of unsafe speed for conditions if no unusual conditions existed? 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?
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.
The person who is changing lanes has the responsibility to make sure that they have space to move into. Suppose there was a person in front of you in the destination lane who hit the brakes suddenly - if you change lanes and rear-end them, that's your fault, because you failed to leave enough distance. I don't see how it's any different in this case, where the person is behind you and accelerates suddenly. A turn signal doesn't give you the right to change lanes at will, you are responsible for making the maneuver safely. It's poor driving etiquette for the other guy to cut you off like that, but it's up to you to ensure there's space as you move over. From your description of the incident, it sounds like your actions initiated the sequence of events, and it was also your actions that prevented the accident. From that, it seems highly likely you'd be found at fault if the accident had happened - in that scenario, your actions would have created the situation, and you also would have failed to take action to avoid the accident.
While this question may or may not have a theoretical answer, the practical answer is that you should slow down to 20 mph if there is any chance that the school zone speed limit will be in force at any time that you pass through it. If you do, you will definitely not be cited. If it is at all a close call (say within five minutes of being active), normal differences in time keeping between unsynchronized watches and a lack of any way to prove precisely when you vehicle was where and traveling at what speed, mean that the question of whether the school zone was in effect at the time you were cited will be a question of fact to be resolved based upon the credibility of the witnesses. The witnesses will probably be only the citing officer and you. As a practical matter, you are going to lose the credibility contest on this question of fact 95%+ of the time, and that credibility determination will not be an issue that could be raised on an appeal. Therefore, you should slow down before entering the school zone if it is remotely close to being time for it to be effective to leave a sufficient margin of error against traffic law enforcement officer inaccuracy, which includes any time that the school zone takes effect while you are in it. Even if you could perfectly prove that you were half way through the zone when the speed limit fell from 30 mph to 20 mph, the argument that you needed to break suddenly to comply doesn't cut it. Violating a speed limit is a strict liability offense and you have a duty as a driver to anticipate what you need to do to comply with the law at every stage of your journey. Even if your speed was legal when you entered the zone, you knew or should have known that it was on the verge of being triggered and should have slowed down in advance.
In the UK, s28(4) Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 states that Where a person is convicted (whether on the same occasion or not) of two or more offences committed on the same occasion and involving obligatory endorsement, the total number of penalty points to be attributed to them is the number or highest number that would be attributed on a conviction of one of them (so that if the convictions are on different occasions the number of penalty points to be attributed to the offences on the later occasion or occasions shall be restricted accordingly). In other words, if you commit two or more offences 'on the same occasion', a court will only award penalty points attributable to the offence attracting the most points. 'On the same occasion' is interpreted by the court. I'm not aware of any case law on this point, so a court will be able to apply its discretion. Note that this only applies to the penalty point aspect of the sentence: the convictions will all stand, and any fines awarded as a result are not subject to the same rule. Of course the police may use their own discretion and charge a subset of the offences actually detected. A short glossary endorsement means that the offender's licence will be 'endorsed' with a number of penalty points. penalty points are recorded on the driver's record at DVSA and expire after a number of years, depending on why they were awarded. A minor speeding offence will normally attract three points which last four years. Receiving twelve points within three years normally results in an automatic twelve-month ban; newly licensed drivers can have their licence revoked on reaching six points.
Close to zero. The police typically don't dole out traffic or parking tickets for infractions they haven't personally witnessed.
Has friend A got any chance of disputing the cost of the seizure as the police didn't issue the notification? I don't think so (see below for why), but you should pay a lawyer if you need legal advice. The met say A FORM 3708 seizure notice will have been given to the driver where practicable, giving full instructions on the reverse. A notice letter will also be sent to the registered keeper, if they were not the driver. In the meantime, this information will assist you. (my emphasis). Section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 does not, so far as I can see, mention any legal requirement for the Police to issue a paper document at the time of seizure. Here's 165A in full 165A Power to seize vehicles driven without licence or insurance Subsection (5) applies if any of the following conditions is satisfied. The first condition is that— a. a constable in uniform requires, under section 164, a person to produce his licence and its counterpart for examination, b. the person fails to produce them, and c. the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is or was being driven by the person in contravention of section 87(1). The second condition is that— a. a constable in uniform requires, under section 165, a person to produce evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143, b. the person fails to produce such evidence, and c. the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being so driven. The third condition is that— a. a constable in uniform requires, under section 163, a person driving a motor vehicle to stop the vehicle, b. the person fails to stop the vehicle, or to stop the vehicle long enough, for the constable to make such lawful enquiries as he considers appropriate, and c. the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being driven in contravention of section 87(1) or 143. Where this subsection applies, the constable may— a. seize the vehicle in accordance with subsections (6) and (7) and remove it; b. enter, for the purpose of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a), any premises (other than a private dwelling house) on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the vehicle to be; c. use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by paragraph (a) or (b). Before seizing the motor vehicle, the constable must warn the person by whom it appears that the vehicle is or was being driven in contravention of section 87(1) or 143 that he will seize it— a. in a section 87(1) case, if the person does not produce his licence and its counterpart immediately; b. in a section 143 case, if the person does not provide him immediately with evidence that the vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of that section. But the constable is not required to give such a warning if the circumstances make it impracticable for him to do so. If the constable is unable to seize the vehicle immediately because the person driving the vehicle has failed to stop as requested or has driven off, he may seize it at any time within the period of 24 hours beginning with the time at which the condition in question is first satisfied. The powers conferred on a constable by this section are exercisable only at a time when regulations under section 165B are in force. In this section— a. a reference to a motor vehicle does not include an invalid carriage; b. a reference to evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143 is a reference to a document or other evidence within section 165(2)(a); c. “counterpart” and “licence” have the same meanings as in section 164; d. “private dwelling house” does not include any garage or other structure occupied with the dwelling house, or any land appurtenant to the dwelling house. Also what consequences could Friend A face for knowingly allowing friend B to drive his (Friend A's) car whilst he was drunk and didn't hold a valid license or insurance? A few random thoughts: B is clearly committing several criminal acts and A appears to have possibly aided and abetted them. I imagine A's insurance company might consider this invalidates A's insurance. I'm just some random bloke in the intertubes, not a lawyer.
This is a no win situation. People who try to stop in a safe public place fearing that the cop may be an imposter risk prosecution for resisting arrest. But, no one will offer you any remedy if the cop was an imposter who was victimizing you. One recommended course of action if you doubt a cop is real is to call 911 as you pull over to confirm that the cop trying to pull you over is real.
The route described is probably in violation of Section 22100 of the vehicle code: Except as provided in Section 22100.5 or 22101, the driver of any vehicle intending to turn upon a highway shall do so as follows: (a) Right Turns. Both the approach for a right-hand turn and a right-hand turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb The approach for the second turn is being made from the middle of the road. Neither of the exceptions apply, as 22100.5 is about U-turns at traffic lights, while 22101 is about turns controlled by markings or signs. Additionally, since you describe the route as a "curve to the street and turn right out", it's probably in violation of Section 22105: No person shall make a U-turn upon any highway where the driver of such vehicle does not have an unobstructed view for 200 feet in both directions along the highway and of any traffic thereon. Since the driver didn't make a complete right turn, it's likely that the forward view of oncoming traffic was partially blocked by the car's A-pillar or even the passenger seat, while the backward view of traffic was limited because none of the car's mirrors was pointed in the correct direction. It's certainly in violation of Section 22108: Any signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given continuously during the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning. The side road's not a hundred feet wide. There's no way the driver could have given the required signal for the second right turn. There's a decent chance this is also in violation of Section 22102 of the vehicle code: No person in a business district shall make a U-turn, except at an intersection, or on a divided highway where an opening has been provided in accordance with Section 21651. The six lanes of the main highway make it likely that this intersection is in a business district. "Business district" is rather broad, including not only roads lined by businesses, but roads lined by apartment complexes and other multi-family housing developments. And finally, the catch-all offense of "reckless driving" (Section 23103) could probably be applied: A person who drives a vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.