Three states raise speed limits, up to 80 mph (Texas)

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:56:47 -0000, Dave Stone <n> wrote:

>(Thought LBMHB might want to know this)
>
>
>http://www.pistonheads.com/speed/def...?storyId=11256
>
>
>Speed limits have been raised in three US states.
>
>In Texas, the limit went up to 80mph on rural interstates, in Iowa it rises
>to 70mph, again on rural roads, while in May, the limit in Indiana went
>from 65mph to 70mph in areas with less than 50,000 population -- one
>supposes you aren't supposed to count them first. Lorries go faster too --
>their limit went up to 65mph.

Indiana delayed the law going into effect so as to reduce the
fatalities over the holiday. ???

>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. Fixed speed limits
>were reinstated on Memorial Day weekend 1999. Since then, fatal accidents
>have begun to rise again."

Guess that shows how stupid politicians in Indiana are.

Dave Stone wrote:
> (Thought LBMHB might want to know this)
>
>
> http://www.pistonheads.com/speed/def...?storyId=11256
>
>
> Speed limits have been raised in three US states.
>
> In Texas, the limit went up to 80mph on rural interstates, in Iowa it rises
> to 70mph, again on rural roads, while in May, the limit in Indiana went
> from 65mph to 70mph in areas with less than 50,000 population -- one
> supposes you aren't supposed to count them first. Lorries go faster too --
> their limit went up to 65mph.

That Indiana rule doesn't make a bit of sense. Oh well, people will
still drive whatever speed they want because speeding penalties in
criminal coddler indiana are essentially non-existent.

Around 7/13/2005 8:21 PM, Aunt Judy (Pride of Diarrhea)
<http://tinyurl.com/65nqz> wrote:

> Dave Stone wrote:
>
>>(Thought LBMHB might want to know this)
>>
>>http://www.pistonheads.com/speed/def...?storyId=11256
>>
>>Speed limits have been raised in three US states.
>>
>>In Texas, the limit went up to 80mph on rural interstates, in Iowa it rises
>>to 70mph, again on rural roads, while in May, the limit in Indiana went
>>from 65mph to 70mph in areas with less than 50,000 population -- one
>>supposes you aren't supposed to count them first. Lorries go faster too --
>>their limit went up to 65mph.
>
>
> That Indiana rule doesn't make a bit of sense. Oh well, people will
> still drive whatever speed they want <snip>

Should have quit right there, Judy, while you were still making a
smidgen of sense.


--
~/Garth
"I am patient with stupidity
but not with those who are proud of it." - Edith Sitwell
(Mail for secure contact information)

On 13 Jul 2005 20:21:40 -0700, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
> was understood to have stated the following:

>non-existent

the state of your intellect.

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?

"Old Wolf" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> 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?
>

The evidence indeed was "black and white". But that wasn't the issue that
the court ruled on. The law they were considering had wording of
"reasonable and prudent". The reason they were considering it is because a
motorist had objected to a speeding ticket on the grounds that the motorist
thought his speed WAS reasonable and prudent (85mph, middle of nowhere,
perfect driving conditions, only two cars on the road including motorist and
cop, skilled driver, BRAND NEW SPORTS CAR . . . yeah, it WAS indeed
reasonable and prudent). The R&P law was declared unconstitutional as it
was vague enough to cause violations of due process clauses in the Montana
Constitution. That is, a motorist would have no fair notice that the speed
he/she was driving might be in violation of the law. In effect, the R&P law
was retroactive in the sense that you wouldn't know you had violated it
until after you were ticketed, because the law didn't exist (as far as
"speeding" is concerned) until some cop made the decision that it did exist.

Ironically, the motorist won (as he should have, as his driving was
reasonable and prudent), but everybody LOST in this case. With numerical
speed limits, Montana is not nearly as safe now as it used to be. -Dave

Ted B. wrote:
> "Old Wolf" wrote:
>> 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.
>
> The law they were considering had wording of "reasonable and prudent".
> The reason they were considering it is because a motorist had
> objected to a speeding ticket on the grounds that the motorist
> thought his speed WAS reasonable and prudent (85mph, middle of nowhere,
> perfect driving conditions, only two cars on the road including motorist and
> cop, skilled driver, BRAND NEW SPORTS CAR . . . yeah, it WAS indeed
> reasonable and prudent). The R&P law was declared unconstitutional as it
> was vague enough to cause violations of due process clauses in the Montana
> Constitution.

Argh. So the law wasn't really "no speed limits", as I inferred
from the original quote -- it was a worse situation in some ways:
you're breaking the law if a cop feels like it.

Can a true "no speed limits" law ever work? Perhaps there will
always be enough people in the population to say that 100MPH
is dangerous regardless of the circumstances, for example.

> Ironically, the motorist won (as he should have, as his driving
> was reasonable and prudent), but everybody LOST in this case.

> With numerical speed limits, Montana is not nearly as safe now as it
> used to be.

Is there a wording for the law that's an improvement
on "reasonable and prudent" ?

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Old Wolf wrote:

> > The law they were considering had wording of "reasonable and prudent".
> > The reason they were considering it is because a motorist had objected
> > to a speeding ticket on the grounds that the motorist thought his
> > speed WAS reasonable and prudent (85mph, middle of nowhere, perfect
> > driving conditions, only two cars on the road including motorist and
> > cop, skilled driver, BRAND NEW SPORTS CAR . . . yeah, it WAS indeed
> > reasonable and prudent). The R&P law was declared unconstitutional as
> > it was vague enough to cause violations of due process clauses in the
> > Montana Constitution.
>
> Can a true "no speed limits" law ever work?

Certainly. There are long sections of motorway in Australia that are
signed /// (international sign for "no speed limit").

> Is there a wording for the law that's an improvement on "reasonable and
> prudent" ?

Certainly: "SPEED LIMIT 150". This is a de factor R&P limit, since R&P is
the law regardless of the posted numerical limit (which is why you can be
stopped for speeding while driving 55 in a 55 zone, if conditions make 55
unreasonable and/or imprudent).

In article ws.net>,
Ted B. > wrote:
>The law they were considering had wording of
>"reasonable and prudent". The reason they were considering it is because a
>motorist had objected to a speeding ticket on the grounds that the motorist
>thought his speed WAS reasonable and prudent (85mph, middle of nowhere,
>perfect driving conditions, only two cars on the road including motorist and
>cop, skilled driver, BRAND NEW SPORTS CAR . . . yeah, it WAS indeed
>reasonable and prudent).

The guy who challenged the ticket was driving at an unreasonable
speed. He was also convicted of the similarly vague "reckless
driving" crime several times and went to jail for it. The courts
didn't overturn the reckless driving law because doing that would
impede punishment of unsafe drivers. But they could and did
decide they wanted to change how speeding tickets were handled.
The supreme court wanted speeding tickets. The Attorney General
wanted speeding tickets. Both knew if the state lost this case
the legislature would pass a law making everybody subject to speeding
tickets and the police and courts could forget about safety and
just process the paperwork. So they arranged to strike down the
law just before the biennial legislative session.

--
John Carr )

In article .com>,
Old Wolf > wrote:
>Can a true "no speed limits" law ever work? Perhaps there will
>always be enough people in the population to say that 100MPH
>is dangerous regardless of the circumstances, for example.

The guy in Montana who "won" the speeding case went to jail
for reckless driving for driving too fast. We have laws
other than speed limits to deal with unsafe driving.

We would be much better off abolishing speed limits including
"reasonable and prudent" on Interstates than keeping the status
quo. I also think R&P instead of "no speed limit" can work and
sensibly enforced would be better than relying solely on reckless
driving laws. If the law enforcement community wants to disagree,
refuses to be able to decide what R&P means, we should just abolish
that law as well.

The article I posted on Iowa before speed limits said that
speeding tickets were not written (or didn't stand up in
court) without some evidence beyond "he was going really,
really fast."


--
John Carr )