Dedicated to Empowering and Informing the Burlingame Community

Nothing like an Irked ex-councilmember

Daily Journals – Residents irked by lowered speed limit

A recently lowered speed limit on California Drive in Burlingame is taking drivers by surprise and has the city scrambling to make the change official after a former mayor complained. Signs went up on California Drive between Burlingame Avenue and Murchison Drive a few weeks ago, changing the speed limit from 35 mph to 30 mph. Residents upset by the change and drivers who have been stopped by the police are flooding City Hall with calls. Former mayor Joe Galligan noticed the change and immediately called for the removal of the signs until a public hearing is held. He claims the change violates city ordinances and it turns out he's right technically.

City officials claim the change is part of routine traffic monitoring program required by law and follows at least a decade-old protocol. When the city started receiving complaints about the revised speed limit, the city looked into its rule book and noticed it is required to revise a city ordinance before changing speed limits. The city, however, has forgone that technicality for years, said City Manager Jim Nantell.It doesn't sound right to Galligan who has personally seen a number of people pulled over on California Drive, but hasn't himself been stopped by police. If I were mayor and the signs were posted illegally, I'd take them down immediately,? Galligan said. If something's done that shouldn't have been done, that shouldn't require an action by the council.? Mayor Cathy Baylock was caught flat-footed when she started receiving phone calls from the press and Nantell Thursday. It sounds like someone got ahead of themselves on the signs,? Baylock said.

Every five years, the city is required to conduct a speed zone survey on streets with speed limits over 25 mph. The city recently conducted a series of studies on California Drive, Rollins Road and Airport Boulevard. All three studies determined the posted speed limit should be reduced from 35 mph to 30 mph. The surveys were done by a private company hired by the city. Speed limits are changed based on a number of different factors, but rely mostly on speeds people are traveling during the survey. The city must change the limit to the speed traveled by people in the 85th percentile of the study, Nantell said. On California Drive, the 85th percentile represents 30 mph, Nantell said.

The signs were changed and a notice was posted on the city's Web site. After receiving numerous calls, City Attorney Larry Anderson started looking through the city ordinances and realized the council is officially required to amend an ordinance before posting the signs. The council will vote on the change during one of its June meetings, Nantell said. In the meantime, the signs will not be taken down and police will be lenient with tickets, said Police Chief Jack Van Etten. We have been making stops and we have provided warning, but obviously this case is still an issue because it has to go back to the council for any lowering or increasing of the speed limit due to an ordinance,? Van Etten said. Speeders still need to beware. We are still going to stop speeders who are endangering the community and we will cite them for it,? Van Etten said. How people started driving slower on California Drive is still a mystery. Nantell said the idea that people are actually driving slower on California Drive had city employees scratching their heads.? He is also assuring residents that they are not going to get a ticket if they are still doing 35 mph instead of 30 mph. In his 33 years with the city, Van Etten has never seen the speed limit change. However, it could always be tied into increased traffic, more driveways or more pedestrians. The new speed limits will be reviewed by the Traffic Safety Parking Commission before going to the council for its ultimate sign-off in June.

Burlingame residents ticked off that the speed limit on California Drive was lowered will have their chance to give the City Council a piece of their mind at an upcoming meeting.

– Written by Fiona

Posted in

40 responses to “Nothing like an Irked ex-councilmember”

  1. sue

    Still managing to stick his head in where it doesn’t belong… funny how it has taken this long for him to bring it up to the City.

  2. Joanne

    Sigh.

  3. Anonymous

    I have seen the results of the speed zone surveys. I picked up a copy this morning after insisting to see this (as these are public records).

    Virtually all 50 states have similar methods for assessing the proper speed limits. In California the roads need to be surveyed by an independent firm (so the City cannot do this on their own and tilt the results) every five years.

    Typically, most motorists will, on their own, drive at a speed that is safe for that patch of pavement. The surveys, then, have percentiles noted. The 85th percentile is viewed as probably the safe speed for a stretch of road. This means the fastest 15% are eliminated and regarded as going too fast.

    If a speed limit is set too low, motorists who have been cited as driving too fast can then contest the citation.
    Most states will view a big discrepancy between the speed zone survey’s 85th percentile and a low posted speed limit as a SPEED TRAP. These are illegal in California.

    So please don’t go bashing former Mayor Joe Galligan until you have first seen the statistics. He is well within his rights to speak up, whether or not you’re a fan of his.

    Too high a speed limit and the City might be sued for posting unsafe speeds. Again, too low of a limit constitutes a speed trap.

    CALIFORNIA DRIVE (north of Burlingame Ave to Murchison) had 38MPH as the 85th percentile. This means 40 would be “okay” and 35 is “safe.”

    ROLLINS ROAD (both stretches, Broadway north to Millbrae and Broadway south to San Mateo) have 40mph as the 85th percentile. In fact, the posted speed limit of 35 was down at the 39th and 42nd percentiles in the speed zone survey.

    AIRPORT BLVD (south of Bayside Park to Lang Road) had 39MPH as its 85th percentile figure. The posted speed limit of 35 was driven at the “average”, so that was at the 50th percentile.

    ********************************************

    The speed limits were changed WITHOUT the citizen’s Traffic Safety Parking Commission even having a sniff of the statistics.
    This is, to my way of thinking, wrong.

    There is a protocol for changing the laws and codes and these should be adhered to.

    The City Council was not presented the results of the surveys. They were merely told that the speed limits had been changed.

    Allowing city staffers or the police to arbitrarily change the laws seems to be a dangerous precendent. They should “suggest” changes if changes should be made.

    With respect to the various changed speed limits, the city-commissioned survey clearly shows the speeds being driven by motorists are well within the realm of reasonable and sensible. And, above all, SAFE.

    I hope the City Council will address these two issues.

  4. Anonymous

    Even though I can’t stand our ex-councilmember AND I do appreciate there is a certain protocol that is needed, my question is …

    Is it really a complete horrendous hardship that we are asked to drive 30 miles per hour and not 35?

  5. Anonymous

    I’ve thought about it, and I think the reason that the testing came up lower at the 85th is because of several changes that have occurred on that street, in the last few years:

    First of all, there are two or three new crosswalks, mainly activated ones that people do use and these have raised the awareness of peds. on that street. I think the Camelita one is the newest, and I’ve been caught by surprise there a few times, nearly running it. And the one at Stacks should really be a full activated stoplight. It isn’t safe for Peds because of visibility around the cars, (but I digress.)

    You can’t go that fast on the street anymore without having to stop, somewhere, plus the light at Oak Grove always seems to be red. I have no problem with 30. They should do their normal protocol and get on with it. The Trousdale switch was indeed talked about for months, if not longer, so that should come as no surprise to anyone.

  6. Anonymous

    Fiona, the issue of speed limits is a matter of SAFETY.

    Traffic engineering has evolved over the past century and it’s understood that most motorists will drive at a speed which is considered “safe.” That is why the traffic studies select that “85th percentile” as a good measure of what speed is “safe.”

    If you place the speed limit a notch below the general speed, I’d say you are exercising a certain amount of caution.

    On the various roads in Burlingame where the speed limits were changed, “40” would be the generally accepted speed selected by most motorists. If you post the signs at 35mph, as they have been, and you allow for a slight leeway, you’ve posted the right speed limit.

    If you post the speed limit at a restrictive level, motorists will generally still drive a speed which is “safe” and they’ll be breaking the law.
    Or will they?

    The state of California bans “speed traps.” A road where statistics clearly show 40 to be a safe speed that is posted for 30 allows motorists who are cited for speeding to fight the ticket and they will win most of the time.

    Then you have to ask why would we devote funds to pay police to write tickets which would routinely be thrown out of court?

    Another side issue is that of enforcement.
    A US Department of Transportation study points out you would be punishing safe drivers by having the speed limit set too low. Since the police cannot “catch” each and every violator, this puts law enforcement officials in a position of “selective enforcement.” Now you open another can of worms. Was “Driver A” pulled over because on the basis of race, gender or age? Was “Driver B” not cited because they’re a local celebrity?

    Here are some further findings in the summary of this US Dept. of Transportation study:

    # Speed limits were posted, on average, between 5 and 16 mi/h (8 and 26 km/h) below the 85th percentile speed.

    # Lowering speed limits by 5, 10, 15, or 20 mi/h (8, 16, 24, or 26 km/h) at the study sites had a minor effect on vehicle speeds. Posting lower speed limits does not decrease motorist’s speeds.

    # Raising speed limits by 5, 10, or 15 mi/h (8, 16, or 25 km/h) at the rural and urban sites had a minor effect on vehicle speeds. In other words, an increase in the posted speed limit did not create a corresponding increase in vehicle speeds.

    # The average change in any of the percentile speeds at the experimental sites was less than 1.5 mi/h (2.4 m/h), regardless of whether the speed limit was raised or lowered.

    # Where speed limits were lowered, an examination of speed distribution indicated the slowest drivers (1st percentile) increased their speed approximately 1 mi/h (1/6 km/h). There were no changes on the high-speed drivers (99th percentile)

    # At sites where speed limits were raised, there was an increase of less than 1.5 mi/h (2.4 km/h) for drivers traveling at and below the 75th percentile speed. When the posted limits were raised by 10 and 15 mi/h (16 and 24 km/h), there was a small decrease in the 99th percentile speed.

    # Raising speed limits in the region of the 85th percentile speed has an extremely beneficial effect on drivers complying with the posted speed limits.

    # Lowering speed limits in the 33rd percentile speed (the average percentile that speed were posted in this study) provides a noncompliance rate of approximately 67 percent.

    # After speed limits were altered at the experimental sites, less than one-half of the drivers complied with the new posed limits.

    # Accidents at the 58 experimental sites where speed limits were lowered increased by 5.4 percent.

    # Accidents at the 41 experimental sites where speed limits were raised decreased by 6.7 percent.

    # Lowering speed limits more than 5 mi/h (8 km/h) below the 85th percentile speed of traffic did not reduce accidents.

    The study greatly suggests adhering to a speed limit ranked in the 85th percentile.
    On Burlingame’s roadways, the 85th percentile was 38mph on California, 39mph on Airport Blvd. and 40mph on Rollins Road.

    If we adopt the 85th percentile on all of the roadways, the posted speed would be 40mph. If we excercise a slight bit of restraint and account for drivers slightly exceeding the posted speed limit, we would post the speed limit at 35mph.

    Posting it at 30mph creates a harzardous situation, then. You’d have a big differential in speeds of vehicles…some adhering to the posted speed limit and others maintaining a speed which is safe, but now “illegal.” This opens the city up to law suits in the event of accidents caused by posting the limit too low.

    Are you willing to pay for that?

  7. Carole

    Speaking of paying: How much did it cost to change all the signs illegally? There was such a big deal about the stop sign recently all this doesnt make sense.

  8. Anonymous

    In today’s Daily News Galligan seems more concerned about how this council would “allow this type of change in public process to occur”. Seems from the article that this is more about being miffed about the process – or lack of it – than safety?

    So the question is why has our fair city done this? A communist plot? A protocol malfunction? Speeding ticket greed? Al-quaida? Ticking off the motorists? Sign fetish? Ordinance misunderstanding? Lawsuit hungry? Percentile confusion? Why?

    Guess the answers to these questions will all be revealed at a future meeting.

  9. Anonymous

    Pecentile Dysfunction is the answer.
    ***
    Joe Galligan tends to have a particular way of addressing various issues which “rubs people the wrong way.” That’s not exactly a news-flash to regular readers of this board, however.
    ***
    Seriously, though, if you noticed that all the speed limit signs have an additional sign adjacent to them: RADAR ENFORCED.

    I noticed in the minutes of the Traffic Safety Commission a mention of Chief Van Etten and a company called ATS. (Minutes of the January meeting). The Chief invited commissioners to a demonstration of ATS’ traffic “enforcement” equipment.
    ***
    The State Senate is considering a bill, SB1300, which would legalize speeding ticket cameras (known as photo radar). This comes before Committee on Transportation and Housing this week.
    ***
    ATS has, according to a web site which reports on traffic and motor vehicle issues, already made its “pitch” to Burlingame city staffers (I suppose this is the police department and, perhaps, public works). Another firm, RedFlex, is reported to soon be showing its wares to Burlingame city representatives.
    ***
    I found an interesting story on the website of Popular Mechanics dealing with these radar machines.

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/photography/2420766

    The story says they can be a wonderful “money machine” which is why they’re popular with local governments. Some data indicates they do not create a safer motoring environment. And it leads to motorists taking evasive measures to circumvent the picture-taking ability of the machines. The story is written by a law professor and is an interesting read.
    ***
    I’ve seen articles, in the course of suddenly becoming well-versed on this topic, which claim many of the companies which provide cameras and radar enforcement, routinely get a piece of the action! Some have received a percentage of ticket fine revenues, while other arrangements are for a flat fee.

    The problem with this scenario, of course, is that there’s an incentive to set the machines to catch as many people as possible. In San Diego, according to one report, a court thrw out 300 tickets because the photo machines had not been properly maintained for accuracy.

    In another case, yellow lights were set to a very short interval to more easily entrap motorists in an intersection on a red light!
    ***
    So, if we connect many of the dots in this whole scenario: it would seem like setting an unusually low speed limit on well-traveled boulevards is a scheme designed to milk a lot of revenue out of motorists under the guise of safety.
    ***
    “Follow the money!”
    ***

  10. Constance

    30 mph on Rollins Road, in my humble opinion, is too low. Coming home today, I was behind someone driving 25 mph and it slowed everyone down. Rollins Road is not a regular residential road even though there are apt/homes located there. It is a major thruway, in my humble opinion. May history record that I agree with Mr. Galligan on this one. I hope they change it back, in my humble opinion. We are already wasting too much gas on sitting through all those long lights when the trains go through town. Give us a break!

  11. Edgar

    Saturday I took a drive around town to test the 30mph. On Airport Blvd there was a young whippersnapper on a bicycle who was pretty durned close to keeping up with me. It was a slow speed and I had to fight to keep from going faster. On California Drive, 30 was okay southbound from Millbrae for a few blocks, but I was again fighting to keep to such a slow speed. I am sure the 5 or 6 cars behind me were frustrated by my slowness. They either made a left towards the freeway at Broadway or whizzed by once we got past Broadway. South of Broadway, 30 was difficult to maintain and I kept having to tap the brakes to keep to such a slow speed. When I drove on Rollins, I felt like I was that lost soul who is looking for a specific address or street and can’t find it. The 30 speed there was slow for a car or truck.
    Anybody who is actually farmiliar with the roads in Burlingame would know the 30mph speed is unnatural. Do the people who made the 30 speed limit actually think we would stand for this bull-puckey?
    And if the city council allows em to put in them radar cameras, I say throw out the whole bunch of em rascals!

  12. Anonymous

    Great comments Gerald!
    Yesterday, two cars passed me on California @Oxford. The car in front of me was going about 30. Both cars went over the double yellow. I have to say I wanted to follow them as well. It is very frustrating.
    In the mornings people in a hurry to get to work,and drop off children, south bound, will be tempyed to do the same. The danger of the rising sun will cause an incredible hazard.
    This lowering of the speed limit is ridiculous. A waste of resources.

  13. sue

    There is always an appropriate and a less appropriate way of bringing something to the attention of the City. I think that this could have been brought to the City Manager’s attention or to the City Attorney’s attention, without the use of the press. There is appropriate protocol of which Galligan should be well aware…………like him or not!

  14. Carole

    Then this could be swept under the carpet. That seems to be the way so many policies are going nationwide.

  15. jeriann fleres

    I am having a problem that I was wondering if anyone else is experiencing. Stopping for pedestrians. The first problem is stopping for them on the avenue. First I would like to address the pedestrians themselves. If you are standing at the crosswalk and I take the time to stop. DO NOT wave me on. Just cross the darn street. Or don’t stand in the crosswalk to begin with. If you are standing there – I have to stop. That is the law. If I don’t stop I could be ticketed. If I have to stop – you have to cross. Now on to the next problem. The crosswalks on El Camino and California Drive. You really take your life in your hands if you try to cross these streets. That is why if I see someone standing and trying to cross these two streets I always stop to let them cross (oh yeah and it’s the law). But here’s the problem. No one else wants to stop. So when you stop everyone else speeds past you and you are scared to death that they will rear end you. Then the brave pedestrian begins to cross the street in front of you. Now you are really worried about getting rear-ended and having your car run over the people right in front of your eyes. Ok so they are safely past your car and now you have to worry about them passing past your car and into the next lane of traffic next to you. Will the next lane stop? Will people in the lane behind you just think you have lost your mind and veer behind you only to run those poor people into the ground? You look into your rear view mirror and your side mirror while the pedestrians who always seem oblivious keep walking slower than molasses with packages and baby carts and their heads to the ground. Somehow with their horns blaring the cars miss them. Didn’t anyone get the crosswalk/pedestrian bulletin? Why do they think I am stopped? Ok, so the people they make it past my car. And now the next lanes. Now they have to navigate through the oncoming traffic lane. Damn. Will those people even know what is going on? I know that the people behind me want me to move. My job is done now. The people have past my territory. They are safely beyond my zone. However if I stay I may have created enough of a diversion that perhaps people will notice them and see that there are people in the street and that they should stop. Maybe I can save these people; maybe I will be what stands between them and certain death. Maybe. Oh my god they made it. Another life saved. I continue on my way. Has this happened to anyone else? Or just me?

  16. james

    What a stupid way to set speed limits! Measure how fast everyone is going and then eliminate the fastest 15% to set the limit? Hey, if we all speed around town for awhile then all the speed limits will jump up to 40 or 45.

    As for old Galligan whenever he starts a sentence with “If I were mayor…” you know to watch out. He was a master at purposely twisting protocol to do things under the covers. Remember when he tried to ban cell phones around schools? He thought he was a state assemblyman or something. Or get county speed bumps removed?

    All he’s doing here is projecting his own devious nature on other people. If we haven’t changed a speed limit in 33 years then how would he know the procedure? Answer: He’s the one setting the publicity “speed traps” and using the kids at the local papers to issue the tickets. Somethings never change.

    Maybe he’ll start his own community group. He could call it the GBB. They could pore over old city codes and find things to gripe about.

  17. Carole

    Jeriann
    I agree with you. Ive seen so many close calls. If you look at the speed limit from that prospective 25-30 miles is certainly safer for pedestrians.

  18. mary

    How much did it cost to put up the new signs? One third as much as it would cost to put them up, take them down and then put them back up when the proper notice is made to the public. Even an accountant should be able to figure that out.

  19. Carole

    Maybe we should have Galligan say something about the train tracks and getting the bus to stop on Carolyn. That deserves as much attention.

  20. Cathryn Baylock

    Carole,
    The Traffic Safety and Parking Commission will be holding a public hearing on this extremely important issue. The entire meeting, to be held Thursday, May 11th at 7 p.m. in City Council chambers, will be devoted exclusively to safety at railroad crossings, the location of SamTrans bus stops and crosswalk locations. I met with superintendent Sonny DaMarto on Thursday and a notice will go out in the public school newsletter this week announcing the time of the meeting. I have attached a memo from our Public Works Director discussing the methodology and agenda for this meeting. The entire community is invited to join this meeting so that we can work together to prevent another tragedy.

    From Director George Bagdon: “Staff met today and developed the agenda for a TSPC meeting to be held on May 11, 2006 regarding pedestrian safety along the railroad corridor. We also created the a list of possible options to address the issue. We will be asking Caltrain and SAMTRANS representatives to attend to the meeting. We have copied Sonny Damarto on this memo as he intends to notify the school parents of the meeting.

    George”

    I hope this helps. Cathy Baylock

  21. Carole

    Thats teriffic Cathy, thank you.

  22. Anonymous

    You know something, CB this is not really such an important issue. Thanks for chiming in..
    I am not a fan of Galligan. However, this problem may not have got the attention it deserved, with out input from an insider.
    Where the hell is O/Mahoney?
    Does she have a license?

  23. Anonymous

    I had a nice chat with the City’s traffic engineer Monday morning.

    He admitted he might have been too hasty in setting the speed limits so low. There was pressure to finish the surveys and have that paper work completed by a certain time.

    I asked if the speed surveys had sufficient “incidents” to warrant such low speed limits. There is but one pedestrian incident, for example, along California Drive, I pointed out. “That’s close to perfect and it’s a three year time period with but one incident!”

    I also pointed out that Augustine’s suggested “30 mph” speed limit was way down in the second percentile on the California Drive survey.

    I asked Mr. Chou if he drives with any regularity down the streets on which he’s changed the speed limits.

    He admitted he doesn’t get out of the office that much and so he is a bit unfamiliar with these roads. This seems to me to be unfortunate…I would think it would be very helpful for a traffic engineer to have more hands-on-the-wheel experience.

    In any case, he seemed rather inclined to return the speed limits to 35 on most of the avenues where it’s changed to 30.

    I got the sense he wants to retain 30 on California Drive from Broadway (north) to Murchison. This afternoon I drove up and down this road and needed to go 35-38 to keep up with the flow of traffic. I was outpaced by a SamTrans minivan on my southbound trek at 4pm!

    I would still argue 35 is a safe speed for all of the zones which have been changed to 30.

    Monday morning I looked at further US Deptartment of Transportation articles on their web site. From what I gather, unless the accident rates are very high, it seems to me the setting of the 35mph limits on roads where the 85th percentile is 38, 39 and 40, would prevent the city from being routinely sued in the event of an accident.

    The Dept of Transportation articles I read, again point out that motorists tend to drive at speeds which are safe for the driving conditions, without respect to posted speed limits. There is much data which says people will still drive at 35-38 despite the 30mph posted signage.

    Mr. Chou also admitted that a slower speed limit is not always going to result in safer roads. This is also a position confirmed in the government data. He also said the courts might agree that the 30mph limit on streets where the surveys indicated 40mph as being the 85th percentile might possibly be construed as a “speed trap.” (These are illegal in California as previously pointed out.)

    He said he will revisit the speed surveys and make some new recommendations.

    Stay tuned.

  24. Carole

    I really admire you. I enjoy reading your summaries and appreciate your deligence in finding all this information. Thank you Gerald. Also what does the member vs visitor mean. Member of what?

  25. Anonymous

    Member means that the poster has registered and can post original threads as well as add comments. Visitor means that the person hasn’t registered and is only capable of adding comments to postings. Members can also choose to receive email notifications of any response to their posts / comments.

    To register is easy (and free 😉 Simply click on the Register link on the left hand column under the pink calendar section. The editors will confirm your registration and after that you can add new postings about anything of interest (though please check the Terms of Use).

  26. Rich Grogan

    There is a lot of conversation regarding the posted speed limit and the safe speed limit. I have experienced the personal bad judgement of motorist when they decide to exercise their personal judgement at what they feel is safe, when in fact their personal judgement was greatly flawed, i.e: 25 car accident on Highway 17 in the Santa Cruz Mountains. The conditions were wet pavement, reduced visibility as the result of fog. Or there was double fatal 17 car accident. The roadway was dry, weather clear, and visibility reduced by limited visibility curves. The sand hauler 18 wheeler felt he could handle the 50 mph car limit instead of the 35 mph truck limit, well he was wrong and two people were dead, and several people were seriously injured.

    There are times when the posted limit can be unsafe due to facors.

    I find it somewhat interesting, we want the trains to go slower, but we want to drive our cars faster in business or residential districts.

    How many amoung you know someone, who holds a valid CA license, but in your opinion they should not be driving and what have you done about this person.

  27. Rich Grogan

    There has been a lot of conversation regarding speed limits and SPEED TRAPS, well below is the Vehicle Code Section, that addresses this issue.
    ********************************************

    40802. (a) A “speed trap” is either of the following:
    (1) A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and
    with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order
    that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it
    takes the vehicle to travel the known distance.
    (2) A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed
    limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under
    subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section
    22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3,
    if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering
    and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of
    the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit involves
    the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the
    speed of moving objects. This paragraph does not apply to a local
    street, road, or school zone.
    (b) (1) For purposes of this section, a local street or road is
    defined by the latest functional usage and federal-aid system maps
    submitted to the federal Highway Administration, except that when
    these maps have not been submitted, or when the street or road is not
    shown on the maps, a “local street or road” means a street or road
    that primarily provides access to abutting residential property and
    meets the following three conditions:
    (A) Roadway width of not more than 40 feet.
    (B) Not more than one-half of a mile of uninterrupted length.
    Interruptions shall include official traffic control signals as
    defined in Section 445.
    (C) Not more than one traffic lane in each direction.
    (2) For purposes of this section “school zone” means that area
    approaching or passing a school building or the grounds thereof that
    is contiguous to a highway and on which is posted a standard “SCHOOL”
    warning sign, while children are going to or leaving the school
    either during school hours or during the noon recess period. “School
    zone” also includes the area approaching or passing any school
    grounds that are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or
    other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children if
    that highway is posted with a standard “SCHOOL” warning sign.
    (c) (1) When all of the following criteria are met, paragraph (2)
    of this subdivision shall be applicable and subdivision (a) shall not
    be applicable:
    (A) When radar is used, the arresting officer has successfully
    completed a radar operator course of not less than 24 hours on the
    use of police traffic radar, and the course was approved and
    certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.

    (B) When laser or any other electronic device is used to measure
    the speed of moving objects, the arresting officer has successfully
    completed the training required in subparagraph (A) and an additional
    training course of not less than two hours approved and certified by
    the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.
    (C) (i) The prosecution proved that the arresting officer complied
    with subparagraphs (A) and (B) and that an engineering and traffic
    survey has been conducted in accordance with subparagraph (B) of
    paragraph (2). The prosecution proved that, prior to the officer
    issuing the notice to appear, the arresting officer established that
    the radar, laser, or other electronic device conformed to the
    requirements of subparagraph (D).
    (ii) The prosecution proved the speed of the accused was unsafe
    for the conditions present at the time of alleged violation unless
    the citation was for a violation of Section 22349, 22356, or 22406.
    (D) The radar, laser, or other electronic device used to measure
    the speed of the accused meets or exceeds the minimal operational
    standards of the National Traffic Highway Safety Administration, and
    has been calibrated within the three years prior to the date of the
    alleged violation by an independent certified laser or radar repair
    and testing or calibration facility.
    (2) A “speed trap” is either of the following:
    (A) A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and
    with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order
    that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it
    takes the vehicle to travel the known distance.
    (B) (i) A particular section of a highway or state highway with a
    prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local
    ordinance under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a)
    of Section 22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358,
    or 22358.3, if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an
    engineering and traffic survey conducted within one of the following
    time periods, prior to the date of the alleged violation, and
    enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or any other
    electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects:
    (I) Except as specified in subclause (II), seven years.
    (II) If an engineering and traffic survey was conducted more than
    seven years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and a
    registered engineer evaluates the section of the highway and
    determines that no significant changes in roadway or traffic
    conditions have occurred, including, but not limited to, changes in
    adjoining property or land use, roadway width, or traffic volume, 10
    years.
    (ii) This subparagraph does not apply to a local street, road, or
    school zone.

  28. Rich Grogan

    For those of you, who have trouble sleeping, reading Vehicle Code Sections will help you sleep. Welcome to Burlingame’s Vehicle Code 101 Class.
    *******************************************

    235. A “business district” is that portion of a highway and the
    property contiguous thereto (a) upon one side of which highway, for a
    distance of 600 feet, 50 percent or more of the contiguous property
    fronting thereon is occupied by buildings in use for business, or (b)
    upon both sides of which highway, collectively, for a distance of
    300 feet, 50 percent or more of the contiguous property fronting
    thereon is so occupied. A business district may be longer than the
    distances specified in this section if the above ratio of buildings
    in use for business to the length of the highway exists.

    515. A “residence district” is that portion of a highway and the
    property contiguous thereto, other than a business district, (a) upon
    one side of which highway, within a distance of a quarter of a mile,
    the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 13 or more
    separate dwelling houses or business structures, or (b) upon both
    sides of which highway, collectively, within a distance of a quarter
    of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 16
    or more separate dwelling houses or business structures. A
    residence district may be longer than one-quarter of a mile if the
    above ratio of separate dwelling houses or business structures to the
    length of the highway exists.

    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.

    22352. (a) The prima facie limits are as follows and shall be
    applicable unless changed as authorized in this code and, if so
    changed, only when signs have been erected giving notice thereof:
    (1) Fifteen miles per hour:
    (A) When traversing a railway grade crossing, if during the last
    100 feet of the approach to the crossing the driver does not have a
    clear and unobstructed view of the crossing and of any traffic on the
    railway for a distance of 400 feet in both directions along the
    railway. This subdivision does not apply in the case of any railway
    grade crossing where a human flagman is on duty or a clearly visible
    electrical or mechanical railway crossing signal device is installed
    but does not then indicate the immediate approach of a railway train
    or car.
    (B) When traversing any intersection of highways if during the
    last 100 feet of the driver’s approach to the intersection the driver
    does not have a clear and unobstructed view of the intersection and
    of any traffic upon all of the highways entering the intersection for
    a distance of 100 feet along all those highways, except at an
    intersection protected by stop signs or yield right-of-way signs or
    controlled by official traffic control signals.
    (C) On any alley.
    (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.
    (B) When approaching or passing a school building or the grounds
    thereof, contiguous to a highway and posted with a standard “SCHOOL”
    warning sign, while children are going to or leaving the school
    either during school hours or during the noon recess period. The
    prima facie limit shall also apply when approaching or passing any
    school grounds which are not separated from the highway by a fence,
    gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by
    children and the highway is posted with a standard “SCHOOL” warning
    sign. For purposes of this subparagraph, standard “SCHOOL” warning
    signs may be placed at any distance up to 500 feet away from school
    grounds.
    (C) When passing a senior center or other facility primarily used
    by senior citizens, contiguous to a street other than a state highway
    and posted with a standard “SENIOR” warning sign. A local authority
    is not required to erect any sign pursuant to this paragraph until
    donations from private sources covering those costs are received and
    the local agency makes a determination that the proposed signing
    should be implemented. A local authority may, however, utilize any
    other funds available to it to pay for the erection of those signs.
    (b) This section shall become operative on March 1, 2001.

    *******************************************

  29. fred

    Burlingame’s speed trap by Bill Silverfarb

    What’s the difference between driving 35 mph and 30 mph? Well, on California Drive in Burlingame, the difference could result in a stern warning or speeding ticket from police who have been busy in recent weeks pulling over motorists who typically drive closer to 40 mph on the stretch of road between Burlingame Avenue and Broadway.

    The city recently lowered the speed limit on that stretch based on a traffic survey conducted by a private consultant in May 2005. Speed limits were also reduced from 35 mph to 30 mph on parts of Rollins Road and Airport Boulevard based on the same consultant’s survey.

    On Wednesday, the Daily Journal requested a copy of the survey from Burlingame to determine why the limits were changed. The city, however, denied the request despite the survey being a public document.

    A copy of the survey did land, though, in the hands of longtime Burlingame resident Gerald Weisl, who owns Weimax Wines and Spirits on Broadway. Weisl was happy to share the findings of the survey with the Daily Journal and is not shy about saying the speed limit change was done underhandedly, without public comment and without the City Council’s blessing.

    Weisl says it looks like the speed limit change was made as a clever way to enhance revenue for the police department.

    It seems like a speed trap to me,? Weisl said Thursday.

    And former Burlingame mayor Joe Galligan agrees.

    The change was probably not handled in the right way. I have a hunch the signs will change real quick,? Galligan told me.

    Speed limits are usually set at the 85th percentile of the flow of traffic, based on a survey’s findings.

    On California Drive, the 85th percentile lands at 38 mph, according to the consultant’s speed survey. Only two of 100 cars surveyed were traveling at 30 mph or less on the day the survey was conducted.

    Therefore, a full 98 percent of drivers typically drive faster than 30 mph on California Drive.

    There are other factors taken into consideration when making speed limit changes such as accident rates or increased pedestrian presence. In 2003, 2004 and 2005 there were 43 accidents on the surveyed stretch of California Drive including one pedestrian-related accident.

    But both Weisl and Galligan contend many of those accidents were probably not caused by motorists exceeding the 35 mph speed limit. Also, it is my observation, since the Broadway Caltrain station is closed on weekdays, it is likely there are actually less pedestrians crossing California Drive than there were in May 2005 when the survey was conducted.

    In fact, both men say, reducing the speed limit to 30 mph will likely make California Drive more dangerous by creating a broader range in the speeds traveled on the road and motorists making more lane changes to avoid the slower drivers.

    It also turns out, after City Attorney Larry Anderson received numerous calls on the issue, the City Council is officially required to amend an ordinance before posting the signs.

    It’s a bad precedent when police or public works start legislating,? Weisl said.

    And even current Mayor Cathy Baylock said, It sounds like someone got ahead of themselves on the signs.?

    Yes, that is what it sounds like. But, how could this happen? Why was the public not allowed to weigh in on the issue? Why was the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission not involved in the process and why did the City Council not go through the required protocol when making these kinds of changes?

    Why was radar enforced? put on the new 30 mph signs and why are Burlingame police sitting idly in cruisers with their radar guns waiting to catch speeders?

    It’s not the best use of resources or manpower, Galligan said.

    On the surface it appears Burlingame may have inadvertently created a little speed trap, which, by the way, is illegal. As Galligan predicts, the signs will probably change back real quick. It’s just odd the change would be made at all. It seems some of Burlingame’s city staff and council members simply did not understand the process needed to be undertaken when changing posted speed limits.

    Weisl and Galligan both say 35 mph is a perfectly safe speed to travel on California Drive and I agree with them both.

    *****

    James (who writes just like Fiona) it is interesting to see the tables turned. The criticism coming from the former criticized. I thought open government allowed people and the press to comment on public policy.

    Welcome to the other side of democracy James.

  30. Carole

    Things get dull without the Big G to spout off about.

  31. Anonymous

    Thank you very much for bringing this issue to BV.
    I believe this site is an asset to “grass roots”, community awareness. Gerald did a lot of work/research to get this info out.
    The info was able to be built upon, through “us” learning; given access to information that otherwise would be shrugged off.
    Weimax Rules!

  32. Fiona

    Thanks for the compliment. James IS very eloquent and a good writer … but James is not Fiona … and Fiona is not James! Nice try “‘Fred’“

    The subject under discussion is a speed trap and the ‘irkability’ of an ex-councilmember … oh, and safety!

  33. James

    Fiona…..um, are you single?

  34. Anonymous

    There’s an article in the May 8th edition of one of The Daily Journal:

    Speed limit signs back to 35 mph
    By Dana Yates
    To end any confusion and make sure it’s doing things by the books, the city of Burlingame is replacing newly posted 30 mph speed limit signs with older 35 mph ones.

    Sometime next week, Burlingame’s Department of Public Works will take down the controversial signs. The old signs will stay up while a more thorough traffic study is completed and until the City Council can vote on any changes, said Traffic Engineer Augustine Chou.

    Chou recently came back from vacation to a flurry of phone calls about the newly lowered speed limits on California Drive. The city lowered the speed limit from 35 mph to 30 mph after a traffic study that Chou signed off on concluded the reduction was necessary. The controversial change has some residents, including former mayor Joe Galligan upset, because it was made without City Council approval or discussion at the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission.

    To end the controversy, the city will take down the new signs and put the old ones back up while Chou examines every traffic report taken in the last three years for California Drive, Airport Boulevard and Rollins Road. It will take Chou about three weeks to examine all 80 to 90 reports for each of the streets which all had their speeds lowered as a result of the recent traffic study.

    The number of accidents on a street are taken into account when the city reviews speed limits every five years, per state law. The number of accidents were listed as a reason for lowering the speed limits on the three streets in Chou’s recent report. In most circumstances, simply taking the number of accidents into account would be enough, but Chou is reviewing each individual accident report just to be certain the city has everything exactly right.

    Chou’s review of the accidents will be completed before the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission weighs in on it next month. The council is set to vote to officially change an ordinance governing speed at its June meeting.

    The council is required to change the ordinance in the last 10 years, but hasn’t. The city usually conducted the speed zone surveys and adjusted speeds accordingly. However, it must hold a public hearing about the changes to avoid the appearance of creating a speed trap.

  35. Rich Grogan

    For those members of the BRRA (Burlingame Road Racing Association) the difference in time between 30 mph and 35 mph over one mile is 17.14 seconds. Now this time is drasticly effected by stop lights, slower vehicles, pedestrians, etc. Is the potential danger worth the time difference?

  36. BMW

    It’s that time again. This time rumors are that some Burlingame speed limits are going up. Time to start asking questions again.

  37. DS

    How about Lawsuit Joe try another lawsuit and cry about it, since that’s what he does when he doesn’t get his way.

  38. BMW

    Are those new shiny 25 MPH – RADAR ENFORCED speed limit signs on California Drive between Oak Grove and the Roundabout I see?

  39. Joe

    Wow, BMW, you have an amazing memory. What a trip down memory lane. I’ll swing by for a photo of the latest new signage……….

  40. BMW

    Joe – someone was telling me this story.
    Pete and Repeat were on a boat in the Burlingame lagoon They were talking about the importance of learning from history.
    Pete fell off the boat. Who’s left in the boat?

Leave a Reply

RECENT COMMENTS

RECENT POSTS

CATEGORIES

ABOUT THE VOICE

The Burlingame Voice is dedicated to informing and empowering the Burlingame community.  Our blog is a public forum for the discussion of issues that relate to Burlingame, California.  Opinions posted on the Burlingame Voice are those of the poster and commenter and not necessarily the opinion of the Editorial Board.  Comments are subject to the Terms of Use.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

All content subject to Copyright 2003-2026

Discover more from The Burlingame Voice

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading