If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 21 May 2005 01:24:03 GMT, Arif Khokar >
wrote: >L Sternn wrote: >> On Fri, 20 May 2005 12:05:54 -0700, "Bob Flaminio" > >> wrote: > >>>Coming onto northbound I-280 at the Page Mill interchange*, around 5:00 >>>in the evening. Traffic is typically moderate, with ambient speeds of >>>around 75-80mph (the posted speed limit is 65). There's a cop in front >>>of me on the onramp, so I get a nice clear view of what happens next. >>> >>>The cop immediately floors it onto the freeway, pulls up behind the >>>first car he comes to, and hits his lights. Bang, a speeding ticket for >>>this hapless commuter. > >> He was violating the law - cops are supposed to enforce it every once >> in a while. > >Which means that the moral of the story is to attempt to cause a multi >car pile up if this happens to you. That way, you don't get a speeding >ticket and everyone is safer since legal behavior is by definition safer >than illegal behavior ... >> >> If you speed, you know you're taking a risk. > >Yes, going with the flow is riskier than attempting to cause a multi car >pileup. The law says so and therefore it is. > >> Whining on usenet accomplishes nothing. > >Not true, it gets people like you to respond Wow - did you have to be bred in a laboratory to be that stupid? |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
L Sternn wrote:
> Wow - did you have to be bred in a laboratory to be that stupid? No, natural conception is sufficient, in most cases, to employ as well as comprehend the use of sarcasm as a form of written expression. Note that I said *most cases*. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"Alan Baker" > wrote in message
... > In article .com>, > "Furious George" > wrote: > > > Alan Baker wrote: > > > In article >, > > > "Thomas Avery" > wrote: > > > > > > > "Bob Flaminio" > wrote in message > > > > ... > > > > (the posted speed limit is 65). > > > > > > > > Nuff said! > > > > > > "Traffic is typically moderate, with ambient speeds of around > > 75-80mph" > > > > > > The majority of people engaging in peaceable activity, hurting no > > one. > > > > > > Under what principle should this be against the law? Or don't you > > > understand that all of our laws have to obey certain fundamental > > > principles? > > > > If you don't like the terms and conditions of road use (including the > > posted speed limit) then feel free to not use the road. Maybe you want > > to build your own road. Then you could set the speed limit to whatever > > you want. > > We all have the right to use the roads. We have a duty to do so in a > manner that "keeps the peace"; i.e. to be competent to perform in a > manner consistent with the greater damage that driving a motor vehicle > can cause. > Sorry, you may have the right to use the roads on foot/using a bicycle, but in CA, where the violation occurred, it is a REVOKABLE PRIVILEGE to drive a motor vehicle on the roads. Get enough negligent driver points, the license can be suspended, get enough beyond that, and it can be revoked. > Beyond a system to show that competence, common law requires there to > have been a *victim* for there to have been an offense at law. A victim > can be one who was only endangered by sufficiently reckless behaviour, > and not actually injured in any way -- this adheres even when one is > *not* driving, BTW, but a victim there must be. > The written law is the California Basic Speed Law--Palo Alto is in CA. The driver in question, if he insisted on speeding, should have been smart enough to be on the lookout for cops, or even better, probably should have reduced speed. > > Since the vast majority of people navigate the roads at the speeds in > question every day without the slightest incident (and since what > incidents that do occur are more likely to be caused by other factors > than they are likely to be caused by exceeding the posted limit), there > is no prima facie basis for declaring "speeding" (exceeding the posted > limit) as a form of endangerment. > And since there are insufficient cops on the road to cite all the violators, they probably have to pick just one--probably either the lead car or the fastest car. Again, if the drivers insist on speeding, they also should accept that they may very well be held accountable for their speed violations. > That you wish to throw away your rights shouldn't have any effect on the > rest of us. > No, actually it's speed at your own risk, and accept responsibility for the speed violations if and when pulled over and subsequently cited for them. It really is as simple as that. The speed limit signs, regardless of what popular opinion may think about them being "underposted", still govern the maximum LEGAL speed of the road in tandem with the California Basic Speed Law. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"L Sternn" > wrote in message
... [snip...] > Yeah, I don't have any problems doing 60 in a 40. > > What's yours? > So here's a valid question. If the "underposted" speed limit was raised to 60, would you *still* continue to do 60? Or would you do 70 or 80 because *that* speed limit is considered "underposted"? Conversely, if you would actually do 70 or 80 if the speed limit was raised to 60, then it's actually in the best interest to leave the speed limit at 40 to keep the speed violations at a lower speed. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 21 May 2005 00:18:16 -0700, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
> wrote: >"L Sternn" > wrote in message .. . > >[snip...] > >> Yeah, I don't have any problems doing 60 in a 40. >> >> What's yours? >> >So here's a valid question. If the "underposted" speed limit was raised to >60, would you *still* continue to do 60? > To be honest, that depends on the road. On the street I normally commute to work on, I wouldn't do more than 60. Currenlty, I average about 50, traffic permitting. On the open highway, the limit would have to be 120 or so before I failed to exceed it, and I would think that would mainly be because of the limits of my personal car. >Or would you do 70 or 80 because *that* speed limit is considered >"underposted"? Contrary to popular belief, there are speed limits on certain parts of the autobahn. I had no problem staying below those speed limis although if I ever go back there I'm going to make damn sure I don't rent an Opel. > >Conversely, if you would actually do 70 or 80 if the speed limit was raised >to 60, then it's actually in the best interest to leave the speed limit at >40 to keep the speed violations at a lower speed. > You neglect common sense. On the road that I commute to work on, anything over 60 would be dangerous IMO. But the speed limit is only 40. If the speed limit was 180, I would probably go about 60 - rougly 10 mph faster than I do it now. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 21 May 2005, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> So here's a valid question. If the "underposted" speed limit was raised > to 60, would you *still* continue to do 60? Or would you do 70 or 80 > because *that* speed limit is considered "underposted"? There's no generic answer possible to this question, for it's entirely contingent upon how severely the original speed limit of 40mph was underposted. It's possible 60 would be entirely appropriate and that'd be the prevailing speed of traffic. It's possible 60 would still be underposted, in which case the prevailing speed would still be over the posted limit. The "speed-crazed drivers just add 10 or 20 mph to whatever's on the sign" fallacy comes from timid little halfway corrections to underposted limits. When *proper* speed limits are posted, compliance is almost always excellent. One of a great many examples is the stretch of I-25 south of DTC. For many years, it was posted at 55, and the prevailing speed of traffic was between 70 and 80. Shortly after the NMSL was rescinded, this stretch of highway was reposted at 75. Prevailing speed of traffic is still between 70 and 80. DS |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>> The cop immediately floors it onto the freeway, pulls up behind the >> first car he comes to, and hits his lights. Bang, a speeding ticket >> for this hapless commuter. He was a danger to no one; I imagine that >> he was just trying to get home to the wife and kids after another >> tough day at work. He wasn't doing anything different from thousands >> of other cars on the freeway. > > And how is this incident any more egregious than the thousands of > other speeing tickets that are issued each day? It was the timing that appalled me more than anything. From freeway onramp to turning on his lights was less than 15 seconds. He literally pulled over the first car he came upon. If the guy had been doing 90, or weaving in and out of traffic (both of which are common on I-280), I wouldn't've bothered posting. But the victim was just driving along in the rightmost lane doing about 75, the same speed that everyone else was doing. And for some reason that earns him an entanglement with law enforcement. -- Bob |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
I don't think there should be a referendum on speed limits. I simply am
questioning the argument that a large number of people driving faster than the speed limit necessary means that a large number of people support raising the speed limit. I am only asking whether anyone knows if anyone has actually scientifically polled drivers anywhere to see what they actually say. It there is in fact overwhelming support for raising limits to the 85th percentile or eliminating them altogether, it seems to me that would happen, given the political process in the country,. I'm trying to figure out what is going on. It seems to me that the possibilities are 1) Although many people drive faster than the limits, they in fact do not support raising the limits. 2) They don't care enough to make it a political issue or run for office themselves. I did a quick web search, I don't see anyone who has done a survey of driver attitudes on speed limits. Does anyone know of one? -- Regards, Anthony Giorgianni The return address for this post is fictitious. Please reply by posting back to the newsgroup. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message ... > > So you view of the world is that we should ALL be held back to the > level of the least capable among us. If we allow people on the road > who are not capable of driving over 55 then we should ALL be limited > to 55 eh? No thank you. > I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I ABSOLUTELY think the speed limit should be set for the least capable. If you raise the limits to the levels of the most capable, you're basically saying: "I know lots of people won't actually be safe driving that fast, but let em crash and cause mayhem if they're not smart enough to slow down. We want to best drivers to be able to go as fast as they can." There should be a minimum requirement for getting a license, and the speed limit and all the driving rules should be set so those minimally-qualified people can drive safely without posing a danger to everyone else. It may be inconvenient for some, but so are accidents, injuries and deaths. I don't know where a lot of folks here drive, but where I drive (Connecticut and Long Island) I see lots of people barely making it the way things are now. I bet raising the speed limit on LI's Southern State Parkway from 55 to 85 would have catastrophic consequences. From what I see, I think most drivers are terrible drivers. And the idea that we should let them go as fast as they want so we can accommodate good drivers is just scary. But the issue is not what I think. My question is the fact that many people drive fast evidence in and of itself that there is public support for raising the speed limit, as has been suggested here. In other words, I'm not sure it's correct to conclude that the public votes for higher speed limits every day by breaking current limits. I mean it MAY be the case. But it may equally be the case that the public would say "I want to drive this fast, but I don't want a lot other people driving this fast." I really would be interested in seeing any surveys on this (not that I think speed limits should be set by popular vote.) -- Regards, Anthony Giorgianni The return address for this post is fictitious. Please reply by posting back to the newsgroup. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, L Sternn wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2005 19:45:37 -0500, > (Brent P) wrote: > >>In article >, L Sternn wrote: >> >>> He was violating the law - cops are supposed to enforce it every once >>> in a while. >> >>Ticky tacky rules that define ordinary, reasonable behavior as illegal, >>sparsely and selectively enforced is not good for the respect of law or >>for the long term health of a nation. > > Don't blame the cops, blame your legislators. > You do vote, don't you? I blame both. Cops support low speed limits and other 'tool' laws. And yes I vote. But none of this is neither here nor there. My point stands regardless. >>> If you speed, you know you're taking a risk. The solution is to >>> manage that risk and if you wish to, work to raise or abolish speed >>> limits. >> >>People have been working towards those aims for decades. > Correction: people have been whining about it for decades. It only took 20 years to get the temporary NMSL repealed. >> Most people have >>simply given up and just drive the speed they feel comfortable at. > Yeah, I don't have any problems doing 60 in a 40. > What's yours? I've been one of those people subject to selective enforcement. >>> Whining on usenet accomplishes nothing. >> >>usenet is but one medium to get the word out. > LMAO Such a sad state affairs. People like you deserve tryanny. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
LIDAR Trial this Week | [email protected] | Driving | 17 | April 9th 06 02:44 AM |
Where to get Official Speed Limit Info | [email protected] | Driving | 40 | January 3rd 05 07:10 AM |
PATROL CAR CRASHES AFTER CHP PURSUIT IN PALO ALTO | Garth Almgren | Driving | 2 | December 24th 04 08:39 PM |