Speeding Ticket While Doing Average Speed

> wrote in message
s.com...
>
> _ Gui LaDouche _ wrote:
> > Or of course they could just RAISE the posted speed limits to more
> > accurately reflect
> > what the super-majority of the public feels is safe and reasonable, viz
a
> > viz their
> > actual speeds.
>
> Your statement is a bit misleading. I think what you really meant to
> say was what the majority of "motorists" feel.

As opposed to... people who don't own or drive motor vehicles?

> If you were to attend a local town meeting you may be a bit surprised
> at what the majority seeks--people at such meetings routinely demand
> LOWER speed limits, not higher.

What are you saying -- that those people aren't motorists?

Or is it, in fact, that they would demand lower speed limits in
THEIR OWN NEIGHBORHOODS, but would in fact prefer
to drive faster in other people's neighborhoods?

You know -- the old "no nukes in my back yard"...

> Further, the "majority of the public" is not qualified to determine a
> safe speed limit for two reasons:

Yeah, yeah, they're not qualified to choose the President either...

[group distribution set to r.a.d., m.t.r., and a.l-e.t]

wrote:

> Quite true. I once got a lift from a stranger. It was a heavy
> snowstorm, and I was walking a long distance back to my stuck car.
> She--the helpful driver--took off down the road at such a clip I
> cinched my seatbelt and held my breath. If there were to be something
> in the road she'd have hit it before she saw it. Her comment? "Don't
> worry. I know the road real well." My comment? "Yeah, well someone
> could be stuck in it like I am further down!" She spun out,
> thankfully, and I said thanks and exited.
>
> Those limits are set for a reason, and USUALLY the reason is a good
> one.

Speed limits aren't based on maximum safe speeds in heavy snowstorm
conditions. The fact that you apparently believe that comes from the
fact that they're too low for conditions that exist most of the time.

Speed limits are supposed to represent the maximum safe speed in good
conditions (such as the middle of a sunny day) in free flowing traffic.
Drivers are supposed to drive slower when conditions aren't as good,
not just slow down to the speed limit, like you apparently believe.

gpsman wrote:
> wrote: <brevity snip>
[snip]
> > Do people think I have a case in getting this overturned?
>
> No.
>
> Based on what? That other drivers were in violation of the speed limit
> too?! Does the excuse, "I ran the stop light because the driver to my
> front ran it" sound as if the reply from a judge might be, "Case
> dismissed!"?

But those cases are completely different. If someone else is running a
stop light then that does not make it dangerous for you to not run it.
However if the traffic around you is doing 68 then driving at 50 is
dangerous, particulary if one needs to change lanes.

> > While I was
> > undoubtedly going over the speed limit, it would have been extremely
> > dangerous to drive slower as I would not have been able to safely
> > change lanes.
>
> Illogical argument; there's no legal requirement to change lanes.

Normally I try to avoid changing lanes, but in this case the entry onto
the bay bridge is on the left hand side and the exit I need to take is
on the right hand side, which means that I have to safely cross five
lanes of traffic in order to avoid being fed off to a completely wrong
place.

> Plenty of people drive the SL and below and change lanes without
> incident. Here in rad they're referred to as "sloths" and supply seems
> to be infinite.

And do you think that pulling out in front of someone who is going
20mph faster than you is a safe thing to do? Sure people do it, but I'm
not convined that it is wise.

[snip]

> >
> > Has this happened to anyone else?
> >
>
> Happened to my cousin while I was riding with him. He argued with the
> cop that everyone else was going about the same amount over the limit,
> and they were. The cop's reply- "Yeah, but I caught you".

My cop actually said that to me as well.

Oddly, the main thing he criticised me for was not looking out for cops
better.
He never said that I was going at an unsafe speed, but repeatedly said
that I should have been paying more attention looking out for cops, and
that he had been pacing me for a quarter of a mile without me noticing.

I find it rather morally twisted that it should be considered correct
behaviour to pay less attention to driving one's car safely in favour
of spending more time looking out for cops. I don't look out for cops
because I try to drive safely all the time, rather than just when I'm
being watched.

His assumption seemed to be that it was ok to speed, and that what was
important was to not get caught - which seemed kind of sick.

[snip]

-Rob

Michael Angelo Ravera wrote:
[snip]
> The problem here is that the OP was over the State Maximum for this
> kind of road. You could possibly beat being ticketed for 65/50 on the
> Bridge since the 50 MPH posted limit puts the ticket into the CVC22350
> area. But, 68 MPH means that he was exceeding the maximum speed. Take a
> look at the ticket. 22350s are theoretically easier to beat than
> 22349s.

It's actually a 23336 - Failure to observe a 50mph sign on a bridge.

Does that make a difference? Does it mean anything that he gave me this
rather than the 22350 or the 22349?

[snip]

Thanks for the useful advice.

-Rob

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> N8N wrote:
>
>>Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
>>
>>>_ Gui LaDouche _ wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Or of course they could just RAISE the posted speed limits to more
>>>>accurately reflect
>>>>what the super-majority of the public feels is safe and reasonable, viz a
>>>>viz their
>>>>actual speeds.
>>>
>>>There is no super-majority on this issue. No matter what the speed
>>>limit is, millions of psychos like you will exceed it as long as you
>>>know you will get off with just a fine.
>>
>>you keep repeating this, but you never provide any evidence to support
>>your assertions. There's been plenty of cites to serious research that
>>suggests that you are wrong, however.
>>
>>nate
>
>
> Because speeding has ALWAYS been a problem. Back when limits were 35
> and then 45 and then 60 and then 75. THINK
>

I can always remember people speeding, however, it generally has never
been a problem.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

wrote:

>
> His assumption seemed to be that it was ok to speed, and that what was
> important was to not get caught - which seemed kind of sick.

Sick, maybe, but refreshingly honest.

nate


--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Brent P wrote:
> We have a republic. The elected are not supposed to define normal,
> reasonable behavior as a violation of law regardless of how loud a
> particular minority is.

Actually, that IS their job--to define what is right and what is wrong.


> > 3) If the "super majority" motorists truly felt that strongly that
> > speed limits were too low or enforcment too high, they would speak out
> > about. But they do not*.
>
> Yes they do. Do you expect it to be covered on CBS News? Of course it
> won't be, the news media isn't going to bite government's profit center.
> Instead they'll have their reporter drive 55mph in the left lane of the
> interstate and talk about 'road rage' when he is flashed.

Well, local efforts to reduce speeding are covered in local newspapers.

Someone else mentioned no speed limits should be lowered without an
engineering study. Well, that's the requirement in my state. My town
itself couldn't lower the speed limit, rather, it had to apply and pay
for a state-run study and get state consent to do so. This was all
covered in the newspaper. There was no opposition.

If so many people are truly for higher speeds, where was the
opposition? Not a single letter to the editor, not a single voice in
protest. Other issues get voices from both sides.


> I can't think of one election where the media made it about speed limits.

The media does not define issues, the candidates do. The mayor of my
town ran on a "traffic goes too fast through town" platform. It struck
a nerve and people agreed with him. You're right in that it's not the
biggest issue of the century, but it is an issue.

When the state debated about whether to go off freeway 55 mph some
years ago it was a public issue as well. Do we still have 55 mph? No,
we do not. Guess what--the public will is working. If your claims
were true we'd still have 55 and it'd be strictly enforced.

In article . com>, wrote:
>
> Brent P wrote:
>> We have a republic. The elected are not supposed to define normal,
>> reasonable behavior as a violation of law regardless of how loud a
>> particular minority is.

> Actually, that IS their job--to define what is right and what is wrong.

No that isn't their job. They are not gods, not rulers, they are there to
serve the people. The people are to be supreme. The do _NOT_ define right
and wrong. The simple concept of liberty defines right and wrong.

The government does a great deal of wrong. One of the wrongs they do is
to define normal, reasonable behavior as being illegal, a violation of
law, so they can increase government's power and it's intrusion into the
lives and pocketbooks of the people.

>> > 3) If the "super majority" motorists truly felt that strongly that
>> > speed limits were too low or enforcment too high, they would speak out
>> > about. But they do not*.

>> Yes they do. Do you expect it to be covered on CBS News? Of course it
>> won't be, the news media isn't going to bite government's profit center.
>> Instead they'll have their reporter drive 55mph in the left lane of the
>> interstate and talk about 'road rage' when he is flashed.

> Well, local efforts to reduce speeding are covered in local newspapers.

Because that increases the power of the government. They want you to
think that their intrusion, their control, is a good thing. It's not.

> Someone else mentioned no speed limits should be lowered without an
> engineering study. Well, that's the requirement in my state. My town
> itself couldn't lower the speed limit, rather, it had to apply and pay
> for a state-run study and get state consent to do so. This was all
> covered in the newspaper. There was no opposition.

And such studies are often skewed. Just before the speed study,
government is known to conduct 'speeding crackdowns' to artifically alter
the speeds.

> If so many people are truly for higher speeds, where was the
> opposition? Not a single letter to the editor, not a single voice in
> protest. Other issues get voices from both sides.

Papers decide what to publish. What you get told. You want other voices?
http://www.motorists.org/

>> I can't think of one election where the media made it about speed limits.

> The media does not define issues, the candidates do. The mayor of my
> town ran on a "traffic goes too fast through town" platform. It struck
> a nerve and people agreed with him. You're right in that it's not the
> biggest issue of the century, but it is an issue.

I am not going to argue 'your town' because you hold all the cards. I
don't know what 'your town' is or what it's like. For all I know you have
a 60mph arterial road going through the center of it, the wrong road in
the wrong spot. Of course a low speed limit on a fast road is the wrong
answer... you hold all the cards on 'your town' so I'm not going to argue it.

> When the state debated about whether to go off freeway 55 mph some
> years ago it was a public issue as well. Do we still have 55 mph? No,
> we do not. Guess what--the public will is working. If your claims
> were true we'd still have 55 and it'd be strictly enforced.

In the criminally run state of IL, we still have 55mph speed limits that
statisically no one obeys and the government still enforces it to collect
revenue. On direction of the government, enforcement was increased to
help try to close a state budget gap.


--
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the NY Times, Time Magazine, and
other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and
respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have
been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been
subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But now the
world is more sophisticated and prepared to march to towards a world
government. THe supra national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and
world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination
practiced in past centuries." - David Rockefeller, Private Banker,
Council on Foreign Relations, June 1991.

In article .com>, wrote:

> I don't look out for cops
> because I try to drive safely all the time, rather than just when I'm
> being watched.

I look out for cops because they are poor drivers who think everyone
should yield to them. Been nearly hit by a couple of them driving
recklessly, so I look out for cops for my own safety.

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> wrote:
> > Hi Guys,
> >
> > On Wednesday I got a speeding ticket for doing 68mph on the San
> > Francisco/Oakland Bay bridge at 9:14pm.
> >
> > The speed limit for the Bay Bridge is 50mph and so techinically I was
> > doing 18mph over the limit - which sounds like a lot, except that I was
> > doing the average speed for the traffic and wasn't overtaking anything
> > other than trucks. In fact, to convince myself that I wasn't
> > halucinating about this, I drove back over the bridge at the same time
> > another day and attempted to pace myself with the traffic - result -
> > 68mph. There is a reason for this, the Bay Bridge is fed by I-80, on
> > which the speed limit is 65 - and pretty much nobody slows down.
> >
> > As another experiment, I tried driving across the Bay Bridge at exactly
> > 50mph (using cruize control), and found that it was absolutely
> > terrifying. People were buzzing past me on all sides at 65-80mph and it
> > was impossible to safely change lanes. In the end I had to bring my
> > speed up to 70mph in order to get to the exit lane.
> >
> > After I was pulled over, I asked the cop why I was pulled over despite
> > the fact I was going the same speed as the traffic, and he said that it
> > was because I had my interior light on, and he thought I might be
> > reading. I wasn't reading anything in the car - the light was on
> > because I had checked the car hire agreement before I started driving
> > to see when I needed to return the car and had forgotten to turn it
> > off.
> >
> > Do people think I have a case in getting this overturned? While I was
> > undoubtedly going over the speed limit, it would have been extremely
> > dangerous to drive slower as I would not have been able to safely
> > change lanes.
> > Is it really impossible to drive across the Bay Bridge safely without
> > risking being given a ticket at random?
> >
> > I have never previously received a ticket for any form of traffic
> > violation in 10 years of driving. I am not a dangerous driver and I do
> > not drive at unsafe speeds.
> >
> >
> > What do people think? Has this happened to anyone else?
> >
> > -Rob
>
> HAHAHA. Oh stop with that nonsense about how dangerous it is to drive
> the speed limit or less. I've done it all my life, you lying whore.
> And BTW - if we had stiff penalties for speeding, the speeding would
> stop and everyone would be doing the same speed.

What are your tips on accomplishing necessary lane changes at 20 mph
below the speed of the rest of traffic?