When There’s No Speed Posted, the Sky Is Not the Limit

You’re leaving the city limits, heading down a country road, and the sign says the 50 mph zone has just ended.

But there is no corresponding sign saying what the speed limit is now.

The impatient driver behind you wants you to speed up.

But to what?

In a county filled with such roads, what is a confused driver to do?

Don’t push it. Our suggestion: Stay at a safe speed and write to Street Smart when you get home.

Meanwhile, here’s the dirt on one such road:

****

Dear Street Smart:

What is the speed limit on Central Avenue between Beardsley Road and Rose Avenue?

The first sign you see when exiting Central from the Ventura Freeway at the Camarillo city line reads “end of the 50 mph speed zone.” The next sign reads “speed checked by radar.”

Just before Rose, the sign reads 35 mph speed zone ahead.

Hope to hear from you.

Lucy Fiore, Camarillo

*

Dear Reader:

The speed limit on that section of Central is 55 mph, according to California Highway Patrol Officer Dave Cockrill.

Seems like a simple answer, but Street Smart sure appreciates the question, because he and no doubt countless other drivers have been in the same confusing situation.

Buried in the depths of the California vehicle code book, Cockrill digs out the deal, which says that unless otherwise posted, drivers can travel at speeds of no more than 55 mph on two-lane, undivided roadways such as Central.

So if there is no sign saying how fast you should be traveling on such a road, keep it at 55.

And let the guy behind you pass and test his luck, not yours.

****

Dear Street Smart:

I received a traffic ticket in the mail for stopping to drop off my child on Walnut Street near Valley View Junior High School in Simi Valley.

The street for which I received the ticket is a red zone of about 200 yards that is posted with “no stopping at any time” signs. The method in which I was given a ticket was by being videotaped.

There is heavy traffic on both sides of the street from around 7:20 to 8 a.m. each school day. It is practical to drop my son off at the side of the school on Walnut Street for three reasons:

* Safe, timely and good access to the school.

* Shorter distance to walk for a child of about 75 pounds carrying a 20-pound backpack.

* To save time trying to get into the school parking lot, which is already hopelessly overcrowded.

Otherwise, I could drop him off on the other side of the street and he has to cross Walnut. Then every vehicle has to spend five to 10 minutes instead of one minute and the policeman writes jaywalking tickets for the children instead of traffic tickets for the parents. Either way, families lose.

Who benefits from the no-stopping signs? It sure isn’t the students or the parents.

I propose that the city change the “no-stopping red zone” to “unloading zone” to accommodate students and their parents.

Everyone we talk to who has received a ticket here is very angry, but we don’t know exactly who to fight or how to fight them. Please help us.

Kitty Meck, Simi Valley

*

Dear Reader:

While it may be practical for you to drop your child off at that particular spot, it is not necessarily safe.

According to city police and traffic engineers, the problem at Valley View this year has been the addition of a sixth-grade class and its 350 new students.

In this day and age, it comes as no surprise that many parents are hesitant to allow their children to walk to school.

Still, dropping little Johnny and Mary off at Walnut Street isn’t considered very street smart. The street is only 28 feet wide, enough to handle just two lanes of traffic, and not enough to add a parking lane.

When parents stop in the no-stopping zone, Simi Valley Police Sgt. Jeff Malgren said, they often force traffic behind them to jam up. That in turn prompts backed-up drivers in hurries of their own to pass by driving against traffic in the oncoming lane to get by.

On the day your license plate was videotaped and a ticket sent, Malgren counted 213 cars going eastbound and 111 westbound on Walnut within a 25-minute period. There were plenty of U-turns and plenty of people stopping to drop their children off in the no-stopping zone.

“There is a big potential for an accident,” he said.

And unfortunately, there are no plans to widen that stretch of roadway, according to city Traffic Engineer Bill Golubics.

So while you and other parents may have dozens of good reasons for ignoring the red zone, the best you can do to avoid future tickets is petition or lobby the City Council to commit the money it would take to improve traffic flow in the area, including widening Walnut Street.

In the meanwhile, Golubics suggests, parents can either get to school earlier to avoid the congestion in the school parking lot or drop their children off a block away and let them walk. The backpacks may be heavy, but what’s the alternative?

****

Dear Street Smart:

Enclosed is a copy of a letter sent to the city of Thousand Oaks, dated Oct. 21.

I am aware that government moves slowly, but to date I have not received an acknowledgment that my letter has been received:

When you approach Olsen Road from Pederson and are trying to make a left turn onto Olsen, it is impossible to see traffic approaching from the left because of the Olsen Road curve.

While you are trying to decide whether to take a chance and proceed, you also have to contend with the traffic approaching from the right, which is usually traveling at a high rate of speed because of the down grade.

I am suggesting that you visit the site and you will concur that a traffic light or some other means of action is required before a serious accident occurs.

Mort Katz, Thousand Oaks

*

Dear Reader:

You are the second reader in a month’s time to bring up this apparently dangerous intersection, so Street Smart figures it bears another airing.

John Helliwell, manager of the city’s traffic engineering division, did not see the letter you mailed him. But you are not the first to complain to city officials.

The skinny on Olsen and Pederson is that for years, collision rates and traffic volumes did not justify a traffic signal there.

But that is changing, and the site now sits at No. 23 on the city’s list of intersections needing traffic lights.

The light is expected to be somewhere in the top five on the priority list by the time the City Council considers funding the next round of signals next summer, Helliwell said.

But a signal there could still be anywhere from 18 months to two years away.

Meanwhile, you have a few choices. You can consider a safer, alternative route to avoid Pederson and Olsen, perhaps weaving through the neighborhood to get to Moorpark and Olsen, where there is a signal.

You should watch the City Council agenda toward summer budget time to see when the panel will consider funding new traffic signals. Speak out when it does.

If it is so bad there that waiting two years is not an option, gather support among your neighbors and try petitioning the council to bump the corner up the priority list.

Good luck, reader. And be careful.