SAN FRANCISCO, CA – September 24, 2026 — Drivers cited for exceeding California’s 65 mph maximum speed limit under Vehicle Code Section 22349(a) face fines, DMV points, and potential insurance consequences, even though the charge is classified as an infraction. San Francisco speeding ticket attorney Adam Cohen of Ticket Crushers, A Law Corporation (https://www.ticketcrusherslaw.com/traffic-ticket/speeding-tickets/cvc-22349/) is offering guidance on what this statute prohibits, how officers measure speed, and the options available to drivers who receive one of these citations.
According to San Francisco speeding ticket attorney Adam Cohen, Section 22349(a) alleges that a driver traveled faster than California’s statutory 65 mph maximum on a highway that has not been posted for 70 mph under Section 22356. “Many drivers assume a speeding ticket is simply a matter of paying a fine, but a conviction adds a point to the driving record and can affect insurance premiums for years,” Cohen explains. The statute is not limited to freeways, as the Vehicle Code defines a highway to include any publicly maintained street open to public travel.
San Francisco speeding ticket attorney Adam Cohen notes that Section 22349(a) differs from related statutes in important ways. Section 22349(b) sets a separate 55 mph limit for certain two-lane, undivided highways, while Section 22350, California’s Basic Speed Law, prohibits driving faster than is reasonable or prudent for existing road, traffic, and weather conditions. A citation issued under the wrong Vehicle Code section can affect the defenses available in a given case.
Cohen points out that a standard 22349(a) violation is a one-point infraction that carries no jail time. Under the 2026 California Uniform Bail and Penalty Schedule, base fines range from $35 to $100 depending on how far the alleged speed exceeded 65 mph, with total bail ranging from roughly $238 to $490. A conviction adds one DMV point to the driving record, which is reported for three years, and accumulating four points in twelve months may lead the DMV to treat a driver as a negligent operator.
The method used to measure speed often plays a central role in these cases. Attorney Cohen explains that officers rely on radar, lidar, pacing, and visual estimation, each with different legal and evidentiary requirements. “Identifying how a driver’s speed was measured is frequently one of the first steps in determining whether the evidence supporting a citation can be challenged,” Cohen says. Relevant issues can include an officer’s completion of required training, the calibration history of the device, and the accurate identification of the cited vehicle among surrounding traffic.
Several defenses may apply depending on the facts of the stop. Cohen observes that challenging the roadway classification, examining equipment calibration and certification records, and reviewing the prosecution’s evidence for inconsistencies can all affect the outcome. Photographs, posted signs, roadway maps, and Caltrans records can help establish which statutory speed limit applied at the location where the citation was issued.
The firm’s founder, Adam Cohen, regularly appears in traffic courts throughout Northern and Southern California. Before founding the firm, he interned with the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office felony unit and later served with the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office. Cohen earned his J.D. from Loyola Law School, Loyola Marymount University, and is admitted to practice in California and Florida.
Contested citations in San Francisco are handled by the Traffic Division of the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. Cohen emphasizes that drivers remain responsible for responding by the date listed on the Notice to Appear even if a Reminder Notice does not arrive. Traffic Court proceedings are held in Department 218 at the Civic Center Courthouse at 400 McAllister Street, and drivers may enter a plea of guilty, no contest, or not guilty, with failure to respond potentially resulting in additional financial penalties.
California also offers alternatives to appearing in person. Cohen adds that a trial by written declaration allows both the driver and the citing officer to submit written statements and supporting evidence, and a driver who is unsuccessful may request a trial de novo to have the case heard again. Eligible noncommercial drivers may also attend traffic school once every 18 months to keep the conviction confidential, provided the alleged speed is not more than 25 mph over the limit.
For drivers facing a CVC 22349(a) citation, consulting a San Francisco speeding ticket attorney may help clarify the available options and protect a driving record before responding to the ticket.
About Ticket Crushers, A Law Corporation:
Ticket Crushers, A Law Corporation is a San Francisco-based traffic and DUI defense firm led by founder and Managing Partner Adam Cohen. The firm represents drivers cited for speeding and other moving violations throughout San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and the wider Bay Area, handling cases from the first call through final disposition. The office is located at 350 Rhode Island St #240, San Francisco, CA 94103. For consultations, call (628) 203-1868.
Embeds:
Youtube Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne-CfpJxLyo
GMB: https://www.google.com/maps?cid=9834535734868980863
Email and website
Email: phil@ticketcrusherslaw.com
Website: https://www.ticketcrusherslaw.com/
Media Contact
Company Name: Ticket Crushers, A Law Corporation
Contact Person: Phil Blende
Email: Send Email
Phone: (628) 203-1868
Address:350 Rhode Island St Ste 240, San Francisco, CA 94103
City: San Francisco
State: California
Country: United States
Website: https://www.ticketcrusherslaw.com/