Thank you for your question. I look forward to working with you to provide you the information you are seeking for educational purposes only.
Traffic cases are pretty unique in criminal
law in that in a traffic case the driver realistically bears the burden of proof in cases. The courts
in traffic cases look at officer testimony as being unbiased because they do not benefit anything by not being truthful, whereas the driver has a vested interest. So, you need more than just your statements about it being 2 minutes before 2PM, you would need to have some other evidence to show the court as to the time. You would also need to have some proof of your speed to refute the officer. This is why so few traffic court cases go to trial
and the few that go to trial result in guilty verdicts.
You need to go out to the location and take pictures showing no times on the sign to go along with your argument it was not flashing when you entered. This would be really the best evidence you could gather for your argument, because the other things would be your word against the officer's word unless you have some independent witness that could contradict the officer's testimony.
The other thing is if you go to court and plead not guilty, sometimes the officer may not appear, but you do get to meet with the prosecutor before any trial and that allows you to negotiate with the prosecutor for some type of deal if they will not agree to your dispute and your photographs.
In reality what happens in these cases is drivers go to court to negotiate with the prosecutor for a reduced speed/fine and a deferred adjudication, which means it does not get reported to DMV to go on your license if you do not get any additional tickets during the probation period.