View Single Post
  #9  
Old December 30th 04, 10:59 PM
John F. Carr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Timothy J. Lee > wrote:
>In article >,
>John F. Carr > wrote:
>>In Massachusetts there is neither a "rear driver presumed guilty"
>>nor an "assured clear distance" law.

>
>But doesn't MA have a "basic speed law" that says that you must
>go at a speed that is safe for the conditions? Going around a
>blind curve at a speed that will not allow you to stop for or go
>around stopped traffic in a traffic jam (a fairly common situation)
>does not fit the definition of a speed safe for conditions.


In Massachusetts one must drive at a speed that is "reasonable and
proper, having regard to traffic and the use of the way and the safety
of the public." There is nothing in the law about a "safe" speed, or
a speed guaranteeing ability to avoid a collision or damage, as a few
states require.

Whether a speed is in fact unreasonable is for the court to decide.
You get to tell the jury why the guy who hit you was driving too fast,
or otherwise unsafely. The other guy gets to tell the jury why it
wasn't his fault. It's a battle of persuasion, more than elsewhere,
because compared to other states the Massachusetts courts have
strongly disfavored judicial presumptions in traffic cases.

You assert that stopped traffic around a blind curve is common but in
fact the incidence varies widely from place to place. When I used to
commute at 4:00 AM I pushed my car right up to the limit of sight
distance, so that it would take maximum braking to stop if an
obstruction were around the next corner or over the next hill. I
never even had to hit the brakes due to an object coming into view
around a curve. Near the other extreme, there is a ramp I use often
where two lanes merge into one after a curve and traffic is often
backed up on and approaching the one lane road. I don't push the
limits there.

--
John Carr )
Ads