View Single Post
  #6  
Old July 18th 05, 06:34 AM
Old Wolf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dave Stone quoted:

> Recent responses on one US forum included a clipping from a Montana state
> press release, as follows: "In 1999, after 4 years of no numerical or
> posted daytime speed limit on these classifications of highways, outside of
> urban areas, Montana recorded its lowest fatality rate. For the last 5
> months of no daytime limits in Montana, the period after its Supreme Court
> had ruled that the Reasonable and Prudent law was unconstitutional,
> reported fatal accident rate declined to a record low.


That doesn't make a lot of sense. Why would a court determine
that a reduction in fatalities was unconstitutional. Whose rights
are being violated? The funeral directors' ?

Was this evidence (as it stood in 1999) not admitted? Or was
the 'evidence' not quite so black and white?

Ads