TBD Against 23336 on San Francisco Bay Bridge

[mysterodude]

I was just cited for a 23336 infraction. I've read many defenses against 22350, but none really on 23336. Should I just make the same statements such as the conditions were perfectly safe and I was simply maintaining a constant distance with the vehicle in front of me?

Would it be wise to state that the police officer was tailing me at an uncomfortable distance since we was basically "visually pacing" me?

I believe he did not use rader, which I dont know is an advantage on my part since he doesnt have physical evidence of my speed.

 

[CdwJava]

CVC 23336 is concerned with violating the signage, it is not an issue of safe or unsafe speeds or engineering surveys.

If you exceeded the posted limit on the vehicular crossing, that could be sufficient to find you guilty.

The officer "tailing" you and visually estimating your speed is certainly not a defense unless you're saying that he was riding your bumper and forcing you to speed.

- Carl