Quoted:
Argue the calibration, positioning of the officer(cosine effect), and flow of traffic(if you were slower you would be impeding traffic).

Quoted:
Warning...This doesn not work inside the city limits.  Atleast, not around here.  The judge says, "Are you aware of the statute that states the default speed limit in a residential area is 30 mph unless posted otherwise?"  "No, your honor."  "It's in the books...guilty, fine and courts cost."

[b]jrzy[/b]:

I've been thinking about your adamant assertions about the sign height as a defense. I must say that it is a unique approach, but it is subject to the vagueries of local statutes. Consider the case of Overland Park, Kansas, where my office is located, and I formerly lived. Specific to your contention, the Overland Park Municipal Code (OPMC) addresses the issue of traffic control devices in section 12.04.011. If you want to read along, you can look it up at [url]http://www.opkansas.org/_Assets/law/opmc/opmc_by_chapter/12-04.pdf[/url]. Unfortunately, it's a 136-page document, and you'll have to scroll down to page 25 manually. At any rate, the above-referenced section reads as follows:Well, that seems pretty direct, basically saying that all signs must be correct and proper. However, there is something interesting in the following statute, 12.04.012, in particular subsection (c). I won't attempt to transcribe the entire regulation, but what 12.04.012 says is that drivers must obey the signs. I will, however, transcribe the contents of (c) for the purpose of this discussion.So what this particular city is saying (in red) is that if the sign is "approximately" where it is supposed to be, (and they get to decide what "close enough" means) then it's as good as if the sign were [b]exactly[/b] where it was supposed to be. There is an out, though, and that is what is in blue. If, through competent evidence, it can be shown that the sign was deliberately placed in a position contrary to the state specifications, then the sign is not official. However, this statute is vague on the term "competent evidence" as well. Only the judge hearing the case can decide if the presented evidence is competent or not.

In cities where there is no allowance for "approximate" location of traffic control devices, your scheme may work. Indeed, you say that it has worked for you on 5 separate occasions. However, I think that it is less than prudent for you to strongly assert that such defense will work in all cases. The OPMC is one example of where it appears that the statutes have been specifically crafted to [s]allow[/s] [green]disallow[/green] such (arguably frivolous) defenses.